Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Followers 5

Recommended Posts

"Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

"Two hundred people have now logged the Portal of The Folded Wings as a find. Many of them actually visited the site and were inspired by these courageous pioneers of aviation. Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

For those of you who came to The Portal with respect and admiration: thank you.

 

For those morally corrupt people who choose to lie and cheat: I suggest you find some other site on the internet to do your dirty deeds. Geocaching is a wholesome, family-friendly activity and those of us who get that do not want to associate with those of you who don't."

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

 

I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

You really do struggle with the English language.... ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

Logging false finds is crappy. We can split hairs as to what constitutes a false find, but if you limit the discussion to logs that are made by cachers who have never even searched for a physical cache, (call it lying for lack of a better term) it's crappy.

 

If and when I encounter this situation it will affect me and my enjoyment of the game a little bit. I won't lose sleep over it but you can bet your ammo cans I'll be grumbling to myself about it when I have to go check the log book to verify or deny the find.

 

In the mean time, it actually IS happening to cache owners every day. Is it degrading the game? I guess it depends on how you define degrading, but it is more than likely diminishing the fun for quite a few cache owners. I vote for discouraging the practice. :ph34r:

Link to comment
The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!
So, if not for all the "Greetings from Germany" logs, he'd still be maintaining the cache?

 

Sounds to me like a case of false logging causing archival.

Link to comment
The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!
So, if not for all the "Greetings from Germany" logs, he'd still be maintaining the cache?

 

Sounds to me like a case of false logging causing archival.

If a cache doesn't need maintenance, then the owner has nothing to do to maintain it.

 

If a log isn't wet, can it be said that if the owner doesn't replace the log then he's still maintaining it? I'm not sure.

 

If a cache gets a lot of fake logs and the owner doesn't delete them, he's definitely not maintaining it.

 

Sounds to me like a case of owner deciding archival over maintenance.

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

Well I'd liken it to having someone stealing the log book over and over again. Yeah, that would tick me off enough to archive it.

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

Well I'd liken it to having someone stealing the log book over and over again. Yeah, that would tick me off enough to archive it.

Exactly! You'd maintain the cache for a while by replacing the log book, but eventually you'd realize you could either keep maintaining the cache and find a way to keep them from stealing the log book (move the cache, change the container, etc) or you could decide to no longer maintain the cache and just archive it instead.

 

Excellent example. Thank you!

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

Well I'd liken it to having someone stealing the log book over and over again. Yeah, that would tick me off enough to archive it.

Exactly! You'd maintain the cache for a while by replacing the log book, but eventually you'd realize you could either keep maintaining the cache and find a way to keep them from stealing the log book (move the cache, change the container, etc) or you could decide to no longer maintain the cache and just archive it instead.

 

Excellent example. Thank you!

Following that analogy (since you like it), I'm sure you'd argue that stealing logbooks is not degrading the game because the owners are supposed to maintain their caches... ;) Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... ;)

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

Well I'd liken it to having someone stealing the log book over and over again. Yeah, that would tick me off enough to archive it.

Exactly! You'd maintain the cache for a while by replacing the log book, but eventually you'd realize you could either keep maintaining the cache and find a way to keep them from stealing the log book (move the cache, change the container, etc) or you could decide to no longer maintain the cache and just archive it instead.

 

Excellent example. Thank you!

I guess it depends on your perspective. You can call it a lack of maintenance if you'd like. I would call it rude and boorish behavior by those who were falsely logging stealing it.

 

And you're welcome! :ph34r:

 

Edit: Added falsely logging.

Edited by Trinity's Crew
Link to comment
2. They can result in the archiving of caches.
I still disagree that number 2 on the list is true.

 

Were you able to find an example of a cache that was archived because of fake logs, as opposed to lack of maintenance?

Until they reinstate the ability to search archived caches, that'll be tough for me, but I'm sure someone has an example. In the meantime, imagine there are two grandfathered Virtual Caches named "What a View" and "Virtual History," owned by CacherX and CacherY respectively, neither of whom have been paying any attention to either of them. Suddenly GutenCacher, an armchair cacher from Germany, and his friends all log "Virtual History" without actually visiting the site. This comes to the attention of a reviewer.

Why did this come to the attention of the reviewer? Because some puritan who insists that any alternative game playing is degrading his geocaching experience emails a reviewer to complain the cache isn't being maintained. Why doesn't the puritan exercise his responsibility to let the reviewer know about a virtual with a question that can't be answered with an online search and doesn't have a certificate of achievement that seems to invite this abuse, isn't being maintained when the owner doesn't answer emails to confirm the verification. Instead, the "puritan" has no problem deciding it's OK to log the cache without waiting. I can find plenty of virtuals with armchair logs that aren't being archived, because the cache owner is logging in regularly. The owner is either allowing armchair logging explicitly or doesn't care if someone from Germany is armchair logging his cache. The puritan is just as upset but the cache isn't being archived.

 

First I have to say that I found this cache and am sorry it was archived because it is really a cool place. I think I will submit it as a Best Kept Secret waymark. :ph34r:

 

That said, when I found it I already knew the answer to the question because it was easy to find on the internet. A list of all the pioneers of aviation interred at the Portal of Folded Wings is easy to find. Still the cache owner did try to stop armchair logs. First he added a request : DO NOT POST YOUR LOG ENTRY UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED MY PERMISSION. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS POLICY WILL RESULT IN YOUR LOG ENTRY BEING DELETED. Eventually he even removed the certificate of achievement. I think he was on the right track and had he deleted the logs he felt were bogus, the armchair logging would've have stopped. There were also plenty of options for a verification question that couldn't be answered with a internet search. For example - Send me the name of the person whose marker is directly to the right of Walter R. Brookins the first civilian student and instructor for the Wright brothers. But the cache owner reacted slowly to the fact that his cache was being use for armchair logging, letting armchair loggers think that it was acceptable. He eventually decided not to maintain his cache anymore. - just like the cacher who gets tired of replacing a physical cache that keeps getting muggled. If you are not going to maintain your cache then it is better to archive it.

Link to comment
I would go further and say that all of them have as the root cause of the problem - "Lack of Maintenance" or missing caches.
Too bad that is not true because some virts are getting archived because some owners are getting fed up.... :ph34r:

That's no different than someone archiving a cache because they're tired of replacing the wet log. Instead of maintaining the cache and possibly changing the container, they "got fed up" and archived it.

 

The wet log can't be the reason the cache was archived, it was that the owner decided he wasn't willing to maintain it anymore.

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

Well I'd liken it to having someone stealing the log book over and over again. Yeah, that would tick me off enough to archive it.

Exactly! You'd maintain the cache for a while by replacing the log book, but eventually you'd realize you could either keep maintaining the cache and find a way to keep them from stealing the log book (move the cache, change the container, etc) or you could decide to no longer maintain the cache and just archive it instead.

 

Excellent example. Thank you!

Following that analogy (since you like it), I'm sure you'd argue that stealing logbooks is not degrading the game because the owners are supposed to maintain their caches... ;)

I'd say that so far I haven't seen any evidence that stealing logbooks has led to the degradation of geocaching. ;)

 

So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.

Link to comment

If anyone owns caches and is worried about the potential of fake logs, add a code in every cache to be emailed to you to validate every find. Still ways around it but that's the best you'll do...

 

What's the problem?

 

That solution comes up every now and then. Code word caches by themselves are not allowed. You can do them as an additional logging requirement as long as you also include a cache log. Thats my understanding.

Link to comment
I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.
This is on a virtual, any evidence on a regular cache???

 

I hope not!

 

My initial point of this thread was that I believe if we continue "bury our heads in the sand" on false logging, then it will eventually have a negative impact on geocaching. I would rather see us avoid allowing the degradation of geocaching.

 

Someone in this thread made a comment that there has NEVER been a single virtual cache archived because of false logs. We have now found out that there has been. This just shows me that things are worse than I thought.

 

As I said, I hope there aren't any regular caches that have been archived due to false logs, as this will just further confirm that the degradation is worse than I thought.

Link to comment

...I'd say that so far I haven't seen any evidence that stealing logbooks has led to the degradation of geocaching. :ph34r:

 

So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.

I for one enjoyed reading the log books. That so many have been stolen is a loss of some of the enjoyment that I got out of placing caches.

Link to comment

As I said, I hope there aren't any regular caches that have been archived due to false logs, as this will just further confirm that the degradation is worse than I thought.

There have been traditional caches that have been archived because a cache owner got tired of replacing it when it kept getting muggled. Muggles are degrading geocaching. Let's put a stop to them. :ph34r:

Link to comment
If anyone owns caches and is worried about the potential of fake logs, add a code in every cache to be emailed to you to validate every find. Still ways around it but that's the best you'll do...

 

What's the problem?

If these people lie about logging them you don't think they would find out what the code is? They can Photoshop themselves in photos too. The bottom line is that they will find a way...

 

No matter how much dishonesty there is, some will say that you should enjoy it and keep maintaining your cache. They also say that if it stops being fun then archive it. However, if it stops being fun because of this, then doesn't that mean that geocaching has been degraded for that person? This is the part that I can empathasize with that they can't.... :ph34r:

Link to comment

As I said, I hope there aren't any regular caches that have been archived due to false logs, as this will just further confirm that the degradation is worse than I thought.

There have been traditional caches that have been archived because a cache owner got tired of replacing it when it kept getting muggled. Muggles are degrading geocaching. Let's put a stop to them. :ph34r:

What...you can't do that to the muggles, destroying caches is just how they choose to geocache. It should be left between the muggle and the cache owner to sort out. What right do you have to interfere and force your pompous rules onto those innocent muggles?

 

;););) <--are these what I should use for sarcasm?

Edited by Cedar Grove Seekers
Link to comment

"Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

"Two hundred people have now logged the Portal of The Folded Wings as a find. Many of them actually visited the site and were inspired by these courageous pioneers of aviation. Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

For those of you who came to The Portal with respect and admiration: thank you.

 

For those morally corrupt people who choose to lie and cheat: I suggest you find some other site on the internet to do your dirty deeds. Geocaching is a wholesome, family-friendly activity and those of us who get that do not want to associate with those of you who don't."

 

The owner of your example decided he'd rather not maintain the cache by deleting all the "greetings from Germany" logs, so he archived it. Lack of maintenance gets another one!

 

I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.

 

What do you mean by "We" paleface? I didn't allow anything.

 

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated. It was not because he could not keep up with false logs.

 

He stated the reason - because he was outraged by false logs he chose to close it down. He could have deleted those he thought were false. He never said he couldn't keep up. That is different.

 

Sounds more like he was frustrated that perhaps one or two false log would slip by.

 

False logs at this cache could not degrade my experience had I gone to it. Nor would I have been so easily dissuaded from performing routine maintenance if it were my cache.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Two hundred people have now logged the Portal of The Folded Wings as a find. Many of them actually visited the site and were inspired by these courageous pioneers of aviation. Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

Now that the virtual was archived perhaps someone can place an actual cache at the location to prevent the degradation of the "hobby" and assure that others are not denied the opportunity to visit this site?

 

Or a mystery or offset cache?

Link to comment
Someone in this thread made a comment that there has NEVER been a single virtual cache archived because of false logs.
That would be me, and I still think it's true.

 

We have now found out that there has been.
We've only been show an example of a cache owner not willing to do maintenance on his cache, and choosing to archive it. The fake logs did not archive the cache. Nobody thrust the archival upon the cache owner. TPTB didn't decide that the fake logs were too abundant and the cache had to be archived. It was the owner's choice based on the fact that he didn't want to keep up with the maintenance.

 

This just shows me that things are worse than I thought.
It shows me that you thought things are worse than they are.
Link to comment
Now that the virtual was archived perhaps someone can place an actual cache at the location to prevent the degradation of the "hobby" and assure that others are not denied the opportunity to visit this site?
You can do that now. The cache separation guideline says that it doesn't apply to grandfathered virtuals. :ph34r:
Link to comment
So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.
It seems to me that you are using some oobscure definition of degradation. Who else did that? Oh, yeah...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!Clinton_fingerwag.jpg
:ph34r:
Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House..... ;)
Link to comment
I'd say we've allowed degradation to the point where a cache owner can't even keep up with the false logs.
This is on a virtual, any evidence on a regular cache???

 

I hope not!

 

My initial point of this thread was that I believe if we continue "bury our heads in the sand" on false logging, then it will eventually have a negative impact on geocaching. I would rather see us avoid allowing the degradation of geocaching.

 

Someone in this thread made a comment that there has NEVER been a single virtual cache archived because of false logs. We have now found out that there has been. This just shows me that things are worse than I thought.

 

As I said, I hope there aren't any regular caches that have been archived due to false logs, as this will just further confirm that the degradation is worse than I thought.

 

Once again - this is not logically or factually true.

 

An abandoned, unmaintained virtual cache was archived because it was abandoned - as per GeoCaching policy. The reason this violation of policy was discovered was because someone investigated logs - perhaps false logs.

 

Not the same thing.

 

The other cache was archived because the cache owner decided not to meet his obligation of maintaining a cache and or because he was afraid that even if he followed policy that a false log might occur anyway.

 

Not the same thing.

 

All the aviation virtual cache owner had to do was spend a few minutes deleting logs he thought were bogus or that had not received permission to log a find.

 

From the Department of cutting off your nose to spite your face: One false log that slips though your net does not degrade your cache, my experience or other legitimate cache finder's experience.

 

It is a hobby, no more no less.

 

And please note: The fact that you folks found the cache page and posted links to it here makes the basic objection moot. You can still go find this cache and enjoy your accomplishment to your heart's content. You opportunity to look for this cache was not removed.

 

The only thing left to complain about is the numbers game - you are upset because you cannot increment your find count by one lousy number. Or perhaps you need the praise of the cache owner if you had emailed him with the answer to his lame question that anyone with half a brain could have found by doing a google search from his basement computer.

 

Go look at the memorial and enjoy and don't let some lame false loggers ruin you day or your life. Go have fun, live, enjoy, rejoice.

Link to comment
So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.
It seems to me that you are using some oobscure definition of degradation. Who else did that? Oh, yeah...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
:ph34r:
Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House..... ;)

If you guys want to discuss politics, please take it to the off topic forums. I wish you wouldn't insist on trying to pull this thread off topic again and again and again.

Link to comment
So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.
It seems to me that you are using some oobscure definition of degradation. Who else did that? Oh, yeah...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
:ph34r:
Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House..... ;)

If you guys want to discuss politics, please take it to the off topic forums. I wish you wouldn't insist on trying to pull this thread off topic again and again and again.

Sorry to disrupt your train of thought. They were only quick humerous sidebars that did relate to the issue of why honesty is important.... Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
How can you tell if it is a false log? The fun is finding the cache - so why would someone want to make a false log?

Most of the time you can't tell, which makes it really strange to hear people say that the false logs somehow keep them from enjoying the game. Every once in a while someone will log in such a way that you know it's fake.

 

For instance, there is a large group in Germany that enjoys logging virtuals after finding the required information using an internet search. They typically log with something like "Greetings from Germany" and even though that doesn't prove the log is false, their history makes it very likely. I wouldn't delete the log just for that, but I'd follow up with an email asking them if they were actually there. If they claimed to be, and had the required information, what does it matter?

 

Some loggers will also admit to not being at the cache in some way on their log, and as the cache owner you've got to decide if you'll accept it or not.

 

The only reason I can think of that someone would do this is to enjoy a larger numbers count. The fact that they got that count in a totally different way than is expected doesn't seem to bother them.

 

It also doesn't bother a lot of other people either. If someone fake finds 5,000 caches and their find count is 10 times as high as mine is because of it... I don't care. I'm not competing against anyone.

Link to comment

How can you tell if it is a false log? The fun is finding the cache - so why would someone want to make a false log?

Absolutely - a relatively new forum member "gets it".

 

It is really pretty simple and fun.

 

From the original Post:

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

Appears that the owner of the Aviation virtual cache did not agree with you. Rather than enforce it they chose to shut the cache down.

 

By extrapolation in the extreme, following that model, the thing that would prevent all false logs would be to shut the logging function down completely or shut down GeoCaching.

 

Department of "Cutting Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face".

Link to comment

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

I think I'll go with the cache owner's stated reason for archiving the cache, rather than your guess.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

Link to comment

From the original Post:

 

I am proposing that cache owners who agree with the premise of physically visiting the cache location, do their part to enforce it - don’t allow false logs on your caches, and don’t be embarrassed to enforce this basic notion of geocaching.

 

Appears that the owner of the Aviation virtual cache did not agree with you. Rather than enforce it they chose to shut the cache down.

 

You're right, we have learned that degradation is worse than I originally thought. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Link to comment

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

I think I'll go with the cache owner's stated reason for archiving the cache, rather than your guess.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

I think that this answers your original question. One puts out a cache expecting honesty from one's fellow cachers. Obvious naïveté in this modern world. I've run into this problem myself.

It's not so much a matter of 'not wanting to maintain the cache and logs per the policy', but rather not realizing that it would become such a chore because so many people willfully violate the guidelines. Yes, dishonesty does degrade geocaching when geocaches are archived because of dishonesty.

Link to comment
I also wonder why so many other people want to protect the rights of the false loggers.

Who is doing this?

 

I'm glad I got to read this before leaving work today... Gave me a good laugh!

 

Mushtang, it really depends on how you define "Is" doesn't it? :ph34r:;)

No, it depends on how you define "protect the rights of false loggers". If someone thinks this is what I've been trying to do, then I've obviously done a very bad job of stating my position.

 

Hasn't anyone read my posts where I've said that I'd delete any false logs on my caches if I knew it was false?

 

1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

2) I think owners have the responsibility to delete any logs they know to be fake.

 

(Surely points 1 and 2 don't sound like I'm protecting their "rights" do they?)

3) I don't think that if another owner doesn't delete a false log that it harms my game in any significant way.

4) I don't think false logs left on caches in general will cause a degradation of geocaching.

 

(These two points only speak to what affect the logs have on me and the game, not on if the logs should be allowed or not)

 

Those are the only points that I think I've made in this thread. Maybe that makes it more clear.

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

I think I'll go with the cache owner's stated reason for archiving the cache, rather than your guess.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

Contumacious refusal to see facts.

 

Cache owner decided to archive cache. Cache owner said he refused to follow the policy. I did not guess, the cache owner stated it in the archive message.

 

False logs did not result in archiving of cache. Cache owner deciding to archive rather than delete false logs. Following policy and deleting false logs and leaving the cache in place would result in the cache being active.

 

It was not false logs, it was not GeoCache policy, it was the cache owner's imposition of his set of values that resulted in his decision to archive the cache rather than meet his obligation to maintain the cache per policy.

 

To me, you might as well argue that using a blue pen to sign a log leads to degradation of GeoCaching if one cache owner objects to blue ink and archives a cache because he cannot prevent the use of blue ink.

 

These are very infantile arguments.

 

If I do not respond to any future statements from you please feel free to assume that I think they have already been thoroughly refuted in many previous posts.

Link to comment

For you folks that want to inflict your moralizing on everyone else because it is not enough for you to be miserable, you are upset that someone somewhere might be having fun,

 

I’d say that you have not been able to support your premise in any factual or effective way. You are just plowing the same fruitless ground over and over again.

 

If you come up with something new and interesting I may respond.

 

Mean time you can suffer knowing that I am out there having fun, finding caches, and looking for caches and sometimes coming up empty. False logs, if there be any, cannot degrade me. I do not think false logs are getting ridiculous.

 

You cannot convince me that I am degraded, so give up trying.

 

And suffer – I am having fun. You can’t stop me.

Link to comment
So far I haven't seen any evidence that fake logging has led to the degradation of geocaching.
It seems to me that you are using some oobscure definition of degradation. Who else did that? Oh, yeah...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman!
;)
Romney, made that comment that if Hillary gets in office, he can only imagine what Bill will be doing with all that free time in the White House..... :ph34r:
If you guys want to discuss politics, please take it to the off topic forums. I wish you wouldn't insist on trying to pull this thread off topic again and again and again.
My post wasn't off topic.

 

You keep saying you see no evidence of degradation.

 

Clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky.

 

In both cases, I'm sure you both believe you are speaking the truth, because your definition of what is being questioned is different than what is being perceived.

 

Some evidence:

  • People getting frustrated and archiving caches because of bogus logs
  • Caches needing maintenance not getting it because of false logs
  • A perceived cheapening of logs because of armchair cachers
  • Loss of trust amongst cachers

I know there's more that others have mentioned in this thread. This is what came to mind just now.

 

Mushtang -

 

Two questions:

 

Can you deny there are not examples of these things happening?

 

If these things I list aren't degradation, what are they?

Link to comment

No, it depends on how you define "protect the rights of false loggers". If someone thinks this is what I've been trying to do, then I've obviously done a very bad job of stating my position.

 

Hasn't anyone read my posts where I've said that I'd delete any false logs on my caches if I knew it was false?

 

1) I don't think people should log caches as Found if they didn't find them.

2) I think owners have the responsibility to delete any logs they know to be fake.

 

(Surely points 1 and 2 don't sound like I'm protecting their "rights" do they?)

3) I don't think that if another owner doesn't delete a false log that it harms my game in any significant way.

4) I don't think false logs left on caches in general will cause a degradation of geocaching.

 

(These two points only speak to what affect the logs have on me and the game, not on if the logs should be allowed or not)

 

Those are the only points that I think I've made in this thread. Maybe that makes it more clear.

Mushtang, I agree that you haven't been protecting the rights of false loggers. I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote that. I believe our disagreement has more to do with whether or not false logs will degrade geocaching.

 

I was responding to a new poster who seemed surprised that anyone would want to make false logs. I was thinking of several different posts from various people, not only in this thread, but a few other related threads, that seemed to defend the rights of false loggers.

 

I even alluded to this in my original post;

 

...there are also many with the opinion that “if it’s not directly affecting you, then you shouldn’t worry about what other people do”. I personally think that this latter attitude, as it relates to false logs, will ultimately have a very negative impact on geocaching.

 

My concern has always been with false logs, and those who defend them.

Link to comment

I would say you missed the cache owner's message as to why the cache was deactivated.

 

Root cause: Cache owner decided he did not want to maintain the cache and logs per the policy.

 

I think I'll go with the cache owner's stated reason for archiving the cache, rather than your guess.

 

Regrettably, this cache is now archived and I will not reactivate it. You can blame liars and cheaters for the fact that you will no longer be allowed to log this virtual cache.

 

Some, however, never actually visited the site. Instead, they chose to abuse the system and cheat. This goes against my ethics as well as the standards of Geocaching, and I will not be a party to it.

 

Contumacious refusal to see facts.

 

Cache owner decided to archive cache. Cache owner said he refused to follow the policy. I did not guess, the cache owner stated it in the archive message.

 

False logs did not result in archiving of cache. Cache owner deciding to archive rather than delete false logs. Following policy and deleting false logs and leaving the cache in place would result in the cache being active.

 

It was not false logs, it was not GeoCache policy, it was the cache owner's imposition of his set of values that resulted in his decision to archive the cache rather than meet his obligation to maintain the cache per policy.

Now who's being naive?

 

To me, you might as well argue that using a blue pen to sign a log leads to degradation of GeoCaching if one cache owner objects to blue ink and archives a cache because he cannot prevent the use of blue ink.

 

These are very infantile arguments.

 

If I do not respond to any future statements from you please feel free to assume that I think they have already been thoroughly refuted in many previous posts.

 

With all due respect HMY, I miss your logic entirely concerning false logs not causing the archiving of a cache. You have been completely unconvincing in showing that the archiving of this cache due to false logs is not a form of degradation.

Link to comment
Mushtang -

 

Two questions:

 

Can you deny there are not examples of these things happening?

[*]People getting frustrated and archiving caches because of bogus logs

I deny that the logs are the reason for the archival. When stated the way you say it, it sounds like the loggers came along and caused the archival of the cache against the will of the owner. You make it sound as if the owner preferred that the cache stay open but the logs forced the archive.

 

These owners no longer want to do the required maintenance on their caches, so they choose to archive their own caches. The archival is not forced upon them.

 

The fact that they're getting frustrated is also an indication that they're not willing to perform maintenance on their caches. To me it's no different than a cache getting archived because the log keeps getting full of signatures. There are things a cache owner can do to make it WAY easier to identify the false loggers, especially on virtual caches! If a cache owner chooses to let false loggers make him frustrated, then he can also choose to do something to save the cache.

 

If he chooses to archive it instead of doing maintenance, you can't blame the loggers for the archival. You can only blame them for their logs.

 

[*]Caches needing maintenance not getting it because of false logs

I deny that false logs is keeping an owner from doing the maintenance. False logs are a reason to DO maintenance. I can't say that a broken lid on a tupperware container is keeping an owner from doing maintenance either. Broken lids should be replaced, water should be removed from cache containers, false logs should be deleted, log books should be replaced when full, ripped baggies should be replaced, pencils should be sharpened.

 

[*]A perceived cheapening of logs because of armchair cachers

There's no perception of cheapening on my part. I've talked to a few other cachers who also agree. I can't understand why I should allow my feelings towards a game I play and enjoy change because of the way someone else plays the game (in this case a person logging a fake find, or the owner not deleting it).

 

When I'm shooting pool with friends at my house, should I care that in another house down the street someone else playing pool is randomly putting balls into the pockets with their hands? Or even worse, that the owner of the table knows about it and lets them? This behavior, if known to me, would not cheapen the game of pool.

 

[*]Loss of trust amongst cachers

The same with trust. I don't see a lot of trust that can be damaged to begin with, and I don't see how much damage to trust this can cause. If I know a person enjoys false logging, I agree that I'll view their find count slightly different than my own if I even remember that they do this. The number of find totals that really matter to me is very small, and I know exactly what they're worth.

 

If these things I list aren't degradation, what are they?
They don't seem like degradation to me. I guess they're examples of things that you can choose to let bother you if you want, but I choose not to. They're reasons that several people in this thread are getting upset about, and I can't understand it.
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...