fraude FTF by FTF Jaeger

[Mushtang]

Not up to the challenge ReadyOrNot? That's a pity.

Sorry. Had to spend time with the family and NOT be at work. I will make an attempt to live up to your speedy response expectations in the future!

 

Give me a little time to research... Finding and quoting your posts out of context is going to take some time

BTW, you've obviously had plenty of time to be on the forums and post. How's the search going?

[+ReadyOrNot]

And I still don't understand why someone else should be upset about it.

 

This is what I have the biggest beef about. *YOU* telling others what they should and shouldn't be upset about. That's extremely arrogant. Clearly people get upset about false logging. If you don't, that's fine, but who in the heck do you think you are to tell others what they can and cant get upset about?

 

Get off your high horse. If false logging doesn't bother you or affect you, quit replying every time the topic comes up. CLEARLY it has an affect on you or you wouldn't reply every time.

 

Sheeeesh

[Mushtang]

And I still don't understand why someone else should be upset about it.

This is what I have the biggest beef about. *YOU* telling others what they should and shouldn't be upset about. That's extremely arrogant. Clearly people get upset about false logging. If you don't, that's fine, but who in the heck do you think you are to tell others what they can and cant get upset about?

I really do think your dictionary has different definitions than mine does.

 

I said I didn't understand something. I did NOT tell others what they should feel about it.

 

I don't understand how the circuit board in my computer works. Am I telling the circuit board that it shouldn't work?

 

Get off your high horse. If false logging doesn't bother you or affect you, quit replying every time the topic comes up.

Now who's on their high horse? I'm sorry, but you can't tell me not to reply - especially when someone like YOU is suggesting I've said something that I've never said. Every time you do this, I'll step in and correct you and keep you from misquoting me. Every time.

 

CLEARLY it has an affect on you or you wouldn't reply every time.

I'm much more upset about you telling people that I believe something that I've stated numerous times that I don't believe.

[+infiniteMPG]

CLEARLY it has an affect on you or you wouldn't reply every time. Sheeeesh

Forget false logs, what affects us (and affected us) are things like Tropical Storm Fay. We have a friend with a house on the beach on Siesta Key and he sent us some pics of the damage from Tropical Storm Fay yesterday. I think he's ready to sell this place now. I'm glad we live inland. I'd hate to have to look forward to this every time a storm comes through

 

[+ReadyOrNot]

I'm much more upset about you telling people that I believe something that I've stated numerous times that I don't believe.

 

I don't understand why that upsets you? Perhaps you should try not being upset about it. See how that works for you.

[Mushtang]

I'm much more upset about you telling people that I believe something that I've stated numerous times that I don't believe.

I don't understand why that upsets you?

That's an example of you expressing confusion over what someone else believes. Similar to me saying I don't understand why bogus Finds on caches someone doesn't own upsets them.

 

Perhaps you should try not being upset about it.

And this is an example of what you've accused me of, but I've never done. Telling me not do be upset about it is not the same as letting me know you don't understand why it bothers me.

 

See how that works for you.

It worked great as an example to you as to what you've done wrong. Thanks.

[+PlantAKiss]

 

I've just been dying to use that smiley...it's so cute!

 

To the OP:

 

1) Yes, it sucks when you see someone being a jerk in a fun game where the majority of the participants are very nice. It's rare you can explain someone wanting to be a jerk. Usually it's for attention, so the less they get, the better.

2) Geocaching has guidelines ("rules") which outline how the game is played, just like chess or checkers. Someone can sit down and move chess pieces around the board any way they want to...but they aren't playing chess because in chess, you have rules about how pieces can be moved. So while everybody is "free to do as they please"...in my opinion, if you are making rules to suit yourself, you are creating your own personal game, not playing along in a game with established guidelines/rules.

3) OP, you can only control what is under your jurisdiction, so you can delete logs that aren't appropriate. There's just no explaining people who like to do or say hurtful things to others. I'm sorry you had that unfortunate circumstance.

Edited August 20, 2008 by PlantAKiss

[+ReadyOrNot]

Who is "we"? I never agreed that.

 

Oh goodie! The quote above was in reference to a statement that I made that we agreed that logging a fake cache is detrimental... I've come bearing some fine gifts:

 

This gem has you actually admitting that logging a fake find is "wrong". I think you actually used the word wrong too. How many times have we argues that point?

Exhibit A

 

Exhibit B

"I think we do all agree that in some cases a fake find can be harmful". Yes, that's you admitting that logging a fake find can be harmful.

 

Exhibit C

And this post demonstrates that we had reached harmony. We were in agreement. If we agree, can you remind me again of what we are arguing about?

 

Can we put this one to bed?

[+va griz]

OK, I'll post the start of this in its entirety:

 

Okay, I'll play. Please show me ONE post where I EVER said either

1) people should be allowed to log bogus Finds without them being deleted, or

2) people playing this game should be allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted no matter what.

 

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, and I've also said I'd delete them from my own caches, but none of that is equal to what you're accusing me of.

 

I've also said that people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game, or as long as it's not hurting someone else's game. But again, none of that is what you're accusing me of.

 

I'm somewhat new here but I see that this dead horse has already been beaten. I don't plan to go back over your posts to find contridictions, I'll just use what's quoted here in one post.

 

If as you say in the quoted section:

 

1 people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game

2 bogus logs don't hurt anyone

3 bogus logs are not worth getting upset about

 

Then why are they wrong and why would you delete them?

[Mushtang]

Who is "we"? I never agreed that.

Oh goodie! The quote above was in reference to a statement that I made that we agreed that logging a fake cache is detrimental... I've come bearing some fine gifts:

 

This gem has you actually admitting that logging a fake find is "wrong". I think you actually used the word wrong too. How many times have we argues that point?

Exhibit A

 

Exhibit B

"I think we do all agree that in some cases a fake find can be harmful". Yes, that's you admitting that logging a fake find can be harmful.

 

Exhibit C

And this post demonstrates that we had reached harmony. We were in agreement. If we agree, can you remind me again of what we are arguing about?

 

Can we put this one to bed?

Oh gee, and I thought you were going to misinterpret what I'd said.

 

I was right.

[Mushtang]

OK, I'll post the start of this in its entirety:

Okay, I'll play. Please show me ONE post where I EVER said either

1) people should be allowed to log bogus Finds without them being deleted, or

2) people playing this game should be allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted no matter what.

 

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, and I've also said I'd delete them from my own caches, but none of that is equal to what you're accusing me of.

 

I've also said that people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game, or as long as it's not hurting someone else's game. But again, none of that is what you're accusing me of.

I'm somewhat new here but I see that this dead horse has already been beaten. I don't plan to go back over your posts to find contridictions, I'll just use what's quoted here in one post.

 

If as you say in the quoted section:

 

1 people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game

2 bogus logs don't hurt anyone

3 bogus logs are not worth getting upset about

 

Then why are they wrong and why would you delete them?

I'm going to the answer this one by only posting something I wrote earlier in this thread.

I now admit (and have previously admitted) that it would affect the stats on my cache, that it would change them to an incorrect number, and it would be a situation I would want to correct. So yes, I would delete the bogus Find if I was aware of it. But I've never said that bogus Finds on MY caches don't affect ME. I've said that bogus Finds on someone else's caches don't affect you (if you're not the cache owner). I've also said I don't understand why you should care if some other owner left a bogus Find on one of their caches.

If you're not going to read the dead horse thread then why add to the beating?

[+va griz]

I read it and understand that you believe bogus logs are not a problem on anybodys caches except yours. I just don't think it is a logical position. You'll have to add me to the list of people who take the other view.

Edited August 21, 2008 by va griz

[Mushtang]

I read it and understand that you believe bogus logs are not a problem on anybodys caches except yours. I just don't think it is a logical position. You'll have to add me to the list of people who take the other view.

Thanks for explaining your confusion. I definitely like how you've told me what you think I'm saying, it helps me to see what I might not have been clear about earlier. You're so close to understanding my point of view... but not quite. I'll just make one important tweak in your above statement.

 

I believe bogus logs are not a problem for me on anyone's caches except mine.

 

The addition of "for me" changes things a lot, wouldn't you say? I can see how bogus logs on your caches would be a problem for you too. The thing I'm still unsure about, is why a bogus log on my cache can be a problem for you (or anyone else).

 

I hope that helps clear up the question about how logical the position is.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Who is "we"? I never agreed that.

Oh goodie! The quote above was in reference to a statement that I made that we agreed that logging a fake cache is detrimental... I've come bearing some fine gifts:

 

This gem has you actually admitting that logging a fake find is "wrong". I think you actually used the word wrong too. How many times have we argues that point?

Exhibit A

 

Exhibit B

"I think we do all agree that in some cases a fake find can be harmful". Yes, that's you admitting that logging a fake find can be harmful.

 

Exhibit C

And this post demonstrates that we had reached harmony. We were in agreement. If we agree, can you remind me again of what we are arguing about?

 

Can we put this one to bed?

Oh gee, and I thought you were going to misinterpret what I'd said.

 

I was right.

 

You are so full of it bub. I didn't even mis-quote you. All I did was provide links to posts you made. You're welcome to go check out the posts if you'd like...

 

Did you not say fake logging is wrong?

Did you not say fake logging was harmful?

 

If they are wrong and they are harmful, then why would you sit here and say they are not? Please address this obvious contradiction.

[Mushtang]

Oh gee, and I thought you were going to misinterpret what I'd said.

 

I was right.

You are so full of it bub. I didn't even mis-quote you. All I did was provide links to posts you made. You're welcome to go check out the posts if you'd like...

 

Did you not say fake logging is wrong?

Did you not say fake logging was harmful?

 

If they are wrong and they are harmful, then why would you sit here and say they are not? Please address this obvious contradiction.

 

You were supposed to be finding links that support the incorrect statement that I've agreed with you that false logging was detrimental. The links don't show that. In fact, the last link clearly states:

But you were correct about number 5. Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game.

What part of "Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game" is confusing?

 

Just to be clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll say it again here: Bogus Find logs are NOT something I think people SHOULD be logging. I think people should only log a Find if they actually signed the log book. However, if someone does log a bogus Find on a cache and the cache owner doesn't care, I don't see that it harms the game in any way and I can't understand why anyone else should care.

[+Castle Mischief]

As an effort to advise the OP to ignore the false logger and not give him/her the attention they are seeking, this thread is failing.

 

Can you guys move it to PMs?

[Mushtang]

Can you guys move it to PMs?

I agree.

 

ReadyOrNot, if you, or anyone else, wants to tell me what I think, feel free to send me a PM and I'll be happy to explain it again.

 

I'm tired of having to say the same thing over and over here, only to be told that I believe something else. I'm done with this thread and won't post in it anymore.

Edited August 21, 2008 by Mushtang

[+Mudfrog]

Oh gee, and I thought you were going to misinterpret what I'd said.

 

I was right.

You are so full of it bub. I didn't even mis-quote you. All I did was provide links to posts you made. You're welcome to go check out the posts if you'd like...

 

Did you not say fake logging is wrong?

Did you not say fake logging was harmful?

 

If they are wrong and they are harmful, then why would you sit here and say they are not? Please address this obvious contradiction.

 

You were supposed to be finding links that support the incorrect statement that I've agreed with you that false logging was detrimental. The links don't show that. In fact, the last link clearly states:

But you were correct about number 5. Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game.

What part of "Fake logs aren't degrading the entire game" is confusing?

 

Just to be clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll say it again here: Bogus Find logs are NOT something I think people SHOULD be logging. I think people should only log a Find if they actually signed the log book. However, if someone does log a bogus Find on a cache and the cache owner doesn't care, I don't see that it harms the game in any way and I can't understand why anyone else should care.

 

There can be instances where a false log can cause problems for people other than the cache owner. One of those being that it can indicate that a cache is there when it is actually is not. While i'm sure it doesn't occur too often, even one time is enough for it to be of concern to others. Does it harm the game to the extent of where it has dire (not sure of spelling) consequences? No, but there's no doubt that it could have a negative impact for some people.

 

I'm just not sure why you can't seem to see this and why you can't understand why anyone else should care. The one little example i stated above is just one of the reasons why some people do.

[+tozainamboku]

There can be instances where a false log can cause problems for people other than the cache owner. One of those being that it can indicate that a cache is there when it is actually is not. While i'm sure it doesn't occur too often, even one time is enough for it to be of concern to others. Does it harm the game to the extent of where it has dire (not sure of spelling) consequences? No, but there's no doubt that it could have a negative impact for some people.

 

I'm just not sure why you can't seem to see this and why you can't understand why anyone else should care. The one little example i stated above is just one of the reasons why some people do.

This argument is often given as to why bogus found it logs are such a concern. The fact is that these logs occur so rarely that no can give actual examples of a cacher suffering a loss because of being fooled by a bogus log. briansnat makes a claim that a friend of his drove 100 miles to look for a cache that wasn't there because of a bogus log. This may be true, but given that he won't give details it is unverifiable (much like what happens if you don't sign the physical cache log ). Most of time, someone waiting for a 'found it' log to verify a cache is still there before going to look for it will read the log carefully and be able to make a decision as to whether the log appears bogus or not. If the log does not appear bogus then the cache owner doesn't have a valid reason for deleting the log either. A person who was a good liar could fool you into looking for a cache. If you don't find the cache, you have no proof that cache didn't go missing between the time of the 'found it' and when you searched. Or maybe you just couldn't find the cache. If you do find the cache, you might actually find that the person claiming the find did not sign the log. Now you have "proof" the log was bogus, but did you suffer a loss from it? No, if anything the bogus log encouraged you to go and hunt a cache that really was still there.

 

I suspect that people care about bogus logs not because they may cause someone to waste time looking for a cache that isn't there, but simple because people would like to believe that everyone who uses Geocaching.com is honest and cares about other geocachers. It would be nice if everyone were honest but in the real world there is a small number of people who feel the need to lie. Perhaps they get a kick of trying to interfere with an Internet game that is based on a honor system where cache owners, who may disagree over what to consider a valid find, are responsible for policing bogus logs. I think KBI's attitude is that a few miscreants posting a few bogus logs doesn't affect his enjoyment of geocaching. If he happened to be fooled into looking for a cache that may not really be there, that is just part of the game. Any cache he decides to search for, whether or not there is a bogus log, may be missing or he perhaps he just couldn't find it. On his own caches, if he sees a log that appears bogus he will delete it. But if some owner has failed to do so and he looked for the cache because of this, he doesn't spend any time trying to blame someone for his DNF.

Edited August 21, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+ReadyOrNot]

Okay, I'll play. Please show me ONE post where I EVER said either

1) people should be allowed to log bogus Finds without them being deleted, or

2) people playing this game should be allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted no matter what.

 

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, and I've also said I'd delete them from my own caches, but none of that is equal to what you're accusing me of.

 

I've also said that people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game, or as long as it's not hurting someone else's game. But again, none of that is what you're accusing me of.

 

The above is EXACTLY what you said. In reference to "Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone" - You said that they can be harmful. Which is it? Are they harmful or not?

 

* AND *

 

In reference to "People should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as its not keeping someone else from playing their game, or as long as its not hurting someone else's game".. You've already admitted that some people are being hurt, so doesn't that automatically negate your comment above? That's like me saying, "People should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as X = 2" and then making a statement later saying X = 3. What's the point of making the statement then?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Can you guys move it to PMs?

I agree.

 

ReadyOrNot, if you, or anyone else, wants to tell me what I think, feel free to send me a PM and I'll be happy to explain it again.

 

I'm tired of having to say the same thing over and over here, only to be told that I believe something else. I'm done with this thread and won't post in it anymore.

 

You seem to be having an issue deciding what you think. I'm just simply telling you what you've said in the past. If you disagree with those past statements, feel free to correct them, otherwise, your statements are currently contradicting themselves.

[+Moose Mob]

**************************************

**************************************

**************************************

******** Warning Flag ******************

**************************************

**************************************

**************************************

 

This thread needs to go back on topic and personal bickering will cease.

 

Thank you.

[+sbell111]

There can be instances where a false log can cause problems for people other than the cache owner. One of those being that it can indicate that a cache is there when it is actually is not. While i'm sure it doesn't occur too often, even one time is enough for it to be of concern to others. Does it harm the game to the extent of where it has dire (not sure of spelling) consequences? No, but there's no doubt that it could have a negative impact for some people.

 

I'm just not sure why you can't seem to see this and why you can't understand why anyone else should care. The one little example i stated above is just one of the reasons why some people do.

This argument is often given as to why bogus found it logs are such a concern. The fact is that these logs occur so rarely that no can give actual examples of a cacher suffering a loss because of being fooled by a bogus log. briansnat makes a claim that a friend of his drove 100 miles to look for a cache that wasn't there because of a bogus log. This may be true, but given that he won't give details it is unverifiable (much like what happens if you don't sign the physical cache log ). Most of time, someone waiting for a 'found it' log to verify a cache is still there before going to look for it will read the log carefully and be able to make a decision as to whether the log appears bogus or not. If the log does not appear bogus then the cache owner doesn't have a valid reason for deleting the log either. A person who was a good liar could fool you into looking for a cache. If you don't find the cache, you have no proof that cache didn't go missing between the time of the 'found it' and when you searched. Or maybe you just couldn't find the cache. If you do find the cache, you might actually find that the person claiming the find did not sign the log. Now you have "proof" the log was bogus, but did you suffer a loss from it? No, if anything the bogus log encouraged you to go and hunt a cache that really was still there.

 

I suspect that people care about bogus logs not because they may cause someone to waste time looking for a cache that isn't there, but simple because people would like to believe that everyone who uses Geocaching.com is honest and cares about other geocachers. It would be nice if everyone were honest but in the real world there is a small number of people who feel the need to lie. Perhaps they get a kick of trying to interfere with an Internet game that is based on a honor system where cache owners, who may disagree over what to consider a valid find, are responsible for policing bogus logs. I think KBI's attitude is that a few miscreants posting a few bogus logs doesn't affect his enjoyment of geocaching. If he happened to be fooled into looking for a cache that may not really be there, that is just part of the game. Any cache he decides to search for, whether or not there is a bogus log, may be missing or he perhaps he just couldn't find it. On his own caches, if he sees a log that appears bogus he will delete it. But if some owner has failed to do so and he looked for the cache because of this, he doesn't spend any time trying to blame someone for his DNF.

I usually don't give attaboys, but that is one beautiful post that sums up my position perfectly.

 

Regarding bogus logs:

 

1) If I know that a log to one of my caches is bogus, I will delete it.

2) If someone else knows that a log to one of his/her caches is bogus, I will advise him/her to delete it.

3) If a cache owner chooses not to delete a bogus log, I will not care.

4) In general, I am not affected by bogus logs made to other person's caches. While I do often decide not to look for caches that have multiple recent DNFs, I am not harmed if I try to find a cache that isn't there any more than I am harmed by DNFing a cache that is there.

[+infiniteMPG]

4) In general, I am not affected by bogus logs made to other person's caches. While I do often decide not to look for caches that have multiple recent DNFs, I am not harmed if I try to find a cache that isn't there any more than I am harmed by DNFing a cache that is there.

If we allow bogus false finds to affect how we play, I hate to think what would happen if people started logging bogus DNF's to disuede people from seeking someone's caches.... I can see the debate change to how can you prove that someone actually looked for a cache but didn't find it rather then armchair logging a DNF....

[+GeoHowerz]

The fun is only for himself. The proof is on the written log and the taker of the FTF prize is the actual FTFer.

[+traildad]

All you can do is delete the logs on your caches and forget about it. It's stupid that someone would do this, but don't let it ruin your fun.

 

But why can't HE play the game he wants to? Who are we to tell him he's wrong?

[+traildad]

Okay, I'll play. Please show me ONE post where I EVER said either

1) people should be allowed to log bogus Finds without them being deleted, or

2) people playing this game should be allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted no matter what.

 

Be careful, I have most definitely said that bogus logs don't hurt anyone, and if they're left on a cache it's not something to be upset about, and I've also said I'd delete them from my own caches, but none of that is equal to what you're accusing me of.

 

I've also said that people should be allowed to play the game the way they want as long as it's not keeping someone else from playing their game, or as long as it's not hurting someone else's game. But again, none of that is what you're accusing me of.

 

So please, do some research and show me.

It seems that even you don't take yourself seriously. Bogus logs don't hurt anyone, people should be allowed to play the game the way they want, all while saying you would delete the logs. Just how many sides can you argue at once?

[+traildad]

 

How does a false find destroy the cache, or any part of the game? Again, I'm not saying that false finds are good, or that people should be false finding logs, I'm just saying that IF they're allowed to stay by the cache owner it's not harming the game.

Then why do you say that you would delete them from your cache. You say let them play as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. You say it doesn't harm the game, but saying you would delete them implies you believe they are harmful.

[+traildad]

 

But since you brought it up, KBI hasn't said those sentiments either. He and I have the same viewpoint. It's amazing that people can read it in black and white and still suggest we said something different.

 

What is amazing is that you can write it in black and white, and them claim that you said something different.

[+traildad]

Mushtang says none of this is important to him. But you'll notice that he'll argue his point to he's blue in the face.

I did? I'd ask you to point me to where I said it wasn't important to me that folks are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth, but you'd misquote me again.

I find it impossible to believe that this misquote was made in error. To imply that Mudfrog's point was that you said being misquoted wasn't important is typical. From my point of view he clearly was saying that you claim that false logging is not important to you but you will argue about it until you are blue in the face. To come back and try to mislead and for what, to "win" an argument, make yourself look good, Stay real please.

[+KBI]

How does a false find destroy the cache, or any part of the game? Again, I'm not saying that false finds are good, or that people should be false finding logs, I'm just saying that IF they're allowed to stay by the cache owner it's not harming the game.

Then why do you say that you would delete them from your cache. You say let them play as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or anything. You say it doesn't harm the game, but saying you would delete them implies you believe they are harmful.

 

But since you brought it up, KBI hasn't said those sentiments either. He and I have the same viewpoint. It's amazing that people can read it in black and white and still suggest we said something different.

What is amazing is that you can write it in black and white, and them claim that you said something different.

 

Mushtang says none of this is important to him. But you'll notice that he'll argue his point to he's blue in the face.

I did? I'd ask you to point me to where I said it wasn't important to me that folks are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth, but you'd misquote me again.

I find it impossible to believe that this misquote was made in error. To imply that Mudfrog's point was that you said being misquoted wasn't important is typical. From my point of view he clearly was saying that you claim that false logging is not important to you but you will argue about it until you are blue in the face. To come back and try to mislead and for what, to "win" an argument, make yourself look good, Stay real please.

Speaking for myself:

 

I don’t promote or encourage unfair misquotes in forum threads, but neither do I believe them to be inherently harmful. As with bogus logs, I see an intentional forum misinterpretation as nothing more than a curious oddity to be laughed at, not a dangerous threat-to-civilization to be feared.

 

That doesn’t mean, however, that I would not delete an intentionally misleading and blatantly dishonest misinterpretation from any thread that I owned or controlled – if I had the ability to do so, that is.

[+traildad]

 

Speaking for myself:

 

I don’t promote or encourage unfair misquotes in forum threads, but neither do I believe them to be inherently harmful. As with bogus logs, I see an intentional forum misinterpretation as nothing more than a curious oddity to be laughed at, not a dangerous threat-to-civilization to be feared.

 

That doesn’t mean, however, that I would not delete an intentionally misleading and blatantly dishonest misinterpretation from any thread that I owned or controlled – if I had the ability to do so, that is.

I don't find them to be inherently harmful either. If people are engaged in a BS session, then pretty much anything goes and who cares. If people desire to be engaged in a honest discussion of a subject, then it can be annoying to have others inject BS. I understand that it is not uncommon for people to post on forms just for their own jollies with no desire to advance the discussion. Some people even do this while trying to appear as though they are seriously participating the discussion. It seems that some even think it is not obvious. Maybe you can come up with a new smiley that we can use to say that we are laughing at someone's curious oddity. If you are trying to have a discussion with someone in person and a child is running around yelling look at me, look at me, it is not harmful but it sure gets old in a hurry.

[+chuckwagon101]

[+KBI]

If people desire to be engaged in a honest discussion of a subject, then it can be annoying to have others inject BS. I understand that it is not uncommon for people to post on forms just for their own jollies with no desire to advance the discussion. Some people even do this while trying to appear as though they are seriously participating the discussion.

I agree. Especially when they make seemingly nonsensical comments like this:

 

Maybe you can come up with a new smiley that we can use to say that we are laughing at someone's curious oddity.

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

I see no need, however, to post a statement next to each bogus log explaining my indifference; that would be absurdly contradictory, wouldn’t it? To actively announce one's lack of interest? I also therefore see no need for a new and special smiley to be used solely for the purpose of declaring one's apathy.

 

Something here tells me you don’t quite grasp the concept of indifference to bogus logs.

 

If you are trying to have a discussion with someone in person and a child is running around yelling look at me, look at me, it is not harmful but it sure gets old in a hurry.

You mean like when Mushtang responded to a misinterpretation of his viewpoint, re-explained his viewpoint and then bowed out of the discussion ... but then a third person, one who also disagrees with Mushtang’s viewpoint, posts what is essentially a repeat of the original misinterpretation?

 

Yes, I agree. That is not harmful, but it sure gets old in a hurry.

[+traildad]

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

I see no need, however, to post a statement next to each bogus log explaining my indifference; that would be absurdly contradictory, wouldn’t it? To actively announce one's lack of interest? I also therefore see no need for a new and special smiley to be used solely for the purpose of declaring one's apathy.

 

Something here tells me you don’t quite grasp the concept of indifference to bogus logs.

Grasp the concept? The post I was responding to made no mention of indifference. Is that some kind of debate style? Pretend you said something about indifference and then say I don't grasp the concept as a way to dismiss what I said.

 

If you are trying to have a discussion with someone in person and a child is running around yelling look at me, look at me, it is not harmful but it sure gets old in a hurry.

You mean like when Mushtang responded to a misinterpretation of his viewpoint, re-explained his viewpoint and then bowed out of the discussion ... but then a third person, one who also disagrees with Mushtang’s viewpoint, posts what is essentially a repeat of the original misinterpretation?

 

Yes, I agree. That is not harmful, but it sure gets old in a hurry.

No not like that at all. People have misunderstandings all the time. It is different when people claim to be misunderstood as a debate tactic.

[666hotline]

if someone was named FTF they are obviously trying tp be the first to find loads of caches,when it dosnt work they fake it

[+KBI]

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

I see no need, however, to post a statement next to each bogus log explaining my indifference; that would be absurdly contradictory, wouldn’t it? To actively announce one's lack of interest? I also therefore see no need for a new and special smiley to be used solely for the purpose of declaring one's apathy.

 

Something here tells me you don’t quite grasp the concept of indifference to bogus logs.

Grasp the concept? The post I was responding to made no mention of indifference. Is that some kind of debate style? Pretend you said something about indifference and then say I don't grasp the concept as a way to dismiss what I said.

I wasn’t pretending anything. I have expressed my indifference to bogus logging repeatedly. Some might even describe it as continuously.

 

In answer to your earlier post, I explained that I see bogus logs as “nothing more than a curious oddity to be laughed at, not a dangerous threat-to-civilization to be feared.” I believe the concept off “indifference” was plainly implied by that very clear description.

 

You responded by proposing a new kind of smiley “that we can use to say that we are laughing at someone's curious oddity.” I simply explained that I didn’t see the need for such a new smiley, and that the active use of your proposed smiley by an indifferent person such as myself would be contradictory, if not outright silly.

 

What did you think I was "pretending?"

 

People have misunderstandings all the time. It is different when people claim to be misunderstood as a debate tactic.

I have not seen anyone in this thread incorrectly claim to have been misunderstood as an intentional attempt to obfuscate. Can you show me where you believe it has happened?

[+traildad]

Bogus logs don’t bother me. I am indifferent to them.

 

I see no need, however, to post a statement next to each bogus log explaining my indifference; that would be absurdly contradictory, wouldn’t it? To actively announce one's lack of interest? I also therefore see no need for a new and special smiley to be used solely for the purpose of declaring one's apathy.

 

Something here tells me you don’t quite grasp the concept of indifference to bogus logs.

Grasp the concept? The post I was responding to made no mention of indifference. Is that some kind of debate style? Pretend you said something about indifference and then say I don't grasp the concept as a way to dismiss what I said.

I wasn’t pretending anything. I have expressed my indifference to bogus logging repeatedly. Some might even describe it as continuously.

 

In answer to your earlier post, I explained that I see bogus logs as “nothing more than a curious oddity to be laughed at, not a dangerous threat-to-civilization to be feared.” I believe the concept off “indifference” was plainly implied by that very clear description.

 

You responded by proposing a new kind of smiley “that we can use to say that we are laughing at someone's curious oddity.” I simply explained that I didn’t see the need for such a new smiley, and that the active use of your proposed smiley by an indifferent person such as myself would be contradictory, if not outright silly.

 

What did you think I was "pretending?"

 

You chose to use the words "grasp the concept". Maybe it would be more reasonable if you had said that you had not made yourself clear. You have now said that you only implied your indifference, so I think the grasp the concept comment was out of place. You also mention not posting a "smiley" next to each bogus log. That was not what I suggested. It was meant to be used in the forum so when the topic came up we could use it then. It seems that you have a "problem" with people posting in the forum that they don't "like" bogus logging. It seems at odds that someone that is so indifferent to bogus logging would be so involved in all the discussions about them. Why are you trying so hard to explain to everyone that you don't "understand" their concerns? It comes off looking as though you are trying to convince people that bogus logging is good or at the very least not bad. Your participation in these discussions suggest something more than indifference.

 

People have misunderstandings all the time. It is different when people claim to be misunderstood as a debate tactic.

I have not seen anyone in this thread incorrectly claim to have been misunderstood as an intentional attempt to obfuscate. Can you show me where you believe it has happened?

Well in this case it was more of a tag team statement. Mushtang claims to be misquoted by Mudfrog. From my reading of the post, that was clearly a false claim. You posted a vague reference to a third person re-misquoting Mushtang. I assumed that you were referring to my quote below. If not I invite you to include more specifics to help the readers understand you reference. I also invite Mudfrog to correct me if I am wrong. What I read was Mudfrog saying Mushtang says that false logging was not important to him. Mushtang responds by saying "when did I say being misquoted was not important to me" This appears to be a debate tactic designed to muddy the water so to speak. If you can show me where Mudfrog claimed that Mushtang said he thought being misquoted was not important, I am ready to read it.

 

Mushtang says none of this is important to him. But you'll notice that he'll argue his point to he's blue in the face.

I did? I'd ask you to point me to where I said it wasn't important to me that folks are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth, but you'd misquote me again.

I find it impossible to believe that this misquote was made in error. To imply that Mudfrog's point was that you said being misquoted wasn't important is typical. From my point of view he clearly was saying that you claim that false logging is not important to you but you will argue about it until you are blue in the face. To come back and try to mislead and for what, to "win" an argument, make yourself look good, Stay real please.

[+J-Way]

Wow... some serious quality degeneration and further deviation from the topic even after a craftily drawn warning flag.

 

IBTL!

[+Mudfrog]

Wow... some serious quality degeneration and further deviation from the topic even after a craftily drawn warning flag.

 

IBTL!

 

Let's just go with why this thread was started in the first place. It's obvious, i would say even to Mushtang and KBI, that the OP started it because the fake ftf logs upset him. He wanted to tell of his displeasure and also get other cachers' feelings about it. While we all have a right to post our feelings, i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them. We can give our opinions on how we would deal with a false log but we do not need to ask, How does it affect you? or Why are you concerned about a false log on a cache you don't own? The fact is, false logs do bother some people and there's not much chance of changing that.

[+sbell111]

Wow... some serious quality degeneration and further deviation from the topic even after a craftily drawn warning flag.

 

IBTL!

Let's just go with why this thread was started in the first place. It's obvious, i would say even to Mushtang and KBI, that the OP started it because the fake ftf logs upset him. He wanted to tell of his displeasure and also get other cachers' feelings about it. While we all have a right to post our feelings, i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them. We can give our opinions on how we would deal with a false log but we do not need to ask, How does it affect you? or Why are you concerned about a false log on a cache you don't own? The fact is, false logs do bother some people and there's not much chance of changing that.

That being said, certainly you would agree that it's OK for someone to explain why fake logs on caches that he/she doesn't own does not bother him/her. Further, I would suggest that it would be perfectly fine for that person to explain why adopting a similar attitude might make the OP more satisifed with his/her caching experience.

[+Mudfrog]

Wow... some serious quality degeneration and further deviation from the topic even after a craftily drawn warning flag.

 

IBTL!

Let's just go with why this thread was started in the first place. It's obvious, i would say even to Mushtang and KBI, that the OP started it because the fake ftf logs upset him. He wanted to tell of his displeasure and also get other cachers' feelings about it. While we all have a right to post our feelings, i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them. We can give our opinions on how we would deal with a false log but we do not need to ask, How does it affect you? or Why are you concerned about a false log on a cache you don't own? The fact is, false logs do bother some people and there's not much chance of changing that.

That being said, certainly you would agree that it's OK for someone to explain why fake logs on caches that he/she doesn't own does not bother him/her. Further, I would suggest that it would be perfectly fine for that person to explain why adopting a similar attitude might make the OP more satisifed with his/her caching experience.

 

This is one of those things where i'm just not sure any amount of explaining will help. To me, it's not as simple as saying a false log on a cache, i don't own, over in California, does not affect me. It's still a right and wrong issue and i just cannot see a person who cares about doing the right thing, change and adopt an attitude of not caring when another person does the wrong thing.

 

If i didn't have these pesky right from wrong feelings in the first place, then i would agree that most bogus logs would have little to no affect on me either..

Edited September 3, 2008 by Mudfrog

[4wheelin_fool]

Obviously fake logs are sort of funny. Other fake logs which are not obvious are not. It is possible for a obsessive compulsive cacher with personality disorders, to create several fake accounts and use them with fake logs to harass other cachers. Although this is NOT the norm, the potential is there. Unless I can figure out the motivation behind particular fake logs, I think they are annoying and should be discouraged.

[+tozainamboku]

There seem to be two reasons why people are bothered by fake found it logs

1. They are bothered because fake logs might cause a cacher to look for a cache that isn't really there
   
2. They are bothered that some people might be lying without a good reason
   

For item 1, it seems the only examples we see are hypothetical. The reason is that most fake logs are so obvious that a person will discount that log before going to look for the cache. In most cases were the fake log is not so obvious, it becomes nearly impossible to prove that the cache was missing when the log was written. Caches go missing all the time and even though we might not want to admit, everyone occasionally will DNF a cache that is still there. If you find the cache and discover the fake logger did not sign the log you can't really complain that the fake log did you any harm.

 

For item 2, I would guess that we all would prefer that everyone was honest in the online logs. Even on liars' caches, we expect the lies to be within certain limits and certainly not to claim a find if you didn't find the cache. (In the interest of full disclosure I once logged a DNF on a liars' cache that I did find - and I guess when I eventually did log the find it was a lie because it was dated wrong). The real world, and especially the Internet, is unfortunately not the perfect place we would want it to be. Some people seem to get a certain amount of enjoyment over seeing what they can get away with - especially if they feel this is just a silly game where at most someone might be slightly inconvenienced. These people probably see logging fake finds as kind of practical joke on the people who take geocaching too seriously. Some cache owners will likely want to remove the obvious fake logs to keep their cache page accurate, others may actually find it funny that someone would log their cache this way and laugh at/with the joker, and still others may simply be unaware that they can delete logs that appear to be bogus.

[+DnA!]

Geocaching Australia actually log FTF's as opposed to regular finds and produce statistics based on FTF's.

It would be nice if Groundspeak tracked FTF's as well (or maybe it does but I haven't found it yet).

 

I think an option when you publish a cache to require a code/password to be entered in order to log a find would fix this problem. If you haven't physically been to the cache you wouldn't know the password and so couldn't log the find.

[+traildad]

There seem to be two reasons why people are bothered by fake found it logs

1. They are bothered because fake logs might cause a cacher to look for a cache that isn't really there
   
2. They are bothered that some people might be lying without a good reason
   

For item 1, it seems the only examples we see are hypothetical. The reason is that most fake logs are so obvious that a person will discount that log before going to look for the cache. In most cases were the fake log is not so obvious, it becomes nearly impossible to prove that the cache was missing when the log was written. Caches go missing all the time and even though we might not want to admit, everyone occasionally will DNF a cache that is still there. If you find the cache and discover the fake logger did not sign the log you can't really complain that the fake log did you any harm.

 

Well lets see. The cacher fake logs what is really a missing cache. Then someone goes out and makes the missing cache magically reappear so they can prove it was a false log??? It seems that in the case of number one you could only ever have hypothetical examples because the cache is missing and can never be used to prove the false log. That in no way makes it ok. I can't understand why that continues to be used as a reason to condone false logging. Let's see, if a pick pocket is so good that his victims never know what happened and they assume that they lost their wallet. Well they can never prove it was stolen instead of lost, so I guess no one can ever say that stealing in that way is bad. As long as you can never prove you wasted your gas and time then it really isn't wasted.

[+sbell111]

There seem to be two reasons why people are bothered by fake found it logs

1. They are bothered because fake logs might cause a cacher to look for a cache that isn't really there
   
2. They are bothered that some people might be lying without a good reason
   

For item 1, it seems the only examples we see are hypothetical. The reason is that most fake logs are so obvious that a person will discount that log before going to look for the cache. In most cases were the fake log is not so obvious, it becomes nearly impossible to prove that the cache was missing when the log was written. Caches go missing all the time and even though we might not want to admit, everyone occasionally will DNF a cache that is still there. If you find the cache and discover the fake logger did not sign the log you can't really complain that the fake log did you any harm.

 

Well lets see. The cacher fake logs what is really a missing cache. Then someone goes out and makes the missing cache magically reappear so they can prove it was a false log??? It seems that in the case of number one you could only ever have hypothetical examples because the cache is missing and can never be used to prove the false log. That in no way makes it ok. I can't understand why that continues to be used as a reason to condone false logging. Let's see, if a pick pocket is so good that his victims never know what happened and they assume that they lost their wallet. Well they can never prove it was stolen instead of lost, so I guess no one can ever say that stealing in that way is bad. As long as you can never prove you wasted your gas and time then it really isn't wasted.

Both of those scenarios can lead to 'proven' examples. For instance, teh pickpocket is eventually arrested. A search of his premises reveals ten stolen wallets.

 

Similarly, a false logger mentions to his geocaching friend that he didn't actually make the find on XYZ cache. That false log would thereafter not be hypothetical.

[+sbell111]

Let's just go with why this thread was started in the first place. It's obvious, i would say even to Mushtang and KBI, that the OP started it because the fake ftf logs upset him. He wanted to tell of his displeasure and also get other cachers' feelings about it. While we all have a right to post our feelings, i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them. We can give our opinions on how we would deal with a false log but we do not need to ask, How does it affect you? or Why are you concerned about a false log on a cache you don't own? The fact is, false logs do bother some people and there's not much chance of changing that.

That being said, certainly you would agree that it's OK for someone to explain why fake logs on caches that he/she doesn't own does not bother him/her. Further, I would suggest that it would be perfectly fine for that person to explain why adopting a similar attitude might make the OP more satisifed with his/her caching experience.

This is one of those things where i'm just not sure any amount of explaining will help. To me, it's not as simple as saying a false log on a cache, i don't own, over in California, does not affect me. It's still a right and wrong issue and i just cannot see a person who cares about doing the right thing, change and adopt an attitude of not caring when another person does the wrong thing.

 

If i didn't have these pesky right from wrong feelings in the first place, then i would agree that most bogus logs would have little to no affect on me either..

So we should never have discussions about 'hot button' topics in the forums or these discussions should be limited to those who agree with the OP?

 

While these sound like a tempting alternatives, we might as well not have forums at all.

Edited September 3, 2008 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

Let's just go with why this thread was started in the first place. It's obvious, i would say even to Mushtang and KBI, that the OP started it because the fake ftf logs upset him. He wanted to tell of his displeasure and also get other cachers' feelings about it. While we all have a right to post our feelings, i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them. We can give our opinions on how we would deal with a false log but we do not need to ask, How does it affect you? or Why are you concerned about a false log on a cache you don't own? The fact is, false logs do bother some people and there's not much chance of changing that.

That being said, certainly you would agree that it's OK for someone to explain why fake logs on caches that he/she doesn't own does not bother him/her. Further, I would suggest that it would be perfectly fine for that person to explain why adopting a similar attitude might make the OP more satisifed with his/her caching experience.

This is one of those things where i'm just not sure any amount of explaining will help. To me, it's not as simple as saying a false log on a cache, i don't own, over in California, does not affect me. It's still a right and wrong issue and i just cannot see a person who cares about doing the right thing, change and adopt an attitude of not caring when another person does the wrong thing.

 

If i didn't have these pesky right from wrong feelings in the first place, then i would agree that most bogus logs would have little to no affect on me either..

So we should never have discussions about 'hot button' topics in the forums or these discussions should be limited to those who agree with the OP?

 

While these sound like a tempting alternatives, we might as well not have forums at all.

 

I'm not saying that at all. We can all give our opinions/advice on how to deal with, alleviate, or get rid of a problem completely. But trying to tell a person, who doesn't like bogus logs and finds them inherently evil, to somehow change those feelings about them, is not very likely to work. A person's true feelings normally won't change at a drop of the hat or because another forum poster says they should..

 

In this instance, yes it can be shown that a bogus log doesn't affect most cachers. We can all learn to realize that but some of us look deeper into it than just how it affects geocaching itself. Morality comes into play for some of us and no matter how small a thing this is, it can still bother us somewhat when we see it.

[+WebChimp]

Looking forward to your reactions.

 

Delete the fake logs, and move on. The less energy expended on this person, the better.