Cheating is only cheating yourself.

[Mushtang]

Am I in the right to argue against because it happens that my parking there didn't happen to inconvenience anyone? No.

Dadgum. It's almost comical the way that people reply to KBI in this thread.

 

I got it, a LONG time ago, that he was not promoting dishonest logging, that he didn't think it right, that he would tell anyone that asked it they should that they should not. But if someone else does it anyway AND nobody is hurt, it's not worth getting upset about.

 

But people still ask why he thinks they should be allowed to park in a handicapped spot.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Where did you get this notion that lying is ok? I'm glad my kids aren't being taught that. Good luck with that

Where did you get this notion that I made the claim that "lying is ok?" Please quote the post where I made that claim. Good luck with that

Ok.. Is a "harmless" (in your opinion) lie morally right? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

I cannot answer with a simple yes or no to a question that contains an incorrect premise.

 

Thank you... Your answer speaks volumes

[CoyoteRed]

Where's the victim in bogus logging?

 

I'd think that would be the community at large. Some individuals more than others depending on the aspects of the hobby that interest them.

 

The logging, or actually the use of the correct log-type, affect others in that strangers do not know what the numbers really mean. If one knows that someone uses the "find it" log-type even though they didn't sign the log or even laid hands on the cache, then you know the number of finds for that individual is inflated. The converse is true when you only see online logs with corresponding signatures in the caches. You don't know how much trust you can put in that number.

 

There has become a mantra in the forums that numbers are meaningless. More accurately other folks' numbers are meaningless unless you do happen to know the meaning behind them.

 

I think the primary reason behind this feeling is bogus logging in its various forms.

 

So, even though these find counts are prominently displayed on this site you don't know what they really mean beyond the number of logs written with that log-type. You can't trust that the number of logs written with that log-type actually equal the number of caches listed on this site that person has actually found. This means this function of this site has or holds less value than if that number was more meaningful, i.e. logs equals caches found.

 

In a way, the most prominent victim of bogus logging seems to be the numbers themselves--the very thing that can encourage said questionable activity. In a way, it is paradoxical to log bogus finds. The person doing the logging may be trying to inflate his worth, but while doing so is devaluing the very thing that would have done so if all his logs were legitimate.

 

Not that it matters at this point in time, anyway. There's no way to recover. The best hope is for TPTB to give the individual a way to hide from public view these numbers so we aren't all forced to play the numbers game.

[+TrailGators]

A weed starts as a seedling. Does a tiny seedling hurt anything? Not really, but as the seedling grows it spreads and created new seedlings, which pop up, grow and spread. Pretty soon your yard is all full of crabgrass. Crabgrass is undesirable for many people. It doesn't really "hurt" anything, but it is really not ideal or appreciated. So while a little lie doesn't really "hurt" anything; it is not appreciated because people know that it can spread just like crabgrass. A pattern of lies leads to a loss of credibility, which hurts the person doing it.

[+tozainamboku]

My free time is literally worth $100 per hour to me. (NO, I don't get paid a c-note per hour.) That is just what it is worth to ME.

If, like Snoogans, you claim your free time is worth $100 an hour to you, then the false poster essentially stole anywhere from $2 to $200 from you.

 

Even if you don't put a monetary value on your time, it is still time you won't get back.

 

Sounds moral to me.

Wow! I finally realize that nearly all of the people who are posting in this forum are thieves. Thanks Too Tall John, I'm going geocaching now.

[+Too Tall John]

It’s very simple: Some bogus logs cause practical problems like the ones you describe. Some do not.

 

If a bogus cache log causes NOBODY to be robbed of their $100/hour time, or time at any price, or to be harmed in any other involuntary way, then there is no problem.

All bogus logs have the potential of causing problems for someone.

I disagree.

This is the point where a concrete example to back up your statement would be appropriate...

(Voluntarily choosing to be outraged anyway is of course a very different matter.)

...which is why I didn't complain that you are wasting OUR time. Again.

If reading my posts is a waste of your time, then whose time are you wasting when you quote them and respond to them?

Sorry, due in part to my bad wording, you misinterpreted what I meant. The "OUR" was a reminder that it was both of our time that is being spent here. It was somewhat implying that if I see reading your posts as a waste of time, My posting back is as well. When I see it as a waste of time, I'll either not bother to open the topic or you'll join sbell111 on the "Plonk" list. The "Again" was a nod to the fact that this is familiar territory.

[+the hermit crabs]

In order for cheating to occur there must be a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. When a cacher posts a benign bogus log, where is the victim?

 

If you can show me where someone has been victimized in a moral sense (and not for practical reasons – see my previous post on that) then I will have no choice but to agree with your point of view.

Say you have a son in grade school ...

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

If you truly would not be bothered at all by your son's "bogus logs" for books he did not read, then I'm afraid there is nothing that anyone can say in this thread that will make any impression on you at all.

Are you implying that I encourage others to lie about their accomplishments? If so, then you haven't been reading my posts. Promoting dishonesty has never been my position.

Where did I make that implication at all? All I asked was if it would bother you. That's it.

 

The bulletin board book list you describe would be an excellent opportunity to teach a child about the effects of dishonesty. So would bogus Geocache logs. Just yesterday, in fact, I used a similar opportunity to discuss with my eight-year-old son the effect dishonesty has on a person’s reputation and his believability.

 

I have repeatedly stated that I do not make bogus cache find claims, and neither do I encourage others to do so. Whenever a cacher posts a bogus cache find, I’m sure you would agree that it puts ALL their find logs into question. The real question is: Does it matter? Until this hobby is converted into an organized competition with official rules regarding proper scoring, I say: no. Until then, if the occasional weirdo gets his jollies posting fictitious yet harmless finds on some cache page where the owner is asleep at the switch, I just don’t care.

 

If you can find a post where I have truly encouraged others to lie about their accomplishments, please quote it.

I never said or implied or hinted at any such thing, so I won't go looking for such a quote. I'm baffled at your defensiveness here.

 

I have never encouraged lying. My only point is that some bogus logs are nothing but completely harmless curiosities, and that allowing oneself to work up any level of outrage, annoyance, discomfort, or indignation over the truly benign ones is a voluntary – and totally pointless – choice.

 

No matter how many times I post that point of view, however, people still choose to hear what they want to hear instead of what I actually say.

 

I say: Some bogus logs are harmless.

 

People hear that and conclude: KBI is promoting lies!

I didn't. I asked whether a certain "benign lie" would bother you. Only because you have repeatedly said that you can't understand why anyone else is bothered by "benign lies".

 

You can lead a horse to water ...

Or you can just talk to the horse, but for some reason the horse indignantly says "Why are you trying to make me drink this water?"

[+KBI]

Where's the victim in bogus logging?

 

I'd think that would be the community at large. Some individuals more than others depending on the aspects of the hobby that interest them.

The community at large? Please speak only for yourself. If you can demonstrate that ALL bogus cache logs are harmful to YOU, I’m all ears. (Eyes, actually. Regardless of the say/hear idiom-metaphors we use to describe conversation, these forums are pretty much strictly visual.)

 

I have seen bogus logs which caused me zero harm, and which had extremely little chance of causing anyone else even the slightest inconvenience.

 

I am a member of "the community at large," yet I am not a victim of benign bogus logs. Please don’t presume to speak for me.

 

The logging, or actually the use of the correct log-type, affect others in that strangers do not know what the numbers really mean. If one knows that someone uses the "find it" log-type even though they didn't sign the log or even laid hands on the cache, then you know the number of finds for that individual is inflated.

I don’t know about that.

 

When I was still a single-digit newbie I stumbled across a bogus find log, a series of them actually, in which it was very obvious the logger used the wrong log type. It wasn’t hard to figure out. I showed it to my brother, and we both intuitively realized that even though it was odd, it was also benign. It didn’t affect us in any negative way whatsoever. It was merely amusing. It was none of our business, so we rolled our eyes, and we moved on.

 

I figured that out all by myself, and I’m not all that smart. Instead of assuming such an obvious thing will confuse people, maybe you should give people a little more credit.

 

Come to think of it, those bogus logs were posted over five years ago ... and the hobby hasn’t fallen apart yet! I guess that takes care of the old slippery slope argument.

 

There has become a mantra in the forums that numbers are meaningless. More accurately other folks' numbers are meaningless unless you do happen to know the meaning behind them.

 

I think the primary reason behind this feeling is bogus logging in its various forms.

No, the primary reason that a comparison of numbers is meaningless is the fact that each cache is unique, and even though one cache may require 100 times more effort than another to find, each cache find is still worth exactly one smiley. It is intuitive, even to the newbies, that 30 parking lot skirt-lifters represent far less achievement value than two or three multi-stages, long hikes, high terrain cliff-climbs, or wicked puzzles.

 

Each person’s find count represents a unique history than cannot be compared numerically to another person’s find count, bogus logs or no bogus logs.

 

So, even though these find counts are prominently displayed on this site you don't know what they really mean beyond the number of logs written with that log-type.

Precisely.

 

You can't trust that the number of logs written with that log-type actually equal the number of caches listed on this site that person has actually found. This means this function of this site has or holds less value than if that number was more meaningful, i.e. logs equals caches found.

Until each cache is made to be exactly equal to every other cache, the existence of a few bogus logs will only be a small part of the reason why numbers cannot meaningfully be compared.

 

Online logs are a diary for personal documentation, not a score for the purposes of competition.

 

In a way, the most prominent victim of bogus logging seems to be the numbers themselves--the very thing that can encourage said questionable activity. In a way, it is paradoxical to log bogus finds. The person doing the logging may be trying to inflate his worth, but while doing so is devaluing the very thing that would have done so if all his logs were legitimate.

You could make the same argument about skirt-lifters. In fact, I’m willing to bet you have made the same argument about skirt-lifters.

 

Unless you are proposing that every cache on this site be overhauled so as to be exactly equal to every other cache, your number-comparison argument has no bearing on this discussion.

 

Not that it matters at this point in time, anyway. There's no way to recover. The best hope is for TPTB to give the individual a way to hide from public view these numbers so we aren't all forced to play the numbers game.

Forced? Really? Who is forcing you to "play the numbers game?" I want to know who’s got a gun pointed at you, and is forcing you to play the numbers game. Please tell me. I’m all eyes.

 

I find caches, I log them online, and I have fun doing it. None of that requires that I even acknowledge someone else’s find count, much less participate in the futile and pointless exercise of trying to compare their numbers to mine. I am Geocaching. Whatever it is you are doing with this forced-competition numbers comparison thing is some modified version of Geocaching that you have voluntarily chosen – sorry, been "forced" – to do.

[+KBI]

It’s very simple: Some bogus logs cause practical problems like the ones you describe. Some do not.

 

If a bogus cache log causes NOBODY to be robbed of their $100/hour time, or time at any price, or to be harmed in any other involuntary way, then there is no problem.

All bogus logs have the potential of causing problems for someone.

I disagree.

This is the point where a concrete example to back up your statement would be appropriate...

This the point where I have grown tired of posting the examples. We’ve been over all this before, and I don’t have the patience to post them yet again. Maybe someone else does. Or you could go look ‘em up yourself.

 

Besides, you were the one who claimed "All bogus logs have the potential of causing problems for someone." I say the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.

 

(Voluntarily choosing to be outraged anyway is of course a very different matter.)

...which is why I didn't complain that you are wasting OUR time. Again.

If reading my posts is a waste of your time, then whose time are you wasting when you quote them and respond to them?

Sorry, due in part to my bad wording, you misinterpreted what I meant. The "OUR" was a reminder that it was both of our time that is being spent here. It was somewhat implying that if I see reading your posts as a waste of time, My posting back is as well. When I see it as a waste of time, I'll either not bother to open the topic or you'll join sbell111 on the "Plonk" list. The "Again" was a nod to the fact that this is familiar territory.

I enjoy these debates. They make me think. This is definitely NOT a waste of my time.

 

If you don’t enjoy them you are always welcome to stop participating. The point of my response was to point out that if you feel your time is being wasted by reading and responding to my posts, that’s hardly my fault.

 

And BTW, choosing to put a forum participant on “ignore” is the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing “LALALALALALA YOU CAN’T CONVINCE ME BECAUSE I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!” It might make you feel better, but admitting that you have done so hardly supports a reputation for rationality

[+the hermit crabs]

Cacher A is an amalgam of all the subsequent cachers who have expressed offense, indignation and outrage over the practice of bogus logging.

 

If I am mistaken for my conclusion that you are in that category, then I apologize. Your challenging response to my post may have led be to draw an erroneous conclusion.

I missed this post from last night.

 

Yes, you are mistaken -- I am not in that category.

 

I'll try to explain what category I'm in. It would probably best be described as the "Lazy and apathetic" category, or the "Has an opinion but doesn't think it's worth defending" category.

• Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".
  
• Like you, I don't get too worked up about them.
  
• Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of diferent reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.
  
• Similar to the way you think it's not worth your time to think about bogus logs or get worked up about it, I think it's a waste of time to even talk about it or read about, so I nearly always send these "Cheating" / "Bogus logs" / "But who does it harm?" threads straight to the ignore list.
  

This thread was an exception to my normal "ignore" practice, solely because the OP is a local cacher, and I was interested to see where it went. Plus it started a little differently than most of this type: she didn't express outrage, or demand that the practice be forbidden. She just thought it seemed like a laughably foolish thing to do, and said she felt bad for them for missing out on some good caches.

[+KBI]

In order for cheating to occur there must be a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. When a cacher posts a benign bogus log, where is the victim?

 

If you can show me where someone has been victimized in a moral sense (and not for practical reasons – see my previous post on that) then I will have no choice but to agree with your point of view.

Say you have a son in grade school ...

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

If you truly would not be bothered at all by your son's "bogus logs" for books he did not read, then I'm afraid there is nothing that anyone can say in this thread that will make any impression on you at all.

Are you implying that I encourage others to lie about their accomplishments? If so, then you haven't been reading my posts. Promoting dishonesty has never been my position.

Where did I make that implication at all? All I asked was if it would bother you. That's it.

In that case:

 

Yes, if it was my son, it would bother me. It is my responsibility to raise and educate my son, and to fail to guide him toward a healthy view of honesty would be the equivalent of encouraging him to lie. Thus my interpretation of your implication that I was promoting dishonesty.

 

When my kids were toddlers I taught them that all lying is bad. As they grow old enough to understand more grown-up concepts, however, we are teaching them that “all lying is bad” is an oversimplification intended only for toddlers, and that they need to be able to think for themselves. Dishonesty is generally bad, but many examples have been provided in this very thread of certain forms of dishonesty which are not only good; they are downright heroic.

 

I intend for my kids to grow up with the intelligence, character and sense to be able to tell the difference between the lies that matter and the ones that don’t.

 

It is my responsibility to raise my son. It is NOT my job to jump into other people’s business every time I think I’ve seen some mild, harmless, meaningless slip in the accuracy of someone’s personal caching documentation. Benign bogus logs – those which were NOT posted by my son, that is – don’t bother me.

 

Next time I see a cache page smiley that appears to be bogus, here is what I will do: If my son posted the bogus log I will have a fatherly word with him. Same goes for my daughter. If it looks like you or one of my other friends did it I’ll send a friendly WTF email, asking .... well, asking WTF. If my brother posted the bogus log I will call him up and laugh insanely at him for being an idiot. If it’s someone I don’t know, and it’s not on one of my caches, I’ll do just like I’ve done in the past: roll my eyes, wonder what they were thinking, and go on about my business.

 

Now that I’ve answered your question, it’s your turn to consider one of mine:

 

What will YOU do the next time you see a find log on someone else’s cache page which you strongly suspect to be fictitious? Will you let it bother you? Will you send a friendly “corrective” email gently calling them a liar? Or will you write it off as harmless, meaningless and none of your business?

[+Too Tall John]

Besides, you were the one who claimed "All bogus logs have the potential of causing problems for someone." I say the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.

Ok, here you go:

 

At the very least, a bogus log takes up one of the spaces for logs in downloaded Pocket Queries.

(Voluntarily choosing to be outraged anyway is of course a very different matter.)

...which is why I didn't complain that you are wasting OUR time. Again.

If reading my posts is a waste of your time, then whose time are you wasting when you quote them and respond to them?

Sorry, due in part to my bad wording, you misinterpreted what I meant. The "OUR" was a reminder that it was both of our time that is being spent here. It was somewhat implying that if I see reading your posts as a waste of time, My posting back is as well. When I see it as a waste of time, I'll either not bother to open the topic or you'll join sbell111 on the "Plonk" list. The "Again" was a nod to the fact that this is familiar territory.

I enjoy these debates. They make me think. This is definitely NOT a waste of my time.

 

If you don’t enjoy them you are always welcome to stop participating. The point of my response was to point out that if you feel your time is being wasted by reading and responding to my posts, that’s hardly my fault.

I'm not sure you actually read what I wrote up there...

 

The point of my response was to point out that I don't feel my time is being wasted by reading and responding to your posts, and that if you misread my initial post,that’s my fault.

And BTW, choosing to put a forum participant on “ignore” is the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing “LALALALALALA YOU CAN’T CONVINCE ME BECAUSE I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!” It might make you feel better, but admitting that you have done so hardly supports a reputation for rationality

I decided that my frustration levels have decreased since he's been on ignore. I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "If you don't like 'em don't hunt 'em/post to 'em/read 'em"

 

I don't see your posts making me reach the levels of frustration that sbell111's posts did.

 

So don't worry, I enjoy these discussions, you're stuck with me.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+KBI]

Cacher A is an amalgam of all the subsequent cachers who have expressed offense, indignation and outrage over the practice of bogus logging.

 

If I am mistaken for my conclusion that you are in that category, then I apologize. Your challenging response to my post may have led be to draw an erroneous conclusion.

I missed this post from last night.

 

Yes, you are mistaken -- I am not in that category.

 

I'll try to explain what category I'm in. It would probably best be described as the "Lazy and apathetic" category, or the "Has an opinion but doesn't think it's worth defending" category.

• Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".
  
• Like you, I don't get too worked up about them.
  
• Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of diferent reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.
  
• Similar to the way you think it's not worth your time to think about bogus logs or get worked up about it, I think it's a waste of time to even talk about it or read about, so I nearly always send these "Cheating" / "Bogus logs" / "But who does it harm?" threads straight to the ignore list.
  

This thread was an exception to my normal "ignore" practice, solely because the OP is a local cacher, and I was interested to see where it went. Plus it started a little differently than most of this type: she didn't express outrage, or demand that the practice be forbidden. She just thought it seemed like a laughably foolish thing to do, and said she felt bad for them for missing out on some good caches.

Maybe you and I don’t really have much of a disagreement then.

 

You say: Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".

 

If by “wrong” you mean “inaccurate,” then obviously I agree. If by “wrong” you mean something like “evil,” “immoral,” or “dangerous,” on the other hand, then that would be a difference between us, because I don’t see the wickedness. If you DO think false find logs are immoral in this sense, can you help me understand why you feel this way?

 

You say: Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of different reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.

 

Again we are close. I also understand why folks would be opposed to the practice. I’M opposed to the practice. Like you, I also don’t generally see any reason to get worked up about them – especially when they are harmless. You say you don't happen to share many of the reasons why other people get worked up about them. I'm curious: which of those reasons DO you share?

[+KBI]

Besides, you were the one who claimed "All bogus logs have the potential of causing problems for someone." I say the burden of proof is on you to prove that claim, not on me to disprove it.

Ok, here you go:

 

At the very least, a bogus log takes up one of the spaces for logs in downloaded Pocket Queries.

If a bogus log is backdated older than the fifth-oldest post on the page, it does NOT take up one of the five PQ spaces.

 

We covered this already. Don’t you remember ANYTHING from that other thread? Oh wait, I think it was sbell111 who made that point in that thread. You must have already had your fingers in your ears at that point.

 

Looks like your use of the Ignore List caused you to miss something valuable, eh? Looks like it’s now resulting in a repeat of the entire debate. Looks like your "protection against tedium" is now causing both of us to suffer tedium.

[+TrailGators]

One thing that crossed my mind is that we have a local congrats thread for milestones. It is a very light and friendly thread. We all have fun congratulating everyone in the community for achieving milestones. I'm not into numbers but I have no problem congratulating friends that are. Anyhow, I don't know of anyone in our area that has bogus logs or who logs caches more than once to pad up their numbers. However, one individual has just created a multi cache that will let you log each waypoint as a find on the final cache. I disagree with this because I think the hider is bribing people with smileys to find their cache. I also think it is promoting cheesy behavior. Anyhow, if this kind of cache spreads in our area, I'm going to have to keep track of which people abstain from this numbers padding and only congratulate them. I just can't get myself to condone that behavior by congratulating people that do that. It is really kind of sad...

 

Edit: I hope this cache gets changed to one log = one find. so San Diego won't have the uproar/controversy they have in Wisconsin.

Edited March 29, 2008 by TrailGators

[+the hermit crabs]

In order for cheating to occur there must be a victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. When a cacher posts a benign bogus log, where is the victim?

 

If you can show me where someone has been victimized in a moral sense (and not for practical reasons – see my previous post on that) then I will have no choice but to agree with your point of view.

Say you have a son in grade school ...

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

If you truly would not be bothered at all by your son's "bogus logs" for books he did not read, then I'm afraid there is nothing that anyone can say in this thread that will make any impression on you at all.

Are you implying that I encourage others to lie about their accomplishments? If so, then you haven't been reading my posts. Promoting dishonesty has never been my position.

Where did I make that implication at all? All I asked was if it would bother you. That's it.

In that case:

 

Yes, if it was my son, it would bother me. It is my responsibility to raise and educate my son, and to fail to guide him toward a healthy view of honesty would be the equivalent of encouraging him to lie. Thus my interpretation of your implication that I was promoting dishonesty.

 

When my kids were toddlers I taught them that all lying is bad. As they grow old enough to understand more grown-up concepts, however, we are teaching them that “all lying is bad” is an oversimplification intended only for toddlers, and that they need to be able to think for themselves. Dishonesty is generally bad, but many examples have been provided in this very thread of certain forms of dishonesty which are not only good; they are downright heroic.

 

I intend for my kids to grow up with the intelligence, character and sense to be able to tell the difference between the lies that matter and the ones that don’t.

I'm sure all parents hope that for their kids.

 

Let's go back to the hypothetical book-"reading" son (not your real son, who I'm sure is a fine upstanding you man). I imagine that you wouldn't try to persuade him that his false book-logs are "wrong", because, as you have said, "if there is no victim, there is no crime." Do you use the "good reputation" type of persuasion instead? But what if he responds with something like this (similar to your post #73):

 

"Why should I let myself be ruled by others' opinions of me? Just because their chosen set of standards makes my behavior cause them to feel uncomfortable doesn’t automatically mean that my behavior is wrong. They have their own chosen set of standards, and I have mine. My behavior is be perfectly fine – within my chosen standards. Why should I think their standards are superior to mine?

 

If their rights aren’t being infringed, if they aren’t being harmed, and if there are no other victims, then the only reason for them to continue to feel harm anyway is because of their chosen point of view. Nobody can do anything about their chosen point of view but them."

 

It is my responsibility to raise my son. It is NOT my job to jump into other people’s business every time I think I’ve seen some mild, harmless, meaningless slip in the accuracy of someone’s personal caching documentation. Benign bogus logs – those which were NOT posted by my son, that is – don’t bother me.

 

Next time I see a cache page smiley that appears to be bogus, here is what I will do: If my son posted the bogus log I will have a fatherly word with him. Same goes for my daughter. If it looks like you or one of my other friends did it I’ll send a friendly WTF email, asking .... well, asking WTF. If my brother posted the bogus log I will call him up and laugh insanely at him for being an idiot. If it’s someone I don’t know, and it’s not on one of my caches, I’ll do just like I’ve done in the past: roll my eyes, wonder what they were thinking, and go on about my business.

 

Now that I’ve answered your question, it’s your turn to consider one of mine:

 

What will YOU do the next time you see a find log on someone else’s cache page which you strongly suspect to be fictitious? Will you let it bother you?

Possibly. But I let a lot of things bother me.

 

Will you send a friendly “corrective” email gently calling them a liar? Or will you write it off as harmless, meaningless and none of your business?

It depends on a lot of things. Do I know either the cacher or the cache owner? If so, do I like them? In the case of the cacher: if I like them, do I want to help prevent them from being ridiculed in the "Found it = Didn't Find it" thread, or would I rather not embarrass them by mentioning it at all? Or if I either dislike them or don't know them, am I afraid of potential retaliation -- will my caches all be destroyed tomorrow? Do I think it was just a mistake, or intentional? Is it an "epic" cache, a tough one that people take great pride in doing, or just a guardrail micro? How apathetic am I feeling today? Too many variables.

[+KBI]

Where did you get this notion that lying is ok? I'm glad my kids aren't being taught that. Good luck with that

Where did you get this notion that I made the claim that "lying is ok?" Please quote the post where I made that claim. Good luck with that

Ok.. Is a "harmless" (in your opinion) lie morally right? Just a simple yes or no will suffice.

I cannot answer with a simple yes or no to a question that contains an incorrect premise.

Thank you... Your answer speaks volumes

Did you ever make up your mind about what, exactly, you’re trying to preach?

[+KBI]

Let's go back to the hypothetical book-"reading" son (not your real son, who I'm sure is a fine upstanding you man). I imagine that you wouldn't try to persuade him that his false book-logs are "wrong", because, as you have said, "if there is no victim, there is no crime."

Not exactly. If my son’s reputation/believability is the victim, then we have a victim. If we have a victim, then there is a problem. It’s his choice to make, but he will need to learn, either the easy way or the hard way, that his choices have consequences.

 

In the case of a cacher logging a false find, one must also assume that the cacher has made the free and voluntary choice to take that risk with his reputation ... or that he simply doesn’t care. That is his right. As long as his lie doesn’t pose a practical problem and it is a truly benign lie, then it is not my place to question that cacher’s decision. He will have my pity, if not my support. Beyond that I won't let it bother me.

 

Do you use the "good reputation" type of persuasion instead? But what if he responds with something like this (similar to your post #73):

 

"Why should I let myself be ruled by others' opinions of me? Just because their chosen set of standards makes my behavior cause them to feel uncomfortable doesn’t automatically mean that my behavior is wrong. They have their own chosen set of standards, and I have mine. My behavior is be perfectly fine – within my chosen standards. Why should I think their standards are superior to mine?

 

If their rights aren’t being infringed, if they aren’t being harmed, and if there are no other victims, then the only reason for them to continue to feel harm anyway is because of their chosen point of view. Nobody can do anything about their chosen point of view but them."

I would congratulate him on making such an intelligent and well thought-out case.

 

Seriously: I would tell him that his reasoning is a lame excuse for lying to me, his teachers, and his friends about the progress of his education, and that the damage to his reputation and honor will follow him for a long time – and that it is ultimately up to him to decide whether to be honest, because ultimately I can’t force him.

 

I would then go on to tell him that his reasoning is an excellent argument for why it’s none of his business whether any of the other students are padding their numbers; that the book count is not a competition and he shouldn't compare his numbers to theirs; that he’ll be much more proud of his modest-yet-accurate count than they will be of their high-yet-fictitious number – and that, for those reasons, it’s not worth tattling about, much less letting it bother him.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You know, a subtle yet important difference between your analogy and the topic of bogus cache logs is that the student’s book count represents an important and substantial measure of the student’s education, while a geocacher’s find count is little more than a barely meaningful indication of how much he has participated in this fun and enjoyable yet unnecessary and frivolous activity.

 

A count of how many teacher-selected books a child has read toward his education means infinitely more than a count of how many five-star mountaintop caches – or possibly parking lot lamp post micros – a cacher has located in his spare time.

 

What will YOU do the next time you see a find log on someone else’s cache page which you strongly suspect to be fictitious? Will you let it bother you?

Possibly. But I let a lot of things bother me.

Why? Why would you allow yourself to be pointlessly troubled by something so meaningless?

[+the hermit crabs]

Cacher A is an amalgam of all the subsequent cachers who have expressed offense, indignation and outrage over the practice of bogus logging.

 

If I am mistaken for my conclusion that you are in that category, then I apologize. Your challenging response to my post may have led be to draw an erroneous conclusion.

I missed this post from last night.

 

Yes, you are mistaken -- I am not in that category.

 

I'll try to explain what category I'm in. It would probably best be described as the "Lazy and apathetic" category, or the "Has an opinion but doesn't think it's worth defending" category.

• Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".
  
• Like you, I don't get too worked up about them.
  
• Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of diferent reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.
  
• Similar to the way you think it's not worth your time to think about bogus logs or get worked up about it, I think it's a waste of time to even talk about it or read about, so I nearly always send these "Cheating" / "Bogus logs" / "But who does it harm?" threads straight to the ignore list.
  

This thread was an exception to my normal "ignore" practice, solely because the OP is a local cacher, and I was interested to see where it went. Plus it started a little differently than most of this type: she didn't express outrage, or demand that the practice be forbidden. She just thought it seemed like a laughably foolish thing to do, and said she felt bad for them for missing out on some good caches.

Maybe you and I don’t really have much of a disagreement then.

 

You say: Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".

 

If by “wrong” you mean “inaccurate,” then obviously I agree. If by “wrong” you mean something like “evil,” “immoral,” or “dangerous,” on the other hand, then that would be a difference between us, because I don’t see the wickedness. If you DO think false find logs are immoral in this sense, can you help me understand why you feel this way?

Of the three choices in the latter group, "immoral" would be closest to the meaning I had in mind, though it's not exact, since that word has (for me) religious overtones that I don't want to drag into this. "Evil" and "dangerous" are too strong for this particular offense.

 

Hmmm. Okay, I actually just browsed through a thesaurus looking just the right word. Some closer possibilities include deceptive, deceitful, dishonest, dishonorable, shady...

 

Maybe this will help you see why (but it probably won't). In previous posts, you have said (I'm just paraphrasing here rather than looking up an exact quote) that there are different types of lies: bad ones, good ones, and benign ones. Bad ones are those that harm others. Good ones are those that can save others from harm or injustice. Lies with no victim and no harm done are benign.

 

I agree with the first two definitions, but not with the third, mostly because it seems to say that all lies are okay unless they harm someone else. I'd look at it from the other end, and say most lies are bad unless they save someone from undeserved or unnecessary harm. I'm sure I could think of gray areas an exceptions, but in general, lies told solely for one's own benefit, even without harming anyone else, fall into the "bad lies" category for me.

 

"Sure, that dress looks fine on you," when said at the party where it's too late to change, is a benign lie.

 

"I can bench-press 230 pounds!" is not a benign lie to me, even though it harms no one.

 

You say: Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of different reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.

 

Again we are close. I also understand why folks would be opposed to the practice. I’M opposed to the practice. Like you, I also don’t generally see any reason to get worked up about them – especially when they are harmless. You say you don't happen to share many of the reasons why other people get worked up about them. I'm curious: which of those reasons DO you share?

One that I don't share: "all lies are evil, period." But I understand that many people think that way.

 

Another one I don't share: the idea that my numbers are somehow comparable to anyone else's. Now, I am not an "it's not about the numbers!" person. I admit that I like numbers. I like my numbers. I have always liked counting stuff. Especially my stuff. Other people's stuff? I don't care. It's too much like the fish-stick scene in Rainman... he's all upset that he only has four fish-sticks, and he's happy as a clam when Tom Cruise cuts them in half and now he has eight fish-sticks.

 

A third one that I do not share, but which I would think that you of all people would most readily understand: they get worked up about the issue because they enjoy getting worked up about it! Just like you enjoy discussing it. They cannot understand and are just dying to know why in the world anyone would choose to log caches that way, and need to discuss it endlessly until someone, somewhere, can explain it to them in a way that makes sense to them. Similarly you keep asking, in thread after thread, why in the world they care, and wish that someone could please explain why they choose to let themselves get so worked up about it. In both cases, it is something that won't ever change.

 

As for reasons that I am bothered by otherwise "harmless" bogus logs: the main one is one that you have already said you disagree with, but which I happen to believe is true: I do think that it contributes to a general lowering of societal standards of right and wrong. Is it going to cause rioting in the streets and looting downtown tomorrow, and the end of civilization as we know it next week? No. It's a slow, gradual, frog-in-the pot-of-water sort of degradation. Little kid fibs about books he has read today, falsely logs caches tomorrow, peeks at other kids' test papers in high school, buys term papers online in college, lies on his resume' to get a job, and all the time he doesn't feel like anything he is doing is wrong because no one ever told him it was wrong, because, after all, no one was getting hurt by it.

 

The trouble is, I believe that this is true, so I should get worked up about it, but I am too apathetic to do so. I just shrug and say that the whole world is falling apart anyway, we'll all be dead in 100 years, etc. I take a very defeatist attitude about this sort of thing. I don't have the courage of my convictions that someone like, say, Briansnat does. So really, I am part of the problem.

Edited March 29, 2008 by the hermit crabs

[+the hermit crabs]

Why? Why would you allow yourself to be pointlessly troubled by something so meaningless?

I wish I knew!

 

Character flaw. If I were a solo cacher, my name would have been "Easily Irritated."

[+infiniteMPG]

What about zero cents? In order to make your analogy relevant, that’s exactly how much it would have to be – zero cents – because that’s exactly how much “moral currency” it costs you and me whenever some other cacher lies about a cache find.

Agreed with that one. But in many cases arguing about is like the answer given.... "zero cents"... or maybe that's "zero sense"... hehehe

 

Failing to return ANY amount of erroneous change to a cashier constitutes a real, tangible, and financial loss to the business. If some silly cacher, on the other hand, logs a bogus find, exactly how much real, tangible, and financial loss does it cost you? Zero cents, that’s how much. Whenever someone posts a bogus find, you have not been conned, tricked or swindled out of anything – therefore how can you say you’ve been “cheated?” Sorry, but your analogy is irrelevant.

Cheating at geocaching as stated in the mega thread that we hoped had died, is about as damaging as cheating at recreational golf, cheating at throwing darts in your living room by yourself, turning over one "extra" card when playing solitaire, or looking up a cheat code online so you can get past something in a video game. All that's being cheated is yourself. And the people that do it are doing it to themselves, not to anyone else. And getting all bent about them doing it only adds stress to your life and degrades your life experience (and your geocaching experience).

 

Everyone, repeat this over and over until it sinks in " OH WELL!"

[+root1657]

other people "cheat"

Just arguing semantics here: If you are playing a game with no rules, you can't "cheat", no matter how you play. This is not a comment in favor of that behavior, just an observation. Before I get too judgmental on someone else's log, I try to discern their intent. If their intent was to deceive, then I'll call it as such. If it was not, then I won't. Folks in here can't come up with a definitive answer regarding the age old question of, "What is a find?", and I don't imagine the other gazillion cachers who never make it to these forums are any different.

 

If I see a Found It log on one of my caches that says, "I finally made it to the middle of your God forsaken swamp. I saw your ammo can 30' up a cypress tree and didn't feel I could ascend safely, so I'll claim a find from the ground", I won't say the person lied, since they presumably, accurately described exactly what they did, nor will I say they cheated, since there are no rules prohibiting their behavior. The most I would say is that their logging standards are obviously much lower than mine.

 

I dont know exactly how or why, but I read this post and all I can think of now is a scene from a movie I saw once... dont remember the name of the movie... There was a couple of guys standing there staring at a golf ball, and the one player says to the caddy that he has to count another stoke on it, cause 'something silly I dont really recall' happened, and the ball moved. One of the other guys asked how far it moved, the caddy kid says he barely saw it move and that it shouldnt matter. The guy says the ball moved, and he was counting another point against himself and that's all there was to it. The kids says if no one else saw it, then no one will ever know, and the guy says... (and this was the part I liked) "I'll know."

 

The three men looked at eachother, and they all knew, he was playing the game the only way he could feel right about it. I think that comes into geocaching too. There are a lot of people doing a lot of different stuff, good bad or indifferent. As for me, geocaching isnt a competition, and so long as I'm not fouling it up for others, I play the game as straight as I know how. Much like they say about golf, geocaching is a game that can never be won, only played.

 

I think that at the end of the day we would all agree on the 'gentlemens rules' of geocaching, but like so many things in life, not everyone participating is a gentleman (or lady as the case may be).

[+infiniteMPG]

This hobby is based on the honor system. It wouldn't work without it. Most of us worry about our own honor and leave others to worry about theirs. As in other facets of life, the honor system doesn’t work all the time, but it works almost all the time ... enough that it’s rarely a problem.

If you think about it, STOP SIGNS at intersections are ALL the "honor system". There have been problems at some intersection but for the most part, they WORK! If they didn't then we'd have traffic lights at every intersection (and ever they have some honor system aspects to them). But we don't so it means the vast majority of us CAN FUNCTION on the honor system. There will be a few who don't comply but rather then putting police at every intersection to capture everyone who fails to come to a complete stop or give right-of-way properly, we drive defensively and try to get along. Seems to work... for stop signs and geocaching.

[+infiniteMPG]

Why? Why would you allow yourself to be pointlessly troubled by something so meaningless?

::CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-CLAP:: Very well said KBI!

[+root1657]

 

Don't assume that because you can't do it in your area others can't do it in theirs. A PQ of my area (35210) shows 500 caches within 11 miles of my house... anyone that wants to find 80 to 100 in one day is invited to come and I will show you how!

 

Certainly no way to cache every day, but it can be fun once in a while.

 

Not to get away from the point of the thread, but many cities are probably also 'cache dense'. Take a look at the google map of San Diego for example. Same as the post I'm quoting, I think a 500 cache pocket query is only a couple of miles wide.

 

Doing the math on a theoretical maximum cache density of one cache every tenth of a mile, then one square mile (including it's border points) is an 11x11 grid, which is 121 caches. With as many people as we have caching in a lot of cities, there is someone that has figured out how to place caches just about anywhere.

 

I've never had more than a few caches in a day, but I can see where some serious double digit caching wouldnt be infeasable, or even really that difficult in some places.

[CoyoteRed]

Where's the victim in bogus logging?

 

I'd think that would be the community at large. Some individuals more than others depending on the aspects of the hobby that interest them.

The community at large? Please speak only for yourself.

Someone asked who was the victim. I answered.

 

Forced? Really? Who is forcing you to "play the numbers game?" I want to know who’s got a gun pointed at you, and is forcing you to play the numbers game. Please tell me. I’m all eyes.

Well, considering the fact that if I'm to use the site, and thusly the logging functions, as intended then my "found it" logs are aggregated and displayed for everyone to see. Because everyone can see this number they can then compare the number of finds logs they have with what I have. So, while I don't actively participate I'm "still in the game." Take a look at the cacherstats.com site. Unless you opt out you participate, but you have to actively opt out. It's not like INATN site where you have to opt in. Here at GC.com there is no opt out without changing the log-type to something that is not appropriate or deleting it altogether. I can't use this site to track our finds as intended without everyone else being able to track us as well.

[+root1657]

 

And I happen to know for a fact that a group can find 284 (while staying together) in 24 hours!

 

 

While mathematically possible, I find that very difficult to believe in real world conditions. Assuming you don't stop for meals, drink, rest or other biological needs, that is one find per 11.84 minutes.

 

With 500 caches in an 11 mile radius, you're covering approximately 380 square miles. Averaged out, that is one cache every .76 square mile. Presuming you're evenly spread out (you may have clusters, but thenn have longer distances between clusters as well), you're traveling roughly 216 miles. Now, you can go "well, yeah, I can hop in a car and 216 miles takes me 3 hours--less if you knew how *I* drive!!". Not if you're covering it in average 3/4 mile increments you can't. Figuring an average speed of 25 miles an hour (which is EXTREMELY generous in this case since we're taking short hops and haven't considered parking), you're talking about 8.64 hours ONLY in the car. That's not counting getting out, searching, finding, signing logs and getting back to the car.

 

That, of course, is presuming you're not riding a bike. Biking does help you avoid the parking issue and, with a well planned route, you might be able to keep travel to a minimum. That being said, though, unless you're a world class endurance athlete and traveling with a group of world class endurance athletes, I doubt you're putting 215 miles on the bike in 24 hours PLUS getting off and searching, signing logs and making sure you're replacing the cache properly.

 

If anyone told me they just got done doing that, I'd insist they pull out their GPSr and show me the tracking logs to prove it. I'm sure I'm going to draw flames for this, but until someone can show me that, I call shenanigans.

 

284 caches at maximum cache density of .1 mile would only be 28.4 miles traveled. This is totally feasible with a well planned walking route in cache dense areas like San Diego. That is only slightly ove 1MPH average speed, and most people would find it difficult to walk that slow for extended periods of time. Make it 3 miles an hour for regular people, and it's about 9.4 hours of walking. Figure 16 hours of daylight on a good summer day and that leaves us with 6.6 hours to sign some logs, get something to eat, and pee behind a tree.

 

Like one of the guys said, not the way I'd want to cache all the time, but it's doable from time to time.

[+root1657]

The people who are most outraged about other cachers cheating are only mad because THEY are the ones obsessed with numbers. They compare their find counts to everyone else's, and if someone has "cheated" and inflated their find count, these complainers don't look as good in comparison.

 

The people who don't seem to care if someone else has an accurate find count are generally the ones that truly don't care about other people's numbers.

 

Is your dad John Madden?

 

Read in your best Madden voice:

You see in geocaching, you have two groups... The ones who care about the numbers and the ones that don't care about the numbers. The ones that care about the numbers are the ones that care and the ones that don't care about the numbers are the ones that don't care.

 

The coolest thing I ever heard John Madden say - "Now here's a guy... who, when he runs, he goes faster..."

Read that with your John Madden voice and tell me that isnt awesome!

[CoyoteRed]

Why? Why would you allow yourself to be pointlessly troubled by something so meaningless?

Well, if I were to answer the question then I'd have to say it probably wouldn't bother me so much that there was a bogus log, but more on a level were bogus logging is indicative of an underlying future problem. As a cache owner who does not allow bogus logging, if bogus logging becomes more accepted as you seem to be advocating (all the while saying you're not) then I'm going to more often run into someone who wants his smilie even though he isn't entitled.

[Clan Riffster]

geocaching is a game that can never be won, only played.

Loved that one! Mind if I put it on a T-shirt?

[+root1657]

I can have disdain for Milli Vanilli and their phony Grammy win though I'm not a singer.

 

So here is a question for you... why didnt they find the guys who really sang the songs and give the award to them?

 

"um... here, we figured out that this actually belongs to you, and not... those guys"

[+mtn-man]

sbell111 at times will completely ignore posts (much in a "I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!” fashion) that don't support his argument, making holding a discussion with him tedious at best. If putting him on ignore takes away some of that frustration, I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "If you don't like 'em don't hunt 'em/post to 'em/read 'em"

 

If you start completely suspending reality, as IMO he did, then that's it. Having read many of your posts so far, I don't see that happening.

 

So don't worry, I enjoy these discussions, you're stuck with me.

Um, in the future, how about we show some respect? This one steps firmly on the line if not over it. Keep in mind that if your warning meter gets spiked, we would not be stuck with you. Calling someone out in this fashion, as *you* did, is against the forum guidelines. If you have a problem with them, report their posts.

 

In general terms, I sometime wish we could have a ForumWoodstock where you would all have to meet each other personally, shake hands or hug (as appropriate, I'm a hugger when it comes to female geo-pals) and actually speak to each other face to face. I think some of the "keyboard based strongman" tactics would be backed down several notches.

[+root1657]

shouldn't caches have a secret code in addition to the waypoint ref, which will only be revealed inside the cache and needs to be entered for a found log?

 

There is nothing keeping a cache owner from doing that. There is also nothing keeping dishonest geocachers from sharing those codes amongst each other.

 

I would guess that somewhere someone also already does this for trackables they probably never actually saw...

[+mtn-man]

geocaching is a game that can never be won, only played.

Loved that one! Mind if I put it on a T-shirt?

No doubt.

[Mushtang]

... or looking up a cheat code online so you can get past something in a video game. All that's being cheated is yourself.

This is a good example of something just not worth getting worked up about. Suppose I told you that I was playing an online game and was really enjoying it, but then I got stuck. I tried and tried but eventually realized I wasn't going to get past where I was on my own. I really wanted to keep playing though. So my choice was 1) stop playing, or 2) look up the answer online to get me past the stuck part and keep having fun.

 

Knowing that I went with option 2, and had more fun, would you think anyone should care? Should anyone get worked up about it? Am I now a cheater? Am I a liar? Will everything else I do in life, including my job applications and tax returns be more suspect than before I told you about the game?

 

I'd say that I didn't hurt anyone, NOR did I hurt myself. I didn't cheat myself, I gave myself the opportunity to have more fun. That's the way I chose to play that game.

 

If someone chooses to play the geocaching game in a way where they can log bogus finds that don't hurt anyone, but they seem to enjoy doing it for whatever reason, I just can't seem to understand why I should care.

 

I wouldn't do it myself, and if asked by them I'd suggest that they not do it either. I think it's wrong, but I just don't care that they're doing it.

[Mushtang]

I can have disdain for Milli Vanilli and their phony Grammy win though I'm not a singer.

 

So here is a question for you... why didnt they find the guys who really sang the songs and give the award to them?

 

"um... here, we figured out that this actually belongs to you, and not... those guys"

That's AWESOME! I never thought about that before, but they really did deserve the award since they made the recording.

 

Unless they were in on the whole thing and were denied the award as punishment. That's probably what happened.

 

Rob and Fab later tried to record their own album to show that they could actually sing (I think it proved the opposite), but I wonder if the real guys ever recorded again since they were shown to be worthy of a grammy?

 

Anyway... on topic... um.... geocaching is also a game that can never be lost, only played. Maybe that could be on the back of the tshirt.

[+KBI]

In general terms, I sometime wish we could have a ForumWoodstock where you would all have to meet each other personally, shake hands or hug (as appropriate, I'm a hugger when it comes to female geo-pals) and actually speak to each other face to face. I think some of the "keyboard based strongman" tactics would be backed down several notches.

That's an awesome idea.

 

I fly for free, so anywhere's fine with me. Where we goin'?

 

I'll bring along the money I'll save on airfare so I can buy the first round.

 

Aaaaaaaaand ... the most important question: Will it count as a find?

[+root1657]

 

And BTW, choosing to put a forum participant on “ignore” is the logical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly singing “LALALALALALA YOU CAN’T CONVINCE ME BECAUSE I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALA!!!!!!!” It might make you feel better, but admitting that you have done so hardly supports a reputation for rationality

 

I disagree. I think that adding some certin person to an ignore list might be simply because I find a high enough portion of thier content to be flame baiting or trolling that I simply choose not to see what they write anymore. If everyone did this, then over time a true troll would soon find that he is no longer an effective troll because no one has to be bothered by the garbage he writes. It's rare for someone to 'earn' the honor of being on an iggy list for me (currently, noone), but it can serve a logical purpose beyond LALALALALA.

[Mushtang]

In general terms, I sometime wish we could have a ForumWoodstock where you would all have to meet each other personally, shake hands or hug (as appropriate, I'm a hugger when it comes to female geo-pals) and actually speak to each other face to face. I think some of the "keyboard based strongman" tactics would be backed down several notches.

That's an awesome idea.

 

I fly for free, so anywhere's fine with me. Where we goin'?

 

I'll bring along the money I'll save on airfare so I can buy the first round.

 

Aaaaaaaaand ... the most important question: Will it count as a find?

Let's all meet and hug at the APE cache in Brazil.

 

Or we could all just say we met and log the Brazil APE cache as found anyway.

[+TrailGators]

In general terms, I sometime wish we could have a ForumWoodstock where you would all have to meet each other personally, shake hands or hug (as appropriate, I'm a hugger when it comes to female geo-pals) and actually speak to each other face to face. I think some of the "keyboard based strongman" tactics would be backed down several notches.

That's an awesome idea.

 

I fly for free, so anywhere's fine with me. Where we goin'?

 

I'll bring along the money I'll save on airfare so I can buy the first round.

 

Aaaaaaaaand ... the most important question: Will it count as a find?

Let's all meet and hug at the APE cache in Brazil.

 

Or we could all just say we met and log the Brazil APE cache as found anyway.

Brazil is too far plus mi espanol es no bueno. I am going to find the one in Seatle sometime this summer!

[+root1657]

geocaching is a game that can never be won, only played.

Loved that one! Mind if I put it on a T-shirt?

 

Um, ok, but only if you tag the - root1657 credit behind it.

 

And if you are taking pre-sales orders, count me in for a couple at a reasonable t-shirt price.

[+KoosKoos]

Brazil is too far plus mi espanol es no bueno. I am going to find the one in Seatle sometime this summer!

 

No worries on your espanol...they'd be speaking portuguese.

 

edit - fixing some quote problems

Edited March 30, 2008 by KoosKoos

[+TrailGators]

Brazil is too far plus mi espanol es no bueno. I am going to find the one in Seatle sometime this summer!

 

No worries on your espanol...they'd be speaking portuguese.

 

edit - fixing some quote problems

Eu sou pesaroso. Eu não falo o português tampouco.

[+Too Tall John]

I decided that my frustration levels have decreased since he's been on ignore. I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of "If you don't like 'em don't hunt 'em/post to 'em/read 'em"

 

I don't see your posts making me reach the levels of frustration that sbell111's posts did.

 

So don't worry, I enjoy these discussions, you're stuck with me.

Um, in the future, how about we show some respect? This one steps firmly on the line if not over it. Keep in mind that if your warning meter gets spiked, we would not be stuck with you. Calling someone out in this fashion, as *you* did, is against the forum guidelines. If you have a problem with them, report their posts.

Fixed.

 

My intent was not to call out sbell111, and I apologize to him if he feels like I did.

 

KBI's post was calling into question my very rationality (his word, not mine), my underlying intent was to show that there are other reasons than to say "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" for putting someone on the ignore list. Not an excuse, but still my reason. Hopefully my post still conveys my intent, I'm pretty sure I took the emotion that was behind it out.

In general terms, I sometime wish we could have a ForumWoodstock where you would all have to meet each other personally, shake hands or hug (as appropriate, I'm a hugger when it comes to female geo-pals) and actually speak to each other face to face. I think some of the "keyboard based strongman" tactics would be backed down several notches.

I know I've said it to KBI, and extends to just about anyone I've encountered in the forums:

If he's ever flying into MHT, let me know. I'd love to go caching with him. Heck, I'd buy the first round afterwards.

 

As long as he wasn't flying right back out...

 

 

Oh... wait....

 

KBI said he's bringing his "airfare" for the first round...

 

I'm buying the 2nd one.

Edited March 30, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+Too Tall John]

Brazil is too far plus mi espanol es no bueno. I am going to find the one in Seatle sometime this summer!

No worries on your espanol...they'd be speaking portuguese.

 

edit - fixing some quote problems

I've got a coworker from Portugal. She's very big on going to Brazil. Maybe we can coordinate with her & we'd have an interpreter...

 

[+KBI]

Before I reply to this post I just want to say that it is one of the most well-written, level-headed, carefully thought-out, and enjoyable posts I have seen here in a long time. A real pleasure to read. Well done!

 

 

Maybe you and I don’t really have much of a disagreement then.

 

You say: Unlike you, I do think that false logs are "wrong".

 

If by “wrong” you mean “inaccurate,” then obviously I agree. If by “wrong” you mean something like “evil,” “immoral,” or “dangerous,” on the other hand, then that would be a difference between us, because I don’t see the wickedness. If you DO think false find logs are immoral in this sense, can you help me understand why you feel this way?

Of the three choices in the latter group, "immoral" would be closest to the meaning I had in mind, though it's not exact, since that word has (for me) religious overtones that I don't want to drag into this. "Evil" and "dangerous" are too strong for this particular offense.

 

Hmmm. Okay, I actually just browsed through a thesaurus looking just the right word. Some closer possibilities include deceptive, deceitful, dishonest, dishonorable, shady...

Agree ... agree ... agree ... agree ... agree.

 

Accurately descriptive words all, but I still say there are times and places where being dishonest doesn’t matter.

 

Maybe this will help you see why (but it probably won't). In previous posts, you have said (I'm just paraphrasing here rather than looking up an exact quote) that there are different types of lies: bad ones, good ones, and benign ones. Bad ones are those that harm others. Good ones are those that can save others from harm or injustice. Lies with no victim and no harm done are benign.

 

I agree with the first two definitions, but not with the third, mostly because it seems to say that all lies are okay unless they harm someone else. I'd look at it from the other end, and say most lies are bad unless they save someone from undeserved or unnecessary harm.

All you are doing here is removing the “benign” lies from the list and putting them in the “bad” category without explaining why they’re bad.

 

I'm sure I could think of gray areas an exceptions, but in general, lies told solely for one's own benefit, even without harming anyone else, fall into the "bad lies" category for me.

 

"Sure, that dress looks fine on you," when said at the party where it's too late to change, is a benign lie.

 

"I can bench-press 230 pounds!" is not a benign lie to me, even though it harms no one.

Guys lie about competition/athletic stuff all the time. Fishing stories and all that.

 

Seriously. Exaggerated boasting about weightlifting, golf or fishing might affect the believability of the exaggerator, if someone tells you he can lift more weight than he can really lift, but it’s not a piece of information you’re depending on for anything meaningful, what does it matter? In fact, if you know it’s a lie, then you’ve just learned something useful about that person. The lie was harmless - except that it has now flagged the guy as someone to take with a grain of salt in the future, which means the lie is now beneficial.

 

Most lies are bad, some lies are actually good, but plenty of lying – or cheating, as it was described earlier in the thread – is completely benign. Neither bad nor good, just meaningless. Nothing you have said has convinced me to summarily dump all benign lies over into the bad category.

 

I think infiniteMPG expressed the concept extremely well:

 

Cheating at geocaching as stated in the mega thread that we hoped had died, is about as damaging as cheating at recreational golf, cheating at throwing darts in your living room by yourself, turning over one "extra" card when playing solitaire, or looking up a cheat code online so you can get past something in a video game. All that's being cheated is yourself. And the people that do it are doing it to themselves, not to anyone else. And getting all bent about them doing it only adds stress to your life and degrades your life experience (and your geocaching experience).

Nobody is being “cheated” in these analogous examples because there is no target of the lie other than the liar himself, and therefore no involuntary victim. Same with harmless bogus logs. No victim, therefore no crime.

 

You say: Unlike you, I can see why other people do get worked up about them. I can see lots of different reasons for it. I don't happen to share many of them, but I can understand them.

 

Again we are close. I also understand why folks would be opposed to the practice. I’M opposed to the practice. Like you, I also don’t generally see any reason to get worked up about them – especially when they are harmless. You say you don't happen to share many of the reasons why other people get worked up about them. I'm curious: which of those reasons DO you share?

One that I don't share: "all lies are evil, period." But I understand that many people think that way.

 

Another one I don't share: the idea that my numbers are somehow comparable to anyone else's. Now, I am not an "it's not about the numbers!" person. I admit that I like numbers. I like my numbers. I have always liked counting stuff. Especially my stuff. Other people's stuff? I don't care. It's too much like the fish-stick scene in Rainman... he's all upset that he only has four fish-sticks, and he's happy as a clam when Tom Cruise cuts them in half and now he has eight fish-sticks.

 

A third one that I do not share, but which I would think that you of all people would most readily understand: they get worked up about the issue because they enjoy getting worked up about it! Just like you enjoy discussing it. They cannot understand and are just dying to know why in the world anyone would choose to log caches that way, and need to discuss it endlessly until someone, somewhere, can explain it to them in a way that makes sense to them. Similarly you keep asking, in thread after thread, why in the world they care, and wish that someone could please explain why they choose to let themselves get so worked up about it. In both cases, it is something that won't ever change.

I don’t know that I buy the “won't ever change” part, but other than that, you’ve made an excellent point.

 

It’s kinda like the venerable old gossip syndrome: anything scandalous is fun to talk about. Even if there is absolutely no chance that the thing being gossiped about will have even the slightest effect on the life of the gossiper.

 

I think you’re right about the gossip angle, and I have even pointed out previously that I believe one reason some folks enjoy feeling and expressing outrage over harmless false logs is that it gives them a feeling of superiority.

 

I for one have never understood the attraction to gossip rags like People Magazine. It’s got nothing but annoying personal information about people whose private lives I care zero about. I watch people come unglued over the news that some actor is cheating on some other actor, or who’s having a baby, or what some other actor wore at her wedding. Same with bogus logs. I suppose it’s fun for some folks to look down their nose at them in order to feel taller, they simply don’t bother me.

 

As for reasons that I am bothered by otherwise "harmless" bogus logs: the main one is one that you have already said you disagree with, but which I happen to believe is true: I do think that it contributes to a general lowering of societal standards of right and wrong. Is it going to cause rioting in the streets and looting downtown tomorrow, and the end of civilization as we know it next week? No. It's a slow, gradual, frog-in-the pot-of-water sort of degradation. Little kid fibs about books he has read today, falsely logs caches tomorrow, peeks at other kids' test papers in high school, buys term papers online in college, lies on his resume' to get a job, and all the time he doesn't feel like anything he is doing is wrong because no one ever told him it was wrong, because, after all, no one was getting hurt by it.

 

The trouble is, I believe that this is true, so I should get worked up about it, but I am too apathetic to do so. I just shrug and say that the whole world is falling apart anyway, we'll all be dead in 100 years, etc. I take a very defeatist attitude about this sort of thing. I don't have the courage of my convictions that someone like, say, Briansnat does. So really, I am part of the problem.

All I have to say to that is to point out that people have been lying to each other for tens of thousands of years now, and I think if we frogs were going to die in the slowly boiling water it would have happened already.

 

As I wrote in a recent post, I observed a series of bogus find logs way back five years ago, back when I was but a single-digit newbie. That’s more than half the lifetime of this hobby. If those bogus logs I saw had set off the domino effect degradation you predict, I think we’d have seen some evidence of the epidemic by now. Bogus logs, however, remain the same as they were back then: an occasional curiosity, not a contagion that is crumbling the hobby.

 

Nope, I still say there is so-called cheating – lying on cache pages – that just doesn’t matter, and while I understand everything you have written here, I still think the reaction some folks express is overkill.

 

You as much as admitted it yourself.

[+KBI]

Where's the victim in bogus logging?

 

I'd think that would be the community at large. Some individuals more than others depending on the aspects of the hobby that interest them.

The community at large? Please speak only for yourself.

Someone asked who was the victim. I answered.

... and I'm pointing out that you are not authorized to answer for everyone.

 

If you, personally, have somehow become a victim of ALL bogus logs, then please explain. Let the other individuals who make up the "community at large" answer for themselves.

 

Forced? Really? Who is forcing you to "play the numbers game?" I want to know who’s got a gun pointed at you, and is forcing you to play the numbers game. Please tell me. I’m all eyes.

Well, considering the fact that if I'm to use the site, and thusly the logging functions, as intended then my "found it" logs are aggregated and displayed for everyone to see. Because everyone can see this number they can then compare the number of finds logs they have with what I have. So, while I don't actively participate I'm "still in the game."

I’m a cacher, but unlike you I’m not "in the game." How is it that your mere participation in the hobby automatically includes you in some involuntary numbers competition, but it doesn’t have the same effect on me? Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.

 

Take a look at the cacherstats.com site.

I’d rather not. As a non-competitor, it doesn’t sound like anything I’d be interested in.

 

Why do YOU look at it?

 

Seriously. Why DO you look at it? Are you willing to answer that very reasonable question? I doubt it, but we'll see.

 

Unless you opt out you participate, but you have to actively opt out.

Better yet, I prefer not to click on cacherstats.com at all. How’s that for opting out – if I choose not to look at your scorekeeping website, then I’m not involved at all! NOW tell me I'm participating.

 

Who cares if someone else is looking at my numbers; they can look all they want, it still doesn’t mean I’m competing with anyone.

 

It's not like INATN site where you have to opt in. Here at GC.com there is no opt out without changing the log-type to something that is not appropriate or deleting it altogether. I can't use this site to track our finds as intended without everyone else being able to track us as well.

So?

 

Where in any of that does it say you have to be bothered by, or even care about, the way other people choose how to define a “find?”

 

Where in any of that does it say you have to be bothered by, or even care about, my numbers? Anybody's numbers?

 

Where in any of that does it say you have to be bothered by, or even care about, some goof who logs a cache he didn't find?

 

What you’re saying is this: “The numbers are there; therefore I’m forced to compete.” Sorry, but that makes about as much sense as saying you’re forced to order a milkshake just because it’s on the menu.

 

I don’t compete, I don’t look at scorekeeping websites, and ... I hate to break this to you CR, but I have never looked at YOUR find count either. I don’t have the slightest clue how many caches you’ve logged on this site. I don’t really care. I’m truly glad you get whatever enjoyment it is you get out of this hobby, but even though you say you’re "still in the game" when it comes to comparing numbers, I’m not playing that game. Nobody is forcing ME to compete. Even if you, CoyoteRed, ever hypothetically decided to try and “cheat” me by logging enough bogus finds to put you past my count (assuming I’m ahead, who knows), it would have ZERO effect on me. Whether you compete with me honorably or not, I’m not competing – and THAT’S why I don’t care about bogus logs.

[+TotemLake]

It's only cheating if you're in competition.

[+KBI]

If bogus logging becomes more accepted as you seem to be advocating (all the while saying you're not) ...

This is unacceptable. Again you are calling my principles into question. And once again you are calling me a liar.

 

You are hearing only what you want to hear, and dismissing my actual words whenever they don’t fit into your little strawman.

 

Where is the post in which I advocated bogus logging? I am going to have to insist that you either quote the post in which you believe I advocated bogus logs, or apologize for this latest personal attack. This is getting ridiculous.

[+TrailGators]

It's only cheating if you're in competition.

If it's not cheating, then why do owners delete bogus logs?