Jump to content

Armchair logging


wimseyguy

Recommended Posts

There have been a few threads on the practice of armchair logging of virtual caches, but this one is a bit different. I recently received this log on one of my popular traditional caches.

Asked one of my colleagues who's in Cary for business travel to find this Geocache for me. He fount it quite easily.

 

TFTC!

 

Cheers,

So this guy thinks it's ok to sit at home while someone else is out there signing his name to logs and he gets to claim the smileys? :rolleyes::lol:

IMO this takes major league brass, and is not how geocaching is done. What do you say?

Link to comment

I'm curious as to what an email response to a note like that is like. What have you got planned?

 

I'm sorry, but that's not how I intended my cache to be logged?

 

Something like that? You can catch more flies with honey...but you can catch the most with a dead squirrel.

Link to comment

I'm curious as to what an email response to a note like that is like. What have you got planned?

 

I'm sorry, but that's not how I intended my cache to be logged?

 

Something like that? You can catch more flies with honey...but you can catch the most with a dead squirrel.

I don't know yet. I'm still in a bit of shock over the whole thing. I doubt it will provoke an international incident, but you just never know. :rolleyes::lol:

Link to comment

I'm curious as to what an email response to a note like that is like. What have you got planned?

 

I'm sorry, but that's not how I intended my cache to be logged?

 

Something like that? You can catch more flies with honey...but you can catch the most with a dead squirrel.

I don't know yet. I'm still in a bit of shock over the whole thing. I doubt it will provoke an international incident, but you just never know. :rolleyes::lol:

 

Don't tell me he's German.

Link to comment

There have been a few threads on the practice of armchair logging of virtual caches, but this one is a bit different. I recently received this log on one of my popular traditional caches.

Asked one of my colleagues who's in Cary for business travel to find this Geocache for me. He fount it quite easily.

 

TFTC!

 

Cheers,

So this guy thinks it's ok to sit at home while someone else is out there signing his name to logs and he gets to claim the smileys? :rolleyes::lol:

IMO this takes major league brass, and is not how geocaching is done. What do you say?

 

How else are the rich and famous to log their finds? Certainly you do not expect them to lower themselves to actually touch a cache like the common man. :)

Link to comment

Did the German "Virtually" discover all the travel bugs too? It must be super cool to log caches, and virtuals all over the world in a single bound. What a dork! :rolleyes:

 

If it was my cache, I would delete his log in a heartbeat. I wouldn't even bother emailing him with an explanation.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

No difference. I agree with 'Snat' too.

 

This person's behavior doesn't harm me, doesn't diminish my enjoyment of caching, doesn't make it any harder or easier for me to find my next cache, doesn't take any money out of my pocket, and doesn't make my own find count any less meaningful to me. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to cheat himself of caching fun and distort his own caching history all he likes -- assuming it's okay with the cache owner, that is. What's okay and what's not okay is strictly between the logger and the owner.

Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

No difference. I agree with 'Snat' too.

 

This person's behavior doesn't harm me, doesn't diminish my enjoyment of caching, doesn't make it any harder or easier for me to find my next cache, doesn't take any money out of my pocket, and doesn't make my own find count any less meaningful to me. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to cheat himself of caching fun and distort his own caching history all he likes -- assuming it's okay with the cache owner, that is. What's okay and what's not okay is strictly between the logger and the owner.

Cool. I know lots of folks in towns all over the country, even around the world. I'll send them all out to find all their local caches for me and sign the logs as my representative. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

No difference. I agree with 'Snat' too.

 

This person's behavior doesn't harm me, doesn't diminish my enjoyment of caching, doesn't make it any harder or easier for me to find my next cache, doesn't take any money out of my pocket, and doesn't make my own find count any less meaningful to me. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to cheat himself of caching fun and distort his own caching history all he likes -- assuming it's okay with the cache owner, that is. What's okay and what's not okay is strictly between the logger and the owner.

 

When Milli Vanilli were uncovered as frauds and stripped of their Grammy it in no way affected my enjoyment of music. When the NY Times writer Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing, it didn't make reading the newspaper less meaningful to me. When Rosie Ruiz took a car to the finish line of the Boston Marathon, it didn't take any money out of my pocket. Still, some things are just plain wrong whether they affect you directly or not.

 

In the end, the Milli Vanillis, Rosie Ruizes, the Barry Bonds, the Jayson Blairs and even dishonest geocachers and guys who fudge their golf scores do affect us all. What they do is chip away at our optimism and feed our cynicism.

Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

No difference. I agree with 'Snat' too.

 

This person's behavior doesn't harm me, doesn't diminish my enjoyment of caching, doesn't make it any harder or easier for me to find my next cache, doesn't take any money out of my pocket, and doesn't make my own find count any less meaningful to me. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to cheat himself of caching fun and distort his own caching history all he likes -- assuming it's okay with the cache owner, that is. What's okay and what's not okay is strictly between the logger and the owner.

 

When Milli Vanilli were uncovered as frauds and stripped of their Grammy it in no way affected my enjoyment of music. When the NY Times writer Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing, it didn't make reading the newspaper less meaningful to me. When Rosie Ruiz took a car to the finish line of the Boston Marathon, it didn't take any money out of my pocket. Still, some things are just plain wrong whether they affect you directly or not.

 

In the end, the Milli Vanillis, Rosie Ruizes, the Barry Bonds, the Jayson Blairs and even dishonest geocachers and guys who fudge their golf scores do affect us all. What they do is chip away at our optimism and feed our cynicism.

Only if you let them.

 

Most of those things you listed aren't relevant anyway, as they are examples of outright legal fraud.

 

When Milli Vanilli were uncovered as frauds and stripped of their Grammy it in no way affected my enjoyment of music either, but, unless their contracts happened to allow for lip syncing, they were guilty of defrauding those who paid them to sing. If I were an investor I'd have been plenty miffed. They would have cost me real money.

 

Same with most of your other examples. The golf thing might actually be analogous, however -- unless we're talking a prize-paying tournament, in which case: fraud. If it's just a friendly golf game then I can see the parrallel to caching. Why should I care if a buddy exaggerates a golf score, a fishing story, or a cache log?

 

Do you consider remote logging as described in the OP to be abuse? If so, who is the victim? You? How are you harmed when some caching team isn't standing as close to each other as you would prefer they stand when one member finds the cache and signs both their names?

Link to comment

If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

I gotta agree with 'Snat. Isn't that the appropriate response to "He's not playing the way I do! He's cheating!" posts? What's the difference between this and all the other complaints in this genre?

No difference. I agree with 'Snat' too.

 

This person's behavior doesn't harm me, doesn't diminish my enjoyment of caching, doesn't make it any harder or easier for me to find my next cache, doesn't take any money out of my pocket, and doesn't make my own find count any less meaningful to me. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to cheat himself of caching fun and distort his own caching history all he likes -- assuming it's okay with the cache owner, that is. What's okay and what's not okay is strictly between the logger and the owner.

 

When Milli Vanilli were uncovered as frauds and stripped of their Grammy it in no way affected my enjoyment of music. When the NY Times writer Jayson Blair was caught plagiarizing, it didn't make reading the newspaper less meaningful to me. When Rosie Ruiz took a car to the finish line of the Boston Marathon, it didn't take any money out of my pocket. Still, some things are just plain wrong whether they affect you directly or not.

 

In the end, the Milli Vanillis, Rosie Ruizes, the Barry Bonds, the Jayson Blairs and even dishonest geocachers and guys who fudge their golf scores do affect us all. What they do is chip away at our optimism and feed our cynicism.

Only if you let them.

 

Most of those things you listed aren't relevant anyway, as they are examples of outright legal fraud.

 

When Milli Vanilli were uncovered as frauds and stripped of their Grammy it in no way affected my enjoyment of music either, but, unless their contracts happened to allow for lip syncing, they were guilty of defrauding those who paid them to sing. If I were an investor I'd have been plenty miffed. They would have cost me real money.

 

Same with most of your other examples. The golf thing might actually be analogous, however -- unless we're talking a prize-paying tournament, in which case: fraud. If it's just a friendly golf game then I can see the parrallel to caching. Why should I care if a buddy exaggerates a golf score, a fishing story, or a cache log?

 

Do you consider remote logging as described in the OP to be abuse? If so, who is the victim? You? How are you harmed when some caching team isn't standing as close to each other as you would prefer they stand when one member finds the cache and signs both their names?

 

I had a long response written. Then I re-read your post and realized that it was the best possible validation of my argument. Thanks.

Link to comment
I had a long response written. Then I re-read your post and realized that it was the best possible validation of my argument. Thanks.

So ... you believe you, personally, are being contractually defrauded every time some cacher lets another cacher sign a log for him? :rolleyes:

 

Well, I suppose anybody can sue anybody over anything. Good luck with that.

Link to comment

At some point, at some level, somewhere out there is behavior so outrageous that it simply must be described as wrong. And then condemmed as such. Even it occurs far away, in a different time and place.

 

It genuinely scares me to know - that point, that level, that time and place is so far away that some refuse to so much as look towards it.

 

This one is way over the top. Delete it with some polite but direct note.

Link to comment
I had a long response written. Then I re-read your post and realized that it was the best possible validation of my argument. Thanks.

So ... you believe you, personally, are being contractually defrauded every time some cacher lets another cacher sign a log for him? :rolleyes:

 

Well, I suppose anybody can sue anybody over anything. Good luck with that.

 

You obviously did not understand my argument. Seems to be a trend.

Link to comment
At some point, at some level, somewhere out there is behavior so outrageous that it simply must be described as wrong. And then condemmed as such. Even it occurs far away, in a different time and place.

 

It genuinely scares me to know - that point, that level, that time and place is so far away that some refuse to so much as look towards it.

If someone is committing an actual crime, then yes: I agree with you. If someone is robbing someone else at gunpoint for example, then what they are doing is so outrageous that it simply must be described as wrong no matter when or where it happens.

 

My standard, however, is this: How can a behavior be considered a crime if there is no victim?

 

I hear your indignation, but your indignation fails to convince me that you have received any real harm as a result of the remote logging. How does it harm you if the logger distorts his own find history?

 

This one is way over the top. Delete it with some polite but direct note.

Fair advice, but this decision is ultimately between the cache owner and the person logging the cache.

Link to comment
I had a long response written. Then I re-read your post and realized that it was the best possible validation of my argument. Thanks.

So ... you believe you, personally, are being contractually defrauded every time some cacher lets another cacher sign a log for him? :rolleyes:

 

Well, I suppose anybody can sue anybody over anything. Good luck with that.

You obviously did not understand my argument. Seems to be a trend.

What argument?

 

You said you had a long response written but apparently decided not to post it. You instead made a vague claim that I was simply wrong somehow.

 

If that was an argument, then you're right, I did not understand your argument.

Link to comment
My standard, however, is this: How can a behavior be considered a crime if there is no victim?

 

All of society is the victim of liars and cheaters. It's all a matter of degree and where we choose to take a stand. If you chose not to take a stand unless it affects you directly, then that is your privilege.

Link to comment
My standard, however, is this: How can a behavior be considered a crime if there is no victim?

All of society is the victim of liars and cheaters. It's all a matter of degree and where we choose to take a stand. If you chose not to take a stand unless it affects you directly, then that is your privilege.

If you log a deep-woods cache from your armchair, that does not affect me directly.

 

If you instead log the same deep-woods cache after hiking way out there, finding the container and fishing out the logbook, but it’s actually your hiking buddy who writes your name on the paper log, that does not affect me directly either.

 

By your logic I should take a stand anyway against the second version of your logging ... as long as I feel it constitutes some kind of cheating. It's all a matter of degree and where we choose to take a stand. Sure, there’s no actual victim, but as long as I somehow feel cheated then I should take up arms against the scourge.

Link to comment
If that's the way he likes to play his game, who are we to say he can't?

 

Well, it's the OP's cache. So....he could probably say.

 

At some point, the "everything is relative" argument falls apart. Who's to say I can't go to some random cache page and log a find? No one, it's "the way I want to play the game." Although I'm pretty sure a majority of cachers would look down on that.

Link to comment

I was thinking more along these lines for the e-mail explaining the log deletion:

 

Asked one of my colleagues who's a volunteer cache reviewer to delete this "find" for me. He killed it quite easily.

 

I have never deleted a log on one of my caches, but this one would've been the first had the Couch Enabler traveled to my neck of the woods.

Link to comment

Reply:

 

"I normally delete logs of this nature directly from my home, so I hope it is not an inconvenience to you that I am deleting this one from the public library."

 

ROFL! Or how about "I got my friend the reviewer to delete this one, as I couldn't be bothered to do it myself".

Link to comment

There have been a few threads on the practice of armchair logging of virtual caches, but this one is a bit different. I recently received this log on one of my popular traditional caches.

Asked one of my colleagues who's in Cary for business travel to find this Geocache for me. He fount it quite easily.

 

TFTC!

 

Cheers,

So this guy thinks it's ok to sit at home while someone else is out there signing his name to logs and he gets to claim the smileys? :):lol:

IMO this takes major league brass, and is not how geocaching is done. What do you say?

Duh?? Why would you be upset about this? I do this all the time! I figure out the exact location of caches in distant cities and then I call a temp-labor-by-the-hour agency in that area and hire one or more temps to go out and score finds on designated caches in their local area for me all the time. I simply use my credit or debit card to pay the $20 to $50 fee by phone, and, of course, I provide exact driving and walking/hiking directions to the temp employees. B):lol::huh::huh::P:)

 

 

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

 

:)

Link to comment

Cool. I know lots of folks in towns all over the country, even around the world. I'll send them all out to find all their local caches for me and sign the logs as my representative.

Why should we mind? Someone signed the logbook, somone logged a find in the db - no harm done.

And if I felt free to delete an online log, I wouldn't have to have an "excuse" in the first place, right?

Link to comment

perhaps the cacher in question is disabled and can't make a physical visit to any caches? Would you then delete the find or make an exception to the rule? If I were homebound I could see how this could still be a fun game to be involved with. I think I would go the "team" route though to avoid any problems.

Link to comment

perhaps the cacher in question is disabled and can't make a physical visit to any caches? Would you then delete the find or make an exception to the rule? If I were homebound I could see how this could still be a fun game to be involved with. I think I would go the "team" route though to avoid any problems.

I would still delete the log in a heartbeat. My expectation is that anyone claiming a find on one of my three caches has actually found the cache and signed the log. That's the way I play the game, anyway. There are lots of other "virtual worlds" people can get involved with.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

There have been a few threads on the practice of armchair logging of virtual caches, but this one is a bit different. I recently received this log on one of my popular traditional caches.

Asked one of my colleagues who's in Cary for business travel to find this Geocache for me. He fount it quite easily.

 

TFTC!

 

Cheers,

So this guy thinks it's ok to sit at home while someone else is out there signing his name to logs and he gets to claim the smileys? :lol::rolleyes:

IMO this takes major league brass, and is not how geocaching is done. What do you say?

 

It's actually kind of amusing that he believes it is OK because his name appears in the logbook, but what if he actually did sign it, and just wrote that to see the CO's reaction..?

Link to comment

perhaps the cacher in question is disabled and can't make a physical visit to any caches? Would you then delete the find or make an exception to the rule? If I were homebound I could see how this could still be a fun game to be involved with. I think I would go the "team" route though to avoid any problems.

I would still delete the log in a heartbeat. My expectation is that anyone claiming a find on one of my three caches has actually found the cache and signed the log. That's the way I play the game, anyway. There are lots of other "virtual worlds" people can get involved with.

 

--Larry

Yep. Personally, to get serious for a moment, I too would either delete the log in a heartbeat or, alternatively, I would insert a log note entry immediately above the fraudulent one, noting that the entry below mine is the most blatant but hilarious fraudulent log find entry that I have ever seen, but that I am letting the log remain as part of the permanent history of the cache and also as a contribution to the online Museum of Buffoonery and Idiocy in Geocaching.

Link to comment
What a jerk. He should have just changed his caching name from Sessel to Team Sessel and posted
Half of Team Sessel was in Cary on business found the cache quite easily. TFTC

Cheers,

Team Sessel

Then everything would be legit :rolleyes:
I agree with your logic.

 

I see no difference in this log than any number of times when half of a team goes on a business trip and logs their finds.

My standard, however, is this: How can a behavior be considered a crime if there is no victim?
All of society is the victim of liars and cheaters. It's all a matter of degree and where we choose to take a stand. If you chose not to take a stand unless it affects you directly, then that is your privilege.
First of all, no one has lied or cheated. The cacher explained exactly what happened.

 

The cache was found. The cache was logged. This log is not going to make any other cacher drive a hundred miles and be unable to find it.

 

There is no issue here. If anyone feels defrauded, I think that they should take a hard look and examine why they are allowing actions that don't affect them to get them down.

 

This morning, on the news, I learned that middle aged people are sadder than others.

Link to comment
The cacher explained exactly what happened.
If I brag about fudging my golf scores, I still cheated. If I log that I found a cache and I wasn't there, hmmmm.
Did you lie?

 

Why does it bother you so deeply? More and more frequently, you are going off about this or that. Is everything OK?

Link to comment
The cacher explained exactly what happened.
If I brag about fudging my golf scores, I still cheated. If I log that I found a cache and I wasn't there, hmmmm.
Did you lie?

 

Why does it bother you so deeply? More and more frequently, you are going off about this or that. Is everything OK?

 

It bothers me deeply? That's nice to know. Actually I don't give the issue a second thought once I leave this thread

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Hola Amigos!

 

Now let me explain, cos it's quite simple.

 

My company's headquarter is located just a few meters down the road. The colleague sitting next to me now did a business travel to Cary. As his Hotel was the Hilton just next to the Cache I asked him to bring me some TBs that want to go to Europe. That's about it.

 

Now the rest is a philosophical question. Is it a Found or not? In my eyes - yes, it is. The cache was found, TBs were taken out, and the logbook was signed. So what? Is the problem, that it was not me in person who logged the cache? If this is really the issue, then I'd be ok changing the Found to a "Write Note", but I think that's not what the rules say, right?

 

Cheers,

HCC

Link to comment
The cacher explained exactly what happened.
If I brag about fudging my golf scores, I still cheated. If I log that I found a cache and I wasn't there, hmmmm.
Did you lie?

 

Why does it bother you so deeply? More and more frequently, you are going off about this or that. Is everything OK?

It bothers me deeply? That's nice to know. Actually I don't give the issue a second thought once I leave this thread
I'm glad to hear that. From the number of threads that you have been going off in, I was starting to be concerned for you. Now that I know that you don't have any real vested interest in these issues, I can put those concerns aside.
Link to comment

Well, one could also temporarily expand his team to some handy members :):rolleyes: .

Anyone believing that the famous Coopers Agency is just one person?

So what's the difference?

To extend this idea, one could found a multi-national cacher-team, consisting of some Americans, some Brits, some Frenchmen, some Germans. All of them logging under the same nickname.

:lol::)B)

Link to comment

Hola Amigos!

 

Now let me explain, cos it's quite simple.

 

My company's headquarter is located just a few meters down the road. The colleague sitting next to me now did a business travel to Cary. As his Hotel was the Hilton just next to the Cache I asked him to bring me some TBs that want to go to Europe. That's about it.

 

Now the rest is a philosophical question. Is it a Found or not? In my eyes - yes, it is. The cache was found, TBs were taken out, and the logbook was signed. So what? Is the problem, that it was not me in person who logged the cache? If this is really the issue, then I'd be ok changing the Found to a "Write Note", but I think that's not what the rules say, right?

 

Cheers,

HCC

 

By that logic I could mark any cache "found" personally because was "found" by somebody....

 

To each their own, if intellectual dishonesty is the way you play the game...more power to you. Just don't come crying when your logs get waxed.

Link to comment

Personally, why would you want someone else to log a cache for you? I guess for a few it is a numbers game. I would love to increase my find numbers but I love the thrill of finding what I'm looking for.

 

I am planning a trip to Arizona in March and since I am the only avid cacher out of the four of us, I am planning on doing virtuals to log some caches. In hubby's words "I don't want to spend my vacation looking for a tupperware container in bushes in the desert!" So to log in the states I am visiting, Virtuals are fast and easy. However, I will not be doing an research for the answers before I leave. I will fulfill the log when I get there. The legwork will be all mine

 

Just my 2 cents

Guiderchachi

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