Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+KBI]

I'm not sure what the issue is over the word 'cheat'? Although I previously suggested that 'liar' might be a more appropriate word, I'll say that 'cheat' applies.

Can you support that? Can you explain why you think the word 'cheat' applies?

I'll bite.

 

cheat (verb) - 1. deceive or trick 2. gain unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules, esp. in a game or examination

 

cheat (noun) - a person who cheats

 

I'd say that false logs are an example of cheating. The cacher is deceiving or tricking. The cacher is also likely trying to gain an advantage by deception in a game.

What advantage? If another cacher posts a bogus find on a cache he didn’t find, what 'advantage' does he gain over me? Over you? Over anyone else in this hobby that you claim is degraded as a result?

 

One might say that the word cheat only applies if geocaching is a competition. Although it is not a competition to me, it seems to be for most of the false loggers.

For them, perhaps, but if it is not a competition for you, then why should you even care?

 

Their action, based on their motives, is to cheat. The fact that I may not care about their competition based motives does not mean they are not cheating.

... in which case they are only cheating themselves. They are not cheating you; therefore there is no reason for you to perceive any "degradation."

 

Suppose you are driving to the store one day when a teenager in the car next to you at the traffic light says "Lets race!!" The light changes, he takes off, and you roll your eyes and continue on toward your destination. You turn into the parking lot a moment later, and while following the painted lines and making a big square and proper route to your chosen parking space you observe the teenager cutting diagonally across the empty parking lot so as to arrive right next to your selected parking space well ahead of you. You both park. He jumps out and shouts "NEENER NEENER NEENER! I WON!"

 

I would say the teenager cheated you by cutting the diagonal instead of following the lines, but only if I you agreed to race. You had chosen not to accept his invitation to race; therefore nothing he did could be defined as cheating. He was therefore not cheating.

 

If there is any resulting degradation, therefore, it is he who is degraded, not you, not me, and certainly not the overall community of motorists.

 

I would similarly say that a cacher cheated you if he posting an online log for a cache he didn’t find, but only if I you agreed to compete with that cacher via your find count. Based on your above statement you have chosen not to accept this cacher's invitation to compete; therefore nothing he does can be defined as cheating. He is therefore not cheating.

 

If there is any resulting degradation, therefore, it is he who is degraded, not you, not me, and certainly not the overall community Geocachers.

[+KBI]

If you think there is no competition in geocaching, you haven't been paying attention. Not everyone is involved in competing, but there are plenty who are competing, on many different levels.

Those who are competing are often those who are faking finds.

 

I've seen it happen, so there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this isn't true.

 

Apparently you haven't seen it happen, and there is nothing I can say that will convice you otherwise. I'm not going to provide examples because I refuse to point out specific people, so don't ask.

 

No doubt my lack of specific examples will be cited as "proof" that it doesn't happen. And even if I did point it out, you'd say "who cares?"

 

So, we're all shouting into the wind here.

Just curious: Who are you talking to?

[+tozainamboku]

Fake loggers are bad because they cause someone to think a cache is there when it really isn't.

 

What about DNFs when the cache really IS there? Should this action be looked down upon in the same way?

 

A find is stating the cache is there--it had to be in order to be found. A bogus find doesn't provide the same kind of information.

 

A DNF has nothing really to do with the cache being there or not. It is only a statement of the seeker not being able to find it. A legitimate DNF does not provide information on whether a cache is there or not--only that the seeker didn't find it. I'm not sure what information a bogus DNF provides.

Yep Mushtang's example is terrible. That is why in post #6 I used the example of the person who does find a cache but won't log it online. The cache is really there, someone has confirmed this, and then decides that he can keep that information to himself, causing others who might have looked for the cache to skip it. A DNF is just an indication that a cacher couldn't find the cache and doesn't say anything about whether it is still there. Cachers who choose to skip a cache because it was DNF have made a decision to use the information this way, you can't blame the person who couldn't find the cache for logging their DNF. You might be able to make an argument that the people who never log DNFs when the don't find a cache they were looking for are just as bad as a bogus log.

 

I'm not sure what the issue is over the word 'cheat'? Although I previously suggested that 'liar' might be a more appropriate word, I'll say that 'cheat' applies.

Can you support that? Can you explain why you think the word 'cheat' applies?

I'll bite.

 

cheat (verb) - 1. deceive or trick 2. gain unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules, esp. in a game or examination

 

cheat (noun) - a person who cheats

 

I'd say that false logs are an example of cheating. The cacher is deceiving or tricking. The cacher is also likely trying to gain an advantage by deception in a game.

 

One might say that the word cheat only applies if geocaching is a competition. Although it is not a competition to me, it seems to be for most of the false loggers. Their action, based on their motives, is to cheat. The fact that I may not care about their competition based motives does not mean they are not cheating.

Some false logs deceive or trick. Many state in the log honestly what is being claimed. "Found the answer to the question on the Internet", "My buddy found the cache and signed my name", "Didn't really find the cache but am taking credit because the owner confirmed it was missing". I don't think any of the Greetings from Germany logs are trying to trick or deceive, these are just logs from people who believe that armchair logging of a virtual cache is allowed.

As to whether a person gains advantage by breaking rules, that can be debated as well. Most of the these logs are people claiming finds that they believe are legitimate. Since geocaching rules say nothing about how the online log is used, it is difficult to understand what rules are broken. One might gain an "advantage" in that their friends will see they have a higher find count. If their friends are playing by the same rules and allow these finds then this is a legitimate advantage. If their friends prefer to only log caches they were actually at, they will soon find out who is logging bogus logs. Any advantage at that time become null. Everyone soon knows who the bogus loggers are.

[+KBI]

The key word here is DISCUSS...not interrogate or harass!

My posts are not meant to annoy, offend, bully, or insult you.

 

It’s very simple:

 

You made a proposal.

 

You proposed we should get rid of the 'cheats.'

 

I disagree with the idea that bogus logs constitute 'cheating.' Cheating implies competition, and Geocaching is not a competition.

 

I therefore am very interested in why you chose to use the word 'cheat' to describe people who post bogus finds.

 

I would suggest that you should be careful making claims and proposing changes unless you are willing to back them up. In other words, don’t throw potentially insulting words like 'cheat' around and then act offended when you are challenged.

 

It’s easy: If you don't want to feel harassed, then don't harass others.

And I would suggest as I already have...read the thread. I didn't throw any word out that wasn't already being used, I didn't make the statement to get rid of the cheats...in other words I DIDN'T make any of the claims you insist I did, I merely agreed! Funny though, every time I tell you to go to the source, you make it as if I am trying to avoid something...that something I'm avoiding is YOUR continual harassment.

I only asked why you chose to use the word. Others have agreed to explain why they think the word applies; that’s all I was asking from you. You have loudly and repeatedly refused to answer. As I said before, that is your right, and I’m okay with that.

 

Let's try this...WHY do you continue to bring up the competition aspect? Are you trying to say that those who say the fake logging habit is a form of cheating are ONLY concerned with competition? PROVE THIS! PROVE THIS TO ME!

A reasonable question, but why should I answer your reasonable questions when you refuse to answer mine?

 

Are you so hung up with the competition aspect that you CAN'T understand that the fake logs (cheating) do cause problems for true cache loggers (those who wouldn't LIE to STEAL a smilie)? Examples of the problems have been given multiple times, so don't ask, read!

I have been very patient and have done my best to discuss this with you, but you insist instead on obfuscating, dodging, and seeing harassment where there is none.

 

Sorry, but I will no longer respond to your posts, as there seems to be no point.

[+MountainMudbug]

If you think there is no competition in geocaching, you haven't been paying attention. Not everyone is involved in competing, but there are plenty who are competing, on many different levels.

Those who are competing are often those who are faking finds.

 

I've seen it happen, so there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this isn't true.

 

Apparently you haven't seen it happen, and there is nothing I can say that will convice you otherwise. I'm not going to provide examples because I refuse to point out specific people, so don't ask.

 

No doubt my lack of specific examples will be cited as "proof" that it doesn't happen. And even if I did point it out, you'd say "who cares?"

 

So, we're all shouting into the wind here.

Just curious: Who are you talking to?

 

Whoever will actually listen. Which means myself, I guess.

Edited February 9, 2008 by MountainMudbug

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm not sure what the issue is over the word 'cheat'? Although I previously suggested that 'liar' might be a more appropriate word, I'll say that 'cheat' applies.

Can you support that? Can you explain why you think the word 'cheat' applies?

I'll bite.

 

cheat (verb) - 1. deceive or trick 2. gain unfair advantage by deception or breaking rules, esp. in a game or examination

 

cheat (noun) - a person who cheats

 

I'd say that false logs are an example of cheating. The cacher is deceiving or tricking. The cacher is also likely trying to gain an advantage by deception in a game.

What advantage? If another cacher posts a bogus find on a cache he didn’t find, what 'advantage' does he gain over me? Over you? Over anyone else in this hobby that you claim is degraded as a result?

 

One might say that the word cheat only applies if geocaching is a competition. Although it is not a competition to me, it seems to be for most of the false loggers.

For them, perhaps, but if it is not a competition for you, then why should you even care?

 

Their action, based on their motives, is to cheat. The fact that I may not care about their competition based motives does not mean they are not cheating.

... in which case they are only cheating themselves. They are not cheating you; therefore there is no reason for you to perceive any "degradation."

 

Suppose you are driving to the store one day when a teenager in the car next to you at the traffic light says "Lets race!!" The light changes, he takes off, and you roll your eyes and continue on toward your destination. You turn into the parking lot a moment later, and while following the painted lines and making a big square and proper route to your chosen parking space you observe the teenager cutting diagonally across the empty parking lot so as to arrive right next to your selected parking space well ahead of you. You both park. He jumps out and shouts "NEENER NEENER NEENER! I WON!"

 

I would say the teenager cheated you by cutting the diagonal instead of following the lines, but only if I you agreed to race. You had chosen not to accept his invitation to race; therefore nothing he did could be defined as cheating. He was therefore not cheating.

 

If there is any resulting degradation, therefore, it is he who is degraded, not you, not me, and certainly not the overall community of motorists.

 

I would similarly say that a cacher cheated you if he posting an online log for a cache he didn’t find, but only if I you agreed to compete with that cacher via your find count. Based on your above statement you have chosen not to accept this cacher's invitation to compete; therefore nothing he does can be defined as cheating. He is therefore not cheating.

 

If there is any resulting degradation, therefore, it is he who is degraded, not you, not me, and certainly not the overall community Geocachers.

False logs degrade the sport simply by allowing others to THINK a cache could still be in place when a cheat (the fake logger is cheating or breaking the guidelines, lying about a find and therefore stealing a smilie...all are in the definition of CHEAT). If said cache weren't truly in place others MIGHT make a drive out for the cache needlessly, costing them money and time, degrading their enjoyment of this sport! So, the cheated log DOES affect you or myself (as was stated about a MILLION times throughout this entire thread as well as several before this one) and CAN degrade my enjoyment of this sport!

 

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FINALLY IGNOING MY POSTS, let the harassment end!! As I said, you've been answered sooo many times...simply because you didn't like the answer doesn't change that!

 

Sorry, my slow mind mis-stated the CAN as DOES...hope this doesn't bring about another inquisition!

Edited February 9, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+briansnat]

When someone in the forums repeatedly suggests that numbers don't matter and that other people are cheating by doing something such as fake logging or multi logging, it tells me that these people are the closet competitors.

 

It's telling you wrong. Some people just don't like cheaters and don't think they are good for the game.

[+KBI]

When someone in the forums repeatedly suggests that numbers don't matter and that other people are cheating by doing something such as fake logging or multi logging, it tells me that these people are the closet competitors.

It's telling you wrong.

 

Some people just don't like cheaters and don't think they are good for the game.

If so, then please explain: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign? Why does it bother you when someone only 'cheats' himself and no one else?

 

Does it similarly bug you to know that there might be people out there who lie in their diaries? Do you similarly think those people are ‘bad’ for your diary and my diary?

 

How in the world can a find-count 'cheater' even remotely bother you unless you have chosen to compete with him?

[+Kit Fox]

If you think there is no competition in geocaching, you haven't been paying attention. Not everyone is involved in competing, but there are plenty who are competing, on many different levels.

Those who are competing are often those who are faking finds.

 

I've seen it happen, so there is nothing you can say that will convince me that this isn't true.

 

Apparently you haven't seen it happen, and there is nothing I can say that will convice you otherwise. I'm not going to provide examples because I refuse to point out specific people, so don't ask.

 

No doubt my lack of specific examples will be cited as "proof" that it doesn't happen. And even if I did point it out, you'd say "who cares?"

 

So, we're all shouting into the wind here.

 

A simple search of the word "congratulations" reveals 15 pages of threads pertaining to milestones.

 

The majority of the number padding schemes are directly related to the "non-existant competition." These schemes degrade geocaching, in my opinion.

 

* Fake found it logs for the purpose of increasing your find count. Found it = didn't find it

* Power cachers who spend 3 minutes looking for a cache, then place their own cache when they can't find it, just so they aren't denied a smiley for their "effort."

* Placement of non GC approved caches which are then logged as "attended event" to further increase find counts

*Pocket caches

*Geocoin Sheets passed around to increase trackable stats

*Micro spew / Lame Location spew (not to be confused with creative caches hidden in creative locations)

*FTF seekers who ignore posted signs, hours, etc, so they can be FTF and pound their chest.

 

And the newest scheme Already established caches being moved to "allow a second find "

[+Rockin Roddy]

When someone in the forums repeatedly suggests that numbers don't matter and that other people are cheating by doing something such as fake logging or multi logging, it tells me that these people are the closet competitors.

It's telling you wrong.

 

Some people just don't like cheaters and don't think they are good for the game.

If so, then please explain: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign? Why does it bother you when someone only 'cheats' himself and no one else?

 

Does it similarly bug you to know that there might be people out there who lie in their diaries? Do you similarly think those people are ‘bad’ for your diary and my diary?

 

How in the world can a find-count 'cheater' even remotely bother you unless you have chosen to compete with him?

This really gets me!! This person has repeatedly harped about someone making a statement and the needing to be able to back their statement. BUT, when it's this person's statement, it's merely an opinion (or strong suspicion) and no proof needed!! WOW, that's rich!!!

[+briansnat]

If so, then please explain: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign? Why does it bother you when someone only 'cheats' himself and no one else?

 

I've explained several scenarios where cheating is not benign and can effect others and some where it has affected me. You choose to disregard them. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Hey, at least we got you to agree that it is cheating.

 

Does it similarly bug you to know that there might be people out there who lie in their diaries? Do you similarly think those people are ‘bad’ for your diary and my diary?

 

That has absolutely no effect on me. Cheating in geocaching does.

Edited February 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+TwoCat]

Dang people - 22 pages of replies since 1/29.....

 

This is an adventure game - simply enjoy it!

Edited February 9, 2008 by TwoCat

[+KBI]

A simple search of the word "congratulations" reveals 15 pages of threads pertaining to milestones.

 

The majority of the number padding schemes are directly related to the "non-existant competition." These schemes degrade geocaching, in my opinion.

 

* Fake found it logs for the purpose of increasing your find count. Found it = didn't find it

* Power cachers who spend 3 minutes looking for a cache, then place their own cache when they can't find it, just so they aren't denied a smiley for their "effort."

* Placement of non GC approved caches which are then logged as "attended event" to further increase find counts

*Pocket caches

*Geocoin Sheets passed around to increase trackable stats

*Micro spew / Lame Location spew (not to be confused with creative caches hidden in creative locations)

*FTF seekers who ignore posted signs, hours, etc, so they can be FTF and pound their chest.

 

And the newest scheme Already established caches being moved to "allow a second find "

Thank you for detailing the ways in which various cachers choose to compete with other cachers.

 

Now, for those of us who have chosen not to compete, can you please explain why we should feel outrage or "degradation" when another cacher logs a bogus find? Can you explain why we should feel as if we have been defrauded or "cheated" when another cacher, with whom we have chosen not to compete, logs a fake smiley?

 

OTOH, if it was not your intent to suport the degradation/outrage/fraut/cheat argument, then please forgive me.

[+KBI]

If so, then please explain: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign? Why does it bother you when someone only 'cheats' himself and no one else?

I've explained several scenarios where cheating is not benign and can effect others and some where it has affected me. You choose to disregard them. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Hey, at least we got you to agree that it is cheating.

Your scenarios are valid. Your conclusion that those kinds of cheats can be bad is also valid. I never disagreed with you that the practical effects of a certain subset bogus logs can be bad. I disregarded nothing.

 

That is not, however, what I am asking about.

 

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

 

If you've been reading this thread then you know exactly what I'm talking about, and therefore what I'm asking.

 

Does it similarly bug you to know that there might be people out there who lie in their diaries? Do you similarly think those people are ‘bad’ for your diary and my diary?

That has absolutely no effect on me…

Agreed. My point exactly.

 

...Cheating in geocaching does.

That’s the part I just don’t see. You see a difference where I see none. It is therefore my conclusion that those who feel cheated only feel cheated because thet have chosen to feel cheated.

Edited February 9, 2008 by KBI

[+briansnat]

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

 

When I was a kid we used to get our kicks throwing snowballs at cars. Because nobody was ever hurt and because we never damaged a car then I guess that means that throwing snowballs at cars can be shown to be benign.

 

But throwing snowballs at cars can also damage cars, startle drivers and cause accidents. It has the potential to effect others.

 

Should we argue that throwing snowballs at cars should be fine because it can be shown to be benign? As a driver should I not care if I see kids throwing snowballs at cars because they didn't hit mine?

Edited February 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I am a little concerned about the nit-piking and sanctimonius direction which this thread is taking. Let me tell you why: I attended a joint breakfast/CITO event this morning; the CITO was held at the site of one of my Psycho Urban Caches, a city/state greenway park in bad need of a cleanup. I plan to log 9,900 smileys/attendeds for this event, because 66 people showed up, and each person spent an average of 150 minutes onsite, and since it was held at the location of one of my cache sites, and since I was present for the whole event, I am allowed to claim [66 x 150 = 9,900] smileys. However, if I read the majority of the posts sent so far to this thread correctly, it seems to me like some of you more prissy stuck-up self-righteous people would find fault with that fact, and also with the fact that whenever I fly cross-country on a commercial jetliner, I rightly and rightfully claim 453 finds (because the plane's average ground speed was 453 mph, so that multiplies the smileys 453X under Smiley's Law) apiece on each and every cache which was within 15 miles either side of the flight path of the plane (you simply cannot argue with that; it is my God-given right to do so under Smiley's Law.) Sheesh! Speaking of goody two shoes!

 

Anyway, yo, dudes, to my way of thinking, some of the people in this sport are getting way too harsh and rigid in their prissy attitudes. Why not lighten up and let those of us who have been guided by God to log these kinds of finds alone? Why do you have to harass us? Do you hate God and God's children that much? In fact, I am so irritated at the sanctimonious direction that this thread is going that I am -- over the next few days -- gonna claim ten finds for every cache owned by every prissy self-righteous nay-saying anti-find-logger in this thread. The fact is that God wants us to log these multiple finds and these so-called "bogus" finds", and while you may hate it, you are powerless to stop us from doing so, because we have God on our side and you anti-find-log zealots, on the other hand, have strayed into Satan's camp!

Edited February 9, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Too Tall John]

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

First, thank you for your examples of when a bogus log is benign.

 

I believe, however, that the examples put forth by briansnat, myself, and others of how logs can cause damage probably outnumber your examples, not just in count but in occurrence. Your statement quoted above sounds like you are stating that "cheating can be shown to be benign." You need to add the words "in some cases." To answer that question, "Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign in some cases?" is easy: "Because in other cases, false logs can and do cause harm and consternation to geocachers."

 

Examples of how make up a good part of this thread.

[+Too Tall John]

I rightly and rightfully claim 453 finds (because the plane's average ground speed was 453 mph, so that multiplies the smileys 453X under Smiley's Law) apiece on each and every cache which was within 15 miles either side of the flight path of the plane (you simply cannot argue with that; it is my God-given right to do so under Smiley's Law.) Sheesh!

Huh... I thought you could only claim the ones on the side of the plane you are sitting on.

[+BlueDeuce]

I am -- over the next few days -- gonna claim ten finds for every cache owned by every prissy self-righteous nay-saying anti-logger in this thread.

 

Dude, I meet all those. Please take another 4x10 on my account.

Edited February 9, 2008 by BlueDeuce

[+KBI]

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

 

When I was a kid we used to get our kicks throwing snowballs at cars. Because nobody was ever hurt and because we never damaged a car then I guess that means that throwing snowballs at cars can be shown to be benign.

 

But throwing snowballs at cars can also damage cars, startle drivers and cause accidents. It has the potential to effect others.

 

Should we argue that throwing snowballs at cars should be fine because it can be shown to be benign? As a driver should I not care if I see kids throwing snowballs at cars because they didn't hit mine?

Throwing snowballs at cars is a best a nuisance, and in most cases is dangerous. Many people like keeping their cars clean. I know I do. Snowballs leave streaks and watermarks. Also, and as you point out, throwing snowballs at cars can damage cars, startle drivers and cause accidents.

 

I therefore disagree with your premise that throwing snowballs is benign.

 

Can you try again with a better analogy, one that is relevant to the discussion?

 

How about this: If I choose to throw a snowball at my own car it doesn’t bother anyone else. It causes no damage, risk or annoyance to anyone except me, and I am the one who chose to do it to my own car. Throwing a snowball at my own car is therefore benign to everyone except maybe me, and I volunteered to accept the risk. Can you tell me how your awareness of my throwing a snowball at my own car would cause you any damage, risk or unwanted annoyance? (Sure, you could choose to let it bother you, but neither I nor anyone else has any control over what you choose to be annoyed by, and such choice therefore doesn’t imply any degradation of all snowballs.)

Edited February 9, 2008 by KBI

[+Jeepergeo]

Two elements seem to be woven through this thread with respect to participants: the intrinsic value of the Find; and the intrinsic value of the Log.

 

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

 

Suggestion - Figure out what makes you want to play this game, and then play that way.

 

Projections -

Players who play for their own satisfaction, and without concern for what others do, will probably continue to do just fine using sites like geocaching.com as their home base.

Players seeking well defined rules and refereed play will probably find that private caches and caching clubs will ultimately meet their needs the best.

[+KBI]

Your statement quoted above sounds like you are stating that "cheating can be shown to be benign." You need to add the words "in some cases."

No Prob. I have said it before, and I’m happy to say it again: Bogus logs (or, what some people call "cheating") can be shown to be benign in some cases.

 

Do we agree now?

 

To answer that question, "Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign in some cases?" is easy: "Because in other cases, false logs can and do cause harm and consternation to geocachers."

 

Examples of how make up a good part of this thread.

For the gazzionth time: I am not talking about practical problems caused by a subset of bogus logs. That issue did not appear in the original post. I am talking about the claim of morality problems caused by ALL bogus logs. That IS what the original post complained about.

 

How many times do I have to explain this? Does ANYBODY here understand the difference?

[+KBI]

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

First, thank you for your examples of when a bogus log is benign.

 

I believe, however, that the examples put forth by briansnat, myself, and others of how logs can cause damage probably outnumber your examples, not just in count but in occurrence.

And I still agree that every one of your examples is a case of a bogus log causing harm. Man, I have made that point at least three dozen times now. I sure wish you would read what I actually write instead of trying to arguing something we already agree on.

 

The ratio doesn’t matter. The mere fact that some bogus logs are benign is all it takes to disprove the assertion that ALL bogus logs are somehow inherently evil and somehow cause degradation. It is a pure and simple Aristotelian syllogism. That is my point. That is my ONLY point. Reminding me that another, different subset of bogus logs can cause people to waste time and gas when I’ve already made that point myself is a waste of forum space, and I’m getting tired of reading it.

 

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

Edited February 9, 2008 by KBI

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I rightly and rightfully claim 453 finds (because the plane's average ground speed was 453 mph, so that multiplies the smileys 453X under Smiley's Law) apiece on each and every cache which was within 15 miles either side of the flight path of the plane (you simply cannot argue with that; it is my God-given right to do so under Smiley's Law.) Sheesh!

Huh... I thought you could only claim the ones on the side of the plane you are sitting on.

Smiley's Law is a bit unclear and ambiguous on that aspect of logging from overhead aircraft in transit, and so I chose to exercise my God-given right to invoke the more liberal interpretation, i.e., both sides of the aircraft.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I am -- over the next few days -- gonna claim ten finds for every cache owned by every prissy self-righteous nay-saying anti-logger in this thread.

 

Dude, I meet all those. Please take another 4x10 on my account.

Thank you! Job is done! Within a few weeks, my find count should be over 3400,000! I am happy, because numbers are important to me!

 

 

 

 

[+BlueDeuce]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

[+Rockin Roddy]

I rightly and rightfully claim 453 finds (because the plane's average ground speed was 453 mph, so that multiplies the smileys 453X under Smiley's Law) apiece on each and every cache which was within 15 miles either side of the flight path of the plane (you simply cannot argue with that; it is my God-given right to do so under Smiley's Law.) Sheesh!

Huh... I thought you could only claim the ones on the side of the plane you are sitting on.

Smiley's Law is a bit unclear and ambiguous on that aspect of logging from overhead aircraft in transit, and so I chose to exercise my God-given right to invoke the more liberal interpretation, i.e., both sides of the aircraft.

I'm still adding up all the caches that were under my plane while flying to Vegas...and MAN, that's a TON!! I'll have to study up on your logging system V&S, this might be a good way to break into the 10,000 club!!

[+KBI]

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

That is an excellent point.

 

Although most cachers do both, some cachers will post a smiley when they haven’t made a find, and some cachers do not post a smiley when they have made a find.

 

If the cachers who post a smiley when they haven’t made a find are doing something inherently evil, then doesn’t it follow that the cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are at least equally as "degrading" to the entire hobby as the bogus loggers?

 

Cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are not only cheating themselves out of the opportunity to impress those who would look enviously at their numbers; they are also withholding information that might otherwise prevent someone from wasting time or gas to check on the cache. Further, if inconvenient = immoral, then those non-online loggers are therefore "degrading" every single one of us.

 

I believe Tozainamboku made this point as well, but I am ashamed to say that I am only just now beginning to understand its true meaning.

 

If the OP’s claim is correct, then those who choose not to log their finds online are degrading our entire hobby!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

First, thank you for your examples of when a bogus log is benign.

 

I believe, however, that the examples put forth by briansnat, myself, and others of how logs can cause damage probably outnumber your examples, not just in count but in occurrence.

And I still agree that every one of your examples is a case of a bogus log causing harm. Man, I have made that point at least three dozen times now. I sure wish you would read what I actually write instead of trying to arguing something we already agree on.

 

The ratio doesn’t matter. The mere fact that some bogus logs are benign is all it takes to disprove the assertion that ALL bogus logs are somehow inherently evil and somehow cause degradation. It is a pure and simple Aristotelian syllogism. That is my point. That is my ONLY point. Reminding me that another, different subset of bogus logs can cause people to waste time and gas when I’ve already made that point myself is a waste of forum space, and I’m getting tired of reading it.

 

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

FINALLY, some middle ground...you mean it's NOT all black and white?? Now, had you asked a question like THIS one, I'd have happily answered the SOME logs! ANY log which causes problems for cachers is where I have trouble with cheat logs....THANK YOU for finally coming up with something worth answering!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

That is an excellent point.

 

Although most cachers do both, some cachers will post a smiley when they haven’t made a find, and some cachers do not post a smiley when they have made a find.

 

If the cachers who post a smiley when they haven’t made a find are doing something inherently evil, then doesn’t it follow that the cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are at least equally as "degrading" to the entire hobby as the bogus loggers?

 

Cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are not only cheating themselves out of the opportunity to impress those who would look enviously at their numbers; they are also withholding information that might otherwise prevent someone from wasting time or gas to check on the cache. Further, if inconvenient = immoral, then those non-online loggers are therefore "degrading" every single one of us.

 

I believe Tozainamboku made this point as well, but I am ashamed to say that I am only just now beginning to understand its true meaning.

 

 

If the OP’s claim is correct, then those who choose not to log their finds online are degrading our entire hobby!

Sounds like a bunch of bunk to me, can someone explain how a person who never logs a find online is hurting others?

 

Oh, I see, you're still on the numbers thing....

Edited February 9, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+KBI]

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

FINALLY, some middle ground...you mean it's NOT all black and white?? Now, had you asked a question like THIS one, I'd have happily answered the SOME logs! ANY log which causes problems for cachers is where I have trouble with cheat logs....THANK YOU for finally coming up with something worth answering!

Great. Now we can resume.

 

Now, Roddy: If your answer is the second choice and you agree that ONLY SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby, then it follows logically that some bogus logs are NOT bad for the hobby. Do you still agree?

[+KBI]

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

That is an excellent point.

 

Although most cachers do both, some cachers will post a smiley when they haven’t made a find, and some cachers do not post a smiley when they have made a find.

 

If the cachers who post a smiley when they haven’t made a find are doing something inherently evil, then doesn’t it follow that the cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are at least equally as "degrading" to the entire hobby as the bogus loggers?

 

Cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are not only cheating themselves out of the opportunity to impress those who would look enviously at their numbers; they are also withholding information that might otherwise prevent someone from wasting time or gas to check on the cache. Further, if inconvenient = immoral, then those non-online loggers are therefore "degrading" every single one of us.

 

I believe Tozainamboku made this point as well, but I am ashamed to say that I am only just now beginning to understand its true meaning.

 

 

If the OP’s claim is correct, then those who choose not to log their finds online are degrading our entire hobby!

Sounds like a bunch of bunk to me, can someone explain how a person who never logs a find online is hurting others?

Exactly. Thank you for helping me make my point.

[+tozainamboku]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

This thread jumped the shark about 17 pages ago.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

FINALLY, some middle ground...you mean it's NOT all black and white?? Now, had you asked a question like THIS one, I'd have happily answered the SOME logs! ANY log which causes problems for cachers is where I have trouble with cheat logs....THANK YOU for finally coming up with something worth answering!

Great. Now we can resume.

 

Now, Roddy: If your answer is the second choice and you agree that ONLY SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby, then it follows logically that some bogus logs are NOT bad for the hobby. Do you still agree?

 

Well, ANY log which lies and causes troubles for ME are bad for the sport FOR ME! If you've been reading, I posted a reply which told WHY lying on someone else's cache CAN and sometimes DOES affect me...and anyone who uses someone's stats as I do. Some of us actually DO use those stats for reasons other than keeping score!

[+Rockin Roddy]

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

That is an excellent point.

 

Although most cachers do both, some cachers will post a smiley when they haven’t made a find, and some cachers do not post a smiley when they have made a find.

 

If the cachers who post a smiley when they haven’t made a find are doing something inherently evil, then doesn’t it follow that the cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are at least equally as "degrading" to the entire hobby as the bogus loggers?

 

Cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are not only cheating themselves out of the opportunity to impress those who would look enviously at their numbers; they are also withholding information that might otherwise prevent someone from wasting time or gas to check on the cache. Further, if inconvenient = immoral, then those non-online loggers are therefore "degrading" every single one of us.

 

I believe Tozainamboku made this point as well, but I am ashamed to say that I am only just now beginning to understand its true meaning.

 

 

If the OP’s claim is correct, then those who choose not to log their finds online are degrading our entire hobby!

Sounds like a bunch of bunk to me, can someone explain how a person who never logs a find online is hurting others?

Exactly. Thank you for helping me make my point.

 

Making your point that those who never log don't bother the game? What other point were you going for??

[+wesi]

Seeing the 22 pages in this thread, it looks like we should start lobbying the government for a cacher version of SOX 404. Every cache owner has to swear and testify that his control framework is working and that the logs of his cache are pure. Every cache owner has, at his/her own expense, to retain outside counsel and accountants who independently review his/her attestation. Failure to comply results in de-listing and fine.

 

To improve tracking, cachers will have to be implanted with an RFID chip, and caches hidden starting from Mar/1 2008 will have to contain a tamper proof RFID reader bolted into the cache container. The reader has to be sufficiently shielded so that cachers in Germany who hook their RFID to an 100MW amplifier and directional antenna cannot log caches from afar.

 

Sounds like caching finally gets to be a fun hobby

-wesi

[+BlueDeuce]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

This thread jumped the shark about 17 pages ago.

 

Yeah, we've surpassed jumping.

[+Too Tall John]

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

The second one, naturally.

 

I've been taking exception with statements like

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

To me, the objectionable point to that was "cheating can be shown to be benign." To put that out there without stating that bogus logs can be bad seemed to be ignoring that fact, and I saw that nowhere in your post.

 

Now you've said it, I am much happier. Thank you.

 

I have a strong feeling that most bogus logs are not of the benign nature of your examples. At the very least, bogus logs cause trouble for concerned cache owners. How many topics have you seen in your time here that are started by cache owners wondering what to do with a log that appears to be bogus?

I am talking about the claim of morality problems caused by ALL bogus logs. That IS what the original post complained about.

Would you not say that taking consequences into consideration is the moral thing to do? If so, then the impact that bogus logs can have is a very valid part of the discussion. Since we agree that they can have a negative impact, we cannot ignore that. From what I've read in your posts, KBI, you seem to be trying to dismiss this.

[+team lagonda]

bogus logs dont bother me none..bettin bogus money..

[+Too Tall John]

And I still agree that every one of your examples is a case of a bogus log causing harm. Man, I have made that point at least three dozen times now. I sure wish you would read what I actually write instead of trying to arguing something we already agree on.

I think we've reached some good middle ground. In order to help you understand my thought process, here are some of your posts that made it look to me like you were arguing this point over the last 3 pages:

Bogus logs can and often do contain misleading information. In fact, the very fact that a bogus logger is claiming a find on something they did not, in fact, find means that all bogus logs contain at least one piece of misleading information each.

Yes, that is technically correct. That one bit of inaccurate information, however, poses no hazard and has no way of inconveniencing another cacher...

A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

...the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

I strongly suspect that those who are troubled by the so-called "degradation" would not be nearly as troubled by other people’s bogus find logs – if at all – were it not for the existence of the public find count. None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs will admit to viewing the find count as a competition score, yet their arguments only make sense when considered from this competitive point of view.

...

Cheating on one’s find count and putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers are two completely different things. Either can occur without the other. The former is benign; the latter is inherently bad. The former is the subject of this thread; the latter is not in dispute and is, in my opinion, completely off topic for this thread.

It should be noted that a couple of these quotes were apparently cut and pasted a number of times, really making it look like you were simply repeating a boiler-plate argument just for the sake of repeating yourself. Regardless, the quotes above seem to be trying to stress the cases when false logs might not harm anyone, or call into question the opinions of people who are arguing against false logs.

[+Too Tall John]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

Doesn't that depend on the kind of shark?

[+Trucker Lee]

The purpose of a log is to let the cache owner know that you found his/her cache, and hopefully tell of any funny or odd circumstances that were involved. Did you enjoy the cache.

 

A bogus log is BS (That's our Texas term, others may call it Taurus feces). No one is being kidded! If you didn't find the cache, don't log it. If a bogus log shows up on your cache, delete, delete, delete!

[+Kit Fox]

bogus logs dont bother me none..bettin bogus money..

 

Consistently poor grammar degrades geocachers. It forces us to re-read posts multiple times, in order to decypher what was actually written.

[+KBI]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

This thread jumped the shark about 17 pages ago.

Yeah, we've surpassed jumping.

If this thread is bothering you guys so much, you are always welcome to *not* click on it instead of adding to the noise.

[+KBI]

Now, Roddy: If your answer is the second choice and you agree that ONLY SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby, then it follows logically that some bogus logs are NOT bad for the hobby. Do you still agree?

Well, ANY log which lies and causes troubles for ME are bad for the sport FOR ME!

In that case it sounds like you disagree with the first premise.

 

The first premise states that "SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers." Do you instead believe that ALL bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers?

 

If you've been reading, I posted a reply which told WHY lying on someone else's cache CAN and sometimes DOES affect me...and anyone who uses someone's stats as I do. Some of us actually DO use those stats for reasons other than keeping score!

What reasons would those be?

[+KBI]

Some value the Find. Some value the Log. Some value the Find and the Log.

 

Some finders will not log their Find. Some finders will enter their Find in the Log. Some loggers will Log without having actually made a find.

That is an excellent point.

 

Although most cachers do both, some cachers will post a smiley when they haven’t made a find, and some cachers do not post a smiley when they have made a find.

 

If the cachers who post a smiley when they haven’t made a find are doing something inherently evil, then doesn’t it follow that the cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are at least equally as "degrading" to the entire hobby as the bogus loggers?

 

Cachers who do not post a smiley when they have made a find are not only cheating themselves out of the opportunity to impress those who would look enviously at their numbers; they are also withholding information that might otherwise prevent someone from wasting time or gas to check on the cache. Further, if inconvenient = immoral, then those non-online loggers are therefore "degrading" every single one of us.

 

I believe Tozainamboku made this point as well, but I am ashamed to say that I am only just now beginning to understand its true meaning.

 

 

If the OP’s claim is correct, then those who choose not to log their finds online are degrading our entire hobby!

Sounds like a bunch of bunk to me, can someone explain how a person who never logs a find online is hurting others?

Exactly. Thank you for helping me make my point.

Making your point that those who never log don't bother the game? What other point were you going for??

You helped make my point that benign bogus logs are no more 'evil' or 'degrading' than non-logged finds.

[+briansnat]

What reasons would those be?

 

After about page 12 I started considering the possibility that you've been trolling. Now I know it. You reeled me in big time, but now I'm spitting the hook.

Edited February 9, 2008 by briansnat

[+BlueDeuce]

If you fly over a shark, do you count those as finds too?

This thread jumped the shark about 17 pages ago.

Yeah, we've surpassed jumping.

If this thread is bothering you guys so much, you are always welcome to *not* click on it instead of adding to the noise.

 

Honestly I'm quite happy this thread is keeping ya'll occupied.

[+KBI]

Here are our two undisputed premises:

• SOME bogus logs cause practical problems for cachers
  
• Practical problems for cachers are bad for the hobby
  

Now: please tell me which of the two conclusions below you think follows logically from those two premises, and completes a valid syllogism:

• Therefore ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  
• Therefore SOME bogus logs are bad for the hobby.
  

The second one, naturally.

 

I've been taking exception with statements like

Read my question again: Why do you dislike cheaters enough to agree that hobby-wide degradation is taking place, even when the cheating can be shown to be benign?

To me, the objectionable point to that was "cheating can be shown to be benign." To put that out there without stating that bogus logs can be bad seemed to be ignoring that fact, and I saw that nowhere in your post.

I have said it many many times. I have said it many many ways. If you have missed it then there’s not much else I can do about that.

 

Now you've said it, I am much happier. Thank you.

 

I have a strong feeling that most bogus logs are not of the benign nature of your examples. At the very least, bogus logs cause trouble for concerned cache owners.

I have never disputed this point. I have agreed with it 100% every time it has come up. How many times do I have to repeat it?

 

I am talking about the claim of morality problems caused by ALL bogus logs. That IS what the original post complained about.

Would you not say that taking consequences into consideration is the moral thing to do?

If there are consequences, then yes. If there are no consequences, as we have agreed is sometimes the case, then trying to impose morality or degradation where it does not apply is silly. That is my primary point.

 

If so, then the impact that bogus logs can have is a very valid part of the discussion.

Bogus logs can have an impact. AGAIN, I agree. That does not mean they always have an impact. Therefore it is invalid to conclude that all bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

Since we agree that they can have a negative impact, we cannot ignore that. From what I've read in your posts, KBI, you seem to be trying to dismiss this.

Dismiss?!?

 

Repeating over and over, eighteen freaking times per page of this thread, that I agree with the point means I am trying to dismiss it?

 

'Pointing out that something is off topic' and 'dismissing it' are two very different things.

 

It is a valid point. I have said that the point is valid. I have also said that the point is off topic to the thread. It is off topic because it has no relation to the OP’s premise. The OP’s claimed that not only are ALL bogus logs bad, but that they are also immoral in that they degrade the entire hobby.

 

OP: ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

KBI: It is not correct to say that ALL bogus logs are degrading to the hobby.

 

Second Poster: Some bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: I agree, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Third Poster: But I have actually seen bogus logs that were bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: I agree that some bogus logs are bad for the hobby, but that doesn’t change the fact that NOT ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Fourth Poster: But bogus logs can cause problems!

 

KBI: I agree, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

Fifth Poster: Can’t you see that a bogus log can waste a person’s time?

 

KBI: Yes, I can, but that’s not the same thing as claiming that ALL bogus logs are bad for the hobby.

 

TooTallJohn: We cannot ignore that some bogus logs can have a negative impact and can be bad for the hobby.

 

KBI: <picks up revolver, inserts one bullet, spins barrel ...>

[+Rockin Roddy]

Fake loggers are bad because they cause someone to think a cache is there when it really isn't.

 

What about DNFs when the cache really IS there? Should this action be looked down upon in the same way?

The DNF give's others an idea of what to expect, it is a note with information a cacher can use! If a cacher DNF's my cache, I look at their find count and determine if they are experienced enough to make the find (if a 1.5/1.5/ cache can't be found by a person with 3000 finds, I might get worried the cache is MIA and write the cacher asking about the search area. If it were a 3 find cacher, I would write the cacher and give helpful tips and ask if they'd like a clue)! A DNF tells future hunters a few things as well...it could be missing if a few DNFs a re there or it could be tough if a high number cacher DNFs!

 

This is partial reason a bloated find count hurts a cacher. I rely on the stats to tell a little about a cacher. Someone with 20 actual finds and 100 fake finds would give me the impression this cacher knew what they were doing when in fact they have little experience! But that's a different thread altogether!

 

Here's a way I use others' stats...