Jump to content

Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?


Cedar Grove Seekers
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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.

 

This is pretty lame. There are many reasons and examples of degradation, other than 'competition', provided in this thread. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that we don't too.

Link to comment
A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.
But wait, in the very next paragraph you say this:
...putting out inaccurate information which might mislead other cachers ... is inherently bad.... A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information...
If putting out misleading info is inherently bad, and a fake log can confuse & mislead another cacher, doesn't that mean that fake logs are misleading and thus inherently bad?

Here is the critical part you apparently missed:

 

Either can occur without the other.

For review, here is the entire statement again, in context and uncut:

 

A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

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.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

Not all bogus logs generate bad or misleading information.

 

Not all bad or misleading information comes in the form of bogus logs.

 

Either can occur without the other.

 

Bad or misleading information IS inherently bad; this fact is not in dispute, and this concept is off-topic for this thread.

 

Bogus logs are NOT inherently bad; this statement has not been disproven, and this concept is the very essence this thread.

 

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.
This is a pretty lame argument. There is no way you can truthfully tell me that I care about false logs because it it ruining my find count. Other than what I share here in the forums, you have absolutely no way of knowing what I think and feel.

 

Wait, it isn't an argument at all, it is an attempt to stigmatize the position of people you are arguing with. Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

I did not attack people; I attacked their arguments. There is therefore no Ad Hominem.

 

I did not present the idea as fact. I presented it as a strong suspicion. My statement is a summary of my suspicion. I have presented that concept several times in this thread, yet no one has challenged it; this lack of refutation only strengthens my suspicion.

 

You are correct in pointing out that I can’t prove it. There are many things I can’t prove, yet that I nevertheless strongly suspect.

 

Do you have anything to say which might convince me that my strong suspicion is erroneous?

 

Logging a cache you didn’t find is something I neither support nor recommend. I advise against it because it is silly, pointless, asinine and futile. It is NOT, however, inherently evil. Bogus logs do not cause any Dark-Side ripple throughout the Force.
Bogus logs will, however, make it look like missing caches have been found. They will cause consternation and aggravation for cache owners who have to police the logs for the caches they placed because they thought it would be fun.

Please see my many, many responses to this argument above. My response to Briansnat, for example. My response to you earlier in this very post, for another example.

Link to comment

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.

This is pretty lame. There are many reasons and examples of degradation, other than 'competition', provided in this thread. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that we don't too.

Valid examples? I haven't seen any.

 

Just because someone chooses to be uncomfortable about a thing doesn't make the thing wrong.

Link to comment

None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs...

Who are the folks in this thread that report feeling degraded?

Well, I’d say the first example occurs in post number one:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

Should I keep going?

Link to comment

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.

This is pretty lame. There are many reasons and examples of degradation, other than 'competition', provided in this thread. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean that we don't too.

Valid examples? I haven't seen any.

 

Just because someone chooses to be uncomfortable about a thing doesn't make the thing wrong.

Nice try. Once again, just because you don't feel the examples are valid doesn't mean that we agree with you.

Link to comment

None of the folks in this thread who report feeling "degraded" by bogus logs...

Who are the folks in this thread that report feeling degraded?

Well, I’d say the first example occurs in post number one:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

Should I keep going?

Please. I don't see where I've reported to feel degraded.

Link to comment
Nice try. Once again, just because you don't feel the examples are valid doesn't mean that we agree with you.

Nobody has convinced me that false logs are in any way intrinsically "degrading." I am not trying to make you agree with me. You are the one who made the claim; I believe that puts the burden of proof on you.

 

Please. I don't see where I've reported to feel degraded.

The claim that false logs are in some way intrinsically degrading to the entire hobby, which includes you and me, seems to be the primary point of your Original Post. If not, then what did I misunderstand?

Link to comment
Nice try. Once again, just because you don't feel the examples are valid doesn't mean that we agree with you.

Nobody has convinced me that false logs are in any way intrinsically "degrading." I am not trying to make you agree with me. You are the one who made the claim; I believe that puts the burden of proof on you.

Maybe that's why this thread has gone on for more than 1000 posts, because you are waiting for proof. I'm not really sure that my initial claim can be proven or disproved. Like most other posts, I felt it was an opinion worth discussing.

 

Please. I don't see where I've reported to feel degraded.

The claim that false logs are in some way intrinsically degrading to the entire hobby, which includes you and me, seems to be the primary point of your Original Post. If not, then what did I misunderstand?

Yup, degrading to the hobby. The posts that insist that one should not feel "personally degraded" seem to be missing the point.

Link to comment
Nice try. Once again, just because you don't feel the examples are valid doesn't mean that we agree with you.

Nobody has convinced me that false logs are in any way intrinsically "degrading." I am not trying to make you agree with me. You are the one who made the claim; I believe that puts the burden of proof on you.

Maybe that's why this thread has gone on for more than 1000 posts, because you are waiting for proof. I'm not really sure that my initial claim can be proven or disproved. Like most other posts, I felt it was an opinion worth discussing.

If it’s something you feel so strongly about, then it’s something you should presumably be able to explain, at least.

 

Please. I don't see where I've reported to feel degraded.

The claim that false logs are in some way intrinsically degrading to the entire hobby, which includes you and me, seems to be the primary point of your Original Post. If not, then what did I misunderstand?

Yup, degrading to the hobby. The posts that insist that one should not feel "personally degraded" seem to be missing the point.

You've lost me. Can you please explain how something can have a moral affect on "the hobby" without having a moral affect on the persons who constitute the hobby?

Link to comment
I did not present the idea as fact. I presented it as a strong suspicion. My statement is a summary of my suspicion.

It's AMAZING how you can throw out opinion yet DEMAND proof from others who do the same!! :D

As I said to you before: I have demanded nothing.

 

The burden of proof is on those who have made the questionable claim, not on those of us who remain unconvinced.

 

BTW: I notice you still haven't answered my question. :D

Link to comment
Nice try. Once again, just because you don't feel the examples are valid doesn't mean that we agree with you.

Nobody has convinced me that false logs are in any way intrinsically "degrading." I am not trying to make you agree with me. You are the one who made the claim; I believe that puts the burden of proof on you.

Maybe that's why this thread has gone on for more than 1000 posts, because you are waiting for proof. I'm not really sure that my initial claim can be proven or disproved. Like most other posts, I felt it was an opinion worth discussing.

If it’s something you feel so strongly about, then it’s something you should presumably be able to explain, at least.

I'd say it's been explained by myself, and by numerous others. As to whether you accept and agree with the explanations is another story. I'm pretty sure we're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

Please. I don't see where I've reported to feel degraded.

The claim that false logs are in some way intrinsically degrading to the entire hobby, which includes you and me, seems to be the primary point of your Original Post. If not, then what did I misunderstand?

Yup, degrading to the hobby. The posts that insist that one should not feel "personally degraded" seem to be missing the point.

You've lost me. Can you please explain how something can have a moral affect on "the hobby" without having a moral affect on the persons who constitute the hobby?

It's pretty simple. I can have a diminished opinion of the hobby as a whole without having a diminished opinion of myself.
Link to comment

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!

Link to comment
I did not present the idea as fact. I presented it as a strong suspicion. My statement is a summary of my suspicion.

It's AMAZING how you can throw out opinion yet DEMAND proof from others who do the same!! :D

As I said to you before: I have demanded nothing.

 

The burden of proof is on those who have made the questionable claim, not on those of us who remain unconvinced.

 

BTW: I notice you still haven't answered my question. :D

Yeah I did, in several posts here and in other threads just like this....look, others can probably understand my position or at least haven't asked me to explain, therefore, I take that to mean my position has been adequately stated. I haven't had to ask others to clarify mainly because I read the thread (although admittedly skimmingly...but I still get the jist)...so why must you have me clarify? So...like I've said, read the thread!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
Nobody has convinced me that false logs are in any way intrinsically "degrading." I am not trying to make you agree with me. You are the one who made the claim; I believe that puts the burden of proof on you.

Maybe that's why this thread has gone on for more than 1000 posts, because you are waiting for proof. I'm not really sure that my initial claim can be proven or disproved. Like most other posts, I felt it was an opinion worth discussing.

If it’s something you feel so strongly about, then it’s something you should presumably be able to explain, at least.

I'd say it's been explained by myself, and by numerous others. As to whether you accept and agree with the explanations is another story. I'm pretty sure we're going to have to agree to disagree.

It's not so much an "agreement to disagree" as it is an "unproved claim made to an unconvinced audience."

 

I’ve enjoyed it, though. :D

 

The claim that false logs are in some way intrinsically degrading to the entire hobby, which includes you and me, seems to be the primary point of your Original Post. If not, then what did I misunderstand?

Yup, degrading to the hobby. The posts that insist that one should not feel "personally degraded" seem to be missing the point.

You've lost me. Can you please explain how something can have a moral affect on "the hobby" without having a moral affect on the persons who constitute the hobby?

It's pretty simple. I can have a diminished opinion of the hobby as a whole without having a diminished opinion of myself.

When you posted this:

 

I certainly don’t agree with false logs, and I try not to let them bother me, but the fact is they do directly affect me. False logs degrade the game/hobby/sport/activity of geocaching, and what it means to be a geocacher.

... I took you at your word.

 

When you say:

 

"The fact is [the false logs] do directly affect me."

 

...and...

 

"False logs degrade ... what it means to be a geocacher"

 

... I took that to mean that you not only perceive general degradation, but that you also take it personal as well.

 

If you’ve changed your mind since you wrote those lines, that’s fine.

Link to comment
BTW: I notice you still haven't answered my question. :D

Yeah I did, in several posts here and in other threads just like this....

Fine. I get it. You want to claim that there are "cheaters" without actually having to back up your accusation.

 

Works for me!

 

You know KBI, you impress me as someone who can do a bit of detective work to find the answers you want...hey, you showed that a few posts up!!! Maybe, just maybe you can look back and realize one thing: I came into this a bit late and picked up from where others had left off. Others were using the word cheat, I just picked up on and continued using it. Why not go ask the first person who used it why THEY used it? BUT, while doing this, why not just read the thread and figure it out...I did!

 

I've also grown tired of this fun, going to bed. I suspect though that you were merely churning the waters (not quite trolling) for the fun of it...if so, THANKS, it was fun! (this was an opinion and therefore in no way needs being proven) :D

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
For review, here is the entire statement again, in context and uncut:
A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

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.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

Not all bogus logs generate bad or misleading information.

Hold the phone. You said, in the post just right above this statement:
A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information...
So, while not all bogus logs are bad, at least some are?

 

Give me some general examples of bogus logs that aren't misleading.

Bad or misleading information IS inherently bad; this fact is not in dispute, and this concept is off-topic for this thread.
Sadly, you don't get to decide what is off topic.

 

Only you seem to be bringing up misleading information outside the context of bogus logs. Bad information CAN be found in bogus logs, thus is dead on topic.

Bogus logs are NOT inherently bad; this statement has not been disproven, and this concept is the very essence this thread.
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.
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.
This is a pretty lame argument. There is no way you can truthfully tell me that I care about false logs because it it ruining my find count. Other than what I share here in the forums, you have absolutely no way of knowing what I think and feel.

 

Wait, it isn't an argument at all, it is an attempt to stigmatize the position of people you are arguing with. Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

I did not attack people; I attacked their arguments. There is therefore no Ad Hominem.
By attempting to attach a stigma to the people holding a certain viewpoint, you are attacking the person. Regardless of which logical fallacy it is, trying to weaken someone's position by trying to argue that they believe one thing when the topic of discussion is another is just plain backwards.
Bogus logs will, however, make it look like missing caches have been found. They will cause consternation and aggravation for cache owners who have to police the logs for the caches they placed because they thought it would be fun.
Please see my many, many responses to this argument above. My response to Briansnat, for example. My response to you earlier in this very post, for another example.
I find your earlier responses in this post and others unconvincing.
Link to comment

Please see my many, many responses to this argument above. My response to Briansnat, for example. My response to you earlier in this very post, for another example.I find your earlier responses in this post and others unconvincing.

 

You mean YOUR response was there for all to see and you DON'T want to bother to jump when someone demands you to make another reply?? Really? COME ON, post a reply here, why won't you reply?? :D:D remind you of anything?

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
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?

:rolleyes:

 

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.

Link to comment

Fine. I get it. You want to claim that there are "cheaters" without actually having to back up your accusation.

 

Works for me!

You know KBI, you impress me as someone who can do a bit of detective work to find the answers you want...hey, you showed that a few posts up!!! Maybe, just maybe you can look back and realize one thing: I came into this a bit late and picked up from where others had left off. Others were using the word cheat, I just picked up on and continued using it. Why not go ask the first person who used it why THEY used it? BUT, while doing this, why not just read the thread and figure it out...I did!

I’m not asking you why others were using the word. I’m asking you why you used the word. I've made that clear several times.

 

You made a suggestion nobody else has made. You said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I merely want to know what you meant when you used the word in that context in your post, not what anybody else might have meant in their post.

 

Since you used the word, you must have some definition of it in your head, right? Is it asking so much to request to hear it out loud?

 

I've also grown tired of this fun, going to bed. I suspect though that you were merely churning the waters (not quite trolling) for the fun of it...if so, THANKS, it was fun!

Careful there.

 

Enjoying a debate and trolling a debate are two very different things. I am guilty of the former, but if you accuse me – or anyone, for that matter – of the latter, then you’d better be prepared to back it up.

Link to comment

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?

 

Nope. A DNF means that cacher can't find the cache. It's an indicator of how hard the hide is. It's a DNF when the cache isn't there that's a bit fuzzy. But since you have no way to know for sure as a finder your tool is the DNF log.

Link to comment

Fine. I get it. You want to claim that there are "cheaters" without actually having to back up your accusation.

 

Works for me!

You know KBI, you impress me as someone who can do a bit of detective work to find the answers you want...hey, you showed that a few posts up!!! Maybe, just maybe you can look back and realize one thing: I came into this a bit late and picked up from where others had left off. Others were using the word cheat, I just picked up on and continued using it. Why not go ask the first person who used it why THEY used it? BUT, while doing this, why not just read the thread and figure it out...I did!

I’m not asking you why others were using the word. I’m asking you why you used the word. I've made that clear several times.

 

You made a suggestion nobody else has made. You said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I merely want to know what you meant when you used the word in that context in your post, not what anybody else might have meant in their post.

 

Since you used the word, you must have some definition of it in your head, right? Is it asking so much to request to hear it out loud?

 

I've also grown tired of this fun, going to bed. I suspect though that you were merely churning the waters (not quite trolling) for the fun of it...if so, THANKS, it was fun!

Careful there.

 

Enjoying a debate and trolling a debate are two very different things. I am guilty of the former, but if you accuse me – or anyone, for that matter – of the latter, then you’d better be prepared to back it up.

 

How about you tell your brother that too then...K? I also merely stated an opinion (was even written right there for you to read)...as was pointed out BY YOU, opinions (or "strong suspicions") need not be proven. Can't handle it when on the other foot?

 

And BTW...I was AGREEING with a previous statement made by another....maybe you missed it. My comment about getting rid of the cheaters was an agreement with the earlier comment (which is why you might try reading the thread before jumping in). You're continual haprping is comical...makes you look like you think you're in charge of an interrogation...lighten Mr Lawyer! Try going back to that post and reading the comment...it says "YEAH, get rd of..." See, I'm AGREEING with a comment made before mine. NOW, unless you are merely picking at my posts, why not ask THAT PERSON since THEY actually made the (or similar) statement in which I was agreeing? SHEESH...I truly thought you were smarter than this display leads me to believe!

 

BTW...you want a "definition", look in the dictionary! Also, I said churning...in case you missed that!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

Interestingly enough I just got a bogus log on an archived cache. It says more or less "we looked when the cache wasn'st there the owner didn't replace the cache so we are claiming it as a find".

 

Here are the facts.

The cache was archived due to lack of maintance on my part as intreptered by this site. The cache actually was replaced on my planned maintace run after the archival here. Their log reminded me that I needed to get it listed again on another site. What I don't know is if the cache fell down the embankment. Too much snow to look and check out that option. The orginal cache may still be there.

 

I invited them to change their log to a note as the cache on GC.com is closed for business and to log their find on the other site when they find the cache. I'll give them about a week and then delete the log if they haven't done anyhting.

Link to comment

Fine. I get it. You want to claim that there are "cheaters" without actually having to back up your accusation.

 

Works for me!

You know KBI, you impress me as someone who can do a bit of detective work to find the answers you want...hey, you showed that a few posts up!!! Maybe, just maybe you can look back and realize one thing: I came into this a bit late and picked up from where others had left off. Others were using the word cheat, I just picked up on and continued using it. Why not go ask the first person who used it why THEY used it? BUT, while doing this, why not just read the thread and figure it out...I did!

I’m not asking you why others were using the word. I’m asking you why you used the word. I've made that clear several times.

 

You made a suggestion nobody else has made. You said "Get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier." I merely want to know what you meant when you used the word in that context in your post, not what anybody else might have meant in their post.

 

Since you used the word, you must have some definition of it in your head, right? Is it asking so much to request to hear it out loud?

 

I've also grown tired of this fun, going to bed. I suspect though that you were merely churning the waters (not quite trolling) for the fun of it...if so, THANKS, it was fun!

Careful there.

 

Enjoying a debate and trolling a debate are two very different things. I am guilty of the former, but if you accuse me – or anyone, for that matter – of the latter, then you’d better be prepared to back it up.

 

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.

Link to comment
For review, here is the entire statement again, in context and uncut:
A bogus find log is not intrinsically bad.

 

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.

 

A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information, but: apart from that detail, the mere fact that someone claims a find on a cache they did not find is not an inherently evil thing.

Not all bogus logs generate bad or misleading information.

Hold the phone. You said, in the post just right above this statement:
A fake log can create confusion just like any other form of bad information...
So, while not all bogus logs are bad, at least some are?

 

Give me some general examples of bogus logs that aren't misleading.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious, but I’ve been wrong before. Here are two examples that have been discussed in this very thread:

 

(1) Cache owner posts a "Found It" to his own cache page each time he posts what would otherwise normally be considered only a note or a maintenance visit. I have seen this happen more than once. The cache owner is clearly posting a bogus find – how can one find one’s own cache? – yet there is no likelihood of the reader of the bogus logs being misled in such a way as to cause inconvenience.

 

(2) Cacher A finds a cache. While standing over the cache, he phones Cacher B and offers to write Cacher B’s name in the log so that Cacher B can then claim a find online. Cacher B then proceeds to post what is clearly a bogus log, yet one that can in no way cause any harm – at least not to anyone who does not possess over-delicate moral sensibilities or uncontrollable competitive urges.

 

Both logs are bogus. Both versions have been discussed in this thread. Neither will mislead any cache owner or cache seeker as to the true status of the condition of the cache container.

 

Bad or misleading information IS inherently bad; this fact is not in dispute, and this concept is off-topic for this thread.
Sadly, you don't get to decide what is off topic.

 

Only you seem to be bringing up misleading information outside the context of bogus logs. Bad information CAN be found in bogus logs, thus is dead on topic.

This thread is chock full of people using the practical/misleading argument in place of the moral/degradation argument. No, I don’t get to decide what is off topic. I can, however, read. I read the Original Post. The Original Post makes it clear what this thread is about. If the Original Poster wants to allow such topic drift and bring in other discussions, that is his prerogative – at least as for as the Mods will allow it, that is.

Link to comment

Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather ...

 

Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier (well, not those who wish to cheat)!

Here it is so you don't have to do any work KBI....right here so you can STOP harassing me with this inquisition of yours!

IMPG made the comment about what to do with the bogus cachers, RK said there should be something like bogie b gone and I agreed! I also said we'd ALL be happier...well save those who do the cheating!

 

Now, why not go straight to the source and ask RK why he feels we should get rid of the bogus cachers (or "cheats" as they've aslo been called numerous times by many others here)...

Link to comment
Bogus logs are NOT inherently bad; this statement has not been disproven, and this concept is the very essence this thread.
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, and is therefore extraneous to the strawman argument that keeps popping up.

 

It is an irrelevant point to an irrelevant argument.

 

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.
This is a pretty lame argument. There is no way you can truthfully tell me that I care about false logs because it it ruining my find count. Other than what I share here in the forums, you have absolutely no way of knowing what I think and feel.

 

Wait, it isn't an argument at all, it is an attempt to stigmatize the position of people you are arguing with. Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

I did not attack people; I attacked their arguments. There is therefore no Ad Hominem.
By attempting to attach a stigma to the people holding a certain viewpoint, you are attacking the person. Regardless of which logical fallacy it is, trying to weaken someone's position by trying to argue that they believe one thing when the topic of discussion is another is just plain backwards.

I have attacked no person; I have merely questioned their argument. If anyone chooses to take personal offense anyway then that is their choice; personal offense, however, is not my intent. My intent is to discuss people’s reasons for choosing to see a moral/degradation issue where none exists.

 

I stated my suspicion, and I gave my supporting reasons. If anyone wants to refuse my statement they are welcome to do so. I invited you to do so. You have apparently declined.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather ...

 

Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier (well, not those who wish to cheat)!

Here it is so you don't have to do any work KBI....right here so you can STOP harassing me with this inquisition of yours!

IMPG made the comment about what to do with the bogus cachers, RK said there should be something like bogie b gone and I agreed! I also said we'd ALL be happier...well save those who do the cheating!

 

Now, why not go straight to the source and ask RK why he feels we should get rid of the bogus cachers (or "cheats" as they've aslo been called numerous times by many others here)...

I wasn't asking you to show me where you made the post. I already saw your post. Quoted it several times, in fact.

 

I was merely asking you to explain why you chose to use the word 'cheat.' If you aren't interested in explaining, that's fine -- no reason to get upset about it.

Link to comment
Bogus logs are NOT inherently bad; this statement has not been disproven, and this concept is the very essence this thread.
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, and is therefore extraneous to the strawman argument that keeps popping up.

 

It is an irrelevant point to an irrelevant argument.

 

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.
This is a pretty lame argument. There is no way you can truthfully tell me that I care about false logs because it it ruining my find count. Other than what I share here in the forums, you have absolutely no way of knowing what I think and feel.

 

Wait, it isn't an argument at all, it is an attempt to stigmatize the position of people you are arguing with. Ad Hominem, a logical fallacy.

I did not attack people; I attacked their arguments. There is therefore no Ad Hominem.
By attempting to attach a stigma to the people holding a certain viewpoint, you are attacking the person. Regardless of which logical fallacy it is, trying to weaken someone's position by trying to argue that they believe one thing when the topic of discussion is another is just plain backwards.

I have attacked no person; I have merely questioned their argument. If anyone chooses to take personal offense anyway then that is their choice; personal offense, however, is not my intent. My intent is to discuss people’s reasons for choosing to see a moral/degradation issue where none exists.

 

I stated my suspicion, and I gave my supporting reasons. If anyone wants to refuse my statement they are welcome to do so. I invited you to do so. You have apparently declined.

 

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

Link to comment

This is a really wacky thread. The OP set it up to be long and angsty by crafting the topic the way he did. If he merely asked what could be done about 'armchair' logging, then I suspect that it would go for a page or two and everyone would pretty much agree that cache owners can (and should) control fake logging and that it would likely mostly go away if owners took control. People would also largely agree that the proper way to handle these logs is the one described by RK, to maintain communication and delete the log if the cacher won't change it.

 

Unfortunately, the OP couched the issue as one that would destroy the game and that all cachers should take action against it. This created a bunch of arguing about whether any degregation to the game actually happens because fake logs are few and side discussions as to whether this is an issue that should be handled by cache owners or if it is appropriate for some to become cache police.

 

Like most threads, it also allowed some participants to expand the topic further to include logging beyond bogus 'armchair' finds. Combine all these issues and the thread became ugly and completely useless as a vehicle to discuss the problem.

 

How about we put this thread to bed? If the mods won't close it, let's just let it drift away.

Link to comment
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 go with numbers 2, 4 and 8

 

Cheat

1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.

2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.

3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.

–verb (used without object)

4. to practice fraud or deceit

5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.

6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.

7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

–noun

8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.

9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.

10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.

11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Maybe the topic should be what to do about bogus cachers rather ...

 

Good point. Bogus cachers make bogus logs. The logs are just a symptom. Unfortunatly they are the only thing we have any control over. I'd love to spray my cache with "bogie be gone" and have them repelled.

ABSOLUTELY...get rid of the cheats and we'd ALL be happier (well, not those who wish to cheat)!

Here it is so you don't have to do any work KBI....right here so you can STOP harassing me with this inquisition of yours!

IMPG made the comment about what to do with the bogus cachers, RK said there should be something like bogie b gone and I agreed! I also said we'd ALL be happier...well save those who do the cheating!

 

Now, why not go straight to the source and ask RK why he feels we should get rid of the bogus cachers (or "cheats" as they've aslo been called numerous times by many others here)...

I wasn't asking you to show me where you made the post. I already saw your post. Quoted it several times, in fact.

 

I was merely asking you to explain why you chose to use the word 'cheat.' If you aren't interested in explaining, that's fine -- no reason to get upset about it.

I've done explained all I will here, you can continue to ask all you please. Not accepting my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer, just that you didn't hear what you wanted to! Your continuing the interrogation, that is what is getting me upset!

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 go with numbers 2, 4 and 8

 

Cheat

2. to deceive;

4. to practice fraud or deceit

8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.

I will agree that a bogus log deceives. I have never argued that point, although I have pointed out that the deception is frequently benign.

 

What I do not understand is how anyone is morally defrauded by a bogus in such a way as to bring degradation to the game. Can you explain how a bogus log morally defrauds you and causes you degradation?

 

[EDIT: messed up the quote. It's fixed now.]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

Cripe, some get all caught up with the "competition" aspect. I swear this would go away if some would STOP trying to make everything into a "it's about the numbers" argument. Someone can cheat w/o competing, it's been done before!

 

AMAZING how some get all hung up on the numbers aspect even when no one else is even suggesting this...

Link to comment

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.

The false loggers are competing for numbers, and hence are cheats. They may not be competing with you and me, but they are still cheating.

Link to comment

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.

I agree, there are a LOT of people that compete in this game, even though it wasn't set up as a competition. Some people are openly in competition, and some people secretly love to compare their high numbers to the lower numbers of others.

 

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. They're mostly upset with what they perceive as cheating because they're not able to compare their numbers as successfully any more.

Link to comment
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.

 

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!

 

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!

Link to comment

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.

I agree, there are a LOT of people that compete in this game, even though it wasn't set up as a competition. Some people are openly in competition, and some people secretly love to compare their high numbers to the lower numbers of others.

 

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. They're mostly upset with what they perceive as cheating because they're not able to compare their numbers as successfully any more.

 

Can you back up this statement or are you merely making inflamatory remarks here. PROVE this to me please! Back up this with some proof would you please! Your brother seems to think everyone needs to justify their statements, can you back yours?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...