Cheaters never profit...?

[+KBI]

KBI,

 

I've always had the feeling that everyone loses when we just allow poor behavior to go on un-called and un-checked.

 

It's sad that this topic comes up as often as it does.

 

DCC

 

That's what I said, I still stick by what I feel (as quoted above). That is what my words actually say... "I've always had the feeling". You're not going to change my mind.

 

Obviously, you disagree... we get it.

 

At least I guess you disagree, either that or you just enjoy attacking me. I'll withdraw myself from the discussion so you can concentrate your attacks on someone else.

 

Enjoy!

 

DCC

I did NOT "attack" you. None of my posts was intended to personally offend you. Please calm down and relax.

 

You say you have a “feeling.” That’s fine.

 

Your feeling is that everyone loses each time we fail to rise up and Do Something About It when someone posts the occasional bogus log. That’s fine too.

 

You have now made it crystal clear that you have absolutely no interest in defending your reasoning. That, also, is perfectly fine.

 

I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

[+tommytrauma]

I've encountered runners who lie about their pace / distance. I've encountered lifters who lie about their weight. I've encountered crapbags who lie about their military service. In general, I fail to give a s***. They already get to live with the knowledge that they're a fraud. I have no need to add to that.

[+NoHandsGPS]

I think there's always going to be cheating, no matter how the rules are written. For example, I know a cacher who caches all weekend and then claims to have gotten them all in one day. I say let the cheaters cheat. It only makes them look foolish and it doesn't affect my game at all.

Until I read this I didn't realize it mattered in the post as to what date the cache was actually found. I guess I was too lazy to change the date. To me it doesn't matter when I found or didn't find the cache. What are you suppose to do if the log is full or soaked?

I do think though a person should make every effort to sign the log. You only cheat yourself if lie about finding the cache.

[+Mach2003]

I think there's always going to be cheating, no matter how the rules are written. For example, I know a cacher who caches all weekend and then claims to have gotten them all in one day. I say let the cheaters cheat. It only makes them look foolish and it doesn't affect my game at all.

Until I read this I didn't realize it mattered in the post as to what date the cache was actually found. I guess I was too lazy to change the date. To me it doesn't matter when I found or didn't find the cache. What are you suppose to do if the log is full or soaked?

I do think though a person should make every effort to sign the log. You only cheat yourself if lie about finding the cache.

I don't think that "unable to sign soggy logbook" falls under the "cheating" concept. We have all had logs that, once found, were unable to sign.

 

The date you log online, could have some effect on the listing, "IF" there was a possiblility that it went missing, the "last found: date *may* be usefull. Recording the incorrect date online (or in the logbook), again, IMO is not "cheating". I guess there will be some who would look at your logs and say "wow look at all those caches found in one day", and might even think that you were cheating if they are too far apart, or just to hard to do in one day. Do you care?

[+Renegade Knight]

I think there's always going to be cheating, no matter how the rules are written. For example, I know a cacher who caches all weekend and then claims to have gotten them all in one day. I say let the cheaters cheat. It only makes them look foolish and it doesn't affect my game at all.

Until I read this I didn't realize it mattered in the post as to what date the cache was actually found....

 

I think what's really going on is they find them over the weekend, then log them in a batch in one sitting. Unless you are in the habbit of cross checking the default date the logs will all be on the same day. This isn't cheating at all. Heck it's not really a problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Your feeling is that everyone loses each time we fail to rise up and Do Something About It when someone posts the occasional bogus log. That’s fine too....

 

Whenever we allow dishonesty, pettyness, and a thousand small evils that alone are nothing more than a seemingly inconsequential whisp of almost nothing to stand. We lose ground on honesty, desency, and a thousand small good things that alone don't amount to much but combined make all the difference.

 

Doing the right thing wtih a cache is no different.

 

The other day we bumped into a kid (bi polar muggle who was likely armed, and known for making threats and having breakdowns. We just didn't know that at the time). He was nice enough when we bumped into him. He figured out we were looking for a cache and let us know that he and his friends found it and took it home. He was from "cool I found it, I took it, now I just need to find another cool spot to hide it in" school of thought some muggles seem to be from. We explained how it's supposed to work and suggested that he get with his friend and bring it back so folks like us looking for where it's supposed to be have something to find. Maybe he will do the right thing. Maybe not. But at least now he knows what the right thing is. That's one whisp of righness in the world done in a way that was easy enough for everone.

 

Most people are suggesting "do what you can, where you can, when a chance presents itself" and not so much a constitutional ammendment dealing wiht this false logging travesty banning it for all time.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

You'll love this.

 

On one of my hides, there were a couple people who'd logged finds with messages that it was wet. So I got out there and fixed it up. Then we had a dry spell. During the days of no rain, I received an all-caps message that was to the extent of, "HELLOOOO CACHE OWNER CACHE IS WET PPL SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THEIR CACHES" but there was a lot of spelling errors and it's logged as a find. Now, the cache hadn't been wet for days. I also thought this cacher was a bit rude to be an out-of-towner. Usually the visitors are overly polite with their logs.

 

Anyway, I go out there again under a dubya-tee-eff check and see that the log is perfectly dry and the cacher hadn't signed the new log.

 

So I deleted his find.

 

The funny part is that because this a chronically wet cache that I can't seem to figure out how to keep dry, any other time this cacher might've gotten away with it.

 

- Elle

[+Team Birdaholic]

Quote "On the other hand, I have found at least one archived cache recently. It was not listed as 'archived' when we left on the trip. We found it. When we logged it, it was listed as 'archived and removed.' Nope. Wasn't removed" End Quote.

 

I also found an archived cache recently which was archived some time between putting it into the GPSr and actually finding it. As it was there and I signed the log I am claiming it as a find. I sent the owner an email and recieved no reply..

 

After Fay has left the area I will go and check all caches (6) and make a list of the logs. Any logbook not singed but claimed as a find will be deleted. Simply and easy.

[+KBI]

RK;

 

How do you go from this ...

 

I think what's really going on is they find them over the weekend, then log them in a batch in one sitting. Unless you are in the habbit of cross checking the default date the logs will all be on the same day. This isn't cheating at all. Heck it's not really a problem.

... to this ...

 

Whenever we allow dishonesty, pettyness, and a thousand small evils that alone are nothing more than a seemingly inconsequential whisp of almost nothing to stand. We lose ground on honesty, desency, and a thousand small good things that alone don't amount to much but combined make all the difference.

... ?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

 

Both of them are the result of clumsy thinking. Both of them represent a misuse of the online log’s intended use. Both of them possess the capacity to mislead. Neither of them has ever had a meaningful effect on my ability to enjoy the hobby. Neither of them causes me any anguish. Neither of them has been shown to happen in huge enough numbers to be a disruptively overwhelming epidemic.

 

If anything, I think inept logging, unlike bogus logging, might actually BE common enough to represent a genuine threat to many people’s ability to enjoy geocaching.

 

Why, then, does bogus logging cause you to predict overall social decay, while accidentally misdated logging does not?

 

Is it the intent?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given log with the wrong date – the kind of log you describe as “not really a problem” – wasn’t misdated intentionally? Why would the intent matter?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given bogus log – the kind of log you describe as causing us to “lose ground on decency” – wasn’t done unintentionally, as in when a cacher honestly thinks he legitimately found the phyisical container cache, but didn’t? Why would the intent matter there either?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful, practical difference between the two?

 

Most people are suggesting "do what you can, where you can, when a chance presents itself" and not so much a constitutional ammendment dealing wiht this false logging travesty banning it for all time.

Agreed. That is similar to my view of both types of bad logs: clumsily-dated logs AND intentionally bogus logs.

 

If I am introducing a friend to Geocaching, and I see him either sloppily and unintentionally log a find with the wrong date OR intentionally lie about finding a cache, I might say something to him about it on the assumption that maybe he just doesn’t quite yet get the concept of Geocaching. (Most folks, of course, are led naturally to the more orthodox forms of logging via self-evident, intuitive and logical common sense.)

 

Even then, I still don’t see any reason why either of those behaviors should upset me.

 

I believe you are correct in your observation that most people aren’t interested in actively hunting down bogus loggers with torches and pitchforks and Acts of Congress. Some, however, seem to prefer to see every single bogus log as an inherently evil thing. This, for me, is a never-ending source of amusement.

[+infiniteMPG]

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

Dang, I just checked and the GC website states the date field as being "DATE LOGGED" and not "DATE FOUND". All this time I've been doing it wrong, I've been making it the date found! Sometimes it's a week later!!! ACK!!!!

[+Mach2003]

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

Dang, I just checked and the GC website states the date field as being "DATE LOGGED" and not "DATE FOUND". All this time I've been doing it wrong, I've been making it the date found! Sometimes it's a week later!!! ACK!!!!

OMG this means the torches and pitchforks people, will have to stop at almost everyone's place!!!

 

But seriously, GC uses logged because the "found it" is only one type of log available on that screen.

[+Moose Mob]

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

Dang, I just checked and the GC website states the date field as being "DATE LOGGED" and not "DATE FOUND". All this time I've been doing it wrong, I've been making it the date found! Sometimes it's a week later!!! ACK!!!!

"Date Logged" refers to the date you signed the physical logbook.

[+tozainamboku]

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

Dang, I just checked and the GC website states the date field as being "DATE LOGGED" and not "DATE FOUND". All this time I've been doing it wrong, I've been making it the date found! Sometimes it's a week later!!! ACK!!!!

"Date Logged" refers to the date you signed the physical logbook.

What date should I use if I post a DNF?

[+Renegade Knight]

RK;

 

How do you go from this ...

 

I think what's really going on is they find them over the weekend, then log them in a batch in one sitting. Unless you are in the habbit of cross checking the default date the logs will all be on the same day. This isn't cheating at all. Heck it's not really a problem.

... to this ...

 

Whenever we allow dishonesty, pettyness, and a thousand small evils that alone are nothing more than a seemingly inconsequential whisp of almost nothing to stand. We lose ground on honesty, desency, and a thousand small good things that alone don't amount to much but combined make all the difference.

... ?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?...

 

Intent. One is accidental, one is intensional. One isnt' a small evil, the other is.

 

Either way the fix is about the same. A cache owner so in clined can email the former and say "Hey dude as an anal cache owner it's really wigging me out that you found my cache on the 1st but logged the second can you take care of that so I can get my panties out of this bunch? Thanks man". The later would go more like this. "Dude, you like, didn't find my cache at all, and lied about everthing in the log can you like, go find the cache, then edit your log to the truth?" Or you could just delete the log that has nothing to do with anything. The first log at least had to do with the cache.

 

The absent minded cacher is a lot more likely to fix his log than the lying sack of dog nuggets.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+KBI]

RK;

 

How do you go from this ...

 

I think what's really going on is they find them over the weekend, then log them in a batch in one sitting. Unless you are in the habbit of cross checking the default date the logs will all be on the same day. This isn't cheating at all. Heck it's not really a problem.

... to this ...

 

Whenever we allow dishonesty, pettyness, and a thousand small evils that alone are nothing more than a seemingly inconsequential whisp of almost nothing to stand. We lose ground on honesty, desency, and a thousand small good things that alone don't amount to much but combined make all the difference.

... ?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?...

Intent. One is accidental, one is intensional. One isnt' a small evil, the other is.

You apparently didn't read the rest of my post beyond the part you quoted.

 

I directly addressed the issue of intent, and explained why I think intent is irrelevant.

 

Simply repeating your claim that “one [form of mislogging] is evil” doesn’t convince me that it is evil.

 

Can you please go back and read the rest, and then tell me if/why you disagree?

 

Either way the fix is about the same. A cache owner so in clined can email the former and say "Hey dude as an anal cache owner it's really wigging me out that you found my cache on the 1st but logged the second can you take care of that so I can get my panties out of this bunch? Thanks man". The later would go more like this. "Dude, you like, didn't find my cache at all, and lied about everthing in the log can you like, go find the cache, then edit your log to the truth?" Or you could just delete the log that has nothing to do with anything. The first log at least had to do with the cache.

I have not seen anyone express the opinion that a cache owner shouldn’t care about, or react to, an invalid log. Whether the cache owner should care and what a cache owner should do about an unacceptable log is not something that has been debated.

 

My questions to you were in reference to your reaction to bogus and misdated logs, not the reaction of the cache owner.

[+Renegade Knight]

...My questions to you were in reference to your reaction to bogus and misdated logs, not the reaction of the cache owner.

You got my answer. It doesn't get more detailed or split more hairs.

I recently let a bogus log stand. If you recall from another thread I agreed (with you I think) that there could actually be beneficial bogus logs. It gets back to intent. In this case the log needs to be there to accomplish a different goal.

 

It the larger scheme of ethics, intent matters. You say it doesn't. Fine, that's what you believe and for you there is no difference between a log that lies about the date and a log that accidently used the wrong date. For me there is a difference. It's part of the bigger picture and has a huge impact on how you fix the problem or solve a mystery.

 

If you wan't lets reverse roles. Tear the FTF log apart on The Lucky Leper and I'll defend it as a seemingly bogus log. If we agree though, this won't be much fun.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-bec3374b84c7

Edited August 22, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

..."Date Logged" refers to the date you signed the physical logbook.

What date should I use if I post a DNF?

I love rhetorical questions. I'd go wtih the date you put the most effort into failing to find the cache. It's a tough job sometimes. Today I didn't hardly life a finger to not find a cache. That makes for a boring DNF log.

[+infiniteMPG]

"Date Logged" refers to the date you signed the physical logbook.

That is *IF* I signed the physical log book

 

OMG this means the torches and pitchforks people, will have to stop at almost everyone's place!!!

Nothing a few sewn together body parts won't stop.... IT'S ALIVE!!!!!

 

What date should I use if I post a DNF?

The date you didn't find the cache or sign the physical log book??? Uhhhh, that would be every day except the day you found it

[+KBI]

...My questions to you were in reference to your reaction to bogus and misdated logs, not the reaction of the cache owner.

You got my answer.

No, I didn’t. This was my question:

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful or practical difference between a log with an unintentionally incorrect date versus an intentionally false log?

 

Both of them are the result of clumsy thinking. Both of them represent a misuse of the online log’s intended use. Both of them possess the capacity to mislead. Neither of them has ever had a meaningful effect on my ability to enjoy the hobby. Neither of them causes me any anguish. Neither of them has been shown to happen in huge enough numbers to be a disruptively overwhelming epidemic.

 

Why, then, does bogus logging cause you to predict overall social decay, while accidentally misdated logging does not?

 

Is it the intent?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given log with the wrong date – the kind of log you describe as “not really a problem” – wasn’t misdated intentionally? Why would the intent matter?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given bogus log – the kind of log you describe as causing us to “lose ground on decency” – wasn’t done unintentionally, as in when a cacher honestly thinks he legitimately found the phyisical container cache, but didn’t? Why would the intent matter there either?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful, practical difference between the two?

Split hairs or no, you still did not answer this question. You didn’t explain how there is any meaningful, practical difference between the two.

[+KBI]

It the larger scheme of ethics, intent matters. You say it doesn't.

No, not really. If someone is intentionally trying to defraud me (or anyone else, for that matter) out of something meaningful, substantial, tangible or valuable, then it most definitely matters to me.

 

A bogus log does NOT defraud me of anything meaningful. A fellow cacher can never rob me of anything tangible by lying that he found a cache. Any attempt, therefore, on the part of a bogus logger to intentionally defraud me (or any other cacher) of anything valuable via his bogus log is therefore merely ridiculous and pathetic, not criminal or evil.

 

Intent doesn’t always matter.

 

Suppose someone genuinely wanted to murder me:

 

If they point a real, loaded gun at me and pull the trigger, then that is most definitely a crime – my rights are either being threatened or violated, depending on his aim. I therefore have a practical reason to be concerned.

 

If they instead merely point a plastic toy gun at a picture of me and shout “bang bang,” that is NOT a crime. Regardless of the person’s intent, my rights are neither being violated nor threatened – and for that matter, nobody but a mind-reader will ever know if the intent was evil or not. Either way, there is no practical reason for me to care.

 

Fine, that's what you believe and for you there is no difference between a log that lies about the date and a log that accidently used the wrong date. For me there is a difference. It's part of the bigger picture and has a huge impact on how you fix the problem or solve a mystery.

Are you telling me you can read minds? Are you telling me you can look right through the smiley and into the soul of the logger, and tell whether the misinformation was intentional?

 

That’s my point: Intentionally bogus logs and accidentally misdated logs can be equally misleading. If one is evil, then so it the other. If one is benign, then so it the other. The practical effect is the same. The intent is irrelevant.

[+KBI]

If you wan't lets reverse roles. Tear the FTF log apart on The Lucky Leper and I'll defend it as a seemingly bogus log. If we agree though, this won't be much fun.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-bec3374b84c7

Sorry, but I’m not sure I follow you there. You want me to make up a hypothetical position, and then defend it? You want me to play the part of a troll?

 

As of right now there are two “Found it” logs posted to The Lucky Leper. I don’t see anything about the August 13th log to be concerned about. The only log that concerns me at all is the August 17th log in which the cacher reports leaving a pocket knife in the cache. I think any trade item that violates the guidelines and is potentially dangerous to young kids is far more troubling than the validity of an online log.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Are you telling me you can read minds? Are you telling me you can look right through the smiley and into the soul of the logger, and tell whether the misinformation was intentional?

 

 

What, like, you can't?

 

- Elle

[+Renegade Knight]

...Both of them are the result of clumsy thinking. Both of them represent a misuse of the online log’s intended use. Both of them possess the capacity to mislead. Neither of them has ever had a meaningful effect on my ability to enjoy the hobby. Neither of them causes me any anguish. Neither of them has been shown to happen in huge enough numbers to be a disruptively overwhelming epidemic.

 

Why, then, does bogus logging cause you to predict overall social decay, while accidentally misdated logging does not?

 

Is it the intent?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given log with the wrong date – the kind of log you describe as “not really a problem” – wasn’t misdated intentionally? Why would the intent matter?

 

If so, then how, exactly, do you know that any given bogus log – the kind of log you describe as causing us to “lose ground on decency” – wasn’t done unintentionally, as in when a cacher honestly thinks he legitimately found the phyisical container cache, but didn’t? Why would the intent matter there either?

 

How could there possibly be any meaningful, practical difference between the two?

Split hairs or no, you still did not answer this question. You didn’t explain how there is any meaningful, practical difference between the two.

 

Read it twice. Nothing changed.

For something to change you would have to find a point to build on where we do agree. You have made a lot of points that we don't agree on. Your premis, your argument is built on things that I don't agree on. You really can't counter my point with statemetns like "It's all clumsy thinking and so it's the same". No it's different I've said why. If we can't get past this then it's a philisophical difference.

[+Renegade Knight]

If you wan't lets reverse roles. Tear the FTF log apart on The Lucky Leper and I'll defend it as a seemingly bogus log. If we agree though, this won't be much fun.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-bec3374b84c7

...As of right now there are two “Found it” logs posted to The Lucky Leper. I don’t see anything about the August 13th log to be concerned about. ...

 

I told you it wouldn't be any fun if we agreed.

[+KBI]

Read it twice. Nothing changed.

 

For something to change you would have to find a point to build on where we do agree. You have made a lot of points that we don't agree on. Your premis, your argument is built on things that I don't agree on.

You still haven’t explained to me: How do you know the intent of the person who posts the misleading log?