Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thebruce0

  1. lol, yes I posted a note right near the beginning before word was out en masse. I think it's a very neat project, and I don't recall any disclaimer saying not to post a note. In any case, they don't seem to be locked the TB as they have in past cases until it's allowed to be discovered, so anyone adding it to their watch list should be aware of what that will mean for email notifications. If HQ doesn't lock it, the only person to blame for being overloaded by Note-posters is the person who puts it on their watch list (we all know that a strongly worded sentence in a description won't stop people from doing what they are technically allowed to do; the TB owner should have it locked until it can be discovered if that's the case)
  2. The definition of "game" in general is oft debated. I don't think there will be any consensus here But I primarily refer to this as a hobby. Occasionally a game. Depends on context I think. If I'm talking about stats, my mind may jump to game. If I'm talking about the fun and adventure, usually hobby. A game doesn't have to be competitive, or necessarily even have win/lose conditions. Some may even call some hobbies games, depending on their motive for 'doing' the hobby (could building and selling crafts be considered a game to some? *shrug*) I don't think the label is as important as how we promote the activity and talk it up.
  3. I think it's obvious how it could be used well. I'm pretty sure I gave some hypothetical examples in this thread. But I think you're insisting on an actual adventure to prove it can be done? I'll point to mine, for one. A perfect example of a sequential AL is one that's based on a narrative where each location is literally linear in progression. It may be a location, it may be a story beat, who knows. It's not so much about whether it's sequential or not, it's about how the locations are tied together. Most ALs they don't have a reason to be linear (narrative or not). Those are annoying when they're locked sequential. But absolutely there can be any number of reasons for a set of locations to be positioned sequentially. Just hopefully good reason
  4. This. Replace "pokemon" with any subject matter. Puzzles are puzzles. I've seen loads of tree puzzles, bird puzzles, electrician puzzles - all subjects I'm not super interested in, but require a bit of "research" to determine the answer. I'm inching closer to just ignoring jigidi jigsaw puzzles though, they're a dime a dozen in my region now, lol
  5. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Because I don't disagree on principle with: I was taking a practical approach to the hobby. This is a general statement about the state of humanity. You seem to be implying by your black/white mentality it's either strictly enforce all rules with no shame and make bad people bad, kick them from the game, anything necessary to provide a playable hobby; or have no rules and let everyone do what they want and just shrug off anything that may or may affect your or anyone else. I don't believe that's what you're saying. So, how does your statement play out in practice? It ain't black and white. I'm advocating for encouraging the best in everyone. Not hands-off, and not policing; the middle ground. Not requiring the best, and not disallowing anything doesn't simply "sit right" - yet still enforcing the enforceable rules that HQ provides (it's not 100% entirely "guidelines" that can be bent and interpreted at will). Rules are rules. No questions there. Obey them in this hobby or face the consequences applied by TPTB. The grey area we all play in (preferences and habits not against the rules or guidelines) will tend to the negative (as you say), so let's not sit back and it slide downhill, but be a positive influence and encourage good practices that are good for the community. Is that a bad attitude? Really?
  6. Nope, not just intentionally. As mentioned above, any false log can have that effect when making decisions, unless you choose not to trust logs or content on principle.
  7. And parents are a good reason why lonely can still actually work - a child can be lonely having no friends or visits, even though living with family and doing stuff with them. That's how I think of a 'lonely cache' - lonely of new faces, of non-"family" it may see "every day" (well, maintenance checks)
  8. Neat, TIL... Haven't heard the term used at all until now! But now back to the regularly scheduled controversial topic
  9. Curious which circles (honestly). I've never heard them referred to as "approvers", since I began in 2009, and since participating in this forum and all over social media. Absolutely.
  10. Agreed. But then I also love this hobby, and the community. At some point when I see stuff happen that doesn't have to happen that is hurting the community or impression of the hobby, I (we all) have a choice - be a voice of positivity and improvement, or turn a blind eye because "well it doesn't affect me / I can take it". Nothing wrong individually with the latter, and I'm not saying anyone who doesn't be a 'voice of reason' is doing something Wrong. I'm saying that encouraging a positive community and good practices isn't automatically "obsessing". There's a middle ground, and as a community if we can move towards a net positive for the community, this hobby will be much better off. Encourage "good practices" by doing them, by example (and if you have opportunity for influence, you can choose to encourage it actively especially when new people are joining or asking questions). Discourage "bad practices" by not doing them, by example (and if you have opportunity for influence, you can choose to discourage it actively by being transparent about what is generally considered good and bad for the community). In short: * If everyone takes a hands-off approach, that'll lead to a downward spiral for the hobby. * If someone takes a hands-off approach, that's not a Bad Thing and in and of itself, and I think most people in this hobby have this mentality * If someone actively encourages the good and discourages the bad, that's not obsessing, and is good for the community and the hobby. * If someone goes out of their way to vilify people who do things the way they think is wrong, or in other words obsesses over their subjective "good" especially primarily against individuals doing things that don't directly affect them, that's bad for themselves and potentially for the community. Can we not agree that the middle ground is generally the best position for people to be in for the sake of this community, self, and hobby?
  11. Understood. Doesn't change how false logs effect me. Yep, and if someone can enjoy this hobby and not be affected by false logs in any way, all power to ya!
  12. But in this context, you're saying it's okay for cache owners and finders to just shrug off things people do that negatively affect people's experiences, to not "obsess" over them. I think it's naive to think the hobby can survive if such actions can run amok. I think the middle ground, which I'm advocating, is that promoting good practices that make the hobby better, and discouraging practices that make the hobby worse for people, is not "obsessing", but healthy community strategy for the sake of the community. Obsessing is a whole different level that can make things worse, just as those who "cheat". On the other end, doing nothing at all can also make things worse as the hobby simply degrades. Healthy promotion of practices that benefit the hobby and community is the best course of action. At least some mix of that and apathy a net positive.
  13. Plenty of examples cited in this thread that aren't "all about the smiley" which have still been negatively affected by false logs.
  14. Yep, obsessing is unhealthy and unhelpful. But healthy promotion of what benefits the community should be encouraged. If everyone were to simply take a hands off approach and shrug off everything, that was spell the end of the hobby. Enforcement falls in the hands of TPTB, but as a community we can promote the good and discourage the bad - without obsessing over enforcement.
  15. There is only voting, and not voting. There isn't upvoting, not upvoting, and downvoting. "Top caches" is not an objective bar that applies to everyone. One person's "top cache" (worthy of their upvote) may not be another person's. You can't look at the top 10% of FP receivers and objective say "these are the top caches". They are the caches with the most FPs. But I know plenty of caches that would be a "top cache" in my books that don't have the top 10% of FPs. The status quo is "hasn't received a favourite point" (but may be given one), not "worthy of a favourite point" (but may not be given one). There is no "downvote". That's like saying in a race of 10 runners where only 1st place gets a prize, claiming all the other runners are "bad runners". Sure there may be runners who should be another sport, but that 2nd place finisher right on the tail of 1st place isn't "bad" - they merely didn't receive the reward for being the top 10th percentile. Now if there was a cutoff - you had to qualify, then there'd be an effective downvote. But there isn't in geocaching. (and it's not a race, nor a competition :P) Geocaches only receive a thumbs up if someone thought it was worth giving one. That's all it means. That's all it can mean. No thumbs down. No downvote. You can INFER that not receiving a FP means it's "bad" (ie, not worthy of a "top cache") Maybe "downvote" is just the wrong term to use since it implies something bad or negative, which is not the case.
  16. By the reviewer? Seems to be quicker than what is expected from them. I was just going to say. Who is doing the deactivation? If the CO is, then that's their choice, likely decided based on the content of the DNFs, not their mere existence. And COs' interpretation of the DNF doesn't necessarily reflect what the DNF is in actuality intended to mean, which is that the person Did Not Find the cache. The why is up for interpretation by both the CO and the Reviewer, within the content of the DNF log (and possibly surrounding circumstances in the assumedly accurate log history). If a reviewer deactivated a cache based solely on the existence of two DNFs (regardless of their content), especially if under what seems to be a standard month-ish sweep period, then yeah, the reviewers are on the very tight end of proactive, to say the least...
  17. I'm not actually sure if we agree on something here. I think in one context. To be more specific - examples have been provided where discovering that a log was a false find, which did affect one's decision to go find it, was in effect a negative one. While yes, looking for a cache you learn later was actually missing, there's no way to know strictly speaking if the prior log was false or not: was it missing since the (legitimate) last find, or was the last find false? In that context the legitimacy of the prior Find is irrelevant. But the negative effect is when one makes a decision based on trusting the legitimacy of prior logs (whatever log type they may be). That is where false finds have the biggest impact. Additionally, examples were cited about how even the content of a false find can affect someone's experience in finding it or choosing to find it.
  18. I'm a fan of this theme. I'm guessing every month/mountain, the basecamp will effectively be "find one geocache/adventure". The peaks I believe are increasingly higher altitudes, which is great, even though they'll probably be reached with a handful of finds per month. Nonetheless, it's still an opportunity to instill your own 'fun' into the effort by following the theme. Maybe find actual qualifying caches at altitude to reach those 'summits'. Or only find caches that are mountain themed, or require climbing hills, or whatever... Another benefit, being monthly, they could in theory make adjustments to point values based on the completion rates and difficulties people express month to month.
  19. As for pre-pub FTF - we just had another major river series in my area archived by the caches' owners so it can be replaced/refreshed with a brand new major paddle series. Multiple 'events' (unofficial) of people kayaking and/or tubing, where each participant is placing a handful of water caches. Once published, they wait for the first finders to log their finds, then everyone who was in attendance logs their finds so as not to claim (post-publication) FTF. It seems kind of cheesy, but really, everyone has done the work, and their finds are no different than a gathering of geocachers who intended to find all the water caches together long after publication. It's really only different in that the one who placed it was there with them when it was placed, and this happens all the time in plenty of other contexts; and that all those finds happened with one single water trip (rather than the owner's trip, then the finders' trip). So I don't really have a problem with that, and I'd participate as well (with my personal ethic of making sure if actually see/touch where every cache along the river is placed) - but agreed with above - those who log it found without having even done the work to be there, the couch-logging, is against both the rules and the ethic of geocaching. And COs who allow "LWP" in those cases are also cheapening the owner responsibilities and privilege (same situation as allowing Find logs when the cache is missing, or letting a personal change their DNF to a Find once it's replaced, etc). But those are situations where the "rule" (signature in logsheet, assuming the CO adds those finders' names) is met, but after questionable practices, and it still comes down to reviewers and/or HQ making a judgment call as to whether this is an ongoing abuse to be dealt with or a relatively innocuous instance that can just be ignored or shrugged off at the moment. All in all, it's a hobby with a wide range of effectual rules/guidelines/ethics that makes it very hard to manage. Which is why I firmly believe promoting integrity is the best course of action, and TPTB should give consequences to those deemed to be abusing rights to the point of negatively affecting people's experiences. (And of course any people breaking hard rules/terms of use should face appropriate repercussions). But I only see "cheating" being a relevant term if the system is set up to promote competition. Personally I try to avoid that term because this hobby isn't fundamentally competitive - even though there are profile statistics. That doesn't mean it's not possible to break rules or negatively affect other people's experiences.
  20. The only real way is enforcing the minimal rules which can be verified (typically that's HQ and the TOU for the website), and finding some way promote values and ethics where not verifiable. Promote positivity in the game, community, aspects that people enjoy the most which negatively affect people the least. Talk down practices that make things worse off for people, or which promote competitive behaviour (where not everyone involved has opted in), and promote benefits of it in an effort to help people have overall great experiences, and encourage people to realize it's an individualistic hobby and not take offense when people do things differently or enjoy different aspects of it... It's really not an easy system to make "work for everybody" - and it never will. All we can do is help to try to make it a great hobby for as many people as possible.
  21. The original post looks the same. Where did you add details? Edit: Details have now since been added
  22. True, in that strict example. The there is a difference in effect, because the logs serve a purpose: They are intended to be trustworthy records of an actual event. That is, as of said date (and the time, which is essentially inferred) the geocache was in findable condition and has been properly found/signed/completed. As of that moment, the cache was findable. That's all it means. Like you said, a Find log doesn't mean the cache is there and you will find it. But it implies that it was findable as of then. Now for our context, searching for it after the fact there are two possible implications as you describe - the cache was found and has gone missing, or the cache was not found and is still missing. BUT, when deciding whether to make that search, we infer meaning from past find logs. If we indeed trust what the logs imply, then absolutely a find log has a net positive effect on our judgment as to whether the cache is still there to be found. Yes, there's always a risk it may not be, if it's gone missing after the last find, and our ability to find the cache wasn't affected directly by the find log. BUT a (false) find positively affects our understanding of the potential current status of the cache, just as a DNF negatively affects our understanding of the potential current status of the cache (did they just not find it or is it missing?) The weight with which we weigh that judgment can differ from person to person. But the "Found it" log (as every log) has a meaning. If we choose to ignore that, we admit that the log history has absolutely no bearing on anything relevant towards your cache-finding experience, because we assume all of them are irrelevant. If you choose to cache like that, great, so be it, but that isn't the intent of the log history. It's a public facing record of events meant to describe the geocache's actual - actual - history. And so it's perfectly reasonable to read past logs with that in mind -- And that means Find logs (whether true or not) affect a geocacher's understanding, opinion, and decisions about whether to spend effort finding that particular geocache. And as demonstrated in this and other threads, we have anecdotal evidence, first hand testimonies, that false finds do affects geocachers' experiences (as well as the ability for the cache owners to maintain their caches).
  23. There are various ways of 'rating' a cache. 1. Number of FPs. 2. % of FP to Finds. 3. Wilson score The wilson score (via PGC) is even better, since 30 FP out of 100 (30%) finds may still be enormously better than that 6 FP out of 8 finds (75%). Wilson takes some other factors into consideration.
  24. Specific example: A cache listing is immediately archived because it's become known that the CO is (supposedly repeatedly) letting fake logs stand. COs cannot "give permission" to log caches as found if the cache is not there, and some COs are so lax about it that no one even attempts to hide it. Reviewers caught the trend and started reacting to abuse of that owner responsibility. Just as with any reviewer action, it's not like this happens immediately and for every single instance. But if reviewers know of someone they feel is abusing their responsibility (up to reviewer judgment) yes, they may well take action. Reviewers can't technically "ban" someone from publishing caches, or submitting for review. But we know HQ can do that. But, they can certainly become more strict in their application of the guidelines they're there to enforce, especially where they are given the flexibility to be lenient or not. Reviewers aren't restricted from being proactive in enforcing guidelines - though most don't, usually I'd wager to avoid the drama that might ensue (as we all know by the 'cache police' insult). Everyone knows you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list =P
  25. ...and (c) be willing to take flack for being a rEsPoNsIbLe cAcHe oWnEr instead of letting people "play their own way". /minirant
  • Create New...