Jump to content

The New Numbers Game


drat19
Followers 13

Recommended Posts

If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page...
Well, if I sound like a broken record...

 

Heck, my answer to this is just up the page. Try reading it.

I just read all of CR's posts on that page and not one of them addressed this issue.

 

EDIT: My post went to the next page and didn't make sense any longer. NORMally, it would.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Let's see. You ignore him and then you just end up reading (and replying to!) his posts anyway?

 

And you have the stones to talk about lack of logic. :huh:

 

Yeah, well, here's the thing. I post and then a few minutes later he posts. Was he replying to my post? I don't know until I click on the link to show his post. Guess what, he was. I got to thinking about that and went to look at a few other instances of the same. There were others. So, I figure I'll keep him from having a one-sided argument.

 

Same thing with some others. They're just ankle biters, but still...

So those of us you put on your ignore list to show us a thing or two, should actually be considered to be on your "I'm still reading your posts, it just takes me an extra click or two to see them, but that'll show you!" list?

 

Yip yip yip

Link to comment
If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page...
Well, if I sound like a broken record...

 

Heck, my answer to this is just up the page. Try reading it.

I just read all of CR's posts on that page and not one of them addressed this issue.

 

EDIT: My post went to the next page and didn't make sense any longer. NORMally, it would.

I did too and didn't see what he was talking about either....

Link to comment
If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page...
Well, if I sound like a broken record...

 

Heck, my answer to this is just up the page. Try reading it.

I just read all of CR's posts on that page and not one of them addressed this issue.

 

EDIT: My post went to the next page and didn't make sense any longer. NORMally, it would.

 

You don't mean this one do you?

 

Here, I'll quote the relevant part for you:

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?

 

Considering, by far, most people log individually, I would think logging individually is the thing to do and logging as a group is out of the ordinary. Just like signing the outside of the cache container is out of the ordinary I don't think anyone should expect a note on the cache page to not write on the outside of the container. I don't particularly care how folks do it elsewhere or even if it's common practice in some circles, you won't be doing it on our caches.

Link to comment

So those of us you put on your ignore list to show us a thing or two, should actually be considered to be on your "I'm still reading your posts, it just takes me an extra click or two to see them, but that'll show you!" list?

 

Don't think to much of yourself. Your post was a convenient opportunity to un-ignore you and was the first one I read in a long time. Yes, that means I think much more highly of sbell's post than yours.

Link to comment
You don't mean this one do you?

 

Here, I'll quote the relevant part for you:

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?
Considering, by far, most people log individually, I would think logging individually is the thing to do and logging as a group is out of the ordinary. Just like signing the outside of the cache container is out of the ordinary I don't think anyone should expect a note on the cache page to not write on the outside of the container. I don't particularly care how folks do it elsewhere or even if it's common practice in some circles, you won't be doing it on our caches.
You'll note that the post he quoted had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

Further, just because group logging is 'out of the ordinary', doesn't necessarily make it verboten. By bringing up the issue of signing containers, he is trying to cloud the issue in question, presumably because he cannot think of any logical reason for his actions.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
So those of us you put on your ignore list to show us a thing or two, should actually be considered to be on your "I'm still reading your posts, it just takes me an extra click or two to see them, but that'll show you!" list?
Don't think to much of yourself. Your post was a convenient opportunity to un-ignore you and was the first one I read in a long time. Yes, that means I think much more highly of sbell's post than yours.

It's humorous that he thinks that we care whether he ignores our posts. Personally, I would prefer being ignored if the result is I don't have to read any more of his spins.

 

I would ignore his posts, but I believe that it is important that someone give a counterpoint when truly bad ideas are put forth.

Link to comment
You don't mean this one do you?

 

Here, I'll quote the relevant part for you:

But, considering you brought it up I suppose you would expect "If you're going to trade please trade evenly. Please put the cache back where you found it. Don't let muggles see you. Protect the cache if it's pouring down rain. Etc. Etc. Etc." I mean, after all, that is a middle ground, right?
Considering, by far, most people log individually, I would think logging individually is the thing to do and logging as a group is out of the ordinary. Just like signing the outside of the cache container is out of the ordinary I don't think anyone should expect a note on the cache page to not write on the outside of the container. I don't particularly care how folks do it elsewhere or even if it's common practice in some circles, you won't be doing it on our caches.
You'll note that the post he quoted had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

Further, just because group logging is 'out of the ordinary', doesn't necessarily make it verboten. By bringing up the issue of signing containers, he is trying to cloud the issue in question, presumably because he cannot think of any logical reason for his actions.

Exactly! Now a harmless practice done largely by honest people is equated as being equal to vandalism. :huh:

Link to comment

You'll note that the post he quoted had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

Further, just because group logging is 'out of the ordinary', doesn't necessarily make it verboten. By bringing up the issue of signing containers, he is trying to cloud the issue in question, presumably because he cannot think of any logical reason for his actions.

 

Wow! You just can't stand it when you are wrong can you? That post I linked had everything to do with the post I was responding to. Both TrailGators and TAR said pretty much the same thing which was I should put my request on the cache page. I had already answered TAR on the same page as that where TrailGators asked it.

 

Also, "not necessarily verboten" is the not the same as perfectly acceptable, either. So, what's your point?

 

As for a logical reason, it's not my duty, or even a concern, to convince you my actions are acceptable beyond simply announcing them. Suffice it to say it is based on "sign the physical log before trying to log a find online." I'm just extending the meaning for our caches to pretty much mean that you should sign it just like you would if you were alone. If others follow suit or reject the idea it's no skin off my nose.

Link to comment
Exactly! Now a harmless practice done largely by honest people is equated as being equal to vandalism.
Good point. How about this as an example? "You must sign the logbook before logging a find online." Should that be posted on the cache page?

Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

Link to comment
I would ignore his posts, but I believe that it is important that someone give a counterpoint when truly bad ideas are put forth.

 

Ah, so you and, what, one or two others have to stand against CR as he tries to twist your hob... er... game into something else? Who do you thing is the most conservative of the two of us? ...as it relates to geocaching, that is.

Link to comment
Exactly! Now a harmless practice done largely by honest people is equated as being equal to vandalism.
Good point. How about this as an example? "You must sign the logbook before logging a find online." Should that be posted on the cache page?

Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

 

Quick! Edit your post before I see you actually agreeing with me.

Link to comment
Exactly! Now a harmless practice done largely by honest people is equated as being equal to vandalism.
Good point. How about this as an example? "You must sign the logbook before logging a find online." Should that be posted on the cache page?

Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

I think someone needs some more coffee.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

There you go sidestepping the point again. TrailGators point, I believe, was that if they sign the log as a group and they tell you clearly who was in the group, there is no point in deleting the logs of people who clearly found your cache.

Wrong.

 

I've clearly stated why I will no longer allow that practice and why. I was told who was in the group and they lied. What part of that don't you get?

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Isn't that how it goes? Hey, don't blame me for not being able to trust folks who log this way. I'm not the one who lied.

If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page that says logging as a group will result in deletion of the individual's log. Keep in mind that 99% of those people (that sometimes sign as a group) are honest fun loving people that would never even think of trying to get a free smiley. <_< How much is one of those worth by the way? :rolleyes:

This group had a lot of fun one day. During our 100+-mile day, we found roadside caches, plus we hiked to several others, including one near this amazing oak tree.

 

c1b895d7-6ec1-4f19-ad92-38423069df2b.jpg

 

We didn't sign the log individually . . . we used our Group Name. As a time-saver, it seemed like the logical thing to do, and for some of the micros, it was the logical thing to do.

Link to comment

So those of us you put on your ignore list to show us a thing or two, should actually be considered to be on your "I'm still reading your posts, it just takes me an extra click or two to see them, but that'll show you!" list?

 

Don't think to (sic) much of yourself. Your post was a convenient opportunity to un-ignore you and was the first one I read in a long time. Yes, that means I think much more highly of sbell's post than yours.

 

I don't think too much of myself. I just enjoy pointing out your contradictions. I used to enjoy debating topics with you, but when you could no longer keep up with the debate and decided to put your fingers in your ears and ignore me I decided this would be fun instead.

 

yip yip yip

Link to comment
Exactly! Now a harmless practice done largely by honest people is equated as being equal to vandalism.
Good point. How about this as an example? "You must sign the logbook before logging a find online." Should that be posted on the cache page?

Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

 

Quick! Edit your post before I see you actually agreeing with me.

 

I will say that I did enjoy your post in another thread about hanging a cache from a tree. I've got an idea about doing something similar for a cache and was happy to be taught an easy way to get the webbing and D-ring around a limb.

 

Since I know you're reading this post, I'll express my gratitude here.

 

Thanks for the tip.

Link to comment

There you go sidestepping the point again. TrailGators point, I believe, was that if they sign the log as a group and they tell you clearly who was in the group, there is no point in deleting the logs of people who clearly found your cache.

Wrong.

 

I've clearly stated why I will no longer allow that practice and why. I was told who was in the group and they lied. What part of that don't you get?

 

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

Isn't that how it goes? Hey, don't blame me for not being able to trust folks who log this way. I'm not the one who lied.

If people (like you) are going to insist on doing this then it's only fair to warn the innocent by putting a clear note on your cache page that says logging as a group will result in deletion of the individual's log. Keep in mind that 99% of those people (that sometimes sign as a group) are honest fun loving people that would never even think of trying to get a free smiley. :P How much is one of those worth by the way? <_<

This group had a lot of fun one day. During our 100+-mile day, we found roadside caches, plus we hiked to several others, including one near this amazing oak tree.

 

c1b895d7-6ec1-4f19-ad92-38423069df2b.jpg

 

We didn't sign the log individually . . . we used our Group Name. As a time-saver, it seemed like the logical thing to do, and for some of the micros, it was the logical thing to do.

I hope some of those caches weren't owned by someone like CoyoteRed! :rolleyes: The point is that we all "found" the caches and had a lot of fun! :P Isn't that what this is all about Mr. Scrooge?! :huh:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I usually hunt with a few friends and we have travelled far and wide for the sole purpose of hunting caches. I remember getting scolded for hunting caches with this group and filling up the logs with all the names, so now we use a team name when we hunt together. Now I see that this practice, which we adopted to accomodate the wishes of some cache owners is being frowned on. I have no problem signing the individual names, when I hunt alone or with my wife, or with folks show are not on our "team" that is what I do, but I do wish someone would create a list of what is OK and not OK with everyone in an area so we can keep up with each regions preferences.

 

I hate to sound frustrated, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what one has to do to hunt caches "the right way".

Link to comment
Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

Quick! Edit your post before I see you actually agreeing with me.

I've agreed with you in a few threads over a few issues. This isn't one of them.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Did "they" sign the logbook? Does the President sign with his own name, or does he sign with "we, the people"?

 

Jan

Link to comment
Did "they" sign the logbook? Does the President sign with his own name, or does he sign with "we, the people"?

None of us 'sign' the page, but we make a distinguishing mark on the page.

 

Thee is a thread around here somewhere regarding how people sign in if they find themselves on-site without a pen. Some of the suggestions included scratching an 'X' with a rock or tossing in a business card and then describing it in their on-line log.

 

I don't believe that this is any more or less appropriate than signing the log as a group and explaining who made up that group in the on-line log.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
Pssst.....

 

They signed the logbook.

Quick! Edit your post before I see you actually agreeing with me.

I've agreed with you in a few threads over a few issues. This isn't one of them.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Did "they" sign the logbook? Does the President sign with his own name, or does he sign with "we, the people"?

 

Jan

 

Do YOU sign the logbook with your own name, or do you sign them with JanniCash?

Link to comment

In our case, when we are caching in a group after we all find the cache one of us signs the log with something like "Awesome hike! Loved the views! - SDCET 5/1/06." SDCET is short for "San Diego Caching Event Team." We plan out some pretty cool hikes on the local SDCET thread. The group is always different. We have had probably 50 different cachers particiapte at one time or another. Since most of us would like to keep the hike moving along we try to minimize down time at each cache. Hence the reason for the group sign off. When we get home we all log that we were a part of the SDCET that day and we post our logs and photos for each cache. A couple of us always post who was in the group. So it's basically impossible for someone outside the group to claim a find without one of us knowing and this has never happened! :rolleyes:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Could somebody do me a favor and scribble my nom de plume on the next several of eagletrek's and CR's caches that you find.

 

Thanks in advance. :rolleyes:

 

Not so fast, I think they're on to something. They've converted me, anyway. From now on, whenever a group finds my cache I will delete their finds, even if they sign the logbook individually. I mean, obviously one of them found the cache while the others were looking elsewhere. It's completely dishonest for them all to claim a find, and since I can't tell which one did, they all lose their smilies.

 

Ditto for stickers, anyone could have put the sticker in the logbook.

 

While we're on this subject, I can't tell one cacher's signature for another, so from now on I'm only allowing finds from cachers who have a signature on file with me prior to the find. And a photo. And before they claim a find they must send me a picture of themselves holding the cache in one hand and the front page of today's Gazette in the other.

 

On second thought, I'm not allowing any finds. I don't want these cheaters touching my cache at all.

Now that is funny.

Maybe we should all not hide any more caches so that others can't "cheat", whatever that means in a game that has no prizes nor winners. (Well anytime you hike a nice trail in a beautiful park... you win.)

 

 

Does anyone else think this over-policing of the log book is silly?

I think it is absurd.

Link to comment

I think it is absurd.

 

The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

I think it is absurd.

 

The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

 

Snooganicity: The sudden realization that you are thinking like Snoogans. :huh::rolleyes:<_<

Link to comment

I think it is absurd.

 

The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

wow - a logical post

 

(referring to thread/forums, not at all trying to say your posts aren't normally logical)

Link to comment

 

I'd still like to meet him out of curiosity. I'd bet he's a helluva nice guy in person.

 

 

1) You should be so fortunate. My family had the pleasure of walking with him on one of the great H.O.T. caches that actually requires a bit of a hike. My wife was a trooper, since she was carrying a 2 month old, I was carrying the 2 year old. He is quite pleasant, and was patient enough, even being on a big caching spree day, to slow down to stay with the family and allow the 2 year old to find the cache. I find people much more amiable and interesting in person.

 

At any rate, this is coming from someone who has publically, at least in a forum, disagreed with his methods. People really are much better in person...

 

2) Alabama Rambler asked if this was about finding caches or signing the logbooks. It is both, I think.

 

"Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

1. Take something from the cache

 

2. Leave something in the cache

 

3. Write about it in the logbook"

 

I would interpret this as each person who visits writes about it in the logbook. Obviously, other folks interpret #3 much differently than I. I agree with eagletrek's actions as a cache owner based upon his interpretation. As a cache owner myself, I would email the first individual signee on the online log and ask for verification of who was in the group when the cache was found. Then, I would be able to verify "bogus" logs as required by the cache submission guidelines. While disagreeing with his methods (and I would have handled it differently, I believe, as just outlined above), I do agree with his logic and application of his interpretation of responsibilities as a cache owner. Let's face it, the team logging is a grey area. I told him "good call" by acting as he feels a responsible cache owner.

 

3) My thoughts on CCC actions - "so be it." If that is what allows CCC to enjoy the game, and not done on someone else''s cache, so be it. Now, I have a much different opinion about CCC's cache find count, but I doubt CCC could care a less about my opinion. Again, so be it, and good for her, since apparently her find count is not for others, it is for her's (or at least from what I can discern from her logs). However, the logs on her cache probably fall into the "bogus" category along the same line of the recent temporary caches, but we are not the cache owner police, others fill that roll. If TPTB choose to do something about that, so be it. Even if they do not, and in the future chide me for not abiding by cache owner responsibilities, I will not hide behind this "precedent." I checked the boxes as the bottom of the submission, and CCC's actions on her cache page are irrelevant.

 

4) I do not see how the CCC logs fit into the "New Numbers Game" OP. I believe CCC's motives were much diferent than the OP...

Link to comment

I usually hunt with a few friends and we have travelled far and wide for the sole purpose of hunting caches. I remember getting scolded for hunting caches with this group and filling up the logs with all the names, so now we use a team name when we hunt together. Now I see that this practice, which we adopted to accomodate the wishes of some cache owners is being frowned on. I have no problem signing the individual names, when I hunt alone or with my wife, or with folks show are not on our "team" that is what I do, but I do wish someone would create a list of what is OK and not OK with everyone in an area so we can keep up with each regions preferences.

 

I hate to sound frustrated, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to figure out what one has to do to hunt caches "the right way".

When I joined fellow cachers in the San Francisco Bay Area for a trip to Project APE, Mission 9 in Washington State last year, Nazgul decided ahead of time to print stickers with each of our name on them to save log sheet space and time. We didn't use the temporary team name "San Jose Goes APE" to sign the logs. (Workerofwood made buttons with that team name for each of the participants, though :rolleyes: )

 

I was a last minute addition to the group, so my name was not on the stickers - I had to either scribble my name on the stickers, or sign the log book separately for the caches I found with the group.

 

That's an example of playing the game "the right way". I am VERY puzzled why other cachers can't come up with solutions like this. <_<

Link to comment
The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

I mostly agree. There are many ways for everyone to enjoy this game but, like all games, there are some basics that need to be followed! I'm not trying to force "my way" on anyone but i do expect to see these simple basics adhered to.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

Sounds good. For most of us this is not a biggie but this is CR's method for slowing down cheating on some of his caches. I'm glad that most people don't play this way but this is definitely within his right to do so.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

No,,, this is a no brainer. He/she never even laid eyes on the cache so why would anyone allow that person's log as a find. By giving in you are saying it's ok for them to cheat, therefore compromising the integrity of the game.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

 

Agreed!!!

Link to comment
The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

I mostly agree. There are many ways for everyone to enjoy this game but, like all games, there are some basics that need to be followed! I'm not trying to force "my way" on anyone but i do expect to see these simple basics adhered to.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

Sounds good. For most of us this is not a biggie but this is CR's method for slowing down cheating on some of his caches. I'm glad that most people don't play this way but this is definitely within his right to do so.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

No,,, this is a no brainer. He/she never even laid eyes on the cache so why would anyone allow that person's log as a find. By giving in you are saying it's ok for them to cheat, therefore compromising the integrity of the game.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

 

Agreed!!!

 

Who exactly is getting cheated? :rolleyes: My smiley count is managed by ME and no one else. I don't lose a smiley for every bogus log that gets posted by someone else. The only stats that matter to me are my own.

 

That's the part I don't get at all.

 

If this were terracaching with a rigid point/ranking system, then EVERYONE is getting cheated.

 

But last time I checked.... It isn't.

 

I think some people are pretty sadly deluding themselves in the way they play their geocaching game by the standards that I set for myself, but they could/do probably think the same of me. Caching in the Geocaching.com sense is too subjective for me to even bother to try to judge another by my standards. The fact that so many do is quite entertaining though. <_<

Link to comment
If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

No,,, this is a no brainer. He/she never even laid eyes on the cache so why would anyone allow that person's log as a find. By giving in you are saying it's ok for them to cheat, therefore compromising the integrity of the game.

Don't be absurd. It's okay with me if they want to log my cache in this case, and you saying it shouldn't be okay with me, because it's not okay with you, is absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.

I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

Link to comment
Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.
I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

Unfortunately this practice gets majorly abused by some people. If you are looking for some true dishonesty read the threads on that.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

This is an interesting post:

 

The only thing I think is absurd is when people think they know the right way to cache, and they try to force their way on other people.

 

If CR wants to audit his cache logs against his online logs and delete the extra finds, that's cool. It's his cache.

If CR wants to tell me that I have to do the same thing in order to be a good cacher, that's absurd.

 

If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

If someone wants to require finders to log their finds with a poem (or some other requirement), it's cool. It's their cache, and if I don't like it I don't have to find it.

If someone else tries to get the site to ban additional requirement caches just because they don't want to do them, that's absurd.

 

From reading this thread can you show me the examples where the cache owners (CR and ET) are telling others how to run their caches? It seems to me that a lot of others are telling them how to handle the caches they (CR and ET) own. I think that is bogus. They are deleting entries that have insufficent proof which is within their right. They did not take away the experience of finding the cache, only your smiley.

 

For the group cachers, taking a pic would prob go a long way towards proving your group only logs. Have you ever had one deleted where you sent a group pic proving that there were at least that many (+1, possibly) people there?

Link to comment

I remember getting scolded for hunting caches with this group and filling up the logs with all the names,

 

Somebody really did that? Wow.

 

I believe you, I just shake my head sometimes at the importance people will place on something as filling up "too many pages' in a logbook or cache page. Fortunately for me I'm stuck with the normal problems of paying bills and raising a family, and keeping healthy.

 

If I had to worry and complain about things like too many logs, I'd go crazy.

Link to comment

I've read some of this chatter and it reminds me of an old movie..."Much ado about nothing".

 

Much Ado About Nothing was written by William Shakespeare long before it was made into a movie.

 

Ergo, you can't possibly be reminded of anything by it. :rolleyes::huh:<_< Which is just as well since I didn't even know that there was such a movie and now it doesn't matter.

Link to comment

For the group cachers, taking a pic would prob go a long way towards proving your group only logs. Have you ever had one deleted where you sent a group pic proving that there were at least that many (+1, possibly) people there?

 

Good point. The guy holding the camera? He's not in the picture, no smilie for him.

Link to comment

For the group cachers, taking a pic would prob go a long way towards proving your group only logs. Have you ever had one deleted where you sent a group pic proving that there were at least that many (+1, possibly) people there?

 

Good point. The guy holding the camera? He's not in the picture, no smilie for him.

Maybe he could show a bird in the photo to represent himself and what he thinks about that requirement... :D What ever happened to trusting your fellow man people? :D

Link to comment

From reading this thread can you show me the examples where the cache owners (CR and ET) are telling others how to run their caches?

I don't know about ET, but CR has a long history of telling people that they should cache the way that he does because he does it better, or knows better. My reference to him wasn't something he'd specifically said in this thread. However he's done it in several recent threads (one about micros and one about additional logging requirements to name two). He actually may have done it in this thread too, I just haven't read the entire thing to look for an example for you.

 

It seems to me that a lot of others are telling them how to handle the caches they (CR and ET) own. I think that is bogus. They are deleting entries that have insufficent proof which is within their right. They did not take away the experience of finding the cache, only your smiley.

Some may be, but I wasn't. In fact, I specifically said in my post that if he wants to audit his log then it's cool. It's his cache.

Link to comment
Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.
I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

Unfortunately this practice gets majorly abused by some people. If you are looking for some true dishonesty read the threads on that.... :D

I've read a lot of threads on it, and I think they're absurd too. If it doesn't bother the event owner that someone logs the event 100 times for the 100 bonus caches, then it doesn't bother me.

 

Recently Jeremy has come out and said that according to gc.com it's not okay, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not at all saying that people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want on this site regardless.

 

I'm saying that it's absurd for someone to tell ME that I have to disagree with the practice, or that I have to agree with the site. I happen to feel that I should play by the "rules", but I don't have to consider those that do it different "cheaters", and I don't have to run around trying to make sure that everyone does it the "right" way.

 

I'm not about to point to someone and say they're caching wrong.

Link to comment

For the group cachers, taking a pic would prob go a long way towards proving your group only logs. Have you ever had one deleted where you sent a group pic proving that there were at least that many (+1, possibly) people there?

 

Good point. The guy holding the camera? He's not in the picture, no smilie for him.

 

You seem to have missed the point of my adding the +1. Yes there may be a casher holding the camera.

Link to comment
Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.
I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

Unfortunately this practice gets majorly abused by some people. If you are looking for some true dishonesty read the threads on that.... :D

I've read a lot of threads on it, and I think they're absurd too. If it doesn't bother the event owner that someone logs the event 100 times for the 100 bonus caches, then it doesn't bother me.

 

Recently Jeremy has come out and said that according to gc.com it's not okay, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not at all saying that people should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want on this site regardless.

 

I'm saying that it's absurd for someone to tell ME that I have to disagree with the practice, or that I have to agree with the site. I happen to feel that I should play by the "rules", but I don't have to consider those that do it different "cheaters", and I don't have to run around trying to make sure that everyone does it the "right" way.

 

I'm not about to point to someone and say they're caching wrong.

 

We are thinking of letting people log each slice of pizza they eat at the next event. :D

A beer would be good for two smileys! :D:blink:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

From reading this thread can you show me the examples where the cache owners (CR and ET) are telling others how to run their caches?

I don't know about ET, but CR has a long history of telling people that they should cache the way that he does because he does it better, or knows better. My reference to him wasn't something he'd specifically said in this thread. However he's done it in several recent threads (one about micros and one about additional logging requirements to name two). He actually may have done it in this thread too, I just haven't read the entire thing to look for an example for you.

 

It seems to me that a lot of others are telling them how to handle the caches they (CR and ET) own. I think that is bogus. They are deleting entries that have insufficent proof which is within their right. They did not take away the experience of finding the cache, only your smiley.

Some may be, but I wasn't. In fact, I specifically said in my post that if he wants to audit his log then it's cool. It's his cache.

 

I am not familiar with his holier than thou history, so I will have to trust you that he can get out of hand on occasion. After reading 18 pages of this thread, I was kinda bitter when I posted. I wanted to use your post to question the views of some of the hardline "you sould not question our log entry" folks, but wrote it badly. Sorry about that.

Link to comment

For the group cachers, taking a pic would prob go a long way towards proving your group only logs. Have you ever had one deleted where you sent a group pic proving that there were at least that many (+1, possibly) people there?

 

Good point. The guy holding the camera? He's not in the picture, no smilie for him.

 

You seem to have missed the point of my adding the +1. Yes there may be a casher holding the camera.

 

I didn't miss it, I used it to illustrate how ridiculous this whole thing has become. If I allow 12 people to log a cache based on a picture of 11 people, who knows what kind of anarchy might ensue? Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos. The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

 

Fool me once, and I'll never trust anyone again, as long as I live. With god as my witness, I'll make you all pay for what you've done!

Link to comment
If somebody wants to log a cache of mine that they didn't find, but someone in a group they were riding with that night did, that's fine with me. It's their history.

If someone else wants to tell me I shouldn't allow it because they don't allow it on their caches, that's absurd.

 

No,,, this is a no brainer. He/she never even laid eyes on the cache so why would anyone allow that person's log as a find. By giving in you are saying it's ok for them to cheat, therefore compromising the integrity of the game.

Don't be absurd. It's okay with me if they want to log my cache in this case, and you saying it shouldn't be okay with me, because it's not okay with you, is absurd.

 

If someone wants to log an event 100 times for whatever reason, it's cool with me. It's their history.

If someone wants to tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay because it's not okay with someone else, that's absurd.

 

Nope,, logging an event more than once is ABSURD! If someone really wants a record of their NON-geocaching.com listed temporary cache finds, then log them as notes. It's not another "attended smiley" and it only screws up their event stats.

I didn't say it was okay. I only said it was okay with me. I agree that it's something that isn't okay with other people (you for example) but nobody should try and tell me that I shouldn't think it's okay just because of whatever.

 

In this case,, it's not "because of whatever".

I know what you are saying and i agree that the majority of this game can and should be played however each individual wants. Certainly not trying to tell you or anyone else my opinions on how to play, i'm just stating the black and white.

 

A person either finds the cache or they don't. There is no inbetween. In your example above, the person obviously didn't find the cache. Just curious, why would you allow the find claim?

 

Your other example, an Event cache logged as "attended" more than once. This may not bother you at all and thats all fine and dandy however, it still comes down to false logging. The person attended the event,,, one time! This is not my opinion, it's a fact that can't be argued any other way.

 

Now, i'll admit that all this may sound like im coming on strong, but to be truthful, i don't worry about these things much at all. I have never deleted a found log from any of our caches, mainly because i don't go overboard trying to catch false logs. For example, group finds using a team name is fine by me. This is not an issue for me. Of course this IS my opinion so feel free to handle this any way you want. I'll say this, if i ever do run across an obvious false log, it will be deleted!

 

Who exactly is getting cheated? My smiley count is managed by ME and no one else. I don't lose a smiley for every bogus log that gets posted by someone else. The only stats that matter to me are my own.

 

That's the part I don't get at all.

 

Snoogans,, you are right in that it shouldn't cause any angst on anyone's part for people to cheat. Afterall, this is a game that really shouldn't be taken all that seriously. The thing is, i do think some things need to be kept in check in order for geocaching to continue on and for it to be fun for everyone. There needs to be some structure to the game, i would say a combination of basic rules/guidelines, common sense, and honesty.

 

I love to get out and discover new areas, find fun caches, and meet great people. But i also have fun keeping up with my stats. There are some people who could care less about them. Personally, i think if people would be honest with themselves and admit it, then it would come out that the majority do care about them as well. There would be no stats here on GC.com or on any of the other cache stats listing sites if they weren't important to people.

 

You go to any event or gathering and you'll always hear the "so, how many have you found" questions or, "so and so cache was my 1000th cache". This is natural and it's also part of the fun for everyone. It would be a really dumb thing to lie about as these numbers don't make me or anyone else think any more or less of you as a person. It's more of the principle for me,,, do the right thing. If for some reason i know you are lieing then i'm most likely going to think a bit less of you then.

 

Since stats are a fun part of the game for many, then it stands to reason that there needs to be basic standards for logging them. The false (sometimes blatant cheating) logs do make them almost meaningless and take away from this fun aspect of geocaching for many! :D

Link to comment
I don't know about ET, but CR has a long history of telling people that they should cache the way that he does because he does it better, or knows better.

I am not familiar with his holier than thou history, so I will have to trust you that he can get out of hand on occasion.

You are not familiar with the history because it does not exist. Mr. Mushtang is, unfortunately, being mendacious here. While I often disagree with CR, he does not spend a lot of time trying to force his values on others.

 

My advice? Stay out of this thread. It's not worth the effort.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 13
×
×
  • Create New...