Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+Renegade Knight]

...If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived....

In the first case 100 people wasted the cachers time. That's a problem.

 

In the second case if the virtual were there and doing fine then there was no need to maintain it. The logs themselves caused a perfectly good cache to go way. That's a problem.

 

Both cases a problem.

 

The only fake logs I've ever seen that were good were on Fake Caches.

 

Sloof Lirpa for example.

[+TrailGators]

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

Sorry, wrong again. There hasn't been a SINGLE virtual cache that has been archived because someone fake logged it.

 

The virtuals you're talking about were archived because the cache owners did not maintain their cache, and did not delete these logs from the cache pages. Word got around that the owner didn't care, and lots of other Germ... uh, fake loggers showed up to fake log the virt.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

It was obvious that the cache owner was no longer maintaining the cache, so it was archived. It's the same as if an ammo can were mauled by a bear, and the owner didn't go replace it. Eventually all the notes to the page explaining the condition of the cache and requesting maintenance would result in it being archived.

 

Wrong again! Some people archived their virts because they got sick of people fake logging them. That's a fact, Jack! I suppose you think that having to constantly erase fake logs is good for the game too...

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

As so many people are saying, fake logs are only between the logger and the owner. If that's true, then why would the conclusion be drawn that the owner is not maintaining the cache? Maybe the owner was merely aloowing these. In addition, what gave someone the right to archive the caches if fake logs are only the concern of the logger and the owner? It sounds like maybe TPTB also agree that fake logs are bad, and not merely between the logger and the owner.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

That's an issue of practicality, not of morality. Once again your point does nothing to explain the claim that false logs "degrade" anything.

You seem to be stuck on third definition of the word:

 

degrade

(dĭ-grād') v., -grad•ed, -grad•ing, -grades. v.tr.

1. To reduce in grade, rank, or status; demote.
   
2. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace: a scandal that degraded the participants.
   
3. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.
   
4. To reduce in worth or value: degrade a currency.
   

I think many are applying the 1st or 2nd definitions of the word....

Fine.

 

Then please explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

Are you reducing your entire argument to what happens if one person does it?

 

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

That's very interesting, but that still doesn't explain to me how any of those four things happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find.

They don't apply to you, your honest cache log, your find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find - they happen to geocaching itself.

[+tozainamboku]

You have not given one concrete example of how a false log has hurt your integrity or degraded you or degrade the "sport"

 

False logs on virtuals have led to the archiving of the virtuals involved. That takes away a potential cache for all of us..

I don't think this is exactly what is happening. I believe virtuals that aren't be maintained are what are being archived. Most likely a puritan sees an armchair log on a cache and either logs an SBA or simple calls this to attention of the reviewer. Reviewers will look and see that the owner has not logged onto the site in over a month. Per the guidelines for virtual and webcam caches:

You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.

If the owner doesn't respond to the email from the reviewer the cache is archived. Owners who are allowing armchair logs and who log into Geocaching.com at least once month are not getting their caches archived. Perhaps someone will start reporting virtuals which aren't being armchair logged that have absentee owners so we can see these archived as well.

 

Posting bogus reasons why caches get archived is degrading the forums.

 

Added: Of course there have been cases where virtual owner archived their own cache rather than deal with bogus log. My feeling is that, they could have handle this in most cases by removing their "Certificate of Appreciation" - these are almost an invitation to armchair logging. A properly thought out virtual should be one that can't be logged by armchair. If you can't fix your virtual is should be archived anyway because it is now in violation of the previous guideline that were put in place to limit armchair caches.

Edited February 5, 2008 by tozainamboku

[Mushtang]

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

As so many people are saying, fake logs are only between the logger and the owner. If that's true, then why would the conclusion be drawn that the owner is not maintaining the cache? Maybe the owner was merely aloowing these. In addition, what gave someone the right to archive the caches if fake logs are only the concern of the logger and the owner? It sounds like maybe TPTB also agree that fake logs are bad, and not merely between the logger and the owner.

The answer to your question was in the part of my post that you cut out. I'll quote it for you:

It was obvious that the cache owner was no longer maintaining the cache, so it was archived. It's the same as if an ammo can were mauled by a bear, and the owner didn't go replace it. Eventually all the notes to the page explaining the condition of the cache and requesting maintenance would result in it being archived.

 

These caches weren't archived by TPTB because of the fake logs. They were archived because they were no longer being maintained. The conclusion can be drawn that the owner isn't maintaining the cache because it required an email be sent with information obtained at the coordinates, but the "Hello from Germany" logs were evidence that this was not the case.

 

TBTP agree that not maintaining a cache is bad.

[+KBI]

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching.

What’s the difference?

 

I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

That’s a relief. Neither do I. We shouldn’t feel personally degraded because of other people's false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching.

I feel that a false log has a negative impact on the integrity of the person who submits the false log. I can’t see how that degrades anyone else.

 

I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching.

I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a possible negative impact on the integrity of the individual cache owner who neglects his cache-page maintenance duties. I can’t see how that degrades anyone else.

 

Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded.

You are willing to make much larger generalizations than me.

 

I prefer to assume each individual geocacher is honest until he or she indicates otherwise, but ... suit yourself.

 

Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

… an opinion that is based on a very broad, and in my opinion, unfair, generalization.

 

When you talk about geocaching in such general terms you are talking about yourself, me, and all the other fine folks in this thread. Do you really want to accuse all of us here of being "morally degraded" just because someone somewhere is logging bogus? Do you think that generalization is fair?

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

THAT’S a relief. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.

 

Geocaching is finding hidden containers using GPS. I’ll just go ahead and continue doing that, then, and you go ahead and continue gnashing your teeth over how badly a few bogus logs reflect on your honest logs, or whether that cacher with seven more finds than you has been cheating against you in your non-competition for non-points in this non-contest.

[+Renegade Knight]

My summary.

 

Do bogus logs impact geocaching for the worse? Yes. That case has been made my many.

 

Do bogus logs impact any one cacher? If you are on the receiving end yes you are impacted. You may not lose sleep over it (and you shouldn't). If you aren't. on the receiving end. Not so that you would notice.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching. I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded. Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

 

With all due respect CGS, I miss your logic entirely concerning degrading GeoCaching.

 

 

You started this and you have not been able to support your original premise and neither has anyone else.

 

You want to say lying, cheating and stealing are immoral then I am with you. That has nothing to do with degrading GeoCaching or my experience with it.

 

In the past month or two I searched for a number of caches that have led me to some absolutely inspiring and breathtaking locations in my little burg.

 

Pursuing these caches and learning more about GPS and spending time together has brought my little family together and added meaningful shared experiences for me and I think for my family.

 

Before reading this thread it never occurred to me that false logging would be an issue.

 

After reading this thread I still embrace my experience and do not find them degraded, insulted or diminished in any way.

 

After reading this thread, even if I buy into the premise that I find as ridiculous, that there is widespread false logging of finds, I cannot see how a few false logs should degrade GeoCaching.

 

The idea that some anonymous person somewhere has falsely claimed to find a cache that I have found or a cache that I have failed to find will in no way discourage me from continuing to hunt for caches or to promote the hobby to my friends and family.

 

It is fun to hunt for caches whether I find them or not.

 

It is fun to go to new locations and find cultural, environmental or historical information that I would have missed otherwise.

 

If one or two folks lie about finding a cache I will likely never know and if I do I will not care as far as enjoying the hobby is concerned.

 

As far as this thread and your premise are concerned – you have been completely unconvincing in showing that a few false logs are degrading GeoCaching. It is alive and well.

[+KBI]

If it's not neutral or good, it's a detriment to geocaching. You can call that degrading the activity if you like.

I'm not the one who called anything "degrading." You've got me confused with the OP.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

[Mushtang]

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

Sorry, wrong again. There hasn't been a SINGLE virtual cache that has been archived because someone fake logged it.

 

The virtuals you're talking about were archived because the cache owners did not maintain their cache, and did not delete these logs from the cache pages. Word got around that the owner didn't care, and lots of other Germ... uh, fake loggers showed up to fake log the virt.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

It was obvious that the cache owner was no longer maintaining the cache, so it was archived. It's the same as if an ammo can were mauled by a bear, and the owner didn't go replace it. Eventually all the notes to the page explaining the condition of the cache and requesting maintenance would result in it being archived.

 

Wrong again! Some people archived their virts because they got sick of people fake logging them. That's a fact, Jack! I suppose you think that having to constantly erase fake logs is good for the game too...

Nope, still wrong. If you've archived a cache because you're sick of deleting people's logs, then you're no longer willing to maintain that cache, and therefore it's being archived because you don't want to maintain it. How is this different than archiving a cache because you're tired of replacing the ammo can that bears chew up?

 

I suppose you think maintaining a cache is degrading to the game too...

[+KBI]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

This is where you and I agree.

[+TrailGators]

Briansnat brought up some good examples of how this practice has hurt the game. Virtuals which many enjoy are being archived because of this practice. If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

Sorry, wrong again. There hasn't been a SINGLE virtual cache that has been archived because someone fake logged it.

 

The virtuals you're talking about were archived because the cache owners did not maintain their cache, and did not delete these logs from the cache pages. Word got around that the owner didn't care, and lots of other Germ... uh, fake loggers showed up to fake log the virt.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and all 100 are deleted, I promise you the cache would remain.

 

If 100 fake logs are posted to a virtual cache, and the owner is asleep at the wheel and doesn't delete them, it's likely to get archived.

 

It was obvious that the cache owner was no longer maintaining the cache, so it was archived. It's the same as if an ammo can were mauled by a bear, and the owner didn't go replace it. Eventually all the notes to the page explaining the condition of the cache and requesting maintenance would result in it being archived.

 

Wrong again! Some people archived their virts because they got sick of people fake logging them. That's a fact, Jack! I suppose you think that having to constantly erase fake logs is good for the game too...

Nope, still wrong. If you've archived a cache because you're sick of deleting people's logs, then you're no longer willing to maintain that cache, and therefore it's being archived because you don't want to maintain it. How is this different than archiving a cache because you're tired of replacing the ammo can that bears chew up?

 

I suppose you think maintaining a cache is degrading to the game too...

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game? You are not seeing the obvious issue here.... Edited February 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+TrailGators]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

This is where you and I agree.

This is a good list. I'm glad that some are seeing the light...

[Mushtang]

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game?

I do? Where did I indicate that it was good? I said that the logs were not the reason for the archive, but the cache owner not willing to maintain a cache is the reason for the archive. Somehow in there you got that I thought it was good?

 

You are not seeing the obvious issue here....

Apparently I'm not seeing a lot of things you see.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

This is where you and I agree.

This is a good list. I'm glad that some are seeing the light...

I wish I had this for post #1.

[+tozainamboku]

If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, logging fake finds is one of the best ways to do it...

If people wanted to get rid of virtuals, sending a message to the reviewer complaining that the cache owner doesn't respond to your emails with the verification answer and since you wouldn't want to log a bogus log you won't log your find till you get a response may be a better way to do it.

 

 

Before this thread gets locked, in the interest of not degrading anyone unintentionally, I have to say that to the best of my knowledge I don't have and never have had a child. Had I actually had to raise a child, it is possible that I would not use the explanations I gave in my post however many pages ago it was. The concepts I gave there may be confusing to a small child trying to tell right from wrong. Even adults appear to have difficulty understanding these concepts . To make it easier I would probably tell the child that using a Found It log for any reason other than that you found a cache is wrong and that cache owners are supposed to delete logs that appear to bogus. I really wish I could be honest with a child and tell them what I really thought, but I guess parenting isn't always that easy.

[+TrailGators]

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game?

I do? Where did I indicate that it was good? I said that the logs were not the reason for the archive, but the cache owner not willing to maintain a cache is the reason for the archive. Somehow in there you got that I thought it was good?

There was a little thing at the end of that sentence called a question mark. It looks like this: ?. The question mark at the end of that statement meant that I was asking you if that was good for the game if you had to be hassled by constantly deleting fake logs...

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching. I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded. Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

 

With all due respect CGS, I miss your logic entirely concerning degrading GeoCaching.

 

 

You started this and you have not been able to support your original premise and neither has anyone else.

 

You want to say lying, cheating and stealing are immoral then I am with you. That has nothing to do with degrading GeoCaching or my experience with it.

 

In the past month or two I searched for a number of caches that have led me to some absolutely inspiring and breathtaking locations in my little burg.

 

Pursuing these caches and learning more about GPS and spending time together has brought my little family together and added meaningful shared experiences for me and I think for my family.

 

Before reading this thread it never occurred to me that false logging would be an issue.

 

After reading this thread I still embrace my experience and do not find them degraded, insulted or diminished in any way.

 

After reading this thread, even if I buy into the premise that I find as ridiculous, that there is widespread false logging of finds, I cannot see how a few false logs should degrade GeoCaching.

 

The idea that some anonymous person somewhere has falsely claimed to find a cache that I have found or a cache that I have failed to find will in no way discourage me from continuing to hunt for caches or to promote the hobby to my friends and family.

 

It is fun to hunt for caches whether I find them or not.

 

It is fun to go to new locations and find cultural, environmental or historical information that I would have missed otherwise.

 

If one or two folks lie about finding a cache I will likely never know and if I do I will not care as far as enjoying the hobby is concerned.

 

As far as this thread and your premise are concerned – you have been completely unconvincing in showing that a few false logs are degrading GeoCaching. It is alive and well.

 

You have not convinced me that it will remain alive and well. I guess we just have different opinions.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

 

Mostly this is pretty self-evident,

but as to number 1. If there was a legitimate find logged on January 1, and a false find logged on January 2, how is that confusing to other Geocachers if the the cache went missing on January 5, and I went looking for it on January 10?

 

#2, see above,

#3 see above

#4 see above

 

That is how they can in some cases make a practical difference. Each and every one of them does not necessarily result in the problems on your list. In those cases there are no practical issues.

 

Failure to report a DNF can cause problems as well.

Failure to respond to a DNF can cause problems.

Failure to do routine timely maintenance can cause problems.

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching. I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded. Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

 

With all due respect CGS, I miss your logic entirely concerning degrading GeoCaching.

 

 

You started this and you have not been able to support your original premise and neither has anyone else.

 

You want to say lying, cheating and stealing are immoral then I am with you. That has nothing to do with degrading GeoCaching or my experience with it.

 

In the past month or two I searched for a number of caches that have led me to some absolutely inspiring and breathtaking locations in my little burg.

 

Pursuing these caches and learning more about GPS and spending time together has brought my little family together and added meaningful shared experiences for me and I think for my family.

 

Before reading this thread it never occurred to me that false logging would be an issue.

 

After reading this thread I still embrace my experience and do not find them degraded, insulted or diminished in any way.

 

After reading this thread, even if I buy into the premise that I find as ridiculous, that there is widespread false logging of finds, I cannot see how a few false logs should degrade GeoCaching.

 

The idea that some anonymous person somewhere has falsely claimed to find a cache that I have found or a cache that I have failed to find will in no way discourage me from continuing to hunt for caches or to promote the hobby to my friends and family.

 

It is fun to hunt for caches whether I find them or not.

 

It is fun to go to new locations and find cultural, environmental or historical information that I would have missed otherwise.

 

If one or two folks lie about finding a cache I will likely never know and if I do I will not care as far as enjoying the hobby is concerned.

 

As far as this thread and your premise are concerned – you have been completely unconvincing in showing that a few false logs are degrading GeoCaching. It is alive and well.

 

You have not convinced me that it will remain alive and well. I guess we just have different opinions.

 

I did not start a thread saying it was degrading and I would hate being associated with it tomorrow.

[Mushtang]

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game?

I do? Where did I indicate that it was good? I said that the logs were not the reason for the archive, but the cache owner not willing to maintain a cache is the reason for the archive. Somehow in there you got that I thought it was good?

There was a little thing at the end of that sentence called a question mark. It looks like this: ?. The question mark at the end of that statement meant that I was asking you if that was good for the game if you had to be hassled by constantly deleting fake logs...

Starting your sentence with, "So you think that... " carries a different meaning than starting it with, "Do you think that..."

 

And my answer, if you had phrased it as a question instead of a statement, would have been, "All maintenance performed on a cache is good. If you can't perform the maintenance, then you should archive your cache and move on. An archived cache is better than a non-maintained cache."

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

 

Mostly this is pretty self-evident,

but as to number 1. If there was a legitimate find logged on January 1, and a false find logged on January 2, how is that confusing to other Geocachers if the the cache went missing on January 5, and I went looking for it on January 10?

 

#2, see above,

#3 see above

#4 see above

 

That is how they can in some cases make a practical difference. Each and every one of them does not necessarily result in the problems on your list. In those cases there are no practical issues.

 

Failure to report a DNF can cause problems as well.

Failure to respond to a DNF can cause problems.

Failure to do routine timely maintenance can cause problems.

 

Jan 1 - cache is found

 

Jan 2 - cache gets muggled

 

Jan 3, 4, 5 - DNFs posted

 

- owner plans maintenance check for Jan.7

- other cachers wait to find the cache until existence confirmed

 

Jan 6 - false log

 

- cache owner cancels maintenance check as cache reported found

- other cachers add back to their "go out and find" list

 

Jan 7 - other cachers don't find

 

That's 1, 3, and 4

 

Edit: I'll concede that I jumped the gun on this response, and after re-reading HopsMaltYeats's post realize that he is not saying that false logs can not cause these problems, but instead is saying that these problems are not necessarily always caused by false logs (my para-phrasing).

Edited February 5, 2008 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[+KBI]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

This is where you and I agree.

This is a good list. I'm glad that some are seeing the light...

I didn't say I'd been convinced to change my mind on anything. I agreed with Briansnat the very first time he brought up practical problems caused by bogus logs.

 

My confusion is over the way folks want me to feel "morally degraded" by other people's bogus logs.

 

You were going to explain to me how any of those four things (in the four definitions of "degrade") happens to me, my honest cache log, my find history, or to anyone or anything else in this hobby when some confused cacher posts a fake find. Are you still working on that? I remain unconvinced.

[+TrailGators]

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game?

I do? Where did I indicate that it was good? I said that the logs were not the reason for the archive, but the cache owner not willing to maintain a cache is the reason for the archive. Somehow in there you got that I thought it was good?

There was a little thing at the end of that sentence called a question mark. It looks like this: ?. The question mark at the end of that statement meant that I was asking you if that was good for the game if you had to be hassled by constantly deleting fake logs...

Starting your sentence with, "So you think that... " carries a different meaning than starting it with, "Do you think that..."

 

And my answer, if you had phrased it as a question instead of a statement, would have been, "All maintenance performed on a cache is good. If you can't perform the maintenance, then you should archive your cache and move on. An archived cache is better than a non-maintained cache."

 

It was a question. I was asking if that is what you thought. You still didn't answer the question. I will leave off the word "so" this time since it confuses you: Do you think it's good for the game if people have to constantly delete fake logs? Is deleting 100 fake logs "normal" maintenance? It seems very abnormal and annoying to me... Edited February 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

Several people are asking how false logs can degrade an innocent cacher. I've never said that they degrade innocent cachers, I said they degrade geocaching. I personally don't feel degraded because of false logs.

 

Several people are also asking how false logs can degrade geocaching. I feel that false logs have a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. I also feel that the toleration of false logs has a negative impact on the integrity of geocaching. Because of both false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, my opinion on the integrity of geocaching has been degraded. Because integrity is reasonably important to me, I believe that geocaching is being degraded. This is MY opinion.

 

There are others who also feel that false logs, and the tolerance of false logs, degrades geocaching. This is OUR opinion. If you do not share the same opinion, then you've got nothing to be concerned about.

 

With all due respect CGS, I miss your logic entirely concerning degrading GeoCaching.

 

 

You started this and you have not been able to support your original premise and neither has anyone else.

 

You want to say lying, cheating and stealing are immoral then I am with you. That has nothing to do with degrading GeoCaching or my experience with it.

 

In the past month or two I searched for a number of caches that have led me to some absolutely inspiring and breathtaking locations in my little burg.

 

Pursuing these caches and learning more about GPS and spending time together has brought my little family together and added meaningful shared experiences for me and I think for my family.

 

Before reading this thread it never occurred to me that false logging would be an issue.

 

After reading this thread I still embrace my experience and do not find them degraded, insulted or diminished in any way.

 

After reading this thread, even if I buy into the premise that I find as ridiculous, that there is widespread false logging of finds, I cannot see how a few false logs should degrade GeoCaching.

 

The idea that some anonymous person somewhere has falsely claimed to find a cache that I have found or a cache that I have failed to find will in no way discourage me from continuing to hunt for caches or to promote the hobby to my friends and family.

 

It is fun to hunt for caches whether I find them or not.

 

It is fun to go to new locations and find cultural, environmental or historical information that I would have missed otherwise.

 

If one or two folks lie about finding a cache I will likely never know and if I do I will not care as far as enjoying the hobby is concerned.

 

As far as this thread and your premise are concerned – you have been completely unconvincing in showing that a few false logs are degrading GeoCaching. It is alive and well.

 

You have not convinced me that it will remain alive and well. I guess we just have different opinions.

 

I did not start a thread saying it was degrading and I would hate being associated with it tomorrow.

 

I didn't start the thread to merely convince HopsMaltYeast, so I'm not too worried.

 

In addition I was able to read and understand many different opinions, and learned from them.

 

Edit - spelling

Edited February 5, 2008 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[Mushtang]

So you think that if 100 people are hounding you with fake logs and you finally get sick of it and archive the cache then that's good for the game?

I do? Where did I indicate that it was good? I said that the logs were not the reason for the archive, but the cache owner not willing to maintain a cache is the reason for the archive. Somehow in there you got that I thought it was good?

There was a little thing at the end of that sentence called a question mark. It looks like this: ?. The question mark at the end of that statement meant that I was asking you if that was good for the game if you had to be hassled by constantly deleting fake logs...

Starting your sentence with, "So you think that... " carries a different meaning than starting it with, "Do you think that..."

 

And my answer, if you had phrased it as a question instead of a statement, would have been, "All maintenance performed on a cache is good. If you can't perform the maintenance, then you should archive your cache and move on. An archived cache is better than a non-maintained cache."

 

It was a question. I was asking if that is what you thought. You still didn't answer the question. I will leave off the word "so" this time since it confuses you: Do you think it's good for the game if people have to constantly delete fake logs?

All maintenance performed on a cache is good. If you can't perform the maintenance, then you should archive your cache and move on. An archived cache is better than a non-maintained cache.

 

Is deleting 100 fake logs "normal" maintenance? It seems very abnormal and annoying to me...

I would think it's not normal at all because I doubt it ever happens. I doubt deleting even dozens of fake logs happens enough to be normal. For the few owners that have had to delete that many, I'm sure it's very annoying. And I'm quite certain that it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching.

[+TrailGators]

Is deleting 100 fake logs "normal" maintenance? It seems very abnormal and annoying to me...

I would think it's not normal at all because I doubt it ever happens. I doubt deleting even dozens of fake logs happens enough to be normal. For the few owners that have had to delete that many, I'm sure it's very annoying. And I'm quite certain that it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching.

It was you that brought up the 100 number. I do know that there was a pretty big ruckus in there forums about armchair logging. The key point here is that you admitted "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching." This clearly implies that you believe it would degrade geocaching if it happened enough. I also happen to agree that it is not happening enough to appreciably degrade geocaching where I live. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

[+KBI]

Early in this thread many people piled on with the OP and originally seemed to agree with what I understood to be a morality-based objection to bogus find logs. I am beginning to strongly suspect, however, that most of these folks really had the more practical issues in mind, not any kind of deep morality issue, when they first took up this fight.

 

Either that, or folks like me (not me, but folks who think like me (except that they express themselves better)) have convinced them via logic and reason to drop the morality argument. All they're arguing now is the practicalities, not the moralities, of bogus logs. The objection to bogus logs no longer seems to have anything to do with "moral degradation" at all; it is now simply a (valid) objection to the breakdown in practical geocaching workability caused by these logs.

 

If so, then I, for one, have no more meaningful disagreement with anyone here. As this seems to be the case, and as I am getting a little tired of repeating myself – and just plain tired – I will now say:

 

Goodnight friends!

 

Gotta go to work tomorrow – I’ll see all ya’ll again in a few days...

 

[+tozainamboku]

Is deleting 100 fake logs "normal" maintenance? It seems very abnormal and annoying to me...

I would think it's not normal at all because I doubt it ever happens. I doubt deleting even dozens of fake logs happens enough to be normal. For the few owners that have had to delete that many, I'm sure it's very annoying. And I'm quite certain that it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching.

Even in the case of armchair virtuals there is no reason to have to delete 100 fake logs. When you start getting fake logs from Germany you can fix your cache page by deleting the "Certificate of Achievement", using a better verification question that can't be answered without visiting the cache or requiring a photo taken at the site with either the cacher or the GPSr visible, and just to be sure including instructions that armchair logging is not allowed. If you don't want to make these changes, you should archive your cache or adopt it out to someone who will maintain it.

 

I think one of the problems in the OP is that he gives three examples of false logs: logging virtual caches by merely finding the additional logging requirements on the internet, logging caches they happen to pass within a mile of on a road trip without even getting out of their car, having a friend or another cacher log their name while they remain at home.

 

One problem I have is lumping these together.

 

I truly believe that armchair logging is a harmless game. The argument that it results in caches being archived has been shown to be false. In most instances, a purist can still visit the cache and log despite people from Germany logging. The biggest problem with virtuals is that owners have abandoned them.

 

The thread about the cacher who had his friend find the cache really illustrates another example where the only harm is imagined. In that thread, I asked about a team account where only one member of the team finds the cache. This seemed to be OK with most people. Generally, they wanted the second member of the team to log a note if they later went and found the cache. I'm not sure what would be so bad if the second member of the team also logged a find, since they also found the cache. The only objection I can see here are the people who want to count how many finds the team had. And again, I don't know why you should care about the team's numbers. In this case it was not a team but a individual cacher. He later came on the thread to indicate that he logged a find to because he wanted the owner and others to know the cache was found, in this case by his friend who was not a geocacher. I fail to see how this log could offend anyone, except if you want to count the number of finds this cacher had.

 

That leaves the example of the cacher that drove by the cache and claimed a find without getting out of the car. My initial reaction would be that this is a bad thing. The person is in a car and has no idea if the cache is there or not. He can't even describe the site or how the cache was hidden. At best he might say it was a nice view. And he might even get that wrong. I can't imagine why some would do this unless he thought that someone was interested in the number of caches he found and would be impressed to see his higher number. And when a cache owner finally does expose this person as one who logs fake finds, does he think the community will still be impressed? I would say it is wrong to log a find because you drove by the cache. I would agree that it can cause problems for other cachers and cache owners. I would also say that the existing system works well in identifying who these people are. I am also aware that if a person continues to log false logs like this, TPTB have in the past banned accounts.

 

In summary, I don't think the first two case degrade geocaching because it is clear from reading the logs what is intended by the logger. You may not agree with their logging practices, but at least they are not trying to hide what they are doing. The last case can cause problems for other individuals but ultimately Geocaching is not degraded because we already have a method that protects against the serial false logger.

Edited February 5, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+ecanderson]

 

Why shoot all the honest folks who use and enjoy the counts for the sake of a a few morons?

Why do the "honest folks" need public totals, either? Perhaps a far more relevant discussion would be one that focused on whether or not we could find a way to just live without public totals. I get the sense that this hobby/sport has gone a bit astray of its original intent. Not that Jeremy's baby must avoid morphing into something new to avoid some sort of collapse of the universe, but he may not be especially impressed with its adolescent years. From what I know of him and the history of geocaching, he must be a bit bummed over some of the turns it has taken.

 

[EDIT] In fact... removing the public totals might do a great deal for the integrity of geocache logging, making all of these several pages of arguments moot, and improving the situation for cache owners and cachers alike through more accurate record keeping -- and the whole tenor of these forums in general might improve.

 

The only downside would be a loss of revenue to geocaching.com -- very difficult to quantify that in advance -- since those whose primary focus has really been on the numbers all along (not that they'd admit to it) would find something else to occupy their time.

 

Public display of counts and human nature are, in conjunction, what drive 99% of the problem you're all obsessing over. From a purely practical perspective, I can assure you that the latter certainly isn't going to change. That does leave the former as an option, and perhaps one that is overdue?

 

Frankly, I'd much rather give credit to someone who does a truly amazing job of designing a cache or is willing to go to some real extremes to snag one. Yes, there would undoubtedly be some fish stories about those events, too, but they'd be a WHOLE lot more entertaining than watching a counter increment, which is about exciting as watching paint dry. I'd much rather hear about the guy who wound up overboard bringing in the marlin (and perhaps even succeeded!) than I would about the guy who caught more bass than anyone else, doing it like he was counting the dents he'd pounded out of a car.

 

As a measure of success, the current system really lacks imagination, and I guess I'm surprised that our "founder" allows this to continue, and that so many people here are happy to let it stand.

Edited February 5, 2008 by ecanderson

[+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.

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.

Agreed. The exact specifics wasn't the same. The fact that you both were presented with situations that resulted in your not feeling comfortable finding the cache at that time (either because it would be exposed to muggles or because of the danger inherent to it) is what I was referring to. It was your decision to not make the find. It is a decision that I completely agree with and I agree with your not logging a find for that cache.

 

The way it differs from my situation is that based on the cache page, I knew what to expect and at what time I should have been able to make the find. I arrived at a time that was presented by the cache owner as a time when the cache was available. It was not available. I located the cache and photographed it. I logged my find and emailed the cache owner an explanation of what happened and an offer to change the log to a note if he wanted me to.

 

(Edited to add that the cache owner logged into the site yesterday. Apparently, he isn't overly concerned about my log.)

Edited February 5, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

Is deleting 100 fake logs "normal" maintenance? It seems very abnormal and annoying to me...

I would think it's not normal at all because I doubt it ever happens. I doubt deleting even dozens of fake logs happens enough to be normal. For the few owners that have had to delete that many, I'm sure it's very annoying. And I'm quite certain that it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching.

It was you that brought up the 100 number. I do know that there was a pretty big ruckus in there forums about armchair logging. The key point here is that you admitted "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching." This clearly implies that you believe it would degrade geocaching if it happened enough. I also happen to agree that it is not happening enough to appreciably degrade geocaching where I live. I can't speak for the rest of the world.

Your leaps of logic never cease to amaze me.

 

If someone claims action A will cause B and I say it won't happen, then I can give examples of A happening a lot and it still not resulting in B. However, just because I say that it hasn't happened enough to cause B does not "clearly imply" that I agree that enough A would cause B.

 

When a kid hears that he shouldn't make faces because someday it'll stick like that, he might believe it and stop making faces. Suppose a kid didn't believe it and says to his mother, "I could make funny faces for a week and that wouldn't be enough to make it stick". This doesn't clearly imply that he believes it would happen eventually.

 

So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position?

[+HopsMaltYeast]

Why was the virtual archived?

why did false logs lead to the archiving. Even with the false log the virtual could have stood and been available all of us.

 

This website will archive unmaintained caches. They consider virtuals where the owner doesn't address bogus logs to be unmaintained and they will archive them.

 

How was that degrading? How did that hurt your integrity?

 

No skin off my back, however it does degrade the sport for those who are into virtuals. There are a fixed number. No more will be listed, so every one archived is one less for fans of virtuals to find.

 

The example you give of a virtual cache being archived because of a false log is flawed based upon you description.

 

The root cause is the cache owner has abandoned the cache.

 

Policy is that caches that are not maintained will be archived.

 

The policy was enforced.

 

A false log is incidental to the real problem – abandoned caches.

 

A legitimate find resulting in the same outcome – parallel example:

I make a legitimate find on a virtual.

 

I follow the instruction on the cache page and email the owner for validation and permission prior to logging the find.

 

The owner has abandoned the cache and does not respond.

 

I contact TPTB/GeoCache asking how I can log the find since the cache owner has not responded.

 

GeoCache determines the cache is abandoned and archives it per policy.

 

You are now denied the opportunity to find this cache (because it was abandoned, not because of a legitimate find/log).

 

Perhaps the policy could be changed?

Perhaps the ability to log a find on abandoned virtual caches could be suspended and leave the abandoned cache active?

[+Mudfrog]

I haven't looked at this thread for a day or two so this may have been covered/asked... Again, i look at this as being a matter of principle, that it is lying and is wrong. However, we'll just forget this for a moment...

 

KBI, Mushtang, anyone else who says that false logs do not affect them. I agree that for most of the time, they don't directly affect me either. But what about that one time that it does.

 

Say that you look at the logs for a cache and see that the cache was just found yesterday. You go for the cache, perform your search and don't find it. No harm, thats part of geocaching, but then you somehow find out later that the found log that you read earlier was false. Granted, it's not life or death, but wouldn't you, at the very least, think about it for a moment and wonder why the last person lied and caused you to go searching for a missing cache? In otherwords, did this not affect you in some way?

 

Another question, do you think that false logging would start happening more often if we all adopted your "it doesn't affect me, cache how you want" attitude? Unfortunately, i believe that it would.

 

As we all agree, this does not seem to be a widespread or large problem right now. However, if it did start happening more often, then i believe your blanket statement that "false logging doesn't affect you because you don't allow it to", would be hogwash. What do you think?

 

Edited to spell "principle" correctly.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Mudfrog

[+TrailGators]

So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position?

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet. Edited February 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[Mushtang]

I haven't looked at this thread for a day or two so this may have been covered/asked... Again, i look at this as being a matter of principle, that it is lying and is wrong. However, we'll just forget this for a moment...

 

KBI, Mushtang, anyone else who says that false logs do not affect them. I agree that for most of the time, they don't directly affect me either. But what about that one time that it does.

 

Say that you look at the logs for a cache and see that the cache was just found yesterday. You go for the cache, perform your search and don't find it. No harm, thats part of geocaching, but then you somehow find out later that the found log that you read earlier was false. Granted, it's not life or death, but wouldn't you, at the very least, think about it for a moment and wonder why the last person lied and caused you to go searching for a missing cache? In otherwords, did this not affect you in some way?

 

Another question, do you think that false logging would start happening more often if we all adopted your "it doesn't affect me, cache how you want" attitude? Unfortunately, i believe that it would.

 

As we all agree, this does not seem to be a widespread or large problem right now. However, if it did start happening more often, then i believe your blanket statement that "false logging doesn't affect you because you don't allow it to", would be hogwash. What do you think?

 

Edited to spell "principle" correctly.

Yes, it's possible that a false Find will have an affect on me. But it's not going to be the degradation of the game that others are suggesting. It's certainly not going to be a larger affect than any other DNF.

 

I'd say that the "one time it does" happen to me I can't imagine that I'd think it was in a category of DNFs that does special damage to the game. Caches will go missing, and there will be DNFs. People will continue to look for them after they've been reported as missing for several reasons:

1) old data in a PQ [maybe someone hasn't downloaded the DNF logs that were posted an hour ago]

2) not trusting the DNF [maybe the people logging the DNFs were newbies and the cache may still be there]

3) a false Find [someone padding their numbers picks a poor cache to lie about a find]

4) failure to read the cache page before looking [lots of people just load up waypoints and go, and may actually have the DNFs in their PQs but don't read them]

 

All of these can result in someone looking for a missing cache after it has been reported missing, none of these will cause a "degradation of geocaching".

[+briansnat]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

 

Mostly this is pretty self-evident,

but as to number 1. If there was a legitimate find logged on January 1, and a false find logged on January 2, how is that confusing to other Geocachers if the the cache went missing on January 5, and I went looking for it on January 10?

 

#2, see above,

#3 see above

#4 see above

 

That is how they can in some cases make a practical difference. Each and every one of them does not necessarily result in the problems on your list. In those cases there are no practical issues.

 

Failure to report a DNF can cause problems as well.

Failure to respond to a DNF can cause problems.

Failure to do routine timely maintenance can cause problems.

 

I don't recall saying phony logs WILL cause the listed issues. I said they CAN cause. Every one of the 4 scenarios I mentioned has happened.

[Mushtang]

So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position?

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

I guess you're right. Suddenly I'm trying to say that false Finds ARE causing a degradation of geocaching. That word "enough" gave me away. You're on to me. I was trying to pretend I hadn't changed my mind, but you figured it out. That's me outsmarted!

 

[Mushtang]

How phony logs hurt the sport:

 

1. They are at minimum confusing to other geocachers.

 

2. They can result in the archiving of caches.

 

3. They can delay needed maintenance on a cache

 

4. They can cause other geocachers to waste their time and/or money.

 

One can say these are practical issues, but when your selfish actions have a negative effect on others

it becomes a moral one.

 

Mostly this is pretty self-evident,

but as to number 1. If there was a legitimate find logged on January 1, and a false find logged on January 2, how is that confusing to other Geocachers if the the cache went missing on January 5, and I went looking for it on January 10?

 

#2, see above,

#3 see above

#4 see above

 

That is how they can in some cases make a practical difference. Each and every one of them does not necessarily result in the problems on your list. In those cases there are no practical issues.

 

Failure to report a DNF can cause problems as well.

Failure to respond to a DNF can cause problems.

Failure to do routine timely maintenance can cause problems.

 

I don't recall saying phony logs WILL cause the listed issues. I said they CAN cause. Every one of the 4 scenarios I mentioned has happened.

Except for number 2.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!

 

I think that's the point that many are missing. Saying "It doesn't affect me, so I don't care, I'm still having fun" is proof of degredation. Not necessarily of Geocaching, but of society as a whole. This problem becomes more evident in a "self-policing" activity such as Geocaching, where the participants are granted a certain degree of autonomy. I find this disheartening.

 

DCC

Edited February 5, 2008 by Driver Carries Cache

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I have been seeing this thread stretch out to 14 pages, and it is getting sickening. Let's face the facts, folks, There are only two kinds of geocachers:

There are geocachers who are good, moral and upright and upstanding citizens who do not file fake logs or engage in other shady and shaky practices, and there are geocachers who are bad people and who are destined to burn forever in the H3llfires of Eternal Damnation. I say that we end all the debate right now, by implementing the following steps immediately:

• get the US Congress to pass a law requiring that all geocachers in the USA be licensed and registered, and that the full name and address -- including home address and work address -- of each licensed geocacher be available on the DOJ's USA Geocacher Registry website.
  
• I suggest that geocachers in each region form volunteer death squads, whose job it will be to seek out bad geocachers, that is geocachers who lie, cheat, steal and break the rules, and hunt them down at their homes or at their place of work and break in the door and execute them summarily on the spot for their infractions.
  
• I further humbly suggest that the death squads systematically behead the bodies, post-execution, of each of the bad geocachers whom they were forced to execute (in order to keep our pure sport clean and pure), and that the heads be shipped by Fedex Express via FedEx Standard Overnight® shipping to a central location in the USA, hopefully near Groundspeak headquarters in Washington state, and that the severed heads be mounted alongside a roadway or alleyway that will henceforth be called "The Memorial Lane of Geocaching's Shameful Offenders". In fact, we can even place a special commemorative geocache at this spot!
  

Aside from ridding our ranks -- and the planet as well -- of liars, cheats, thieves and hoaxsters, this self-policing vigilante activity will firmly demonstrate to land managers that we geocachers are willing and able to self-police our sport to keep it clean and to keep it pure and righteous. This will undoubtedly work to vastly increase the trust that land managers have in geocachers and geocaching, as we will have demonstrated unequivocally that we are willing to ruthlessly and efficiently cull from our esteemed ranks the liars, cheaters, thieves, offenders, communists, terrorists and any others who wish to pollute, sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Thus, this self-policing activity becomes win-win for all!

 

[+Renegade Knight]

 

Why shoot all the honest folks who use and enjoy the counts for the sake of a a few morons?

Why do the "honest folks" need public totals, either? ...

 

There are a heck of a lot of things you can do with stats that are fun for a heck of a lot of people including people who don't like stats. None of which are a degradtion to geocaching.

 

That aside the angle of "why do you need" is normally an question that precedes a justifcation for banning something. Like a find count. We don't "need" anything more than food and a small box to sleep in, but there is a lot more to life when you let people expand beyond their simple needs. Nobody needs to read Shakeaspear but he's got some pretty cool quotes.

 

Find counts Stats and what you can do with them is another topic though.

[+Renegade Knight]

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

[+TrailGators]

So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position?

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

I guess you're right. Suddenly I'm trying to say that false Finds ARE causing a degradation of geocaching. That word "enough" gave me away. You're on to me. I was trying to pretend I hadn't changed my mind, but you figured it out. That's me outsmarted!

 

Next time I will call the Psychic Hotline to ask them what you really mean....

[+TrailGators]

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

I think some people will defend anything. We all know who they are...

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I have been seeing this thread stretch out to 14 pages, and it is getting sickening. Let's face the facts, folks, There are only two kinds of geocachers:

There are geocachers who are good, moral and upright and upstanding citizens who do not file fake logs or engage in other shady and shaky practices, and there are geocachers who are bad people and who are destined to burn forever in the H3llfires of Eternal Damnation. I say that we end all the debate right now, by implementing the following steps immediately:

• get the US Congress to pass a law requiring that all geocachers in the USA be licensed and registered, and that the full name and address -- including home address and work address -- of each licensed geocacher be available on the DOJ's USA Geocacher Registry website.
  
• I suggest that geocachers in each region form volunteer death squads, whose job it will be to seek out bad geocachers, that is geocachers who lie, cheat, steal and break the rules, and hunt them down at their homes or at their place of work and break in the door and execute them summarily on the spot for their infractions.
  
• I further humbly suggest that the death squads systematically behead the bodies, post-execution, of each of the bad geocachers whom they were forced to execute (in order to keep our pure sport clean and pure), and that the heads be shipped by Fedex Express via FedEx Standard Overnight® shipping to a central location in the USA, hopefully near Groundspeak headquarters in Washington state, and that the severed heads be mounted alongside a roadway or alleyway that will henceforth be called "The Memorial Lane of Geocaching's Shameful Offenders". In fact, we can even place a special commemorative geocache at this spot!
  

Aside from ridding our ranks -- and the planet as well -- of liars, cheats, thieves and hoaxsters, this self-policing vigilante activity will firmly demonstrate to land managers that we geocachers are willing and able to self-police our sport to keep it clean and to keep it pure and righteous. This will undoubtedly work to vastly increase the trust that land managers have in geocachers and geocaching, as we will have demonstrated unequivocally that we are willing to ruthlessly and efficiently cull from our esteemed ranks the liars, cheaters, thieves, offenders, communists, terrorists and any others who wish to pollute, sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. Thus, this self-policing activity becomes win-win for all!

 

 

I've said it before and I'll likely say it again... Vinny Rocks!

[Mushtang]

I find the number of people in this thread that do not have a problem with liars and cheats to be some of the black eye's of geocaching.

 

I'll second that... I'm right there with ya!...

 

That's the frustrating thing in this thread. That peole are defending liars and cheats. 14 pages on micros suck I can see. 14 pages defending a lack of virtue?

I think it's 14 pages of some people saying false logging is degrading the game, and other people saying false logging is not degrading the game. I haven't read anyone "defend a liar and a cheat".

 

On the off chance you're lumping me in with the defenders of liars and cheats, I'll re-state that if I knew a false Find had been logged on one of my caches I'd delete it. I don't want them on my cache. My stance is that if an owner allows a false log to stay, I can't see how that is degrading to the game.

[Mushtang]

So when I said, "it's not happening enough to degrade geocaching" that doesn't clearly imply that I think there is such thing as enough. It only clearly implies that it's not happening, and I was directly answering the OPs question (again) of "Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching". See? That was me saying, no, it's not happening.

 

Any other "key points" you want to make so you can prove I've suddenly done a 180 on my position?

You need to learn to write exactly what you mean. When I hear someone say "it's not happening enough to result in the degradation of geocaching;" I don't interpret that as meaning "It's not happening." Adding the adverb "enough" means that it has not hit a threshold yet.

I guess you're right. Suddenly I'm trying to say that false Finds ARE causing a degradation of geocaching. That word "enough" gave me away. You're on to me. I was trying to pretend I hadn't changed my mind, but you figured it out. That's me outsmarted!

 

Next time I will call the Psychic Hotline to ask them what you really mean....

No need. You're doing fine making it up yourself and replying to stuff that I didn't really say.