Find Counts

[+StarBrand]

....

Wrong. The definition of "bogus" is up to the cache owner and his opinion ... and nobody else. That's your "fact."

Perhaps you missed something..... bogus is defined as untruthful or misleading. Even *you* would have to agree that we can only attend any kind of event only once. Claiming to attend mutiple times is untruthful and misleading. Therefore Bogus.

 

Or may I attend your funeral mutiple times? Your marriage ceremony? Your baptism? your annual Christmas party? Your Wednesday get-together of local cachers?

 

Just Sayin' --->BTW - I'm outta this one........

[+KBI]

It is not my intent to distort your opinion. What would be the point?

that's all you've been doing.. What do you mean it's not your intent. He's answered you and your co-hort numerous times..

Can you show me where? Show me a post where he gave convincing support for his claim of abuse/victimhood that I missed. Show me a post where I intentionally distorted his, yours, or ANYONE’S opinion.

 

You are effectively accusing me of trolling. That’s a pretty serious charge. I must now respectfully ask you to put up or shut up. Show me the posts.

 

BTW, I have no co-hort. I prefer to hort solo. Mushtang also horts just fine on his own without help.

 

The fact that you don't like the answer doesn't mean it has not been answered. You keep claiming that you are waiting for an answer.. What you mean to say is that you are waiting for an answer that you agree with...

 

There's a big difference between the two.

After two or three pages of begging on my part TG has finally given a couple of weak responses that have been shown to be logically unsound and/or not make any sense. The fact that his (lack of) reasoning failed to convince me has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I "liked' his answers. As you say, there is a HUGE difference between the two. Truth is, I actually "liked" his answers. A lot. They have been extremely entertaining, primarily because of the WAY they failed to convince me.

 

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else’s.

[+KBI]

Grab hold of something and brace yourself: I agree with you.

Good! Can we stop right here then!!!

I think it's your call when and whether to have this thread locked. The number of opinions multilogged here is up to you. You are the "event cache owner."

[+KBI]

....

Wrong. The definition of "bogus" is up to the cache owner and his opinion ... and nobody else. That's your "fact."

Perhaps you missed something..... bogus is defined as untruthful or misleading. Even *you* would have to agree that we can only attend any kind of event only once. Claiming to attend mutiple times is untruthful and misleading. Therefore Bogus.

Again, that is only up to the cache owner. OpinionNate was pretty clear in his post about Groundspeak's position on this very question in the other recent thread about event multilogging.

 

Or may I attend your funeral mutiple times? Your marriage ceremony? Your baptism? your annual Christmas party? Your Wednesday get-together of local cachers?

If you’re documenting those visits on my website guestbook, and you want a way to document also having participated in: The will reading, the bachelor party, the after-church pot luck, the Kwanzaa ceremony, and the temporary eighty-stage underwater puzzle cache – and if I, as the host, say it’s okay – then: Yes!

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, you people certainly fooled me!

 

I thought this thread was a discussion about removing find counts from the views of others, rather than a morphed train wreck multilogging discussion that someone from Groundspeak has already settled.

[+ReadyOrNot]

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else’s.

 

Wow! It's not his job to convince you of anything. He gave an 'ANSWER'. It's your job whether you agree or disagree.. Clearly you disagree.. That's not his problem, that's yours. But making a statement that he has not answered is wrong. It's just that you disagree. The fact that you continue claiming that he has not answered when he has shows that you are extremely off base.

 

Just say the following, "I agree to disagree with your answer TG", not "you haven't given me an answer TG", because he has...

 

What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you bub.

[+Rockin Roddy]

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else’s.

 

Wow! It's not his job to convince you of anything. He gave an 'ANSWER'. It's your job whether you agree or disagree.. Clearly you disagree.. That's not his problem, that's yours. But making a statement that he has not answered is wrong. It's just that you disagree. The fact that you continue claiming that he has not answered when he has shows that you are extremely off base.

 

Just say the following, "I agree to disagree with your answer TG", not "you haven't given me an answer TG", because he has...

 

What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you bub.

 

AMEN!

[+tozainamboku]

Well, you people certainly fooled me!

 

I thought this thread was a discussion about removing find counts from the views of others, rather than a morphed train wreck multilogging discussion that someone from Groundspeak has already settled.

Except that the OP starts off stating that reason he want to remove the find counts is because of Groundspeak's stated stance on multi-logging. He thinks that if there were no numbers displayed people would stop logging mutliple finds on a cache.

 

Since Groundspeak doesn't give two hoots if someone is logging multiple finds, I'm not sure why they would bother doing something that might not even stop this practice. Individuals would still have a count of the number of logs they made and would likely find some way to advertise there counts. The leaderboard sites may go away for awhile, but every time in the past when Groundspeak has tried to discourage them they found some way to keep displaying counts, and I suspect they would find a way here too.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Since Groundspeak doesn't give two hoots if someone is logging multiple finds,

 

but every time in the past when Groundspeak has tried to discourage them they found some way to keep displaying counts, and I suspect they would find a way here too.

 

You've managed to disagree with yourself in the same post They either don't give a hoot or they do! Why would they discourage something they don't give two hoots about? Hmmm? The fact is, they DO give a hoot about it, but just not enough to make a big change to the website. The fact that they tried to remove the find count in the past shows what they think about it, doesn't it? The fact that they've tried to shut down the sites that display find stats shows what they really think about it.. Actions speak much louder than words.

Edited November 20, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else's.

 

Wow! It's not his job to convince you of anything. He gave an 'ANSWER'. It's your job whether you agree or disagree.. Clearly you disagree.. That's not his problem, that's yours. But making a statement that he has not answered is wrong. It's just that you disagree. The fact that you continue claiming that he has not answered when he has shows that you are extremely off base.

 

Just say the following, "I agree to disagree with your answer TG", not "you haven't given me an answer TG", because he has...

 

What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you bub.

 

AMEN!

AMEN!

[+KBI]

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else’s.

 

Wow! It's not his job to convince you of anything. He gave an 'ANSWER'. It's your job whether you agree or disagree.. Clearly you disagree.. That's not his problem, that's yours....

 

...What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you bub.

That's not quite accurate.

 

No, it is NOT his job to convince me of anything. TrailGators made an outrageous claim; I simply asked him to back it up. It happens to be the same claim you put forward in your original post; that the act of multilogging of temporary caches at events constitutes "abuse."

 

I merely asked TG if he could support his claim, specifically whether he could identify the victims of this alleged "abuse," as well as explain exactly how the practice of multilogging was causing them to suffer. Seemed like a straightforward and reasonable request.

 

TG was free to either attempt to support his claim or not. For the most part he has chosen "not." For the most part you have done the same. You guys, however, are the ones who made the initial claim, not me. 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.

 

As for myself, I say the alleged abuse does NOT exist – but then I’m not using that claim as a basis for pushing forward any wholesale changes to the geocaching experience, am I?

 

YOU proposed the change. YOU made the dubious claim – and TG repeated that claim. As an interested cacher I challenged the claim. No, you don’t HAVE to convince me of anything, but ... if you cannot convince anyone (beyond the handful of TGs in the forums) that the alleged abuse actually exists, then your proposal doesn’t have much chance of success, does it?

 

What amazes me is this: One would assume that you would be interested in supporting your own proposal by doing everything you can to convince everyone of the strong need for the suggested change. Why would you even hesitate at the opportunity to bedazzle me and everyone else with a sound, logical, and convincing argument? That you guys choose instead to yell, insult and obfuscate simply amazes me. It just doesn’t make any sense, but trust me, it is plenty entertaining.

 

Do yourself a favor and see if you can get a refund on that defective "How To Sell An Idea" book you’ve been using. Bub.

[+KBI]

Well, you people certainly fooled me!

 

I thought this thread was a discussion about removing find counts from the views of others, rather than a morphed train wreck multilogging discussion that someone from Groundspeak has already settled.

Except that the OP starts off stating that reason he want to remove the find counts is because of Groundspeak's stated stance on multi-logging. He thinks that if there were no numbers displayed people would stop logging mutliple finds on a cache.

Well, whaddya know! Somebody here actually read the original post!

[+TrailGators]

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. People could log thousands and you would think it was OK. So you would be the last person to ever be convinced. So we can do without your one vote. Hasta la vista, baby!

[+KBI]

Why would they discourage something they don't give two hoots about? Hmmm? The fact is, they DO give a hoot about it, but just not enough to make a big change to the website. The fact that they tried to remove the find count in the past shows what they think about it, doesn't it? The fact that they've tried to shut down the sites that display find stats shows what they really think about it.. Actions speak much louder than words.

You might be right ... in which case you should be very encouraged ... which is all the more reason for you to take advantage right now of this opportunity you've created to further promote and prove this "abuse" claim of yours, thereby convincing the caching world to join your grass-roots movement!!

[+KBI]

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.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The only way to know for sure would be to take a poll.. But unfortunately, I cannot conduct a poll in the forums because it is against the guidelines. I'm quite certain though that more people think like we do than your side... But alas, there's no way to know for sure is there.

[+TrailGators]

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?

[+KBI]

As you may have noticed he has already convinced me to agree with him on a couple other points he made in this thread. Once he provides a convincing and inarguable set of reasons for me to agree with his claim that multilogging of temp caches constitutes "abuse" of other cachers, I will have no choice but to agree on that point as well, yes?

 

I'm still waiting for that soundly convincing explanation. It is not my intent to distort his opinion – nor anybody else’s.

Wow! It's not his job to convince you of anything. He gave an 'ANSWER'. It's your job whether you agree or disagree.. Clearly you disagree.. That's not his problem, that's yours. But making a statement that he has not answered is wrong. It's just that you disagree. The fact that you continue claiming that he has not answered when he has shows that you are extremely off base.

 

Just say the following, "I agree to disagree with your answer TG", not "you haven't given me an answer TG", because he has...

 

What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you bub.

How NOT to sell an idea:

 

You: We need to hide the find count numbers

 

Me: Why?

 

You: To control the abuse.

 

Me: What abuse?

 

You: The abuse that occurs when people log temp caches! It’s ABUSE!

 

Me: Really? Who is the victim? How is anyone being abused when people log temp caches?

 

You: What more can be said? Not everyone agrees with you, Bub.

 

Me:

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm so happy that I've managed to last through a heated discussion without getting suspended... Before that changes, it's probably time to shut er down!

 

Please weigh in on the other thread that was spawned from this one and maybe we can actually get somewhere... Thanks!

[Mushtang]

Hort!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Me: Really? Who is the victim? How is anyone being abused when people log temp caches?

 

How convenient to leave off the numerous times it was answered, just not to your satisfaction...

[+ReadyOrNot]

Hort!

 

I knew you were there!

[+KBI]

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 ... a convincing explanation?

 

Who are the victims of your alleged abuse? Who is being harmed or damaged when people multilog temp caches at events?

 

There. I answered your question. Ready to answer mine now?

[+KBI]

Me: Really? Who is the victim? How is anyone being abused when people log temp caches?

 

How convenient to leave off the numerous times it was answered, just not to your satisfaction...

... still waiting for a link ...

[+ReadyOrNot]

There. I answered your question. Ready to answer mine now?

 

The answer is "Everyone that believes in justice and doing what's right and honest"... I, as well as everyone who geocaches gets hurt when things occur that go against the spirit of the guidelines.. I am the victim. TG is the victim.. you are the victim... It's obviously not a very bad violation, but a violation none the less... If someone takes a pencil from work home with them, it's not really a big deal is it? Noone is getting hurt right? Who is the victim when the pencil gets stolen? Honestly, noone.. But it's still wrong and it still shouldn't happen and it hurts everyone, even though it may not be very much..

 

There's your answer.. But your not happy are you?

[+TrailGators]

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?

[+KBI]

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?

I am happy with the status quo. MANY posters in this thread are happy with the status quo, and have neither seen nor experienced the hypothetical "abuse."

 

YOU made the dubious claim. The burden of proof is on YOU.

[+ReadyOrNot]

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?

I am happy with the status quo. MANY posters in this thread are happy with the status quo, and have neither seen nor experienced the hypothetical "abuse."

 

YOU made the dubious claim. The burden of proof is on YOU.

 

I answered you, doesn't that count for anything? Or are you just going to ignore the answer like you have the other 10 times it was made?

[+Mudfrog]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

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.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Obvious, very easy to understand, and is a fact, not someone's opinion.

Wrong. The definition of "bogus" is up to the cache owner and his opinion ... and nobody else. That's your "fact."

I highlighted what i stated was a fact. It's not my fact, it's not your fact,,, It's a fact that neither you nor i can deny, pure and simple. If you can't see this, then,,, nevermind.

[+TrailGators]

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?

I am happy with the status quo. MANY posters in this thread are happy with the status quo, and have neither seen nor experienced the hypothetical "abuse."

I asked you a simple question and you can't answer it because you would have to admit that you don't believe that logging temp caches could ever be considered abuse. Right? So there is nobody that could ever convince you. So why are you here? Because you just enjoy causing trouble, don't you?

[+KBI]

There. I answered your question. Ready to answer mine now?

The answer is "Everyone that believes in justice and doing what's right and honest"...

Funny, I could have used the same argument to support leaving things the hell alone.

 

I, as well as everyone who geocaches gets hurt when things occur that go against the spirit of the guidelines.. I am the victim. TG is the victim.. you are the victim... It's obviously not a very bad violation, but a violation none the less... If someone takes a pencil from work home with them, it's not really a big deal is it? Noone is getting hurt right? Who is the victim when the pencil gets stolen? Honestly, noone.. But it's still wrong and it still shouldn't happen and it hurts everyone, even though it may not be very much..

 

There's your answer.. But your not happy are you?

Logging temp caches is the same as stealing? Funny, I don't seem to be missing anything over here. What are you missing at your house, Ready? Hey TG, has your place been hit too?

 

Nope, I don't seem to be a victim yet. Please tell me more about how the practice of event temp cache logging causes my property to disappear so I can prepare for when it happens.

 

<KBI looks around>

 

Nope, still good! All pencils, pens and crayons present and accounted for!

 

Sorry, but I'm not feeling victimized yet.

[+tozainamboku]

Since Groundspeak doesn't give two hoots if someone is logging multiple finds,

 

but every time in the past when Groundspeak has tried to discourage them they found some way to keep displaying counts, and I suspect they would find a way here too.

 

You've managed to disagree with yourself in the same post They either don't give a hoot or they do! Why would they discourage something they don't give two hoots about? Hmmm? The fact is, they DO give a hoot about it, but just not enough to make a big change to the website. The fact that they tried to remove the find count in the past shows what they think about it, doesn't it? The fact that they've tried to shut down the sites that display find stats shows what they really think about it.. Actions speak much louder than words.

Groundspeak has been very consistent. The Found It and Attended logs are meant to keep track of the caches you found and events you attended and not to compete with other cachers. Because of this they don't care how an individual uses or misuses the found it or attended logs. They have tried to stop some statistics sites but mostly because of the screen scraping techniques these sites used to gather the statistics. Mixing up statistics sites with log abuse is as absurd as logging attended to mean you found a temporary cache.

[+KBI]

Actually replying to the OP.

 

Despite the obvious problems, I don't mind seeing the find count and am in no way fearful of mine showing.

 

And just to throw some logic into the derailed topic ongoing.

 

per guidelines:

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.

 

If I claim to attend an event more than once - that is an impossibility. Therefore my addtional logs are bogus (misleading, untruthful). Per the guidelines, the responsibility of the listing owner is to delete bogus logs.

 

It should, therefore, be impossible to have temporary logs count via the mutiple logging method as the listing owner should responsibly delete them. Despite any opinions they have to the contrary.

 

'just sayin.......

Obvious, very easy to understand, and is a fact, not someone's opinion.

Wrong. The definition of "bogus" is up to the cache owner and his opinion ... and nobody else. That's your "fact."

I highlighted what i stated was a fact. It's not my fact, it's not your fact,,, It's a fact that neither you nor i can deny, pure and simple. If you can't see this, then,,, nevermind.

It’s easy:

 

Cacher attends event. Cacher earns one smiley.

 

During event, cacher finds a temporary cache hidden by the organizers to entertain event guests. Event host/cache owner invites cacher to claim the find for the temp cache on his event cache page. Cacher earns one more smiley.

 

ReadyorNot suddenly notices a pencil missing from his pocket protector.

[+KBI]

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?

I am happy with the status quo. MANY posters in this thread are happy with the status quo, and have neither seen nor experienced the hypothetical "abuse."

I asked you a simple question and you can't answer it because you would have to admit that you don't believe that logging temp caches could ever be considered abuse. Right?

You mean like this?

As for myself, I say the alleged abuse does NOT exist ...

How was that?

 

So there is nobody that could ever convince you. So why are you here? Because you just enjoy causing trouble, don't you?

You mean like this?

... but then I’m not using that claim as a basis for pushing forward any wholesale changes to the geocaching experience, am I?

How was that? Did that question cause you any "trouble?" Did that question "abuse" you, TG? If so, why?

[+TrailGators]

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?

I am happy with the status quo. MANY posters in this thread are happy with the status quo, and have neither seen nor experienced the hypothetical "abuse."

I asked you a simple question and you can't answer it because you would have to admit that you don't believe that logging temp caches could ever be considered abuse. Right?

You mean like this?

As for myself, I say the alleged abuse does NOT exist ...

How was that?

You didn't answer the question. I asked what it would take for you to EVER believe there was abuse. Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

I asked what it would take for you to EVER believe there was abuse.

And I answered. It would take a convincing argument from whoever made the claim. Why does this sound annoyingly familiar?

[+TrailGators]

I asked what it would take for you to EVER believe there was abuse.

And I answered. It would take a convincing argument from whoever made the claim. Why does this sound annoyingly familiar?

I said "with your own brain." Here it is again:

 

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

 

Are you afraid to answer the question and to provide the criteria that would cause your own synapses to fire and draw a conclusion that there was abuse?

Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Keep Lookin]

Numbers Shumbers! I keep hearing the term "It's not about the numbers".... guess I live in another world. Frankly, I hate seeing this sport turning into numbers. At times it feels like people think that if you don't have at least a 1000 finds you can't talk to them. And what's up with this attitude "never record a DNF" because it somehow shows that your caching ability is substandard. The more I hear people brag about their numbers, the more I wonder where geocaching is heading. To me, it's simply a game that I play with myself...even though I enjoy caching with others. I'm enjoying the experience of learning about my community, and the state I live in, and seeing places I never knew existed...but heck what do I know...I'm not in the 1000 club.

[+TrailGators]

Numbers Shumbers! I keep hearing the term "It's not about the numbers".... guess I live in another world. Frankly, I hate seeing this sport turning into numbers. At times it feels like people think that if you don't have at least a 1000 finds you can't talk to them. And what's up with this attitude "never record a DNF" because it somehow shows that your caching ability is substandard. The more I hear people brag about their numbers, the more I wonder where geocaching is heading. To me, it's simply a game that I play with myself...even though I enjoy caching with others. I'm enjoying the experience of learning about my community, and the state I live in, and seeing places I never knew existed...but heck what do I know...I'm not in the 1000 club.

It's too made you feel that way but I can certainly understand why you do. I agree with you. Numbers Shumbers!

[+KBI]

I asked what it would take for you to EVER believe there was abuse.

And I answered. It would take a convincing argument from whoever made the claim. Why does this sound annoyingly familiar?

I said "with your own brain." Here it is again:

 

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

 

Are you afraid to answer the question? You are doing your best to avoid it.

Alright, tell me if this is what you're after:

 

I would have to personally witness the abuse. I would have to see it firsthand, and watch with my own eyes as some innocent cacher suffers real and unmistakable pain, loss, damage or other significant harm. I would have to see that it was the direct result of some other cacher's event temp cache multilogging activity. I would need to then understand the exact steps of the cause-effect relationship between the abuser's event temp cache multilogging activity and the victim’s suffering. I would have to comprehend the individual elements of the evil abuse mechanism plainly enough to explain it to doubters with a description clear enough to convince them beyond doubt that temp caches multilogging abuses cachers.

 

Furthermore: I would have to believe in the existence of this "abuse" so very strongly that if I preached its existence in a forum thread, and anyone asked me a question like "Where is the abuse?" or "Who is the victim?" I would be able to explain it to them clearly, authoritatively, persuasively and convincingly ... AND be able to do so without hesitation, obfuscation, bad logic, name-calling or accusing the questioner of being over-dramatic.

 

THAT is what it would take.

[+TrailGators]

I asked what it would take for you to EVER believe there was abuse.

And I answered. It would take a convincing argument from whoever made the claim. Why does this sound annoyingly familiar?

I said "with your own brain." Here it is again:

 

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

 

Are you afraid to answer the question? You are doing your best to avoid it.

Alright, tell me if this is what you're after:

 

I would have to personally witness the abuse. I would have to see it firsthand, and watch with my own eyes as some innocent cacher suffers real and unmistakable pain, loss, damage or other significant harm. I would have to see that it was the direct result of some other cacher's event temp cache multilogging activity. I would need to then understand the exact steps of the cause-effect relationship between the abuser's event temp cache multilogging activity and the victim's suffering. I would have to comprehend the individual elements of the evil abuse mechanism plainly enough to explain it to doubters with a description clear enough to convince them beyond doubt that temp caches multilogging abuses cachers.

 

Furthermore: I would have to believe in the existence of this "abuse" so very strongly that if I preached its existence in a forum thread, and anyone asked me a question like "Where is the abuse?" or "Who is the victim?" I would be able to explain it to them clearly, authoritatively, persuasively and convincingly ... AND be able to do so without hesitation, obfuscation, bad logic, name-calling or accusing the questioner of being over-dramatic.

 

THAT is what it would take.

In other words, hell would have to freeze over. So since you can never be convinced then why are you asking to be convinced? It doesn't make sense. It really seems like you are just trying to cause trouble. ReadyOrNot's other thread that you and your brother are sabotaging is further proof of this. Why does it threaten you both so much for people to state their opinions? Did their opinions cause 'innocent cachers to suffer real and unmistakable pain, loss, damage or other significant harm?' Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+KBI]

In other words, hell would have to freeze over.

So you’re saying it would never happen? I'll never get to see it? You’re saying there is NO WAY I will ever witness this abuse you allege? Yet you claim it exists?

 

So since you can never be convinced ...

I didn’t say I could never be convinced. Didn’t say that AT ALL. You asked what it would take to convince me. I told you exactly what it would take: I would have to witness it and understand it.

 

Since I currently don't understand it and have not yet personally seen it happen, I must depend on one of the true believers like yourself to give me the details. So far I’m still waiting.

 

... then why are you asking to be convinced? It doesn't make sense.

YOU made the claim without offering any evidence. I asked for evidence. What is so hard to understand?

 

It really seems like you have a chip on your shoulder and you are just trying to cause trouble. ReadyOrNot's other thread that you and your brother are sabotaging is further proof of this. Why does it threaten you both so much for people to state their opinions?

Because it is NOT only about stating opinions. If it were only about stating opinions I wouldn’t give a flying handshake about yours.

 

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.

 

In both this thread and the other one, ReadyOrNot presents site-wide change proposals intended to transform the entire game from the way most of us happen to like it to his own version, a version designed to control a benign behavior that strangely offends him for some reason. In trying to understand his motivation I have simply asked for evidence of his "abuse" claims. I would have expected him to welcome the chance to sell his idea via rational persuasion; instead you’d have thought I insulted his mother. You have reacted pretty much the same way. I don’t get it.

 

Both you guys claim there are victims. I see no victims. I patiently await the proof while you flounder and flail.

 

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

 

BTW, RoN asked for opinions in that other thread, and I gave mine. You dodged the debate in THIS thread for a page and a half on the silly accusation that I was being "dramatic" ... and now you say I am "sabotaging" that thread because I gave my requested opinion?

 

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

[+TrailGators]

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.

[+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?'

Huh? Whose opinions? What are you talking about?

 

And why did you completely ignore the rest of my post? I asked some very reasonable questions, and answered all of yours.

 

Those were your words. So it is you that has a double standard. You treat people like dirt for doing nothing that harms anyone.

Asking you to defend your "abuse" claim is "treating you like dirt?" How does that work?

 

YOU made the claim, not me. Why do you refuse to back it up?

 

Why are you suddenly so thin-skinned and defensive? I think maybe you need some rest. I know I do.

 

I'm getting tired of the repetition. G'nite!

[+TrailGators]

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 fact is that you won't be able to find one person that can no longer play the game the way they want to because of something we discussed in these threads. So the chip is there because of your delusion. Maybe you'll wake up someday and see that. Edited November 20, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

As such, I wonder if you would mind speaking to the question put toward those that wish to hide this information from the cache pages:

I wish someone would explain why TPTB should implement an idea that only serves to annoy people so they complain en masse to TPTB. As if TPTB doesn't have enough drama in their lives...

I agree that just hiding the number on all the cache pages would potentially annoy people. I was actually hoping that nobody would be able to see my numbers even by viewing my profile. It's basically the same as me creating my own html for my profile page. I don't view numbers as important so I would only include the stuff that is important to me in my profile. Is this objectionable?

Would you allow people to see the list of caches that you found? Would that not also let them know how many finds that you have?

That would be OK. It's fun to see what caches people have found. That's another issue with logging only notes. You don't get that list. Anyhow, if someone wants to go to that extreme and count how many logs I have, then I would feel sorry for them.

As I understand your desire, you are fine with people seeing how many caches that you've found, but you don't want it to be easy for them to do it. I can't see any positive to this change request. It will only cause angst, extra hits against the server, and complaints to TPTB. I have every reason to believe that TPTB have more important things to do to spend time on coding a change that will only cause themselves more drama.

[+sbell111]

....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.

[+sbell111]

... You would be able to see their finds with only a mouse click anyway.

If you will be able to see the numbers by simply making a click or two, then I don't see the point in hiding them. The only purpose that would be served is to annoy those who would find the number to be useful.

 

I wish someone would explain why TPTB should implement an idea that only serves to annoy people so they complain en masse to TPTB. As if TPTB doesn't have enough drama in their lives...

Your theory is built upon a house of cards assuming that people would complain en masse about an extra option to hide their find counts from the logs. I hesitate to wonder if the extra mouse click could be characterized as victimizing those who would wish to see someones find count.

No. My theory is built on a house of cards that assumes that people will complain when they have to take extra steps to access data that used to take no extra steps to access. I believe this because history tells me so.

If other cachers would like to display their find counts in the logs, that's fine. I would like to enjoy the freedom to express myself and keep mine hidden as a non-competitive cacher. And as stated previously, there are certainly new cachers who would like to hide their "newbie" status from being broadcast in the logs. If you are curious, just click their profile and see the detailed amount.

If the data is available with just a mouse click or two, it's not hidden. You wouldn't be protecting your information or anyone else's. You would just be creating hoops for people to jump through. That would serve no purpose beyond causing drama.

[+sbell111]

… Why would they discourage something they don't give two hoots about? Hmmm? The fact is, they DO give a hoot about it, but just not enough to make a big change to the website. The fact that they tried to remove the find count in the past shows what they think about it, doesn't it? ...

No, it doesn't. If you read the history on that change, you would know that they didn't remove the find totals from the logs because they were concerned that people were using these numbers for some wrong reason, they removed them so the site would run faster. You see, prior to the change, the numbers were dynamic, calculating every time that the page was pulled up. When they were returned, they became semi-static, calculating only when their was a change made to the page (such as a new log).

[+sbell111]

There. I answered your question. Ready to answer mine now?

The answer is "Everyone that believes in justice and doing what's right and honest"... I, as well as everyone who geocaches gets hurt when things occur that go against the spirit of the guidelines.. I am the victim. TG is the victim.. you are the victim... It's obviously not a very bad violation, but a violation none the less... If someone takes a pencil from work home with them, it's not really a big deal is it? Noone is getting hurt right? Who is the victim when the pencil gets stolen? Honestly, noone.. But it's still wrong and it still shouldn't happen and it hurts everyone, even though it may not be very much..

 

There's your answer.. But your not happy are you?

I reject your conclusion that people who log temporary event caches with the approval of the event holder are rejecting justice, and doing what's wrong and dishonest. They are logging as allowed by TPTB and the event holder. They are doing it in the light of day and are making no attempt to fool anyone.

 

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.