Jump to content

Cacher that refuses to sign logbooks


benh57

Recommended Posts

When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...

It is almost funny. Imaging someone is caught pickpocketing someone. They are caught red handed and arrested. They tell the judge they think stealing is wrong. They would never encourage it, they don't agree with it, they don't support it and they would never do it. They were only borrowing some money. When told that what they were doing was stealing they reply, I have said over and over that I do not agree with stealing and I would never do it, I think it is wrong. What more do you want me to say. This person feels that if he says over and over that he doesn't agree with stealing, what he was doing therefore can't be stealing. He thinks that it doesn't matter what he does, only what he says about it. Of course the judge would have to give him the bad news. Just because you say you are against it, doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.

You’re right: It's almost funny:

 

(1) You talk about me as if I have been posting bogus logs. I have posted no bogus logs, nor do I intend to post bogus logs. I have not been accused of posting bogus logs. Your analogy does not apply.

 

(2) Picking someone's pocket makes them a victim. A REAL victim. It takes something away from them, something of value. It causes them actual, measurable, and observable harm. Posting a false log, however, robs no one of life, liberty or property. It removes nothing of value from anyone. A bogus log merely consists of inaccurate information. It has the potential, of course, to cause confusion or annoyance, but nothing about a bogus log is inherently bad. A false log, therefore, does NOT automatically turn anyone into a victim the way, say, pickpocketing does. Your analogy does not apply.

Link to comment

Instead of getting up in arms about the fact that someone is silly enough to think that inflating their count justifies lying about what cache are found he is simply says he doesn't let it bother him.

 

I just looked up the dictionary definition of condone and it does seem that he is condoning the action of bogus loggers, in that he can disregard or overlook a bogus log (for the reasons given). Condone does not always mean approve.

 

More power to him if he doesn't let it bother him. It is a different idea to come on the forum and say it shouldn't bother someone else. That is where the condoning comes in.

Link to comment
It is a different idea to come on the forum and say it shouldn't bother someone else.

It is? You say that like it’s a bad thing. What’s wrong with it?

 

I have never claimed that you are not allowed to be bothered. Why would I? I have no right to say such a thing.

 

It is my opinion, however, that benign incorrect behavior on the part of others, such as bogus logs, should not bother you. I see no reason why it should bother you. I encourage you not to let it bother you. It doesn’t bother me, and I don’t even have to work at it – the reasons for ignoring the silliness of bogus logs are, to me, self-evident. I desire that you should share in that very same peace.

 

Are you challenging my right to express that opinion?

Link to comment

 

(1) You talk about me as if I have been posting bogus logs. I have posted no bogus logs, nor do I intend to post bogus logs. I have not been accused of posting bogus logs. Your analogy does not apply.

 

I don't see how in any way shape or form I have even hinted at anything that would say or imply that you were posting bogus logs. Nice try but making up stuff doesn't help you.

 

(2) Picking someone's pocket makes them a victim. A REAL victim. It takes something away from them, something of value. It causes them actual, measurable, and observable harm. Posting a false log, however, robs no one of life, liberty or property. It removes nothing of value from anyone. A bogus log merely consists of inaccurate information. It has the potential, of course, to cause confusion or annoyance, but nothing about a bogus log is inherently bad. A false log, therefore, does NOT automatically turn anyone into a victim the way, say, pickpocketing does. Your analogy does not apply.

 

The analogy does not have anything to do with automatic harm or anything about value. The point is that he was going on and on saying that he wasn't doing something that he really was doing. He seemed to think that because he said he wasn't stealing (condoning) that it must be true. If you want to condemn the idea instead of condone it, then say it is wrong and leave it at that. All the qualifiers you add on after, wipe away the "it's wrong" part.

Link to comment
It is a different idea to come on the forum and say it shouldn't bother someone else.

It is? You say that like it’s a bad thing. What’s wrong with it?

 

I have never claimed that you are not allowed to be bothered. Why would I? I have no right to say such a thing.

 

It is my opinion, however, that benign incorrect behavior on the part of others, such as bogus logs, should not bother you. I see no reason why it should bother you. I encourage you not to let it bother you. It doesn’t bother me, and I don’t even have to work at it – the reasons for ignoring the silliness of bogus logs are, to me, self-evident. I desire that you should share in that very same peace.

 

Are you challenging my right to express that opinion?

NO! I am saying that the simple act of expressing that opinion is condoning false logs. You can express it all you want. I just think you should not do it in one breath, and then with the next claim to not condone false logs. Very simple really.

Link to comment

(1) You talk about me as if I have been posting bogus logs. I have posted no bogus logs, nor do I intend to post bogus logs. I have not been accused of posting bogus logs. Your analogy does not apply.

I don't see how in any way shape or form I have even hinted at anything that would say or imply that you were posting bogus logs. Nice try but making up stuff doesn't help you.

I didn’t make anything up. You did. You invented the analogy.

 

Your analogy described a person who is accused of picking someone’s pocket. Was your analogy supposed to apply to me, or wasn’t it?

 

(2) Picking someone's pocket makes them a victim. A REAL victim. It takes something away from them, something of value. It causes them actual, measurable, and observable harm. Posting a false log, however, robs no one of life, liberty or property. It removes nothing of value from anyone. A bogus log merely consists of inaccurate information. It has the potential, of course, to cause confusion or annoyance, but nothing about a bogus log is inherently bad. A false log, therefore, does NOT automatically turn anyone into a victim the way, say, pickpocketing does. Your analogy does not apply.

The analogy does not have anything to do with automatic harm or anything about value.

It doesn’t? Then why did you make it about people’s pocket’s being picked? Why didn’t you use an analogy that had "nothing to do with automatic harm or anything about value" instead?

 

The point is that he was going on and on saying that he wasn't doing something that he really was doing. He seemed to think that because he said he wasn't stealing (condoning) that it must be true. If you want to condemn the idea instead of condone it, then say it is wrong and leave it at that. All the qualifiers you add on after, wipe away the "it's wrong" part.

I will not condemn someone who does not deserve to be condemned. False logs are incorrect; they are NOT evil.

 

I truly do not understand your hang-up about this word-definition thing that you cannot seem to let go of. I have explained my viewpoint; I see no reason to re-explain it again for the 47th time. Besides, I thought Tozainamboku nailed the definition of your favorite word pretty well in his post. Did you read Tozainamboku’s post?

Link to comment
Are you challenging my right to express that opinion?

NO! I am saying that the simple act of expressing that opinion is condoning false logs.

I disagree – but as I said before:

 

I have stated my position. You are free to misinterpret it any way you please. Knock yourself out.

My viewpoint: “Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is usually harmless.”

 

What you seem to hear instead: “Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is admirable.”

 

Like others, you seem to want to think only in extremes. If a thing is not pure and good enough to be 100% praiseworthy, then it must be pure evil. There is no in-between. “If’n ya ain’t fer it, then yer agin’ it.” Sorry, but I prefer to think things through a little more deeply than that.

 

I am rapidly losing interest in this discussion. Too much repetition. For something more interesting, I think maybe I’ll go out and find and log a few dozen lamp post micros.

Link to comment
Are you challenging my right to express that opinion?

NO! I am saying that the simple act of expressing that opinion is condoning false logs.

I disagree – but as I said before:

Well fine, you disagree. I didn't write the definition in the dictionary.

I have stated my position. You are free to misinterpret it any way you please. Knock yourself out.

My viewpoint: “Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is usually harmless.”

 

What you seem to hear instead: “Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is admirable.”

What I hear you say is Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is--acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. That is the definition of condoning. The word does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Like others, you seem to want to think only in extremes. If a thing is not pure and good enough to be 100% praiseworthy, then it must be pure evil. There is no in-between. “If’n ya ain’t fer it, then yer agin’ it.” Sorry, but I prefer to think things through a little more deeply than that.

I am sorry but I don't believe saying you are both for it and against it at the same time is thinking more deeply.

 

I am rapidly losing interest in this discussion. Too much repetition. For something more interesting, I think maybe I’ll go out and find and log a few dozen lamp post micros.

As long as you actually go out and find them before you log them, I guess we do agree on at least one thing. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
.... What I hear you say is Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is--acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. That is the definition of condoning. The word does not mean what you seem to think it means ...

 

... I am sorry but I don't believe saying you are both for it and against it at the same time is thinking more deeply ...

I think some people take this game waaaay too seriously. That is what I do not "condone."

 

Bogus logs do not automatically bother me. I am sorry they automatically bother you.

Link to comment
.... What I hear you say is Bogus logging is incorrect, yet it is usually harmless, therefore it is--acceptable, forgivable, or harmless. That is the definition of condoning. The word does not mean what you seem to think it means ...

 

... I am sorry but I don't believe saying you are both for it and against it at the same time is thinking more deeply ...

I think some people take this game waaaay too seriously. That is what I do not "condone."

 

Bogus logs do not automatically bother me. I am sorry they automatically bother you.

 

I agree.

 

I did a study of my own and found that 49% of the problems with this game were caused by people that take the game way too seriously.

 

Another 48% of the issues were caused by people that don't take it seriously enough, or did not care about it at all.

 

The remaining 9% were directly related somehow to people who were terrible at math. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
When a person states that something doesn't cause any problems, doesn't affect him, and then tells others that it shouldn't bother them, then that person is pretty much saying that the something is ok. This comes across that the person is condoning that something...
It is almost funny. Imaging someone is caught pickpocketing someone. They are caught red handed and arrested. They tell the judge they think stealing is wrong. They would never encourage it, they don't agree with it, they don't support it and they would never do it. They were only borrowing some money. When told that what they were doing was stealing they reply, I have said over and over that I do not agree with stealing and I would never do it, I think it is wrong. What more do you want me to say. This person feels that if he says over and over that he doesn't agree with stealing, what he was doing therefore can't be stealing. He thinks that it doesn't matter what he does, only what he says about it. Of course the judge would have to give him the bad news. Just because you say you are against it, doesn't mean it wasn't stealing.
You’re right: It's almost funny:

 

(1) You talk about me as if I have been posting bogus logs. I have posted no bogus logs, nor do I intend to post bogus logs. I have not been accused of posting bogus logs. Your analogy does not apply.

I think the analogy isn't comparing false logging to pickpocketing, but comparing condoning an act to pickpocketing, in which case the analogy almost works.

 

Unfortunately for traildad, the analogy still breaks down. Pickpocketing is a well-defined crime. If you take a wallet from someone's pocket against their will and without their knowledge, you are a pickpocket. Whether or not you are condoning something is a much harder concept to pin down.

 

I think an important thing to remember is how a discussion like this will look to someone who is just starting off geocaching. If your post can be interpreted (which it has) as condoning something, the person reading it can come away thinking "Since so-and-so thinks it's ok, it must be." They will likely miss the "I personally think this is wrong" post, lost in between the multiple "Don't let it bother you" posts.

 

Not to mention, telling someone who is bothered by something that they shouldn't be bothered by it is a bit like spitting into the wind, it's pointless, and only makes a mess. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

[quote name='Too Tall John' date=

I think an important thing to remember is how a discussion like this will look to someone who is just starting off geocaching. If your post can be interpreted (which it has) as condoning something, the person reading it can come away thinking "Since so-and-so thinks it's ok, it must be." They will likely miss the "I personally think this is wrong" post, lost in between the multiple "Don't let it bother you" posts.

 

Not to mention, telling someone who is bothered by something that they shouldn't be bothered by it is a bit like spitting into the wind, it's pointless, and only makes a mess. :rolleyes:

 

Does.....this mean ..............that I can now do "armchair" caches and get my count WAY up there? :blink:

 

Oh Boy! :antenna:

 

Hey! If so-and-so says it is not a problem then.................!!!! :D

 

I am about to become..............................A CONTENDER!!!! :blink:

Link to comment
I think an important thing to remember is how a discussion like this will look to someone who is just starting off geocaching. If your post can be interpreted (which it has) as condoning something, the person reading it can come away thinking "Since so-and-so thinks it's ok, it must be." They will likely miss the "I personally think this is wrong" post, lost in between the multiple "Don't let it bother you" posts.

Only if they choose to read some words while actively ignoring others.

 

If your hypothetical newbie is looking for an excuse to lie about finding a cache in his online log, he will likely find that excuse no matter where he looks. People tend to see what they want to see. Most folks, however, are able to instinctively understand the silliness and futility of posting a bogus ‘Fount it’ log. Most people, in other words, don’t need you or me or TrailDad or Mudfrog – or even Jeremy himself – to tell them why it is silly and futile. It is on the common-ness of common sense that we depend, not the preaching of self-appointed monitors of morality.

 

Besides, I doubt the kind of people who are capable of logging bogus logs give a diaperload what anyone says in the forums one way or the other.

 

Not to mention, telling someone who is bothered by something that they shouldn't be bothered by it is a bit like spitting into the wind, it's pointless, and only makes a mess. :rolleyes:

It expresses my opinion. Which of course has the same effect.

Link to comment

I think an important thing to remember is how a discussion like this will look to someone who is just starting off geocaching. If your post can be interpreted (which it has) as condoning something, the person reading it can come away thinking "Since so-and-so thinks it's ok, it must be." They will likely miss the "I personally think this is wrong" post, lost in between the multiple "Don't let it bother you" posts.

I think most people can understand the difference between saying "It's OK to post bogus logs" and "Bogus logs aren't that big of a problem and can be ignored". There may be an issue in that the word condone has multiple definitions. Ignoring something is not tacitly approving it though the word condone is used for both. Clearly people who feel the problem is so serious that it must be condemned will cry that by ignoring it you are tacitly giving approval.

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

Not to mention, telling someone who is bothered by something that they shouldn't be bothered by it is a bit like spitting into the wind, it's pointless, and only makes a mess. :rolleyes:

Perhaps, or perhaps one could discuss rationally what the effects of bogus logs are and determine if they can be ignored.
Link to comment
Does.....this mean ..............that I can now do "armchair" caches and get my count WAY up there? :antenna:

 

Oh Boy! :rolleyes:

 

Hey! If so-and-so says it is not a problem then.................!!!! :blink:

 

I am about to become..............................A CONTENDER!!!! :blink:

I say go for it. Might be fun to watch. :D

Link to comment

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

 

I can't remember anyone in this topic posting that they were bothered because it was a lie. I do remember people trying to say this was the case in what seemed an attempt to diminish someone else's point. You say that you are bothered that someone may use the info and suffer some loss because of it. I agree with you, this has been my main point all along. As I said, a bogus log on an archived cache would not matter to me since no one would be hunting for a archived cache. That way no one could suffer from the bad info. Armchair logging is wrong because of the potential for harm. We don't have to prove it caused harm, for it to be bad.

Link to comment

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

 

I can't remember anyone in this topic posting that they were bothered because it was a lie. I do remember people trying to say this was the case in what seemed an attempt to diminish someone else's point. You say that you are bothered that someone may use the info and suffer some loss because of it. I agree with you, this has been my main point all along. As I said, a bogus log on an archived cache would not matter to me since no one would be hunting for a archived cache. That way no one could suffer from the bad info. Armchair logging is wrong because of the potential for harm. We don't have to prove it caused harm, for it to be bad.

 

Traildad, I have another question for you. What do you do whenever you see someone smoking?

A - Go over and try to get them to stop because it's probably hurting themselves and others,

B - Tell them that it upsets you that they might be hurting themselves and others, but let them continue,

C - Nothing except try to avoid their smoke, or

D - Something else?

Link to comment

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

 

I can't remember anyone in this topic posting that they were bothered because it was a lie. I do remember people trying to say this was the case in what seemed an attempt to diminish someone else's point. You say that you are bothered that someone may use the info and suffer some loss because of it. I agree with you, this has been my main point all along. As I said, a bogus log on an archived cache would not matter to me since no one would be hunting for a archived cache. That way no one could suffer from the bad info. Armchair logging is wrong because of the potential for harm. We don't have to prove it caused harm, for it to be bad.

 

Traildad, I have another question for you. What do you do whenever you see someone smoking?

A - Go over and try to get them to stop because it's probably hurting themselves and others,

B - Tell them that it upsets you that they might be hurting themselves and others, but let them continue,

C - Nothing except try to avoid their smoke, or

D - Something else?

Well one thing I don't do is condone it at the same time I say I think it is wrong. This makes about as much sense as the last question. Can you tell me what this has to do with the topic at hand? If I saw someone inside their house smoking, wouldn't that get a different response than if they lit up in a non-smoking restaurant while I was eating dinner?

Link to comment

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

 

I can't remember anyone in this topic posting that they were bothered because it was a lie. I do remember people trying to say this was the case in what seemed an attempt to diminish someone else's point. You say that you are bothered that someone may use the info and suffer some loss because of it. I agree with you, this has been my main point all along. As I said, a bogus log on an archived cache would not matter to me since no one would be hunting for a archived cache. That way no one could suffer from the bad info. Armchair logging is wrong because of the potential for harm. We don't have to prove it caused harm, for it to be bad.

 

Traildad, I have another question for you. What do you do whenever you see someone smoking?

A - Go over and try to get them to stop because it's probably hurting themselves and others,

B - Tell them that it upsets you that they might be hurting themselves and others, but let them continue,

C - Nothing except try to avoid their smoke, or

D - Something else?

Well one thing I don't do is condone it at the same time I say I think it is wrong. This makes about as much sense as the last question. Can you tell me what this has to do with the topic at hand? If I saw someone inside their house smoking, wouldn't that get a different response than if they lit up in a non-smoking restaurant while I was eating dinner?

It has everything to do with the question at hand. Assuming you don't smoke and don't like smokers around you (assuming you don't log caches online that you haven't signed the log for) I was curious how you handled those that do smoke? So let's assume you came across a smoker who was walking in a park where smoking wasn't against the park rules, but it's possible that non smokers could breathe the second hand smoke. Which of the choices above would you do?

Link to comment

 

Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

 

I can't remember anyone in this topic posting that they were bothered because it was a lie. I do remember people trying to say this was the case in what seemed an attempt to diminish someone else's point. You say that you are bothered that someone may use the info and suffer some loss because of it. I agree with you, this has been my main point all along. As I said, a bogus log on an archived cache would not matter to me since no one would be hunting for a archived cache. That way no one could suffer from the bad info. Armchair logging is wrong because of the potential for harm. We don't have to prove it caused harm, for it to be bad.

 

Not positive but i think i have been the only one who has expressed in this thread that a bogus log is a lie and that it is one of the reasons it bothers me.

 

Once again, part of my thinking is that if a person lies about something like this, then there's no telling what more important things they may lie about that affects others in their daily life. The other, and more important reason for me is that i find lying to be morally wrong. A person who intentionally (sp) files a bogus log is doing it for some kind of personal gain (peer recognition, to screw with others, to somehow feel better about themselves, etc,,) that they do not deserve.

 

And also once again,,, NO!,, it does not bother me enough to where i dwell on it, look for bogus logs, can't sleep at night, or :lol: , think about quitting our fun hobby?

 

By the way, Tozainamboku, your statement is interesting to me. I can't imagine why anyone would be frightened of an honest person. :o

Link to comment

By the way, Tozainamboku, your statement is interesting to me. I can't imagine why anyone would be frightened of an honest person. :o

I think I've mentioned a few times the good, honest, German people who never lied to the SS when they came to look for the Jews.

 

Granted there is no overriding moral reason to lie about finding a cache. But I find it curious that your concern is that if someone were to lie about that "there's no telling what more important things they may lie about that affects others in their daily life." My belief is that lying by itself is neither good or bad. Therefore I can imagine that some people will lie about things for which there is no good reason to lie and not lie if they know the lie will hurt someone.

Link to comment
Not positive but i think i have been the only one who has expressed in this thread that a bogus log is a lie and that it is one of the reasons it bothers me.

 

Once again, part of my thinking is that if a person lies about something like this, then there's no telling what more important things they may lie about that affects others in their daily life.

If so, then shouldn’t you be happy when it happens, instead of troubled?

 

Me, I wouldn’t automatically call someone’s fundamental character into question without knowing a little more about them beyond such a trivial detail, but ... if the bogus logger is someone local or someone you know, and by filing a bogus smiley has failed one of your specific criteria for earning your respect, then wouldn’t you be happy to have learned about it that way instead of later, during something more critical – say, while secretly testing and scrutinizing him during a friendly conversation to determine whether he might be exaggerating about the length of a hike he’s taken, or how many sit-ups he can do?

 

It would give you the opportunity to confront him about it, determine whether the bogus log was truly malicious (as opposed to an honest mistake, or a difference of opinion regarding honest logging standards), and then, if necessary, write that unworthy person off your friend/caching buddy/Christmas card list before he has a chance to cause you any real harm – who knows, someone that dangerous might be capable of *gasp* <shudder> exaggerating his gas mileage! :o

 

The other, and more important reason for me is that i find lying to be morally wrong. A person who intentionally (sp) files a bogus log is doing it for some kind of personal gain (peer recognition) ....

Higher find counts gain you more respect from your peers, even when your count is suspect? How does that work?

 

.... to screw with others, ....

How, exactly, does the logger of a bogus log “screw” with you?

 

....to somehow feel better about themselves, etc,,) that they do not deserve.

Are you serious? How, exactly, does lying to oneself make one feel better? How does one impress oneself with a non-achievement?

 

I’m looking forward to your answers. I hope to be enlightened, but at the moment I get the idea you haven’t thought these things through very thoroughly.

 

[EDIT: spelling]

Edited by KBI
Link to comment
Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always. I'm not saying that posting bogus found it logs is the right thing to do. I can't think of what would justify this. But the simple fact that is a lie doesn't bother me. I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

By the way, Tozainamboku, your statement is interesting to me. I can't imagine why anyone would be frightened of an honest person. :o

He didn't say he was frightened of honest people. He said he is frightened by people who distrustfully scrutinize the honesty of other people.

 

He said he is frightened by people who are ALWAYS bothered by lying, because he believes that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. I happen to share his unease – although I don’t know that I would call it “fright.”

 

I think he also meant to imply that a lie can sometimes fall in the middle and be neither good nor bad – which is where I, myself, place most bogus ‘Found it’ logs – but that is speculation on my part, and Toz can please correct me on that if I have misinterpreted him.

Link to comment
Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always.

Absolutely. An easy way to determine if a lie is the right thing to do is answering the question of who it benefits. The whole issue of trying to explain "a white lie" to a five year can be complicated until you break it down to this. "Are you trying to protect the feelings of the other person?" Folks do it all the time in the text of the logs when they're saying they enjoyed the cache when they didn't.

 

I'm wondering how a bogus log benefits anyone, but the logger.

 

I'm only bothered that someone may use the information in the log and be hurt or suffer some loss because of it. It doesn't seem that this happens very often where you could prove the bogus log was the cause.

It's not about having to prove if a bogus log actually causes harm in any singular case, but that it can cause harm and you don't know when it can or won't. This, in itself, seems to be a strong case for not logging a bogus log and why the idea of bogus logging, in general, bothers me.

Link to comment
Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always.

Absolutely. An easy way to determine if a lie is the right thing to do is answering the question of who it benefits.

 

I'm wondering how a bogus log benefits anyone, but the logger.

I can’t see how a bogus log would benefit the logger – but who cares whether it only benefits the logger? If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.

 

It's not about having to prove if a bogus log actually causes harm in any singular case, but that it can cause harm and you don't know when it can or won't.

How would that work? Can you give an example? Has a long-dormant bogus log ever sneaked up and bitten you in a morally-sensitive place?

Link to comment
Some people seem to be bothered by lying. I'm frightened a bit by these people, since I believe that sometimes lying is the right thing to do. While truth is generally the best policy, it isn't always.
Absolutely. An easy way to determine if a lie is the right thing to do is answering the question of who it benefits.

 

I'm wondering how a bogus log benefits anyone, but the logger.

I can’t see how a bogus log would benefit the logger – but who cares whether it only benefits the logger?
It benefits the logger because he gets a smilie. This forum has plenty of examples of not finding, yet logging, caches. Even thread displaying prime examples. Not seeing how it can benefit the loggers is looking at it with your eyes closed.

 

If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.
Wow. Precisely.

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so. I don't think you telling your girlfriend her behind looks huge in that dress "inherently" or "automatically" causes her harm either. Your girlfriend might take your comments with a grain of salt or has skin as thick as an Abrams tank. Who knows.

 

Someone who always tells the "brutal truth" has a character flaw, too.

 

It's not about having to prove if a bogus log actually causes harm in any singular case, but that it can cause harm and you don't know when it can or won't.
How would that work? Can you give an example?
How many times do you need examples? Examples are giving probably each time the subject is brought up.
Link to comment
I can’t see how a bogus log would benefit the logger – but who cares whether it only benefits the logger?
It benefits the logger because he gets a smilie. This forum has plenty of examples of not finding, yet logging, caches. Even thread displaying prime examples. Not seeing how it can benefit the loggers is looking at it with your eyes closed.

Sorry, I guess my eyes must be closed, because I still don’t see how a smiley – all by itself, without an actual, associated cache find – carries any intrinsic value. Telling me “because he gets a smilie” doesn’t explain the benefit of the smiley.

 

I can't tell yet whether my eyes are closed, but you not telling me how it can benefit the loggers is explaining it with your mouth closed.

 

Which is beside the point anyway. You didn’t answer my other question: Who cares whether it only benefits the logger?

 

If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.
Wow. Precisely.

:o

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.

Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.

 

It's not about having to prove if a bogus log actually causes harm in any singular case, but that it can cause harm and you don't know when it can or won't.
How would that work? Can you give an example?
How many times do you need examples?

This time I just need one example: The one you seem reluctant to give.

 

You aren’t being clear whether your concern is over a practical threat or a moral one, or maybe even some third type of threat I haven’t considered. An example would be most helpful.

Edited by KBI
Link to comment

***Voice of Hector Elizondo from "Valdez Is Coming"***

 

"What is all this talk about not signing the log book.....heh? I go to Senor Cacheman and tell him

about your Big Field. He will tell me about the Big Tree. Then I come back. I then tell you about

the BIG PILE OF STICKS!" :o:lol::lol:

Link to comment
Not positive but i think i have been the only one who has expressed in this thread that a bogus log is a lie and that it is one of the reasons it bothers me.

 

Once again, part of my thinking is that if a person lies about something like this, then there's no telling what more important things they may lie about that affects others in their daily life.

If so, then shouldn’t you be happy when it happens, instead of troubled?

 

Had to think about what you were saying and i think i got it. Yes, knowing this about a person could be helpful with future interactions with that person. The thing is, it's still somewhat sad to me when i see someone resort to doing it in the first place. No matter how inconsequential, it is a wrong thing to do and i figure the person who is doing it has issues going on in their life that need to be addressed.

 

Me, I wouldn’t automatically call someone’s fundamental character into question without knowing a little more about them beyond such a trivial detail, but ... if the bogus logger is someone local or someone you know, and by filing a bogus smiley has failed one of your specific criteria for earning your respect, then wouldn’t you be happy to have learned about it that way instead of later, during something more critical – say, while secretly testing and scrutinizing him during a friendly conversation to determine whether he might be exaggerating about the length of a hike he’s taken, or how many sit-ups he can do?

 

It would give you the opportunity to confront him about it, determine whether the bogus log was truly malicious (as opposed to an honest mistake, or a difference of opinion regarding honest logging standards), and then, if necessary, write that unworthy person off your friend/caching buddy/Christmas card list before he has a chance to cause you any real harm – who knows, someone that dangerous might be capable of *gasp* <shudder> exaggerating his gas mileage! :o

 

I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, a bogus log is trivial. More times than not, it doesn't cause any problems. However, it can and does cause problems at times. Examples have been given on this point.

 

If i know you lie then, if i catch you in a lie, then my trust in you is going to diminish. I'm not saying i would automatically terminate relations with a liar but it would change how i feel about them. For instance, you have a car for sale but i know you lie about a trivial things like finding a cache. I might have been interested in that car but i wouldn't take a chance of buying it because i already know you lie and that you probably wouldn't hesitate to lie about things associated with the car.

 

The other, and more important reason for me is that i find lying to be morally wrong. A person who intentionally (sp) files a bogus log is doing it for some kind of personal gain (peer recognition) ....

Higher find counts gain you more respect from your peers, even when your count is suspect? How does that work?

 

Others who do not know about the fake logs may look up to that cacher. Looking for advice, praising him, throwing an award ceremony for him, etc,,,. I can pretty much guarantee you that none of this would take place from those who know the truth.

 

.... to screw with others, ....

How, exactly, does the logger of a bogus log “screw” with you?

 

Sheeeesh,, one more time. Examples have been given in this thread and other threads. One of them being that the bogus log could give future finders the impression that a cache is there when it is indeed missing.

 

....to somehow feel better about themselves, etc,,) that they do not deserve.

Are you serious? How, exactly, does lying to oneself make one feel better? How does one impress oneself with a non-achievement?

 

I agree with what you're saying, in that i can't for the life of me see how doing something like this could be pleasureable. But there is some reason why people do it. People cheat at all kinds of things and theres no doubt that they're doing it for some kind of gain! In the end, it makes them somehow feel better. Whether it's simply to say to others that they found a difficult cache, or seeing their high find count on a webpage, or using that higher find count to gain some sort of recognition from others,,, i have no earthly idea. Answer this, why do you think people do it?

 

I’m looking forward to your answers. I hope to be enlightened, but at the moment I get the idea you haven’t thought these things through very thoroughly.

 

This is pretty basic to me, (relative, black and white, etc,,) My belief that it is wrong and that it can have a negative impact on others, hasn't changed.

 

[EDIT: spelling]

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.

Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.

If someone plants land mines in the wilderness would this give you reason to be automatically opposed. Or would you say it was ok to plant land mines in the wilderness unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm? Now lets say these land mines are not super strong. They don't kill people, lets say they just damage clothes. You know, just about the same cost as the gas to find a cache. And these land mines become inactive after a period of time, so only people that come by soon after they were placed are in danger. So the chances are not real high that someone will stumble upon one and suffer damage. Would you say this was right and ok, wrong and not ok, or would you say it was wrong but condone it anyway?

Link to comment
Sorry, I guess my eyes must be closed, because I still don’t see how a smiley – all by itself, without an actual, associated cache find – carries any intrinsic value. Telling me “because he gets a smilie” doesn’t explain the benefit of the smiley.

 

I can't tell yet whether my eyes are closed, but you not telling me how it can benefit the loggers is explaining it with your mouth closed.

 

Which is beside the point anyway. You didn’t answer my other question: Who cares whether it only benefits the logger?

What benefit to the logger? There must be some, because they do it. Maybe they find it amusing, maybe they think the numbers are worth something, maybe it makes them feel better, maybe they have geocaching OCD. Who knows, but on some level, it must benefit them, at least in their own minds.

 

As to who cares if it only benefits the logger, anyone who it inconveniences. At very least, it's one more email for the cache owner to read, and decide if they need to do anything with the log. There have been days when I've opened my email and seen 50 log reports waiting to be read. (Only 30 this morning!) If I suddenly found the (allegedly) false logger who inspired this thread had logged my caches, I'd feel a bit put out, having to, at very least, wade through the emails his logs generated.

If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.
Again, I think proving that the log won't inconvenience anyone would be a stretch. Aside from filling my inbox with useless info, there's the whole issue of misleading the cache owner or seeker into thinking a missing cache is there.
The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.
Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.
To wait until an action causes harm before calling it bad can be irresponsible. I had the night off last night, my wife and I went to the local pub for dinner/drinks. She had a Coke, I had 3 Sam Adams, and could definitely feel their effects. I gave her the keys. Let's imagine if I had kept the keys & driven home. Let's imagine nothing happened on the way home. Would my actions be ok because nobody was harmed? No.

 

Not condemning someone's actions because they didn't hurt anyone and not condemning someone's actions because they won't hurt someone are 2 different concepts.

It's not about having to prove if a bogus log actually causes harm in any singular case, but that it can cause harm and you don't know when it can or won't.
How would that work? Can you give an example?
How many times do you need examples?
This time I just need one example: The one you seem reluctant to give.

 

You aren’t being clear whether your concern is over a practical threat or a moral one, or maybe even some third type of threat I haven’t considered. An example would be most helpful.

How about my example of the cache owner who'd got to read the false logger's drivel.

 

Having been through a similar conversation before, I'm predicting that someone's response will include the fact that the cache owner had the choice of putting out a cache or not, and if it really bothers them, they can archive the cache, or not place them at all.

 

Yes, I know the cache owner put the cache out and should know there's the risk that there will be false logs. Let's look at it through the lens of my dinner last night. What if I had driven home? What if, instead of an uneventful ride, we had been in a head on collision? Should everyone stay off the road because I might kill them on my way back from the bar? Maybe, but what would that mean? A better solution is the one I used: don't drive when I'm drunk.

 

Saying that one shouldn't [drive/place caches] because they might [be in an accident with a drunk driver/get false logs] is transferring too much responsibility from the shoulders of the [drunk driver/false logger].

 

Too many are too willing to put blame onto someone else's shoulders. That's half the problem with the world today.

 

The other half all has to do with people who disagree with me. :o

 

Are you part of the problem? :lol:

Link to comment
Not positive but i think i have been the only one who has expressed in this thread that a bogus log is a lie and that it is one of the reasons it bothers me.

 

Once again, part of my thinking is that if a person lies about something like this, then there's no telling what more important things they may lie about that affects others in their daily life.

If so, then shouldn’t you be happy when it happens, instead of troubled?

Had to think about what you were saying and i think i got it. Yes, knowing this about a person could be helpful with future interactions with that person. The thing is, it's still somewhat sad to me when i see someone resort to doing it in the first place. No matter how inconsequential, it is a wrong thing to do and i figure the person who is doing it has issues going on in their life that need to be addressed.

Fair enough.

 

I see the behavior in much the same light, although I don’t take it nearly as serious as you seem to. Whereas I roll my eyes and forget about it, you seem to take a much more serious and personal concern.

 

So by “needs to be addressed” do you mean (1) they probably are not thinking clearly, and hopefully they’ll figure it out, or by “needs to be addressed” do you mean (2) it becomes YOUR duty to straighten them out?

 

Me, I wouldn’t automatically call someone’s fundamental character into question without knowing a little more about them beyond such a trivial detail, but ... if the bogus logger is someone local or someone you know, and by filing a bogus smiley has failed one of your specific criteria for earning your respect, then wouldn’t you be happy to have learned about it that way instead of later, during something more critical – say, while secretly testing and scrutinizing him during a friendly conversation to determine whether he might be exaggerating about the length of a hike he’s taken, or how many sit-ups he can do?

 

It would give you the opportunity to confront him about it, determine whether the bogus log was truly malicious (as opposed to an honest mistake, or a difference of opinion regarding honest logging standards), and then, if necessary, write that unworthy person off your friend/caching buddy/Christmas card list before he has a chance to cause you any real harm – who knows, someone that dangerous might be capable of *gasp* <shudder> exaggerating his gas mileage! :o

I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, a bogus log is trivial. More times than not, it doesn't cause any problems. However, it can and does cause problems at times. Examples have been given on this point.

 

If i know you lie then, if i catch you in a lie, then my trust in you is going to diminish. I'm not saying i would automatically terminate relations with a liar but it would change how i feel about them. For instance, you have a car for sale but i know you lie about a trivial things like finding a cache. I might have been interested in that car but i wouldn't take a chance of buying it because i already know you lie and that you probably wouldn't hesitate to lie about things associated with the car.

I agree with you that such behavior can be a possible hint as to a person’s honor. As Toz pointed out, however, there is no reason to automatically assume that a person can’t tell the difference between lies that don’t matter and lies that do. You seem to favor assuming so anyway; I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves unworthy of that benefit. Again, I hesitate to condemn a person’s reputation based on something so frivolous as an exaggeration or a benign lie.

 

There is a reason I chose exercise and gas mileage as analogies to cache-finding. None of those things are generally considered to be competitive. Each of those things is something that I personally see no reason to exaggerate, for reasons that to me are obvious and intuitive: there are no positives, yet there are potential negatives. There are not, however, any inherent negatives. A person, therefore, can exaggerate any of those things, should they choose to disregard reason, without necessarily hurting anyone.

 

If I suspect someone is lying about his gas mileage while trying to sell me the very same car, then yes, I will pass on buying that car – and I will even tell my car-buying friends about my concerns. I do not promote fraud. Fraud is inherently harmful.

 

If I suspect someone is lying about his gas mileage just to make noise, however, then I will simply roll my eyes and ignore it. I might even go out of my way NOT to act impressed. What I will NOT do is start lecturing him on morals, or conclude that he is about to pick my pocket.

Link to comment
The other, and more important reason for me is that i find lying to be morally wrong. A person who intentionally (sp) files a bogus log is doing it for some kind of personal gain (peer recognition) ....

Higher find counts gain you more respect from your peers, even when your count is suspect? How does that work?

Others who do not know about the fake logs may look up to that cacher. Looking for advice, praising him, throwing an award ceremony for him, etc,,,. I can pretty much guarantee you that none of this would take place from those who know the truth.

I hate to disagree with you, but from my point of view the praising, admiring, and awarding of people for finding large numbers of boxes in the woods or keysafes in the 'burbs is not at all the equivalent of praising, admiring, and awarding people for substantial life accomplishments. This is just a hobby -- a non-competitive hobby -- yet some people seem to take it way too serious.

 

Even if I were to become erroneously impressed at the accomplishments of, say, a one-day cache run where some cacher’s numbers have been fraudulently inflated by bogus logs – how has that bogus logger taken anything of value away from me? If I remain erroneously awed, never learning the truth, then so what? If I later learn about the lies, then so what? How does either of those things affect my ability to enjoy hiding caches, hunting caches, finding caches, posting logs, or enjoying the game in general?

 

If, on the other hand, cachers were awarded cache prizes for reaching find count milestones then you might have a case. If that ever comes to pass, however, then Geocaching will have officially become a competition, and my whole argument through this entire thread will have become obsolete.

 

.... to screw with others, ....

How, exactly, does the logger of a bogus log “screw” with you?

Sheeeesh,, one more time. Examples have been given in this thread and other threads. One of them being that the bogus log could give future finders the impression that a cache is there when it is indeed missing.

We’re not talking about practical risks. You were trying to convince me that bogus logging is a moral threat. I have already agreed that it can pose a practical threat. How, exactly, does the logger of a bogus log “screw” with you in a morally negative way? How does his false log cause YOU moral loss or harm?

 

....to somehow feel better about themselves, etc,,) that they do not deserve.

Are you serious? How, exactly, does lying to oneself make one feel better? How does one impress oneself with a non-achievement?

I agree with what you're saying, in that i can't for the life of me see how doing something like this could be pleasureable. But there is some reason why people do it. People cheat at all kinds of things and theres no doubt that they're doing it for some kind of gain! In the end, it makes them somehow feel better. Whether it's simply to say to others that they found a difficult cache, or seeing their high find count on a webpage, or using that higher find count to gain some sort of recognition from others,,, i have no earthly idea. Answer this, why do you think people do it?

I have never claimed to understand why anyone would intentionally lie about finding a cache.

 

I can imagine inadvertent reasons, such as honest mistakes, or simple differences in opinion over how a ‘find’ is defined – but I have made it very clear that I see no reason to lie intentionally. That’s all beside the point. The point is that false logs are not inherently evil, and that they, in my opinion, can normally be ignored as one would ignore a smelly diaper on a toddler or a belch from a redneck – not good, not ideal, but easily ignorable once you conclude that they simply don’t know any better, and aren’t likely to respond well to being corrected anyway.

 

To refer to bogus logging as "cheating," as you just did, implies that some type of competition is involved -- or that the bogus log constitutes some type of fraud in which there is a victim. Neither of these charactarizations is accurate.

Link to comment
The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.

Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.

If someone plants land mines in the wilderness would this give you reason to be automatically opposed. Or would you say it was ok to plant land mines in the wilderness unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm? Now lets say these land mines are not super strong. They don't kill people, lets say they just damage clothes. You know, just about the same cost as the gas to find a cache. And these land mines become inactive after a period of time, so only people that come by soon after they were placed are in danger. So the chances are not real high that someone will stumble upon one and suffer damage. Would you say this was right and ok, wrong and not ok, or would you say it was wrong but condone it anyway?

A land mine, by its nature, has the potential to cause very real and measurable harm. That is what it is designed to do.

 

A land mine is inherently dangerous.

 

Some bogus logs have the potential to cause practical problems, such as annoyance and inconvenience. I have never argued this point. I have made that point myself, in fact.

 

Other bogus logs are benign and harmless. Benign and harmless bogus logs are NOT analogous to bombs which might explode without warning from just below the surface.

 

A bogus log, therefore, is NOT inherently dangerous.

Link to comment
Sorry, I guess my eyes must be closed, because I still don’t see how a smiley – all by itself, without an actual, associated cache find – carries any intrinsic value. Telling me “because he gets a smilie” doesn’t explain the benefit of the smiley.

 

I can't tell yet whether my eyes are closed, but you not telling me how it can benefit the loggers is explaining it with your mouth closed.

 

Which is beside the point anyway. You didn’t answer my other question: Who cares whether it only benefits the logger?

What benefit to the logger? There must be some, because they do it. Maybe they find it amusing, maybe they think the numbers are worth something, maybe it makes them feel better, maybe they have geocaching OCD. Who knows, but on some level, it must benefit them, at least in their own minds.

 

As to who cares if it only benefits the logger, anyone who it inconveniences. At very least, it's one more email for the cache owner to read, and decide if they need to do anything with the log. There have been days when I've opened my email and seen 50 log reports waiting to be read. (Only 30 this morning!) If I suddenly found the (allegedly) false logger who inspired this thread had logged my caches, I'd feel a bit put out, having to, at very least, wade through the emails his logs generated.

If we are now talking about overwhelming numbers of bogus logs, numbers large enough to make it substantially difficult for honest people to function as cachers in the conventional way, then you are now raising a new complaint about a new issue – one which probably should be taken to a new thread.

 

Has this problem of overwhelming numbers of bogus logs actually been observed anywhere? I haven't seen it discussed, and I certainly have not observed the problem directly. If not, then wouldn’t your hypothetical problem be serving only as a fallacious strawman?

 

If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.
Aside from filling my inbox with useless info, there's the whole issue of misleading the cache owner or seeker into thinking a missing cache is there.

For the one hundred and eighty eighth time, I am NOT arguing that point. Yes, SOME bogus logs MIGHT cause inconvenience. We’ve been over this before.

 

SOME bogus logs are potentially inconvenient. ALL bogus logs are not INHERENTLY bad.

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.
Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.
To wait until an action causes harm before calling it bad can be irresponsible. I had the night off last night, my wife and I went to the local pub for dinner/drinks. She had a Coke, I had 3 Sam Adams, and could definitely feel their effects. I gave her the keys. Let's imagine if I had kept the keys & driven home. Let's imagine nothing happened on the way home. Would my actions be ok because nobody was harmed? No.

You analogy does not apply.

 

Inebriated driving IS inherently dangerous.

 

Bogus logs are NOT inherently dangerous.

 

Not condemning someone's actions because they didn't hurt anyone and not condemning someone's actions because they won't hurt someone are 2 different concepts.

I agree. “Inherently dangerous” and “NOT inherently dangerous” are two different concepts.

Link to comment
I have never claimed to understand why anyone would intentionally lie about finding a cache.

 

I can imagine inadvertent reasons, such as honest mistakes, or simple differences in opinion over how a ‘find’ is defined – but I have made it very clear that I see no reason to lie intentionally. That’s all beside the point. The point is that false logs are not inherently evil, and that they, in my opinion, can normally be ignored as one would ignore a smelly diaper on a toddler or a belch from a redneck – not good, not ideal, but easily ignorable once you conclude that they simply don’t know any better, and aren’t likely to respond well to being corrected anyway.

 

To refer to bogus logging as "cheating," as you just did, implies that some type of competition is involved -- or that the bogus log constitutes some type of fraud in which there is a victim. Neither of these charactarizations is accurate.

 

I said this in another reply but i'll reiterate once more. We're not talking about inadvertant reasons such as mistakes or differences in opinions, for why logs get posted. We're talking about the intentional logging, and yes, the person doing it knows better, of a bogus log. Like you, i do not understand why anyone would do it but the fact remains, it happens.

 

I've actually had a bogus log come in and can tell you that it did not cause big problems or totally mess up my life. It did have an affect on me since i had to check into it to see what was going on. The person was emailed for a chance to explain but never responded and the bogus log was deleted. Problem solved and life went on. As far as taking all this too serious, i don't. I'm simply stating my opinion in a long winded thread here on GC.com.

 

Geocaching didn't start out being competitive but it has evolved into different ways that people choose to enjoy it. For many, there's no competition at all. For some, being ftf is part of the fun and is therefore a competition. For others, the highest number of smilies wins, making it yet another type of competition. So, if a person is competing with someone else with smilie count, then the making of a bogus log to up their count would be cheating. :o

Link to comment
Sorry, I guess my eyes must be closed, because I still don’t see how a smiley – all by itself, without an actual, associated cache find – carries any intrinsic value. Telling me “because he gets a smilie” doesn’t explain the benefit of the smiley.

 

I can't tell yet whether my eyes are closed, but you not telling me how it can benefit the loggers is explaining it with your mouth closed.

 

Which is beside the point anyway. You didn’t answer my other question: Who cares whether it only benefits the logger?

What benefit to the logger? There must be some, because they do it. Maybe they find it amusing, maybe they think the numbers are worth something, maybe it makes them feel better, maybe they have geocaching OCD. Who knows, but on some level, it must benefit them, at least in their own minds.

 

As to who cares if it only benefits the logger, anyone who it inconveniences. At very least, it's one more email for the cache owner to read, and decide if they need to do anything with the log. There have been days when I've opened my email and seen 50 log reports waiting to be read. (Only 30 this morning!) If I suddenly found the (allegedly) false logger who inspired this thread had logged my caches, I'd feel a bit put out, having to, at very least, wade through the emails his logs generated.

If we are now talking about overwhelming numbers of bogus logs, numbers large enough to make it substantially difficult for honest people to function as cachers in the conventional way, then you are now raising a new complaint about a new issue – one which probably should be taken to a new thread.

 

Has this problem of overwhelming numbers of bogus logs actually been observed anywhere? I haven't seen it discussed, and I certainly have not observed the problem directly. If not, then wouldn’t your hypothetical problem be serving only as a fallacious strawman?

 

If a bogus log can be shown to benefit the logger, and NOT to harm anyone else, then it's none of our business, and this entire thread is moot.
Aside from filling my inbox with useless info, there's the whole issue of misleading the cache owner or seeker into thinking a missing cache is there.

For the one hundred and eighty eighth time, I am NOT arguing that point. Yes, SOME bogus logs MIGHT cause inconvenience. We’ve been over this before.

 

SOME bogus logs are potentially inconvenient. ALL bogus logs are not INHERENTLY bad.

 

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.
"Inherently" or "automatically?" No, I don't think so.
Then it sounds like you and I are of the same viewpoint. No reason to automatically be opposed to bogus logging, in other words. No reason to be opposed to a bogus log unless and until it causes actual, observable or measurable harm.
To wait until an action causes harm before calling it bad can be irresponsible. I had the night off last night, my wife and I went to the local pub for dinner/drinks. She had a Coke, I had 3 Sam Adams, and could definitely feel their effects. I gave her the keys. Let's imagine if I had kept the keys & driven home. Let's imagine nothing happened on the way home. Would my actions be ok because nobody was harmed? No.

You analogy does not apply.

 

Inebriated driving IS inherently dangerous.

 

Bogus logs are NOT inherently dangerous.

 

Not condemning someone's actions because they didn't hurt anyone and not condemning someone's actions because they won't hurt someone are 2 different concepts.

I agree. “Inherently dangerous” and “NOT inherently dangerous” are two different concepts.

First, I didn't say anything about overwhelming numbers of bogus logs. It's annoying in the same way that any spam mail is. One piece isn't a problem, but add the bogus log email to the Viagra ad email to the "I-need-your-help-recovering-scads-of-money-and-I'll-give-you-a-lot-of-it-if-you-send-me-$1000" email to the "Latest-virus-warning-check-it-out,-it's-real-according-to-Snopes-(but-when-you-look-it's-a-hoax)" email to the. . .

. . . Just another piece of spam.

 

Telling me I'm talking about billions of false logs that are bogging down geocachers and then asking me for proof? THAT'S a strawman, my friend!

 

Second, the drunk driving analogy had little to do with drunk driving itself. You claim that a false log is ok unless it causes harm. Unless you have a time machine, you have absolutely no way to be able to say that a false log will not cause harm. A drunk driver may have made it home safely 100 times bfore, but might not decide that it really is a bad idea until they're in an accident. I bet 95% of drunk drivers who kill someone will say they had no intention to kill anyone, and probably didn't think they would.

 

They did. If they had that time machine, they'd put it to better use than that false logger, I bet...

Link to comment

Now that we're completely off topic...

I found it curious that someone logged two of my caches on the same day. He seems to log all his caches with the same cut-and-paste log. While these caches are only about two miles apart, I've never heard of anyone even conemplating hunting both of them on the same day. That aroused my curiosity. I checked the one cache, and found that he had not signed the log. I would have checked the other, but it is close to two hours driving, and $8 in tolls to get to it from the first one. I will check it the next time I'm in the area.

Guidelines state that it is the owner's responsibility to delete bogus logs. And I shall.

Link to comment

Now that we're completely off topic...

I found it curious that someone logged two of my caches on the same day. He seems to log all his caches with the same cut-and-paste log. While these caches are only about two miles apart, I've never heard of anyone even conemplating hunting both of them on the same day. That aroused my curiosity. I checked the one cache, and found that he had not signed the log. I would have checked the other, but it is close to two hours driving, and $8 in tolls to get to it from the first one. I will check it the next time I'm in the area.

Guidelines state that it is the owner's responsibility to delete bogus logs. And I shall.

Thank you. This is what the original topic of thread was about. We can ultimately agree that there is no good reason to lie about finding a cache and there are possibly some reasons not to lie. Cache owners are given the responsibility to delete bogus logs. Some, like Harry Dolphin, will check the logs on their caches if a log appears to be bogus. Others may email the finder to provide a description of the cache as proof they found it.

 

If you got a log like the one quoted by the OP what would you do. The logger says "I found your cache, I saw what ever it was you wanted me to see, but I did not sign the log because that is not part of the reason I cache." Would you delete the log? If you answer yes, then what should be done to cache owners who do not delete the log? Is the owner who says that he can't tell from the log if the guy is lying and on top of it would allow a find by someone who failed to sign the log for some good reason (no pen, wet log, just forgot) condoning fake logs or is he simply allowing that signing the log is not the most important thing about this game?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Like you, i do not understand why anyone would do it but the fact remains, it happens.

 

I've actually had a bogus log come in and can tell you that it did not cause big problems or totally mess up my life. It did have an affect on me since i had to check into it to see what was going on. The person was emailed for a chance to explain but never responded and the bogus log was deleted. Problem solved and life went on. As far as taking all this too serious, i don't. I'm simply stating my opinion in a long winded thread here on GC.com.

I have had a very similar experience. Based on this paragraph alone, you and I seem to share exactly the same viewpoint on bogus logs. :)

 

Geocaching didn't start out being competitive but it has evolved into different ways that people choose to enjoy it. For many, there's no competition at all. For some, being ftf is part of the fun and is therefore a competition. For others, the highest number of smilies wins, making it yet another type of competition. So, if a person is competing with someone else with smilie count, then the making of a bogus log to up their count would be cheating. ;)

Please note the single word I highlighted in bold in your post. It constitutes a critical premise.

 

Conclusion: If a person has chosen to view another person’s find count competitively, and that other cacher falsely inflates his find count, then that person has therefore chosen to be bothered by the bogus logs – and can therefore blame no one but himself for any harm he perceives as a result. Logical -- wouldn't you agree?

 

I have never claimed to understand why anyone would intentionally lie about finding a cache.

 

I can imagine inadvertent reasons, such as honest mistakes, or simple differences in opinion over how a ‘find’ is defined – but I have made it very clear that I see no reason to lie intentionally. That’s all beside the point. The point is that false logs are not inherently evil, and that they, in my opinion, can normally be ignored as one would ignore a smelly diaper on a toddler or a belch from a redneck – not good, not ideal, but easily ignorable once you conclude that they simply don’t know any better, and aren’t likely to respond well to being corrected anyway.

 

To refer to bogus logging as "cheating," as you just did, implies that some type of competition is involved -- or that the bogus log constitutes some type of fraud in which there is a victim. Neither of these charactarizations is accurate.

I said this in another reply but i'll reiterate once more. We're not talking about inadvertant reasons such as mistakes or differences in opinions, for why logs get posted. We're talking about the intentional logging, and yes, the person doing it knows better, of a bogus log.

Question: If a bogus log exists, does it bother you (A) more, (B) less, or (C) the same to know that it was done intentionally, as opposed to accidentally or absentmindedly?

Link to comment

Thank you. This is what the original topic of thread was about. We can ultimately agree that there is no good reason to lie about finding a cache and there are possibly some reasons not to lie. Cache owners are given the responsibility to delete bogus logs. Some, like Harry Dolphin, will check the logs on their caches if a log appears to be bogus. Others may email the finder to provide a description of the cache as proof they found it.

 

If you got a log like the one quoted by the OP what would you do. The logger says "I found your cache, I saw what ever it was you wanted me to see, but I did not sign the log because that is not part of the reason I cache." Would you delete the log? If you answer yes, then what should be done to cache owners who do not delete the log? Is the owner who says that he can't tell from the log if the guy is lying and on top of it would allow a find by someone who failed to sign the log for some good reason (no pen, wet log, just forgot) condoning fake logs or is he simply allowing that signing the log is not the most important thing about this game?

 

Harry Dolphin obviously did the right thing. As for the situation that kicked off this thread, the right thing to do is check the physical log (next maintenance visit), and, if there's no sig for this cacher, delete the online log. Given the text of the log, it'd be acceptable to delete it in advance of the visit. The oddball who posted the log is essentially saying, "This is a bogus log. What are you going to do about it?"

 

As far as owners who don't delete bogus logs--it's a minor sort of neglect, not nearly as bad as allowing the physical cache to decay into geo-litter. Nothing should be done to them.

 

Finally, those cases in which cachers could not sign the log for reasons beyond their control, I'm inclined to grant 'em a smiley if their story checks out. But I've never confronted that situation because I make a real effort to keep my caches from falling into that kind of disrepair.

Link to comment
First, I didn't say anything about overwhelming numbers of bogus logs. It's annoying in the same way that any spam mail is. One piece isn't a problem, but add the bogus log email to the Viagra ad email to the "I-need-your-help-recovering-scads-of-money-and-I'll-give-you-a-lot-of-it-if-you-send-me-$1000" email to the "Latest-virus-warning-check-it-out,-it's-real-according-to-Snopes-(but-when-you-look-it's-a-hoax)" email to the. . .

. . . Just another piece of spam.

 

Telling me I'm talking about billions of false logs that are bogging down geocachers and then asking me for proof? THAT'S a strawman, my friend!

Who said billions? I didn’t tell you you were talking about billions of false logs. Now you’re exaggerating. I said you were talking about “numbers large enough to make it substantially difficult for honest people to function as cachers in the conventional way.” Did I misinterpret?

 

You made your case based on the sheer unwieldy large number of bogus logs, not due to any other threat, harm, or effect inherent to the bogusness itself. I simply asked if you had ever actually observed bogus logs to be a problem strictly because of their unwieldy quantity.

 

Near as I can tell you didn’t answer that question.

 

Second, the drunk driving analogy had little to do with drunk driving itself. You claim that a false log is ok unless it causes harm.

No, I have said that a bogus log is only objectionable to me if it has the potential to cause harm. Most bogus logs, in my experience, are harmless – except to those who choose to be bothered by them anyway.

Link to comment
Second, the drunk driving analogy had little to do with drunk driving itself. You claim that a false log is ok unless it causes harm.

No, I have said that a bogus log is only objectionable to me if it has the potential to cause harm. Most bogus logs, in my experience, are harmless – except to those who choose to be bothered by them anyway.

When you say most bogus logs are harmless, do you mean that they turned out to be harmless ie: (the cache was still there, so no harm), or they had no potential to cause harm no matter what? It seems from you past posts that you might say that no bogus logs have the potential to cause harm so all are harmless. I would like to see your list what bogus logs you consider objectionable. So far I have not seen you condemn any of them.

Link to comment

You analogy does not apply.

Actually it does. The seriousness of the end result is different, but the conclusion is the same: something bad happens.

 

Inebriated driving IS inherently dangerous.

 

Bogus logs are NOT inherently dangerous.

If you remove the strawman argument of "dangerous" and replace it with simply "something bad happens" then your conclusion in the above quote is false.

 

You used "dangerous" because you're wanting to push the issue past physical damage of the environment and waste of time and money to a place where folks are killed. It's a matter of degrees.

 

Let's back up a minute and refer back to something you said earlier:

The question here is: Does the lie inherently or automatically harm anyone else? I still say not necessarily, but I remain open to being convinced otherwise.

Let's apply the same logic to driving impaired. Does driving impaired inherently or automatically harm anyone else? Of course not. Folks do it all the time without so much as a scratch to their car much less killing anyone.

 

However, the potential is there.

 

It would be more accurate to state:

  • Inebriated driving has the potential to cause someone harm.
  • Bogus logs have the potential to cause someone harm.

Link to comment

OK,

Its been an interesting 7 pages. But the last 2 have turned into a back and forth between a few people and no one is going to convince the other they are wrong or right. I am closing this thread. The few of you left can finish it up in emails.

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