Jump to content

GeoEVOLUTION Vs. GeoCREATIONISM


Snoogans
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

The other way paints too broad a picture. I'm not a mind reader.

 

Didn't say you were a mind reader either! :drama: You are going to have an awfully sore butt from sitting on that fence! Honestly though, I'm certain that I haven't been caching as long as a lot of folks on here, but I don't think I've ever run across this behavior in the real world. I'm really not upset about any of this, I just love to debate. I sit at the computer programming all day and it's nice to take a little break every once in a while. I'm sure the percentage of geocachers that do these things are small.. Everyone I've met and every event I've every seen has been on the up and up.

 

Geocaching is just a game. And arguing in the forums is just a game too.

Link to comment

Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple attends to an event?

1)Themselves, 2)other cachers, 3)Groundspeak.

 

1) That was in my post Its THEIR find/attend count. And?

2) Like who? Unless they run around pounding their chest over it or bragging about it, using it to judge other people against thier "high numbers" than.. . . ? If they do-then feel free to call THAT CACHER out........because then, your argument holds water. Until and only then- you have a case-

Throwing a wet blanket over a whole state(& then some) isn't really being "Honest" either now is it?

3)Groundspeak sees the difference between 2.gif and 6.gif Thats why they made a Differnt icon :drama:

 

 

Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple attends to an event?

Themselves, other cachers, Groundspeak.

Please DON'T speak for me. I don't consider how another person justifies their stats to themselves as dishonest. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I will not hold the ruler I measure up to, to anyone else. Furthermore, if anyone tries to hold their ruler up to me, I'll likely break it and jab 'em with the pointy ends. :blink:

I agree

 

I went over my post several times and the word "Snoogans" wasn't in there. Wasn't speaking for you. I'm assuming there must be at least one other cacher in the world that agrees with me. I didn't say "ALL CACHERS' did I?

 

SOME cachers need to take a reality check, or time out or whatever you might call it

 

I just noticed - a New Tab in the Profile page, and some re-filtering would seperate "the wheat from the chaf" - No? Would that make it a little more clear for the numbers people?

 

Think of it this way: Someone who posts 10 "ATTEND" logs is clearly not aquiring "smilies" OR "finds"

Yes, its impossible to "attend" 1 place more than once. I get that "argument". But if you actually think about it- If someone has, oh....say 10 smileys and 50 attend logs accumulated over 5 events, That would tell me that they must have found a total of 50 temp caches at events - whatever you want to call them.

 

And most importantly - they have done much MORE finding of things in the woods using coords & a Gpsr with lots of freinds at events than they have on thier own, in thier home area finding "real caches" sometimes alone, or in parking lots on skirts.

 

I bet those people have met (X,X,X) more cachers than I have, and probably had a great time doing it, while I didnt get that chance.

 

How are they Cheating me, or "lying" to Me?

(Granted, I understand the difference between the icons, and how they are being used)

 

Evolution vs Creationism may need to be more directed at the organization of the stats than the game itself- overall its really the numbers that matter .

Link to comment

Since a physical cache was found, why does this bother you so much, really?

What was the GC number of the physical cache they found? What's that, you have no answer? I thought so.

 

I needed some heat-shrink tonight and found a cache of it in my trunk. Will I log it on geocaching.com?

 

What makes you think it bothers me at all, just because I don't like to see a game based on the honor system being corrupted by lies?

 

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that. You aren't even a challenge, I'm keeping half my intellect tied behind my back. :drama:

Link to comment

The constant attempt to call us liars and cheats because we do something you don't like negates the value of the rest of your arguments that might contain some sense.

<snip>To select Attended the second time and subsequent times, you have to lie.

If you lie, you ARE a liar.

 

Well, I asked in the other thread, just before it was closed-without an answer - So I will pose this question again to see if you've come up with an answer yet:

 

Tell me who exactly is a cacher "lying to" by logging a mutliple attends to an event?

Your question is inane. To humor myself, I will go ahead and reply.

 

Since the stats are viewable by anyone with a geocaching account, everyone who has an account is being lied to. Nice try junior.

 

Sheesh, you guys are making this too easy. Really, if you cannot come up with an intelligent argument, it would probably be in your best interest to sit back, be quiet, and watch.

Link to comment

Dang, I need to log on to the forums more than once a day. Once I saw the title of this discussion, I knew it would only be a matter of time until it degenerated into the Criminal vs. Alabama Rambler discussion, and here I am getting in so late.

 

(Dons flameproof underwear)

Link to comment

1) That was in my post Its THEIR find/attend count. And?

 

Yes, it's their find/attend count. Yes, they can do whatever they want with whatever loophole they find. Yes, they play the game the way they want to play the game.

 

They are misrepresenting their find count. Plain and simple. If someone asks me my age and I tell them 31 instead of 32, it's as much of a misrepresentation as if I told them 12. I'm not seeing how truth is subjective in this case.

 

Here's all you have to do. Prove that a temporary cache is a "Geocache" according to GC.com's guidelines and I'll roll over and accept a find on them. If you can't prove it, then it's not a find. If it's not a find, then one shouldn't be posting a find on it. If they shouldn't be posting a find on it, then posting a find is "misrepresenting" the facts.

 

am I missing something here?

Link to comment

So, in keeping with the actual OP's question, I'm not sure how much geo-creationism there is, as this is nothing like the game that I started playing 6 years ago. The question should be whether there is a fruitful adaptation (evolution, if you must), or if it's devolving in to something less noble than was originally intended; I know, I'm not the first to posit this view.

 

There have been so many improvements to the sport/activity that any list that I make would be incomplete. Listing improvements, PQ's, caches along a route (along with filtering out micro's, my favorite) and decentralizing the review process out to local reviewers who are more familiar with local/state processes are just a few of the improvements that we've seen in the last few years, that point to steady improvement in the quality of the game.

 

The proliferation of micros that can be retrieved from the car window (microspew) , the intense emphasis on numbers rather than having a good time and getting out to be active, and any variety of topics that people can find to argue about in the forums, rather than get out and cache, all point to some areas that have not improved the sport so much as fundamentally changed it from its original intent, for good or ill.

 

Whatever your view of "G-d" is in the geocaching realm, any advancements are not due to chance improvements by mutation, but by a very involved management and development team (deity, if you prefer). So that does strike the deist theory of creationism/evolution, we are not out here on our own trying to figure out what we're doing. For every improvement that someone could cite, there is probably one equivelant detractor that they could name as well, also implemented by that same team. I would not say the same thing as the next person about what would be an improvement or a detriment, and neither of us would be wrong.

 

I suppose that I might be a fence-sitter as many of the previous on-topic posts have stated. There have been changes from the original intent of geocaching. It is growing and diversifying, not only in ways that many individual players find to be an improvement, but there have been changes that have benefited EVERY geocacher. There are individual favorites, but this is a better sport for all involved than it was when I started out. In addition to changes to the sport, we've also founded a community of like minded cachers who have different ideas about things, but still get out on weekends and actually cache. That in itself is the biggest improvement, and the one that trumps all other improvements or detriments. We've found a place where we can all do what we want within the much widened guidelines of "the three rules" and co-exist with micro hunter and serious hiker alike.

Link to comment

I'm firmly on the side of the fence where it is believed that Geocaching has strayed from the original (intended?) path. I had much more fun playing between '02-'04 than I have had since.

 

My various reasons/agendae are well-documented throughout these Forums, so I won't re-state them in great detail here. Suffice it to say, they are all related to changes in the game that have occurred as a result of The New Numbers Game, whose growth directly coincides with the timing of the beginning of my decrease in enjoyment.

 

No need for me to reply...that says it all for me.

Link to comment

The guard rail micro. I'll compare that to purple loosestrife or hemlock wooly adelgid. When kept in check, they're not bad. But with no checks, they tend to run rampant, and take over the world.

Thanx Harry! You've just given me an idea for my next T-shirt:

"Film canisters are Geocaching's version of Kudzu" LOL!

 

Your question is inane.

Speaking of inane....

Hello Kettle, my name is Pot. You're looking mighty black today.

 

Prove that a temporary cache is a "Geocache" according to GC.com's guidelines and I'll roll over and accept a find on them. If you can't prove it, then it's not a find.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

Link to comment
You forgot to add "in my opinion".

 

Could a mod please go ahead and insert "in my opinion" into every post in the forums? Thank you.

 

Of course it's his opinion.

 

As to the OP, I'd like to add that "evolution" pertains to positive metamorphosis. When something changes for the worse, that's not evolution. It's "degeneration" when it starts going downhill. Not saying that's what's happening...

Link to comment

Well, let me start by stating, that so far, from what I've read and experienced, it seems us newer geocachers don't hold much, if any weight in these argu...um, discussions. But I figured I'll add my wooden nickels worth to the forum.

 

I'm grateful for having found the sport. I think I found it because it has grown. I think it has grown because people like it. When people, especially large groups of 'em enjoy something, they like adding their own spin on things, and (to me) contribute to the enjoyment in their own way. I think it's when they have the expectation that everyone should like their spin on things is how (or perhaps just one way) people become split.

 

For me, I see all of the forms of geocaching as (for lack of a better COMPARISON) different forms of the same religion. We're all geocachers, but not all of us believe in the urban micro fairy. Not all of us believe in the all powerful multi-event god either. But were all geocachers. My school of thought is not to project my thoughts to others, just share them. If others see things differently and they even want to form their own "GeoReligion" that bans all event caches or bans all micros I say go ahead. As an idea, you can even create your own sub-sect of followers and create your own site that doesn't include ALL caches. You may even rename your type of sport to Rural caching. It may even be bigger than all of geocaching at it's peak. Who knows?

 

For me, I'll just keep doing this sport my way and hope nobody tells me I can't do that anymore.

Link to comment

I like what Vargman said: For me, I'll just keep doing this sport my way and hope nobody tells me I can't do that anymore.

 

amen to that!

 

maybe what we need here is something like sub-catagories to events and have tiny little smilys as an icon we could call them pips or something and have it keep a different track or record so when I pull up someones profile I can instantly see they have 101 finds 2 events and 25 pips under events.

 

of course the above would not change my feelings or my caching in anyway but would create more work for the GC web team to add all this in. Personally I do this for my own satisfaction and enjoyment and excepting my darn cosin who has more finds then me I don't care if joe cacher says he found the same cache 100 times. For all I know Joe Cacher might be in a wheelchair and can only get to one lightpost micro down the street. If he is having fun then I say more power to him.

 

Sometimes I "power cache" and sometimes I take long hikes in the woods to a beautiful cache site with a great view... and sometimes I stop on the roadside to get that "elusive" guardrail cache... but I ALWAYS try to have fun.

Link to comment

Prove that a temporary cache is a "Geocache" according to GC.com's guidelines and I'll roll over and accept a find on them. If you can't prove it, then it's not a find.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

 

I'm talking about the posting guidelines for geocaching.com. It's not a matter of opinion. Pocket caches do not have permanent GPS coordinates, so they don't get listed on GC.com. If they don't get listed on GC.com, it makes sense that they wouldn't get logged on GC.com. If they shouldn't be logged on GC.com, then you shouldn't get a smiley/"FOUND IT". If you shouldn't get a "FOUND IT" and you claim a "FOUND IT" then you are misrepresenting your count. Misrepresentations are a nice way of saying "LYING".

 

What part of this logic path doesn't make sense? Instead of adding completely worthless comments like "You forgot to add in my opinion", why don't you actually tell me what's wrong with my thinking process. Which part of my logic doesn't make sense to you and why?

Link to comment

Prove that a temporary cache is a "Geocache" according to GC.com's guidelines and I'll roll over and accept a find on them. If you can't prove it, then it's not a find.

You forgot to add "in my opinion".

 

I'm talking about the posting guidelines for geocaching.com. It's not a matter of opinion. Pocket caches do not have permanent GPS coordinates, so they don't get listed on GC.com. If they don't get listed on GC.com, it makes sense that they wouldn't get logged on GC.com. If they shouldn't be logged on GC.com, then you shouldn't get a smiley/"FOUND IT". If you shouldn't get a "FOUND IT" and you claim a "FOUND IT" then you are misrepresenting your count. Misrepresentations are a nice way of saying "LYING".

 

What part of this logic path doesn't make sense? Instead of adding completely worthless comments like "You forgot to add in my opinion", why don't you actually tell me what's wrong with my thinking process. Which part of my logic doesn't make sense to you and why?

What's wrong with your logic is that you are railing against a common and accepted practice that in no way affects you. Your logic appears to be "I've never done it, know nothing about it, but I don't think I like it so I am gonna scream and holler till I kill it :D."

Link to comment
What's wrong with your logic is that you are railing against a common and accepted practice that in no way affects you. Your logic appears to be "I've never done it, know nothing about it, but I don't think I like it so I am gonna scream and holler till I kill it mad.gif

 

You say its common and accepted. I had never seen or heard of the practice until it was brought up in this forum and I've been around the sport for a little bit. I still have yet to see it done at any event I've attended.

 

It appears to me that it's common only in regional pockets and obviously from the firestorm the subject creates every time its brought up, its far from universally accepted.

Link to comment

Since a physical cache was found, why does this bother you so much, really?

What was the GC number of the physical cache they found? What's that, you have no answer? I thought so.

 

I needed some heat-shrink tonight and found a cache of it in my trunk. Will I log it on geocaching.com?

 

What makes you think it bothers me at all, just because I don't like to see a game based on the honor system being corrupted by lies?

 

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that. You aren't even a challenge, I'm keeping half my intellect tied behind my back. :D

I suspected that you wouldn't want to answer my full post, but it surprised me that you felt you had to resort to a personal attack, since your debating skills are usually much better than that.

 

May I presume that you can't say why it really bothers you that people log event caches because it doesn't really bother you, you just like to debate the topic?

Link to comment

Since a physical cache was found, why does this bother you so much, really?

What was the GC number of the physical cache they found? What's that, you have no answer? I thought so.

 

I needed some heat-shrink tonight and found a cache of it in my trunk. Will I log it on geocaching.com?

 

What makes you think it bothers me at all, just because I don't like to see a game based on the honor system being corrupted by lies?

 

You're going to have to try a lot harder than that. You aren't even a challenge, I'm keeping half my intellect tied behind my back. :D

I suspected that you wouldn't want to answer my full post, but it surprised me that you felt you had to resort to a personal attack, since your debating skills are usually much better than that.

 

May I presume that you can't say why it really bothers you that people log event caches because it doesn't really bother you, you just like to debate the topic?

You shouldn’t look at it as a personal attack, it wasn’t. Your position was almost too weak for me to bother with. The point I was making was that there is no GC number for the pocket lint caches, thus to log them anywhere would require one to lie.

 

The only reasonable response that the supporters of that nonsense can have is that yes, it’s a lie, but not a very bad one. So far, nobody has had the nuggets to say it. Nevertheless, that is the only sensible response, but would mean that some in here would have to admit they have been supporting the telling of lies.

 

Like I said, when someone is caught doing something they know is wrong, they can have one of two responses, admit it, or become hostile towards the person who caught them. So like it or not, the hostile ones know that what they are doing is wrong, but are too pusillanimous to admit it, in here and possibly to themselves.

 

I care plenty, but prolly less than you may think.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

What's wrong with your logic is that you are railing against a common and accepted practice that in no way affects you. Your logic appears to be "I've never done it, know nothing about it, but I don't think I like it so I am gonna scream and holler till I kill it :laughing:."

 

Again with the "It doesn't affect me" stuff. Why don't you face the question and deal with it. Let's take one thing at a time:

 

1) GC.com guidelines prohibit the listing of the cache. You can't really disagree with #1 because the guidelines are well established. You can disagree with the guidelines, but the fact that the guidelines exists is not at issue.

 

2) If the temp cache is not considered listable on GC.com, then you must make the argument why a non-listable cache should be acceptable to "FIND". Please make that argument.

 

If you continue with pointless banter, I'll assume that you have no argument and are conceding defeat in this debate.

Link to comment
What's wrong with your logic is that you are railing against a common and accepted practice that in no way affects you. Your logic appears to be "I've never done it, know nothing about it, but I don't think I like it so I am gonna scream and holler till I kill it mad.gif

 

You say its common and accepted. I had never seen or heard of the practice until it was brought up in this forum and I've been around the sport for a little bit. I still have yet to see it done at any event I've attended.

 

It appears to me that it's common only in regional pockets and obviously from the firestorm the subject creates every time its brought up, its far from universally accepted.

Multi-loggin events for Pocket Caches may be regional. It's certainly not done by everyone, even at events where Pocket Caches are common.

 

Still, I live a regional life, I suppose, and can only speak for my history in my region.

 

That said, here are just some of the events I have been to. You will find Pocket Cache multi-logging at almost all of them.

 

Hard to deny the acceptability and commonality of Pocket Caches when you look at these event logs and see who and how many are logging them!

 

Attended 1/25/2007 Where "Whiskers" Used To Be Alabama [visit log]

Attended 1/16/2007 January Monthly BAGA Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/30/2006 Alabama Christmas and a New Year's Gathering Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/2/2006 Cool Yule Pennsylvania [visit log]

Attended 11/5/2006 Moss Creek Preserve Trash & Dash Alabama [visit log]

Attended 10/24/2006 Return to Haunted Oaks! Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 10/18/2006 October Monthly CAGA Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 10/18/2006 3rd Annual October Fest @ Windy Rock Kentucky [visit log]

Attended 10/13/2006 Escape from New York! Alabama [visit log]

Attended 10/2/2006 Meet & Greet the Lackey’s, & eat a little chicken Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 9/30/2006 Fall Camp Out Georgia [visit log]

Attended 9/23/2006 September Cache 'n Que Alabama [visit log]

Attended 9/10/2006 1st Annual Golden Circle Georace Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 9/4/2006 Pirates on Cherokee Lake? Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 8/22/2006 August Monthly CAGA Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 7/26/2006 July Monthly CAGA Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 7/9/2006 2006 Midwest GeoBash Michigan [visit log]

Attended 6/18/2006 Prattville, Meet and Greet Alabama [visit log]

Attended 6/11/2006 GeoWoodstock 4 Texas [visit log]

Attended 6/2/2006 Anybody that eats chili cant' be all bad! Texas [visit log]

Attended 5/29/2006 One Degree of Separation Texas [visit log]

Attended 4/16/2006 2nd Annual Spring Fling Campout Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 4/1/2006 Great Smoky Mtn GeoQuest Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 3/27/2006 TN, GA, AL Area Geo Meet, Eat, Greet and Coin Swap Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 3/5/2006 2006 March Madness Camping Event Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 2/19/2006 Coosa Valley Cachers Feb. '06 Eat & Greet Alabama [visit log]

Attended 2/19/2006 AGA February Campout & Fish Fry Alabama [visit log]

Attended 1/30/2006 Better Half & BackBrakeBilly's 5K Roll Out Party Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 1/29/2006 DavidMac's 2K Celebration Mississippi [visit log]

Attended 1/18/2006 AGA Winter Luncheon and Campout Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/17/2005 Alabama Geocacher's Association December Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/10/2005 All I Want For Christmas... Pennsylvania [visit log]

Attended 10/30/2005 2nd Annual Halloween Spooky Campout Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 10/27/2005 AGA Dora Spooktacular Alabama [visit log]

Attended 10/22/2005 AGAs 2nd Anniversary Celebration Alabama [visit log]

Attended 8/20/2005 The Great Northern Tier Geocaching Tournament Massachusetts [visit log]

Attended 7/16/2005 North Alabama Meet, Greet & Eat (& July AGA Mtg) Alabama [visit log]

Attended 7/12/2005 Celebrate Monkeybrad's 5K Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 7/12/2005 Summer Meet & Greet Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 7/11/2005 Party till you puke Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 7/11/2005 The Amazing Georace - Middle Tennessee Edition Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 6/21/2005 Summer Celebration Campout/Picnic Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 6/21/2005 AGA June Meet & Greet Alabama [visit log]

Attended 6/20/2005 Summer Celebration Campout/Picnic Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 5/28/2005 GeoWoodstock III - NEFGA Style! Florida [visit log]

Attended 5/28/2005 GW3 - Friday Night The Meet & Greet Florida [visit log]

Attended 5/21/2005 AGA May Meeting - Andalusia Alabama [visit log]

Attended 5/14/2005 AGA Amazing GeoRace Alabama [visit log]

Attended 4/9/2005 AGA Spring Fling 2005 Alabama [visit log]

Attended 3/19/2005 1st AGA Monthly Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 3/5/2005 Oak Mtn Spring Cleaning Alabama [visit log]

Attended 2/20/2005 Chattanooga, meet Alabama! Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 2/13/2005 Goodbye Joefrog! Alabama [visit log]

Attended 2/5/2005 A New Alabama Tradition Alabama [visit log]

Attended 1/30/2005 “Micro” Reputation Reparation Discussion Tennessee [visit log]

Attended 12/19/2004 AGA Christmas Party Alabama [visit log]

Attended 5/30/2004 Thanking the Monte Sano Park Rangers Alabama [visit log]

Attended 1/31/2004 Vulcan Road Clean-Up Alabama [visit log]

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

...If the temp cache is not considered listable on GC.com, then you must make the argument why a non-listable cache should be acceptable to "FIND". Please make that argument.

 

Yes, please do. This is what I have been waiting for.

 

I have no doubt that event pocket caches are fun but they are unlisted caches.

Link to comment

I'm talking about the posting guidelines for geocaching.com. It's not a matter of opinion. Pocket caches do not have permanent GPS coordinates, so they don't get listed on GC.com.

So far, you are right on track. Temporary caches do not get a GC number. We all agree on that point.

 

If they don't get listed on GC.com, it makes sense that they wouldn't get logged on GC.com.

Here's where your opinion, and reality diverge.

Apparently, temporary caches do get logged on GC.Com. These guidelines you keep referring to do not prohibit the logging of temporary caches, providing they are logged appropriately, nor do they prohibit the multiple logging of a single cache. In fact, they don't even define what constitutes a "Find". Since Groundspeak won't define it, then each individual must define for themselves what a "Find" is. For me, it means locating a cache and signing the logbook....once. That's just me. If Snoogans were to say, "It's not a find unless you rub blue mud in your navel", then that would dictate his definition.

(Sorry Snoog...for some reason, when I thought of blue mud & belly buttons, your name just popped into my head....) :laughing:

Nothing requires you to play by my definition, nor are you required to play by Snoog's.

 

If they shouldn't be logged on GC.com, then you shouldn't get a smiley/"FOUND IT".

Again, strictly your opinion.

 

If you shouldn't get a "FOUND IT" and you claim a "FOUND IT" then you are misrepresenting your count. Misrepresentations are a nice way of saying "LYING".

If you did find the temporary cache, then you are not misrepresenting your count. If you failed to find the temporary cache, and claimed otherwise, then I could understand your angst, however, that is not the case here. For the record, there is no nice way to call someone a liar. Why softstep it? Don your shiny white robe, grab your pitchforks & torches, and scream it from the highest possible vantage point. At least one person in here is angry & bitter enough to agree with you.

 

Florida has a law prohibiting folks from providing false personal information to law enforcement officers during an official investigation. We commonly call this the, "Fibbin' to the Po-Po", statute. It was determined by our Supreme Court that for a person to lie, they must have the intention of deceiving others. How does this apply here, you might ask?

 

In one of your earlier rants, you got quite bent out of shape because TheAlabamaRambler logged a find more than once. Was that log a lie? Nope. He spelled out exactly what he did in the log, therefor he was not attempting to deceive anybody. Did he "find" the cache? Apparently so. His name's in the logbook. Was he padding his numbers? Since Ed does not log most of his finds online, I'd have to say, "Nope". Since there's no deception here, there is no lie.

 

You also threw a fit over someone logging multiple times at an event, because they located a snowman, or a Coke bottle, or something. Was there an intent to deceive? Nope. They typed something to the effect of, "Found the snowman", which seems to be an accurate description of their activity. Since the event owner is the only one who can define with authority what constitutes the use of an "attended" log during a particular event, and this owner not only allowed this activity, but actively encouraged it, the person logging "Attended" multiple times was acting within the established guidelines.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

If you did find the temporary cache, then you are not misrepresenting your count. If you failed to find the temporary cache, and claimed otherwise, then I could understand your angst

 

Thank you for taking the time to actual enter the debate instead of adding pointless jibber jabber. I understand where you are going with your argument (so I won't re-quote everything here). As I'm reading through what you wrote, the question kept coming up: "What is a find".

 

In your definition, a find can basically be anything that you define it as. As long as you state: "I found a broken pop bottle", then you are not lying, because you defined the pop bottle as a valid find. Is this about right? So you can get away with just about anything as long as you define that behavior as OK beforehand. (Please read my tagline about relativism)

 

I think the vast majority of cachers understand what a "Geocache" is and understand what "Finding" the geocache means. I'm not sure where to go with this debate when you get the luxury of making up the rules and the definitions of the debate.

 

We agree that pocket caches/temp caches are not acceptable caches according to GC.com guidelines. We know that TPTB do not find logging of pocket/temp caches as acceptable, but have chosen not to do anything about it. I think they are probably concerned about some kind of backlash. Agree so far?

 

Next: When the Supreme Court hears a case, sometimes they have to determine what the "intent" of the founding fathers were to determine the outcome of a case. When TPTB implemented finds, can we agree that their intent (based on their testimony) was that pocket/temp caches were not acceptable "Finds"? Agree?

 

So.. Here's what we have. Pocket/Temp caches are against the guidelines. "Finding" them violates the intent of Groundspeak/Geocaching.com (even though its not enforced). I'm driving down a road in the middle of the desert at 80mph in a 60mph zone, knowing that noone is watching and that I will not be pulled over. Can I go 80mph? Yes. Should I go 80mph? That's a personal preference I suppose. Will I get a ticket? Probably not. Is it against the law? YES.

 

The question here is this: We know that TPTB frown upon logging these types of caches and multiple events, etc. You know that noone is going to stop you from doing it. Can you do it? Yes. Should you do it? Personal preference, I say no, you say yes. Will you get stopped from doing it? Probably Not. Is it wrong? Answer: Whether you want to accept it or not, it is most definitely wrong. And it's wrong based on the fact that the owners of the website say it shouldn't be done.

Link to comment

That said, here are just some of the events I have been to. You will find Pocket Cache multi-logging at almost all of them.

 

Read my analogy in my previous post about speeding. You listing all the multiple logged events and pocket cache logging proves that it "CAN" be done. It certainly doesn't prove that it's "RIGHT". You've just pointed at the highway and said, "I am going to go 80mph because look at all those other cars speeding". Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right. The speed limit is 60 regardless of how many people are violating that speed limit. Before you say that logging multiple events is not wrong, I would ask you to read the numerous quotes from Jeremy stating the opposite of that assertion. And when you say he doesn't determine what is right and wrong for YOU, I would remind you of who owns the server that you are posting the multiple logs and finds on. TPTB could at any time delete your account and you would not be able to continue the practice.

Link to comment

Is anyone going to add anything of value to the original post, or is this going to continue to degenerate into the same discussion that was closed on 1/25 under another topic?

 

No one is listening to anyone else except to gather quotes to use against them, and this is nothing but a bunch of chest thumping, accusations and proclaiming your viewpoint to be right, and everyone else is wrong according to your interpretation of the guidelines.

 

While the OP did try to stir up some controversy, I'm sure that he didn't want the mean drunks from another bar crashing into here. This is so far off-topic, that it should be moved back to its original topic, and left to simmer and pressurize the way that it was before the 25th, until the desired endpoint is reached by one of the arguing parties, which is presumably to have the opponent so offended that they don't come back.

 

Please?

 

Sorry for the appeal to discuss the actual topic. Please continue on with your pocket cache debate here.

Edited by budophylus
Link to comment

Is anyone going to add anything of value to the original post, or is this going to continue to degenerate into the same discussion that was closed on 1/25 under another topic?

 

No one is listening to anyone else except to gather quotes to use against them, and this is nothing but a bunch of chest thumping, accusations and proclaiming your viewpoint to be right, and everyone else is wrong according to your interpretation of the guidelines.

 

While the OP did try to stir up some controversy, I'm sure that he didn't want the mean drunks from another bar crashing into here. This is so far off-topic, that it should be moved back to its original topic, and left to simmer and pressurize the way that it was before the 25th, until the desired endpoint is reached by one of the arguing parties, which is presumably to have the opponent so offended that they don't come back.

 

Please?

 

I totally disagree with you. I think the posts immediately above you, from both Clan Riffster and Ready or NOt have good, and new points. I understand that it may not interest you, but it's of interest to others.

 

Finding threads you like is much like filtering the micros from the ammo cans. Try scrolling down and checking out "Ski poles/hiking staffs" or "Log sheet for a nano cache."

 

Now my question is this:

The extra logging practices happen. I have to give AR credit for at admitting he does it. I know there's others, but I don't see where they say they do it, only "why do you care what we do?" It's not prevalent everywere, but it happens. The question I have is are these alternative logging practice truly an "evolution" or improvement of the game, or does it denigrate the game?

 

BTW- ReadyorNot's speeding analogy is a good one, since the only explanation offered up for logging (not doing) these caches are "because we can." At least that's the only explanation I've seen.

Link to comment

Is anyone going to add anything of value to the original post, or is this going to continue to degenerate into the same discussion that was closed on 1/25 under another topic?

 

 

I totally disagree with you. I think the posts immediately above you, from both Clan Riffster and Ready or NOt have good, and new points. I understand that it may not interest you, but it's of interest to others.

 

 

Ok I'm not picking any sides here, and sorry if you think it rude, but I intentionally edited out anything I didn't feel was pertinent to my post. I think I understand what budopkhylus was saying and I actually would like to see more discussion around the OP. I also understand what Googling Hrpty Hrrs is getting at and that there is relevance to the subject of the OP. I'm going to clarify it in my own way to be sure I'm following what's going on. If I'm wrong, so be it.

 

I think budopkhylus (as would I) like to see a bit more on the point of "Is this what Geocaching has become now?" vs. "Is the original way the only way?"

 

I think Googling Hrpty Hrrs is noting that the issue that this has digressed to is somewhat relevant to that topic if you are debating whether or not things being done deviate from the "original way".

Link to comment
What's wrong with your logic is that you are railing against a common and accepted practice that in no way affects you. Your logic appears to be "I've never done it, know nothing about it, but I don't think I like it so I am gonna scream and holler till I kill it mad.gif

 

You say its common and accepted. I had never seen or heard of the practice until it was brought up in this forum and I've been around the sport for a little bit. I still have yet to see it done at any event I've attended.

 

It appears to me that it's common only in regional pockets and obviously from the firestorm the subject creates every time its brought up, its far from universally accepted.

Multi-loggin events for Pocket Caches may be regional. It's certainly not done by everyone, even at events where Pocket Caches are common.

 

Still, I live a regional life, I suppose, and can only speak for my history in my region.

 

That said, here are just some of the events I have been to. You will find Pocket Cache multi-logging at almost all of them.

 

Hard to deny the acceptability and commonality of Pocket Caches when you look at these event logs and see who and how many are logging them!

 

Attended 1/25/2007 Where "Whiskers" Used To Be Alabama [visit log]

Attended 1/16/2007 January Monthly BAGA Meeting Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/30/2006 Alabama Christmas and a New Year's Gathering Alabama [visit log]

Attended 12/2/2006 Cool Yule Pennsylvania [visit log]...

 

EDITED for brevity

 

Nice list! If I were so inclined I could probably make one 10 times as long covering the same time period, where there were no pocket caches or multiple finds logged.

Link to comment
Sorry for the appeal to discuss the actual topic. Please continue on with your pocket cache debate here.

 

My point was that pocket caches and extra logging practices in general are part of the discussion about Evolution vs Creationism. In fact, it might the focal point of the conversation. I don't think anyone is debating about the evolution from Gladware to Lock&Locks.

 

The Vargman clarified things pretty well.

 

On another tangent-

What does a list of pocket cache events have to do with anything? We know it's going on. I didn't understand where that was going.

 

As things are right now, an event owner can allow an extra attendance log if you can find the bean dip on the picnic table. I thought we were discussing whether this practice (and others) helps "evolve" the hobby to a better place.

Link to comment
Sorry for the appeal to discuss the actual topic. Please continue on with your pocket cache debate here.

 

My point was that pocket caches and extra logging practices in general are part of the discussion about Evolution vs Creationism. In fact, it might the focal point of the conversation. I don't think anyone is debating about the evolution from Gladware to Lock&Locks.

 

 

I agree with GHH. I'm usually pretty good at self moderating threads I have started. I have felt no need to step in.

 

 

However, this isn't a continuation of the newest version of the pocket cache thread either.

 

 

By CREATION, I meant, as it pertains to this site. Not the honorable Dave Ulmer's stash hunt in the old news groups or any other site. Think, "And on the sixth day Jeremey did create Geocaching.com. And it was good. THE WAY IT WAS." For those that have lost interest or are losing interest in the game as it is perceived today. For those that believe the intelligent design of the original concept is being muddied by other people's (The Heretic's) perceptions of how the game CAN or SHOULD be played.

 

 

By EVOLUTION, I mean pretty much every variation that exists, or no longer exists, including other geocaching websites and people's own perceptions of how the game CAN or SHOULD be played.

 

 

My position is still firmly on the fence. I see the good and bad points of both belief systems as it pertains to GEOCACHING as an activity. While I am outspoken in defense of people's rights to play their own way without being openly judged for their choices of practice, that certainly does not mean I always approve their choices or I would do it too. I would actually welcome rule changes if it would end some of the senseless bickering but I would also like a logical explaination from TPTB for such changes when and if they come.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

OK... So I've written this post three times and deleted it before posting. Let's see if it makes it this time.

 

1. Just because you can log multiple finds under an event is not a sign of "approval" from TPTB, and it doesn't make it right or OK.

 

2. Just because something is "locally accepted" also does not make it right or OK. (everybody else is doing it....)

 

3. If TPTB actually wanted or approved of "pocket caches" or "temporary caches" there'd be a legitimate way to log them.

 

4. What we're seeing here is representative of the greater ills of society. Whether you feel you can justify it or not, there is such a thing as unacceptable behavior. A lie is a lie, it doesn't require a "victim" or "intent". The idea that "it doesn't hurt me, so why should I care" leads to the lowering of all community standards.

 

Doesn't anyone believe in ethics anymore?

 

Sad, really sad.

 

DCC

(madmike)

Link to comment
In your definition, a find can basically be anything that you define it as. As long as you state: "I found a broken pop bottle", then you are not lying, because you defined the pop bottle as a valid find. Is this about right?

Forgive me if I sound obtuse. It's not my intention. But this statement indicates that you did not grasp what I was saying. Allow me to clarify my position: As the guidelines currently stand, a "Find" is anything that a cache owner & a cache finder agree upon. If a cache owner says you can log a find on my cache for every empty beer can you pick up, and someone takes them up on their offer, I would not call that a lie, nor would I call it misrepresentation. It would be allowed by the current guidelines. If someone posted an event page stating you can log an attended for each temporary cache you find, I would not call someone who did so a liar. At the most, it's an issue of semantics. So long as Groundspeak allows the very behavior that is being vilified here, I can't accept that this behavior is immoral.

 

That being said, that fast & loose rule doesn't apply to my personal caching ethics. When I was a rookie in this game, Criminal cut loose with one of his regular "Liar, liar, Pants on Fire" posts, insulting those who played the game differently than him. His angst caused me to reflect upon my own logging practices, and led me to adopt a motto; "WWJD?", (What Would Jeremy Do?). I need to qualify my motto by stating that I've never met Jeremy, and I've only formed my opinion regarding his likes & dislikes from his forum posts. It is my opinion, that Jeremy would not log a find more than once, and as such, I won't log a find more than once. It is also my opinion, that Jeremy would not log an attended more than once, and again, as such, I would not log an attended more than once. I believe, if someone were to sit him down and ask him what he thought of such logging practices, he would probably call the practice "silly", or something similar. My personal reflection caused me to change 5 "Finds" to "Notes".

 

So you can get away with just about anything as long as you define that behavior as OK beforehand.

Absolutely not.

 

We know that TPTB do not find logging of pocket/temp caches as acceptable, but have chosen not to do anything about it. I think they are probably concerned about some kind of backlash. Agree so far?

I disagree. Groundspeak has got to know that they are the absolute forerunner in the caching world. No other cache listing service can come close to their level of customer satisfaction. Through shrewd leadership and brilliant policy decisions, (yeah, I'm an inscutable lap dog), they have completely cornered the market here. This type of positive self awareness is not conducive to a fear of backlash. They know what works, and they know where they are going in the future. I can't speculate as to why Groundspeak hasn't updated their guidelines to prohibit alternative logging practices, but I doubt fear is the motivating factor. I could be way wrong, but that's what my gut tells me.

 

The question here is this: We know that TPTB frown upon logging these types of caches and multiple events, etc. Is it wrong? Answer: Whether you want to accept it or not, it is most definitely wrong. And it's wrong based on the fact that the owners of the website say it shouldn't be done.

That's just it. They haven't said it shouldn't be done. We both appear to agree on what Groundspeak's stance is. In the forum posts, Jeremy has made it rather clear that he does not approve of such behavior. That's primarily why I don't do it. However, that does not make it wrong. For something to be "wrong" in my eyes, it needs to be against the rules, (or at least the guidelines). Posting multiple attended attended logs for each pop bottle found is not against the guidelines. Once we step outside the guidelines, and start judging people based upon our own personal belief system, we lose any credibility to absolutes. Everything we dictate at that point becomes opinion, not fact.

 

Just for the record, if Jeremy were to poll the caching public regarding this issue, I would vote for the implementation of a one find/one attended = one log change to the website. The code for such a change would be fairly simple to insert. However, Groundspeak wouldn't even need to make any changes to their program if they would just add a simple sentence to their guidelines declaring the practice as being wrong. Something as simple as; "To claim a find on a non-virtual type cache, you must sign the logbook. You can only log one find per cache, and one attended log per event."

Link to comment

When I was a rookie in this game, Criminal cut loose with one of his regular "Liar, liar, Pants on Fire" posts, insulting those who played the game differently than him.

 

That’s pretty disingenuous. I haven’t ‘called’ anyone a liar and most certainly never used the phrase you attributed to me. Your inaccurate comment is clearly nothing more than an attempt to insult. It shows what I have been said before, when someone has nothing intelligent to add to a debate, they attack the person who is making them look like a fool. Obtuse indeed.

 

It has absolutely nothing with how somebody ‘plays the game’. If you select Found It, when you did not find the cache, you have lied. If you claim to have been at the same event numerous times, you have lied. There are no two ways around this fact. If the cache owner agrees to let you claim you found it, it doesn’t mean you found the cache, it means only that he is willing to accept the untruthful log. If I notice someone doing it and observe that they are telling a lie, I am not trying to insult that person, I’m merely stating the obvious.

 

The more you try to lash out at me for pointing out the obvious, the more ridiculous you appear. Moronic misinterpretations like that only convince me you have neither honor nor anything intelligent to add. You really ought to stop posting and try to find your happy place.

Edited by Criminal
Link to comment

Pencil Ink me down in the GeoEvolutionist column.

 

I'm the live-and-let-live type. I'm the "If it isn't hurting anybody or preventing anybody from enjoying their rights, then how can it be a crime?" type. I'm the "as long as your style of caching doesn’t affect my ability to enjoy the game, you're okay by me" type. Even though Snoogans' choice of labels implies that the 'GeoEvolutionist' is the less religious of the two, I'm the 'Golden Rule' type.

 

The game has gone through many changes, and I think the folks who run this website have done, for the most part, an excellent job of keeping up with those changes as Geocaching has evolved. They do their best to police out many of the problems that might have easily destroyed the game, yet at the same time they've stayed out of the way on most of the pure creativity issues -- they tend to err on the side of not stifling innovation. I'm pretty much happy with the decisions they have made over the years and how they run things.

 

The [thing that Moose Mob mentioned] issue just doesn't bother me. I logged a [thing that Moose Mob mentioned] myself, long ago, at one of the few events I've managed to attend; given the opportunity, however, I would probably not participate in the type of mass logging that has been described recently. On the other hand, the fact that others do [the thing that Moose Mob mentioned] doesn't harm my ability to enjoy geocaching, not even one little teeny tiny little bit.

 

I can further state that, based on the behavior I've seen so far from the management of this website, I believe that I would most likely be happy, or at least tolerant, of any future decisions they may make. If things continue as they are, I'm cool. If a 'one cache, one log' rule ever IS imposed, that's fine too -- it would fix some issues while causing others, of course, but none of that really has any meaningful effect on the essence of the game itself. Same with ALR caches. I've stated before that if 'Additional Logging Requirements' caches are ever outlawed, I'll happily roll mine up and replace it with something different ... and I'll go right on enjoying the game.

 

I see no need for us to do to geocaching what the Amish did to technology. In other words, there is absolutely no reason, in my opinion, to choose some arbitrary and seemingly random point on the geo-history timeline, plant a flag, and declare: "This is the ONLY proper way to cache! All future innovation is WRONG!!"

 

Yep, I'm a GeoEvolutionist. :laughing:

Link to comment
The code for such a change would be fairly simple to insert.

 

 

I'm not claiming to be a code-monkey, but previous insertion of a simple code had the reportedly unintended side effect of stripping some TB stats from people's accounts. I lost a dozen, more or less, that time but some (namely Centris that I know of) lost hundreds.

 

 

There is an evil little part of me saying "go ahead and do it Do it. DO IT!!!" I'll lose exactly one cache stat, but it would be interesting to see what just such a leveling of the playing field would do to those at the top of the stats boards and most of those people I count as good and some dear friends. (It still amazes me how many of the top 100+ cachers in find stats are personal friends of mine.)

 

 

I don't wish to see anyone hurt, but it would be nice to see this issue fade away once the zealot's sensibilities have been appeased. Maybe we can find something new to down others for. Alpha types almost always need an Omega type to pick on. :laughing:

Link to comment
As the guidelines currently stand, a "Find" is anything that a cache owner & a cache finder agree upon.

That's an excellent definition, CR. You've found a clear and succinct way to describe the policy. A policy that I happen to completely agree with, BTW. Good work.

 

"WWJD?", (What Would Jeremy Do?).

:laughing::):)

 

Love it. :)

Link to comment

Pencil Ink me down in the GeoEvolutionist column.

 

I'm the live-and-let-live type. I'm the "If it isn't hurting anybody or preventing anybody from enjoying their rights, then how can it be a crime?" type. I'm the "as long as your style of caching doesn’t affect my ability to enjoy the game, you're okay by me" type. Even though Snoogans' choice of labels implies that the 'GeoEvolutionist' is the less religious of the two, I'm the 'Golden Rule' type.

Imagine a scenario where a rouge geocacher was using the game to hide and transport illegal narcotics, but he doesn’t live in your area.

 

It hasn’t hurt you or anyone else.

It doesn’t affect your ability to enjoy the game.

 

So if he posted in here and I told him what he was doing was wrong, would your position be the same?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...