Jump to content

Double logging and geo-ethics

Scaber

By Scaber
in General geocaching topics

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted

CR, I wasn't proposing more rules. Not sure why you thought I was.... :o I was actually implying the opposite by pointing out that we had simple rules that everyone followed. :D

I'm not sure what you are referring to. If this is the 3 rules that are given in the Geocaching.com FAQ then

  1. I'm not sure everyone ever followed them. They say take something from the cache and leave something in the cache. I'm pretty sure that some people didn't trade right from the start. And the fiction that you take the log, you write in it, and they you leave the log isn't really satisfactory. This implies that the log is a trade item, so I guess its OK to take the log, write in it, and leave a broken McToy. Good luck verifying that I signed the log because I just traded for it. :ph34r:
  2. These were the instructions Dave Ulmer gave for the first cache. They weren't ever meant as the "rules" for the game. But Jeremy chose to list them that way in the FAQ. At best these could be the "basic" rules of the game. They have obviously been modified for virtual caches and log only micros with only room for initials in the log. They don't talk about multi caches or puzzles or anticipate event caches. The same paragraph in the FAQ says "Where you place a cache is up to you." It doesn't say "Where you place a cache is up to you, so long as it meets all the guidelines for reporting a new cache described elsewhere".
  3. They don't say anything about logging online. No indication what so ever as to whether or not the 3 rules constitute the minimum required to log a find on line. Some people have decide to add a 4 rule to the Dave Ulmer's three rules, "If you have complied with rules (1) thru (3) above, you may now log your find online."

I don't see any need for rule 4 or for a rule 5 that says "you may only log one 'found it' log online per each geocache listed on Geocaching.com." More important, I don't see any need for Geocaching.com to modify the code to prevent more than one found it log per geocache. As it stands now, cache hiders can be a bit creative in coming up with caches where it might make sense to log multiple time. Sure, sometimes it only makes sense to people living in Wisconsin :(. Geocachers are free to express their opinion as to whether or not it makes sense to log "found it" multiple times. I understand that some may feel it never makes sense. However what they are basically doing here is telling other people they don't like the way the others play the game. They desire a simple concept for logging 'found it' online that can be achieved by just adding two more rules to the basic 3 rules. And a way to enforce one of these rules by changing the Geocaching.com code.

 

On reason I like the system the way it is, is because I know when I look at someone else's numbers, I have no idea if they are logging multiple time or logging 'found it' in cases I don't believe they should be. So everybody's number is suspect. This means there is no reason to compare my numbers to anyone else's except for fun and entertainment. If I or someone else congratulates a cacher for making a milestone, I know its done for fun and not as part of any real competition. The current system allows those who only want to count a find once per geocache listed on Geocaching.com and only if they have complied with Dave Ulmer's rules (possibly modified if they didn't trade) to play the game the way they want. I don't want to tell them not to object to what others are doing because, frankly, I too think some of these practices are silly. But inventing rules to show these practices are cheating doesn't really help the debate.

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted
We had three experienced cachers searching so we made good time finding the caches

How many did you personally locate, vs. how many were passed to you by the person that actually located them? Some Puritans would be willing to start an argument claiming that any cache passed to you by a member of a group was not a "Find", and logging it as such would be cheating. (No, I'm not one of those Puritans) :o

 

Just sayin'.... :(:D

 

aparently being from wisconsin gives you license to play fast and loose with rules.

Whose rules? Yours? Mine? Snoogans'? You can't be referring to Groundspeak's rules, since they don't have any. The closest thing in the guidelines concerning this topic refers to cache owners having an obligation to delete bogus logs, but Groundspeak has elected to remain quiet when it comes to discerning what is a bogus log. This is the part that they have left up to the cache owner.

 

Our brethren from Wisconsin have made some rather valid points, which have largely been ignored. Namely, it's inappropriate to label someone as a cheater, simply because they employ an allowable method of play that doesn't fit your moral esthetic's. Sure, we might think it's odd, or even silly, but they do not. It's also inappropriate to paint everyone from a particular region with a broad brush, simply because some members of that community play differently than you do. If no rules, laws or guidelines are broken, by an action that is not meant to deceive, said action cannot accurately be labeled as dishonest, deceitful, cheating or lying. To continue doing so in light of reality merely makes you dishonest and hypocritical.

 

Consider the average TV Evangelist. Is that the role y'all wanna adopt in this community? It's been my experience that this particular professional group is the least tolerant group of people on the planet, professing to "know" the mind of their chosen deity, interpreting dogma to fit their particular message of hate. (No, this is not a dig on organized religion. Please don't misinterpret it as such.) Those in this thread who are insisting that double logging is somehow lacking some ethical standing, are some of the most respected cachers I know. I think you folks would get a lot more mileage from a positive message, rather than your current, negative message. Education beats berating every time. :ph34r:

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

 

Oh . . . and I don't think this cache is exactly a magnetic key holder on a light pole. :o

GREAT photo. Thanks for sharing. We don't have too many mountains in WI. Sure we have the remains of one of the oldest mountain ranges in North America in the northern part of the state, but they don't quite compare.

 

The LaCrosse area, my old stomping ground, has the Mississippi River valley and some nice bluffs.

 

I've gotta get out west sometime to try my hand at some of your more picturesque caches.

 

See....there is always room for civility in any discussion. We are a community of cachers and we all share a common passion. Lets at least act respectful of each other.

I lived in Wisconsin for 11 years. Four in Milwaukee and seven in Eau Claire. My favorite spots were the Brule river during the fall for Steelhead fishing, Door County in the fall, and the bluffs along the Mississippi between La Crosse and Prairie Du Chien. I moved out west 10 years ago and started caching 4.5 years ago. The best thing about geocaching is that it let's you discover cool places a lot faster than you normally would. I've seen so much more of the west since I've been geocaching. It's been great! :(
Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted
3 Hawks. Forget it. Don't waste your breath. They haven't been to a WI event. That's fine. Their impression is probably what they call caching, which is to get coordinates for magnetic key holders on a light pole in some drug store parking lot. Since these "caches" each have their own web page, in their world these caches are automatically more difficult than our temp caches at our events. LOL

 

Let 'em rant. They don't understand how simple geocaching really is. You get coordinates, you plug them into your GPS, you find a cache, and you log it. That's it. Let them pound their chests and make themselves feel superior. They're not.

 

I'll sleep just fine tonight knowing that we understand quality caching in Wisconsin. :o

 

Please share a quote where somebody said that your temp caches weren't "quality" caches....

 

It's implied throughout this thread that event temps are just sitting around in the open for any blind squirrel to stumble across.

...

I don't know anyone in this Forum and I really don't care what anybody thinks of my views. ...

 

It's implied through this thread that double dipping is not the right way to log, or that it doesn't matter. Not much of anything else is implied. Most posters have attended events. In my case some of temp caches I found have made form a couple of the most memorable days of caching. We all only logged attended once but I'd put those caches up against any event with multiple attended logs.

 

Lastly, If you don't care what anyone thinks of your views then why bother expressing them?

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
We had three experienced cachers searching so we made good time finding the caches
How many did you personally locate, vs. how many were passed to you by the person that actually located them? Some Puritans would be willing to start an argument claiming that any cache passed to you by a member of a group was not a "Find", and logging it as such would be cheating. (No, I'm not one of those Puritans) :o Just sayin'.... :(:D
I wasn't the first one to spot everyone of them, but I saw where everyone of them was hidden. Anyhow, what would "the Puritans" want to take from me? My numbers? They can have them. I don't do it for numbers... :ph34r:
Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted
We had three experienced cachers searching so we made good time finding the caches
How many did you personally locate, vs. how many were passed to you by the person that actually located them? Some Puritans would be willing to start an argument claiming that any cache passed to you by a member of a group was not a "Find", and logging it as such would be cheating. (No, I'm not one of those Puritans) :o Just sayin'.... :(:D
I wasn't the first one to spot everyone of them, but I saw where everyone of them was hidden. Anyhow, what would "the Puritans" want to take from me? My numbers? They can have them. I don't do it for numbers... :ph34r:

That entire debate was hashed out a long time ago. Fortunatly we have a new debate to keep us entertained.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
We had three experienced cachers searching so we made good time finding the caches
How many did you personally locate, vs. how many were passed to you by the person that actually located them? Some Puritans would be willing to start an argument claiming that any cache passed to you by a member of a group was not a "Find", and logging it as such would be cheating. (No, I'm not one of those Puritans) :o Just sayin'.... :(:D
I wasn't the first one to spot everyone of them, but I saw where everyone of them was hidden. Anyhow, what would "the Puritans" want to take from me? My numbers? They can have them. I don't do it for numbers... :ph34r:

That entire debate was hashed out a long time ago. Fortunately we have a new debate to keep us entertained.
I agree. If nobody cared about numbers, people wouldn't so most of the things that are debated in these threads. :o
Link to comment
3 Hawks

+3 Hawks

Posted
Posted

So....any point in keeping this one going?

 

I'd be glad to take care of it if we've solved all the problems :o

 

Bret

 

Lets put this dead horse back in the ground. We can't dig him up again until we at least do that. :(

 

The discussion/debate/arguement was fun!

 

Happy caching. See 'ya on the trails!!!! :D

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...