Are we allowing the degradation of geocaching?

[+KBI]

Why is it that the pro phony log brigade are the ones who are always bringing up numbers?

Wait ... you’re saying there are people here who actually endorse and promote bogus find logs? Who are these people to whom you refer who are "pro phony logs?"

I took a bit of time off this afternoon (unfortunately is was not spent geocaching). What happened to the good will this morning?

What happened is that someone, apparently unhappy with sitting back and watching peace break out in the thread, has decided to pull the pin on a brand new strawman and toss it into the crowd.

While Briansnat is completely responsible for any post he makes in this thread he bears NO responsibility for the reactions to those posts. THAT responsibility lies completely with those who respond to him.

I disagree. In my opinion, a trolling comment is little different than yelling 'fire' in the proverbial crowded theater. If a person takes an action that he knows will cause a certain response, he's responsible for the response.

I'm somewhere in the middle between Trinity's Crew and Sbell here.

 

While I agree with Trinity's Crew that it is my choice whether to respond to the strawman, and therefore my fault if my response causes any problem, the fact remains that the argument Briansnat responded to with his post is a fictitious invention created by Briansnat, not a position that any actual thread participant has put forward. Briansnat is not 'trolling' with his post, at least not that I can tell; he is merely employing a logical fallacy.

 

On the other hand, I think Sbell understands that it is fallacious posts like Briansnat’s, and the predictable responses that follow, that traditionally and consistently cause worthwhile threads like this to get locked down by the Mods.

 

When a participant on one side of a forum debate tosses out a fallacy, like Briansnat did, it leaves those opposing his statement with a frustrating dilemma:

 

Does one:

(1) Ignore his fallacious argument and appear to agree with it? Or does one

(2) Tackle and expose the fallacy, an act which is guaranteed to:

- add to the existing noise by encouraging an off-topic wrangle over parliamentary procedure, leading to

- an agitation of the itchy thread-shooting trigger finger of whichever of the Mods is feeling cranky today?

 

It's a difficult choice.

[+Too Tall John]

Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

I think, KBI, what needs to be done here, is for people to remember that morality and ethics are different for different people. To say that they simply don't apply in this case might be true for you, but might not be true for someone else.

 

If we all keep that in mind, I think we'll all come to common ground faster. I emphasize the "all" because I'm not really just addressing those who are taking the side expressed by KBI here, but the other side as well.

[+briansnat]

Why is it that the pro phony log brigade are the ones who are always bringing up numbers?

Wait ... you’re saying there are people here who actually endorse and promote bogus find logs? Who are these people to whom you refer who are "pro phony logs?"

I took a bit of time off this afternoon (unfortunately is was not spent geocaching). What happened to the good will this morning?

What happened is that someone, apparently unhappy with sitting back and watching peace break out in the thread, has decided to pull the pin on a brand new strawman and toss it into the crowd.

While Briansnat is completely responsible for any post he makes in this thread he bears NO responsibility for the reactions to those posts. THAT responsibility lies completely with those who respond to him.

I disagree. In my opinion, a trolling comment is little different than yelling 'fire' in the proverbial crowded theater. If a person takes an action that he knows will cause a certain response, he's responsible for the response.

I'm somewhere in the middle between Trinity's Crew and Sbell here.

 

While I agree with Trinity's Crew that it is my choice whether to respond to the strawman, and therefore my fault if my response causes any problem, the fact remains that the argument Briansnat responded to with his post is a fictitious invention created by Briansnat, not a position that any actual thread participant has put forward. Briansnat is not 'trolling' with his post, at least not that I can tell; he is merely employing a logical fallacy.

 

On the other hand, I think Sbell understands that it is fallacious posts like Briansnat’s, and the predictable responses that follow, that traditionally and consistently cause worthwhile threads like this to get locked down by the Mods.

 

When a participant on one side of a forum debate tosses out a fallacy, like Briansnat did, it leaves those opposing his statement with a frustrating dilemma:

 

Does one:

(1) Ignore his fallacious argument and appear to agree with it? Or does one

(2) Tackle and expose the fallacy, an act which is guaranteed to:

- add to the existing noise by encouraging an off-topic wrangle over parliamentary procedure, leading to

- an agitation of the itchy thread-shooting trigger finger of whichever of the Mods is feeling cranky today?

 

It's a difficult choice.

 

You're reading an awful lot into what was simply a poor choice of words.

 

Let me re-word the statement and kill this red herring:

 

Who is talking about numbers? Why is it that those people do not see phony logs as an issue are the ones who are always bringing up numbers? It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. It's a practical issue.

Edited February 11, 2008 by briansnat

[+Rockin Roddy]

So, since you have not responded, I guess you did nothing.

 

Your only option was to delete a post.

 

Did you do even that?

 

Do you think that would make a significant difference?

 

The truth is that if you look only at the cache reporter and the cache owner, your will find:

 

The Cache owner has all the responsibility and all the power over the cache finders.

 

The cache finder has no responsibility or power as a cache reporter online.

 

The cache finder may log a false find without breaking any rules or guidelines.

 

The cache owner has total responsibility and power over finder logs.

 

To say that the cache owner is a victim in this light is ridiculous to me.

 

The cache owner can delete any log for any reason if the cache owner thinks it is bogus.

 

The cache owner designs the cache and defines what is required to qualify as a find.

 

The Cache owner is responsible for maintaining the cache.

 

The cache owner can define the find in a way that prevents bogus armchair finds.

 

The cache owner can decide if a log is bogus and delete it.

 

The false logger has no power except that folks are talking about them.

 

I don’t know how folks can say anyone is blaming the victim when one says the person with all the power and authority should exercise that authority to support the policy and if they don’t then they are failing the policy.

 

I think the folks that say things are going to heck in a hand basket are pretty much stuck in the bushes.

 

 

A bunch of very honorable GeoCachers have said that they will not do audits of their paper logs to online logs. You cannot say they are false loggers or that they are degrading the hobby.

 

You cannot force them to do 100% audits.

 

TPTB will not make rules to force them to do 100% audits.

 

So what are you going to do – the small minority that is concerned with false logs?

 

You can’t make the false loggers stop making false logs.

 

You can’t make the log owners audit 100% of their logs.

 

Most cache owners are not going to audit paper logs to online logs.

 

I’d say you are in between a rock and a hard place.

 

Enjoy.

 

Get used to it.

Dude, we need to switch you over to decaf.

Off the sugar too...

[+Too Tall John]

While Briansnat is completely responsible for any post he makes in this thread he bears NO responsibility for the reactions to those posts. THAT responsibility lies completely with those who respond to him.

I disagree. In my opinion, a trolling comment is little different than yelling 'fire' in the proverbial crowded theater. If a person takes an action that he knows will cause a certain response, he's responsible for the response.

I'm somewhere in the middle between Trinity's Crew and Sbell here.

What strikes me is that when comparing false logs on a geocache was compared to false logs on airplane maintenance, you cried foul, but when sbell111 compared briansnat's post to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, you see the it as an analogy.

 

Speaking of the airplane vs geocache logs, until someone suggests that the punishment for both should be the same, I think all those who oppose the analogy should take a look at how analogies work.

[+KBI]

Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

I think, KBI, what needs to be done here, is for people to remember that morality and ethics are different for different people. To say that they simply don't apply in this case might be true for you, but might not be true for someone else.

Well ….. maybe.

 

If you can thoroughly convince me that the "it’s only my opinion" thing applies here, I will concede. I will agree, I will exit this thread after posting my concession, and I will be happy.

 

I disagree with your premise, however.

 

Analogy time:

 

If you say you like the color and style of the shirt Mushtang is wearing, and I say I disagree, then your concept clearly applies. We can happily agree to disagree.

 

If, on the other hand, you say two plus two equals seven, and I say I disagree, then your concept clearly does not apply, and "agreeing to disagree" not only leaves you with a potentially harmful mathematical misconception, it also unnecessarily confuses anyone else who might be observing the conversation.

 

I have done my very best, in my rambling and clumsy style, to explain the logic behind my assertion that morality does not apply to a very specific subset of bogus find logs. You and I have already agreed that the subset I refer to in fact exists; the only question now is whether that subset of bogus find logs can be correctly labeled as "immoral" or "degrading." I thought my 200-pushups analogy from a few posts back made the answer to that plainly clear, but apparently I have a ways to go in either (1) learning to express myself, or (2) grasping your logic by which "it’s only my opinion" allows someone else’s misguided opinion of another cacher's wacky logging confusion to cause me and my favorite hobby to be "degraded" by what I am convinced are benign bogus logs.

[+KBI]

When a participant on one side of a forum debate tosses out a fallacy, like Briansnat did, it leaves those opposing his statement with a frustrating dilemma:

 

Does one:

(1) Ignore his fallacious argument and appear to agree with it? Or does one

(2) Tackle and expose the fallacy, an act which is guaranteed to:

- add to the existing noise by encouraging an off-topic wrangle over parliamentary procedure, leading to

- an agitation of the itchy thread-shooting trigger finger of whichever of the Mods is feeling cranky today?

 

It's a difficult choice.

You're reading an awful lot into what was simply a poor choice of words.

 

Let me re-word the statement and kill this red herring:

Thank you.

 

Who is talking about numbers? Why is it that those people do not see phony logs as an issue are the ones who are always bringing up numbers?

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an un-provable hunch.

 

It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers. It's a practical issue.

That has been refuted.

 

In the interest of not provoking the aforementioned itchy-trigger-finger-mods, I will decline to go over it here again for the 37th time. It's in the thread.

[+KBI]

While Briansnat is completely responsible for any post he makes in this thread he bears NO responsibility for the reactions to those posts. THAT responsibility lies completely with those who respond to him.

I disagree. In my opinion, a trolling comment is little different than yelling 'fire' in the proverbial crowded theater. If a person takes an action that he knows will cause a certain response, he's responsible for the response.

I'm somewhere in the middle between Trinity's Crew and Sbell here.

What strikes me is that when comparing false logs on a geocache was compared to false logs on airplane maintenance, you cried foul, but when sbell111 compared briansnat's post to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, you see the it as an analogy.

What strikes me is that the two analogies you are comparing are not equivalent. The Fire/Theater analogy was valid; the airplane mechanic analogy was not.

 

Speaking of the airplane vs geocache logs, until someone suggests that the punishment for both should be the same, I think all those who oppose the analogy should take a look at how analogies work.

Explaining precisely why you think your debate opponent is wrong is much more effective than simply pointing at him and saying "you’re wrong."

 

Would you care to elaborate on why you believe "those who oppose the analogy should take a look at how analogies work?"

[+Too Tall John]

Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

I think, KBI, what needs to be done here, is for people to remember that morality and ethics are different for different people. To say that they simply don't apply in this case might be true for you, but might not be true for someone else.

Well ….. maybe.

 

If you can thoroughly convince me that the "it’s only my opinion" thing applies here, I will concede. I will agree, I will exit this thread after posting my concession, and I will be happy.

I think in this case, using the word "Opinion" isn't as accurate as "Standard." Some people hold themselves (and thus others) to a higher standard than others do. Everyone has their own "Moral Ruler" that they use to measure what is right and what is wrong. If these rulers were turned into something physical, an axe-murdering anarchist's ruler might be a certain length , while Mother Theresa's might be twice as long. If they got together & tried to measure something, one would say "Wow! That's really long!" while the other would say "No, that's really quite small."

 

Thing is, perspective matters. What if it turns out that Mother Theresa's ruler is only an inch long? Half an inch difference isn't all that big, is it?

[+Too Tall John]

What strikes me is that the two analogies you are comparing are not equivalent. The Fire/Theater analogy was valid; the airplane mechanic analogy was not.

Why, exactly is the Fire/Theater analogy valid while the airplane/geocache log analogy isn't?**

 

Both are using extreme cases of different standards; one, personal responsibility in actions, the other, truth in logging.

 

You state that the analogy doesn't work, but a very wise man once told me

Explaining precisely why you think your debate opponent is wrong is much more effective than simply pointing at him and saying "you’re wrong."

Would you care to elaborate on why the Fire/Theater analogy was valid and the airplane mechanic analogy was not?**

Speaking of the airplane vs geocache logs, until someone suggests that the punishment for both should be the same, I think all those who oppose the analogy should take a look at how analogies work.

Explaining precisely why you think your debate opponent is wrong is much more effective than simply pointing at him and saying "you’re wrong."

 

Would you care to elaborate on why you believe "those who oppose the analogy should take a look at how analogies work?"

The argument used against the airplane/geocache analogy was "That's ridiculous, nobody's gonna die from a false geocache log." My point is that since this is an analogy, the end result doesn't have to be the same. If those using the analogy really thought the results were the same, they should also call for the punishment for both be the same. I don't see anyone calling for serious jail time for bogus loggers. I also seriously doubt sbell111 was calling for briansnat to be arrested for causing a panic.

 

I was simply pointing out that the apparent support of one extreme analogy looked funny when contrasted against the complete dismissal of another analogy because it was using an extreme example.

 

** Please recognize that this is the same question. You need only answer it once. If you feel repeating yourself will help your position, however, feel free to answer twice

Edited February 11, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+briansnat]

That has been refuted.

 

Maybe to your satisfaction.

 

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an un-provable hunch.

 

Nobody who is against phony logs has brought up numbers. It's always you guys who bring up numbers, which makes me wonder.

 

I've stated that I'd be against phony DNF logs just as emphatically. If people were abusing SBA logs I'd come out against that as well.

 

You can scream numbers all you want, but it's not about that. Its about the potential to confuse and inconvenience other geocachers. Period.

[+KBI]

Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

I think, KBI, what needs to be done here, is for people to remember that morality and ethics are different for different people. To say that they simply don't apply in this case might be true for you, but might not be true for someone else.

Well ….. maybe.

 

If you can thoroughly convince me that the "it’s only my opinion" thing applies here, I will concede. I will agree, I will exit this thread after posting my concession, and I will be happy.

I think in this case, using the word "Opinion" isn't as accurate as "Standard." Some people hold themselves (and thus others) to a higher standard than others do. Everyone has their own "Moral Ruler" that they use to measure what is right and what is wrong. If these rulers were turned into something physical, an axe-murdering anarchist's ruler might be a certain length , while Mother Theresa's might be twice as long. If they got together & tried to measure something, one would say "Wow! That's really long!" while the other would say "No, that's really quite small."

 

Thing is, perspective matters. What if it turns out that Mother Theresa's ruler is only an inch long? Half an inch difference isn't all that big, is it?

I understand your point.

 

Now: In order to help you convince me that I should logically allow for this standard/ruler thing to explain how someone can legitimately make something their business that I believe is none of their business, please apply your concept to my previously posted analogy:

 

If I’m at the gym and some dude walks by bragging that he’s just done 200 push-ups that I didn’t witness, I don’t give a flop whether he’s fudging his numbers or not. He knows what he really did, and neither the truth nor the lie matters to me, you, the butcher, the baker, the GPS maker, or anyone else.

Sez I: The braggart’s lie, should I suspect it to be one, is of zero consequence. It has an obvious effect on his credibility – I have no argument there – but I sez his bogus brag has zero effect on me, you, or the moral integrity of worldwide personal fitness as a whole – unless I choose, that is, to be illogical and decide to look down my jealous/suspicious/pompous nose at everyone else in the gym.

 

Sez you: The braggart’s lie serves to degrade the entire pastime of personal physical fitness, based on your "standard" – your moral outrage and discomfort – over his silly, meaningless and benign lie.

 

In other words: I say the braggart’s lie only reflects badly (if at all) on him, not his hobby. People sometimes exaggerate their workout numbers, but I simply don't care becuse it's none of my business and it doesn't matter. Do you believe instead that the braggart’s lie degrades your and my physical workout numbers as well as his own?

[+KBI]

That has been refuted.

Maybe to your satisfaction.

Absolutely to my satisfaction. As I have explained -- and explained and explained and explained and explained and explained and explained -- my objection is to the way the OP and others have treated the subset of bogus logs which are benign, not the subset of bogus logs you keep referring to.

 

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an un-provable hunch.

Nobody who is against phony logs has brought up numbers. It's always you guys who bring up numbers, which makes me wonder.

Nobody has confessed, you mean. I am allowed my suspicions. I may be wrong, but I am not convinced that I am wrong.

 

You can scream numbers all you want, but it's not about that. Its about the potential to confuse and inconvenience other geocachers. Period.

No it’s not. See above.

[+Too Tall John]

Sez I: The braggart’s lie, should I suspect it to be one, is of zero consequence. It has an obvious effect on his credibility – I have no argument there – but I sez his bogus brag has zero effect on me, you, or the moral integrity of worldwide personal fitness as a whole – unless I choose, that is, to be illogical and decide to look down my jealous/suspicious/pompous nose at everyone else in the gym.

 

Sez you: The braggart’s lie serves to degrade the entire pastime of personal physical fitness, based on your "standard" – your moral outrage and discomfort – over his silly, meaningless and benign lie.

 

In other words: I say the braggart’s lie only reflects badly (if at all) on him, not his hobby. People sometimes exaggerate their workout numbers, but I simply don't care because it's none of my business and it doesn't matter. Do you believe instead that the braggart’s lie degrades your and my physical workout numbers as well as his own?

My first gut reaction went like this:

 

I'm sitting in the gym, looking for a spotter while I do some bench presses. I hear someone say "I just did 200 pushups" I might think about letting them spot me. If it turns out they are a liar and can't even do one pushup, I want 'em nowhere near me if I need a spotter. If I don't realize that they are just bragging, I could be in a world of hurt.

 

Braggarts' Lies can hurt others.

[+Rockin Roddy]

That has been refuted.

 

Maybe to your satisfaction.

 

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an unprovable hunch.

 

Nobody who is against phony logs has brought up numbers. It's always you guys who bring up numbers, which makes me wonder.

 

I've stated that I'd be against phony DNF logs just as emphatically. If people were abusing SBA logs I'd come out against that as well.

 

You can scream numbers all you want, but it's not about that. Its about the potential to confuse and inconvenience other geocachers. Period.

You mean I'm NOT the only one to observe this? And, whenever they get desperate, they like to throw in the numbers BS and claim it's US that are so darned set on this! CRAZY!!

 

As someone else said before in this thread...don't tell me what I think, you have no idea.

 

Trying to dismiss our side as if it's always about the numbers really make it out that YOU guys are the numbers people! Argument (or is it discussion) goes foul for one of you and INSTANTLY, the numbers complaint is thrown in...WOW! Even when demonstrated repeatedly that the stats can and are used for other reasons than your "comparison" complaint, you people STILL must use your "fall back" fallacy!

[+Too Tall John]

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an un-provable hunch.

Nobody who is against phony logs has brought up numbers. It's always you guys who bring up numbers, which makes me wonder.

Nobody has confessed, you mean. I am allowed my suspicions. I may be wrong, but I am not convinced that I am wrong.

Nah, you're probably right. Some people probably do object to phony logs because they are numbers hounds.

 

Those of us who aren't numbers hounds object to your lumping us in with the numbers hounds with your sweeping generalizations, just as you are objecting to sweeping generalizations about false logging.

 

All Generalizations are false.

[+Renegade Knight]

Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

 

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.

 

As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.

[+briansnat]

You mean I'm NOT the only one to observe this? And, whenever they get desperate, they like to throw in the numbers BS and claim it's US that are so darned set on this! CRAZY!!

 

People who are obsessed with numbers tend to see everything through a lens colored with numbers.

 

No it’s not. See above.

 

So essentially you have your prejudices and unless someone can prove the unprovable to you, you will keep them.

Edited February 11, 2008 by briansnat

[Mushtang]

Sez I: The braggart’s lie, should I suspect it to be one, is of zero consequence. It has an obvious effect on his credibility – I have no argument there – but I sez his bogus brag has zero effect on me, you, or the moral integrity of worldwide personal fitness as a whole – unless I choose, that is, to be illogical and decide to look down my jealous/suspicious/pompous nose at everyone else in the gym.

 

Sez you: The braggart’s lie serves to degrade the entire pastime of personal physical fitness, based on your "standard" – your moral outrage and discomfort – over his silly, meaningless and benign lie.

 

In other words: I say the braggart’s lie only reflects badly (if at all) on him, not his hobby. People sometimes exaggerate their workout numbers, but I simply don't care because it's none of my business and it doesn't matter. Do you believe instead that the braggart’s lie degrades your and my physical workout numbers as well as his own?

My first gut reaction went like this:

 

I'm sitting in the gym, looking for a spotter while I do some bench presses. I hear someone say "I just did 200 pushups" I might think about letting them spot me. If it turns out they are a liar and can't even do one pushup, I want 'em nowhere near me if I need a spotter. If I don't realize that they are just bragging, I could be in a world of hurt.

 

Braggarts' Lies can hurt others.

This is a good example of the issues I've had with this thread. It's not the lie told about the 200 pushups that would hurt you. If it were, then you could be hurt even if you didn't ask him to spot you.

 

If you don't realize they're just bragging, and you asked if they could help you, hopefully they'd say no. If they instead said yes and attempted to spot you despite knowing they couldn't, then your resulting pain would be caused by a different lie.

 

As you said, a lie can hurt others, but a lie can be completely harmless. Just because it's a lie doesn't make it harmful to others.

 

Did you see this?

[+KBI]

What strikes me is that the two analogies you are comparing are not equivalent. The Fire/Theater analogy was valid; the airplane mechanic analogy was not.

Why, exactly is the Fire/Theater analogy valid while the airplane/geocache log analogy isn't?

 

Both are using extreme cases of different standards; one, personal responsibility in actions, the other, truth in logging.

Airplane maintenance logs and online geocache logs are analogous in many ways: They are both intended as a textual record; they are both described with the word "log;" They are both written and read by a variety of different people; they both rarely feature obscure Shakespearian references.

 

The reason the airplane/geocache log analogy does NOT apply to this thread, however, is the same reason I have been repeating all along: because for the very specific subset of bogus logs I have been referring to, the bogusness simply doesn't matter. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. That cannot be said of a mechanic's lie in an aircraft maintenance logbook; an aviation maintenance log MUST be kept accurate, and for very obvious reasons. There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.

 

There is therefore no relevance which might lead me to start feeling degraded by benign bogus geocache logs; it follows then that the analogy does not apply.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

I think, KBI, what needs to be done here, is for people to remember that morality and ethics are different for different people. To say that they simply don't apply in this case might be true for you, but might not be true for someone else.

Well ….. maybe.

 

If you can thoroughly convince me that the "it’s only my opinion" thing applies here, I will concede. I will agree, I will exit this thread after posting my concession, and I will be happy.

I think in this case, using the word "Opinion" isn't as accurate as "Standard." Some people hold themselves (and thus others) to a higher standard than others do. Everyone has their own "Moral Ruler" that they use to measure what is right and what is wrong. If these rulers were turned into something physical, an axe-murdering anarchist's ruler might be a certain length , while Mother Theresa's might be twice as long. If they got together & tried to measure something, one would say "Wow! That's really long!" while the other would say "No, that's really quite small."

 

Thing is, perspective matters. What if it turns out that Mother Theresa's ruler is only an inch long? Half an inch difference isn't all that big, is it?

I understand your point.

 

Now: In order to help you convince me that I should logically allow for this standard/ruler thing to explain how someone can legitimately make something their business that I believe is none of their business, please apply your concept to my previously posted analogy:

 

If I’m at the gym and some dude walks by bragging that he’s just done 200 push-ups that I didn’t witness, I don’t give a flop whether he’s fudging his numbers or not. He knows what he really did, and neither the truth nor the lie matters to me, you, the butcher, the baker, the GPS maker, or anyone else.

Sez I: The braggart’s lie, should I suspect it to be one, is of zero consequence. It has an obvious effect on his credibility – I have no argument there – but I sez his bogus brag has zero effect on me, you, or the moral integrity of worldwide personal fitness as a whole – unless I choose, that is, to be illogical and decide to look down my jealous/suspicious/pompous nose at everyone else in the gym.

 

Sez you: The braggart’s lie serves to degrade the entire pastime of personal physical fitness, based on your "standard" – your moral outrage and discomfort – over his silly, meaningless and benign lie.

 

In other words: I say the braggart’s lie only reflects badly (if at all) on him, not his hobby. People sometimes exaggerate their workout numbers, but I simply don't care becuse it's none of my business and it doesn't matter. Do you believe instead that the braggart’s lie degrades your and my physical workout numbers as well as his own?

 

Let's see...you are doing your exercise, you turn and lie to others about your ability. Does this cause others to go out and validate their logs? Does this make others suspect that there really IS a cache where they had just searched and DNF'd? (possibly even going back and searching more...this has happened to me once as has the fake log given me the impression that a cache is truly there only to find I can't find it and come to find out it's truly not). As a cache owner, your lying about push-ups won't give me the false impression MY cache is or isn't where it should be (unlike a lie about my cache), doesn't make me think my cache is in good shape when the last several loggers say otherwise (which has also happened to me, causing me to NOT make the trip to replace the container...who knows, maybe a previous finder forgot to say they did the maintenance for me). Does your fake ability cause me to think a high numbers finder couldn't find my cache (even though their numbers are considerably lower...or a 120 finds cacher saying the same thing when they truly only found 15 or 20)...lying here could give me the false impression that my cache is missing when in reality, the inexperienced finder merely didn't look well enough. This lie could cause me to make a trip out after a cache which is there and not in need of my help.

 

Now, if this same person lies to his DOCTOR about his ability, the doc might miss something important...this could be deadly dangerous!

[+briansnat]

f I’m at the gym and some dude walks by bragging that he’s just done 200 push-ups that I didn’t witness, I don’t give a flop whether he’s fudging his numbers or not. He knows what he really did, and neither the truth nor the lie matters to me, you, the butcher, the baker, the GPS maker, or anyone else.

 

It's more like someone who keeps signing the reservation sheet for the weight machine, but has no intention of using it. Then showing the sheet to others to brag about all his workouts.

 

The bragging doesn't hurt others, but the people who saw his name on the sheet and changed their workout plans because they thought the machine was unavailable are indeed affected.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm going out tomorrow and I will find a cache and even if someone lied about their find I will enjoy the hunt and the find.

 

I will not feel degraded....

 

Why would you feel degraded? Did you lie? Did you do something stupid?

 

You are stuck on this point like it has some higher importance. Like geoacaching being less than it could be because of bogus logs somehow makes you less.

 

Degrading caching as a whole to some extent becaues of bogus logs is completely different from degrading you.

[+KBI]

Sez I: The braggart’s lie, should I suspect it to be one, is of zero consequence. It has an obvious effect on his credibility – I have no argument there – but I sez his bogus brag has zero effect on me, you, or the moral integrity of worldwide personal fitness as a whole – unless I choose, that is, to be illogical and decide to look down my jealous/suspicious/pompous nose at everyone else in the gym.

 

Sez you: The braggart’s lie serves to degrade the entire pastime of personal physical fitness, based on your "standard" – your moral outrage and discomfort – over his silly, meaningless and benign lie.

 

In other words: I say the braggart’s lie only reflects badly (if at all) on him, not his hobby. People sometimes exaggerate their workout numbers, but I simply don't care because it's none of my business and it doesn't matter. Do you believe instead that the braggart’s lie degrades your and my physical workout numbers as well as his own?

My first gut reaction went like this:

 

I'm sitting in the gym, looking for a spotter while I do some bench presses. I hear someone say "I just did 200 pushups" I might think about letting them spot me. If it turns out they are a liar and can't even do one pushup, I want 'em nowhere near me if I need a spotter. If I don't realize that they are just bragging, I could be in a world of hurt.

 

Braggarts' Lies can hurt others.

They hurt the credibility of the liar. They do not hurt the credibility of someone you have no logical reason to suspect – unless your credibility detection process is irrationally overreactive, that is.

 

Don't you ever make such reasonable discriminations? Would you generalize and refuse to let anyone spot for you just because you suspect one bozo of lying about his pushup count? Would you turn away my offer to spot for you just because of someone else’s pointlessly exaggerated claim?

[+sbell111]

Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.

I don't know for sure if the logs do indicate that the caches are missing. All I know is that I didn't find some caches.

As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.

I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure. Second, I don't feel like being teh bad guy on this issue. Sending that email would almost certainly result in angst coming my way from the precious 'finders', the cache owner, or all of the above.

 

Life's too short to volunteer for that kind of drama over a silly game.

[+KBI]

That has been explained.

 

It is merely a hunch. A strong suspicion to be sure, but logically, until someone actually confesses to a sense of competition being their motivation for their jealousy and smiley-envy, it remains only an un-provable hunch.

Nobody who is against phony logs has brought up numbers. It's always you guys who bring up numbers, which makes me wonder.

Nobody has confessed, you mean. I am allowed my suspicions. I may be wrong, but I am not convinced that I am wrong.

Nah, you're probably right. Some people probably do object to phony logs because they are numbers hounds.

 

Those of us who aren't numbers hounds object to your lumping us in with the numbers hounds with your sweeping generalizations, just as you are objecting to sweeping generalizations about false logging.

 

All Generalizations are false.

Your objection is valid.

 

I, however, have never presented my suspicion as fact. It is merely my opinion. Your statement that I am probably right would seem to confirm my opinion as it applies to at least some of the folks I've been arguing against. I am not so dense as to think that it must apply to everyone, however.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

 

If a mechanic falsifies a maintenance record he is not only (1) risking an aviation catastrophe; he is also in violation of (2) his contract with his employer and (3) federal aviation regulations.

 

A cacher who posts a benign bogus log has done none of these things. The only person he has defrauded is himself. He has dishonored no employment contract, violated no federal geocaching regulations, defrauded no other cachers, broken no standard rules of caching competition (there are no rules of caching competition, standard or otherwise), and has taken nothing of value from anyone.

 

The process is similar? The process of lying to oneself about a cache find and the process of falsifying an airplane’s maintenance record are about as similar as, say, peeing in the woods while alone and, say, mass murder. I was raised that a crime is a crime regardless whether you think your behavior is benign – weren’t you? Isn't that the logic you're using?...

 

Morality and ethics always apply in all situations. For one thing we bring them with us in all situations. Even caching. The premis that they don't apply is false. Call it a simple point that we may never agree on.

 

The concept of honesty in logging applies in all logs in whatever form they take. When you start talking about the consequences of bad logs and what kind of problems can result you have have moved beyond my simple point. Honesty matters. Sometimes the price of dishonesty is higher. You are trying to introduct the conept of "how wrong dishonesty in logging is" as a weight to gauge the issue. I'm not. I stopped at "it's wrong".

 

Falifying a log of any kind is wrong. Simple and straight forward.

[+KBI]

If I’m at the gym and some dude walks by bragging that he’s just done 200 push-ups that I didn’t witness, I don’t give a flop whether he’s fudging his numbers or not. He knows what he really did, and neither the truth nor the lie matters to me, you, the butcher, the baker, the GPS maker, or anyone else.

 

It's more like someone who keeps signing the reservation sheet for the weight machine, but has no intention of using it. Then showing the sheet to others to brag about all his workouts.

 

The bragging doesn't hurt others, but the people who saw his name on the sheet and changed their workout plans because they thought the machine was unavailable are indeed affected.

Why must you ignore my very relevant analogy and replace it with one that ONLY applies to the OTHER subset of bogus logs, the one that I have already agreed, with no argument, is bad?

 

I must once again call a strawman on you, my friend.

[+Too Tall John]

There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.

Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.

[Mushtang]

Let's see...you are doing your exercise, you turn and lie to others about your ability. Does this cause others to go out and validate their logs? Does this make others suspect that there really IS a cache where they had just searched and DNF'd? (possibly even going back and searching more...this has happened to me once as has the fake log given me the impression that a cache is truly there only to find I can't find it and come to find out it's truly not). As a cache owner, your lying about push-ups won't give me the false impression MY cache is or isn't where it should be (unlike a lie about my cache), doesn't make me think my cache is in good shape when the last several loggers say otherwise (which has also happened to me, causing me to NOT make the trip to replace the container...who knows, maybe a previous finder forgot to say they did the maintenance for me). Does your fake ability cause me to think a high numbers finder couldn't find my cache (even though their numbers are considerably lower...or a 120 finds cacher saying the same thing when they truly only found 15 or 20)...lying here could give me the false impression that my cache is missing when in reality, the inexperienced finder merely didn't look well enough. This lie could cause me to make a trip out after a cache which is there and not in need of my help.

 

Now, if this same person lies to his DOCTOR about his ability, the doc might miss something important...this could be deadly dangerous!

You really do just ignore about half this thread don't you?

 

KBI never, not once, ever, said that it's impossible for any lie to hurt anyone. He never, not once, ever, said that none of the fake Finds on caches could ever hurt the game.

 

He, and I, and others, have said that SOME fake logs (lies) are completely harmless. I personally think that most of the fake Finds are harmless. We also think that SOME fake logs can result in the issues you list above.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Back to the topic:

... If I assume that those previous cachers never actually found the caches, I guess I could feel degraded by their logs, but I realize that every cache hunt I undertake might end in a DNF. The decision to hunt those caches was mine alone.

You illistrate the issue fairly well in your post. If the logs indicated the caches were there when they were not...that's a problem. It's not degrading to you personally. Just caching as a whole.

I don't know for sure if the logs do indicate that the caches are missing. All I know is that I didn't find some caches.

As for what you should do, since you did pay attention if you emailed the owners and said "I didn't see the logs of these cachers and thought that odd" you are done. If you didn't because you don't know anything for sure, life goes on.

I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure. Second, I don't feel like being teh bad guy on this issue. Sending that email would almost certainly result in angst coming my way from the precious 'finders', the cache owner, or all of the above.

 

Life's too short to volunteer for that kind of drama over a silly game.

Yet you'd sit in here and rail about this...this drama isn't so bad?

 

Not doing your part only adds to the problem. Possibly, since you DID notice (as you said in your comment) you COULD have said something to the OWNER of the cache (how would that get you caught up in the drama??). The owner then can do whatever they see fit.

 

As an ex-drug user (scripts due to some serious injuries), if you aren't doing something to help the addict, you are enabling that addict!

[+KBI]

Degrading caching as a whole to some extent becaues of bogus logs is completely different from degrading you.

How?

[+Renegade Knight]

....I didn't for two reasons. First, I don't know anything for sure....

So without proof you gave the benefit of the doubt? Isn't that what you are supposed to do?

 

Sounds like a thumbs up. First for giving the beneifit of the doubt. But second because you didn't sweep it under the carpter. You were willing to discuss it.

[+KBI]

...Some folks are trying to impose morality and ethics in a place where it simply doesn’t apply.

 

If a mechanic falsifies a maintenance record he is not only (1) risking an aviation catastrophe; he is also in violation of (2) his contract with his employer and (3) federal aviation regulations.

 

A cacher who posts a benign bogus log has done none of these things. The only person he has defrauded is himself. He has dishonored no employment contract, violated no federal geocaching regulations, defrauded no other cachers, broken no standard rules of caching competition (there are no rules of caching competition, standard or otherwise), and has taken nothing of value from anyone.

 

The process is similar? The process of lying to oneself about a cache find and the process of falsifying an airplane’s maintenance record are about as similar as, say, peeing in the woods while alone and, say, mass murder. I was raised that a crime is a crime regardless whether you think your behavior is benign – weren’t you? Isn't that the logic you're using?...

 

Morality and ethics always apply in all situations. For one thing we bring them with us in all situations. Even caching. The premis that they don't apply is false. Call it a simple point that we may never agree on.

 

The concept of honesty in logging applies in all logs in whatever form they take. When you start talking about the consequences of bad logs and what kind of problems can result you have have moved beyond my simple point. Honesty matters. Sometimes the price of dishonesty is higher. You are trying to introduct the conept of "how wrong dishonesty in logging is" as a weight to gauge the issue. I'm not. I stopped at "it's wrong".

 

Falifying a log of any kind is wrong. Simple and straight forward.

There are (at least) three kinds of lies: harmful lies, benign lies, and good lies.

 

Are you telling me you can’t tell the difference? Are you telling me *I* can’t tell the difference?

[+Rockin Roddy]

Let's see...you are doing your exercise, you turn and lie to others about your ability. Does this cause others to go out and validate their logs? Does this make others suspect that there really IS a cache where they had just searched and DNF'd? (possibly even going back and searching more...this has happened to me once as has the fake log given me the impression that a cache is truly there only to find I can't find it and come to find out it's truly not). As a cache owner, your lying about push-ups won't give me the false impression MY cache is or isn't where it should be (unlike a lie about my cache), doesn't make me think my cache is in good shape when the last several loggers say otherwise (which has also happened to me, causing me to NOT make the trip to replace the container...who knows, maybe a previous finder forgot to say they did the maintenance for me). Does your fake ability cause me to think a high numbers finder couldn't find my cache (even though their numbers are considerably lower...or a 120 finds cacher saying the same thing when they truly only found 15 or 20)...lying here could give me the false impression that my cache is missing when in reality, the inexperienced finder merely didn't look well enough. This lie could cause me to make a trip out after a cache which is there and not in need of my help.

 

Now, if this same person lies to his DOCTOR about his ability, the doc might miss something important...this could be deadly dangerous!

You really do just ignore about half this thread don't you?

 

KBI never, not once, ever, said that it's impossible for any lie to hurt anyone. He never, not once, ever, said that none of the fake Finds on caches could ever hurt the game.

 

He, and I, and others, have said that SOME fake logs (lies) are completely harmless. I personally think that most of the fake Finds are harmless. We also think that SOME fake logs can result in the issues you list above.

 

You're right...now, can you point where I said EVERY or that it WAS impossible???

 

btw...I just pointed out several scenarios where a false log CAN (and has) caused problems...and NONE were "about the numbers"! Sorry if it caused you to read something I hadn't written!

 

And yes, I've read this whole thing...every blinding shot!

[+Too Tall John]

I, however, have never presented my suspicion as fact. It is merely my opinion. Your statement that I am probably right would seem to confirm my opinion as it applies to at least some of the folks I've been arguing against. I am not so dense as to think that it must apply to everyone, however.

And yet, you seem to think that the reasons against false logs must apply to all false logs?

 

My point? You seem to insist that people arguing against false logs not generalize all false logs together, but stand by and watch (if not participate) in the generalization that anyone who is against false logs is a numbers hound.

[+briansnat]

He, and I, and others, have said that SOME fake logs (lies) are completely harmless. I personally think that most of the fake Finds are harmless. We also think that SOME fake logs can result in the issues you list above.

 

Most fake finds have the potential to cause problems. Because only a small percentage actually do, does it mean that we should countenance them?

[+KBI]

There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.

Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.

If the mechanic skipped the inspection there is absolutely no way for him to know whether his lie is benign. He won't know until there is a headline in the newspaper and a registered letter in his mailbox. He must therefore assume that his lie is potentially harmful, and therefore he must err on the safe side by assuming that it IS harmful.

 

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone. I even gave you two examples recently, and you agreed with me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I am able to comprehend that some lies just don’t matter.

 

I've got you on record now. I think this entire debate comes down to the fact that my parents taught me that lying is wrong, no matter what... Your parents taught you that lying is okay sometimes.

 

I don't think we can get past this difference.

[+Too Tall John]

Braggarts' Lies can hurt others.

They hurt the credibility of the liar. They do not hurt the credibility of someone you have no logical reason to suspect – unless your credibility detection process is irrationally overreactive, that is.

Once again, you are arguing the moral issue, I am pointing out the practical issue that a lie can do actual harm.

[Mushtang]

You're right...now, can you point where I said EVERY or that it WAS impossible???

He's conceded time after time that some fake logs actually do cause problems. His argument is that not ALL fake logs necessarily do.

 

Giving more examples of fake logs that do cause problems only makes it look like you haven't read his posts, or haven't understood them.

[+Too Tall John]

There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.

Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.

If the mechanic skipped the inspection there is absolutely no way for him to know whether his lie is benign. He won't know until there is a headline in the newspaper and a registered letter in his mailbox. He must therefore assume that his lie is potentially harmful, and therefore he must err on the safe side by assuming that it IS harmful.

 

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone. I even gave you two examples recently, and you agreed with me.

There are, also examples given of cache logs that can cause harm.

 

You seem to hold your entire argument up on the fact that there are cache logs that don't do harm, so not all cache logs are bad. Along the same lines, you must remember, that not all cache logs are benign. The breakdown in the analogy happens when you completely dismiss malignant cache logs.

[+sbell111]

You mean I'm NOT the only one to observe this? And, whenever they get desperate, they like to throw in the numbers BS and claim it's US that are so darned set on this! CRAZY!!

 

People who are obsessed with numbers tend to see everything through a lens colored with numbers.

...

I hope I remember this post for the next micro-rant thread.

[+Rockin Roddy]

You're right...now, can you point where I said EVERY or that it WAS impossible???

He's conceded time after time that some fake logs actually do cause problems. His argument is that not ALL fake logs necessarily do.

 

Giving more examples of fake logs that do cause problems only makes it look like you haven't read his posts, or haven't understood them.

Again...to YOU! My giving the several examples merely pointed out where fake logs DO cause problems...and none were for the numbers. As has been pointed out, every time your side gets in a bind, they complain "it's about the numbers".

 

I then pointed to where someone lying about their physical prowess COULD be dangerous (or harmful if you will). I thought maybe he was thinking that "lie" was harmless, I wanted him to know it COULD be harmful!

 

And sorry if my comments are a bit slow, I can't keep up with all this bickering (especially since you guys already agreed that lying CAN cause problems...but seem to like to backpedal). I try to formulate my answers so as to not fuel your fires with a mis-spoken word or two...sheesh, truly, you need a lawyer just to read some of this.

[+KBI]

I, however, have never presented my suspicion as fact. It is merely my opinion. Your statement that I am probably right would seem to confirm my opinion as it applies to at least some of the folks I've been arguing against. I am not so dense as to think that it must apply to everyone, however.

And yet, you seem to think that the reasons against false logs must apply to all false logs?

 

My point? You seem to insist that people arguing against false logs not generalize all false logs together, but stand by and watch (if not participate) in the generalization that anyone who is against false logs is a numbers hound.

I have explained that it is merely a suspicion.

 

I have explained that I know my suspicion might be baseless.

 

I have explained that I am open to being convinced that it is baseless.

 

What else do you want from me?

 

If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion – but you can also bet I will allow for the possibility that he did not break the window, and that I should listen to what he has to say about it. If he says he didn’t do it but I remain unconvinced either way, I must then choose between either calling him a liar or accepting his statement.

 

When, for example, Briansnat (finally) said point blank that numbers envy has absolutelty nothing to do with his uneasiness over ALL bogus logs, I tend to believe him. I have always respected Briansnat; I find myself on his side 99% of the time; He has proven himself to be a very reasonable and level-headed thinker; he has never lied to me that I know of. I have no reason to suspect him now.

 

Others, however, have NOT refuted my suspicion even though they have had plenty of opportunity. I therefore remain convinced, as you seem to be as well, that I am probably right in at least a few cases.

 

Which part of that do you think is unreasonable? What else do you want from me?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Can't a sufficient number of occurrences of even 'no impact' lies (and cultural acceptance thereof) serve to promote an environment in which more of the 'high impact' lies find the space they need to exist? Wouldn't this mean that in the extreme, no lie is truly 'benign'?

[+sbell111]

f I’m at the gym and some dude walks by bragging that he’s just done 200 push-ups that I didn’t witness, I don’t give a flop whether he’s fudging his numbers or not. He knows what he really did, and neither the truth nor the lie matters to me, you, the butcher, the baker, the GPS maker, or anyone else.

It's more like someone who keeps signing the reservation sheet for the weight machine, but has no intention of using it. Then showing the sheet to others to brag about all his workouts.

 

The bragging doesn't hurt others, but the people who saw his name on the sheet and changed their workout plans because they thought the machine was unavailable are indeed affected.

I would argue that while lying on the exercise machine schedule is wrong and something that the owner of the exercise machine would be well within his/her rights to act upon, it doesn't happen often enough to degrade the activity of exercising.

 

Therefore, that looks like a very good analogy. Thanks.

Edited February 11, 2008 by sbell111

[+KBI]

Braggarts' Lies can hurt others.

They hurt the credibility of the liar. They do not hurt the credibility of someone you have no logical reason to suspect – unless your credibility detection process is irrationally overreactive, that is.

Once again, you are arguing the moral issue, I am pointing out the practical issue that a lie can do actual harm.

Once again, I will point out that I am not concerned with the fact that some lies can do actual harm.

 

Once again, I will point out that the moral issue was at the root of the OP's complaint.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I discover a broken window and my son is standing next to it holding a baseball bat, and I saw him earlier swinging the bat near the window, you can bet I will have a strong suspicion

 

Well, he's probably going to lie to you about it, since you've apparently taught him that lying is okay sometimes.

[+KBI]

There is no subset of falsified aviation maintenance log entries which can be shown to be benign.

Sure there are. Let's say someone signs off that they inspected the wing of the plane, but did not. As long as there is nothing wrong with the wing of the plane, nobody gets hurt.

If the mechanic skipped the inspection there is absolutely no way for him to know whether his lie is benign. He won't know until there is a headline in the newspaper and a registered letter in his mailbox. He must therefore assume that his lie is potentially harmful, and therefore he must err on the safe side by assuming that it IS harmful.

 

I, on the other hand, know of several types of bogus geo cache find logs which can in no way ever harm anyone. I even gave you two examples recently, and you agreed with me.

There are, also examples given of cache logs that can cause harm.

 

You seem to hold your entire argument up on the fact that there are cache logs that don't do harm, so not all cache logs are bad. Along the same lines, you must remember, that not all cache logs are benign. The breakdown in the analogy happens when you completely dismiss malignant cache logs.

Sorry, but I've already repeated myself there far more than I should have. Go waste somebody elses' time.