Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

It was OK.

 

The cache was one of those where you have to go into a business and ask for the cache.

 

The cache owner listed the hours of operation and I showed up during those hours. Unfortunately, they changed their operating hours for the winter. They are now closed on Sundays.

 

I spotted the cache behind the counter and photographed it through the window. I logged it as a find and sent the owner an email explaining everything and offering to change it to a note, if he preferred.

 

Oh, fine for you.

 

You SAY it was okay ... and I’m sure the cache owner will be okay with it as well ... and yet, for some reason I now feel so ... so dirty, so ... wicked ... ashamed ... like I need a shower, but ... how will I EVER wash away this stain, this raw, sickening stench of your crime against Geocaching? Why did you inflict this appalling sin upon the rest of us, Sbell? It’s so ... I dunno, so ... degrading!

 

Eeeeaawwwwww – get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me ...

He visited the cache site, therfore no degradation.

 

Good job sbell111 for not degrading geocaching.

[+sbell111]

It was OK.

 

The cache was one of those where you have to go into a business and ask for the cache.

 

The cache owner listed the hours of operation and I showed up during those hours. Unfortunately, they changed their operating hours for the winter. They are now closed on Sundays.

 

I spotted the cache behind the counter and photographed it through the window. I logged it as a find and sent the owner an email explaining everything and offering to change it to a note, if he preferred.

 

Oh, fine for you.

 

You SAY it was okay ... and I’m sure the cache owner will be okay with it as well ... and yet, for some reason I now feel so ... so dirty, so ... wicked ... ashamed ... like I need a shower, but ... how will I EVER wash away this stain, this raw, sickening stench of your crime against Geocaching? Why did you inflict this appalling sin upon the rest of us, Sbell? It’s so ... I dunno, so ... degrading!

 

Eeeeaawwwwww – get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me ...

[+KBI]

It was OK.

 

The cache was one of those where you have to go into a business and ask for the cache.

 

The cache owner listed the hours of operation and I showed up during those hours. Unfortunately, they changed their operating hours for the winter. They are now closed on Sundays.

 

I spotted the cache behind the counter and photographed it through the window. I logged it as a find and sent the owner an email explaining everything and offering to change it to a note, if he preferred.

 

Oh, fine for you.

 

You SAY it was okay ... and I’m sure the cache owner will be okay with it as well ... and yet, for some reason I now feel so ... so dirty, so ... wicked ... ashamed ... like I need a shower, but ... how will I EVER wash away this stain, this raw, sickening stench of your crime against Geocaching? Why did you inflict this appalling sin upon the rest of us, Sbell? It’s so ... I dunno, so ... degrading!

 

Eeeeaawwwwww – get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me-get-it-off-me ...

He visited the cache site, therfore no degradation.

 

Good job sbell111 for not degrading geocaching.

He did NOT visit the cache site.

 

We have no proof he was even in the right place!

 

He merely says he took a picture, from a distance, of what he assumed was the cache container. How did he know the container he saw wasn’t a decoy? By his own admission he never touched the cache, he never proved what he saw was the correct container, and he never signed the logbook. How do we even know he was the one who took the picture? What if a buddy took the photo for him, and Sbell simply logged the whole thing from his basement?

 

He made a wild assumption that the owner would go along with his wicked ways, forcing the owner into a confrontation should the assumption have been incorrect.

 

If that’s not "bogus" enough to degrade you, me, and everyone else whose very honor and esteem depends on where people draw arbitrary lines of morality for insignificant games of hide and seek, then I don’t know what is. (Never mind that I might have done the same thing myself, and that his actions have no practical affect on anyone but himself and the cache owner.)

 

I certainly hope you aren’t suggesting that he and the cache owner should be allowed to decide among themselves what is acceptable and what isn’t. How can we trust them to make the correct and proper choice on their own, without our pompous moralizing helpful assistance when so much is riding on this for the rest of us? Who will make it their business to tell the two of them how degraded the rest of us are by their thoughtless flaunting of our subjective standards with their subjective standards?

 

Which is it? Is bogus logging degrading, or isn't it?

[+KBI]

 

Sorry, I'm not wearing my glasses -- does that label say it removes moral degradation stains?

[+TrailGators]

anyway, you can't stop people from being dishonest. period. Removing a log certainly won't change someone's ethics... it'll just waste some of your time and in the process it will create unnecessary angst for both of you.

If you never stand up for what you believe in then you are a nothing...

There was a time in my life when I would fight every battle full on and live with the ramifications. Eventually, I discovered that sometimes those ramifications were not worth the fight. It's better to pick one's battles.

Stating my opinion and standing behind it is far from being a battle.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would not have logged a find.

Juat last saturday I saw a cache I was looking for, but I could not get to it without risking falling into a creek bellow the cache, I was over 100 mile from on the way to an event. I could see the cache but I was not about to log a find without signing the book.

[+TrailGators]

It's not a dilemma at all because people around here don't cheat.

I think this statement, all by itself, demonstrates why bogus logging ("team logging," not the trouble-causing "remote logging" Briansnat described) is NOT a problem, and does NOT "degrade" anything or anybody.

 

Question: How do you know people in your area don't cheat?

 

Do you know ALL the geocachers in your area? Do you accompany each of them on EACH cache find?

 

If not, do you visit EVERY cache in your area after EVERY find by another cacher in order to reconcile the online logs with the paper logs?

 

Unless you do either of these things -- and do them with complete, 100% thoroughness, mind you -- you have no proof that there is no cheating. If, therefore, there is bogus logging going on, and you are unaware of the bogus logging, then the bogus logging therefore has absolutely no way of harming you.

 

If a friend of mine called me via his cell phone while standing over a cache in your town and said "Hey KBI, want me to add your name to this log so you can claim a smiley?" ... then, unless you know the handwriting of every cacher, even your daily paper log reconciliation visits wouldn't reveal the subterfuge.

 

This type of "cheating" could be happening right under your nose. It could be happening and you would be completely unaware, therefore there is no way for it to make you feel morally uncomfortable – to "degrade the game" – because it doesn't matter.

Actually word-of-mouth exposes those in the community that cheat. I honestly haven't heard about any serious "local" offenders. Based on my experience I also feel that most people play by the rules. We are talking about a small minority in this discussion. I don't think there are enough people doing it to hurt the game, but that doesn't mean that cheating doesn't matter.

[+sbell111]

I would not have logged a find.

Juat last saturday I saw a cache I was looking for, but I could not get to it without risking falling into a creek bellow the cache, I was over 100 mile from on the way to an event. I could see the cache but I was not about to log a find without signing the book.

You are pretty much using the same example as Ecanderson did. Much like his example, I wouldn't have logged the creek cache as a find.

[+KBI]

It's not a dilemma at all because people around here don't cheat.

I think this statement, all by itself, demonstrates why bogus logging ("team logging," not the trouble-causing "remote logging" Briansnat described) is NOT a problem, and does NOT "degrade" anything or anybody.

 

Question: How do you know people in your area don't cheat?

 

Do you know ALL the geocachers in your area? Do you accompany each of them on EACH cache find?

 

If not, do you visit EVERY cache in your area after EVERY find by another cacher in order to reconcile the online logs with the paper logs?

 

Unless you do either of these things -- and do them with complete, 100% thoroughness, mind you -- you have no proof that there is no cheating. If, therefore, there is bogus logging going on, and you are unaware of the bogus logging, then the bogus logging therefore has absolutely no way of harming you.

 

If a friend of mine called me via his cell phone while standing over a cache in your town and said "Hey KBI, want me to add your name to this log so you can claim a smiley?" ... then, unless you know the handwriting of every cacher, even your daily paper log reconciliation visits wouldn't reveal the subterfuge.

 

This type of "cheating" could be happening right under your nose. It could be happening and you would be completely unaware, therefore there is no way for it to make you feel morally uncomfortable – to "degrade the game" – because it doesn't matter.

Actually word-of-mouth exposes those in the community that cheat.

Word-of-mouth exposes some of those in the community that cheat. There is no possible way for word-of-mouth to expose someone who cheats undetected.

 

I honestly haven't heard about any serious "local" offenders.

My point exactly.

 

Based on my experience I also feel that most people play by the rules.

My point as well. As long as you think they are playing by your rules, what does it matter?

 

We are talking about a small minority in this discussion.

That is my assumption as well, but until someone goes out there and reconciles every single logbook with its corresponding cache log AND proves via handwriting analysis that every handwritten log is genuine, then that’s all our assumption is: an assumption.

 

I don't think there are enough people doing it to hurt the game, but that doesn't mean that cheating doesn't matter.

How can cheating possibly matter to you if you are completely unaware of it? That doesn’t make any sense. That does mean that cheating doesn't matter.

 

Bogus logs can cause practical problems same as any other bad information, but I remain unconvinced that bogus logs of any kind cause "degradation" for anyone who does not choose to be morally troubled by them.

 

I am not promoting bogus logging. I am merely pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to feel "degraded" simply because someone else posts a bogus find log, intentional or not, for a hidden container. Good grief, it's just an uncompetitive hide-and-seek hobby. How can one "cheat" if there is no score being kept?

[+Renegade Knight]

...He visited the cache site, therfore no degradation.

 

Good job sbell111 for not degrading geocaching.

Heck we all visit the cache site even on a DNF.

 

The only question is a "Photographic Find" a valid find? On my caches. It's a note. Unless you are the one cacher who has no arms. Then if you can find the sucker and get a photo, I'll be happy to call it a find.

 

Bottom line, it's the owners call. sbell111 recognized this and asked. If the owner says 'it's a note' I have no doubt sbell111 would chagne their log. No degridation invovled.

[+TrailGators]

It's not a dilemma at all because people around here don't cheat.

I think this statement, all by itself, demonstrates why bogus logging ("team logging," not the trouble-causing "remote logging" Briansnat described) is NOT a problem, and does NOT "degrade" anything or anybody.

 

Question: How do you know people in your area don't cheat?

 

Do you know ALL the geocachers in your area? Do you accompany each of them on EACH cache find?

 

If not, do you visit EVERY cache in your area after EVERY find by another cacher in order to reconcile the online logs with the paper logs?

 

Unless you do either of these things -- and do them with complete, 100% thoroughness, mind you -- you have no proof that there is no cheating. If, therefore, there is bogus logging going on, and you are unaware of the bogus logging, then the bogus logging therefore has absolutely no way of harming you.

 

If a friend of mine called me via his cell phone while standing over a cache in your town and said "Hey KBI, want me to add your name to this log so you can claim a smiley?" ... then, unless you know the handwriting of every cacher, even your daily paper log reconciliation visits wouldn't reveal the subterfuge.

 

This type of "cheating" could be happening right under your nose. It could be happening and you would be completely unaware, therefore there is no way for it to make you feel morally uncomfortable – to "degrade the game" – because it doesn't matter.

Actually word-of-mouth exposes those in the community that cheat.

Word-of-mouth exposes some of those in the community that cheat. There is no possible way for word-of-mouth to expose someone who cheats undetected.

 

I honestly haven't heard about any serious "local" offenders.

My point exactly.

 

Based on my experience I also feel that most people play by the rules.

My point as well. As long as you think they are playing by your rules, what does it matter?

 

We are talking about a small minority in this discussion.

That is my assumption as well, but until someone goes out there and reconciles every single logbook with its corresponding cache log AND proves via handwriting analysis that every handwritten log is genuine, then that's all our assumption is: an assumption.

 

I don't think there are enough people doing it to hurt the game, but that doesn't mean that cheating doesn't matter.

How can cheating possibly matter to you if you are completely unaware of it? That doesn't make any sense. That does mean that cheating doesn't matter.

 

Bogus logs can cause practical problems same as any other bad information, but I remain unconvinced that bogus logs of any kind cause "degradation" for anyone who does not choose to be morally troubled by them.

 

I am not promoting bogus logging. I am merely pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to feel "degraded" simply because someone else posts a bogus find log, intentional or not, for a hidden container. Good grief, it's just an uncompetitive hide-and-seek hobby. How can one "cheat" if there is no score being kept?

I thought we were going to agree until I got to your comments. There is right and wrong and it does matter if you do something wrong when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. Wrong starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. No many people will notice one weed, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up.

[+sbell111]

oh bother.

[+infiniteMPG]

oh bother.

Tut-tut... looks like rain! Hmmm, step away from this thread to watch some football game and it still manages to keep rolling. Last I checked geocaching was recreational activity and not a competitive sport. More like the Montu at Busch Gardens then then The Masters at Augusta. And with the Montu there are just as many people buy the "I SURVIVED RIDING THE MONTU" T-shirt who didn't ride as who did. As soon as they leave the park you can't tell them from the front row addict (except a pure front row addict probably wouldn't care to wear the tacky shirt). But you can either look at them and chuckle, or look at them with hate an anger and dispise thinking somehow they made riding the ride less fun because they really didn't do it. It's a perspective and attitude thing, believing that for the most part most people are honest, or believing in the dark world of the shadows where no one can be trusted and evil lurks behind their smiling masks

 

No one condones cheating with fake logs. No one said they wouldn't delete a fake log if it was proven fake. The line in the sand is how far we each go to investigate the fakes.

 

If anyone is truly against ANYONE faking a log then it's simple. Put a code or a catch phrase on the front of your log book. Tell everyone to email you that or they won't get credit for the find. You might get a few people who share the code but that would be really rare. Then it's the proverbial 'end of story'. No more cheaters. And no fancy techniques or efforts in proof reading logs or validating signatures. But then it's up to the owner who will have to validate every log listing, but if owners are that dead set against cheating then that shouldn't be much

[+tozainamboku]

I thought we were going to agree until I got to your comments. There is right and wrong and it does matter if you do something wrong when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. Wrong starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. No many people will notice one weed, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up.

 

First of all, I would answer KBI as to how you know there is not a serious problem with cheaters in your area is that you do check the physical logs not only of your own caches but of other caches you find and haven't seen evidence of people logging online without signing the log. Of course you can't check log on virtuals and it seams like armchair logging of virtuals is what the OP finds more degrading than someone who may just have forgotten to sign the log at a traditional cache. I haven't looked by I bet it wouldn't be hard to find a virtual cache near you that had several "Greetings from Germany" logs. Perhaps I am wrong and the virtual cache owners in your area are rigorously defending geocaching by deleting bogus armchair logs.

 

My objection is with lumping all non-visiting logs in the same category. I realize that to the everything needs to be black and white group it sound like situational ethics but it's not. There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it. It is quite clear who is playing this game. Just as it is clear who plays the alternative game of logging attended an event for each temporary event cache. I accept that alternatives games can be played on the Geocaching.com website since these don't affect my ability to play my game of logging only caches that I have found.

 

Truly bogus logs where you can't discern that the cacher is playing an alternative game so you believe the cache was found when it wasn't can cause briansnat's friend to waste gas. I agree that this is bad. I agree that when you know of a case like this you should speak out. If it is your cache you should delete the bogus log. If it is someone else's cache, and they won't delete the log you certainly can try to convince the owner to do so. If the bogus logger has a pattern of doing this, you can even report this to Geocaching.com. I have seen accounts get banned for repeated bogus logging.

[+TrailGators]

There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it.

It's really simple. Logging caches that you didn't visit goes against the intention of this game. Coordinates are provided and the guidelines clearly explain the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

[+sbell111]

There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it.

It's really simple. Logging caches that you didn't visit goes against the intention of this game. Coordinates are provided and the guidelines clearly explain the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

Didn't Jeemy make a post once that answered to this very issue? I'll see if I can't dig it up.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I would not have logged a find.

Juat last saturday I saw a cache I was looking for, but I could not get to it without risking falling into a creek bellow the cache, I was over 100 mile from on the way to an event. I could see the cache but I was not about to log a find without signing the book.

You are pretty much using the same example as Ecanderson did. Much like his example, I wouldn't have logged the creek cache as a find.

I was so close about 6 feet away , If I was close to home I would have cared ablut falling in the creek, it looked kind of deep. But having to go to a Wherigo event it wet close did not sound like fun.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it.

It's really simple. Logging caches that you didn't visit goes against the intention of this game. Coordinates are provided and the guidelines clearly explain the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

 

The streetview feature of Google maps and others is actually going to allow the growth of some activites that are essentially virtual caching. I think there is some potential for new locaition based games that don't involve you leaving your arm chair.

 

Of course that's not the same as finding the yourself.

 

Edit: I just posted and armchair challenge.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+KBI]

I thought we were going to agree until I got to your comments. There is right and wrong and it does matter if you do something wrong when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. Wrong starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. No many people will notice one weed, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up.

Today is Monday. Today I am wearing my one pair of undershorts that has the word Monday printed on it in big letters. I wear my other six day-of-the-week skivvies on their proper days as well.

 

Not everyone participates in the popular pastime of day-of-the-week labeled undies, of course. Of those who do participate, however, I have a few questions for you:

• Should I even care when one of my fellow participants chooses to flaunt the rules and wear the wrong pair of underwear on the wrong day?
  
• Do you think it degrades your opinion of me when someone other than me wears his Thursday pair on a Monday?
  
• Do you think I should feel degraded when someone other than me wears his Thursday pair on a Monday?
  
• Do you think I should feel degraded when someone other than me wears his Thursday pair on a Monday, even if I never become aware of his bogus choice (this is underwear we’re talking, after all)?
  
• Does it harm my ability to enjoy the pastime of day-of-the-week labeled underwear when someone else chooses to wear the wrong pair of underwear on the wrong day?
  

And, the critical question:

• Does it degrade my ability to enjoy the pastime of Geocaching when someone else chooses to log a cache he didn’t visit but his friend visited for him instead?
  

There is right and wrong and it does matter if you wear the wrong underwear when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. The wrong underwear on the wrong day starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. Not many people will notice what’s on underneath your Levis, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens ... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up than to risk that you might someday degrade the entire community of underwear enthusiasts by wearing your Thursday pair on a Monday.

[+KBI]

I thought we were going to agree until I got to your comments. There is right and wrong and it does matter if you do something wrong when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. Wrong starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. No many people will notice one weed, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up.

I agree with you that wrong is wrong even if nobody’s looking, TG. Where I disagree with you is your attempt to apply your concept of "wrong" in a place where "wrong" is meaningless.

 

This hobby is NOT a competition. Cheating on the score is meaningless when there is no score. If you attempt to make it a competition then you are making it into something other than Geocaching. Geocaching is nothing but finding hidden containers using GPS. It only becomes more than that if you make it more than that, as you and many others have apparently chosen to do.

 

Go squabble with your competitive buddies over what constitutes a find and leave me out of it. Stop trying to tell me that you know better than I do what's right or wrong for me. Stop trying to tell me I should feel "morally degraded" over meaningless and irrelevant behaviors.

[+KBI]

There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it.

It's really simple. Logging caches that you didn't visit goes against the intention of this game. Coordinates are provided and the guidelines clearly explain the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

It's really simple.

 

Competing against other cachers as if your find count were some kind of "score" goes against the intention of this game. Using this fiction as a basis to accuse others of "cheating" goes against the intention of this game.

 

Coordinates are provided and the FAQ clearly explains the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Cheating on the score is meaningless when there is no score. ...

 

Agreed. The problem is cheating on logs though.

[+TrailGators]

There is right and wrong and it does matter if you wear the wrong underwear when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. The wrong underwear on the wrong day starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. Not many people will notice what's on underneath your Levis, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens ... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up than to risk that you might someday degrade the entire community of underwear enthusiasts by wearing your Thursday pair on a Monday.

Your underwear analogy isn't working for me...

 

Just because I say something is wrong doesn't mean that I believe in some extreme view. A good way to look at it is if you were teaching the game to your child and one day they told you that they logged a bunch of caches in Germany. Would you tell your child that's it's OK to do that? The things we would tell our kids are the same things that we should also try to follow. In this example, I would set my kid straight on that little lesson in life.

[+larryc43230]

I would not have logged a find.

Juat last saturday I saw a cache I was looking for, but I could not get to it without risking falling into a creek bellow the cache, I was over 100 mile from on the way to an event. I could see the cache but I was not about to log a find without signing the book.

You are pretty much using the same example as Ecanderson did. Much like his example, I wouldn't have logged the creek cache as a find.

I was so close about 6 feet away , If I was close to home I would have cared ablut falling in the creek, it looked kind of deep. But having to go to a Wherigo event it wet close did not sound like fun.

I faced a very similar situation last year. The cache was easily visible, hanging from a tree that extended out over the Hocking River near Logan, Ohio. The only way to retrieve the cache and sign the log was to climb partway up the tree, then reach out and grab the cache. At that point I would have been hanging above some rather deep and fast-flowing (and cold!) water, and I decided the smiley just wasn't worth the risk (here's my log of the visit, if anyone's interested).

 

In the log, I mentioned that I could be back when the waters receded. Since then, based on what I've learned about that stretch of river, I've decided to simply take a pass on this cache.

 

--Larry

[+infiniteMPG]

Just because I say something is wrong doesn't mean that I believe in some extreme view. A good way to look at it is if you were teaching the game to your child and one day they told you that they logged a bunch of caches in Germany. Would you tell your child that's it's OK to do that? The things we would tell our kids are the same things that we should also try to follow. In this example, I would set my kid straight on that little lesson in life.

And everyone would (or should) do that for their kids. But I don't see it as my position to do that with your kids or my neighbor's kids and I don't see a cache owner becoming some psuedo parent to everyone who logs a find. You're talking fundamental issues of honesty and trust, and geocaching is a little different then tossing your wallet and your car keys to someone and asking them to go get you a burger.

 

Fix (or have logger edit) improper logs. Delete obvious bogus logs. Enjoy geocaching. Chill out.

[+tozainamboku]

There is an alternative game of armchair caching and those that do log these finds are not lying about it.

It's really simple. Logging caches that you didn't visit goes against the intention of this game. Coordinates are provided and the guidelines clearly explain the intention. Alternate games can be played elsewhere.

I agree that armchair logging is not the intent that Jeremy had when he created a website where geocachers could log their finds. I agree that after people started posting armchair virtuals the guidelines were changed to emphasize that the point of virtuals was to for you to actually go out and find the virtual object. Pure armchair virtuals were no longer published (though some existing ones were grandfathered). However, Jeremy and the reviewers could not stop virtual owners who wished to allow people to log their virtuals from their armchairs from doing so. Jeremy may have indicated that he feels such use of the online logs is silly or even stupid, but has decided not to take any action to stop it. I think the attitude to take is that so long as the the alternative logging doesn't keep me from logging the caches I've actually found there is no abuse of the logs and no degradation of geocaching. I know that some may say that there is degradation caused by having to read the "bogus" logs when looking at the cache page to see what actual finders had to say, or because of the unwanted emails when someone armchair logs a virtual they are watching. I find this only a minor inconvenience which I am willing to put up with since I can't think of a good way to stop those playing alternate games. Simply calling these people cheaters or morally deficient seems a bit harsh and wouldn't get them to stop anyways.

[+KBI]

...Cheating on the score is meaningless when there is no score. ...

Agreed. The problem is cheating on logs though.

Then who does it cheat, and why is that cheating a problem?

[+infiniteMPG]

...so you believe the cache was found when it wasn't can cause briansnat's friend to waste gas. I agree that this is bad.

I still don't see how you could even prove that scenario. Someone posts a log online that they found a cache. Someone else goes waaaay out of their way trying to find it assuming it's there. Turns out it's MIA. If it's missing there's no log to prove it didn't go missing AFTER that person found it. If it was known missing BEFORE they logged they found it then the owner should of disabled it. Don't see how you would have proof to prove that it went missing before they logged their find as even any DNF's before them could of just been DNF's.

[+Walt Jabsco]

Not all caches are the same.

If you wanted to make it a score, for each find, multiple the terrain and difficulty level for each cache you found, then add them all up.

Granted there will be grumbling among those lamp post cachers who's "score" immediately drops below those who find more difficult caches. But this will be quickly and easily rectified by the sudden proliferation of 5/5 lamp post caches that will suddenly appear.

[+TrailGators]

Just because I say something is wrong doesn't mean that I believe in some extreme view. A good way to look at it is if you were teaching the game to your child and one day they told you that they logged a bunch of caches in Germany. Would you tell your child that's it's OK to do that? The things we would tell our kids are the same things that we should also try to follow. In this example, I would set my kid straight on that little lesson in life.

And everyone would (or should) do that for their kids. But I don't see it as my position to do that with your kids or my neighbor's kids and I don't see a cache owner becoming some psuedo parent to everyone who logs a find.

My point wasn't to suggest that we start parenting all these lost souls. My point was to simply point out that we can easily identify right and wrong, if we think of what we would or would not tell our own kids to do.

[+KBI]

There is right and wrong and it does matter if you wear the wrong underwear when nobody is looking because it hurts you and it opens the door for more errant behavior. The wrong underwear on the wrong day starts as a small seedling just like one weed in your garden. Not many people will notice what's on underneath your Levis, but if you ignore it/accept it then guess what happens ... It's far easier to just pluck out the one or two weeds whenever they pop up than to risk that you might someday degrade the entire community of underwear enthusiasts by wearing your Thursday pair on a Monday.

Your underwear analogy isn't working for me...

The underwear analogy isn't working for you because you’re making Geocaching into something it was never intended to be.

 

Just because I say something is wrong doesn't mean that I believe in some extreme view. A good way to look at it is if you were teaching the game to your child and one day they told you that they logged a bunch of caches in Germany. Would you tell your child that's it's OK to do that? The things we would tell our kids are the same things that we should also try to follow. In this example, I would set my kid straight on that little lesson in life.

That’s an excellent question.

 

I would not tell my child that it's "OK." I would tell my child that even though remote logging is harmless (assuming one can ensure no bad info about a cache’s status is spread as Briansnat described, that is) it is silly and pointless and it screws up the accuracy of one’s own online caching history ... and that for those reasons I myself would never remotely log a cache I hadn't visited. I would use the analogy that it’s like lying to yourself in your own diary: It’s harmless, but it’s also pointless.

 

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one’s own arbitrary version of morals on another, that (2) cheating exists just because someone else says it does even when the child knows better, that (3) they should let things bother them even when there is no valid reason to do so, or that (4) Geocaching is some kind of competition in which one’s find count should be monitored and regulated like a golf handicap.

 

I want my kids to grow up as critical thinkers, not mindless drones who accept someone else’s over-dramatized version of things without question.

Edited February 4, 2008 by KBI

[+ReadyOrNot]

I am not promoting bogus logging. I am merely pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to feel "degraded" simply because someone else posts a bogus find log, intentional or not, for a hidden container. Good grief, it's just an uncompetitive hide-and-seek hobby. How can one "cheat" if there is no score being kept?

 

quick question: What would you do if you were standing in line at the bank. For the sake of the question, line #1. There are a total of 2 lines at the bank. Someone walks into the bank and goes to the front of line #2, cutting in front of everyone else. This SHOULD not affect anyone in line #1. In fact, the effect of those in line #2 is probably fairly small (a little wasted time is all).

 

I am the type of person that will say something to the person who cut into line, even though it doesn't affect me in line #1. And I will not give up until either the bank makes the person go to the end of the line or they drag the person out on a stretcher. I am also the type of person that will spend $1000 to dispute a $100 traffic ticket out of "Principle". There are many people like me and there are many people that are not like me. You clearly are one of those people that will just stand in line and go about your business, ignoring what does not affect you directly.

[+KBI]

I am not promoting bogus logging. I am merely pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to feel "degraded" simply because someone else posts a bogus find log, intentional or not, for a hidden container. Good grief, it's just an uncompetitive hide-and-seek hobby. How can one "cheat" if there is no score being kept?

quick question: What would you do if you were standing in line at the bank. For the sake of the question, line #1. There are a total of 2 lines at the bank. Someone walks into the bank and goes to the front of line #2, cutting in front of everyone else. This SHOULD not affect anyone in line #1. In fact, the effect of those in line #2 is probably fairly small (a little wasted time is all).

 

I am the type of person that will say something to the person who cut into line, even though it doesn't affect me in line #1.

It doesn't affect me in line #1, but it does directly harm the folks in line #2 who got cut off.

 

Please tell me how that is supposed to be relevant ...?

[+sbell111]

I am not promoting bogus logging. I am merely pointing out that there is no reason for anyone to feel "degraded" simply because someone else posts a bogus find log, intentional or not, for a hidden container. Good grief, it's just an uncompetitive hide-and-seek hobby. How can one "cheat" if there is no score being kept?

 

quick question: What would you do if you were standing in line at the bank. For the sake of the question, line #1. There are a total of 2 lines at the bank. Someone walks into the bank and goes to the front of line #2, cutting in front of everyone else. This SHOULD not affect anyone in line #1. In fact, the effect of those in line #2 is probably fairly small (a little wasted time is all).

 

I am the type of person that will say something to the person who cut into line, even though it doesn't affect me in line #1. And I will not give up until either the bank makes the person go to the end of the line or they drag the person out on a stretcher. I am also the type of person that will spend $1000 to dispute a $100 traffic ticket out of "Principle". There are many people like me and there are many people that are not like me. You clearly are one of those people that will just stand in line and go about your business, ignoring what does not affect you directly.

I think that most people would land somewhere in the middle.

 

I suspect that most people would support a person in line 2, but only to a point. There is a point at which your disruption would be much worse than the person who cut in line.

 

Regarding your second example, most people would consider risk v. reward. If paying the ticket would cause points on my license and increased insurance costs and I had a reasonable chance of success, I would pay the larger amount to fight it. However, if it would not result in points or additional insurance costs or my chance of success was slim, I wouldn't fight it.

 

The problem with your examples is they would not help fix any perceived wrong. Af ter all your arguments, the best that would likely happen in the first scenario is you would get an eyeroll from the judge. At worst, you would get berated and still have to pay the fine. No future change will happen.

[+TrailGators]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?" Edited February 4, 2008 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?"

Do you know something about KBI's kids that the rest of us don't?

[+KBI]

… And I will not give up until either the bank makes the person go to the end of the line or they drag the person out on a stretcher. I am also the type of person that will spend $1000 to dispute a $100 traffic ticket out of "Principle". There are many people like me and there are many people that are not like me. You clearly are one of those people that will just stand in line and go about your business, ignoring what does not affect you directly.

I am defending a principle. It's called "telling others to mind their own business when something doesn’t concern them."

 

You clearly are one of those people who insists on seeing competition where there is none, who would get upset at someone who chooses to foul up his own caching history with a bogus log. Are you implying by your bank-line threat that you would put someone in the hospital over a bogus log, something that is clearly none of your business, and doesn’t concern you? Suppose I log a smiley on one of my own caches – are you saying that would give you justification to beat me up? Suppose I lie to myself in my own private diary – are you saying that would give you justification to beat me up? That doesn’t sound very "principled" to me.

[+KBI]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?"

I am not imposing anything on anyone.

 

When have I told you how to play your game or live your life? I'm only telling you to stay out of mine.

 

Some folks in this thread are insisting that there is "moral damage" done every time a bogus find is logged. I remain unconvinced, and I have said so. Does that make you feel as if I am imposing something on you, TG? What exactly is it you think I'm trying to force you to do?

[+TrailGators]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?"

I am not imposing anything on anyone.

 

When have I told you how to play your game or live your life? I'm only telling you to stay out of mine.

 

Some folks in this thread are insisting that there is "moral damage" done every time a bogus find is logged. I remain unconvinced, and I have said so. Does that make you feel as if I am imposing something on you, TG? What exactly is it you think I'm trying to force you to do?

I'm not either. Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum unless there is some mind control thing going on that doesn't seem to be affecting me.

[Mushtang]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?"

I am not imposing anything on anyone.

 

When have I told you how to play your game or live your life? I'm only telling you to stay out of mine.

 

Some folks in this thread are insisting that there is "moral damage" done every time a bogus find is logged. I remain unconvinced, and I have said so. Does that make you feel as if I am imposing something on you, TG? What exactly is it you think I'm trying to force you to do?

I'm not either. Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum unless there is some mind control thing going on that doesn't seem to be affecting me.

You told KBI he was imposing his morals, then you tell KBI that imposing anything in a discussion forum can't be done.

 

Interesting.

[+TrailGators]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now? So would you be imposing your own "arbitrary version of morals" on your child or are everyone else's views besides your own views "arbitrary?"

I am not imposing anything on anyone.

 

When have I told you how to play your game or live your life? I'm only telling you to stay out of mine.

 

Some folks in this thread are insisting that there is "moral damage" done every time a bogus find is logged. I remain unconvinced, and I have said so. Does that make you feel as if I am imposing something on you, TG? What exactly is it you think I'm trying to force you to do?

I'm not either. Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum unless there is some mind control thing going on that doesn't seem to be affecting me.

You told KBI he was imposing his morals, then you tell KBI that imposing anything in a discussion forum can't be done.

 

Interesting.

I was joking. Note the laughing dude --> I added after I joked about that....

[+KBI]

Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum ...

Then why did you accuse me of doing exactly that?

 

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one's own arbitrary version of morals on another.

Like you are doing now?

 

Look, if you're interested in continuing to try to convince be that bogus logs are somehow "morally degrading" to all cachers, then please knock yourself out. I will not, however, continue to participate in the confusing tit-for-tat obfuscation you seem to prefer instead of debating these things:

 

TG: I think all cachers should [insert trendy forum gripe here].

 

KBI: I don’t think it’s proper to impose your version of the game on others.

 

TG: But when you tell me not to impose my version of the game on others aren’t you trying to impose your version of the game on me?

 

KBI: How is my mere objection the same as trying to impose anything on you?

 

TG: I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum ...

 

KBI: <prepares to be told once again by the Mods to "take it to the PMs">

[+tozainamboku]

Just because I say something is wrong doesn't mean that I believe in some extreme view. A good way to look at it is if you were teaching the game to your child and one day they told you that they logged a bunch of caches in Germany. Would you tell your child that's it's OK to do that? The things we would tell our kids are the same things that we should also try to follow. In this example, I would set my kid straight on that little lesson in life.

If my child wanted to log armchair caches, I would not have a problem with this. I would likely point out that some people might not approve of his/her choice. I would also tell her to get permission from the cache owner before doing this. Mainly so she wouldn't be disappointed if her log got deleted, but also to teach her to recognize that the cache owner gets a say in how the game is played with their cache.

 

If my child asked to log finds on caches she never looked for and weren't armchair caches, I would likely tell her that this is wrong for the reasons already given - that it may cause someone to look for a cache that wasn't there - but also because doing this is just silly (and maybe even stupid). The logs are there to keep track of your geocaching experiences not to rack up the highest score. If she wants a higher score she should find more caches.

 

The OP, back in post #20, also invoked his children in an attempt to show how bogus logs affect the game.

When geocaching becomes an activity described by the majority as "using your computer to find locations on earth and write a note saying you were there,...oh, and maybe occasionally actually visiting the site", then it will be a lot harder to convince people that geocaching is fun.

He feels that the online logs should be used only to record his preferred definition of geocaching. Alternatives like armchair caching is unacceptable. I find this hard to understand because when I began Geocaching we had something called locationless caches. In my opinion locationless caches were not geocaching. So I never logged one. Apparently TPTB agreed with me because locationless caches no longer exists. Yet I never questioned the right of others to log locationless caches. I also never question the right of those who chose to log armchair virtuals. To those who define geocaching as using your GPS to actually find a cache no amount of bogus logging will ever take that away. When you introduce geocaching to your friends or to your children, you can still describe it that way. If your child ask why some people log caches that they didn't actually find, it seems simple enough to explain that some people have fun looking for answers of verification questions on the internet. What they are doing is not geocaching but it is allowed on Geocaching.com website. If she asks why someone would log traditional caches they didn't find, I would explain that some people do silly or stupid things; and that a cache owner could delete the log if he thinks it is bogus. If my child asks why some cache owners don't delete bogus logs, I would explain that not everyone feels they have to stop someone from doing something stupid if nobody is getting hurt, although it might be a good idea to try to stop someone from doing something stupid before someone gets hurt.

[+infiniteMPG]

What I would carefully avoid teaching my child is that (1) it is okay to impose one’s own arbitrary version of morals on another, that (2) cheating exists just because someone else says it does even when the child knows better, that (3) they should let things bother them even when there is no valid reason to do so, or that (4) Geocaching is some kind of competition in which one’s find count should be monitored and regulated like a golf handicap. I want my kids to grow up as critical thinkers, not mindless drones who accept someone else’s over-dramatized version of things without question.

Great statement and the biggest part is wanting your kids to grow up.... be independent... make decisions on their own set of right/wrong rules. Once kids are out of the nest your rules and values have little weight (unless you think it's a parents job to force right and wrong on them and not teach them how to decide between the two on their own). I would hope geocachers need hints and clues and not hand holding and disipline and anyone who feels the need to do such isn't getting the rational behind the game.... to have fun (unless of course that's fun to some).

 

As stated before if you're concerned that much with cheating, put a code in your caches and make everyone email it in for credit. But don't expect everyone else to follow suit as each owner has some inherent rights to how they rule their own little domain of caches...

[Mushtang]

It seems to me that the people that are most upset about "cheating" are only upset because it elevates someone else's Find count in relation to their own. They claim not to care about numbers, but they sure seem like they want to make sure that everyone's numbers are gained in the same way so that they can compare.

 

It's the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a competition.

 

If this were not a competition, and the numbers truly didn't matter, I can't think of a reason someone would think a false log would matter one way or the other.

[+TrailGators]

Last time I checked this was a discussion forum where you "share" your views. I'm not sure how you "impose" anything in a discussion forum ...

Then why did you accuse me of doing exactly that?

I'll give you the same answer I just gave to your brother...

 

I was joking. Note the laughing dude --> I added after I joked about that....

[+Renegade Knight]

...Cheating on the score is meaningless when there is no score. ...

Agreed. The problem is cheating on logs though.

Then who does it cheat, and why is that cheating a problem?

Good question. Cheating isn't the right word. Lying would be more accurate.

 

Those who would lie about their finds are those who would try to earn accolades they don't deserve. Because for them the numbers mean they deserve respect they have not earned.

 

If it were that simple maybe the book could be shut.

 

Fake logs also tell a fake story about a real cache. They verify the cache is there and ready to be found. They can turn the owner off of a needed maintance trip. They can cause people to seek in vain for a cache that really is gone. Decisions are made based on the logs. Logs with no basis in reality serve no higher purpose. I can't think of one good thing but I can list out bad things about fake logs.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Great statement and the biggest part is wanting your kids to grow up.... be independent... make decisions on their own set of right/wrong rules....

 

Do you know what they call everyone playing the game of life with their own set of rules? Anarchy. There is a right, there is a wrong it does matter. Teaching otherwise is irresponsible, and wrong.

 

Now are you saying that lying about your finds is ok? Or are you saying that lying about your finds is wrong? I'm unclear.

[+briansnat]

It seems to me that the people that are most upset about "cheating" are only upset because it elevates someone else's Find count in relation to their own.

 

Maybe it has nothing to do with anybody's find count and they just don't like cheaters.

[+ecanderson]

I would not have logged a find.

Juat last saturday I saw a cache I was looking for, but I could not get to it without risking falling into a creek bellow the cache, I was over 100 mile from on the way to an event. I could see the cache but I was not about to log a find without signing the book.

You are pretty much using the same example as Ecanderson did. Much like his example, I wouldn't have logged the creek cache as a find.

Not at all the same. Mine was a matter of near certain exposure of a cache to muggles due to cache location. If I'd been out there by myself, I'd have taken the personal risk of the climb (and did, the next day -- but private moments during "open" hours here are very nearly impossible to find -- it is both the entrance to and 'crossroads' within a very popular spot). I guess I object as a matter of principle to really PUBLIC locations that require gymnastics that are far too obvious. Then again, if an owner doesn't mind having their cache muggled all the time...

 

Perhaps that's the right answer. The cacher should make a "best effort", but if someone places a cache in such an untenable spot, they take their chances.