Numbers Vs Ethics

[+Totem Clan]

How do we as a group keep it from becoming a problem that requires Groundspeak step in?

 

42

 

That's the most logical thing I've heard here yet.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

I don't know where to start...

 

...

 

Temp caches... again the padding numbers thing... don't know if I have an opinion on this one... it "pads" numbers, but in most instances it's a legit cache... container+logbook+coords=geocache (I quote Criminal)

- solution... don't know since I don't really have a problem with this one...

 

...

 

Digi

 

Shouldn't it be container+logbook+coords+published on gc.com=geocache

 

No, that would make it a Geocache. There is a difference.

[+Mudfrog]

A cache has to be listed on the gecaching.com site, you have to find it in it's original location, and you have to sign the physical log in the cache. The way i see it is, if you take any one of these things away then you're not gonna have a loggable find on this site. It seems very obvious to many of us what the right thing to do is here.

 

But i personally know cachers that feel they should get to log finds on temp caches and the such. The thing is, these are people whom i admire and that i enjoy being with. I would never call them cheaters or think that they lacked ethics. They are only looking at things from another perspective, a prespective that i don't fully understand.

 

Im rambling on here and this may not even be the right thread for this reply. I guess i'm just trying to say that for the most part, most cachers are not unethical and even though i don't undertand their logic, they aren't trying to cheat the system. There are cheaters in every game but i don't think this term should be used in these cases with these people. I hate to say this but, i think the only way to get everyone on the same page is to be more specific with logging rules and/or guidelines!

Edited June 2, 2006 by Mudfrog

[+budd-rdc]

Why are we hearing so much static over ‘numbers’ and ‘ethics or lack thereof’ within caching today? What is at root of the problem? Are lazy cachers putting out too many lame caches thereby causing cache bloat? Are cacher padding there numbers just because of their egos?

 

All these questions and more are bouncing around the forums like crazy. What has brought us to this point in the sport of caching? Please don’t just say Micro Spew™ and leave it at that. Explain what you think is the cause of all the dissension. Is it because cachers don’t like the rule, or guidelines, whichever you prefer?

 

Also how do we fix it? Or is it not broken? For the betterment of the sport, what are we, no what are you, going to do?

 

Cache bloat isn't just from laziness, I think it's from demographics change. Many urban hiders in my area do not consider hiking to be a recreational activity, so they don't find and hide caches there.

 

Numbers padding is definitely from ego, although it doesn't have to be malicious. I compare the actions to people who try for a high score with video games - it's a blind desire to win something, anything. People can forget to ask why in their ambitious quest to "win" so rules and guidelines are overlooked.

 

The cause of dissension has little to do with rules or guidelines, but with pride and impatience, especially the latter.

 

I don't think these problems are limited to Geocaching, though, so I have no effective solutions. Even people who are allegedly in power (religious, business, and political leaders) seem helpless. I do think the Internet is magnifying the problem, especially when we often refuse to see a person on the other end of the discussion.

 

I'm going to do my part by reminding myself I'm not the only person who enjoys Geocaching, and there are consequences to what I do. I can still have fun and freedom even with those constraints.

[+Miragee]

If we need Groundspeak to come in and govern us like children, is that because we can't or won't play by the rules?

 

Do we, or least some of us, need to grow up?

 

Do we, as a group have an ethics problem?

What do you think, do we?

 

and how does that make you feel?

As a group, no. Yet it seems that there is a problem out there.

 

How do we as a group keep it from becoming a problem that requires Groundspeak step in?

As a group we can't do anything about it because this game is worldwide, and regional "ideas of acceptable play" have developed.

 

Here in the San Diego area, it would be frowned on if someone logged an Event cache more than once. But, in other parts of the U.S., this is a common practice and they think it is fine.

 

"As a group," our local cachers can prevent that from happening here through peer pressure, but we cannot do anything about cachers in a different area.

 

Groundspeak can . . . if they choose to.

 

If Groundspeak made it impossible to log a find on your own cache, to take the place of a log you couldn't make on a cache that had been Archived because it violated the guidelines, or prevented the multiple logs on an Event cache, that would be a start.

 

We "as a group" cannot do anything about it since "different groups" think alternate methods of play, even if they fall outside the guidelines, are just fine.

[+Criminal]

A cache has to be listed on the gecaching.com site, you have to find it in it's original location, and you have to sign the physical log in the cache. The way i see it is, if you take any one of these things away then you're not gonna have a loggable find on this site. It seems very obvious to many of us what the right thing to do is here.

 

But i personally know cachers that feel they should get to log finds on temp caches and the such. The thing is, these are people whom i admire and that i enjoy being with. I would never call them cheaters or think that they lacked ethics. They are only looking at things from another perspective, a prespective that i don't fully understand.

 

Im rambling on here and this may not even be the right thread for this reply. I guess i'm just trying to say that for the most part, most cachers are not unethical and even though i don't undertand their logic, they aren't trying to cheat the system. There are cheaters in every game but i don't think this term should be used in these cases with these people. I hate to say this but, i think the only way to get everyone on the same page is to be more specific with logging rules and/or guidelines!

I found that post brilliant.

 

One problem I see is that some people are giving the term ‘cheater’ equal status as ‘jerk’ or ‘loser’. I don’t do this and I don’t think cheaters are jerks or losers. If we’re playing monopoly and I sneak an extra hotel on Ventnor Avenue when you are taking a chug of beer, I’ve just cheated. If you catch me doing so and call me a cheater, I’m not going to be offended, it’s what I did. You caught me fair and square; I’ll smile sheepishly and put it back on Mediterranean Avenue where it was originally. After that you’ll drink your beer through a straw.

[+Totem Clan]

Why are we hearing so much static over ‘numbers’ and ‘ethics or lack thereof’ within caching today? What is at root of the problem? Are lazy cachers putting out too many lame caches thereby causing cache bloat? Are cacher padding there numbers just because of their egos?

 

All these questions and more are bouncing around the forums like crazy. What has brought us to this point in the sport of caching? Please don’t just say Micro Spew™ and leave it at that. Explain what you think is the cause of all the dissension. Is it because cachers don’t like the rule, or guidelines, whichever you prefer?

 

Also how do we fix it? Or is it not broken? For the betterment of the sport, what are we, no what are you, going to do?

 

Cache bloat isn't just from laziness, I think it's from demographics change. Many urban hiders in my area do not consider hiking to be a recreational activity, so they don't find and hide caches there.

 

Numbers padding is definitely from ego, although it doesn't have to be malicious. I compare the actions to people who try for a high score with video games - it's a blind desire to win something, anything. People can forget to ask why in their ambitious quest to "win" so rules and guidelines are overlooked.

 

The cause of dissension has little to do with rules or guidelines, but with pride and impatience, especially the latter.

 

I don't think these problems are limited to Geocaching, though, so I have no effective solutions. Even people who are allegedly in power (religious, business, and political leaders) seem helpless. I do think the Internet is magnifying the problem, especially when we often refuse to see a person on the other end of the discussion.

 

I'm going to do my part by reminding myself I'm not the only person who enjoys Geocaching, and there are consequences to what I do. I can still have fun and freedom even with those constraints.

 

Point well made.

 

"I'm going to do my part......." Maybe we could learn from that.

[+Totem Clan]

If we need Groundspeak to come in and govern us like children, is that because we can't or won't play by the rules?

 

Do we, or least some of us, need to grow up?

 

Do we, as a group have an ethics problem?

What do you think, do we?

 

and how does that make you feel?

As a group, no. Yet it seems that there is a problem out there.

 

How do we as a group keep it from becoming a problem that requires Groundspeak step in?

As a group we can't do anything about it because this game is worldwide, and regional "ideas of acceptable play" have developed.

 

Here in the San Diego area, it would be frowned on if someone logged an Event cache more than once. But, in other parts of the U.S., this is a common practice and they think it is fine.

 

"As a group," our local cachers can prevent that from happening here through peer pressure, but we cannot do anything about cachers in a different area.

 

Groundspeak can . . . if they choose to.

 

If Groundspeak made it impossible to log a find on your own cache, to take the place of a log you couldn't make on a cache that had been Archived because it violated the guidelines, or prevented the multiple logs on an Event cache, that would be a start.

 

We "as a group" cannot do anything about it since "different groups" think alternate methods of play, even if they fall outside the guidelines, are just fine.

 

Another good point.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

 

I'm Pater47 and these are my perceptions.

 

ever notice how people are always willing to give you their two cents worth but only offer a penny for your thoughts?

 

Man, I love that line, so trying to stay in line, here's my penny's worth. I would love to see GC.com step in and implement a single found log per user on a cache page. I've attended events lately that the organizers were using pocket caches, and temporary caches ( a grand total of about 20 caches) They had a permanent GC approved cache and said that it was OK for folks to log the temp caches under that cache page. So if you were to look at that page, there are folks with about 20 entries with things like'found pocket cache 1' 'found pocket cache 2' and so on. Will the owner ever delete these entries? No, they are placed there with his permission. Is this blantant numbers padding? I think it is. Most of the folks who have done these multiple logs are great people and very fun to cache with. However, now when I see them reach a new milestone, I'm not as impressed. Again, most are great folks, who contribute greatly to the overall game. So again, I'd like to see a one smiley per GC# implemented. This also applies to repeating events. Even if the location of a montly event moves, if the page is updated to reflect the new location, then it is still the same event and should only be counted as a single 'found log'. I could keep on rambling, but I think I've done so in the past, and things just keep on going. Just like the Energizer Bunny, they keep on logging, and logging and logging.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Actually, the whole ethics problem has me a bit down. Of course, geocachers are merely a microcosm of humanity. No better, no worse. TPTB could make multiple logging of caches, or logging of your own cache, impossible. That would stop some violations of the guidelines. But it would not change people.

Many cache owners are absent, or do not maintain the log integrity of their caches. I try to, on mine.

"Sorry. You did not sign the log book." "But that would still be a find where I come from." TBSS

What really got to me is a Web Cam. "Post your picture (taken by the webcam) here as proof that you were there. This is required to log this cache!" Seems simple and clear to me. It's not an easy Web Cam. It's rated 3 for difficulty. It's inaccessible for parts of the year, and the weather can be atrocious! At last count, 30% of the logs have not met the requirement: "Post your picture (taken by the webcam)". It may be an extreme case, but it leads me to believe that, push come to shove, 30% of geocachers will deliberately lie to get a smiley. On the other hand, that's probably a low percentage compared to the rest of humanity. But, it has struck a major blow to my belief in the basic integrity of mankind.

[+BlueDeuce]

But, it has struck a major blow to my belief in the basic integrity of mankind.

 

For me, cellphones did it.

[+Team Torque]

 

Many flyfishermen look down on bait fishermen, some people fish with dynamite.

 

 

Fishing with dynamite is illegal in every state even for people licensed to use dynamite for other reasons. Why? Because it is too easy and takes all the sport out of it. Just like pocket lint caches and micro spew.

 

If you were trying to point out that everyone has different ethics that is one thing but you seem to be saying anything goes because you play your own game. You have a lot of choices when you go fishing. You can fly fish, you can bait fish you can use worms or you can use crickets. But you are not allowed to fish with dynamite and you should not be allowed to "find" a archived cache in someones pocket.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited June 2, 2006 by Team Torque

[+vree]

The cause of dissension has little to do with rules or guidelines, but with pride and impatience, especially the latter.

 

I don't think these problems are limited to Geocaching, though, so I have no effective solutions. Even people who are allegedly in power (religious, business, and political leaders) seem helpless. I do think the Internet is magnifying the problem, especially when we often refuse to see a person on the other end of the discussion.

 

I'm going to do my part by reminding myself I'm not the only person who enjoys Geocaching, and there are consequences to what I do. I can still have fun and freedom even with those constraints.

a totally agree.

[+Totem Clan]

So here another point to ponder. Can you have big numbers and have ethics? If so, why is it that every time some one talks about big numbers, their ethics are brought in to question? What's your take on this?

 

As for me, I think you can have both. In fact you can have no ethics and few numbers.

[+Celticwulf]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?

 

Basically, you can go to an event and log every temp you want, but your total number of finds only goes up one. And, if you've hidden a cache, you can log every find you want (which sometimes due to movement it's tough to find your own cache ) but it doesn't add to your total "find" count. And from the perspective of adopted caches, your "find" on it means that once you've adopted it, you don't get a "hide" for it, just the original find. Would this be OK with people?

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

 

Just some questions...

 

Celticwulf

[+CheshireFrog]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?

 

Basically, you can go to an event and log every temp you want, but your total number of finds only goes up one. And, if you've hidden a cache, you can log every find you want (which sometimes due to movement it's tough to find your own cache ) but it doesn't add to your total "find" count. And from the perspective of adopted caches, your "find" on it means that once you've adopted it, you don't get a "hide" for it, just the original find. Would this be OK with people?

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

 

Just some questions...

 

Celticwulf

 

I actually think that's a pretty good idea. It solves the problem without having to institute more rules. I don't know how easy it would be to implement, but it works for me.

[+carleenp]

After that you’ll drink your beer through a straw.

 

That violates my beer drinking ethics though..... So your cheating would mean I would have to violate the rules of beer??????

[+wimseyguy]

Over the years I have watched the same topics come up and be hot for awhile, just to be replaced by a different repeated topic. It seems to be a cycle. Some topic examples: numbers angst, micro angst, rules angst, reviewer angst, moderator angst, flaming geocides......

 

Anyway it had been awhile since there was some real heavy numbers and micro angst. So it was overdue. Come to think of it, there hasn't been a good rash of flaming geocides for awhile either. Maybe that is next?

 

Heehee I read this as flamingocide! jonestown flamingos

[+wimseyguy]

danged dp's (that's double post! what were you thinking???)

Edited June 3, 2006 by wimseyguy

[+DocDiTTo]

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?

 

<snip>

Would this be OK with people?

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

 

It would be an excellent change. (Of course, I have 0 multiple finds on my account, so I probably don't speak for the majority)

 

I'd also like to see archived caches automatically locked 30 days after the archival takes place so no more FOUND logs could be entered. That would help reduce illegitimate traveling caches with no changes to the rules.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?

 

Basically, you can go to an event and log every temp you want, but your total number of finds only goes up one. And, if you've hidden a cache, you can log every find you want (which sometimes due to movement it's tough to find your own cache ) but it doesn't add to your total "find" count. And from the perspective of adopted caches, your "find" on it means that once you've adopted it, you don't get a "hide" for it, just the original find. Would this be OK with people?

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

 

Just some questions...

 

Celticwulf

 

Celticwulf, it would be fine with me. from this time forward. However, I have problems with retroactive rule changes. It's not kosher to make actions that were legal at the time illegal.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

It ain't broke. Everyone plays their own game in their own way. It's no different from any other sport or hobby. Every sport also has it's purist crowd and it's unsavory characters.

 

Many flyfishermen look down on bait fishermen, some people fish with dynamite.

 

Many golfers scoff at mulligans, I have an unlimited supply of them.

 

Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately, most people think the way THEY play can be the only possible RIGHT way to play, so they have to get up on their high horses and preach to the rest of the community about what is right and what is not.

 

It's pretty sad, really.

[+Totem Clan]

It ain't broke. Everyone plays their own game in their own way. It's no different from any other sport or hobby. Every sport also has it's purist crowd and it's unsavory characters.

 

Many flyfishermen look down on bait fishermen, some people fish with dynamite.

 

Many golfers scoff at mulligans, I have an unlimited supply of them.

 

Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

 

Agreed. Unfortunately, most people think the way THEY play can be the only possible RIGHT way to play, so they have to get up on their high horses and preach to the rest of the community about what is right and what is not.

 

It's pretty sad, really.

 

So are you saying that there is no right or wrong? We can all do what we want?

[+Mudfrog]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?

 

Basically, you can go to an event and log every temp you want, but your total number of finds only goes up one. And, if you've hidden a cache, you can log every find you want (which sometimes due to movement it's tough to find your own cache ) but it doesn't add to your total "find" count. And from the perspective of adopted caches, your "find" on it means that once you've adopted it, you don't get a "hide" for it, just the original find. Would this be OK with people?

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

 

Just some questions...

 

Celticwulf

 

Yes! Making it retroactive sounds good too!!!

[nickie218]

Why are we hearing so much static over ‘numbers’ and ‘ethics or lack thereof’ within caching today? What is at root of the problem? Are lazy cachers putting out too many lame caches thereby causing cache bloat? Are cacher padding there numbers just because of their egos?

 

All these questions and more are bouncing around the forums like crazy. What has brought us to this point in the sport of caching? Please don’t just say Micro Spew™ and leave it at that. Explain what you think is the cause of all the dissension. Is it because cachers don’t like the rule, or guidelines, whichever you prefer?

 

Also how do we fix it? Or is it not broken? For the betterment of the sport, what are we, no what are you, going to do?

 

Perhaps its a form of OCD....and I am serious

[+BlueDeuce]

I'll save it until tomorrow, but I will be back.

Edited June 3, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[nickie218]

I'll save it until tomorrow, but I will be back.

 

Hmmmm....hey speedy what happened to the troll comment.......hmm...are our true colors showing BlueDeuce?

[+Totem Clan]

Why are we hearing so much static over ‘numbers’ and ‘ethics or lack thereof’ within caching today? What is at root of the problem? Are lazy cachers putting out too many lame caches thereby causing cache bloat? Are cacher padding there numbers just because of their egos?

 

All these questions and more are bouncing around the forums like crazy. What has brought us to this point in the sport of caching? Please don’t just say Micro Spew™ and leave it at that. Explain what you think is the cause of all the dissension. Is it because cachers don’t like the rule, or guidelines, whichever you prefer?

 

Also how do we fix it? Or is it not broken? For the betterment of the sport, what are we, no what are you, going to do?

 

Perhaps its a form of OCD....and I am serious

 

OCD ???? Obsessive Caching Disorder

[+sbell111]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?...

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

There are a couple of problems with this idea. The most obvious is moving caches. Aren't there a few grandfathered ones still active? Most people agree (I thiink) that multiple finds on these are fine, as long as they aren't consecutive. Some, don't even mind if the owner logs a find once the cache has begun moving.

[nickie218]

Let me clarify...any anyone who knows a high number geocacher will agree that if you are finding thousands of caches in a year chances are that you have a form of OCD and are not necessarily padding an egos.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'll save it until tomorrow, but I will be back.

 

Hmmmm....hey speedy what happened to the troll comment.......hmm...are our true colors showing BlueDeuce?

 

True colors? Heck I know you're a troll, so do you.

 

I thought I would save the effort for tomorrow.

 

Trust me, I ain't afraid to say it.

[+Totem Clan]

Let me clarify...any anyone who knows a high number geocacher will agree that if you are finding thousands of caches in a year chances are that you have a form of OCD and are not necessarily padding an egos.

 

I thought that Obsessive Caching Disorder (OCD) and padding your numbers (read egos) were the same thing.

[nickie218]

I'll save it until tomorrow, but I will be back.

 

Hmmmm....hey speedy what happened to the troll comment.......hmm...are our true colors showing BlueDeuce?

 

True colors? Heck I know you're a troll, so do you.

 

I thought I would save the effort for tomorrow.

 

Trust me, I ain't afraid to say it.

 

So if one doesnt post daily they are deemed a troll? If I decide to chime in once every month or so whats it to you big guy? I post on forums that are much more civilized and far less monitored than GC.com........

[+BlueDeuce]

So if one doesnt post daily they are deemed a troll? If I decide to chime in once every month or so whats it to you big guy? I post on forums that are much more civilized and far less monitored than GC.com........

 

No, it has more to do with most of your postings and the recent claim that people have OCD for their take on the situation.

 

Really your reponse should have been to be personally offended by my comment and how I was judging you. Rather than the comments in the email you just sent me. Because I do have a life, just not enough sleep.

[+sbell111]

... I post on forums that are much more civilized and far less monitored than GC.com........

We're getting pretty off-topic here, but I haven't seen more civilized forums anywhere. I thought I belonged to one until I wandered into the political section of it the other day. Good golly, people can get mean when you explain why they are wrong on a political issue.

[+Celticwulf]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?...

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

There are a couple of problems with this idea. The most obvious is moving caches. Aren't there a few grandfathered ones still active? Most people agree (I thiink) that multiple finds on these are fine, as long as they aren't consecutive. Some, don't even mind if the owner logs a find once the cache has begun moving.

 

Dangit...I knew I missed something...I remembered adopted caches but forgot the grandfathered moving...

 

Well, I really don't know my thoughts on that subject, only knowing of one nearby and not having had a chance to log it yet. Because of this, I really don't know what my absolute feelings are on moving caches, but when I've thought about it in the past, I've still kinda had the same feeling of what I just proposed in the (summed up: one GC number, one stat count) rules...I'd have fun finding a moving cache a second time, but my second log would probly be a "note". Again, I can't say for sure since I haven't done one yet, but that's my current thoughts. But a very valid point, anyone else have sugestions?

 

Celticwulf

[nickie218]

So if one doesnt post daily they are deemed a troll? If I decide to chime in once every month or so whats it to you big guy? I post on forums that are much more civilized and far less monitored than GC.com........

 

No, it has more to do with most of your postings and the recent claim that people have OCD for their take on the situation.

 

Really your reponse should have been to be personally offended by my comment and how I was judging you. Rather than the comments in the email you just sent me. Because I do have a life, just not enough sleep.

 

My comment on OCD was not directed towards the people who were positng here.....go back and re-read it. And the email to you was because unlike yourself I choose to direct my personal message via email rather than the forums....but you can choose your own method of attack whatever way works for ya

[+BlueDeuce]

k, goodnight.

[Katie-did]

At the end of the day, the only person's ethics you can truly challenge, judge, or change are your own. Play with integrity and hope that your integrity will become "contagious." Do not judge others too harshly or belittle their enjoyment of the game, you will scare them away from all of the positives that geocaching has to offer.

[Iwuzere]

If I ever get around to buying a GPSr and joining in your hobby, I'm fairly confident I'll enjoy it simply for the fun of being outdoors, hunting for something with a cool gadget, finding areas I may not have visited before (tricky in an island 5 miles by 9!), and the satisfaction of finding the cache. I don't think I'll really care about what my score is.. it's meaningless because all caches are different.

 

The only way it could mean something is if different people had to find the same caches, and were judged upon that. You need a comparison feature where you enter your login name and someone else's, and it compares you to see who's the winner based upon the caches you've both had a go at. Of course to play this properly you'd have to log caches you've tried to find but have not been able to. It wouldn't work of course, so forget it

 

It's a bit like one of my other gadget interests, ham radio. I enjoy making the contacts, but I can't see why I should mess about with filling in QSL cards to confirm the contact.. keep a score of how many countries I've "worked", apply for awards, all that rubbish. I just enjoy using the radio and making the contact. I'm not in it for paperwork or keeping scores!

 

Just my "2 cents" worth, from a perspective of someone without a GPSr yet.. if it's of any use

[+AuntieWeasel]

Just my "2 cents" worth, from a perspective of someone without a GPSr yet.. if it's of any use

 

Good lord! This is, like, your third anniversary in the forums, and you still haven't gotten a GPS and gone caching? Now, that is a record.

 

Probably not too many caches where you're at, at that. But I'm a big fan of your cows.

[+Totem Clan]

At the end of the day, the only person's ethics you can truly challenge, judge, or change are your own. Play with integrity and hope that your integrity will become "contagious." Do not judge others too harshly or belittle their enjoyment of the game, you will scare them away from all of the positives that geocaching has to offer.

 

I would agree with what you said, but here's the rub. What if someone’s lack of integrity (ethics) causes problems with your game? What if restriction and rule changes cause your sport to be altered because of their lack of integrity? What if they start jacking around with your caches? Wouldn't this force you to address them?

[+budd-rdc]

It's possible people get put off by terms like ethics, rules, and such...

 

ANY game ought to have a minimum standard of conduct. For Geocaching, the cache owner expects finders to go to a location then find the log book inside a container, and sign it to prove that the journey was made.

 

Logging it online, or even using the GPSr is actually optional, if you think about it.

 

People can argue endlessly on how each "plays the game his own way" but without the above minimum requirement, Geocaching would be pointless, I would think. For example, all muggles who have visited the location have the right to claim "found it" later on.

[+Audion64]

It ain't broke. Everyone plays their own game in their own way. It's no different from any other sport or hobby. Every sport also has it's purist crowd and it's unsavory characters.

 

Many flyfishermen look down on bait fishermen, some people fish with dynamite.

 

Many golfers scoff at mulligans, I have an unlimited supply of them.

 

Most people fall somewhere in the middle.

 

True to an extent... but if two groups are going to play by completely different rules then they are not really playing within the same sport and are not comparable.

 

Reminds me of the movie "King Pin", one of the main characters is amazed when another bowler says he has like a 280 average... comes to light later in the movie that "Oh daddy always let us play 15 frames."

 

"Oh the way we play soccer, you can just grab the ball and run with it." Uhm, that's not soccer then.. that's more like rugby. If one team plays by one set of rules and the other team by a different set of rules then when Team A 'beats' Team B... is it really a win?

 

As I've said in another thread, I couldn't care less about other peoples numbers. But tell me how the recent record cache run is even comparable to the first record run? Apples vs Oranges. Which just ends up cheapening any 'record'.

Edited June 4, 2006 by Audion

[+Renegade Knight]

Over the years I have watched the same topics come up and be hot for awhile, just to be replaced by a different repeated topic. It seems to be a cycle. Some topic examples: numbers angst, micro angst, rules angst, reviewer angst, moderator angst, flaming geocides......

 

Anyway it had been awhile since there was some real heavy numbers and micro angst. So it was overdue. Come to think of it, there hasn't been a good rash of flaming geocides for awhile either. Maybe that is next?

 

The cycles seem to be slowing down but the longevity of a single cycle is longer. It's been a week and we are still talking numbers. Strange.

[+Totem Clan]

Over the years I have watched the same topics come up and be hot for awhile, just to be replaced by a different repeated topic. It seems to be a cycle. Some topic examples: numbers angst, micro angst, rules angst, reviewer angst, moderator angst, flaming geocides......

 

Anyway it had been awhile since there was some real heavy numbers and micro angst. So it was overdue. Come to think of it, there hasn't been a good rash of flaming geocides for awhile either. Maybe that is next?

 

The cycles seem to be slowing down but the longevity of a single cycle is longer. It's been a week and we are still talking numbers. Strange.

 

GW4 maybe?

[+Renegade Knight]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?...

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

There are a couple of problems with this idea. The most obvious is moving caches. Aren't there a few grandfathered ones still active? Most people agree (I thiink) that multiple finds on these are fine, as long as they aren't consecutive. Some, don't even mind if the owner logs a find once the cache has begun moving.

 

I don't agree. The moving cache's nature is that it's different each time. Thus while I could find it in a new spot again and again, it's the same cache doing what it does. One find is enough. I like the idea of one find log on a cache and that's it. It would save a lot of grief in the long run.

[+Team Neos]

OK, for this I've got a question for everyone that has said "it's not about the numbers" but also has logged events multiple times and their own or archived caches.

 

What would you do if Groundspeak decided to change the current database to allow as many logs per page as you want, but only one "found it" or "hidden it" adds to your stats?...

 

And just to see how people react: what if this was retroactive?

There are a couple of problems with this idea. The most obvious is moving caches. Aren't there a few grandfathered ones still active? Most people agree (I thiink) that multiple finds on these are fine, as long as they aren't consecutive. Some, don't even mind if the owner logs a find once the cache has begun moving.

 

I don't agree. The moving cache's nature is that it's different each time. Thus while I could find it in a new spot again and again, it's the same cache doing what it does. One find is enough. I like the idea of one find log on a cache and that's it. It would save a lot of grief in the long run.

If people found one of my caches, and then I archived it and reused the container for a new cache hidden in a different spot in a different way, people who had found that container before would log it with no hesitation.

 

If the cache experience is different each time, I would prefer to be able to log a moving cache each time I found it.

[Nick Noltes G string]

Its the forums and has really nothing to do with geocaching.

[+Totem Clan]

Its the forums and has really nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Well let's see. Its geocachers on a geocaching website in a geocaching forum dicussing geocaching topics and how they impact the sport of geocaching. Yeah your'e right it has nothing to do with geocahing. ???