Poli, A Fairy Tale

Wow. And I thought *I* had too much time on my hands. I never really paid much attention to that thread, I just kinda figured it was a random discussion about what is versus isn't a find - I didn't realize it was an active witchhunt :laughing:

July 13, 2006

But for my enlightenment, can you please post a link to the LOGGING guidelines? I know I must have missed them somewhere, because I've never actually SEEN the documentation that forbids logging a cache more than once, logging your own cache, and other such felonious acts. Surely such documentation exists! Thanks!

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities!

11.3k · July 13, 2006

Wow. And I thought *I* had too much time on my hands. I never really paid much attention to that thread, I just kinda figured it was a random discussion about what is versus isn't a find - I didn't realize it was an active witchhunt

If someone in the local caching community would email new cachers, welcome them to the activity, and then gently ask them to change their "Found It" log to a "Note" or "DNF" instead, when they obviously didn't find the cache, that might help newbies better understand the rules of the game.

After all, Geocaching is supposed to be about finding a container and signing a log. If that wasn't the point of the game, Virtual caches could still be listed on this site. :laughing:

If cache owners would just Delete the logs of the more-experienced cachers who are being dishonest by logging Finds when they didn't actually find the cache, such a thread would never have gotten traction.

As it is, it keeps "bubbling" to the top. :laughing:

20.7k · July 13, 2006

Everytime I visit that forum area, it's sitting on the top. I don't know how much bubbling it has done.

July 13, 2006

POLI became a reviewer and all is right in the world.

THE END!!!

9.3k · July 13, 2006

Maybe Criminal is the only one with the orbs to bring it to the the forefront

It doesn't take courage to be rude in an Internet forum. Just appallingly bad manners.

I’m not calling anyone a liar or cheater, I’m simply observing what is plain to everyone. If you select Found It on the cache page when you did not, it’s a lie.

It seems that the vast majority of cachers, (White Robes included), believe that a "find" means going to the actual cache, physically locating it and signing the log. No problem, right? Not so fast. I hold a slightly different belief: My definition of a "find" is whatever the cache owner determines it to be. It's my belief that the owner of a particular cache is the one to determine what constitutes a "find" on their cache.

Obviously, this results in 99.9% of my finds meeting even the most holier than thou White Robe's expectations, since most cache hiders follow the first definition of "find". But Riffster, what about that remaining 0.01%? Here's where the ambiguity that Crim refuses to see comes into play;

Assume for argument sake that cacher StinkyUnderPants places a cache in the woods, and I go looking for it. At ground zero, I find the lid for a Tupperware container and a scattering of broken McToys. Disappointed, I go home and log a "Note" describing my adventure. StinkyUnderPants sends me an E-mail thanking me for telling him about his cache, and tells me I can log a find. Hmmm.... A sticky situation indeed.

Groundspeak refuses to offer a definitive answer on what is, and what is not, a find. That means we have to decide for ourselves what the true definition of "find" is. According to Crim's past posts, I would be a "Liar" and a "Cheater" if I posted a found it log on the aforementioned cache. I disagree. By my definition, I most certainly did find it, since I met the owner's criteria for a "find".

For someone to tell a lie, they must knowingly proffer a falsehood. It's really that simple. If I say something I believe to be true, I have not told a lie, regardless of the opinions of a few overzealous White Robes. Some of the White Robes have even gone so far as to suggest that society as a whole might suffer from some terrible moral decline if this lying and cheating is allowed to continue. I think that rudeness, unabated and unchallenged, is a far greater threat to society than any simple difference of opinion.

To go to the area and decide that’s good enough for a find, or worse, dropping your own cache to replace one you couldn’t find, damages the intent of the game.

Agreed.

”I didn’t want to get my shoes muddy, so I’m claiming the find” What about those that did the hike and did get their shoes muddy and accurately posted their find? Your fake find makes a mockery of their efforts.

Agreed.

But of course, these aren't the finds I'm referring to. I'm talking about those finds similar to the one I described above, where the owner says "Good enough for me", and allows a find where a note might have been more appropriate. Anyone who reads the cache page will see the "Find" and see that it describes the cache as having been muggled, and will wait for it to be repaired prior to hunting for it. Those who don't read the cache page will get no sympathy from me if the hunt fails to meet their expectations. (No, I don't advocate the mandatory reading of cache pages. Play the game however you want. Just don't expect me to feel sorry for you later) :laughing:

If you lie, I’m going to use the word liar to describe what you’re doing. If that bothers you, play the game honestly.

Spitting vitriol is your choice, and will certainly keep you in good standing with the rest of the HolierThanThou White Robes. This is a public forum. I certainly can't stop you from bullying those who's opinions differ from your own. What I can do is point out your rude behavior. If you were brought up to practice bad manners, then I pity your childhood.

38.2k · July 13, 2006

Isn't it a sad comment on the times that those who see dishonesty as wrong are likened to the KKK.

9.3k · July 13, 2006

Isn't it a sad comment on the times that those who see dishonesty as wrong are likened to the KKK.

Absolutely. Is someone doing that? Surely you're not assuming my White Robe reference has anything to do with the Klan?

I would hate to see my "snarky" comments twisted to show support for a hate group.

July 13, 2006

But for my enlightenment, can you please post a link to the LOGGING guidelines? I know I must have missed them somewhere, because I've never actually SEEN the documentation that forbids logging a cache more than once, logging your own cache, and other such felonious acts. Surely such documentation exists! Thanks!

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities!

I agree that the "pocket caches" that achieved notoriety because of GW4 should have been archived because they were not at the posted coordinates.

However, we now have a handful of forum posters who are trying to control the way finders log the caches, and it's really none of their business.

As the guideline states: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings."

Historically, this has meant that the validity of a find log was between the cache owner and the person logging the find.

If the searcher discovered that the cache was missing, or mostly missing with just part of the empty container at the spot, the owner can tell the cacher to log it as a find.

If an event organizer wants to place temporary caches for the event and allow the finders to multi-log the event, that's up to him.

If a multi-cache owner tells finders that they can log for each stage, it's his decision.

So we have a cache owner who says that he's fine with seeing a find log for any of these examples, and we have a finder who wants to log the find. It's their business. No one else's. There are no guidelines that say this can't be done.

One of the biggest attractions to geocaching has always been the variety. You can play a lot of different ways, and it's still geocaching. That's why there are guidelines, not rules.

But we have a handful of forum posters who want everyone to play by their rules, loudly proclaim that any who don't are liars, cheaters, morally bankrupt, of low intelligence, etc., and are trying to get the website to change to represent the way they think the game should be played.

I will continue to fight them to preserve the form of geocaching that attracted so many to the activity.

38.2k · July 13, 2006

Isn't it a sad comment on the times that those who see dishonesty as wrong are likened to the KKK.

Absolutely. Is someone doing that? Surely you're not assuming my White Robe reference has anything to do with the Klan?

I would hate to see my "snarky" comments twisted to show support for a hate group.

Well I doubt its an allusion to Gandalf or Catholic priests.

But we have a handful of forum posters who want everyone to play by their rules, loudly proclaim that any who don't are liars, cheaters, morally bankrupt, of low intelligence, etc., and are trying to get the website to change to represent the way they think the game should be played.
I will continue to fight them to preserve the form of geocaching that attracted so many to the activity.

I don't think the discussion is about borderline finds (e.g. finding a lid), or even logging that you attended an event 50 times. It's more about some people's blatant disregard for the guidelines and their efforts to circumnvent them, as well as totally fabricating finds on caches. As one who wasted my time and gas going after a missing cache because there were recent phony finds on it, I can assure you that this practice is not harmless fun. You can do your own thing, but when you start screwing your fellow geocachers in the name of your own fun that just ain't right.

Edited July 13, 2006 by briansnat

20.7k · July 13, 2006

There is an owner of a virt that is placed in a location that is somewhat expensive to get to. The cache page doesn't describe exactly what the object is that you are looking for and, due to topography, it is hard to get an accurate fix at ground zero.

The cache owner often gives people who do not identify the exact item the option of logging the virt as a find.

Let's kill him.

8k · July 13, 2006

Perhaps we shouldn't be lumping all bogus finds together. It seems there are degrees of "cheating".

Falsely claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, just to increase your count
Claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, to log an "armchair" cache
Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache but think you have evidence it wasn't there
Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache so you left a replacement without the owner's permission
Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache and the owner then checks and finds the cache missing and gives you permission to log it
Claiming a find when you are replacing the cache on behalf of the owner
Claiming a find on your own cache because it was moved from where you hid it and you had to "find" it
Claiming a find on a cache not listed on Geocaching.com, such a on a temporary cache hidden at a event
Claiming a find on a cache that someone brought to an event or some location other than where the cache was hidden so you could sign the log
Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container but did not sign log because you couldn't retrieve the container or because you didn't have the neccessary tool or information needed to open the container
Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container (or partial container) but didn't sign the log because it was missing, full, wet, had no pen, etc.
Claiming a find on a cache when you were with the hider when the cache was hidden
Claiming a find on a cache where you signed the log but dropped the cache in the lake or inside the fence post when putting it back.

Aside from a few puritans, I suspect that most people would count some of these as legitimate finds. Where each person draws the line may vary. This, along with the issue of people who don't log all of their finds online, is the reason I say that all find counts are suspect. There is no way to compare the find counts of two cachers. I suspect there is no way to interpret the find count of any one cacher as there may be situations where the cacher has logged a cache that on he wouldn't log at a different time.

1.1k · July 13, 2006

For someone to tell a lie, they must knowingly proffer a falsehood. It's really that simple.

I disagree, if for instance you called me up and asked if I had a widget you could borrow and I say "sure do, come and get it". I look for it and then remember I gave my widget away, when you get here my exact first words to you would be "I lied to you".

I say that everytime because I am honest, and I know a lie is a lie, whether told intentionally or not. It really is as simple as that, tell me something you believe true when it isn't, you told a lie.

Now that does not make you a liar, because you believed it was true when you said it.

So your diffintion should be changed to

"For someone to be a liar they must knowingly proffer a falsehood." Honest people tell unintentional lies all the time.

5.9k · July 13, 2006

Assume for argument sake that cacher StinkyUnderPants places a cache in the woods, and I go looking for it. At ground zero, I find the lid for a Tupperware container and a scattering of broken McToys. Disappointed, I go home and log a "Note" describing my adventure. StinkyUnderPants sends me an E-mail thanking me for telling him about his cache, and tells me I can log a find. Hmmm.... A sticky situation indeed.

I’m not talking about how much of the cache constitutes enough of the cache to claim a find on it. That’s whole different subject that I’m actually quite liberal on. I’m referring to cachers (if you can call them that) who find the spot they’re sure the cache must have been, who claim it as a find. As you mention, we’re in agreement that it’s wrong. Where we’ll split is in your last sentence, the cache owner ‘allowing’ a find. The word ‘find’ or ‘found’ has a clear definition that a cache owner cannot change.

For someone to tell a lie, they must knowingly proffer a falsehood. It's really that simple. If I say something I believe to be true, I have not told a lie, regardless of the opinions of a few overzealous White Robes. Some of the White Robes have even gone so far as to suggest that society as a whole might suffer from some terrible moral decline if this lying and cheating is allowed to continue. I think that rudeness, unabated and unchallenged, is a far greater threat to society than any simple difference of opinion.

If you select Found It from the drop-down box, when you never saw or even touched the cache, you are a liar. It’s not an insult, it’s an observation. You can try to muddy the water with vagueness by citing pieces of the cache being there, but you cannot support a position that a find only constitutes trying. To claim you found something that isn’t there, either because it’s missing or eluded you, is a perfect description of, as you say, knowingly proffering a falsehood.

Let’s look at this example:

July 5 by JJJJJJJJJJJJJ (3187 found)
Cache is gone but I initialed in the area as a find.

That cacher has told a lie, they admit there is no cache there, but selected Found It. The two concepts are incompatible, they cannot be in agreement.

Please point out anywhere I’ve been rude. Despite all the personal attacks against me, I’ve only asked that if anyone believes they can support their position, please debate it with me. So far the best anyone can do is throw in an insult and run away, or pepper their post with derogatory things like “overzealous White Robes” or similar. It was bad when it was accidental, it got worse when people decided that trying really hard was good enough, now it’s getting conspicuously offensive as people replace a cache owner’s hide with one of their own and then log a find on the owner’s cache.

1.1k · July 13, 2006

Perhaps we shouldn't be lumping all bogus finds together. It seems there are degrees of "cheating".

Falsely claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, just to increase your count

Claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, to log an "armchair" cache

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache but think you have evidence it wasn't there

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache so you left a replacement without the owner's permission

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache and the owner then checks and finds the cache missing and gives you permission to log it

Claiming a find when you are replacing the cache on behalf of the owner

Claiming a find on your own cache because it was moved from where you hid it and you had to "find" it

Claiming a find on a cache not listed on Geocaching.com, such a on a temporary cache hidden at a event

Claiming a find on a cache that someone brought to an event or some location other than where the cache was hidden so you could sign the log

Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container but did not sign log because you couldn't retrieve the container or because you didn't have the neccessary tool or information needed to open the container

Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container (or partial container) but didn't sign the log because it was missing, full, wet, had no pen, etc.

Claiming a find on a cache when you were with the hider when the cache was hidden

Claiming a find on a cache where you signed the log but dropped the cache in the lake or inside the fence post when putting it back.

Aside from a few puritans, I suspect that most people would count some of these as legitimate finds. Where each person draws the line may vary. This, along with the issue of people who don't log all of their finds online, is the reason I say that all find counts are suspect. There is no way to compare the find counts of two cachers. I suspect there is no way to interpret the find count of any one cacher as there may be situations where the cacher has logged a cache that on he wouldn't log at a different time.

I think you have a pretty good handle on it. :laughing:

38.2k · July 13, 2006

It was bad when it was accidental, it got worse when people decided that trying really hard was good enough, now it’s getting conspicuously offensive as people replace a cache owner’s hide with one of their own and then log a find on the owner’s cache.

You forgot cache owners being ostracized by some in their local community because they deleted illegit finds from their cache logs.

Its gone from "I'm playing my own game" to "I'm playing my game and you had better accept it or I'll make life miserable for you".

Edited July 13, 2006 by briansnat

8k · July 13, 2006

It was bad when it was accidental, it got worse when people decided that trying really hard was good enough, now it’s getting conspicuously offensive as people replace a cache owner’s hide with one of their own and then log a find on the owner’s cache.

You forgot cache owners being ostracized by some in their local community because they deleted illegit finds from their cache logs.

I forgot one

Claiming a find as part of a team who signed the log with a team name instead of with each individual name

1.8k · July 13, 2006

If you select Found It from the drop-down box, when you never saw or even touched the cache, you are a liar. It’s not an insult, it’s an observation. You can try to muddy the water with vagueness by citing pieces of the cache being there, but you cannot support a position that a find only constitutes trying. To claim you found something that isn’t there, either because it’s missing or eluded you, is a perfect description of, as you say, knowingly proffering a falsehood.

"BrianCriminal, I agree with everything you say, have said and ever will say"

11.3k · July 13, 2006

Perhaps we shouldn't be lumping all bogus finds together. It seems there are degrees of "cheating".

Falsely claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, just to increase your count

Claiming a find for a cache you've never been to, to log an "armchair" cache

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache but think you have evidence it wasn't there

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache so you left a replacement without the owner's permission

Claiming a find when you looked for but didn't find the cache and the owner then checks and finds the cache missing and gives you permission to log it

Claiming a find when you are replacing the cache on behalf of the owner

Claiming a find on your own cache because it was moved from where you hid it and you had to "find" it

Claiming a find on a cache not listed on Geocaching.com, such a on a temporary cache hidden at a event

Claiming a find on a cache that someone brought to an event or some location other than where the cache was hidden so you could sign the log

Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container but did not sign log because you couldn't retrieve the container or because you didn't have the neccessary tool or information needed to open the container

Claiming a find on a cache where you found the container (or partial container) but didn't sign the log because it was missing, full, wet, had no pen, etc.

Claiming a find on a cache when you were with the hider when the cache was hidden

Claiming a find on a cache where you signed the log but dropped the cache in the lake or inside the fence post when putting it back.

Aside from a few puritans, I suspect that most people would count some of these as legitimate finds. Where each person draws the line may vary. This, along with the issue of people who don't log all of their finds online, is the reason I say that all find counts are suspect. There is no way to compare the find counts of two cachers. I suspect there is no way to interpret the find count of any one cacher as there may be situations where the cacher has logged a cache that on he wouldn't log at a different time.

I agree the lines are drawn differently for different cachers. Locally there is a "somewhat-accepted" practice of "Beta Testing" a cache if you are on the same hike with the hider when they place the cache. I know some local cachers won't log those as a Find, while others do. In other parts of the country, logging those as a "Find" would be abhorrent. :laughing:

I think everyone would say duplicate "Found It" logs are wrong, like these for a Virtual cache out in the ocean:

:laughing: July 8 by cacher. (35 found)

Signed it as "cacher." thought my username was to boring.

[view this log on a separate page]

:laughing: May 28 by cacher (35 found)

Training to do the La Jolla Rough Water and did this cache. Very creative!

[view this log on a separate page]

These are the type I hope a gentle email to the cacher will fix, although this cacher also managed to log a CA cache the same day they logged one in NC. :laughing:

It could happen . . . :laughing:

July 13, 2006

But for my enlightenment, can you please post a link to the LOGGING guidelines? I know I must have missed them somewhere, because I've never actually SEEN the documentation that forbids logging a cache more than once, logging your own cache, and other such felonious acts. Surely such documentation exists! Thanks!

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities!

I agree that the "pocket caches" that achieved notoriety because of GW4 should have been archived because they were not at the posted coordinates.

However, we now have a handful of forum posters who are trying to control the way finders log the caches, and it's really none of their business.

As the guideline states: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings."

Historically, this has meant that the validity of a find log was between the cache owner and the person logging the find.

If the searcher discovered that the cache was missing, or mostly missing with just part of the empty container at the spot, the owner can tell the cacher to log it as a find.

If an event organizer wants to place temporary caches for the event and allow the finders to multi-log the event, that's up to him.

If a multi-cache owner tells finders that they can log for each stage, it's his decision.

So we have a cache owner who says that he's fine with seeing a find log for any of these examples, and we have a finder who wants to log the find. It's their business. No one else's. There are no guidelines that say this can't be done.

One of the biggest attractions to geocaching has always been the variety. You can play a lot of different ways, and it's still geocaching. That's why there are guidelines, not rules.

But we have a handful of forum posters who want everyone to play by their rules, loudly proclaim that any who don't are liars, cheaters, morally bankrupt, of low intelligence, etc., and are trying to get the website to change to represent the way they think the game should be played.

I will continue to fight them to preserve the form of geocaching that attracted so many to the activity.

You're no better than the "handfull of forum posters" that you speak out against. You presume to know what is meant by "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" but you don't and I'm pretty sure that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of TPTB.

Historically, "pocket caches" were allowed until one day they weren't. Whatever the history, it's just not true that a "find" is whatever the cache owner determines it to be. We know that this simply isn't true. Somebody offered an example a few posts back of a cache that was archived recently because the owner failed to delete a log that appeared to be bogus. We cannot predict when and how this rule will be enforced but we know now that it may be enforced at any time. If somebody in a position of authority offers an interpretation of this guideline, I'd like to hear it. You're just blowing smoke.

July 13, 2006

I think I saw POLI on some tv infomercial talking about "no-money-down real estate" or "placing hundreds of tiny classified ads."

July 13, 2006

Geocaching.com is not the authority of Geocaching. This place is nothing more than a place to log caches publicly for others to find. Geocaching.com has their own guidelines for what they will publish and what they won't, but any other rules don't apply beyond that. If I decide to put out a cache and it doesn't fall within their guidelines I can still place the cache and advertise it other places. This site doesn't own the sport or how it is to be played, it's just the largest site for the gathering of coordinates. If people want to claim a cache they didn't find that is between the finder and the owner and has nothing to do with anyone else including the rules of this website.

What if I lie and say that I found a cache that I didn't? Does that affect how well you take care of your children, parents, company, or even how much air pressure is in your car tire?

On top of that a good portion of caches are dumb and a waste of time. If someone pulls into Wal-mart and finds that the cache is in the lamp post can you really blame them for not actually pulling the cache out and signing the log? The fact that people bother to argue about this stuff is mind blowing. It's a game meant to have fun, if your living in Washington and decide to make sure people in Michigan are playing the way you think they should instead of taking your children to a park, dinner with the wife or beer with some friends, my guess is your life really blows hard and is pathetic.

I've been Geocaching for almost a year and I don't come to the forums because this is the stupid stuff that I always see come up. I love caching and do it as much as time allows, I like Geocaching.com and saying they have no power isn't a slam, I do enjoy the ease on the users and work they put into maintaining the logs for caches, I enjoy most of the people I meet caching, but if at any point I really start to focus on how they are playing then I'm just not occupied enough... I got my own life to live and feel no need to live yours.

Time for me to go back to non-forums land.

38.2k · July 13, 2006

What if I lie and say that I found a cache that I didn't? Does that affect how well you take care of your children, parents, company, or even how much air pressure is in your car tire?

It doesn't. But you are in essence telling the community that the cache is there. If its not, others can waste their time and gas looking for a cache because of your phony log. The owner can also put off needed maintenance because your phony log assured him that the cache was there.

I know one geocacher who was fooled into making a fruitless 100 mile RT to find a long missing cache on his watchlist because someone lied about finding it. Hahaha, real funny.

As one who has been lured into wasting my time and money going after a cache because of phony found it logs, I can tell you that though it may not affect the pressure in my car tire, I really didn't appreciate it.

Edited July 13, 2006 by briansnat

4.5k · July 13, 2006

But for my enlightenment, can you please post a link to the LOGGING guidelines? I know I must have missed them somewhere, because I've never actually SEEN the documentation that forbids logging a cache more than once, logging your own cache, and other such felonious acts. Surely such documentation exists! Thanks!

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

This is rarely enforced by the website but it has happened. In the wake of GW4, "pocket" caches were archived and locked for being logged when they were not hidden in their proper spot. In theory, caches could be delisted for a great variety of logging irregularities!

I agree that the "pocket caches" that achieved notoriety because of GW4 should have been archived because they were not at the posted coordinates.

However, we now have a handful of forum posters who are trying to control the way finders log the caches, and it's really none of their business.

As the guideline states: "The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings."

Historically, this has meant that the validity of a find log was between the cache owner and the person logging the find.

If the searcher discovered that the cache was missing, or mostly missing with just part of the empty container at the spot, the owner can tell the cacher to log it as a find.

If an event organizer wants to place temporary caches for the event and allow the finders to multi-log the event, that's up to him.

If a multi-cache owner tells finders that they can log for each stage, it's his decision.

So we have a cache owner who says that he's fine with seeing a find log for any of these examples, and we have a finder who wants to log the find. It's their business. No one else's. There are no guidelines that say this can't be done.

One of the biggest attractions to geocaching has always been the variety. You can play a lot of different ways, and it's still geocaching. That's why there are guidelines, not rules.

But we have a handful of forum posters who want everyone to play by their rules, loudly proclaim that any who don't are liars, cheaters, morally bankrupt, of low intelligence, etc., and are trying to get the website to change to represent the way they think the game should be played.

I will continue to fight them to preserve the form of geocaching that attracted so many to the activity.

You're no better than the "handfull of forum posters" that you speak out against. You presume to know what is meant by "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" but you don't and I'm pretty sure that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of TPTB.

Historically, "pocket caches" were allowed until one day they weren't. Whatever the history, it's just not true that a "find" is whatever the cache owner determines it to be. We know that this simply isn't true. Somebody offered an example a few posts back of a cache that was archived recently because the owner failed to delete a log that appeared to be bogus. We cannot predict when and how this rule will be enforced but we know now that it may be enforced at any time. If somebody in a position of authority offers an interpretation of this guideline, I'd like to hear it. You're just blowing smoke.

Right on Quest Master! :laughing:

Again: These are GC.com guidelines,

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

But then you have an owner of an Event who sets out temp caches and then says for everyone to log them as finds on the event page. Yes it is his cache, but he does have a responsibility to maintain it using the above guidelines. Well,,, you can only attend the event one time. So, doesn't that make any additional attend (find) logs that get posted on this event "bogus", and therefore against guidelines! :laughing:

4.5k · July 13, 2006

If people want to claim a cache they didn't find that is between the finder and the owner and has nothing to do with anyone else including the rules of this website.

You couldn't be more wrong! If they are listed on this website, then they fall under this website's rules/guidelines. :laughing:

Edited July 13, 2006 by Mudfrog

July 13, 2006

When your position is both indefensible and asinine, the only thing left is a personal attack. Been there, heard that.

Imbecile. Person Of Limited Intelligence. Asinine.

No shortage of personal attacks, eh?

5.9k · July 13, 2006

When your position is both indefensible and asinine, the only thing left is a personal attack. Been there, heard that.

Imbecile. Person Of Limited Intelligence. Asinine.

No shortage of personal attacks, eh?

So you’re saying that I’ve personally attacked a person (POLI) that doesn’t exist? :laughing:

July 13, 2006

It's funny how POLI counting the same dollar thousands of times didn't have any effect on the number of dollars I have in my wallet (or bank account).

Good point.

On the other hand, it still proves that POLI is an idiot.

July 13, 2006

You're no better than the "handfull of forum posters" that you speak out against. You presume to know what is meant by "bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements" but you don't and I'm pretty sure that you are not authorized to speak on behalf of TPTB.

Historically, "pocket caches" were allowed until one day they weren't. Whatever the history, it's just not true that a "find" is whatever the cache owner determines it to be. We know that this simply isn't true. Somebody offered an example a few posts back of a cache that was archived recently because the owner failed to delete a log that appeared to be bogus. We cannot predict when and how this rule will be enforced but we know now that it may be enforced at any time. If somebody in a position of authority offers an interpretation of this guideline, I'd like to hear it. You're just blowing smoke.

Not true.

The "handful of forum posters" are attempting to force everyone to play the game by their interpretation of the guidelines.

I don't care how you play the game, just don't try to tell me how to do it.

As for hearing from someone in a position of authority:

It is up to the cache owner to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable on a cache they are responsible to maintain.

July 13, 2006

When your position is both indefensible and asinine, the only thing left is a personal attack. Been there, heard that.

Imbecile. Person Of Limited Intelligence. Asinine.

No shortage of personal attacks, eh?

So you’re saying that I’ve personally attacked a person (POLI) that doesn’t exist?

Nah, I'm saying your "fairy tale" is a thinly veiled attempt to apply those labels to people who don't agree with you while at the same time hiding behind the excuse that POLI doesn't exist, therefore there can be no personal attack.

Oddly, I'm not one of the people who disagrees with you. I agree that logging false finds, pocket caches, archived caches, et.al. are violations of both the rules and the spirit of the game. My only point of contention is with the approach; when you start a conversation by calling someone a liar and/or cheater, they throw their shields up and stop listening, making it much less likely that you're going to make any headway in changing their minds.

That is the point, right? Get the people who violate the rules to change their caching habits? I mean, there's only three reasons I can think of that this issue keeps surfacing again and again:

1. To convince those who indulge in the activities above that it is wrong, and so get them to stop.

-or-

2. To drive those same individuals away, if not from geocaching in general, at least off the forums.

-or-

3. That the poster likes shouting into an echo chamber and listening to the same people repeat what he or she says over and over again.

38.2k · July 13, 2006

The "handful of forum posters" are attempting to force everyone to play the game by their interpretation of the guidelines.
I don't care how you play the game, just don't try to tell me how to do it.

Nobody is telling you how to play the game. They are telling what they think of the way you are playing it.

July 13, 2006

But then you have an owner of an Event who sets out temp caches and then says for everyone to log them as finds on the event page. Yes it is his cache, but he does have a responsibility to maintain it using the above guidelines. Well,,, you can only attend the event one time. So, doesn't that make any additional attend (find) logs that get posted on this event "bogus", and therefore against guidelines!

Can you provide a link to the guideline that states you may only log a find or an attend once?

During a similiar discussion Jeremy stated that there are many reasons that it is acceptable to log a find more than once, otherwise he would remove the ability to do so.

Edited July 13, 2006 by RichardMoore

5.9k · July 13, 2006

Not true.

The "handful of forum posters" are attempting to force everyone to play the game by their interpretation of the guidelines.

I don't care how you play the game, just don't try to tell me how to do it.

Force? Where do you see anyone attempting to force anyone to be truthful? The very reason for a forum is to promote discussion. You seem to get hostile whenever someone tries to start a discussion you don’t approve of. If you don’t agree with me, so be it. I’m not going to follow you around the forums and attack you for it. I have no idea how or why you think I’m trying to ‘force’ anything. I’m a cacher with no more authority than anyone else.

22k · July 13, 2006

I'd say it's more of a fable than a fairy tale, only because it's straight on.

July 13, 2006

A lot of these issues (I didn't say all) could be solved instantly and easily if TPTB would implement confirmation codes.

It would still be the hider's option to use the code or not. But if there's a code in the log book, then you can't log it if you didn't find it.

I can hear the echo's right now about how that would never work because people would just cheat by giving eachother the codes... Well, since the solution is not perfect, I suggest we never implement ANY solution. After all, who wants "better than nothing" when you've already got "nothing"?

38.2k · July 13, 2006

A lot of these issues (I didn't say all) could be solved instantly and easily if TPTB would implement confirmation codes.

How is that? If people are dishonest enough to log phony finds, they are dishonest enough to trade confirmation codes. You see it already with geocoins and TBs. I went to an event where someone was

passing around sheets with dozens of geocoin tracking numbers. No coins, just the tracking numbers. Out of curiousity I took a sheet and looked up some of the coins on it. They were physically every place but at the event. .

Edited July 13, 2006 by briansnat

July 13, 2006

Does anyone know what this thread is about?

At this point, it's about two pages.

July 13, 2006

Not true.

The "handful of forum posters" are attempting to force everyone to play the game by their interpretation of the guidelines.

I don't care how you play the game, just don't try to tell me how to do it.

Force? Where do you see anyone attempting to force anyone to be truthful? The very reason for a forum is to promote discussion. You seem to get hostile whenever someone tries to start a discussion you don’t approve of. If you don’t agree with me, so be it. I’m not going to follow you around the forums and attack you for it. I have no idea how or why you think I’m trying to ‘force’ anything. I’m a cacher with no more authority than anyone else.

There are many types of force, as you well know.

Little Criminal isn't as innocent as he professes to be, else why would he have started this thread the way he did?

A fairy tale? Right.

July 13, 2006

A lot of these issues (I didn't say all) could be solved instantly and easily if TPTB would implement confirmation codes.

How is that? If people are dishonest enough to log phony finds, they are dishonest enough to trade confirmation codes. You see it already with geocoins and TBs. I went to an event where someone was

passing around sheets with dozens of geocoin tracking numbers. No coins, just the tracking numbers. Out of curiousity I took a sheet and looked up some of the coins on it. They were physically every place but at the event. .

See, that's EXACTLY the same old refutation I predicted. You'd see that if he included my entire quote.

As I said, It's not perfect. but why settle for "nothing" when "better than nothing" is so easy to achieve.? Yes, there would be cheating. Just as there are athletes who take sterioids, even though there is drug testing, there would be cachers who trade codes, even though there are codes.

Should we just get rid of all drug testing for the olympics, the tour de france, etc? After all, people will still find a way around the tests. Just as they will find ways around confirmation codes...

Why not give hiders the option and let them decide for themselves if they want to use it?

why not?

3.5k · July 13, 2006

Personally, I think I've developed the best solution to prevent cheating.

don't cheat.

6.5k · July 14, 2006

See, that's EXACTLY the same old refutation I predicted. You'd see that if he included my entire quote.

As I said, It's not perfect. but why settle for "nothing" when "better than nothing" is so easy to achieve.? Yes, there would be cheating. Just as there are athletes who take sterioids, even though there is drug testing, there would be cachers who trade codes, even though there are codes.

Should we just get rid of all drug testing for the olympics, the tour de france, etc? After all, people will still find a way around the tests. Just as they will find ways around confirmation codes...

Why not give hiders the option and let them decide for themselves if they want to use it?

why not?

Could you create a code word, and put it in the logbook. Then in the descritpion tell people to make sure to email you the code AND sign the log or you'll delete their find?

38.2k · July 14, 2006

Why not give hiders the option and let them decide for themselves if they want to use it?

why not?

Then we open a whole new can of worms. You'll see forum threads like "I hiked 6 miles over 4 star terrain to find a cache and the owner deleted my find because I wrote down the confirmation number wrong", or "I lost the piece of paper with all the the confirmation codes from my day of caching and now Joecacher won't let me log finds on his caches".

Then you'll have the people arguing "hey, he signed the logbook, who is Joecacher to delete legit finds" and others saying ""Its Joecacher's cache and Joecacher's rules, so tough nutz".

Edited July 14, 2006 by briansnat

July 14, 2006

Why not give hiders the option and let them decide for themselves if they want to use it?

why not?

Then we open a whole new can of worms. You'll see forum threads like "I hiked 6 miles over 4 star terrain to find a cache and the owner deleted my find because I wrote down the confirmation number wrong", or "I lost the piece of paper with all the the confirmation codes from my day of caching and now Joecacher won't let me log finds on his caches".

Then you'll have the people arguing "hey, he signed the logbook, who is Joecacher to delete legit finds" and others saying ""Its Joecacher's cache and Joecacher's rules, so tough nutz".

Then don't lose the paper, and don't write the code down wrong.

Rules are rules. If one is too much of a POLI to manage the task, then too bad.

Again, if the idea is not perfect, that doesn't mean it's not better then the current situation. It may open up some worm cans, as you suggest. But it will also close a few.

What's the harm in allowing it as at the cache owner's option?

Poli, A Fairy Tale

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