Find Counts

[+sbell111]

If there is to be any consensus and eventual movement on your proposal, however, the burden of proof is squarely on you and your supporters.

KBI you would never think there was ever abuse with logging temps.

Not the way you sell it.

Be honest, what would make it cross the line for you?

How about ...

You completely missed the question so I'll rephase it:

What would it take for you "all by yourself" with your own brain to believe that temps had become abusive?

Can I have a whack at this question, also?

 

I don't believe that those cachers who log temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder are abusing the system. As such, I cannot imagine myself ever believing that the logging of temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder is abusive.

 

I hope this helps.

[+CTYankee9]

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption.

 

Thoughts?

 

*EDIT* This would have the same result of eliminating the abuse aspect, because I think those that are abusing multiple finds are doing it so that others will see higher find counts. If others can't see your find counts, then there's no reason for people to abuse it.

 

As far as people having multiple logs on something, yes that is not the way I enjoy myself for I see no reason to do it. But, if that is the way they like playing the game for whatever their reason may be, then fine they can log any number of times that they choose. It is not hurting me in my seeking of enjoyment when I go out and find a cache and then come back and log the cache. If this is something the log owner or those in the effected geocaching region have a reason not to like, then it is up to the owner to maintain his cache/event, or make it clear that it is not generally accepted to clutter up the page with multiple logs.

 

I really don't see how it can be called abusing the system. The database is a grouping of information in a central location for people to use as they see fit. The keepers of that information really don't seem to care what you do with that information as long as you follow a few simple rules/guidelines and keep it fun and at it's lowest common denominator of being suitable for most anyone. As long as it is kept civil and they make a buck {nothing wrong with that, it is a business} they I am pretty sure they will keep mum about it. Geocaching isn't meant to a be a compitition at it's core, but there is nothing wrong with throwing some in now and again for fun {FTFs, Delorme Challenge, Jeep TB photo contest, any other use of the database to provide a "prize" or goal}. As far as impressing people with higher find counts, dunno... you are the impressee, so if it doesn't matter to you what my find count is then it shouldn't matter/impress you when I display them or walk-up to you at the next event and boast of it.

 

But in the end there will never be a consensus on what is right, the game is meant for a wide and varied population of geocachers and they will continue to see fit to play it they way they enjoy.

 

These circles will never fully overlap.

[+StarBrand]

....Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

Where does it say that?

In this post by OpinioNate, several posts by Jeremy, and the guidelines.

I know thier current position on the issue. I am just pointing out the responsibilities found in the guidelines. Bogus is defined as: fake, phony, phoney, bastard (fraudulent; having a misleading appearance) (see)

 

The guidelines require listing owners to responsibily delete "bogus" logs.

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

 

Clearly trying to claim that you attended an event more than once is fake and having a misleading apperance. You can only attend one time. Therefore, bogus.

 

I think the current opinion of TPTB meshes well with this:

Groundspeak has no interest in designing complicated workarounds for what we believe to be a non-issue.

No need to design any workarounds as the guidelines are already clear on the issue.

 

Cache owners police the logs on their cache pages and decide for themselves how many finds a visitor can log

Please note the use of the word :"finds" not attended. I am speaking about Events here where we log our attendance. The change in terminology to "attended" came about as many cachers questioned whether or not we really "found" an event.

 

It is a simple - logic based line of reasoning. You can disagree if you like (and you will) but the logic stands on its own very well.

[+ReadyOrNot]

As such, the only victim I can find is those people who chose to make those logs because they have to be subjected to slanderous statements such as in your post.

 

I disagree with you. And I disagree with your slanderous statement calling my statements slanderous. You can't alter the truth as much as you would like... BTW - did you run to the moderators and report me again?

[+KBI]

Sorry, TG -- you can't have it both ways. I refuse your double standard.

Did their opinions cause 'innocent cachers to suffer real and unmistakable pain, loss, damage or other significant harm?' Those were your words. So it is you that has a double standard. You treat people like dirt for doing nothing that harms anyone.

Huh? Whose opinions? What are you talking about?

I'm talking about how you insist on this "harm" standard and yet you constantly rail on us for doing nothing but stating our opinions.

 

Then you write stuff like this:

The "abuse" claim is not merely an "opinion;" it is part of an attempt to control the way other people play the game, and that is what has placed the chip on my shoulder.

Apply your own nonsense to yourself. Show us "the proof" that we are "controlling" how others play the game?

 

The proof isn't all that hard to find, TG. It's right here:

Considering TPTB's stated stance on multi-logging (discussed in another topic). I think it would be best for everyone if we removed public find counts. If it's suppose to be about personal reference, then there shouldn't be a problem with keeping them purely for personal use only, not public consumption.

 

Thoughts?

 

*EDIT* This would have the same result of eliminating the abuse aspect, because I think those that are abusing multiple finds are doing it so that others will see higher find counts. If others can't see your find counts, then there's no reason for people to abuse it.

I will remind you one more time: Controlling other cachers’ behavior was the stated reason for ReadyorNot’s proposed change. That is not a debatable point; it is a given. It is spelled out right there in the OP for all to see.

 

You claim that you and your buddy are "doing nothing but stating our opinions."

 

When I see people freely expressing their honest opinions I applaud them, no matter what the opinion itself may be.

 

When, however, I see people using a belief in the superiority of their own opinion as a motivation for pushing new rules designed to compel a change in other people's behavior, especially when the unacceptability of the offending behavior is unapparent, debatable and unproven ... that’s when I get annoyed.

 

Let's review:

1. In his Original Post, RoN proposed changing the game to a version I (and others) don’t want. It would make Geocaching less fun for me. That is my carefully considered opinion, and according to the responses to this thread I am not at all alone in that opinion.
   
2. Some of us expressed this opinion. He rejected our concerns.
   
3. He (and you) supported his proposal by alleging the existence of multi-logging "abuse."
   
4. Some of us challenged his (and your) premise, assuming he (and you) would be happy to advance the case for the proposed change by showing convincing evidence of the existence of said abuse.
   
5. Both of you (1) proved unwilling/unable to defend the "abuse" premise, and (2) Got peeved that anybody dared question the premise.
   
6. He eventually abandoned the idea, possibly as a result of the opinions and questions put forth by me and others.
   

Question: What might have happened if some of us hadn’t spoken our minds, TG? Most likely nothing, but it's quite possible the game might have been changed for the worse, that’s what! The rest of us might have been left to accept an annoyingly modified game, all because a few of you pushed an attempt to "correct" some perceived-yet-unproven "sin."

 

That is my answer to your question. I have just shown you "the proof" you requested. You called it nonsense. Please point out the nonsense in my analysis. And be specific -- attacking me or my argument in general or emotional terms will not make my argument go away.

 

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

[+KBI]

....Remember that the cache owner is the arbiter of what is bogus. Obviously, these event holders do not believe that those logs are bogus.

Where does it say that?

In this post by OpinioNate, several posts by Jeremy, and the guidelines.

I know thier current position on the issue. I am just pointing out the responsibilities found in the guidelines. Bogus is defined as: fake, phony, phoney, bastard (fraudulent; having a misleading appearance) (see)

Here is what you keep missing: It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

 

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say? Go back and read the numerous times you were given the answer to your question and rejected it and then continued asking for the answer you wanted to hear.. You aren't going to get the answer you want to hear.

[+TrailGators]

What would it take for you "all by yourself" with your own brain to believe that temps had become abusive?

Can I have a whack at this question, also?

 

I don't believe that those cachers who log temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder are abusing the system. As such, I cannot imagine myself ever believing that the logging of temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder is abusive.

 

I hope this helps.

Sure why not? Of course you know that the point I was making that nobody can convince anybody of something when their mind is already made up. So we have a deadlock. I agree with Starbrand that people cannot "attend" the same event 100 times. This is obvious. But it's not going away unless someone logs an event 1000 times. Therefore, I "wish" these people would log some archived cache that nobody cares about 50 gazillion times and leave the event pages alone for people to enjoy. This would also allow people to keep events on their watchlists without getting spammed with thousands of temp log emails. The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in. Locationless caches are not in the list and neither are temp caches.

[+TrailGators]

Question: What might have happened if some of us hadn't spoken our minds, TG? Most likely nothing, but it's quite possible the game might have been changed for the worse, that's what! The rest of us might have been left to accept an annoyingly modified game, all because a few of you pushed an attempt to "correct" some perceived-yet-unproven "sin.

This is where I see the reality that this will most likely never happen. It was changed 5 years ago because of 'uproar.' However, you see nothing but gloom and doom and use that as an excuse to be extemely rude to people, who have a different opinion than you. The fact is that it is entirely up to TPTB.

[+tozainamboku]

It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

This is not true. StarBrand is free to determine that logging extra attended logs for temporary caches he found at an event is bogus and therefore not log them. If the cache owner were to delete his log for attending the event because he didn't play along we would have a problem. I suspect TPTB might see this as an abuse of the guideline that allows a cache owner to police their own cache/event. TPTB have stated that allowing extra logs is not an abuse. My understanding is that a cache owner is responsible for quality control of post to the cache pages. An example of what the cache owner can do is delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. But the guidelines don't require that a cache owner delete any logs.

[+KBI]

As such, the only victim I can find is those people who chose to make those logs because they have to be subjected to slanderous statements such as in your post.

 

I disagree with you. And I disagree with your slanderous statement calling my statements slanderous.

Fallacy alert! Fallacy alert!

 

Sbell did not say anything about you personally; As you point out, he was only referring to your statements.

 

Pardon me while I geek for a moment:

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?

(

link

)

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

In each case, Defamation, Libel and Slander require that it is the person who is attacked, NOT the person’s statements. Sbell very effectively picked apart your argument; he said nothing at all about you personally. If Sbell made any mistake is was in his use of the word “slander” when he really meant “libel” – which I didn’t realize myself until I read the above definition, and which clearly doesn’t appreciably change the intended meaning of his post.

 

Sbell did not personally attack or insult you, Ready. He only invalidated your argument.

 

Flailing around and grasping at worthless straws isn’t doing much to convince anyone your alleged “abuse” exists, Ready. I would recommend a more reasoned and logical strategy.

[+KBI]

It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

This is not true. StarBrand is free to determine that logging extra attended logs for temporary caches he found at an event is bogus and therefore not log them.

Good point, and I agree, but that point isn't really relevant to the issue. StarBrand is always free and welcome to control his own logging behavior based on any guideline-compliant standard he chooses; the debate here is about whether it is apprpriate to push a behavior change on others.

 

If the cache owner were to delete his log for attending the event because he didn't play along we would have a problem. I suspect TPTB might see this as an abuse of the guideline that allows a cache owner to police their own cache/event.

For clarification:

 

Are you referring to a single event log ? If so then I might agree with you unless the cache owner made clear any Additional Logging Requirements with which StarBrandfailed to comply.

 

Are you referring an additional find log at the same event ? If so, then I still say it is soley at the discression of the cache owner. TPTB have said this as well, as you seem to say here:

TPTB have stated that allowing extra logs is not an abuse. My understanding is that a cache owner is responsible for quality control of post to the cache pages. An example of what the cache owner can do is delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. But the guidelines don't require that a cache owner delete any logs.

Edited November 20, 2007 by KBI

[Mushtang]

BTW - did you run to the moderators and report me again?

Are you saying you don't like it when people call for action from a mod?

[+KBI]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say?

Well, if you are truly interested in defending TG's sensibilities you can link me to the offending post. I would think that would be the easiest and most convincing way to prove that I had "treated him like dirt," wouldn't you?

 

Making claims while refusing to support them is among the weakest tactics available to you, Ready. There are much more convincing forms of debate out there that you might want to try. Supporting – better yet proving – your claims is one of them.

[+StarBrand]

.....Here is what you keep missing: It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

What you keep missing is that "Bogus" is a well defined term. As are all words in the english language.

 

They ARE bogus logs. There is absolutely no doubt about that. By definition they contain false misleading information. They are bogus. To argue differently is to deny truth.

 

So what are are we left with.......cache listing owners that are not abiding by the guidelines. However, I will agree that TPTB have turned thier heads. They have chosen to ignore it. Never-the-less - the guidelines (by themselves) do not allow such logging paractices for events.

 

It really is (according to a strict reading of the guidelines) a quality control issue. Not interferance with the right to multilog "finds".

 

Hiding the find counts of cachers doesn't change that reality.

[+Rockin Roddy]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say?

Well, if you are truly interested in defending TG's sensibilities you can link me to the offending post. I would think that would be the easiest and most convincing way to prove that I had "treated him like dirt," wouldn't you?

 

Making claims while refusing to support them is among the weakest tactics available to you, Ready. There are much more convincing forms of debate out there that you might want to try. Supporting – better yet proving – your claims is one of them.

 

Yeah, like continually asking for an answer which you've been given (but don't like). That's proven very good for those who don't want to let a debate go (has worked for a few threads now).

 

Mushtang...a few of us asked for mod help in the last thread which was continually derailed...none came (at least none was seen)...and the continual derailment went on. It's really hard to have ANY meaningful debate when you have those that would rather just repeat the same old every post! (never mind that the answer was given several times)

[+KBI]

I agree with Starbrand that people cannot "attend" the same event 100 times. This is obvious. But it's not going away unless someone logs an event 1000 times. Therefore, I "wish" these people would log some archived cache that nobody cares about 50 gazillion times and leave the event pages alone for people to enjoy.

Fallacy alert! Slippery-Slope and Strawman.

 

"I admit that Groundspeak says problem doesn’t exist, therefore I wish the problem would actually appear so that we could impose a solution designed to solve a problem that I admit doesn’t exist."

 

This would also allow people to keep events on their watchlists without getting spammed with thousands of temp log emails.

Fallacy alert! Exaggeration. You are arguing against your imagined version of the scope of the "problem," not the reality to which you have admitted, which is that there is no problem.

 

The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in.

Fallacy alert! Strawman.

 

Representatives of the site have never said they “really want people to find temp caches.” You are now arguing against an invented, non-existent condition.

[Mushtang]

Mushtang...a few of us asked for mod help in the last thread which was continually derailed

Nah, I was just pointing out another of his contradictions and giving him a chance to clarify his position.

[+KBI]

Question: What might have happened if some of us hadn't spoken our minds, TG? Most likely nothing, but it's quite possible the game might have been changed for the worse, that's what! The rest of us might have been left to accept an annoyingly modified game, all because a few of you pushed an attempt to "correct" some perceived-yet-unproven "sin.

This is where I see the reality that this will most likely never happen. It was changed 5 years ago because of 'uproar.' However, you see nothing but gloom and doom and use that as an excuse to be extemely rude to people, who have a different opinion than you. The fact is that it is entirely up to TPTB.

Yet you didn't counter my statement; therefore you accept my disproof of your claim that you were merely "expressing an opinion," not "trying to force change on others."

[+KBI]

.....Here is what you keep missing: It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

What you keep missing is that "Bogus" is a well defined term. As are all words in the english language.

 

They ARE bogus logs. There is absolutely no doubt about that. By definition they contain false misleading information. They are bogus. To argue differently is to deny truth.

 

So what are are we left with.......cache listing owners that are not abiding by the guidelines. However, I will agree that TPTB have turned thier heads. They have chosen to ignore it. Never-the-less - the guidelines (by themselves) do not allow such logging paractices for events.

TPTB have made it clear that the definition is soley up to the cache owner. TPTB have said that it is not up to you unless it concerns your own cache. TPTB have interpreted their own guidelines, therefore TPTB have effectively modified their own guidelines. The version of the guidelines you are now defending therefore does not exist.

 

TPTB don't consult me when trying to decide how to apply their own guidelines. Do they ever consult you?

 

If you don't like it; if TPTB's interpretation of their own guidelines leaves you feeling abused, then it is clearly your choice to voluntarily feel abused. Most of the rest of us have no problem with it.

 

Hiding the find counts of cachers doesn't change that reality.

Maybe, but hiding the find counts of cachers is not a change I would accept happily. It would be an unwanted change forced upon me for the purpose of alleviating a problem that only exists in your perception.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Funny how it seems everythiing is about YOU! "Prove it to me", "answer my question"....sheesh!

[+TrailGators]

Question: What might have happened if some of us hadn't spoken our minds, TG? Most likely nothing, but it's quite possible the game might have been changed for the worse, that's what! The rest of us might have been left to accept an annoyingly modified game, all because a few of you pushed an attempt to "correct" some perceived-yet-unproven "sin.

This is where I see the reality that this will most likely never happen. It was changed 5 years ago because of 'uproar.' However, you see nothing but gloom and doom and use that as an excuse to be extemely rude to people, who have a different opinion than you. The fact is that it is entirely up to TPTB.

Yet you didn't counter my statement; therefore you accept my disproof of your claim that you were merely "expressing an opinion," not "trying to force change on others."

I am not "forcing" anything. Anyhow, this is way too much drama for me. Don't ever assume my silence is agreement. If you tone it way down and start acting civil maybe I'll talk to you.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Mushtang...a few of us asked for mod help in the last thread which was continually derailed

Nah, I was just pointing out another of his contradictions and giving him a chance to clarify his position.

 

How? How can ANYONE clarify ANYTHING with all the other stuff going on?

[+tozainamboku]

It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

This is not true. StarBrand is free to determine that logging extra attended logs for temporary caches he found at an event is bogus and therefore not log them.

Good point, and I agree, but that point isn't really relevant to the isssue he brought up.

Just wanted to point out that StarBrand does have a say in what he chooses to log or not log. It is not entirely up to the cache owner.

 

If the cache owner were to delete his log for attending the event because he didn't play along we would have a problem. I suspect TPTB might see this as an abuse of the guideline that allows a cache owner to police their own cache/event.

For clarification:

 

Are you referring to a single event log ? If so then I might agree with you unless the cache owner made clear any Additional Logging Requirements with which StarBrandfailed to comply.

 

Are you referring an additional find log at the same event ? If so, then I still say it is soley at the discression of the cache owner. TPTB have said this as well, as you seem to say here:

TPTB have stated that allowing extra logs is not an abuse. My understanding is that a cache owner is responsible for quality control of post to the cache pages. An example of what the cache owner can do is delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements. But the guidelines don't require that a cache owner delete any logs.

I guess you could have an event with an additional logging requirement that you must find a temporary cache and log it as and extra attended log in order to log the event itself. I'm not sure what you would do if the person logged

 

November 20 by tozainamboku (3812 found and never logged a temporary cache)

Found temporary cache #1 and BTW had a great time at the event. Thanks for holding it.

and didn't log anything else?

 

A lot of the arguing seems to be what TPTB would judge to be a abuse. Jeremy has stated that he reserves the right to stop abuse if he sees it. OpioNate has indicated that multiple logs are allowed if within reason and that 1000 extra logs would be unreasonable. In other threads, those that oppose multi-logging have tried to determine what level is abuse is and rather naively assume that the TPTB would implement one of their suggestions when they see this abuse. I suspect abuse is not define by a particular number of multiple logs or even that multiple logging is the only thing that might be an abuse. Rather I think TPTB have a defintion of abuse like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography - "I know it when I see it" and that action will be taken on a case by case basis rather than by making changes to the guideline or to the way the website works.

[+KBI]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say?

Well, if you are truly interested in defending TG's sensibilities you can link me to the offending post. I would think that would be the easiest and most convincing way to prove that I had "treated him like dirt," wouldn't you?

 

Making claims while refusing to support them is among the weakest tactics available to you, Ready. There are much more convincing forms of debate out there that you might want to try. Supporting – better yet proving – your claims is one of them.

 

Yeah, like continually asking for an answer which you've been given (but don't like). That's proven very good for those who don't want to let a debate go (has worked for a few threads now).

As I have already explained at least a dozen times now:

 

(1) I never said I didn’t like TG's answer; I said he never provided a convincing answer.

 

(2) His choice whether to attempt to convince me of his alleged "abuse" is up to him. He has changed his mind on that point a few times, but ... when he does choose to attempt to convince me and fails, I question his points in an attempt to understand why he feels so strongly about something he obviously has trouble describing.

 

(3) NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the claim that I "treated him like dirt," which is the claim you appear to be defending.

[+KBI]

Funny how it seems everythiing is about YOU! "Prove it to me", "answer my question"....sheesh!

I'm not the one who made the questionable claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

Should the claimant choose not to defend his claim that is his right, but to refuse to defend it does absolutely nothing to promote the cause which the claim is intended to support. I would go so far as to say it hurts the cause.

 

Is that so hard to understand?

[+Rockin Roddy]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say?

Well, if you are truly interested in defending TG's sensibilities you can link me to the offending post. I would think that would be the easiest and most convincing way to prove that I had "treated him like dirt," wouldn't you?

 

Making claims while refusing to support them is among the weakest tactics available to you, Ready. There are much more convincing forms of debate out there that you might want to try. Supporting – better yet proving – your claims is one of them.

 

Yeah, like continually asking for an answer which you've been given (but don't like). That's proven very good for those who don't want to let a debate go (has worked for a few threads now).

As I have already explained at least a dozen times now:

 

(1) I never said I didn’t like TG's answer; I said he never provided a convincing answer.

 

(2) His choice whether to attempt to convince me of his alleged "abuse" is up to him. He has changed his mind on that point a few times, but ... when he does choose to attempt to convince me and fails, I question his points in an attempt to understand why he feels so strongly about something he obviously has trouble describing.

 

(3) NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the claim that I "treated him like dirt," which is the claim you appear to be defending.

 

Convincing to WHO? You...it isn't all about you, so no, we don't have to please YOU with ANY answer (but you continue to harass for an answer...go figure). You're constant derailment IS treating everyone here that would like to have a meaningful debate like dirt!

[+KBI]

any

I guess you could have an event with an additional logging requirement that you must find a temporary cache and log it as and extra attended log in order to log the event itself. I'm not sure what you would do if the person logged

 

November 20 by tozainamboku (3812 found and never logged a temporary cache)

Found temporary cache #1 and BTW had a great time at the event. Thanks for holding it.

and didn't log anything else?

Good question, but the management of ALR caches is a completely separate issue, and is therefore off topic for this thread.

 

A lot of the arguing seems to be what TPTB would judge to be a abuse. Jeremy has stated that he reserves the right to stop abuse if he sees it. OpioNate has indicated that multiple logs are allowed if within reason and that 1000 extra logs would be unreasonable. In other threads, those that oppose multi-logging have tried to determine what level is abuse is and rather naively assume that the TPTB would implement one of their suggestions when they see this abuse. I suspect abuse is not define by a particular number of multiple logs or even that multiple logging is the only thing that might be an abuse. Rather I think TPTB have a defintion of abuse like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography - "I know it when I see it" and that action will be taken on a case by case basis rather than by making changes to the guideline or to the way the website works.

Very insightful. I agree.

 

A lot of the arguing does seem to be what TPTB would judge to be abuse, but: the truly relevant issue seems to be what a relatively small handful of complainers – the alleged abuse victims – would judge to be abuse. Based on their comments taken as a whole these folks seem to have a problem whenever anyone logs any additional find log on any event cache. One event smiley is okay; two event smileys is, in their words, is abusive. Not only abusive, but horrible enough that it merits pushing an unwanted change on the rest of us.

[+KBI]

While you’re at it, if you can also show me where, exactly, in that sequence you were "treated like dirt," I will apologize. It is not my intent to offend you personally. I only want to hear your reasoning.

You were given your answer.. You didn't like it.. What more can I say?

Well, if you are truly interested in defending TG's sensibilities you can link me to the offending post. I would think that would be the easiest and most convincing way to prove that I had "treated him like dirt," wouldn't you?

 

Making claims while refusing to support them is among the weakest tactics available to you, Ready. There are much more convincing forms of debate out there that you might want to try. Supporting – better yet proving – your claims is one of them.

 

Yeah, like continually asking for an answer which you've been given (but don't like). That's proven very good for those who don't want to let a debate go (has worked for a few threads now).

As I have already explained at least a dozen times now:

 

(1) I never said I didn’t like TG's answer; I said he never provided a convincing answer.

 

(2) His choice whether to attempt to convince me of his alleged "abuse" is up to him. He has changed his mind on that point a few times, but ... when he does choose to attempt to convince me and fails, I question his points in an attempt to understand why he feels so strongly about something he obviously has trouble describing.

 

(3) NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with the claim that I "treated him like dirt," which is the claim you appear to be defending.

 

Convincing to WHO? You...it isn't all about you, so no, we don't have to please YOU with ANY answer

You are exactly right. NOW you get it!!

[+KBI]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Then why derail the debate.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

 

Well, IF a debate could take place, maybe some CAN be convinced. YOU certainly won't even attempt to debate, you just spew the same dribble over and over and.....

 

But we all know how this is going to go...

 

back to the sideshow!

[+ReadyOrNot]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

 

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

 

SOMEONE STOP THE INSANITY!

 

I've requested the thread be closed twice now.. I think someone is enjoying this

[+Rockin Roddy]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

 

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

 

SOMEONE STOP THE INSANITY!

 

I've requested the thread be closed twice now.. I think someone is enjoying this

Edited November 20, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+KBI]

Then why derail the debate.

Me asking for clarification of the proposed change is not derailment.

 

You getting emotional and obfuscating the issue instead of defending the proposal? Now that might be fairly described as derailment

[+KBI]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

Please DO keep attacking me personally instead of defending your statements with reasoned logic. It's the best free entertainment I've enjoyed in months -- AND it's the fastest way to acomplish your thread-lock request!!

 

Careful you don't get banned again in the process, though.

[+KBI]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

 

Well, IF a debate could take place, maybe some CAN be convinced. YOU certainly won't even attempt to debate, you just spew the same dribble over and over and.....

 

But we all know how this is going to go...

 

back to the sideshow!

How NOT to sell an idea:

 

Rockin Roddy: Yes, the find logs should be removed from view.

 

KBI: I don’t want them removed. Why do you?

 

Rockin Roddy: To control the abuse!

 

KBI: What abuse?

 

Rockin Roddy: Multilogging of events constitutes abuse!!

 

KBI: It does? If there is abuse, then who is the victim?

 

Rockin Roddy: Well, IF a debate could take place here, maybe someone CAN be convinced. YOU certainly won't even attempt to debate, you just spew the same dribble over and over and.....

 

KBI: ??

 

Rockin Roddy: Back to the sideshow!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Yep, still can't argue anything but the same "give me an answer" argument....have a good day.

 

BTW....you might have forgotten that "I" don't want the find counts hidden. Shows how closely you follow along! Could that be how you missed all the answers as well?

[+TrailGators]

Convincing to WHO? You...it isn't all about you, so no, we don't have to please YOU with ANY answer (but you continue to harass for an answer...go figure). You're constant derailment IS treating everyone here that would like to have a meaningful debate like dirt!

Roddy, you would have a much better chance trying to convince the wall. Plus the wall would be a lot less insulting. Not to mention that the wall wouldn't exagerrate everything to make it look like pure doom and gloom was imminent. There is just way too much drama whenever these boys are around...

[+sbell111]

As such, the only victim I can find is those people who chose to make those logs because they have to be subjected to slanderous statements such as in your post.

I disagree with you. And I disagree with your slanderous statement calling my statements slanderous. You can't alter the truth as much as you would like... BTW - did you run to the moderators and report me again?

I generally don't report anything but the most grievous violations. I assume that the mods will catch any others that they care to at their leisure.

[+sbell111]

...I don't believe that those cachers who log temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder are abusing the system. As such, I cannot imagine myself ever believing that the logging of temporary event caches to the event pages with the approval of the event holder is abusive.

 

I hope this helps.

Sure why not? Of course you know that the point I was making that nobody can convince anybody of something when their mind is already made up. So we have a deadlock. I agree with Starbrand that people cannot "attend" the same event 100 times. This is obvious.

The problem, in my opinion, is that you are forgetting the history of these temporary event caches and the 'attended' log. If you ignore those very important issues, it's easy to take a hard stance on these innocuous logs.

But it's not going away unless someone logs an event 1000 times.

As I explained previously, I don't think that TPTB would implement wholesale change to the website simply because somebody made 1000 logs on a single cache. Instead, it's likely that the cachers' in question would get penalized in some manner.

... The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in.

You are forgetting that the practice that you are railing against is the mechanism that has been allowed for these caches to be logged. Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

... If Sbell made any mistake is was in his use of the word “slander” when he really meant “libel” – which I didn’t realize myself until I read the above definition, and which clearly doesn’t appreciably change the intended meaning of his post. ...

Thanks. Even 100 years ago when I was taking law classes I used to have to pause to make sure that I was using 'slander' and 'libel' correctly. When I made this morning's post, I didn't pause to think about which was correct and choose poorly.

 

Good catch.

[+TrailGators]

... The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in.

You are forgetting that the practice that you are railing against is the mechanism that has been allowed for these caches to be logged.

I'm not railing. The mechanism gives people the option to select "attended" from a drop down menu to log the event. Therefore it is obvious what the mechanism was designed to do. There is also a "note" option in the dropdown. Notes were intended to cover any misc types of logs. Temps fall into that category. There is no temp in the dropdown. Gee, I wonder why? Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

.....Here is what you keep missing: It is not up to you how the word "bogus" is defined for the purpose of implementing the guidelines; It is up to the cache owner. The only time you, StarBrand, are allowed ANY say in the matter is when it involves a log on your cache.

What you keep missing is that "Bogus" is a well defined term. As are all words in the english language.

 

They ARE bogus logs. There is absolutely no doubt about that. By definition they contain false misleading information. They are bogus. To argue differently is to deny truth. ...

An evaluation is required to determine whether an individual log is 'bogus'. Per the guidelines and many posts by TPTB, this evaluation is to be taken by the cache owner.

 

Meriam Webster defines 'bogus' simply as 'not genuine'. An event holder who allows temporary cache logging would review such a log. If he determined that the cacher did, indeed, find the temporary cache, he would declare the log 'genuine' and allow it to remain.

[+sbell111]

Then why derail the debate.

In order to have a debate, their must be an honest and thorough exchange of ideas. In the case of this debate, one side is asking for specific changes to be made to the website (the removal of find counts). It is certainly approriate for those apposed to such a change to make the expectation that those for the change would present a sufficient argument that would explain why the change is for the best. If those opposed to the change find they proposer's argument to be lacking, it is certainly appropriate to explain why and expect the proposing side to address the deficiencies.

[+sbell111]

... The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in.

You are forgetting that the practice that you are railing against is the mechanism that has been allowed for these caches to be logged.

I'm not railing. The mechanism gives people the option to select "attended" from a drop down menu to log the event. Therefore it is obvious what the mechanism was designed to do. There is also a "note" option in the dropdown. Notes were intended to cover any misc types of logs. Temps fall into that category. There is no temp in the dropdown. Gee, I wonder why?

I wonder why you ignored the rest of my post.

The problem, in my opinion, is that you are forgetting the history of these temporary event caches and the 'attended' log. If you ignore those very important issues, it's easy to take a hard stance on these innocuous logs.

But it's not going away unless someone logs an event 1000 times.

As I explained previously, I don't think that TPTB would implement wholesale change to the website simply because somebody made 1000 logs on a single cache. Instead, it's likely that the cachers' in question would get penalized in some manner.

... The bottom line is that if the site really wanted people to find temp caches they would have programmed it in.

You are forgetting that the practice that you are railing against is the mechanism that has been allowed for these caches to be logged.

[+sbell111]

I wonder if someone could fully explain why they believe that the removal of find counts from cache pages would affect whether anyone did or did not log temporary event cache to the event page. These two issues do not appear to have any direct connection with one another (beyond the simple fact that the find caount increments with every find log). Obviously, this can not be the driver, since the find count will increase regardless of whether or not the total is listed on the cache page.

Edited November 20, 2007 by sbell111

[+Rockin Roddy]

Then why derail the debate.

In order to have a debate, their must be an honest and thorough exchange of ideas. In the case of this debate, one side is asking for specific changes to be made to the website (the removal of find counts). It is certainly approriate for those apposed to such a change to make the expectation that those for the change would present a sufficient argument that would explain why the change is for the best. If those opposed to the change find they proposer's argument to be lacking, it is certainly appropriate to explain why and expect the proposing side to address the deficiencies.

 

The opposed had his question answered several times.

[+ReadyOrNot]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

Please DO keep attacking me personally instead of defending your statements with reasoned logic. It's the best free entertainment I've enjoyed in months -- AND it's the fastest way to acomplish your thread-lock request!!

 

Careful you don't get banned again in the process, though.

 

You don't scare me KBI... I refuse to allow you to bully me

[+ReadyOrNot]

... let me know how that refusing-to-convince-people thing works out for you in your efforts to promote change.

Why should we have to suffer because some 6th grader with a mustache stole your lunch money when you were in grade school?

Please DO keep attacking me personally instead of defending your statements with reasoned logic. It's the best free entertainment I've enjoyed in months -- AND it's the fastest way to acomplish your thread-lock request!!

 

Careful you don't get banned again in the process, though.

 

It's been my experience that people who bully people later in life, like in your case, generally were picked on early on in life. Just relaying my experience. If you're allowed to sit in here and completely derail a thread, which I've asked the moderators to close 3 times now (this is my thread, I can close it can't I?).. You've had your question answered KBI. Yet you continue to sit in here and harass.. Perhaps you should re-evaluate who is attacking who.

Edited November 20, 2007 by ReadyOrNot