How can both be right?

[+wavector]

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

 

I saw a log left by a local cacher who went to the cache site and apparently they didn't have a pencil, the log they left was a simple statement of fact, "I found this cache but didn't have pencil."

Your contention appears to be that they are dishonest or that others should view them as dishonest, this is a standard you adhere to and to me it doesn't make as much sense as reading the log this way - They went to the site, found the cache and didn't have a pencil.

 

In my opinion imputing that they are a liar or suggesting that they cannot be trusted is a very low standard of conduct. If you are going to expound "Honesty Integrity Morality" as an ethic then you might want to review the parameters which apply in your decision making process.

[+Miragee]

Here's an interesting thought. Why don't these folks setup 500 temp caches at one of their events and shatter the most caches found in one day record! They wouldn't be misrepresenting anything according to many of you. Plus the site would show that they logged them, and it is "up to the cache owner."

Sounds good. That'll also result in a thread where many of you can talk bad about it, and feel superior to those people that actually logged multiple Attended logs.

 

Be sure to move your upper lip down as far from your nose as you can get it as you say, "I say, I do believe the cretins are at it again. It seems these ninnys are attempting to have fun without our approval."

I already told you I do not "feel superior" to people who have logged multiple Attended logs, so I don't know why your post is so argumentative. This thread has been, until recently, fairly tame, and informative.

 

I just think it is interesting that certain practices, like Pocket Caches, and "Retired" caches, and Multiple Attended logs for temporary, not-listed caches, have cropped up in various places, but the practices have not spread.

 

However, when TPTB learned about the detrimental effects some of these practices have had, they have shut down the practice.

 

No one is saying if we do it differently we are "superior." I just think it is interesting that these practices have been or are only regional.

 

If everyone who played this game thought those things were good for the game, wouldn't everyone, everywhere want to adopt those practices?

Edited May 24, 2007 by Miragee

[+sbell111]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

I'm not a huge fan of business analogies because they tend to ignore the 'fun' and 'volunteer' aspects of caching. However, if we go with business analogies, your's isn't on point because the person that made the suggestion isn't in charge of the insurance company.

 

A better analogy is if the owner of your local mom-and-pop donut shop offered you a donut for free. Certainly, it isn't stealing if the owner gave it to you.

[+Totem Clan]

My answer would be "No". The only person whose place it is to dictate what can, and cannot occur is Jeremy, and he has opted to allow the practice of multiple logs. If he ever declares that practice to be a violation of the rules, my attitude will change.

 

I like that answer.

 

So........

 

I may not like it. I won't do it. I don't have to like it when others do it. But I shouldn't say anything about any other cacher's logging practices as long as they don't effect another caching.

 

Does that sound right?

[+sbell111]

... I just think it is interesting that certain practices, like Pocket Caches, and "Retired" caches, and Multiple Attended logs for temporary, not-listed caches, have cropped up in various places, but the practices have not spread. ...

I don't think that this thread is about pocket caches and I'm not sure what a 'retired' cache is, but it is ny understanding that the 'temporary' cache issue is pretty widespread.

 

In fact, it is my belief that logging these temporary caches to the event page was initially suggested by some approvers (they were approvers way back then), since they could not approve temporary caches for listing.

[+Miragee]

Honesty. Integrity. Morality.

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log (or a reasonable fascimile thereof.) This is called honesty. You attended the same event one hundred fifty times?!? You logged a cache that you never found? Then you are a dishonest person! I do not want you for my doctor, lawyer, or accountant. You are not to be trusted!

That's it. Pure and simple.

I saw a log left by a local cacher who went to the cache site and apparently they didn't have a pencil, the log they left was a simple statement of fact, "I found this cache but didn't have pencil."

Your contention appears to be that they are dishonest or that others should view them as dishonest, this is a standard you adhere to and to me it doesn't make as much sense as reading the log this way - They went to the site, found the cache and didn't have a pencil.

 

In my opinion imputing that they are a liar or suggesting that they cannot be trusted is a very low standard of conduct. If you are going to expound "Honesty Integrity Morality" as an ethic then you might want to review the parameters which apply in your decision making process.

I doubt if that specific situaltion falls under the other types of false, double, multiple, or misleading logs being discussed in this thread.

[+Mudfrog]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

Do you really see the two as the same?

 

Explain how cheating at poker to take someone else's money is the same as logging extra "attends" at events to falsely increase a find count.

 

I'll start, and explain how they're totally different.

The "ace up the sleeve" thing is something done without anyone else knowing, to try and take money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Logging extra finds is something done in the open, folks who do it aren't trying to hide it, and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

 

I'm sure you feel superior to each of them just the same.

 

So what is this "superior" carp you are talking? If showing good judgement, using common sense, and doing the right thing makes a person superior, then count me in!

 

A person can admit all day long that they are just "logging the event multiple times to count temporary caches". Yes, maybe they are being honest when they admit this, but they are still logging an event more than once which is an impossible thing to do. What i can't understand is that even if it didn't matter to anyone else, why would someone purposely do this and screw up their own stats?

[+Totem Clan]

... I just think it is interesting that certain practices, like Pocket Caches, and "Retired" caches, and Multiple Attended logs for temporary, not-listed caches, have cropped up in various places, but the practices have not spread. ...

I don't think that this thread is about pocket caches and I'm not sure what a 'retired' cache is, but it is ny understanding that the 'temporary' cache issue is pretty widespread.

 

In fact, it is my belief that logging these temporary caches to the event page was initially suggested by some approvers (they were approvers way back then), since they could not approve temporary caches for listing.

Sure it is.

 

Those are some of the caches that are "logged" on other real caches or events. That is exactly what this thread is about.

 

If numbers don't matter are multiple logs of that kind wrong? That's the topic. I'm trying to wrap my mind around this whole concept of multiple logs and the numbers game.

 

Edit to say...

 

I misread your post to say "temporary and pocket caches" not just "pocket caches." Still pocket caches are not "accepted" as a "proper" cache so it could be included as well, I guess.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Totem Clan

[+wavector]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

 

Logging temporary event caches using the Attended log type is a method of recording experiences using this website and it has no consequences for those who do not care about the numbers.

 

Perhaps I may be off the mark but the whole point of the topic was how we interpret the statement "the numbers don't matter". You are equating the practice of logging temporary event caches using the Event listing page with defrauding an insurance company?

I am confused, are you saying that the numbers do matter or they don't matter?

[+TrailGators]

... I just think it is interesting that certain practices, like Pocket Caches, and "Retired" caches, and Multiple Attended logs for temporary, not-listed caches, have cropped up in various places, but the practices have not spread. ...

I don't think that this thread is about pocket caches and I'm not sure what a 'retired' cache is, but it is ny understanding that the 'temporary' cache issue is pretty widespread.

 

In fact, it is my belief that logging these temporary caches to the event page was initially suggested by some approvers (they were approvers way back then), since they could not approve temporary caches for listing.

Sure it is.

 

Those are some of the caches that are "logged" on other real caches or events. That is exactly what this thread is about.

 

If numbers don't matter are multiple logs of that kind wrong? That's the topic. I'm trying to wrap my mind around this whole concept of multiple logs and the numbers game.

I agree. Those are on the discussion table as well.... Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

And again, I don't care. It's just another humorous little white lie to laugh at.

What's humorous to me is all the people that are on their high horse, looking down at the "cheaters", and making comments that are designed to show how good and pure and free of anything slightly dishonest they are. Give me a break.

 

Don't any of you people ever play a game with slightly different rules?

How many of you people ever play Monopoly where you get extra money for landing on Free Parking?

How many folks ever play poker and throw in a wild card rule on occasion?

When you're playing Putt Putt on a date and she wants a putt not to count because she didn't mean to hit it that hard, do you roll your eyes? Do you even remember it an hour later?

 

Then there are real life, non game, "cheaters"...

Do none of you EVER exceed the speed limit while you're driving?

I'm sure each one of you fills out their tax forms each year, and checks them 3 or 4 times to make sure there's not something you're missing paying a tax on.

You'd better get down to the grocery store and make sure nobody is in the 10 items or less line with 12 items. You're missing an opportunity to laugh at their "cheating".

 

Folks that log events multiple times are just having fun playing the game their way. Maybe acting superior to them in the forums is how you play? I guess that would be fair, and nobody should question you either.

I guess that's also why some people have aces up their sleeves at a poker game, because that's the way "they" play the "game."

Do you really see the two as the same?

 

Explain how cheating at poker to take someone else's money is the same as logging extra "attends" at events to falsely increase a find count.

 

I'll start, and explain how they're totally different.

The "ace up the sleeve" thing is something done without anyone else knowing, to try and take money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Logging extra finds is something done in the open, folks who do it aren't trying to hide it, and doesn't take anything away from anyone.

 

I'm sure you feel superior to each of them just the same.

 

So what is this "superior" carp you are talking? If showing good judgement, using common sense, and doing the right thing makes a person superior, then count me in!

 

A person can admit all day long that they are just "logging the event multiple times to count temporary caches". Yes, maybe they are being honest when they admit this, but they are still logging an event more than once which is an impossible thing to do. What i can't understand is that even if it didn't matter to anyone else, why would someone purposely do this and screw up their own stats?

The thing is, they are doing the right thing (in their opinion), they are being honest about their actions, and their stats aren't messed up (they are completely aware of what their numbers mean to them).

Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

I still don't see how someone is being dishonest if they say in their log that its a log on a temporary event cache or a find on a missing cache.

 

The argurment is made that when you look at the total find count there is no way to tell which are finds and which are logs that are from questionable practices. If you see someone attended 882 events and lives in Minnesota you may be able to guess that they have logged attended for some temporary caches but if you don't know about this you might think the person really did attend this many event. I guess the problem with these practices is that some newbie might look at the number of logs and think it means that person really found that many caches. Just think of the damage this is doing to the newbie who thinks you really need to find a cache to log it as such. How could anyone really have that many finds? Might as well quit geocaching now since I could never keep up. Maybe Jeremy needs to set up two sites - one for geocachers who want to see only "pure" numbers and one for people who like to allow gimmes and mulligans because it really isn't a competition but it still feels good to get a smiley.

[+sbell111]

... I just think it is interesting that certain practices, like Pocket Caches, and "Retired" caches, and Multiple Attended logs for temporary, not-listed caches, have cropped up in various places, but the practices have not spread. ...

I don't think that this thread is about pocket caches and I'm not sure what a 'retired' cache is, but it is ny understanding that the 'temporary' cache issue is pretty widespread.

 

In fact, it is my belief that logging these temporary caches to the event page was initially suggested by some approvers (they were approvers way back then), since they could not approve temporary caches for listing.

Sure it is.

 

Those are some of the caches that are "logged" on other real caches or events. That is exactly what this thread is about.

 

If numbers don't matter are multiple logs of that kind wrong? That's the topic. I'm trying to wrap my mind around this whole concept of multiple logs and the numbers game.

 

Edit to say...

 

I misread your post to say "temporary and pocket caches" not just "pocket caches."

Pocket caches are verboten. I haven't read any post to suggest that anyone believes that this isn't true.

[+TrailGators]

Pocket caches are verboten. I haven't read any post to suggest that anyone believes that this isn't true.

I agree, but why are they verboten? I think the reasons "may" tie into this thread.

[+sbell111]

Pocket caches are verboten. I haven't read any post to suggest that anyone believes that this isn't true.

I agree, but why are they verboten? I think the reasons "may" tie into this thread.

Jeremy's post addressed that.

[ATMouse]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

[+brdad]

Short and sweet, if numbers don’t matter then what difference does it make how a cacher does or doesn’t log?

 

It's not about the numbers. It's about MY numbers.

 

You can't compare my numbers to yours or vise-versa. There are way to many variables in our cache finds to make any comparison worthwhile. And even if we had done the same exact caches, Our capabilities and the conditions make the variables there too large to compare as well. In other words, the numbers do have value, but comparing them is useless.

 

However, a find is a find. But If you say you have found 100 caches, then that should mean you have found 100 caches, not that you have found 25 caches 4 times each. You can't rightfully say you found a cache when you have allready found it. You can't rightfully say you have found a cache when you sat at the locked gate for 30 seconds and took a picture of it. You can't rightfully say you have found a cache when your GPSr says 0 feet and you see a spot where a cache could have been. To do this cheapens the value of the find count of everyone who has ever found the cache.

 

If we go this route we might as well be teaching our young people - if you visit a University, you should feel free to claim you attended the university on your job application. Or if they have watched The Amazing Race on TV, they should feel free to claim they have travelled the world. Or if they attended an OSHA safety course, they should feel free to claim they have attended 10 of them. Or if they had a consultation with an military recruiter, they should feel free to claim they served in the military. It's obvious caching is much less important than my examples, but generally an individual's ethics are consistent through all his actions.

 

Perhaps the question should be to the multiple-loggers - if the numbers do matter, why don't they care enough to have numbers they could be proud of?

Edited May 24, 2007 by brdad

[+sbell111]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

[+wavector]

I doubt if that specific situaltion falls under the other types of false, double, multiple, or misleading logs being discussed in this thread.

 

Harry said

To me, logging a cache means that you have found the cache and signed the log

 

Do you think that someone who found a temporary event cache and signed the log in the cache has met the test of "Honesty Integrity and Morality" as outlined by Harry, does Harry? I appreciate that you think my example is clear for everyone but perhaps Harry might want to express his own opinions?

 

I am pointing out that the standards expounded by Harry don't work for me. When I see a log where a geocacher says "I found the cache and didn't have a pencil" I don't automaticaly think they are dishonest because they failed to adhere to some adopted standard. When I see geocachers logging temporary event caches using the Event listing page I don't think they are dishonest and I don't think the logs are false or misleading.

 

The numbers really don't matter.

[+Miragee]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

But by allowing a practice only accepted as "correct" in some Regional areas it is "quasi-legitimized."

[+sbell111]

... To do this cheapens the value of the find count of everyone who has ever found the cache. ...

Beyond the warm feeling we get when we make a find, there is no real value to finds. There is nothing that can be cheapened.

If we go this route we might as well be teaching our young people - if you visit a University, you should feel free to claim you attended the university on your job application. Or if they have watched The Amazing Race on TV, they should feel free to claim they have travelled the world. Or if they attended an OSHA safety course, they should feel free to claim they have attended 10 of them. Or if they had a consultation with an military recruiter, they should feel free to claim they served in the military. It's obvious caching is much less important than my examples, but generally an individual's ethics are consistent through all his actions.

Again, the difference is that the cache owner says that its OK.

 

If the university president says you get a degree, you get one. If CBS says you were on Amazing Race, you were. If whoever takes attendance for OSHA classes says you were there, you get credit. If the military says you served, you did.

Perhaps the question should be to the multiple-loggers - if the numbers do matter, why don't they care enough to have numbers they could be proud of?

Who says that they aren't proud?

[+sbell111]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

But by allowing a practice only accepted as "correct" in some Regional areas it is "quasi-legitimized."

Agreed. I think that this is part of the reason that I am not concerned with the practice (anymore ).

[ATMouse]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

 

Because the caches haven't gone through the review process? is that why?

[+TrailGators]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches? Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

This is what Jeremy said later on in that same thread that Markwell posted earlier:

 

I like it, but I just have to ask. How much harder could it be to, instead of a check box and checking for on/off to, make it a number defaulting to null values (meaning no limit) or 1 and then checking at logging time if the user has already reached that numeric ceiling (if one was specified by the owner)?

Mostly because the official stance is that you can really only find a cache once. To implement social change by allowing some arbitrary number of logs for a cache tends to encourage this behavior. This is not a technical reason for doing an all or nothing proposition but a social one.

[+flask]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

I'm not a huge fan of business analogies because they tend to ignore the 'fun' and 'volunteer' aspects of caching. However, if we go with business analogies, your's isn't on point because the person that made the suggestion isn't in charge of the insurance company.

 

A better analogy is if the owner of your local mom-and-pop donut shop offered you a donut for free. Certainly, it isn't stealing if the owner gave it to you.

 

it's you that's not up to speed. the donut belongs to the person offering it. the opportunity to make fradulent logs is not up for offer by cache owners.

 

or at least it shouldn't be.

[+Totem Clan]

There has been some good thoughts presented so far.

 

Please, let's not give the Mods a reason to shut this down. Let's keep it from become too personal.

 

No attacks from either side please.

[+Mudfrog]

The thing is, they are doing the right thing (in their opinion), they are being honest about their actions, and their stats aren't messed up (they are completely aware of what their numbers mean to them).

 

So they can just go to their stat page, look under "events attended", see the number 822, and right away know that they only attended 10 events? Unless they have an exceptional memory, theres no way of them knowing anything when they look at that big number... They would have to have those temprorary caches recorded elsewhere to see just how many they really got. But then, if you gotta do that, why would you put them under the event space in the first place?

[Mushtang]

Pocket caches are verboten. I haven't read any post to suggest that anyone believes that this isn't true.

I agree, but why are they verboten? I think the reasons "may" tie into this thread.

The caches that are verboten are approved caches that are picked up from their approved location and brought to an event to be signed, and then brought back to their approved location. They have different GC numbers than the event. These are "pocket caches" that someone has brought to the event in their "pocket" and set on a table (or kept in a pocket) for all to sign, but on their own page, different than the event page.

 

The ones that are not banned are caches that are not approved but are hidden near an event just for attendees of the even to find, and are removed after the event is over. These "Temporary Event Caches" are logged on the Event Cache page. This is why Jeremy may someday restrict the number of finds on a single GC number.

 

Both have been used to artificially inflate numbers, but the verboten "pocket cache" kind is misleading, the "Temporary Event Caches" are not.

[+sbell111]

At risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders, why can't event caches have a special option built into them for logging event caches?

 

Then anyone who wanted to "check up" on any given cachers' numbers, the event caches would be able to be identified.

While TPTB haven't spoken out against them, I don't think that they want to do anything that legitimizes them, either.

 

Because the caches haven't gone through the review process? is that why?

I believe so. On one hand, temporary caches can't go through the process because of the increase in workload. On the other hand, there's no way to know if they comply with the guidelines*, or not.

 

*Clearly, they don't meet the 'permanence' guideline. I was referring to the otherns.

[+flask]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

 

Logging temporary event caches using the Attended log type is a method of recording experiences using this website and it has no consequences for those who do not care about the numbers.

 

Perhaps I may be off the mark but the whole point of the topic was how we interpret the statement "the numbers don't matter". You are equating the practice of logging temporary event caches using the Event listing page with defrauding an insurance company?

I am confused, are you saying that the numbers do matter or they don't matter?

 

i'm not saying they do or they don't at this particular juncture. i simply wish to point out that a thing doesn't become right because it is offered, which is an idea that was sugested somewhere above.

 

as for consistency of opinion, it is possible to hold either one of these views:

 

1) numbers matter to me and i believe there ought to be integrity of play and logging practices.

2) numbers do not matter to me and i believe there ought to be integrity of play and logging practices.

 

MY numbers matter a lot to me, but i'd prefer them not to be available to you. YOUR numbers don't matter to me at all.

 

i believe in integrity both in geocaching and the world at large. if that's too idealistic for you, tough.

[+sbell111]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks. you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it. i can think of a great many things that jeremy hasn't outright banned and they are still poor ideas.

I'm not a huge fan of business analogies because they tend to ignore the 'fun' and 'volunteer' aspects of caching. However, if we go with business analogies, your's isn't on point because the person that made the suggestion isn't in charge of the insurance company.

 

A better analogy is if the owner of your local mom-and-pop donut shop offered you a donut for free. Certainly, it isn't stealing if the owner gave it to you.

 

it's you that's not up to speed. the donut belongs to the person offering it. the opportunity to make fradulent logs is not up for offer by cache owners.

 

or at least it shouldn't be.

It may or may not should be, but it is.

[+sbell111]

The thing is, they are doing the right thing (in their opinion), they are being honest about their actions, and their stats aren't messed up (they are completely aware of what their numbers mean to them).

 

So they can just go to their stat page, look under "events attended", see the number 822, and right away know that they only attended 10 events? Unless they have an exceptional memory, theres no way of them knowing anything when they look at that big number... They would have to have those temprorary caches recorded elsewhere to see just how many they really got. But then, if you gotta do that, why would you put them under the event space in the first place?

They know what they know about their own numbers.

[+TrailGators]

Clearly, they don't meet the 'permanence' guideline.

Isn't this an issue?

[+sbell111]

Clearly, they don't meet the 'permanence' guideline.

Isn't this an issue?

Yes. It is the reason that the caches don't have their own cache pages.

 

Thanks for asking.

Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

The thing is, they are doing the right thing (in their opinion), they are being honest about their actions, and their stats aren't messed up (they are completely aware of what their numbers mean to them).

 

So they can just go to their stat page, look under "events attended", see the number 822, and right away know that they only attended 10 events? Unless they have an exceptional memory, theres no way of them knowing anything when they look at that big number... They would have to have those temprorary caches recorded elsewhere to see just how many they really got. But then, if you gotta do that, why would you put them under the event space in the first place?

They know what they know about their own numbers.

 

They are certainly better than me then!

 

I have no earthly idea how many traditionals, micros, events i have until i look at them on my stat page. But when i do go look, i know the numbers are correct and i don't have to do any guessing whatsoever as to how many events i've actually attended.

[+TrailGators]

Clearly, they don't meet the 'permanence' guideline.

Isn't this an issue?

Yes. It is the reason that the caches don't have their own cache pages. Thanks for asking.

I was begging the question, but you didn't bite. So it's OK to log unapproved caches along with approved caches? If that's the case them why bother going through the approval process? This opens the door to people creating events and listing all of their own caches in any manner that they want. No more review process. Load up the 55 gallon drum with 2000 film cannisters..... Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

The thing is, they are doing the right thing (in their opinion), they are being honest about their actions, and their stats aren't messed up (they are completely aware of what their numbers mean to them).

So they can just go to their stat page, look under "events attended", see the number 822, and right away know that they only attended 10 events? Unless they have an exceptional memory, theres no way of them knowing anything when they look at that big number... They would have to have those temprorary caches recorded elsewhere to see just how many they really got. But then, if you gotta do that, why would you put them under the event space in the first place?

They know what they know about their own numbers.

They are certainly better than me then!

 

I have no earthly idea how many traditionals, micros, events i have until i look at them on my stat page. But when i do go look, i know the numbers are correct and i don't have to do any guessing whatsoever as to how many events i've actually attended.

But, there numbers are 'correct', also. You just expect different things out of your numbers than they do.

[+sbell111]

Clearly, they don't meet the 'permanence' guideline.

Isn't this an issue?

Yes. It is the reason that the caches don't have their own cache pages. Thanks for asking.

I was begging the question, but you didn't bite. So it's OK to log unapproved caches along with approved caches? If that's the case them why bother going through the approval process? This opens the door to people creating events and listing all of their own caches in any manner that they want. No more review process. Load up the 55 gallon drum with 2000 film cannisters.....

The world falls into anarchy. Cats sleeping with dogs, etc.

 

It's bedlam, I say.

Edited May 24, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Cats sleeping with dogs, etc.

Ain't gonna happen, they are just too different:

 

Dog's journal:

 

7 am - Oh boy! A walk! My favorite!

8 am - Oh boy! Dog food! My favorite!

9 am - Oh boy! The kids! My favorite!

Noon - Oh boy! The yard! My favorite

2 pm - Oh boy! A car ride! My favorite!

3 pm - Oh boy! The kids! My favorite!

4 pm - Oh boy! Playing ball! My favorite!

6 pm - Oh boy! Welcome home Mom! My favorite!

7 pm - Oh boy! Welcome home Dad! My favorite!

8 pm - Oh boy! Dog food! My favorite!

9 pm - Oh boy! Tummy rubs on the couch! My favorite!

11 pm - Oh boy! Sleeping in my people's bed! My favorite!

 

A Cat's Diary:

 

Day 783 of my captivity.

 

My captors continued to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from clawing the furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another house plant. Today my attempt

to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded. Maybe I should try this at the top of the stair. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair. I must try this on their bed.

 

Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body in an attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little kitty cat I was. This is not working according to plan. There was some sort of gathering of their

accomplices. I was placed in solitary confinement throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the food. More important, I overheard that my confinement was due to my powers of inducing something called "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage.

 

I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird, on the other hand, has got to be an informant. He speaks with them regularly, and I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his

current placement in the metal room, his safety is assured. But I can wait.

Edited May 24, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Mudfrog]

But, there numbers are 'correct', also. You just expect different things out of your numbers than they do.

 

This is what i don't understand. Maybe i'm missing something but as far as i know, it is physically impossible to attend an event more than one time. So now a person, in addition to his logging his regular attended log, also logs another attended log for a temporary cache that he found at that event. Now he has two attended logs on the same event. Please tell me how this can be correct?

 

As far as expecting different things from my numbers,,, Looking at my numbers and knowing that they factually represent my geoaching history is what i want to see. What other different things can i expect out of these numbers?

[+flask]

But, there numbers are 'correct', also. You just expect different things out of your numbers than they do.

 

This is what i don't understand. Maybe i'm missing something but as far as i know, it is physically impossible to attend an event more than one time.

 

go to the event.

stand real close to the exit.

go out.

come back in.

 

repeat as necessary.

 

go look for your dignity and integrity. keep going.... no, farther than that. farther... farther...

 

nevermind. that stuff is gone. you'll never see it again.

[+tozainamboku]

I wish to apologize.

 

There are many people who believe that a found log should only be used when you find a cache and an attended log should only be used to indicate you attended an event. They believe that people who use a found log on an cache they didn't find or an attended log for each temporary cache they found at an event either have a reading comprehension problem or are just silly for using logs for other than the intended use. I call these people "purists", "literalist", or perhaps "idealists". They are also a group of people that believe that that people who use a found log on an cache they didn't find or an attended log for each temporary cache they found at an event are liars and cheaters who lack any morals and can be lumped together with murderers and thieves. I call this group "puritans". I wish to apologize for not distinguishing the two groups in the past. From now on, I will only use the term "puritans" for those who claim that cachers who use questionable logging practices lack integrity and moral character.

Edited May 24, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+CSpenceFLY]

That's so messed up I don't even want to read it twice to figure out what you are talking about. :-)

[+briansnat]

There are many people who believe that a found log should only be used when you find a cache and an attended log should only be used to indicate you attended an event. They believe that people who use a found log on an cache they didn't find or an attended log for each temporary cache they found at an event either have a reading comprehension problem or are just silly for using logs for other than the intended use. I call these people "purists", "literalist", or perhaps "idealists".

 

Try geocachers. We use a GPS to find things. The other people are playing a different game. I don't know what to call it, but it ain't geocaching.

[+CheshireFrog]

The caches that are verboten are approved caches that are picked up from their approved location and brought to an event to be signed, and then brought back to their approved location. They have different GC numbers than the event. These are "pocket caches" that someone has brought to the event in their "pocket" and set on a table (or kept in a pocket) for all to sign, but on their own page, different than the event page.

 

I thought caches that were relocated for the event had become traveling caches, a category that has long since gone away. Pocket caches, it is my understanding, are "caches", actually just logs, that random people carry in their pocket, requiring that attendees wander through the crowd asking if each person is carrying a pocket cache as a method of meeting each other.

 

I could be wrong, I've never attended an event where either were present.

[+tozainamboku]

There are many people who believe that a found log should only be used when you find a cache and an attended log should only be used to indicate you attended an event. They believe that people who use a found log on an cache they didn't find or an attended log for each temporary cache they found at an event either have a reading comprehension problem or are just silly for using logs for other than the intended use. I call these people "purists", "literalist", or perhaps "idealists".

 

Try geocachers. We use a GPS to find thingsgeocaches. The other people are playing a different game. I don't know what to call it, but it ain't geocaching.

If the point is to find things - we have one case where they found temporary caches at a event. Those are things. In the other case we have people who used their GPS to try to find a cache that wasn't there (at least as far as both that person and the hider were concerned) Since there was no cache to find they did find the only thing left to find which is the location where the cache would have been. If you are going to be a "literalist" you should choose your words more carefully. In any case, I don't recall briansnat ever being a puritan.

[+brdad]

If they are true (geocaching.com) caches, they will have been approved by gc.com. If they are temporary event caches and not approved, they are not worthy of a found count. They are just there for extra fun while you are at the event.

Edited May 25, 2007 by brdad

[Clan Riffster]

that a cache owner suggests a double log does not make it right.

Actually, from a moral perspective, that's exactly what makes it right. The owner and the seeker are the ones who determine the legitimacy of a "find".

 

a person might suggest you defraud their insurance company; the fact that you were invited to do so will not make you blameless in the sight of the law.

Brother, you can't honestly be comparing someone playing a game that has no rules, in a method unlike you play, to someone committing a criminal act. This is a joke, right? I wasn't sure, since I didn't see any smileys after such a nonsensical post. Just in case this sentence was serious, (and I can't imagine it was), I'll spell out the difference: There are rules against defrauding an insurance company.

 

you either have to excuse the practice on its merits or at the very least on the absence of drawbacks.

I don't have to excuse the practice at all. There are no rules, or guidelines, or even hints from on high suggesting that the practice is verboten.

 

you cannot correctly reason that a thing must be right because someone invited you to do it.

In this case, (double logging a find), I most certainly can.

 

you also can't say a thing must be fine because jeremy hasn't banned it.

Actually, that would be my litmus test to determine if I wanted to condemn someone for a particular activity conducted within the framework of this, (Jeremy's), website. Is the practice allowed? If the answer is "Yes", then I am unwilling to don my white robes, arm myself with a pitchfork, fire up a torch and string up the "offender". If the answer is "No", then I have no qualms about holding the violator accountable for their actions.

 

I broke out of my morally superior phase when I was about 10 years old, which, from a practical standpoint, means I'm unwilling to condemn someone for being different, so long as their activities don't unnecessarily harm someone else. One of my favorite mottoes is, "An it harm none, do as thy wilst". I cannot accept the logic that an activity which harms no one, and is not prohibited in any way, could possibly be immoral. Your mileage may vary.

[Clan Riffster]

The caches that are verboten are approved caches that are picked up from their approved location and brought to an event to be signed, and then brought back to their approved location.

 

Pocket caches, it is my understanding, are "caches", actually just logs, that random people carry in their pocket, requiring that attendees wander through the crowd asking if each person is carrying a pocket cache as a method of meeting each other.

 

I could be wrong, I've never attended an event where either were present.

I have. Mushtang has it right, but you're not far off. The cache owner, (hopefully it was the owner), would pull one or more of their micro hides, and bring them to an event they were hosting. They would pass them out to the first few folks that showed up, instructing them to hide the cache in their pocket. Others would mingle through the crowd asking, "Is that a cache in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?" This added a social mix up to the attendees. On the log for each pocket cache would be the GC #, which the finder would write down and log later. Jeremy ruled against this practice.

[Clan Riffster]

So it's OK to log unapproved caches along with approved caches?

As long as you define OK as meaning within the rules, then "yes", it's OK. If Jeremy ever prohibits the process, then it would no longer be OK.

 

If that's the case them why bother going through the approval process?

To get a cache listed?