Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
txoilgas

Multiple Attending of Events

Recommended Posts

I liked the other parts.

I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read every post in this thread, but here's an idea...

 

Instead of making it Jeremy's job to make a ruling on multiple logs for an event, let's put the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the cache and cache page where it already belongs...with the cache owner.

 

I have hosted a number of events, and some attendees logged multiple times due to temporary caches that I placed in the area...I have no problem with that, and so did not delete them.

 

Nobody, to date, has multi-logged in a way that I didn't feel comfortable with (like logging for showing up, then for swimming, then for eating lunch, etc.)...if someone did, then I would delete the log.

 

I have a "Stupid Rule Cache" which places demands on cachers locating the cache before being able to log a "find"...I have deleted logs by people who did not follow the stupid rule...the point of this isn't my stupid rule cache (that's a whole other discussion), but to emphasize that the ultimate control with any cache (including event caches) should, and does (according to TPTB) lie with the cache owner.

 

Event cache owners should therefore control their caches as they see fit, making it plain on the cache description if they have will or will not allow multiple logs; and if they choose not to allow multiple logs, then they should feel free to delete those logs, since the offending cachers were warned in the cache listing not to do it...

 

Problem Solved

 

nfa

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the other parts.

I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid.

 

Dont you feel all better inside now? I bet you and all the rest of the Cronic Crybaby Complainers can look in the mirror and smile with pride for your high moral intergity. Congrats, youve earned it!

 

Speaking of CCC's, how come that "firestorm" hasnt be re-re-re-re-re-re-re-hashed lately? Tired of beating a dead horse yet? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Some have said your anology is way off. Actually I think it is perfect, and embodies every thing i am trying to say. basically in your example NO ONE CARES, and that should be the case here also. you say follow your own moral compass, I couldnt agree more, but with the freedoms we have in the USA everyones moral compass is a little different and thats ok too, as long as no one is being harmed cheated or stolen from,ETC.

Now if and when GS takes a stand and makes a rule we have a topic here. But for now i think we can all agree to disagree, some say its wrong, some say its ok , I say it is irellevant, numbers of cache finds does not affect anyones life,health or wealth, it does not break any currrent rules that anyone has noted so far, so does it really matter? now that i have said my piece i shall sit back and watch every one tear into me because im SOOOOO wrong, but after spending 8 years in the army (and a couple of those overseas) fighting for YOUR right to disagree with me I enjoy seeing juSt that. Exercise your right to think differently

Thank you for your service to our country. Still, you're not going to convince the puritans that it is ok to follow your own moral compass so long as no one is hurt. They believe that morality is absolute. They have even argued that you shouldn't trust anyone who has logged temporary caches to be your doctor, lawyer, or priest. I suspect they believe we shouldn't trust these people to go fight for our freedoms in the army.

 

It is easy to understand the argument that using the attended log for logging a temporary cache is a lie. The attended log says you attended an event not that you found a temporary cache. A found it log says that you found that particular cache, not that you couldn't find it and but the owner says you can log it as a find. I don't think there is anyway to convince someone who wants to take the log type literally that it is something other than lying if you use the log to indicate something else. On the other hand, there are people who look at the de facto way the logs are used on geocaching.com. Cache owners decide which logs are legitimate. That has led to some using the attended logs for logging temporary caches. It has led to cache owners allowing finds on caches that are actually missing. Are the people who use the logs this way - and honestly say so in the logs - lying or telling the truth? Use your own moral compass to answer :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the other parts.

I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid.

 

Dont you feel all better inside now? I bet you and all the rest of the Cronic Crybaby Complainers can look in the mirror and smile with pride for your high moral intergity. Congrats, youve earned it!

 

Speaking of CCC's, how come that "firestorm" hasnt be re-re-re-re-re-re-re-hashed lately? Tired of beating a dead horse yet? :ph34r:

 

What are CCC's?

Share this post


Link to post

I would sure hate to have this cachers gas bill, and all in just 3 years.

Name Count

Traditional Caches* 2069

Multi-caches* 280

Virtual Caches* 103

Event Caches* 822

Unknown (Mystery) Caches* 156

Webcam Caches* 7

Locationless (Reverse) Caches* 55

Cache In Trash Out Events* 18

Earthcaches* 7

NGS Benchmarks 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Total Caches Found 3517

It makes you think the rest of the count from the person you referenced is a bunch of BS. It does boil down to integrity. This person obviously has none.

:ph34r:

The statistics quoted are the numbers of a personal friend. If you want to question integrity, start at the first line... these numbers were accumulated over 5 years, not 3.

This cacher has attended the midwest geobashes, nearly every event he has been able to, and you will find his name on almost every log you open in SE Wisconsin and NE Illinois. I have seen days when he and his caching buddies would go out and score 30 or 40 finds for the day, Trudy & I have seen him on the trail and know there is no way we could keep up with him for even an hour. The cacher that has been singled out is very high energy and his integrity is beyond reproach.

 

It might be advised to walk the trails with a fellow cacher before demeaning him. Better yet, don't demean the activities of your fellow cachers, it's their game.

 

My mistake I meant to hit 4 instead of 3, and actually they have been a member closer to 4 years then 5

Share this post


Link to post

...you say follow your own moral compass, I couldnt agree more, but with the freedoms we have in the USA everyones moral compass is a little different and thats ok too, as long as no one is being harmed cheated or stolen from,ETC....

Thank you for your service to our country. Still, you're not going to convince the puritans that it is ok to follow your own moral compass so long as no one is hurt. They believe that morality is absolute. ...

 

Morality is abosolute. Given that humans are so geneticly similar to each other, all races included, there is ONE best way for us all to live together and be happiest as a race. There is no simple way to figure that one way out. However even when we can't we should try. 6 Billion Moral Compasses is chaos and anarchy. 180 National Moral compasses a lot better but still has major problems.

 

The moral compass covers, harm, cheating, stealing etc. and to say "do your own thing" and not recognize that the limitations you just placed are exactly what a moral compass is for, is an irony.

Share this post


Link to post

What are CCC's?

Cool Cache Containers, but that wasnt the point I was aimeing at-

 

Who is, to be more proper- Since this is all about numbers and integrity, I thought for sure that would

come up, but it seems that horse has finally been laid to rest. Forget I brought it up......

Share this post


Link to post

Temp caches aren't allowed on the site. And as I indicated in countless threads in the past, I think logging attended twice for an event is stupid, and posting additional logs to "match" whatever "count" you determined your numbers should be is equally stupid. However I have no plans to be the point police and create complicated rules for determining what counts as a find. That is up to the cache listing owner to decide.

 

However I do reserve the right to stop abuse on this web site, and frown highly upon fake logs on archived caches (or any cache) just to boost numbers here - such as counting finds on other listing sites. Just because I don't want to be the point police doesn't mean I can't take appropriate action against the users who decide to abuse the features of this site.

 

But as I also said before, I don't lose sleep over it. I stand by my stance that there are no "points" for geocaching and no score to be kept. The site does not keep score but simply offers a history of your finds.

Great post... but not one that will solve the debate in any way. Both sides can argue that Jeremy's statement supports their cause.

 

Sure - and I'm sure that's how Jeremy intended it. We each have our own distinction of where that solid gray line is that crossing logging practices from accetable to unaccetable. Jeremy has his own as well. The added benefit of being the Great Oz Behind the Curtain, is that you get to enforce what YOU see fit on YOUR website.

 

Jeremy hasn't enforced (or lost any sleep) over most multiple logging practices. He turns a quiet eye and shakes his head in dismay at the silly nature of these cachers. But woe unto those that poke the sleeping bear with a big stick. If you cross the line so far as to catch Jeremy's eye, I'm sure he'll step in. It seems a little like passing notes in class. A lot of people have done it at some time, and it's for the most part harmless. But if you pass enough notes for the teacher to notice then you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

Many people look for rules that are hard-and-fast, black-and-white. They want clearly defined regulations on how to play this game. Every instance of a perceived infraction seems to want to spawn another guideline or inhibition built in to the programming of the website to prevent the infraction from happening again.

 

I'm in the camp that I don't believe that logging 40 or 50 finds at an event makes sense to me. But I don't think that there should be a computer programmed system that prevents it. Instead I believe that the cache owner should delete whatever finds they don't think are legit on their pages. But I won't begrudge Jeremy from stepping in and deleting finds from any of my cache pages either.

Share this post


Link to post
Great post... but not one that will solve the debate in any way. Both sides can argue that Jeremy's statement supports their cause.

 

Sure - and I'm sure that's how Jeremy intended it. We each have our own distinction of where that solid gray line is that crossing logging practices from accetable to unaccetable. Jeremy has his own as well. The added benefit of being the Great Oz Behind the Curtain, is that you get to enforce what YOU see fit on YOUR website.

 

Jeremy hasn't enforced (or lost any sleep) over most multiple logging practices. He turns a quiet eye and shakes his head in dismay at the silly nature of these cachers. But woe unto those that poke the sleeping bear with a big stick. If you cross the line so far as to catch Jeremy's eye, I'm sure he'll step in. It seems a little like passing notes in class. A lot of people have done it at some time, and it's for the most part harmless. But if you pass enough notes for the teacher to notice then you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

Many people look for rules that are hard-and-fast, black-and-white. They want clearly defined regulations on how to play this game. Every instance of a perceived infraction seems to want to spawn another guideline or inhibition built in to the programming of the website to prevent the infraction from happening again.

 

I'm in the camp that I don't believe that logging 40 or 50 finds at an event makes sense to me. But I don't think that there should be a computer programmed system that prevents it. Instead I believe that the cache owner should delete whatever finds they don't think are legit on their pages. But I won't begrudge Jeremy from stepping in and deleting finds from any of my cache pages either.

 

Agreed!!

Share this post


Link to post

Many people look for rules that are hard-and-fast, black-and-white. They want clearly defined regulations on how to play this game. Every instance of a perceived infraction seems to want to spawn another guideline or inhibition built in to the programming of the website to prevent the infraction from happening again.

 

I'm in the camp that I don't believe that logging 40 or 50 finds at an event makes sense to me. But I don't think that there should be a computer programmed system that prevents it. Instead I believe that the cache owner should delete whatever finds they don't think are legit on their pages. But I won't begrudge Jeremy from stepping in and deleting finds from any of my cache pages either.

Not that i want a lot of rules, but i feel like they are a good thing and should be followed.

 

The problem with cache owners deciding is that if the owners delete logs then they have to deal with upset locals. Its enough to make me just not want to host an event.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with cache owners deciding is that if the owners delete logs then they have to deal with upset locals. Its enough to make me just not want to host an event.

But that's how it is now. I've hosted four events and while some of them (in the early, early, EARLY days of my caching career) allowed multiple finds, when it was known UP FRONT that there would be temporary caches at the event that would not be allowed to be logged, I never had a single complaint from any cacher. If the logs were deleted subsequently, I let them know.

 

I've had locals upset with me before, but NEVER about deleting a log on an event page.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to get too off topic but I find it incredibly sad that "it doesn't hurt anyone", "nobody died", "the software lets me do it", "it doesn't effect me", "do what makes you happy", "play your way and I'll play mine" etc. are all being used to justify a lack of integrity, poor sportsmanship and just plain dishonesty (dare I say lying!).

 

That's what's wrong with society today "hey... who cares, doesn't effect me... and as long as I'm happy....". This is just a game, so what do they lie about when they're at work all day, or when something really important is on the line.

 

Repugnant... that's a good word for it.

 

Sorry if that offends anyone (but hey, nobody died).

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

Not to get too off topic...

Too late...

 

are all being used to justify a lack of integrity, poor sportsmanship and just plain dishonesty (dare I say lying!).

Don't you find that judging someone's integrity, sportsmanship, and honesty by a count that, according to many on this site, is not important anyway, just a tad bit unnecessary?

 

You don't know me or many others here. Don't compare work ethics with how some people play a game with minimal rules, please.

 

Repugnant... that's a good word for it.

A little melodramatic, I'd say...

Share this post


Link to post

Perfectly welcome to analyze what I say... but it still holds If one can't even play a simple game without looking for justification for "questionable (at the VERY least)" logging practices, I wouldn't want to have to deal with that individual on any other basis. What we do, how we behave... it defines our character. If one can't apply that to a basic game, what are they doing with the rest of their life?

 

:blink:

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying I condone or condemn any of these activities, but I think judging overall integrity and ethics is better left for the more important things in life, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post

Not to get too off topic but I find it incredibly sad that "it doesn't hurt anyone", "nobody died", "the software lets me do it", "it doesn't effect me", "do what makes you happy", "play your way and I'll play mine" etc. are all being used to justify a lack of integrity, poor sportsmanship and just plain dishonesty (dare I say lying!).

 

That's what's wrong with society today "hey... who cares, doesn't effect me... and as long as I'm happy....". This is just a game, so what do they lie about when they're at work all day, or when something really important is on the line.

 

Repugnant... that's a good word for it.

 

Sorry if that offends anyone (but hey, nobody died).

 

DCC

 

You are entitled to your opinion. That doesnt make it right, or wrong-but just that- your opinion.

 

Perfectly welcome to analyze what I say... but it still holds If one can't even play a simple game without looking for justification for "questionable (at the VERY least)" logging practices, I wouldn't want to have to deal with that individual on any other basis. What we do, how we behave... it defines our character. If one can't apply that to a basic game, what are they doing with the rest of their life?

:blink:

DCC

 

Maybe obsessing with how others in the wprld are enjoying themselves? Defining your character based on how to play a game with very little rules seems rather closed minded. I guess if we played checkers, and I crowned a king (whereas you prefer to drop the extra) than I am a low down scum and cant be spoken too.

 

Its a GAME. You dont dictate the rules. Assign any adjective you'd like, but your opionion is just that- Your opinion.

 

I'm not saying I condone or condemn any of these activities, but I think judging overall integrity and ethics is better left for the more important things in life, that's all.

 

^Agreed 100% It amazes me how much people from far across the country get so upset with people they have never met (or never will), have no relations to- and go on and on bashing thier character.

To mee, that is alot more telling of someones chracter-

If you are willing judge a person so harshly based on a game, from across the nation - then you are the one lacking character.

Share this post


Link to post

The event host bears some responsibility when it comes to multiple logging of events. As owner of the listing, they can and should delete the extra logs. The event host also bears the responsibility of not encouraging the practice in the first place. Some actually invite attendees to multiple log!

 

I happened to be visiting relatives in Wisconsin recently from my home area on the west coast, and attended an event while I was there -- partly to meet some of the local cachers and partly to see how they dealt with this multiple logging of events.

 

Not only was the practice encouraged, but the event host included in his opening introduction to the group how and why to multiple log the event. I guess the thing that bothered me was that there were a number of obvious newbies there who took this in as being the "correct" way to acknowledge temporary caches. They were nice enough folks, but that's just not my cup of tea.

 

I did log the event, though...once :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Its enough to make me just not want to host an event.

 

Temp caches at events can be fun, but my events don't focus on such things. Yes, the event itself is nothing more than a meet-n-greet but it's a focal point to do existing caches in the area. Helping people with the more psychically challenging ones that they wouldn't (or shouldn't) attempt by themselves.

 

Since there are no temps caches I haven't had anyone log the event more than once. And if they did I politely let them know that it's a one per customer event. If it ever became an issue I would clarify my requirement up front.

 

====

 

I find it incredibly sad that "it doesn't hurt anyone", "nobody died",

 

<snip>

 

Sorry if that offends anyone (but hey, nobody died).

 

Pretty much what I think whenever someone uses the crushing grip of logic "you can't disagree with me because nobody died". Whatever, step a little closer and we'll see if that's true. (Kidding of course :blink: )

Share this post


Link to post
That's what's wrong with society today "hey... who cares, doesn't effect me... and as long as I'm happy....". This is just a game, so what do they lie about when they're at work all day, or when something really important is on the line. Repugnant... that's a good word for it.

But the point is that questionable logging practices are, well... questionable. I don't disagree with there being WRONG logging practices, but way back on Post 87 on Page 2, I referenced a graphic I made earlier. I hadn't updated it in a while to reflect my current order - so here's a cleaner version of the graphic with some slight changes to the order based on my CURRENT feelings of where these practices fall:

9269430f-9e64-4068-b4dd-dce42e54e606.jpg

My point in posting the graphic here again is not just for fun or to restate my point. It's to add these two additional graphics.

 

It is quite possible that someone's threshhold of acceptability lies around here:

7a614515-3863-435f-a756-acf4fa2f938b.jpg

This hypothetical person has no problem logging a cache when they go out on a group hunt. They didn't really find the cache anymore than my dog does when she tags along for a walk in the woods. But this hypothetical cacher wouldn't log a find a cache page that they've previously found, even if the cache owner moved the cache 527 feet and said that people could re-log the new hide.

 

It is ALSO quite possible that someone ELSE's threshhold of acceptability lies around here:

81ca5d70-1324-4ffc-bf14-25bbbc2af4ff.jpg

This second person has no problem logging multiple icon_attended.gif on an event page because they found temporary caches at the event, but they wouldn't log "pocket caches".

 

But the second person's practice does NOT interfere with NOR CHANGE the threshhold of the first hypothetical cacher. The first cacher with the higher standard can sleep well at night knowing that they did what was right and within the guidelines of this game that has so few rules. The catch is that the second cacher can do the same thing. Geocaching.com and our society has no RULES regarding how many logs there are for events or other caches. Local areas have "practices" and some may question the practices of others, but until GC.com or some governing body MAKES rules that will be enforced, there will be these variances in how a game is played.

 

Ever play "Heads Up Seven Up"? The rules around our parts were the first ones listed on the page, and I've never HEARD of someone playing it the second way. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that someone playing a localized game under different rules is repugnant or somehow unscrupulous.

 

I'll ask it again - in a game with no clear rules, and no winner, how can you cheat?

Share this post


Link to post

You are entitled to your opinion. That doesnt make it right, or wrong-but just that- your opinion.

 

Isn't everything in this discussion opinion? The only reason anyone ever says "that's just your opinion" is to try to cast aspersions over what your point was.

 

Maybe obsessing with how others in the wprld are enjoying themselves? Defining your character based on how to play a game with very little rules seems rather closed minded. I guess if we played checkers, and I crowned a king (whereas you prefer to drop the extra) than I am a low down scum and cant be spoken too.

Not obsessing... just my opinion (according to you). How anyone follows rules absolutely defines their character. What is that old saying about "Character is what you do when no one is watching"...

And yes, cheating in any game will lower my opinion of anyone.

 

Its a GAME. You dont dictate the rules. Assign any adjective you'd like, but your opionion is just that- Your opinion.

I did not attempt to dictate any rules I just gave my "opinion" on what I think about those who can't follow them.

 

It amazes me how much people from far across the country get so upset with people they have never met (or never will), have no relations to- and go on and on bashing thier character.

To mee, that is alot more telling of someones chracter-

If you are willing judge a person so harshly based on a game, from across the nation - then you are the one lacking character.

Character has nothing to do with proximity. If you log onto a forum and tell me that you regularly shoplift, I'll have a dim view as well.

 

You may judge my character as you see fit as it is your choice.

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

Markwell, i like your charts. I was always taught that flirting with grey areas was nothing but trouble. If you stay out of the grey- you will stay out of trouble.

 

According your chart there is a lot more grey than i ever realized. People must really like those smilies! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

It amazes me how much people from far across the country get so upset with people they have never met (or never will), have no relations to- and go on and on bashing thier character.

 

I doubt that you're really amazed by this. The comment was more likely meant to be provocative (and it worked! Yay).

 

There are, as Markwell has written, many shades of grey. And as I often write, as long as the activity doesn't get too abusive I would posit that it doesn't matter too much if someone does multiple logs on a cache. After all the find counts don't get you a prize. Besides you can always pooh pooh those who don't log caches the right way even if they are more prolific finders than you are. The same goes for hard caches over easy caches, urban caches or hiking caches, etc.

 

Markwell also put it well that I generally don't make judgements on the shades of grey. I only step in when the activity becomes carcenogenic (or epidemic).

 

I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no. But my opinion has no bearing on the way the site should function in this area. Ultimately the cache owner decides. within reason, the parameters of the "find."

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no.

 

aa4f323c-c7a0-4e90-b132-dfc2f8aa91e3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no.

 

aa4f323c-c7a0-4e90-b132-dfc2f8aa91e3.jpg

I have to admit. That is so comical. This image should be posted on the site. Thanks for the smilie. :lol::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no.

 

aa4f323c-c7a0-4e90-b132-dfc2f8aa91e3.jpg

I have to admit. That is so comical. This image should be posted on the site. Thanks for the smilie. :D:blink:

 

That is funny.. :lol:

 

And I think Jeremy's assessment is right on the mark. :D

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing that with all the upcoming site updates, I already know the answer to this suggestion, but I'll pose it anyway...

 

Since the infrastructure is already in place to add additional waypoints to a cache, how about adding a "temp cache" category, so event cache owners can add a waypoint for each of their temps. The change that would have to be made, however, is to be able to add some sort of a "found it!" for those waypoints.

 

Those logs would not get added into one's total finds, but would show up on the stats page as a separate total, similar to how benchmarks do now.

 

This could also apply to "bonus caches" that I have seen as well.

 

Now, finds counts will show only the actual listed caches found, while finders of temps can still have "credit" for those extra finds.

Share this post


Link to post

Might as well ask here rather than start a new thread.

 

What is a pocket cache?

A practice started at one of the GeoWoodstocks, I believe. I have a cache in my pocket. Ask me about it and you can log the find.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no.

 

aa4f323c-c7a0-4e90-b132-dfc2f8aa91e3.jpg

I have to admit. That is so comical. This image should be posted on the site. Thanks for the smilie. :blink::lol:

Where would Judge Judy's picture go. I'm guessing right on top of Yoda's.

 

Might as well ask here rather than start a new thread.

 

What is a pocket cache?

Pocket cache is probably the wrong word for what got banned after Geowoodstock IV. Pocket caches probably still turn up as temporary event caches. Someone has a micro cache in their pocket and attendees at the event are invited to ask around to find who has the cache and sign the log. Whether they log it online or not is up to them. What got banned was where people brought a cache or just the log of a real cache located elsewhere to an event and invited people to sign that log. The most egregious case at Geowoodstock IV was when people were invited to sign a log for a cache on a military base in Iraq. It was probably meant to show support for the troops but instead was widely seen as degrading the meaning of this cache for the men and women who did find it while serving in a war zone. There are better ways to show support than getting a a smiley for something you really didn't find. Jeremy had the caches that were used this way archived and locked to prevent what he saw as abuse.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
I'm of the opinion that anything below the "marks multiple finds for moving caches" is a no no.

 

aa4f323c-c7a0-4e90-b132-dfc2f8aa91e3.jpg

I have to admit. That is so comical. This image should be posted on the site. Thanks for the smilie. :blink::lol:

Where would Judge Judy's picture go. I'm guessing right on top of Yoda's.

 

LOL. I dont know about moved caches. I guess it matter how far they moved. I hadnt thought about that. Group finds? How big is the group? We log our finds as a group (I prefer the term team- is that the same?). We are a family of 4.

Share this post


Link to post

Pocket cache is probably the wrong word for what got banned after Geowoodstock IV. The most egregious case at Geowoodstock IV was when people were invited to sign a log for a cache on a military base in Iraq.

Texas has a long and proud relationship with the military. The cache owner happen to travel back and forth from Iraq and North Texas on a regular basis. He brought the actual cache from Iraq and it was placed at a location that had to be found in the park where GW4 was being held. There was a lot of word going out before GW4 that the cache would be there and it was widely looked upon as a great way to interact with the troops. All of the logs were super supportive and a fistful of coins and travel bugs were placed in the cache, which happen to be an ammo can, for their return to Iraq. That is when someone complained and the ^%$#^$#$ hit the fan. The cache was returned to Iraq and was eventually reactivated when the finds were replaced by notes. I think this one took a lot of unnessary heat.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post

...Maybe obsessing with how others in the wprld are enjoying themselves? Defining your character based on how to play a game with very little rules seems rather closed minded. I guess if we played checkers, and I crowned a king (whereas you prefer to drop the extra) than I am a low down scum and cant be spoken too.

...

 

Lets look at the instructions for events.

 

They have an "I attended log". They don't have a "I found an event only cache Log". They don't have an "Attended multiple times log".

So if you log "Attended" 20 times. How is that following the instructions that you have to work with? Or is your attended defined different than my attended?

Share this post


Link to post

... I think this one took a lot of unnessary heat.

:blink:

 

I'd say it had the right outcome regardless of the heat. Maybe good intentions but it would have been better to follow ClayJars example on his Event cache. He drove from Alaska to Home (La?) and stopped all along the way to meet cachers and have them sign his log book in an actual Ammo can mounted on his car. Unique, and yet classic well deserving of the exception to the normal rules that he got by asking in advance.

 

Come to think of it, It's still a good idea, and it can be done now. I'd be glad to sign such a log.

Share this post


Link to post

here's a cleaner version of the graphic with some slight changes to the order based on my CURRENT feelings of where these practices fall:

9269430f-9e64-4068-b4dd-dce42e54e606.jpg

I wonder if I can change your current feeling about logging finds on missing caches that you replaced. My personal ethics put me at the lily white end where logging a cache with a group is OK, but I've always felt that I was doing something altruistic when I've replaced someone's missing cache for them. I make fer-danged sure that the cache is missing when I do this, backing it up with photos sent to the cache owner and getting their blessing first. If I'm not going to log a find when I replace the cache, am I supposed to come back again later and find it exactly where I had my hands on it before and then log a find? Is it supposed to sit there forever as something I'm not allowed to find because I helped somebody? Or should I avoid helping people, because doing so means that I won't be able to ethically log finds? The choice seems obvious to me.

 

Your graphic totally cracks me up, otherwise. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Well as I have posted several times on this thread I realise I have not taken a stand on the topic at hand so here goes. I believe on that high speed Star Wars graphic I would log a cache found with a group ( my wife and 4 kids are most often with me)and thats about as far left as I go. I did find a cache to be missing once ,posted a noteto that effect then after the owner replaced it I went back and signed the paper log then logged a find on the site. as for multiple event logs, I have yet to attend an event ( although plan to soon) i think if i attend the event multiple times i'll log as such,(not sure if that is physically possible but i am willing to try:P) but if I only attend once i would log once then make a note in my handy dandy geocaching notebook with how many caches i found at the event so I can keep count, because even tho it is not the driving force behind the sport i DO like to see my own numbers. that said i still dont think this is a major issue and it really doesnt bother me what others do while logging thier finds.

Share this post


Link to post

The weird thing that happens with replacement caches... there's one in a park nearby me that actually has two containers, because someone couldn't find the cache, they replaced it and now folks are logging whichever one they find. My caching buddy got an email from a local cacher who said he replaced a missing cache. He looked for it, phoned a friend who'd already found it, declared it missing, replaced it and signed the replacement. When my buddy went out to check... there it was, the original cache less than a yard from the replacement! No evil hide here... this was a magnetic on the back of a guardrail!

 

DCC

Share this post


Link to post

I've found the original and a replacement cache several times. Sometimes the replacement was left by the cache owner who couldn't find his own cache and sometimes by a altruistic cacher trying to do a good deed. I haven't logged multiple finds on any of these. The proper way to replace a missing cache is to archive the original and create a new GC page for the replacement. That way when I find both caches, I can log the archived cache for the original and the new cache for the replacement and still be in complete agreement with Yoda - "Each GC listed cache one time only log you may." :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

For those dual replacement caches. If i find them both, can i get two smilies? :lol:

 

Who says you can't play the game "your way" and take two smilies on EVERY cache? and why stop at two? It doesn't hurt anyone if you want to log a cache 20 or 30 times, so why not?

Share this post


Link to post

How about putting some caches in my yard and then being FTF and then immediately archiving them. Those would be ok.

 

If that doesnt seem right, i could let my kids hide them and then i could go find them.

 

Yay- more smilies. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Yay- more smilies. :lol:

 

You said the secret word!!! that's worth lots of smilies!

 

header.jpg

smiley-town.gif

Share this post


Link to post

How about putting some caches in my yard and then being FTF and then immediately archiving them. Those would be ok.

 

If that doesnt seem right, i could let my kids hide them and then i could go find them.

 

Yay- more smilies. :lol:

 

Your new avatar just isn't working for me... you really need to starting writing so that it sounds like Napoleon Dynamite. :D

Share this post


Link to post

...Maybe obsessing with how others in the wprld are enjoying themselves? Defining your character based on how to play a game with very little rules seems rather closed minded. I guess if we played checkers, and I crowned a king (whereas you prefer to drop the extra) than I am a low down scum and cant be spoken too.

...

 

Lets look at the instructions for events.

 

They have an "I attended log". They don't have a "I found an event only cache Log". They don't have an "Attended multiple times log".

So if you log "Attended" 20 times. How is that following the instructions that you have to work with? Or is your attended defined different than my attended?

 

How is what people in WI are doing at events relevant to you, way over in Idaho, or wherever you are? Its Not.

 

Apparently some people in Wisconsins' logging of events is in fact, different from your example. Its been desribed more than once the reasons they do it, etc- its thier choice - The cache page owner/event holder, but Not yours.

It sounds like the instructions given, by the event host - were in fact to log in just the way everyone did.

 

Dont like it? Dont host an event that allows it. And dont come to WI, becuase Im guessing you wouldnt be to welcome there.

 

Btw, I have only attended 1 event, 1 time.

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been to caches that ask you do to something while there to receive an extra smilie. We did the extra activity, but getting an extra smilie for it just wouldn't be right isnt how we play the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been to caches that ask you do to something while there to receive an extra smilie. We did the extra activity, but getting an extra smilie for it just wouldn't be right isnt how we play the game.

Wow, that's a clever use of the strikeout tag to try to mask your true feelings very insightful post.

Share this post


Link to post

How about putting some caches in my yard and then being FTF and then immediately archiving them. Those would be ok.

 

If that doesnt seem right, i could let my kids hide them and then i could go find them.

 

Yay- more smilies. :blink:

 

Your new avatar just isn't working for me... you really need to starting writing so that it sounds like Napoleon Dynamite. :angry:

Ditto... :lol::D

Share this post


Link to post

Pocket cache is probably the wrong word for what got banned after Geowoodstock IV. The most egregious case at Geowoodstock IV was when people were invited to sign a log for a cache on a military base in Iraq.

Texas has a long and proud relationship with the military. The cache owner happen to travel back and forth from Iraq and North Texas on a regular basis. He brought the actual cache from Iraq and it was placed at a location that had to be found in the park where GW4 was being held. There was a lot of word going out before GW4 that the cache would be there and it was widely looked upon as a great way to interact with the troops. All of the logs were super supportive and a fistful of coins and travel bugs were placed in the cache, which happen to be an ammo can, for their return to Iraq. That is when someone complained and the ^%$#^$#$ hit the fan. The cache was returned to Iraq and was eventually reactivated when the finds were replaced by notes. I think this one took a lot of unnessary heat.

:lol:

Anyone have a GC# to this one?

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been to caches that ask you do to something while there to receive an extra smilie. We did the extra activity, but getting an extra smilie for it just wouldn't be right isnt how we play the game.

Wow, that's a clever use of the strikeout tag to try to mask your true feelings very insightful post.

:lol: Love your avatar. That is so cool! :D:blink::angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...