Jump to content

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks


benh57

Recommended Posts

So if you don't follow the letter of the law (or rules) of a game then you are not playing the game? Or is there some gray area (and who would decide that gray area)? I guess in that same sense if you exceed the speed limit you're not driving either, you're just horsing around on the road with a car

 

You can bend the rules a long way and still be playing the game. There is a huge gray area, Geocaching has plenty of people playing in a gray area. But I think most people will agree there is a point at which you are no longer caching. Just as most people would know the point at which you are no longer playing pool or golf.

 

As for driving there is no gray area, driving on a public highway is not a sport. It can be a lot of fun, and is often done for pleasure, but there are laws to follow, not rules. If you are speeding, you are still driving but you are not breaking a rule, you are breaking a law and are endangering other drivers.

 

If you really read what you and I have said, I think you will see you are the one that is being hard line about it. You feel anyone should be able to play games anyway they want, and everyone has to agree that they are playing that game. I'm saying you can play whatever way floats your boat, it doesn't matter to me. However, I do feel that words have meaning. You can't just call a slice of bread steak, and it makes it so.

 

Yes there are gray areas, using an umbrella or your foot as a putter, while not allowed, would not change the game to something else. Using a baseball bat or slingshot to put the ball on the green would change the game enough that even if you call it golf it ain't so.

 

It just baffles me when I see people get so hard line about stuff that should be lighthearted and fun. I'd don't think anyone will change their views on this but I just don't see that perspective on things as being very much fun, and life is too short to be taken so seriously.

 

It baffles me how you can think someone is hard line about stuff, when the only thing I care about is what you call it. I don't golf, but if I did I really think there would be days when I might do some of the things you mentioned or even the slingshot idea, the difference is I would know when I was playing "golf" and when I wasn't.

Now I think I will go follow some other threads in this forum, as I find myself doing something I don't like in this one. That is arguing with someone who just wants to argue. I love doing that around a campfire face to face, but really don't like it in this format.

Edited by uxorious
Link to comment

This is a new one, this cacher refuses to sign any physical logbooks, and only logs online:...

 

Back in the day, not all caches had log books to sign. That's a point worth remembering. Micro's often had no log book.

Huh! That's not how I remember it. Trades and little log scrolls. Remember it vividly. Why? Because of all the cussing trying to figure out the puzzle of getting everything back in.

 

Caches require(d) a form of verification. Those micros that didn't have a logbook were termed "code word caches." You had to email some form of verification to the cache owner--be it the number of beans, the dollar amount of coinage, a number or word, etc.

Link to comment
In general, things that other folks do in this hobby don't bother me until it starts to affect me. False logging is kind of like begging for hints. When someone gets so used to owners handing out spoilers--or other finders doing the same and especially when the seeker hasn't first made a decent effort--then I become the bad guy because I don't.
That's like kids saying some other parents let their kids do something so why can't they... being the "bad guy" kind of comes with the responsibility and you deal with it as best you can by your rules. You can control what your kids do and where they can go, but I doubt seriously you contact the other parents and tell them to stop letting their kids do something so you don't have to deal with your kids complaining. Each owner's caches are theirs and when it comes down to it, that's all they have control over.
Link to comment
If you really read what you and I have said, I think you will see you are the one that is being hard line about it. You feel anyone should be able to play games anyway they want, and everyone has to agree that they are playing that game. I'm saying you can play whatever way floats your boat, it doesn't matter to me. However, I do feel that words have meaning. You can't just call a slice of bread steak, and it makes it so.
Not hard line about this, actually not any line at all. We're all individuals and have our own perspectives and I appreciate we're in all different directions, would be scary if we all thought the same way. And never said people "should" be allowed to play any game any way they want, I am saying they "do" and probably always will. That comes with being individuals. As cache owners we can just try to deal with that fact the best we can and IMHO the best way is lightheartedly. Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
In general, things that other folks do in this hobby don't bother me until it starts to affect me. False logging is kind of like begging for hints. When someone gets so used to owners handing out spoilers--or other finders doing the same and especially when the seeker hasn't first made a decent effort--then I become the bad guy because I don't.
That's like kids saying some other parents let their kids do something so why can't they... being the "bad guy" kind of comes with the responsibility and you deal with it as best you can by your rules. You can control what your kids do and where they can go, but I doubt seriously you contact the other parents and tell them to stop letting their kids do something so you don't have to deal with your kids complaining. Each owner's caches are theirs and when it comes down to it, that's all they have control over.

Good analogy.

 

I don't see where parents allowing their little terrors be rude and obnoxious makes it right or that it shouldn't bother me when it affects me. It's their kids and if they can't control their kids when they're over at our house they don't have to stay--just like the log. Maintain acceptable standards and I don't have to be the bad guy.

Link to comment
I don't see where parents allowing their little terrors be rude and obnoxious makes it right or that it shouldn't bother me when it affects me. It's their kids and if they can't control their kids when they're over at our house they don't have to stay--just like the log. Maintain acceptable standards and I don't have to be the bad guy.
Good point and being a Mr. Mom and having raised my two kids on my own (grown now) I can relate to that 110%! We have control over who comes to our home and what home our kids go to. We can stop our kids from going to someone's home that doesn't live by what we consider acceptable standards, but we really don't have any control over the other people's home environment. And yeah, it does feel bad to be the "bad guy" but in the long run it's for a good cause. So we control what we have control over as best we can and hopefully we get good results, with our kids and our caches :rolleyes:
Link to comment

...I’m not saying bogus logs are right. I’m not saying bogus logs are morally praiseworthy. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they don’t matter, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me...

They do matter. You just chose to ignore the salient reasons as to why.

I say they don't matter. You say they do. As far as I can tell I have not chosen to ignore any counter-reasoning, but anything is possible.

 

Were you planning to leave it at that, or can you please also help me to understand the "salient reasons as to why?"

 

If you believe I am missing something important, I would very much like to hear what it is. If I am wrong about this, I do no wish to continue being wrong. I promise you I have an open mind. I don't really care who is right. I am far more interested in what is right. Anything less open-minded would be intellectually dishonest of me, don't you think?

 

I recently invited another participant in this thread to go beyond simply saying "you're wrong, KBI" and to persuade me with something convincing. The response was a raspberry. While I enjoyed the raspberry, it nevertheless failed to convince me to change my mind.

 

Can YOU change my mind, RK?

Link to comment
I’m not saying bogus logs are right. I’m not saying bogus logs are morally praiseworthy. I’m not saying bogus logs are what the trendy right-thinking moralite should be wearing this season. I’m simply saying that they don’t matter, and that there is no reason for me to let them bother me.

Okay, so you're saying bogus logs are not wrong?

No.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, but let me help you untangle your grammar a bit. "Not" is the logical equivalent of "opposite." The opposite of "wrong" is "right." I am NOT saying that logging bogus logs is the "right" thing to do.

 

If that's what you think I said, then maybe you haven't been reading my posts.

 

I'm wondering why it's so important to you that other folks not be bothered by something they think is wrong. This site thinks it's wrong as deleting bogus logs is part of a cache owner's responsibility for the cache to be listed here. It obviously does bother some folks. If no one got bothered by something they saw was wrong with some aspect of the hobby we'd have all kinds of issues. The guidelines are there for a reason.

Yup, it is becoming more obvious that you haven’t read anything I’ve actually said, Coyote.

 

Either that, or you are propping up an intentional strawman in order to have someone fictitious to argue against.

 

I know you are above that sort of obfuscation, however, so for now I'll just assume you were simply in too big a hurry to read my posts.

Link to comment
I'm wondering why it's so important to you that other folks not be bothered by something they think is wrong.
When I read this I might think that you ARE bothered by something you think is wrong.

 

And then I read this (in your same post):

In general, things that other folks do in this hobby don't bother me until it starts to affect me.
and now it sounds like you're saying EXACTLY what KBI and I have been saying all along.

 

False logs that people make in this hobby don't bother me because it doesn't affect me. So far nobody has shown a reason (that I agree with) that it affects me, and nobody has shown me why I should let it bother me if they exist on other caches.

 

I'll delete Finds from my own if I know they're false, but if someone else lets one stay it's just not something I'll get worked up about.

Link to comment

So the argument isn't whether cache owners should delete bogus logs but what should be done with cache owners who don't? Sounds like some people feel these owners are contributing the degradation of geocaching while other feel that this is a minor problem which has the sole purpose of generating long debates in the forums. (There does seem to be a dispute on what makes a log bogus as well - with puritans saying you need to check the physical logs and others saying it's if the finder doesn't offer a satisfactory explanation.)

 

So what can Groundspeak do about it? They could archive caches where the owner is not doing maintenance but that may require them to get proof the log is bogus. Even if they chose to define not signing the physical log as being sufficient for bogusness, they are not going to send reviewers to check physical logs, so how would they know. There are of course cases where the logger comes right out and says they didn't sign the log (usually because of no pen or a wet log book, but sometimes with the excuse of not wanting compromise the cache to muggles). Groundspeak could probably force cache owners to delete these logs or risk getting their cache archived. But you can imagine the fallout if they adopted this policy. Many would point out that honest cachers are being punished because a cache owner is not maintaining their cache page by having a perfectly good cache archived. Of course if it is reasonable to believe that a cache is missing (say a previous finder checked and couldn't find it or a easy 1/1 cache all of a sudden starts getting lots of DNFs) and someone logs an apparently bogus finds, it may be a good thing for the reviewers to have the threat of archival due to maintenance of the online page as a way to force the owner to check on the cache and either replace the missing cache or verify it is still there.

Link to comment

 

There's a BIG difference between something that you SHOULD do, and something that you shouldn't do but if you do it it's probably not that big of a deal.

 

Have you ever burped in public (either on accident or on purpose)? It's something that you probably shouldn't do because it's rude and it could smell bad (among other reasons). But... if someone does it what does it really matter? By saying that I'm not at all suggesting that people SHOULD burp in public, I'm not suggesting that society as a whole should suddenly accept that everyone will soon start burping in public, and I'm definitely saying that I will not burp in public myself. If, however, later today I'm walking in the mall and right behind me a teenager sends out a loud BRRRrraaaaAAAAP, I'm going to roll my eyes and keep walking.

 

If this were the Walking In Public forums and the topic was burping, I'd be suggesting that burping doesn't hurt anyone and if someone really wants to do it then so be it. That may be condoning it, but it doesn't mean that I think it's what people SHOULD do.

 

See the difference?

But to defend the idea of burping in public can is some small way contribute to it becoming the norm.

Link to comment

 

There's a BIG difference between something that you SHOULD do, and something that you shouldn't do but if you do it it's probably not that big of a deal.

 

Have you ever burped in public (either on accident or on purpose)? It's something that you probably shouldn't do because it's rude and it could smell bad (among other reasons). But... if someone does it what does it really matter? By saying that I'm not at all suggesting that people SHOULD burp in public, I'm not suggesting that society as a whole should suddenly accept that everyone will soon start burping in public, and I'm definitely saying that I will not burp in public myself. If, however, later today I'm walking in the mall and right behind me a teenager sends out a loud BRRRrraaaaAAAAP, I'm going to roll my eyes and keep walking.

 

If this were the Walking In Public forums and the topic was burping, I'd be suggesting that burping doesn't hurt anyone and if someone really wants to do it then so be it. That may be condoning it, but it doesn't mean that I think it's what people SHOULD do.

 

See the difference?

But to defend the idea of burping in public can is some small way contribute to it becoming the norm.

In that case don't defend it. I wasn't.

Link to comment

 

In that case don't defend it. I wasn't.

Yes I know you weren't defending burping in public. If you want to roll your eyes and keep walking I support your right to do so. To suggest that anyone or everyone should also do the same is different. To think it is not a big deal is not the same as going into a public arena as telling everyone "it's not a big deal, just keep walking." Once you start saying it out loud, you are at least tacitly supporting it.

Edited by traildad
Link to comment

In that case don't defend it. I wasn't.

Yes I know you weren't defending burping in public. If you want to roll your eyes and keep walking I support your right to do so. To suggest that anyone or everyone should also do the same is different. To think it is not a big deal is not the same as going into a public arena as telling everyone "it's not a big deal, just keep walking." Once you start saying it out loud, you are at least tacitly supporting it.

Okay, so you interpret that as "support." I don’t see it that way at all. I call it "tolerance." Or how about "lenience." Or "acceptance." Or "patience."

 

You don’t have to like something, or agree with it, or modify your opinion that it is, in fact, wrong, in order to tolerate it. You can peacefully coexist with a thing without "supporting" it.

 

Just because I believe a thing is wrong doesn’t mean it is necessarily worth my time or energy to fight against it. Wrong is a relative thing. Why do so many people here seem to think in absolutes? Has no one here ever heard of 'picking your battles?'

Link to comment

In that case don't defend it. I wasn't.

Yes I know you weren't defending burping in public. If you want to roll your eyes and keep walking I support your right to do so. To suggest that anyone or everyone should also do the same is different. To think it is not a big deal is not the same as going into a public arena as telling everyone "it's not a big deal, just keep walking." Once you start saying it out loud, you are at least tacitly supporting it.

Okay, so you interpret that as "support." I don’t see it that way at all. I call it "tolerance." Or how about "lenience." Or "acceptance." Or "patience."

 

You don’t have to like something, or agree with it, or modify your opinion that it is, in fact, wrong, in order to tolerate it. You can peacefully coexist with a thing without "supporting" it.

 

Just because I believe a thing is wrong doesn’t mean it is necessarily worth my time or energy to fight against it. Wrong is a relative thing. Why do so many people here seem to think in absolutes? Has no one here ever heard of 'picking your battles?'

 

You do come across as being supportive of the practice when your replies consistantly state not to worry about it. This is an instance of right and wrong and is something we as cachers can do something about.

 

I do think, as you put it, in absolutes when it comes to certain things. Lying, doesn't matter if it's about something silly or something serious, is wrong. This is not a relative wrong and certainly not merely my opinion. I don't think anyone, except for the liars themselves, would ever say it's the "right" thing to do. It's not very often that anything positive comes about because of a lie,,, well, except for the person telling the lie. The reason people do it is to gain something tangible, to try and make themselves look better, or to simply get attention.

 

On the other hand, how we respond when people lie, is relative. Some people, you for one, respond better to lying than others. I do not, but like you, can usually tolerate it when it rares it's ugly head. No, i don't dwell on it and it doesn't ruin my life but there can be consequences. One of them being that it does change my feelings about the person who does it. My thinking, if they lie about something silly like a geocaching find, then what other more important things might they lie about...

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

Okay, so you interpret that as "support." I don’t see it that way at all. I call it "tolerance." Or how about "lenience." Or "acceptance." Or "patience."

 

You don’t have to like something, or agree with it, or modify your opinion that it is, in fact, wrong, in order to tolerate it. You can peacefully coexist with a thing without "supporting" it.

 

Just because I believe a thing is wrong doesn’t mean it is necessarily worth my time or energy to fight against it. Wrong is a relative thing. Why do so many people here seem to think in absolutes? Has no one here ever heard of 'picking your battles?'

 

You do come across as being supportive of the practice when your replies consistantly state not to worry about it. This is an instance of right and wrong and is something we as cachers can do something about.

 

I do think, as you put it, in absolutes when it comes to certain things. Lying, doesn't matter if it's about something silly or something serious, is wrong. This is not a relative wrong and certainly not merely my opinion. I don't think anyone, except for the liars themselves, would ever say it's the "right" thing to do. It's not very often that anything positive comes about because of a lie,,, well, except for the person telling the lie. The reason people do it is to gain something tangible, to try and make themselves look better, or to simply get attention.

 

On the other hand, how we respond when people lie, is relative. Some people, you for one, respond better to lying than others. I do not, but like you, can usually tolerate it when it rares it's ugly head. No, i don't dwell on it and it doesn't ruin my life but there can be consequences. One of them being that it does change my feelings about the person who does it. My thinking, if they lie about something silly like a geocaching find, then what other more important things might they lie about...

KBI agrees that falsely claiming a find is wrong. It appears that he even agrees that cache owners should delete logs that appear to be bogus as the guidelines state. What he says is that if a cache owner doesn't delete the log it is not the end of the world. He is not bothered by the fact that briansnat's friend waste gas because he feels that briansnat's friend probably had a good time going out and looking for the cache. He may have more fun if he found the cache but at least he got out of the house and had some fun looking. Had there been a real log instead of a bogus one, briansnat's friend may still have gotten a DNF. Some people want to blame the DNF on the bogus log. The bogus log did not muggle the cache or hide it better. The situation of the cache was the same before the bogus log and after the bogus log. The bogus log may have contributed to the decision to hunt the cache but it was just one factor in that decision. As such KBI is not going to get too upset about. In any case what would you propose he do? If he sees a log that he thinks is bogus should he post an SBA on the cache since the owner is obviously not maintaining the cache page? Should he do this every time he finds a log that says "I found the cache but didn't sign the log because <reason>"?

 

So why do people keep arguing? The issue is the moral indignation of the puritans that people would 'lie' about a find. They don't want to hear that the lie didn't affect anybody. It doesn't matter if the lie doesn't effect anybody, it's still a lie. But it does matter whether a lie affects somebody. The Bible doesn't say "Thou shall not lie" - it says "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". Lying is wrong when it leads to a miscarriage of justice. Lying can be good. Ask the Jews whose lives were saved when their Christian neighbors lied to the nazis. Some geocachers feel that you should lie to muggles to protect a cache. Most lies are neither good nor bad. If you were taught as child not to lie there were likely two reasons. The first was the "10 commandments" reason. Your parents were probably going to punish you for something. They wanted to know the truth so there wouldn't be a miscarriage of justice. If you told the truth the punishment was likely to be less severe than if they thought you were lying. The second was to help you when there was dilemma about lying. If you weren't sure if you should lie or tell the truth the axiom of "honesty is the best policy" is a good rule to remember. Even if you think it is OK to lie, your parents and teachers wanted you to think about what would happen when someone found out you were lying. This lesson has the effect of some people growing up thinking that lying should always be punished. This is not the intent. The intent is that if a lie results in harming someone then the liar should be punished.

Link to comment
Just because I believe a thing is wrong doesn’t mean it is necessarily worth my time or energy to fight against it. Wrong is a relative thing. Why do so many people here seem to think in absolutes? Has no one here ever heard of 'picking your battles?'

You do come across as being supportive of the practice when your replies consistantly state not to worry about it.

That is your misinterpretation. Please read my last few posts for some detailed discussion on that point.

 

If that is your understanding of my position, then either I am not expressing myself very well, or you are not reading what I am writing.

 

I do think, as you put it, in absolutes when it comes to certain things. Lying, doesn't matter if it's about something silly or something serious, is wrong. This is not a relative wrong and certainly not merely my opinion. I don't think anyone, except for the liars themselves, would ever say it's the "right" thing to do.

C’mon – how many times do we have to go over this?

 

NOBODY is saying that lying about a cache find is the RIGHT thing to do. NOBODY.

 

We all agree that it’s wrong. The only difference seems to be in the question of whether it necessarily matters.

 

This is an instance of right and wrong and is something we as cachers can do something about.

There’s that absolutist thinking again. Everything is either right or wrong. Black or white. There is no gray.

 

Sorry, but I prefer to use a little more judgment than that when I decide whether to get upset about something.

 

Look at it this way: here are four behaviors that I think we can all agree, beyond question or debate, qualify as “wrong:”

 

(1) Serial murder.

(2) Killing – yes, murdering – another cacher during a vigorous competitive race to be the First To Find.

(3) Using the words “there,” “their” and “they’re” interchangeably in writing as if the three words grammatically meant the same thing.

(4) Logging an online “Found it” (smiley) without having signed the paper logbook.

 

If wrong = wrong, then wrong = wrong. If you are going to judge things in absolutes then you are not allowed to pick and choose what matters and what doesn’t, right? We must now take false logs and grammar violations – EVERY time they happen – just as seriously as we take murder.

 

Or instead, we can accept that “wrong” is a relative thing, and judge each occurrence individually. Did somebody in the forums end a sentence with a preposition today? That is WRONG! OHMYGOD, what are we gonna DO about this SCOURGE? Bad grammar is WRONG!! STRING ‘EM UP!!

Link to comment
It's not very often that anything positive comes about because of a lie,,, well, except for the person telling the lie. The reason people do it is to gain something tangible, to try and make themselves look better, or to simply get attention.

Maybe the person who logs online without signing the paper log feels he has gained something. So what if he does?

 

I think a far more important question is this: Why would that bother you, or affect your enjoyment of the hobby? What does that person take away from you when he logs that find? What does he take away from anybody? What *tangible* loss do you automatically suffer as a result of a bogus log? If you can show that a tangible loss has taken place – prove that there is a victim – then I agree: we now have something to possibly be concerned about. This of course happens in those rare cases where a falsified log causes unnecessary confusion or frustration to an innocent cacher. I have never denied that point.

 

If, however, you CANNOT demonstrate or prove any tangible loss, then there is no victim. If there is no victim, then there is no crime. The bogus logger did a silly thing, and that’s ALL he did. It was wrong, but it was only as wrong as, say, putting the wrong date on a legitimate online log. It is incorrect, it is inaccurate, it is improper, it is not ideal, it is NOT RIGHT – but unless it causes some practical problem, what the heck does it matter? You call it a lie; I call it a big nothing.

 

On the other hand, how we respond when people lie, is relative. Some people, you for one, respond better to lying than others. I do not, but like you, can usually tolerate it when it rares it's ugly head. No, i don't dwell on it and it doesn't ruin my life but there can be consequences. One of them being that it does change my feelings about the person who does it. My thinking, if they lie about something silly like a geocaching find, then what other more important things might they lie about...

Here is where you and I agree almost 100%.

 

I wouldn’t totally give up on a person’s character if I were to learn that they logged a bogus find – but at the very least I would know that their overall online caching history is questionable, if not completely meaningless. One harmless bogus log wouldn’t be enough to cause me to break off a friendship, but a harmFUL bogus log might lead me to consider it – or at least to politely confront them and try to learn why.

 

This of course, is up to the person logging the false find. He obviously has nothing of real value to gain and possibly his reputation to lose, so why would he do it? If he should decide to go for it anyway, that's strictly between him and the cache owner. If they are both fine with it, and it doesn't generate confusion, then what logical reason do I have to care?

 

Aside from that slight difference, it sounds like you and I have much the same viewpoint.

 

Again, however, if you still believe I am in FAVOR of telling lies on cache pages, then you are misinformed.

 

As I have said before:

 

I do not promote false logs, but neither do I let them trouble me

 

Geocachers don’t need a handful of self-important moralizers preaching from officious forum threads to tell us that bogus logging is silly; all we geocachers really need is our own internal logic, which, in almost 100% of cachers, prevents us from ever posting a bogus smiley with this one, obvious, intuitive and inescapable reason: What’s the point of logging a bogus smiley?

 

I will never log a bogus smiley. It wouldn’t net my anything of value. It would render my total find count meaningless. It would create the potential for bad feelings between me and the cache owner. It would be a waste of my time. Lots of negatives with absolutely no positives. What’s the point?

 

While the preceding logic predicts that nobody would EVER log a bogus find online, knowledge of real-world human nature also predicts that a very few pitiable and confused souls will somehow nevertheless bypass that logic and occasionally post bogus anyway. No matter what we say or do here in this thread that will not change, and I believe that ratio is set. It will never be enough to matter, but neither will it ever go away. Bogus logging is simply not a meaningful threat.

 

This issue of bogus logs makes for an interesting discussion, but it has never threatened to become an epidemic, and has never even risen above the level of occasional curiosity. With over a thousand finds and lots of hides to my credit, I have seen maybe two or three truly bogus online logs in my time at this hobby, and only two or three others that were even suspect. None of them caused me any inconvenience, pain, anguish, stress, or moral outrage. I simply rolled my eyes, and I went on about my day.

Link to comment
So why do people keep arguing? The issue is the moral indignation of the puritans that people would 'lie' about a find. They don't want to hear that the lie didn't affect anybody. It doesn't matter if the lie doesn't effect anybody, it's still a lie.

That sums it up rather nicely.

 

Not only do the wrong-is-wrong moral absolute types get upset whenever someone lies – no matter how harmless or meaningless the lie may be – they seem to also get wrapped around the axle over the idea that some of us don’t share their indignation, and that we choose to take a stand only in places where it really matters.

Link to comment

I see about the same fun in searching for bogus logs as I would from driving around the neighborhood looking for people that don't "clean up" up droppings while walking their dog. If someone did it in my front yard while I was standing there, I'd deal with it. If it happened around the corner from me and I saw it on some evening walk, I'm not going to get DNA testing done on the droppings and try to ID the dog and the owner or drive around every night with my flashlight trying to catch them... but some people sound like busting someone for that would be fun to them. To each their own :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Some people seem to think that only the rules or guidelines they think matter should be enforced. It is no big deal to them, so no one else can have a valid reason to complain. If a system of Geocaching is setup with rules and guidelines, how do we decide which rules or guidelines don't really matter. Some say only if it hurts another. Then an example is given to show how it hurts others and the argument changes. Then all of a sudden it is the cache hunters problem to read and see through the bogus log. It is their fault they were misled. Then others say how we should string them up for a mistake in grammar, as though that is what was being suggested. Make it sound like they are asking for outrageous punishment for a nothing error, in the hope it will make them sound unreasonable. Maybe some feel that Geocaching is a good system and they don't want to see it eroded by these little meaningless affronts. If you feel that armchair logging and or lying is wrong, say so and don't equivocate after. If you think some people are reacting to fake logs in an overly harsh way then you can start a topic on that if it happens. The OP only said

Exact same log on a ton of caches around here.

 

A lot of deletion work to be done by some of the local owners...

 

I don't think anyone suggested you must do a DNA test to see if the logger touched the cache. If you think it is wrong to lie or armchair log then say so and leave the rest of the ... to a different topic.

Edited by traildad
Link to comment
If a system of Geocaching is setup with rules and guidelines, how do we decide which rules or guidelines don't really matter.

It’s called judgment. Geocaching isn’t some holy book full of dogma. We are intelligent individuals who are generally capable of deciding for ourselves which battles are worth fighting.

 

I don't post false logs, but I don’t abstain from posting false logs because some rule tells me to, or because some forum preacher tells me that it’s a sin. I abstain from posting false logs because it doesn’t make any sense to post false logs. There is nothing to gain; there is no point. Those few confused souls who do so anyway are harmlessly amusing in most cases, mildly counterproductive in others. It’s not an epidemic; false logs are about as big a problem as online logs with the wrong date, cache descriptions with spelling errors, or the occasional skipped page in a paper logbook. It’s ALL “wrong,” but so what? If no harm, then no foul. There are far more important things to stress about.

 

Some say only if it hurts another. Then an example is given to show how it hurts others and the argument changes.

Some false logs cause problems. Those matter.

 

Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.

 

Then all of a sudden it is the cache hunters problem to read and see through the bogus log. It is their fault they were misled.

Really? Who said that?

 

Then others say how we should string them up for a mistake in grammar, as though that is what was being suggested. Make it sound like they are asking for outrageous punishment for a nothing error, in the hope it will make them sound unreasonable.

The point of that analogy was to demonstrate that “wrong” is relative, not absolute. Sounds to me like you got the point.

 

Maybe some feel that Geocaching is a good system and they don't want to see it eroded by these little meaningless affronts.

How does a silly, benign and harmless failure to write in a cache log “erode” geocaching? I haven’t seen any erosion. Have you?

 

If you own a cache, and you believe a log should be deleted for any reason, then by all means delete the log. It’s your cache. If you have been affronted, then the level of discipline is up to you.

 

If the log is not on your cache, and it’s not your log, then it’s really none of your business. None of mine either. A legitimate find is whatever the cache owner says it is. Barring any extreme abuse, that’s Groundspeak’s policy. Why isn’t that good enough for you?

 

If you feel that armchair logging and or lying is wrong, say so and don't equivocate after. If you think some people are reacting to fake logs in an overly harsh way then you can start a topic on that if it happens. The OP only said
Exact same log on a ton of caches around here.

 

A lot of deletion work to be done by some of the local owners...

I don't think anyone suggested you must do a DNA test to see if the logger touched the cache. If you think it is wrong to lie or armchair log then say so and leave the rest of the ... to a different topic.

So in other words, we have two options here: Either agree with you that ALL false logs are somehow evil – or leave the thread? Got it.

 

By the way: while you are correcting me on the scope of the “proper” topic as framed by the Original Poster, please notice that nowhere in the original post did the OP mention armchair logging or lying. He even says he believes the person posting the logs is telling the truth. Why, then, are YOU talking about armchair logging and lying?

Link to comment

As the OP i hereby give permission to discuss any and all topics in this thread. :rolleyes:

I'm glad to see that it has been a successful thread.

 

After reflection I think it is quite clear that the original logger is clearly 'armchair logging' caches from home. Clear evidence has been provided in the course of the thread that this is the case.

Link to comment
If a system of Geocaching is setup with rules and guidelines, how do we decide which rules or guidelines don't really matter.

"KBI" It’s called judgment. Geocaching isn’t some holy book full of dogma. We are intelligent individuals who are generally capable of deciding for ourselves which battles are worth fighting."KBI"

 

It seems that some also want to decide for me and others which battles are worth fighting.

 

"KBI" I don't post false logs, but I don’t abstain from posting false logs because some rule tells me to, or because some forum preacher tells me that it’s a sin. I abstain from posting false logs because it doesn’t make any sense to post false logs. There is nothing to gain; there is no point. Those few confused souls who do so anyway are harmlessly amusing in most cases, mildly counterproductive in others. It’s not an epidemic; false logs are about as big a problem as online logs with the wrong date, cache descriptions with spelling errors, or the occasional skipped page in a paper logbook. It’s ALL “wrong,” but so what? If no harm, then no foul. There are far more important things to stress about."KBI"

 

If we are talking about false logs, I don't see how you can reasonably compare that to a spelling error.

 

Some say only if it hurts another. Then an example is given to show how it hurts others and the argument changes.

"KBI" Some false logs cause problems. Those matter.

 

Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter."KBI"

 

I can agree that a false log on a archived cache doesn't cause a problem. In this case I could care less about it. An active cache is a different thing.

 

Then all of a sudden it is the cache hunters problem to read and see through the bogus log. It is their fault they were misled.

"KBI" Really? Who said that?"KBI"

if you snag a smiley when there is no cache and you cause me to drive 50 miles you are hurting me.

No, you are hurting you. In this hypothetical scenario, you are the person who opted to drive the 50 miles, based upon an assumption. Any and all hypothetical responsibility for this hypothetical choice rests squarely on your shoulders. I'd venture a guess that caches getting muggled is an event which occurs far more frequently that someone electing to make a 50 mile drive based upon a single "Found it" log. According to my theory, any cache can be gone by the time you drive to it, regardless of the authenticity of the logs. Every time you fire up your car to drive to a cache, you are risking a DNF, yet this is a choice most of us make gladly, as the risk is usually worth the gain.

 

Does this make a DNF any easier to swallow? Probably not. Does this make deceptive logging practices OK? Definitely not.

But the burden is still yours, not their's.

 

Then others say how we should string them up for a mistake in grammar, as though that is what was being suggested. Make it sound like they are asking for outrageous punishment for a nothing error, in the hope it will make them sound unreasonable.

 

"KBI" The point of that analogy was to demonstrate that “wrong” is relative, not absolute. Sounds to me like you got the point."KBI"

 

It sounded to me as though you wanted to equate the two. Deleting false logs is similar to stringing up someone for a mistake in grammar.

 

Maybe some feel that Geocaching is a good system and they don't want to see it eroded by these little meaningless affronts.

 

"KBI" How does a silly, benign and harmless failure to write in a cache log “erode” geocaching? I haven’t seen any erosion. Have you?"KBI"

 

I don't think I was talking about a failure to write a cache log. If someone finds a cache and for some reason only wants to log online, that is one thing. If someone writes an armchair log and never was even in the same country that is another thing. That would be armchair caching and if it is condoned then that is an erosion of Geocaching as practiced on this site.

"KBI" If you own a cache, and you believe a log should be deleted for any reason, then by all means delete the log. It’s your cache. If you have been affronted, then the level of discipline is up to you.

 

If the log is not on your cache, and it’s not your log, then it’s really none of your business. None of mine either. A legitimate find is whatever the cache owner says it is. Barring any extreme abuse, that’s Groundspeak’s policy. Why isn’t that good enough for you?"KBI"

 

What is your definition of "extreme abuse" If someone logged 220 armchair caches would that be extreme enough for you?

 

If you feel that armchair logging and or lying is wrong, say so and don't equivocate after. If you think some people are reacting to fake logs in an overly harsh way then you can start a topic on that if it happens. The OP only said

 

 

Exact same log on a ton of caches around here.

 

A lot of deletion work to be done by some of the local owners...

 

 

I don't think anyone suggested you must do a DNA test to see if the logger touched the cache. If you think it is wrong to lie or armchair log then say so and leave the rest of the ... to a different topic.

 

"KBI" So in other words, we have two options here: Either agree with you that ALL false logs are somehow evil – or leave the thread? Got it."KBI"

 

No the point was to spare us the claiming you disagree with false logs and lying and then finishing the post by saying that it doesn't hurt anyone, it doesn't matter, it's not my business, it's not important etc.

 

"KBI"By the way: while you are correcting me on the scope of the “proper” topic as framed by the Original Poster, please notice that nowhere in the original post did the OP mention armchair logging or lying. He even says he believes the person posting the logs is telling the truth. Why, then, are YOU talking about armchair logging and lying?"KBI"

 

I didn't correct you on the scope of the "proper" topic as framed by anyone. My reference to the OP saying "A lot of deletion work to be done..." was only to demonstrate that he was not advocating stringing anyone up. It didn't sound as though the OP was "sure" that the cacher is really finding the caches and he has posted to say that he believes that this is a case of armchair caching. It is not the same thing to follow topic drift and discuss other issues as it is to imply things that were never said or even suggested.

Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter.

 

Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.

I can agree that a false log on a archived cache doesn't cause a problem. In this case I could care less about it. An active cache is a different thing.

Really? Why?

 

How is it different if it’s an active cache? If a lie troubles you for ethical reasons every time it appears on an active cache, then why aren’t you equally troubled when it appears anywhere else?

 

Weren’t you the one who told me we can’t pick and choose which rules and guidelines to observe in this hobby?

 

I don't post false logs, but I don’t abstain from posting false logs because some rule tells me to, or because some forum preacher tells me that it’s a sin. I abstain from posting false logs because it doesn’t make any sense to post false logs. There is nothing to gain; there is no point. Those few confused souls who do so anyway are harmlessly amusing in most cases, mildly counterproductive in others. It’s not an epidemic; false logs are about as big a problem as online logs with the wrong date, cache descriptions with spelling errors, or the occasional skipped page in a paper logbook. It’s ALL “wrong,” but so what? If no harm, then no foul. There are far more important things to stress about.

If we are talking about false logs, I don't see how you can reasonably compare that to a spelling error.

... and I don’t see how you can make each and every false log into anything worse than a spelling error.

 

They both generally cause the same amount of damage and anguish, which is almost exactly nil – unless some sanctimonious self-appointed judge of morality (or spelling) chooses to see it otherwise, that is.

 

I’ve already explained myself enough times here. To give you any more of a response than that would require repeating myself, and I have done that too much already.

 

You’ve presumably heard all the reasoning. You’ve presumably understood all the reasoning. Yet you still disagree. That’s fine. You go ahead and enjoy frowning upon other people's differing geocaching standards and judging everyone’s ethics, and I will resume worrying only about the things that truly matter to me.

Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter.

 

Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.

I can agree that a false log on a archived cache doesn't cause a problem. In this case I could care less about it. An active cache is a different thing.

Really? Why?

 

How is it different if it’s an active cache? If a lie troubles you for ethical reasons every time it appears on an active cache, then why aren’t you equally troubled when it appears anywhere else?

 

Weren’t you the one who told me we can’t pick and choose which rules and guidelines to observe in this hobby?

No I think I said how do we choose. Now you are resorting to putting words in my mouth. How is it different? No one is hunting for an archived cache. I also never said any thing about ethical reasons being my motivation. If someone false logs an archived cache just to run up their numbers I don't care because I am not in a numbers race. I won't be looking for that archived cache so I can't be misled by the false log. Therefore I don't care.

 

However I wouldn't post saying how wrong it was to false log an archived cache while at the same time telling people that are in a numbers race that they shouldn't care about it.

I don't post false logs, but I don’t abstain from posting false logs because some rule tells me to, or because some forum preacher tells me that it’s a sin. I abstain from posting false logs because it doesn’t make any sense to post false logs. There is nothing to gain; there is no point. Those few confused souls who do so anyway are harmlessly amusing in most cases, mildly counterproductive in others. It’s not an epidemic; false logs are about as big a problem as online logs with the wrong date, cache descriptions with spelling errors, or the occasional skipped page in a paper logbook. It’s ALL “wrong,” but so what? If no harm, then no foul. There are far more important things to stress about.

If we are talking about false logs, I don't see how you can reasonably compare that to a spelling error.

... and I don’t see how you can make each and every false log into anything worse than a spelling error.

 

They both generally cause the same amount of damage and anguish, which is almost exactly nil – unless some sanctimonious self-appointed judge of morality (or spelling) chooses to see it otherwise, that is.

 

Yes it is becoming obvious that you can't see. But hey just call people names if you can't make a point.

 

I’ve already explained myself enough times here. To give you any more of a response than that would require repeating myself, and I have done that too much already.

 

You’ve presumably heard all the reasoning. You’ve presumably understood all the reasoning. Yet you still disagree. That’s fine. You go ahead and enjoy frowning upon other people's differing geocaching standards and judging everyone’s ethics, and I will resume worrying only about the things that truly matter to me.

As far as I know this topic was about possible armchair logging not differing geocaching standards. Give me a break.

Edited by traildad
Link to comment

There is a guy in my area that when he logs a find he does it with a note not the smiley. (I can only believe him when he logs 'found') Says the smileys arent important to him. He keepshis own personal stats.

 

Some people march to the beat of a different drummer & do this for different reasons. I would say that as a CO it goes against what you would reguire then delete, otherwise is it really worth the aggravation? Who really carrys & does it really matter? MHO

Link to comment

 

Some people march to the beat of a different drummer & do this for different reasons. I would say that as a CO it goes against what you would reguire then delete, otherwise is it really worth the aggravation? Who really carrys & does it really matter? MHO

I think a lot of people would agree that something that is simply marching to a different drummer is not worth the aggravation. As I said, if someone made a false log on a archived cache I would not care. If someone logs an event 20 times I don't care. If someone logs their own cache I don't care. If someone puts up phony found logs, then it becomes more than marching to the beat of a different drummer. I read the logs and sometimes I get helpful info for finding the cache. I don't want phony info in the logs, so yes it can really matter. Does it matter enough to try to delete his logs on others caches? Not for me. Otherwise what aggravation are you talking about? Offering an opinion in this forum is all that I have seen done or said.

Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter....Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.
Still comes back to asking "What problems (other then ethical ones) are caused by false logs?" It's already been beaten in the ground that if someone goes after a missing cache and the last log was a smilie, since the actual log sheet from the missing cache is ALSO missing, there is absolutely no way to prove that the smilie occurred after the cache went missing and not before. A totally theoretical situation with basically no way to prove. So where are the "other" problems that can be caused by false logs that everyone is so upset about? Not condoning them but I just don't see anything other then an issue of ethics (i.e. you hate someone who cheats and feel an obligation to see justice done) being a reason to delete a false log. Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

Didn't bother to read much past these two because I realized that every one is kicking a dog no matter what camp they are in.

If a cache gets muggled right before I look for it, that's just part of the game. If someone logs a missing cache and claims that it is there when it is not, that is not part of my game. What's next? Armchair hides. We can all submit 50 phony hides, and it will be your fault if you waste time and gas looking for them. It seems sometimes people try to support any point of view just so they can argue the other side. :sad:

yup.

 

I'm sure this one has been beaten to death but I would be likely to delete one like that. I have seen where someone couldn't sign a log that was too wet or too ful but that's a different story.

Thats why I carry...

repair.jpg

 

I sign, date and put it in the cache then I log a find and log a needs maintenance.

I get the satisfaction of signing a log and allowing others to do so wile the cache is waiting on the owner.

 

~~~ edit dag to dog

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter....Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.
Still comes back to asking "What problems (other then ethical ones) are caused by false logs?" It's already been beaten in the ground that if someone goes after a missing cache and the last log was a smilie, since the actual log sheet from the missing cache is ALSO missing, there is absolutely no way to prove that the smilie occurred after the cache went missing and not before. A totally theoretical situation with basically no way to prove. So where are the "other" problems that can be caused by false logs that everyone is so upset about? Not condoning them but I just don't see anything other then an issue of ethics (i.e. you hate someone who cheats and feel an obligation to see justice done) being a reason to delete a false log.

Well I guess you will never see the problem since you conveniently leave out that part.

 

If someone goes after a missing cache after the last log was a smiley there is no way to prove that the smiley occurred after the cache went missing and not before. Ok, well let me think, I guess there is also no way to prove the other. I can't see what that has to do with the discussion. No one is saying every smiley log just before a cache goes missing is a false log.

 

If someone makes a false log of a cache that was missing, it is not necessary to prove anything in order for it to cause someone to go look for a missing cache. If there are 3 DNF logs in a row and then a false log for a find, it would be easy to decide that the cache is there. Without the false log, one might assume the cache is missing. The discussion is not about real logs and muggled caches. It is about the idea of what if any harm can be caused by armchair logging caches.

 

It seems that some people want to support the idea that Geocaching is about "play it your own way" to the extreme. That brings me back to what I suggested earlier, what about armchair hiding. No one really gets hurt since they get to go out on a cache hunt and have a fun day even if they don't find anything. You will never be able to prove that the cache wasn't muggled before the FTF. I guess that makes it ok?

Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter....Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.
Still comes back to asking "What problems (other then ethical ones) are caused by false logs?" It's already been beaten in the ground that if someone goes after a missing cache and the last log was a smilie, since the actual log sheet from the missing cache is ALSO missing, there is absolutely no way to prove that the smilie occurred after the cache went missing and not before. A totally theoretical situation with basically no way to prove. So where are the "other" problems that can be caused by false logs that everyone is so upset about? Not condoning them but I just don't see anything other then an issue of ethics (i.e. you hate someone who cheats and feel an obligation to see justice done) being a reason to delete a false log.

Well I guess you will never see the problem since you conveniently leave out that part.

 

If someone goes after a missing cache after the last log was a smiley there is no way to prove that the smiley occurred after the cache went missing and not before. Ok, well let me think, I guess there is also no way to prove the other. I can't see what that has to do with the discussion. No one is saying every smiley log just before a cache goes missing is a false log.

 

If someone makes a false log of a cache that was missing, it is not necessary to prove anything in order for it to cause someone to go look for a missing cache. If there are 3 DNF logs in a row and then a false log for a find, it would be easy to decide that the cache is there. Without the false log, one might assume the cache is missing. The discussion is not about real logs and muggled caches. It is about the idea of what if any harm can be caused by armchair logging caches.

 

It seems that some people want to support the idea that Geocaching is about "play it your own way" to the extreme. That brings me back to what I suggested earlier, what about armchair hiding. No one really gets hurt since they get to go out on a cache hunt and have a fun day even if they don't find anything. You will never be able to prove that the cache wasn't muggled before the FTF. I guess that makes it ok?

 

Good question! I'd guess that if false finds don't bother some people, then false hides certainly shouldn't either. Afterall, a person who decides to go after a cache can only blame themselves if they don't find it. It's a risk we all take when going after a cache! :sad:

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
Some false logs cause problems. Those matter....Some false logs don’t cause problems. Those don't matter.
Still comes back to asking "What problems (other then ethical ones) are caused by false logs?" It's already been beaten in the ground that if someone goes after a missing cache and the last log was a smilie, since the actual log sheet from the missing cache is ALSO missing, there is absolutely no way to prove that the smilie occurred after the cache went missing and not before. A totally theoretical situation with basically no way to prove. So where are the "other" problems that can be caused by false logs that everyone is so upset about? Not condoning them but I just don't see anything other then an issue of ethics (i.e. you hate someone who cheats and feel an obligation to see justice done) being a reason to delete a false log.

Well I guess you will never see the problem since you conveniently leave out that part.

 

If someone goes after a missing cache after the last log was a smiley there is no way to prove that the smiley occurred after the cache went missing and not before. Ok, well let me think, I guess there is also no way to prove the other. I can't see what that has to do with the discussion. No one is saying every smiley log just before a cache goes missing is a false log.

 

If someone makes a false log of a cache that was missing, it is not necessary to prove anything in order for it to cause someone to go look for a missing cache. If there are 3 DNF logs in a row and then a false log for a find, it would be easy to decide that the cache is there. Without the false log, one might assume the cache is missing. The discussion is not about real logs and muggled caches. It is about the idea of what if any harm can be caused by armchair logging caches.

 

It seems that some people want to support the idea that Geocaching is about "play it your own way" to the extreme. That brings me back to what I suggested earlier, what about armchair hiding. No one really gets hurt since they get to go out on a cache hunt and have a fun day even if they don't find anything. You will never be able to prove that the cache wasn't muggled before the FTF. I guess that makes it ok?

 

Good question! I'd guess that if false finds don't bother some people, then false hides certainly shouldn't either. Afterall, a person who decides to go after a cache can only blame themselves if they don't find it. It's a risk we all take when going after a cache! :sad:

Easy solution. They just toss out a container and log the find! :sad: The added bonus is that future searchers actually have a cache to hunt. :huh::huh:

Link to comment
No one is hunting for an archived cache. I also never said any thing about ethical reasons being my motivation. If someone false logs an archived cache just to run up their numbers I don't care because I am not in a numbers race. I won't be looking for that archived cache so I can't be misled by the false log. Therefore I don't care.

Sorry if I misinterpreted you on the ‘ethics’ thing. My mistake.

 

If the rest of what you describe above accurately represents your viewpoint, then it would appear that you and I are very much in agreement.

 

I also have no ethical reason for looking down on someone who posts a false ‘Found it’ log. It’s a silly thing to do, and it makes no sense to me, but it is not a moral crime – and as long as the cache owner is happy, then it’s none of my business anyway.

 

As you explain: if a false log has the potential to be misleading, and can therefore cause inconvenience (or worse), then I will NOT be ambivalent about it. I have always agreed that false logs which cause practical problems are bad. No argument there.

 

Other than that, I have no interest in criticizing the ethics of those rare and wacky, um, "eccentrics " who post false logs.

 

However I wouldn't post saying how wrong it was to false log an archived cache while at the same time telling people that are in a numbers race that they shouldn't care about it.

I have never suggested that competitive cachers shouldn’t care whether they lie to each other. All I’m saying is that they shouldn’t care when someone who has not agreed to compete with them posts a questionable log. That’s all. Doesn’t that sound reasonable?

 

If two people are competing against each other for highest find count, which is fine by me, then that is their business; to tell a disinterested non-competitor, however, that his online logs must comply with whatever standards they have set up among themselves is asking a bit much considering that this hobby was never intended to be a competition.

 

But hey just call people names if you can't make a point.

I meant no personal offense, but I can see how you might have taken it that way. Sorry if I was unclear.

 

I’ve already explained myself enough times here. To give you any more of a response than that would require repeating myself, and I have done that too much already.

 

You’ve presumably heard all the reasoning. You’ve presumably understood all the reasoning. Yet you still disagree. That’s fine. You go ahead and enjoy frowning upon other people's differing geocaching standards and judging everyone’s ethics, and I will resume worrying only about the things that truly matter to me.

As far as I know this topic was about possible armchair logging not differing geocaching standards. Give me a break.

“Differing geocaching standards” is the very essence of this discussion.

 

I was referring to the now well-established fact that people have very different ideas about what constitutes an acceptable ‘Found it’ log. Some cachers consider armchair logging to be perfectly fine. Others regard armchair logging as incorrect, yet nothing more than a pitiable oddity – as long as they cause no tangible harm. To some cachers the act ALWAYS constitutes an outrageous ethical crime no matter WHAT the circumstance.

 

We have apparently now established that you and I are both in the second group. As long as the false log results in no practical, “tangible” damage, then you and I agree, as you put it, that “I can't be misled by the false log, therefore I don't care.” Am I correct?

 

Unless I’m still missing something, then you and I are no longer opposed on this issue – and probably never were in the first place. :sad:

Link to comment
229 posts on this? This thread may be a contender for the longest running silly argument! :sad:
Hmmmm, let me think about what that thread was about.... oh yeah! Bogus logs and what to do about them :sad:

 

The same reasoning that would make one run out and hunt down benign bogus logs would also cause one to :

 

- Count the number of items in other people's carts when in the 20 item or less lane, and if someone has more then 20 items, instruct them to get into a regular lane or call the manager.

 

- When someone finishes loading their shopping items in their vehcile and they push the cart to the end of the parking spot rather then taking it to the designated cart return area, grab their cart and place it quickly behind their vehicle, scold them and tell them to return it to the correct place before they leave.

 

- After using the restroom and you start to leave, you observe someone leaving without washing their hands, you point this out in front of everyone attempting to shame them into doing what's right.

 

- When at the movies you hear the slight rumblings of someone phone on vibrate and see them checking a text message when the movie screen just displayed the message to turn all cell phones "OFF" so you rush to the concession stand and find a manager to report them to.

 

- When walking away from the picnic area at the park you observe someone tossing a plastic bottle in the bin marked "CANS ONLY", you approach them and request they move the bottle and if they fail to do so, you find the park ranger and report them.

 

Yeah, all these things observed are ethically wrong things for people to do. They are things people "should" know better then to do. They are not against the law but they are against the rules. They may in some minor way cause an inconvienience for someone (waiting in line longer, distracted at the movies by the cell phone display, have to shake that unwashed hand a few minutes later, recycling agent having to sort things out better, etc) but I doubt anyone does much but look at these people and shrug their shoulders a tad and shake their head in disappointment that they don't know better. Doubt anyone does any of the suggested responses as I think everyone knows where it would get them. Same goes for benign bogus logs, I am sure a few ethically standing puratins will hunt them down to erradicate them, but I am sure a few people out there would also make a scene at someone with 21 items in the express lane.

 

Not me, I'm the one shaking my head in disappointment and going on my blissful way. If someone else wants to point out those 21 items I won't stand in their way, but I will probably enjoy the show that will ensue :huh:

Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment
There is a guy in my area that when he logs a find he does it with a note not the smiley. (I can only believe him when he logs 'found') Says the smileys arent important to him. He keepshis own personal stats.

 

Some people march to the beat of a different drummer & do this for different reasons. I would say that as a CO it goes against what you would reguire then delete, otherwise is it really worth the aggravation? Who really carrys & does it really matter? MHO

Your post set me to thinking ...

 

Many cachers become very upset whenever they feel "cheated;" when they suspect another cacher has claimed a smiley he did not "deserve."

 

Do you suppose these same folks get just as worked up whenever they believe someone has logged fewer smileys than he deserves? For these competitive types, shouldn’t a find count they believe to be erroneously low be considered just as troublesome, evil, or "wrong," as a find count they believe to be erroneously high?

 

How can a valid comparison be made if the numbers are wrong in either direction?

 

Why don’t we ever hear concerned cachers complain that they are being cheated because certain fellow cachers aren’t logging enough smileys?

 

[Edit: spelling. Again. Man, I'm tired.]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

 

Unless I’m still missing something, then you and I are no longer opposed on this issue – and probably never were in the first place. :sad:

I think there is some common ground. I have read some on this forum trying to tell me that it is wrong to discover travel bugs because it doesn't "count" unless you actually move the bug. I understand if you don't go along with this kind of thinking, and I don't wish to put my self in that camp either. :sad:

Link to comment

 

Why don’t we ever hear concerned cachers complain that they are being cheated because certain fellow cachers aren’t logging enough smileys?

I have seen topics about the idea of hiding numbers. Search that idea in the forum and I bet you will see that some people feel that it would hurt them somehow. One example I remember was that if they are reading logs and trying to assess if the DNF was valid they would need to know how experienced the logger was. They feel they have a right to know my numbers. I believe these people would not like underreporting finds. :sad:

Link to comment
Same goes for benign bogus logs...

I'm not sure what a "benign bogus log" is. Is it a clearly bogus log like "I'm logging a find even though I didn't find it?" Or is it a log that a seeker won't know is bogus until it is later made clear the cache has been missing for a while?

 

If any log influences one to go after a cache when they otherwise might not have is not benign, IMHO. Sure, I know folks have said that it's the decision of the seeker to believe the log and go after the cache. In a way, that is correct. But if you're unable to evaluate the veracity of a log then you have take it on face value. A person logging a visit is pretty much reporting on the cache. Regardless of if it's a find, Tb drop note or DNF. Those say something about what to expect. Going on a pure fabrication is giving you false information.

 

It's not just the words written in a note, but the log-type as well. Consider someone only pulling caches that have been found in the last 7 days because they only want to go after very recently found caches. They would be relying on those logs to be valid. Why should they look through all of those logs and try to make a judge of it being bogus or not?

 

Some times folks filter on the number of DNF's versus finds. A bogus find would tip the filter to include a cache that doesn't have any real recent finds.

 

If some joker wants to pad his find count go log as many as he wants on one of his own archived caches for all I care. Just no bogus logs that influence seeking decisions.

Link to comment
One example I remember was that if they are reading logs and trying to assess if the DNF was valid they would need to know how experienced the logger was. They feel they have a right to know my numbers.

Judging a DNF based how many finds I have is, well, really weird. It would be much more accurate and logical to base it on how DNFs I written and then look at the outcome those.

 

This was very well illustrated on one of our caches where a group of cachers "with well over 9000 finds between us" couldn't find an ammo can and insinuated it was missing. It wasn't. Ironically, cachers with tiny fractions of the number of finds seem to find it with great success. Go figure.

 

If I could hide our find count I would in a heart beat.

 

If I could make it so our caches didn't increment someone's find count*, I'd do it in a heart beat.

 

 

*Yet, properly reported the find, put it on their find list, etc.

Link to comment

Why don’t we ever hear concerned cachers complain that they are being cheated because certain fellow cachers aren’t logging enough smileys?

I have seen topics about the idea of hiding numbers. Search that idea in the forum and I bet you will see that some people feel that it would hurt them somehow. One example I remember was that if they are reading logs and trying to assess if the DNF was valid they would need to know how experienced the logger was. They feel they have a right to know my numbers. I believe these people would not like underreporting finds. :sad:

It seems to me that if the folks who preach against false 'Found it' logs – and who say that all lying is wrong – are going to be consistent, then those very same folks should also consider Notes in place of Smileys, or finds which are not logged online at all, to be equally offensive lies.

 

If I find a cache and sign the logbook, but document my activity online with a Note instead of a ‘Found it,’ then doesn’t that invalidate my find total? Doesn’t that mean I am lying about my number of finds? Isn’t the sin of NOT claiming an earned smiley just as bad as the sin of claiming an “unearned” smiley?

 

Or ... if I find a cache and sign the logbook, but choose not to document my activity online at all, then isn’t that even worse? Doesn’t that also mean I am lying about my number of finds? Isn’t a sin of omission just as evil as a sin of commission?

Link to comment

Why don’t we ever hear concerned cachers complain that they are being cheated because certain fellow cachers aren’t logging enough smileys?

I have seen topics about the idea of hiding numbers. Search that idea in the forum and I bet you will see that some people feel that it would hurt them somehow. One example I remember was that if they are reading logs and trying to assess if the DNF was valid they would need to know how experienced the logger was. They feel they have a right to know my numbers. I believe these people would not like underreporting finds. :sad:

It seems to me that if the folks who preach against false 'Found it' logs – and who say that all lying is wrong – are going to be consistent, then those very same folks should also consider Notes in place of Smileys, or finds which are not logged online at all, to be equally offensive lies.

 

If I find a cache and sign the logbook, but document my activity online with a Note instead of a ‘Found it,’ then doesn’t that invalidate my find total? Doesn’t that mean I am lying about my number of finds? Isn’t the sin of NOT claiming an earned smiley just as bad as the sin of claiming an “unearned” smiley?

 

Or ... if I find a cache and sign the logbook, but choose not to document my activity online at all, then isn’t that even worse? Doesn’t that also mean I am lying about my number of finds? Isn’t a sin of omission just as evil as a sin of commission?

I don't think I have ever seen anything in this game that says thou shalt log every find online. Completely unenforceable and other reasons to boot. I didn't record the time of my last 3k run anywhere. Is that a sin?

Link to comment

Why don’t we ever hear concerned cachers complain that they are being cheated because certain fellow cachers aren’t logging enough smileys?

I have a simple solution. When I check the logs when doing maintenance I cross out the names of anyone who didn't log a find online. :sad:

 

It's not just the words written in a note, but the log-type as well.

This may be the root of the problem. The online logs are simply a way for geocachers to record their geocaching experiences and share them with others. Initially the Found It type simply allowed cacher to keep track of the caches they had already found. Later, Grounspeak provided a way for users to filter out caches they already found when doing a search. With the advent of PQs, 3rd party programs allow for the log type to be used by other cachers. One use is to find caches that neither you or a friend had found so you could go caching together and look only for these caches. That was a good thing. Another use is to filter caches based on the types of the last four logs. Now people would decide to skip a cache if it had to many DNFs recently. So a bogus find could cause a person to search for a cache they might have skipped otherwise. Cachers who use this filter need to accept its weaknesses. Fortunately, bogus logs are very rare so most of the time the filter will work but occasionally you be looking for a cache where the last log says something like "Found where the cache was supposed to be so I'm claiming this as a find" Strangely, people who use this filter rarely complain about people who didn't find the cache and failed to log a DNF. I'd guess this happens more often than bogus find. Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to cross out the names of people who don't log DNF from the log book when I do maintenance.

Link to comment
I don't think I have ever seen anything in this game that says thou shalt log every find online. Completely unenforceable and other reasons to boot. I didn't record the time of my last 3k run anywhere. Is that a sin?

My point exactly.

 

All the more reason to lay off someone whose personal logging standards happen to be a bit different .... in either direction.

Link to comment
I'm not sure what a "benign bogus log" is. Is it a clearly bogus log like "I'm logging a find even though I didn't find it?" Or is it a log that a seeker won't know is bogus until it is later made clear the cache has been missing for a while?
"Benign" as in the log entry is bogus but isn't worded badly, doesn't look any different then actual log entries and the cache is not missing which would probably encompass 99.9% of the bogus logs. Maybe an example of how you can determine "when" a missing cache actually went missing would help? If a cache is missing, it's missing. No log to determine what entires may of been made after it's missing state. Of course you could run across an extremely rare example where the land was cleared by bulldozer on a certain date but someone logged a find after that date and the owner didn't determine it was missing until later, but that's clutching at straws and you have a better chance of stumbling across bigfoot while caching.

 

These example cachers who only go after caches that have finds in the last several days seem like they would suffer terrible emotional anguish over a simple DNF regardless of the cause. What's the difference if they DNF a cache because they just couldn't find it? Or the last cacher didn't hide it back properly? Or the last logger was bogus and the cache is missing? Or the cache went missing AFTER the last person legitimately found it and logged it? Regardless of the reason, they got a DNF. How many people make a caching run and NEVER log a DNF???? Is a DNF that big a deal to some people???? Time to switch to de-caff....

 

And the example of seeking a missing cache becuase of a bogus log entry is impossible to prove except in extremely remote circumstances like the bulldozer example. And even in that example the first person to seek the cache and find cleared land even without a bogus log, would still be looking for a missing cache, would still of driven the to site, would still be as disappointed. Not much difference in seeking a missing cache regardless of the last posting being bogus or not.

 

If some joker wants to pad his find count go log as many as he wants on one of his own archived caches for all I care. Just no bogus logs that influence seeking decisions.
Until GC hits us with more hard line rules to assure a cache entry is valid (allow owners to have a code that needs to be emailed in to validate a find or something like that). the only way to resolve the potential of that occurring is every time a log entry is made online stating a cache is found, the owner would have to go out and validate the log entry and assure the cache is still there. GC must think it's not that bad a problem or it would be done already.
Link to comment
I have a simple solution. When I check the logs when doing maintenance I cross out the names of anyone who didn't log a find online. :sad:
Good solution but there are hides that have big log books and some that have not required a speck of maintenance in years. Bogus logs could sit idle for ages and when the maintenance run was made, I doubt anyone will sit there and try to validate 250 finds which would be signed all over the book (I have yet to see a popular cache's log book where every log entry was legible, dated, and sorted in chronological order, stickers have fallen off, etc). Not worth the effort IMHO as a bogus log that didn't cause a problem or raise a flag has already faded into time and you have a higher risk of just not reading an entry properly and deleting a valid find and unnecessarily slapping someone in the face...
Link to comment
Maybe an example of how you can determine "when" a missing cache actually went missing would help?

 

...

 

And the example of seeking a missing cache becuase of a bogus log entry is impossible to prove except in extremely remote circumstances like the bulldozer example.

Are you saying that bogus logs aren't that big of a deal because a cache can go missing at any time. Because the last log could be bogus or legit and the cache is missing anyway so it doesn't matter?

 

I hope not because that is simply a big pile of bunk.

 

First of all, you're making exceptions of when it is alright to log a bogus log. Because you can write a bogus log that doesn't cause someone undue effort, stress, or hardship then all bogus logs are okay? Malarkey. That's like saying lying is okay because sometimes you can get away with it. (Don't even claim a "benign bogus log" is on the level of a polite lie. A bogus logs only benefits the logger while a polite lie protects the feelings of the person being told the fib.)

 

That should be the other way around. Because a bogus log can cause undue effort, stress or hardship then you shouldn't write false logs.

 

Personally, I find the argument of bogus logs being okay, because if a cache is missing it doesn't matter if the log is bogus or not, disconnected logic. Same kind of logic of not posting a DNF until you know whether the cache is missing--after all, you can't not find a cache that is not there.

 

GC must think it's not that bad a problem or it would be done already.
This site asks owners to delete logs that appear to be bogus. Proximity rules are in play partially because folks might find and sign the logbook of a different cache than intended and logged online. Most folks think lying in general is an ethically questionable practice at the very least. Bogus logs can affect others in a negative way.

 

Quite frankly, condoning bogus logs makes me wonder about one's moral compass.

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