Jump to content

Is It A Rule?


newmonster
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

...I'm curious ... what do you call people who insist on labeling other people?

...I was under the impression that placing a cache was a self-less, rather than a selfish, proposition.  But if you believe so many unaccounted-for people visit your caches, your solution is absolutely clear and staring you in the face..

I don't know but they aren't parasites. People who cheat the IRS and increase my tax because of it are also parasites though.

 

A person can be a parasite, a theif, a snitch, and a hero if they were the one to jump in the river and save a kid who had fallen in. Labels serve a purpose but in the end most people are who they are and when you sit in judgment of the person you better have the entire picture. As for an action stealing is wrong, and in my mind being a parasite is wrong.

 

As for placing a cache being selfless. Not really. If you didn't get something out of it you wouldn't place one. I'm up front about what I get out of it, and that's the logs. If all you get out of it is more cupboard space, more power to you. As for the solution staring me in the face I place because people log, and since enough do log, they are why I place caches. If it was only parasites and there was never a log and for all I knew I was just placing ammo cans outside to rust, then the solution you are hinting at would happen automaticly. I'd lose interest in placing caches and eventually collect them all.

 

In my area 40% or so log in the log book only and not online. True parasites are rare. Some of those are not parasites in the literal sence. They come with a cacher who logs for them both, or are children with their parents. There is always a big picture, but not enough space to detail it in a single post.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
If nobody logged, there would be no such thing as geocaching as we know it.

True...but that dosn't mean there wouldn't be geocaching.

 

If someone who dosn't log online is still having fun then we are not allowed to be critical because having fun is all that matters...right?

 

Salvelinus

No, we are perfectly justified in being critical of that kind of behavior. There are a lot of people having fun doing things which are not against "rules" and are not illegal, but which are not socially acceptable and generally when they do that, we call it rude or bad manners.

 

We don't pass laws against it.

 

We don't make rules against it.

 

But we don't have to like it, accept it, condone it, approve of it, or hold it up as an example for our children.

 

So yes, they can do it, have fun doing it, and I would never support making or enforcing a rule against it. In fact, I would die to support their right to do so and to keep doing so.

 

The cache listing service is inextricably intertwined with the physical caching act in synthesizing the activity. Letterboxing's pre-Internet existence is a prime example of the effect which the online component has on the activity overall.

 

However, the fact remains that it is inconsiderate relative to the norm (not established here in the forum where only a minority of cachers hang out, but the norm established by the thousands of logging cachers using real geocaching sites). I would encourage them to be more considerate if they were to show up at an event cache. But I don't see that these people would show up at an event cache or post here, since they do not get anything out of that. And, in cases like I gave before, it sometimes goes beyond rude and becomes disruptive.

Link to comment

I am truly confused how a person signing the log book and replacing the cache properly, but taking no other action, is doing anything disturbing enough to get upset over.

 

While I would prefer that everyone who finds my caches enters an online log that just gushes with happy, that's not what we get. For every cache, some people will post a great log, others a bad log, and still others a 'TNLN TFTC'. Why should I care if a few don't log online at all? These people would likely be in the 'TFTC' camp anyway.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...Rude is when you do a cannonball into a swimming pool filled with infants and elderlies. Rude is when you talk loudly on your cell phone in a restaurant or elevator.

 

So I think rude IS precisely what it is. They can do it, and they have a right to do it, and I would defend their right to do it, but it is STILL rude.

I don't understand how you made your leap that it is rude not to log online.

 

Your two examples dealt with actions taken by individuals that disrupt the actions of others. However, this thread is related to a person's inaction that I don't think has been adequately shown to affect the behavior of others.

 

I suppose it could be said that if something was wrong with a cache it hasn't been reported, and therefore won't be discovered until the next cacher looks for it. We have all seen cases where online logs already don't identify a problem with a cache. Hasn't everyone found a cache that was wet and taken a look at the logs to find that it was reported a week ago, but the last finder made no mention of the problem?

Link to comment
I am truly confused how a person singning the log book and replacing the cache properly, but taking no other action, is doing anything disturbing enough to get upset over.

They're not. Short of a little of Jeremy's bandwidth, they haven't taken anything away from anybody. Of course, they haven't added anything to anyone, either. They're playing with themselves, if you'll excuse the expression.

Link to comment
I don't understand how you made your leap that it is rude not to log online.

Just like it is rude not to send thank you notes or not to RSVP to an invitation. It's just common courtesy to let someone know you received the gift or that you'll be attending or not attending. People will continue to behave that way, and there's no point getting upset about it. But just because I accept it, I don't have to hold it up as an example of behavior that I recommend.

 

I'm not labelling them or dehumanizing them. I'm not upset about it - I'm just calling it what it is - bad manners and anti-social. They can keep doing it for all I care, but it doesn't change what it is.

 

Anyway, the OP's question was Is It A Rule? No

 

Why isn't it a rule? Because it can't be enforced and there's no point - you can't guarantee the physical world match the virtual world

 

Is it OK to do anything you want as long as you are having fun? Yes

 

What do most geocachers do? They sign the logbook and write a note online. The reason they do this is because it promotes good cache maintenance and a positive experience for all cachers. People who do this are good geocaching citizens and contribute positively to the activity. People who defy these conventions have their own reasons and are still allowed to do whatever they want.

Link to comment
...  People who do this are good geocaching citizens and contribute positively to the activity.  People who defy these conventions have their own reasons and are still allowed to do whatever they want.

You didn't come out and say it, but your post infers that the converse is also true; that if you do not log online, you are a 'bad' geocaching citizen and contribute negatively to the activity. That is certainly (and obviously) not inherently true. Also, I'm sure that you'll agree that there are many 'bad' geocaching citizens who leave a negative impact on the hobby, yet happily post their blah online.

 

I still don't buy your conclusions.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
I am truly confused how a person singning the log book and replacing the cache properly, but taking no other action, is doing anything disturbing enough to get upset over.

They're not. Short of a little of Jeremy's bandwidth, they haven't taken anything away from anybody. Of course, they haven't added anything to anyone, either. They're playing with themselves, if you'll excuse the expression.

I see nothing wrong with somebody playing with themselves. I would find it crude if they logged their experience online :rolleyes: . I'll leave it to someone else to post a link to a website that allows you to do just that.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
...  People who do this are good geocaching citizens and contribute positively to the activity.  People who defy these conventions have their own reasons and are still allowed to do whatever they want.

You didn't come out and say it, but your post infers that the converse is also true; that if you do not log online, you are a 'bad' geocaching citizen and contribute negatively to the activity. That is certainly (and obviously) not inherently true. Also, I'm sure that you'll agree that there are many 'bad' geocaching citizens who leave a negative impact on the hobby, yet happily post their blah online.

 

I still don't buy your conclusions.

It's necessary but not sufficient. Never logging implies not good - it doesn't imply bad.

Link to comment

I hide them so I can enjoy reading the experiences of finders. Please don't deny me that little nibble of happiness. If I never saw logs, I too would lose interest. On my caches, I would guess that about 35% don't log online. I few I talked to said they don't log because they have no interest in numbers, some tell me that they just forget to log most of the time. Others are embarrased over writing skills and 1 was embarassed over his numbers.

 

Please log it as a note if nothing else. I just want the teeny small reward of a tftc or Neat Spot. Then I can find a new "Cool View" and put another one out.

Link to comment

I always log. But, I read logs on my caches with great interest.

I have spend a lot of time and money making these caches and I like to see other people's comments, good or bad and I feel much better when they see what it was done for, why it was hidden in the first place. I really appreciate it when others log.

I have 8 TBs out now, representing the 8 Texas Vikings. They are racing toward

Iceland, with the first one there winning. Those logs are also very interesting to read, so don't forget to log a little infor when you place a TB...

 

Rick

Link to comment

One of the things I love about this game is that you get out of it what you put into it. Everybody has their own way of playing, and however they play, so long as it harms no one else, is perfectly acceptable. As an example; For me, writing the log of my adventure, even if it's a DNF, is half the fun. I'd consider it rude of me not to log online if I visited a cache that another player went to the trouble of placing. This is strictly my rule, and I wouldn't consider trying to impose it on others. Just cuz I think something is rude, doesn't necessarily mean others feel that way.

 

Sometimes I get a bit long winded in my logging, such as the entry on this cache;

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...18-75d6aec5ca49

It apparently scared off other potential cachers, since no body has gone out there since I posted on May 12th.

Sorry 'bout that Hidden Rock! :wacko:

Link to comment
I hide them so I can enjoy reading the experiences of finders. Please don't deny me that little nibble of happiness. If I never saw logs, I too would lose interest. On my caches, I would guess that about 35% don't log online. I few I talked to said they don't log because they have no interest in numbers, some tell me that they just forget to log most of the time. Others are embarrased over writing skills and 1 was embarassed over his numbers.

 

Please log it as a note if nothing else. I just want the teeny small reward of a tftc or Neat Spot. Then I can find a new "Cool View" and put another one out.

How about if people sign the logbook and also send you personal e-mails "gushing with praise"; would that suffice?

Link to comment
It is neither good nor bad because it affects no one else.

 

That's not totally true. If a non logger discovers that the cache is missing and doesn't post a DNF, people are going to waste their time going after a missing cache.

 

If they find it in good condition they're not letting the owner know that fact. Many owners use the logs to detemine wrhen a cache needs a maint visit. The lack of feedback is not helpful to the cache owners.

Link to comment
I never realized that a DNF meant that the cache was missing. :lol: I know that I have posted several DNF's and later the caches were logged as finds. ;) Has this ever happened to anyone else out there? :lol:

No. I understand that when most people log a DNF because they couldn't find a cache, they are very careful to take the cache with them. :lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
I never realized that a DNF meant that the cache was missing

 

In many instances it does.

You're right, but how many DNFs in a row are acceptable before a cache owner (or someone else familiar with the cache) actually makes a maintenance call?

 

As I recall, you are on record as stating that a few DNFs in a row from less-experienced cachers wouldn't alarm you into making a maintenance visit, but just a couple of DNFs in a row from super-experienced cachers might cause you to schedule a visit.

 

I think that solution is perfectly acceptable when someone actually makes that follow-up visit. (Or, of course, if someone comes along immediately and logs a legitimate find on the cache.)

Link to comment
It is neither good nor bad because it affects no one else.

 

That's not totally true. If a non logger discovers that the cache is missing and doesn't post a DNF, people are going to waste their time going after a missing cache. ...

I get your point and I included it in my previous post. My point was, there is no difference to the cache owner or any other cacher whether the individual logs his/her visit online or makes no visit. The action is totally transparent to the outside world, unless the cache owner compares the logs.

 

This, of course, presumes that the luddite neither improves the condition of the cache through his trade or maintenance nor does he make it worse through poor trading or negligence. Certainly, these two qualifications can also be attributed to anyone who does log the cache online.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
...How about if people sign the logbook and also send you personal e-mails "gushing with praise"; would that suffice?

Sending an email is one way to protest whatever it is that people protest when they don't log online and still give the owner feedback, be it kudos or jeers.

 

Of course then the owner can post the email into a note so the cache page has a record of the indirect log. That's a separate controversy.

Link to comment
Its not a rule, but its a courtesy. The owner spent the time, effort and money to hide a cache. The least we can do is let him know we found it.

:lol: It is kindof nice to log on Groundspeak so that other people , as well as the cache owner, can get a perspective of the cache.

If it was a really cool one it's respectful to let the owner know this.

If it is "ordinary" you might say nothing.

If it really sucks ( I have yet to see one that sucks ) and you are a premium member you can privately email the person.

To sum up it involves two concepts: Communication and Respect. :lol:

Link to comment
...If it really sucks ( I have yet to see one that sucks ) and you are a premium member you can privately email the person....

Regular members can email, can't they? :lol:

:lol: Yes.oops.

It was the log on to see the profile that fooled me.

Have to add another screwup to the exceedingly long list.

Oh well. :lol:

Link to comment
Sending an email is one way to protest whatever it is that people protest when they don't log online and still give the owner feedback, be it kudos or jeers.

 

Of course then the owner can post the email into a note so the cache page has a record of the indirect log. That's a separate controversy.

You know, I've heard tell that some cache owners go so far as to rip the log entries of people who don't log online out of their logbooks. Talk about "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

 

But I don't think what you mentioned is controversial: That cache owner is very clearly informing everyone not to contact him by any means about his caches if they don't want to log online. I'm sure people would be more than happy to oblige him. It's what might happen next that would probably be controversial ... but no one would really be surprised when that cache owner's caches experienced a sudden rash of "problems." Would they?

 

How ironic it would be: The cache owner railing against "cache maggots" in these forums, with the actual vandal being the most vociferous forum participant decrying the vile deed. :D:D:lol:

Link to comment

 

How ironic it would be: The cache owner railing against "cache maggots" in these forums, with the actual vandal being the most vociferous forum participant decrying the vile deed. :blink::laughing::unsure:

:blink: We are perhaps the only mammals who are able to practice irony.

And maybe also ( except rats ) war. :blink:

I always log my found caches online. Honesty and Respect.

Link to comment
Sending an email is one way to protest whatever it is that people protest when they don't log online and still give the owner feedback, be it kudos or jeers.

 

Of course then the owner can post the email into a note so the cache page has a record of the indirect log.  That's a separate controversy.

You know, I've heard tell that some cache owners go so far as to rip the log entries of people who don't log online out of their logbooks. Talk about "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

 

But I don't think what you mentioned is controversial: That cache owner is very clearly informing everyone not to contact him by any means about his caches if they don't want to log online. I'm sure people would be more than happy to oblige him. It's what might happen next that would probably be controversial ... but no one would really be surprised when that cache owner's caches experienced a sudden rash of "problems." Would they?

 

How ironic it would be: The cache owner railing against "cache maggots" in these forums, with the actual vandal being the most vociferous forum participant decrying the vile deed. :blink::laughing::unsure:

The only log book practice that I have heard of is scanning them and posting them to the cache page. I've got a few that I've been meaning to get to, and I've lost a few as well due to stolen caches.

 

As for the irony of a 'cache maggot' ranting about stolen caches, using a sock puppet, that's not ironic. It's not even original. It's just a means to get attention since negative attention is what the maggot feeds on. In the end getting that attention becomes harder work than it was to place the caches to begin with. Along the way I've learned to enjoy that.

 

The real irony is the general apathy of cache owners that ends up causing the cache maggot to do more and more work to get less and less attention. Including posting in the forums to beg for cache maggot news.

Link to comment
As for the irony of a 'cache maggot' ranting about stolen caches, using a sock puppet, that's not ironic.

I think you misread what I wrote, and I doubt the "cache maggot" would use a sockpuppet account. The "cache maggot" would want everyone to continue believing what a fine, responsible, concerned, upstanding member of the geocaching community s/he is. I know it's not an original idea; I've heard of one instance where the cache owner played both the role of cache owner and "cache maggot."

Edited by Yankees Win!
Link to comment
It's a game ...

That's the problem. It's not a game. There is no competition. No one wins anything.

:rolleyes: Is Personal Best as a game only alive in history? :unsure:

I didn't mean to imply in my original reply that one couldn't use the found count for a friendly competition between two cachers or to set a personal goal (e.g. 2000 finds by the end of the year). I meant to say that it is ludicrous to have a rule that everyone must log all their finds. People geocache for various reasons. Someone may just be interested in hiking and decide to see if there are any caches on that trail to look for while on a hike. Whether they find them or not doesn't matter and they have no intention of logging online. The cache owner may be upset that they were deprived of a log. Too bad, there's nothing you can do about it so live with it.

 

Edit to add:

 

In response to jeepjohn's comment that you can't play five card stud without the deck of cards - that may be true. But suppose I want to use the same deck of cards to play solitaire or, better yet, to do magic tricks. Do you want a rule that says "the deck is labeled poker cards, so you can't use it for anything else"?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...