The New Numbers Game

June 14, 2006

I am not sure why everyone is getting upset about all this stuff. It is a game, or hobby. I don't care how many finds you do or do not have. I could care less if you found 1000 lamppost micros, even if you never left your chair. I am not impresssed by anyones stats. I am impressed meeting someone with some really good stories at an event. Most of the stories I have heard were not about caches hidden in a wall mart parking lot. I have met several cachers who do not log there finds, would that make them less of a cacher. If so Dave Ulmer is not a real cacher and he started all this. Do I like stats, yes my own. I like knowing how many I have found. We our on the honor system here, and some people will take advantage of that just to feel good about them selves. There is a cacher in my area that claims to have many finds and there is a question about the validity of several of them. We talk about him at some of the events and joke about it. There is no prize for the most finds, so why the heck get worked up about nothing. Much like the geocoin thing. I don't see the point of logging a bunch of coins you saw at an event, that just brings up you stats. I must admit I have broken that with three coins, two original stash coins and one moun10 bike coin. I viewed those as part of our history and was honored that I got to see them, as I know I will never see those in an actual cache. The bottom line is when my head hits the pillow at night I know all my finds were because I signed the log book, I'm not going to loose sleep over anyone who feels the need to log false finds just so they can feel good. I actualy feel sorry for them that there life is so empty they feel the need to cheat themselves. I worry more about the new cachers who go out looking for a few caches can't find them and are ready to give up on it all together. I am sure someone here will pick apart everything I just wrote, but I really don't give a crap about that either. When I meet a fellow cacher and the introduce themselves with how many finds they have I alway ask them what there favorite one was and listen to why. I do not rush out and try to check the log books of them to see if they were really there or not.

Have fun picking this apart and replying to it, I'm going to see if there are any new caches on my way home.

June 14, 2006

I am not sure why everyone is getting upset about all this stuff. It is a game, or hobby. I don't care how many finds you do or do not have. I could care less if you found 1000 lamppost micros, even if you never left your chair. I am not impresssed by anyones stats. I am impressed meeting someone with some really good stories at an event. Most of the stories I have heard were not about caches hidden in a wall mart parking lot. I have met several cachers who do not log there finds, would that make them less of a cacher. If so Dave Ulmer is not a real cacher and he started all this. Do I like stats, yes my own. I like knowing how many I have found. We our on the honor system here, and some people will take advantage of that just to feel good about them selves. There is a cacher in my area that claims to have many finds and there is a question about the validity of several of them. We talk about him at some of the events and joke about it. There is no prize for the most finds, so why the heck get worked up about nothing. Much like the geocoin thing. I don't see the point of logging a bunch of coins you saw at an event, that just brings up you stats. I must admit I have broken that with three coins, two original stash coins and one moun10 bike coin. I viewed those as part of our history and was honored that I got to see them, as I know I will never see those in an actual cache. The bottom line is when my head hits the pillow at night I know all my finds were because I signed the log book, I'm not going to loose sleep over anyone who feels the need to log false finds just so they can feel good. I actualy feel sorry for them that there life is so empty they feel the need to cheat themselves. I worry more about the new cachers who go out looking for a few caches can't find them and are ready to give up on it all together. I am sure someone here will pick apart everything I just wrote, but I really don't give a crap about that either. When I meet a fellow cacher and the introduce themselves with how many finds they have I alway ask them what there favorite one was and listen to why. I do not rush out and try to check the log books of them to see if they were really there or not.

Have fun picking this apart and replying to it, I'm going to see if there are any new caches on my way home.

I think you stated that very well and I bet most cachers agree with your point of view.

June 14, 2006

I have horrible news to report. Much worse than any inflated stats. There is a cache I have not found down the street from me, and I do not have my GPS with me. Must have taken it into the house sometime during the weekend while cleaning out the truck. If there was anything to get upset about that is it.

June 14, 2006

I am not sure why everyone is getting upset about all this stuff. It is a game, or hobby. I don't care how many finds you do or do not have. I could care less if you found 1000 lamppost micros, even if you never left your chair. I am not impresssed by anyones stats. I am impressed meeting someone with some really good stories at an event. Most of the stories I have heard were not about caches hidden in a wall mart parking lot. I have met several cachers who do not log there finds, would that make them less of a cacher. If so Dave Ulmer is not a real cacher and he started all this. Do I like stats, yes my own. I like knowing how many I have found. We our on the honor system here, and some people will take advantage of that just to feel good about them selves. There is a cacher in my area that claims to have many finds and there is a question about the validity of several of them. We talk about him at some of the events and joke about it. There is no prize for the most finds, so why the heck get worked up about nothing. Much like the geocoin thing. I don't see the point of logging a bunch of coins you saw at an event, that just brings up you stats. I must admit I have broken that with three coins, two original stash coins and one moun10 bike coin. I viewed those as part of our history and was honored that I got to see them, as I know I will never see those in an actual cache. The bottom line is when my head hits the pillow at night I know all my finds were because I signed the log book, I'm not going to loose sleep over anyone who feels the need to log false finds just so they can feel good. I actualy feel sorry for them that there life is so empty they feel the need to cheat themselves. I worry more about the new cachers who go out looking for a few caches can't find them and are ready to give up on it all together. I am sure someone here will pick apart everything I just wrote, but I really don't give a crap about that either. When I meet a fellow cacher and the introduce themselves with how many finds they have I alway ask them what there favorite one was and listen to why. I do not rush out and try to check the log books of them to see if they were really there or not.

Have fun picking this apart and replying to it, I'm going to see if there are any new caches on my way home.

Well said, thanks

June 14, 2006

My personal opinion is that I would like the stats to stay. I like them. don't punish me because some people don't. I like the option presented to make your stats private.

June 14, 2006

Archiving a cache merely because someone's count is boosted is whats absurd. Most of us are merely playing the game (you can tell by my numbers) and don't get upset when others post 5000 cache finds.

Actually, they're archiving caches that don't meet the guidelines of this site. Why are people getting upset that they're being told they can't post 5000 "finds" for caches that aren't listed on this site?

Actually they are archiving and locking down pocket caches, that has been allowed in the past with out any warning what so ever, or instruction that they will be no longer allowed. That is what people are upset about, not the archiving, but the way they about it.

June 14, 2006

Man this is a long topic. I read about halfway through before I looked at the clock to see how long I'd been reading.

Do you know how many park'n'grab caches I coulda found while reading through this? Heh, just a little humor.

Life is too short to worry about silly things like stats, numbers, lame caches, and so fourth. Like some put it, I don't see anyone handing out money to the person that finds the most caches. Leave that up to other organizations and companies or cities that wish to hold caching competitions not linked to your gc.com "stats".

Personally, if I want to win something, I go and participate in a locally run "Medallion Hunt", quite possibly the ultimate in FTFs. Since that season is gearing up here with a bunch of summer festivals, I'll spend my time hunting down little round pieces of metal or plastic that could offer me a nice cash (not cache) prize, and my "numbers" won't go up during this period. Shoot, if I wanted to tout "numbers" I would tout how many medallions I've found. Currently I'm at Zero then, so I suck.

I like geocaching, in all it's different aspects. If you force me to change my habits so that you can feel better about your experience, I can just step out of your way. For the record, I've never "cheated" because I'm not "competing" against you. Anything I've logged is something I felt was worth my while to log, not because it was an easy way to make a number on a profile page go up. Just like I don't post a silly log like "TNLNSL TFTC" because it helps me log my super 200+ finds per day faster...

Lately, I've enjoyed trying to keep the county I live in cached out. This inclues all park'n'grabs, silly little "lame caches" all the way through trying to wade through a nasty swamp and toasting a digital camera in the process only to DNF that cache. Weigh the finds as you wish, what counts more? Who cares. Oh.. the numbers people care, in which case, I humbly bow to your prowess and criticizing abilities, call me a lousy worthless cacher that's only interested in taking you down a peg. Claim all my finds are illegitimate, yank my access to the site, delete my profile, confenscate my GPS while you're at it because I'm not worthy of the title "geocacher".

Even if you do all that, I'll still go out and find caches (and medallions, and letterboxes, and really cool spots that people don't know about), because I enjoy it.

You are a man after my own heart. If you're ever make it down to Florida, look me up and we'll go find some caches. Well said.

June 14, 2006

I have horrible news to report. Much worse than any inflated stats. There is a cache I have not found down the street from me, and I do not have my GPS with me. Must have taken it into the house sometime during the weekend while cleaning out the truck. If there was anything to get upset about that is it.

Another man I'd like to hunt some caches with. You obviously have your priorities in order!

June 14, 2006

After the number padding bunk I've seen, especially in the last few days, I'd just as soon see all the find count be removed from this site. you want to see how many caches i've found? Then count 'em by hand. Everwhere I look is my find count - in the cahes I log, in my profile, etc. Enough. Get rid of the numbers. They're pointless anyway. And with so many people faking them, they're completely meaningless. Nuke the numbers, I say!

I agree, they should just remove the number showing in the LOG. You could still click on a profile and see how many finds they have, but in the plain log it should not show..

Then all the cheaters, would really be only doing it for their own viewing. And only people really interested in another user would be looking at the numbers.

My 2 cents.

June 14, 2006

I have horrible news to report. Much worse than any inflated stats. There is a cache I have not found down the street from me, and I do not have my GPS with me. Must have taken it into the house sometime during the weekend while cleaning out the truck. If there was anything to get upset about that is it.

Another man I'd like to hunt some caches with. You obviously have your priorities in order!

I may have my priorities a little off after all I did leave my GPS at home some how. In my defense though it is hot outside and I would hate to have my E-trex melted in this heat from hell. Live in AZ inside the car can get above 140 degrees, so I don't feel to bad and yet I do.

June 14, 2006

Just because I am tired of this argument that will never get solved, has anyone ever had a GPS unit destroved because of heat?

June 14, 2006

After the number padding bunk I've seen, especially in the last few days, I'd just as soon see all the find count be removed from this site. you want to see how many caches i've found? Then count 'em by hand. Everwhere I look is my find count - in the cahes I log, in my profile, etc. Enough. Get rid of the numbers. They're pointless anyway. And with so many people faking them, they're completely meaningless. Nuke the numbers, I say!

I agree, they should just remove the number showing in the LOG. You could still click on a profile and see how many finds they have, but in the plain log it should not show..

Then all the cheaters, would really be only doing it for their own viewing. And only people really interested in another user would be looking at the numbers.

My 2 cents.

:laughing: You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them.

7.2k · June 14, 2006

You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them.

Um. It depends on what you think the logging function is for. I see it as a way to provide feedback to the cache owner. Using the proper log-type is also essential to provide the proper feed-back.

Sure, I suppose I could email the cache owner, but then that email wouldn't be part of the cache history online.

June 14, 2006

You folks delete your own numbers and just leave mine alone I didn't personally appoint you a "god" or my overseer. If something really bothers you don't log any caches, you can find them without logging them.

Um. It depends on what you think the logging function is for. I see it as a way to provide feedback to the cache owner. Using the proper log-type is also essential to provide the proper feed-back.

Sure, I suppose I could email the cache owner, but then that email wouldn't be part of the cache history online.

Then that is what YOU use it for. I don't DNF until I am sure it is not there. AND I don't call the cache owners or anyone else for hints to help find caches.

9.5k · June 14, 2006

Let's quit beating about the bush shall we?

I have been getting email about THIS archived cache for over a week now. As George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "Some pigs ARE more equal."

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I'd actually like to log it some day.

My understanding is that that cache is an actual cache with a log. It is not a pocket cache. (I'd also like to log it one day. Hint, hint)

That cache isn't archived because it isn't there, it's archived so they can get some work done now and then. The cache and logbook are there, trust me.

So it stands to reason that if I were to take one of MY caches an employ selective availability (gotta love THAT pun) on it. It would be okay according to you right?

If I did that with THIS cache....or maybe any of my other more popular caches..... No one from Groundspeak would lock it the minute they were onto it???

There were less than 130 watches on the Groundspeak Headquarters cache when I put my watch on it.

Yellow Jeep Fever. That cache had over 1200 logs on it and it was causing problems with PQ's. It was archived to take it off the active list but never banned from being logged. It's a precedent set back in 2004.

I also have some caches monitored that are archived and every once in a while, they still receive logs because the cache is still there before the owner had a chance to get out and pull it.

So, to answer your question... no, they won't lock it the minute they are onto it.

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TotemLake

8.4k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up. <_<

9.1k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Translation without spin and speculation: Groundspeak had been working on concepts like keeping track of people a cacher has met, and having functionality for "friends groups," well before the pocket lint tempest. It was a good time to let the community know of these plans.

9.5k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Actually, if you've been keeping up with the topics in this forum, you'll know this concept has been in discussion for the better part of a year now. As with all things that get implemented into the system, you have to plan it the right way the first time or go back and fix all the breaks folks will complain about immediately afterwards. You want to try to keep the fire from licking your toes as you jump from one fry pan to the next.

8.4k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Translation without spin and speculation: Groundspeak had been working on concepts like keeping track of people a cacher has met, and having functionality for "friends groups," well before the pocket lint tempest. It was a good time to let the community know of these plans.

Actions speak louder than words.

Were there announcements or memos circulated BEFORE this unfortunate flap? It certanly appears to be the "spade" as I have called it, but I'll gladly retract. <_<

I don't dispute any of reasoning for the recent changes. They didn't affect ME at all, but I'm blue in the face from the rest. A spade is a spade is a spade.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.
Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error?

9.1k · June 14, 2006

Archived caches turned into Pocket caches are in effect, banned traveling caches. However, TPTB has noted there is a social aspect to this concept and are working out how to implement it.

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Translation without spin and speculation: Groundspeak had been working on concepts like keeping track of people a cacher has met, and having functionality for "friends groups," well before the pocket lint tempest. It was a good time to let the community know of these plans.

Actions speak louder than words.

Were there announcements or memos circulated BEFORE this unfortunate flap? It certanly appears to be the "spade" as I have called it, but I'll gladly retract.

I don't dispute any of reasoning for the recent changes. They didn't affect ME at all, but I'm blue in the face from the rest. A spade is a spade is a spade.

My statements are based upon public posts in the Geocaching.com Forum, and private discussions. I know what I have read and I know what I have heard. If you choose not to take me at my word, that's your choice.

June 14, 2006

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error?

What I see as their short sighted error was the way these previously acceptable practices were summarily archived without warning, etc. I've heard all the arguments for this action and understand them BUT they had been winked at by TPTB for a loooong time so a better way to solve the problem would've been to send out a proclamation with a timetable attached. THAT would've been the way to settle this issue rather than it deteriorating into a witch hunt complete with name calling, accusations, gnashing of teeth, and MUCH bad feelings on both sides. Again, I agree that pocket caches got out of hand and went beyond their designed purpose. I am not arguing FOR them, just taking exception with the way the whole issue was handled - especially here in the forums.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Translation: TPTB made a short sighted error and are playing catch-up.

Just for fun, what do you see as their short-sighted error?

What I see as their short sighted error was the way these previously acceptable practices were summarily archived without warning, etc. I've heard all the arguments for this action and understand them BUT they had been winked at by TPTB for a loooong time so a better way to solve the problem would've been to send out a proclamation with a timetable attached. THAT would've been the way to settle this issue rather than it deteriorating into a witch hunt complete with name calling, accusations, gnashing of teeth, and MUCH bad feelings on both sides. Again, I agree that pocket caches got out of hand and went beyond their designed purpose. I am not arguing FOR them, just taking exception with the way the whole issue was handled - especially here in the forums.

It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.

June 14, 2006

. . .It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.

I guess I missed reading that post in that forum on that day (and/or never saw it quoted elsewhere later)

Can I be the only one?

20.7k · June 14, 2006

I was just talking to my wife about this whole issue. She suggested that some of the people who complain that more warning should have been given are really upset because the cache pages were locked before they got to log their 'finds'.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

. . .It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.
I guess I missed reading that post in that forum on that day (and/or never saw it quoted elsewhere later)
Can I be the only one?

I'm sorry, I almost missed your post.

I'm kind of missing your point, I guess. Is it your position that TPTB must say things over and over again in order for there to be fair warning or that each individual violator should have been warned individually?

June 14, 2006

You are a man after my own heart. If you're ever make it down to Florida, look me up and we'll go find some caches. Well said.

Thanks, nice to know some people out there see things as I do. If I ever do end up in FL, I'll be sure to let ya know.

June 14, 2006

. . .It seems like it all goes back to that old post by Jeremy that stated that he didn't wish to take action but would if things got out of hand. It did and he did.
I guess I missed reading that post in that forum on that day (and/or never saw it quoted elsewhere later)
Can I be the only one?

I'm sorry, I almost missed your post.

I'm kind of missing your point, I guess. Is it your position that TPTB must say things over and over again in order for there to be fair warning or that each individual violator should have been warned individually?

Over and over again? You referred to 1 post. I believe one post in 1 forum one day isnt sufficient "notice"

As I said, I missed it. Others may have to.

If that is all the notice given, then I think more notice and in a more effective way would have been better.

If it was a beat to death Topic around here in the forums over and over- and Still nobody knew about it -

then I think the people (who read the forums) had a warning. I believe a very small % of cachers read the forums. So that may have been most ineffective too.

Nobody needed individual warnings, but some form of notification could have been sent with weekly cache notifications, etc?

So - which was it? As I said- I must have missed this "over and over repeating" of this, or the topics/threads where it was posted.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Over and over again? You referred to 1 post. I believe one post in 1 forum one day isnt sufficient "notice"
As I said, I missed it. Others may have to.

If that is all the notice given, then I think more notice and in a more effective way would have been better.

If it was a beat to death Topic around here in the forums over and over- and Still nobody knew about it -

then I think the people (who read the forums) had a warning. I believe a very small % of cachers read the forums. So that may have been most ineffective too.

Nobody needed individual warnings, but some form of notification could have been sent with weekly cache notifications, etc?

So - which was it? As I said- I must have missed this "over and over repeating" of this, or the topics/threads where it was posted.

Don't get all irritable. I'm honestly asking you what kind of notice would be appropriate. I happen to believe taht no notice was needed because the actions were clearly against the guidelines (in my opinion), but I want to know what your opinion is.

June 14, 2006

all cachers don't receive weekly cache notifications so that wouldn't reach everyone either. short of emailing every user on the site about any upcoming changes there is no effective way to communicate policy and website changes to every user.

June 14, 2006

Don't get all irritable. I'm honestly asking you what kind of notice would be appropriate. I happen to believe taht no notice was needed because the actions were clearly against the guidelines (in my opinion), but I want to know what your opinion is.

Sorry if I came off sounding irritable, or otherwise- Im not <_<

I guess I'll stick with my answer above - A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO. Although it was clearly against the guidelines, it was also wink winked all along - wasnt it?

So, back to my question - What "notice" was given? Just 1 post by Jeremy, or ??

That answer - IMO - determines if this was handled poorly, or not.

June 14, 2006

6.7k · June 14, 2006

I was just talking to my wife about this whole issue. She suggested that some of the people who complain that more warning should have been given are really upset because the cache pages were locked before they got to log their 'finds'.

At least in my case she would be wrong.

My Evil Cache (GCNXEC) had been to many events, was seen by several Reviewers as long ago as GW3, and was well known around the South, to the point where cachers I had never met knew to ask me for it when they met me.

Several Reviewers were present when I used it either for training, as a social tool, or as a game hide at events where I gave away stocked ammo cans to attendees who found it.

I would have responded quite well to a simple email to the tune of 'that's enough, knock it off'. That would have been the civil thing to do. Evil was illegal in that it was a listed cache that traveled with me, so they had the right to kill it, but it sure was an ugly way to do it.

Evil Cache, however, and this is the thing many don't (deliberately?) get, was not a pocket cache.

Pocket caches were not listed on gc.com, appeared only at events and were logged by the owner's invitation to log the event multiple times. It has long been held that the cache or event logs belong to the owner and he has complete control over how/who logs them.

Pocket caches were introduced by a well-known Reviewer, were originally logged as cache pages at one time; when Jeremy put a stop to them having cache pages that same Reviewer found a work-around using archived cache pages, when that was nixed this same Reviewer came up with the multiple-attended log scheme, yet this Reviewer was never mentioned in the recent GW4 blow-up - but everyone else involved got fried!

One couple who I know for a fact could care less about numbers brought their cache to show at GW4. Folks were logging PCs and the like, they allowed folks to log their cache, why not, the event was attended by, I think, at least 6 Reviewers, surely if something was happening that was wrong it would be stopped, right? Wrong! They got their cache archived and as I understand it were threatened with losing their account! Decent, normal people just having fun! Absolutely unforgiveable!

These are the reasons I am upset about how it was handled!

20.7k · June 14, 2006

I guess I'll stick with my answer above - A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO. Although it was clearly against the guidelines, it was also wink winked all along - wasnt it?

So, back to my question - What "notice" was given? Just 1 post by Jeremy, or ??

That answer - IMO - determines if this was handled poorly, or not.

Based on your own answer, I stick with 'No notice required'. I don't buy the 'wink-wink' argument.

Let's say that I drive beyond the speed limit every day on my way home from work. Occasionally, I see a police car, but I haven't gotten pulled over. If I eventually get ticketed, is it a credible defense for my speeding that officers had seen me do it in the past without ticketing me?

20.7k · June 14, 2006

... My Evil Cache (GCNXEC) had been to many events, was seen by several Reviewers as long ago as GW3, and was well known around the South, to the point where cachers I had never met knew to ask me for it when they met me.

...

Pocket caches were introduced by a well-known Reviewer, were originally logged as cache pages at one time; when Jeremy put a stop to them having cache pages that same Reviewer found a work-around using archived cache pages, when that was nixed this same Reviewer came up with the multiple-attended log scheme, yet this Reviewer was never mentioned in the recent GW4 blow-up - but everyone else involved got fried! ...

You know, others can almost get away with the lame 'Oops! I didn't know it was against the guidelines.' excuse, but if you think for a second that as a reviewer you should have been able to, you are way off base.

I also don't think it should be up to the other reviewers to correct you. You're an adult in a responsible position who knew the rules.

I also don't accept your excuse that it's OK for you to break the rules because some other unnamed reviewer did.

Meh.

Edited June 14, 2006 by sbell111

June 14, 2006

I guess I'll stick with my answer above - A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO. Although it was clearly against the guidelines, it was also wink winked all along - wasnt it?

So, back to my question - What "notice" was given? Just 1 post by Jeremy, or ??

That answer - IMO - determines if this was handled poorly, or not.

Based on your own answer, I stick with 'No notice required'. I don't buy the 'wink-wink' argument.

Let's say that I drive beyond the speed limit every day on my way home from work. Occasionally, I see a police car, but I haven't gotten pulled over. If I eventually get ticketed, is it a credible defense for my speeding that officers had seen me do it in the past without ticketing me?

"Based on my answer" -Those were Your words. I was quoting you *Although very poorly* Sorry.

My Words= A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO.

Dont by the wink wink argument? I've seen plenty of examples posted here and in other threads. I tend to agree with it- Opinions may vary, and thats fine with me.

Some scenario with cops and speeding is irrellevant, so I wont even bother.

Laws are clearly defined whereas these kind of tactics are Not, and wont be for just this kind of reason.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Some scenario with cops and speeding is irrellevant, so I wont even bother.
Laws are clearly defined whereas these kind of tactics are Not, and wont be for just this kind of reason.

I was really pleased with my analogy. Either way, you have actions that are verboten, 'enforcement' personnel who may have known about the issue, and a depressing outcome.

6.7k · June 14, 2006

You know, others can almost get away with the lame 'Oops! I didn't know it was against the guidelines.' excuse, but if you think for a second that as a reviewer you should have been able to, you are way off base.

Based on the history of your responses to my posts I don't expect anything but senseless argument from you, but please do not put words in my mouth - I never said that nor used any excuse whatsoever, nor claimed what I did was okay, nor claimed it was anyone else's fault, nor asked anyone's forgiveness, especially yours!

20.7k · June 14, 2006

My Words= A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO.

How would this work?

Attention all cachers...

We know that some of you are about to seriously thumb your noses at the guidelines. If you do, we'll lock your caches.

Sincerely,

TPTB

June 14, 2006

I was really pleased with my analogy. Either way, you have actions that are verboten, 'enforcement' personnel who may have known about the issue, and a depressing outcome.

I didnt mean to diss your analogy <_< Bolded by me:

Here we agree 100%.

June 14, 2006

My Words= A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO.
How would this work?
Attention all cachers...
We know that some of you are about to seriously thumb your noses at the guidelines. If you do, we'll lock your caches.

Sincerely,

TPTB

Sure, why not? With some seriousness, a simple sentence could have been written.

Much better than applying the Hammer full swing without yelling Duck! <_<

20.7k · June 14, 2006

You know, others can almost get away with the lame 'Oops! I didn't know it was against the guidelines.' excuse, but if you think for a second that as a reviewer you should have been able to, you are way off base.

Based on the history of your responses to my posts I don't expect anything but senseless argument from you, but please do not put words in my mouth - I never said that nor used any excuse whatsoever, nor claimed what I did was okay, nor claimed it was anyone else's fault, nor asked anyone's forgiveness, especially yours!

Reread your own post. It was full of 'reasons' for your actions.

No one who has paid attention to the forums in the past few weeks would think that you are apologizing. You've acted like a scolded puppy, a brave hero who took it for the team, and an innocent victim; but never have you been apologetic.

Edited June 14, 2006 by sbell111

6.7k · June 14, 2006

Reread your own post. It was full of 'reasons' for your actions.

No one who has paid attention to the forums in the past few weeks would think that you are apologizing. You've acted like a wrongly scolded puppy, a brave hero who took it for the team, and an innocent victim, but never have you been apologetic.

Sheesh, bickering with you is getting old, but I will do it one last time.

Actually, the referenced post was full of reasons why I was surprised and dismayed at the abrupt actions by TPTB to something they were well aware was happening, not reasons why I did them.

Yes, I took responsibility for the cache-signing fiasco on our record run attempt; as team captain it was my place to do so.

I did apologize, repeatedly, and offered to pay damages for or replace any signed container, so your last is completely off base. (By the way, no one took me up on that offer - the forums seem far more excited over it than the owners!)

I have nothing else to apologize for and feel bad about no other act or position I have taken.

Please, let this be the last communication between us, go harrass somebody else, we're never going to agree, i don't care what you think, and it adds nothing to the forum discussion for you to repeatedly sound off at me.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Please, let this be the last communication between us, go harrass somebody else, we're never going to agree, i don't care what you think, and it adds nothing to the forum discussion for you to repeatedly sound off at me.

I have no idea what you are referring to. <_<

As far as I know, this is the first time that I have addressed your self-assigned pity party.

Edited June 14, 2006 by sbell111

3.3k · June 14, 2006

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

She logged her own cache ten times.

June 14, 2006

On many occasions, I recall seeing Jeremy comment that while he was willing to keep cacher stats on the site as a matter of record- and memory-keeping, he would never condone the use of stats as a form of competition. It has become clear by my laundry list of items above that, based on what our game has now become to so many people, he was right all along.

I think your list only gives evidence that he was wrong. By ignoring the stats aspect of the hobby he's created an environment where there are no real rules regarding stats and both sides get upset.

If they had embraced stats long ago either by embracing them on the site or encouraging outside providers the access to create stats this would not be the issue it is today.

Just one man's opinion.

6.7k · June 14, 2006

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

She logged her own cache ten times.

I don't blame her - at the time she made the finds the caches were there and legal, her log and others were deleted after TPTB killed the caches - she still found them and desrrves the smilie. GeoPolitics should not deprive anyone of an earned find.

20.7k · June 14, 2006

Here is a prime example of "#1" subverting the rules to garner smilies.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...42-aca01180c1bc

She logged her own cache ten times.

If she logged the original caches in their original locations, I have no problem with her logging them online as she did. If they were found as converted pocket caches or temporary event caches, they shouldn't be logged on gc.com, in my opinion. Edited June 14, 2006 by sbell111

3.9k · June 14, 2006

I guess I'll stick with my answer above - A notice in 1 weekly cache notification just prior to it would have been sufficient, IMO. Although it was clearly against the guidelines, it was also wink winked all along - wasnt it?

So, back to my question - What "notice" was given? Just 1 post by Jeremy, or ??

That answer - IMO - determines if this was handled poorly, or not.

Based on your own answer, I stick with 'No notice required'. I don't buy the 'wink-wink' argument.

Let's say that I drive beyond the speed limit every day on my way home from work. Occasionally, I see a police car, but I haven't gotten pulled over. If I eventually get ticketed, is it a credible defense for my speeding that officers had seen me do it in the past without ticketing me?

Well said! I agree! Why is advance notice required of a crackdown on an admittedly outside-the-bounds activity that had finally grown out of hand?

6.7k · June 14, 2006

If she logged the original caches in their original locations, I have no problem with her logging them online as she did. If they were found as converted pocket caches or temporary event caches, they shouldn't be logged on gc.com, in my opinion.

I don't know what they were, but even if they were Pocket Caches, PCs were a common and accepted practice until AFTER GW4 - any PC logged there before the ban should have stood, anything after, not.

To use an analogy made earlier, how would you like to get a speeding ticket in the mail with an explanation that the law changed today, so you are being ticketed because you exceeded it yesterday?

PCs may never have been 'legal' but thousands were logged over the years, making them a reasonable and customary expectation at events.

Again, perfectly right to ban them if they want, tacky as all get out to delete the logs in hindsight.

Edited June 14, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

The New Numbers Game

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment