fraude FTF by FTF Jaeger

[+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.

 

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.

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.

[Mushtang]

i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them.

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..

I really wanted to stay out of this thread, but my self imposed exile was based on getting tired of saying the same thing over and over in reply to other people making the same accusations over and over. But I've had a rest and I got a second wind.

 

So please tell me, Mudfrog, when did anyone ever say that someone should change their mind about their opinion? I know I didn't. I asked why someone felt a certain way, but that's clearly not the same as saying they shouldn't have their opinion.

 

As I explained earlier, I don't understand how the circuit board in my computer works. Saying that is not the same as saying that the circuit board shouldn't work. See the difference?

[+chuckwagon101]

.

 

As I explained earlier, I don't understand how the circuit board in my computer works. Saying that is not the same as saying that the circuit board shouldn't work. See the difference?

 

Well....that's good.....but I liked the "ice cream flavor" analogy better. Say you buy a quart of VANILLA ice cream at Dooby's. Then you go and buy some BUTTER PECAN at Skinner's.....then......well, I forget how the rest of it goes but it is good! Very Good!

 

Hope this helps!

[+ReadyOrNot]

i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them.

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..

I really wanted to stay out of this thread, but my self imposed exile was based on getting tired of saying the same thing over and over in reply to other people making the same accusations over and over. But I've had a rest and I got a second wind.

 

So please tell me, Mudfrog, when did anyone ever say that someone should change their mind about their opinion? I know I didn't. I asked why someone felt a certain way, but that's clearly not the same as saying they shouldn't have their opinion.

 

As I explained earlier, I don't understand how the circuit board in my computer works. Saying that is not the same as saying that the circuit board shouldn't work. See the difference?

 

Does this mean I get to come back to? What's the point of asking someone to point out discrepencies in your forum posts when you aren't willing to acknowledge those discrepencies when they are pointed out?

 

You've stated you don't understand why someone would be upset at the same time you say that you wouldn't allow it on your own caches. People are confused by your (obvious to me and others) contradictory posts.

[Mushtang]

i don't think someone should come in and argue with him or anyone else here that false logs shouldn't bother them.

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..

I really wanted to stay out of this thread, but my self imposed exile was based on getting tired of saying the same thing over and over in reply to other people making the same accusations over and over. But I've had a rest and I got a second wind.

 

So please tell me, Mudfrog, when did anyone ever say that someone should change their mind about their opinion? I know I didn't. I asked why someone felt a certain way, but that's clearly not the same as saying they shouldn't have their opinion.

 

As I explained earlier, I don't understand how the circuit board in my computer works. Saying that is not the same as saying that the circuit board shouldn't work. See the difference?

Does this mean I get to come back to?

I didn't realize you'd agreed to leave. Welcome back.

 

What's the point of asking someone to point out discrepencies in your forum posts when you aren't willing to acknowledge those discrepencies when they are pointed out?

I see no discrepancies, my statements don't conflict. It's obvious to me you're not reading my replies closely, you're just skimming over them and picking out bits and pieces or something. I don't know why you continue to suggest I've said something that I've never said, even after I've explained it to you over and over and over....

 

You've stated you don't understand why someone would be upset at the same time you say that you wouldn't allow it on your own caches.

And I've also explained, over and over, that what I don't understand is why someone is upset about a fake log on someone else's cache, not their own. I'd delete a fake log if I knew about it only because I want to maintain accurate numbers. The thing I don't understand, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain, is why it upsets someone if a fake log is allowed to remain on a different person's cache. There's no discrepancy there at all.

 

People are confused by your (obvious to me and others) contradictory posts.

If Curmudgeonly Gal logs a find on one of Snoogans' caches that she never actually found, and he left it on his cache even though it was an obvious fake... why would you care? Why would anyone other than Snoogans or Curmudgeonly Gal get upset about it?

[+tozainamboku]

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..

But this is the crux of the debate. Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

 

Some take the view that whether it can be proven or not, some bogus logs harm or inconvenience other people. Doing harm and even unjustly inconveniencing another person could certainly be considered evil. Some people however take a the inconvenience or embarrassment of practical joke as a part of everyday life. They may plot how to get even with the joker but in the end this give and take is part how we relate to one another. The problem with the internet is that you don't see or know the other person. A person may post an intentionally bogus log with the idea of tricking other cachers to go out of their way to look for a cache. They may think of it a harmless prank or practical joke. Since there is really not a way to get even, you might even feel that this is not like a practical joke in the common sense. As it turns out, if someone were to repeatably log bogus finds, they would risk having Groundspeak ban their account. So there is not much point in someone to continue to play this joke. After pissing off a few people in one area or other they aren't likely to get much enjoyment out of it. Once they are discovered they can't even boast about their inflated find count anymore.

 

I think there are also those that find the idea that someone would lie in the geocaching logs evil in itself. That leads to all sorts of moral issues about the logs that bogus found it logs seem the least of what we should worry about. Is is OK to lie in your log on a liars' cache? I posted a DNF on liars cache that I found and only later posted a find. The DNF was a lie and so was the find in that is was dated wrong (but it was dated April 1 ). What about all the people who find the cache and don't log it online. In a way, not logging your finds is being untruthful. And of course the same is true for the people who don't log DNFs. Unlogged DNFs cause way more people to look for a cache that might be missing than bogus logs do. Perhaps some people feel you can fail to tell the truth all you want, but if your lie gets you a bigger find count it is evil. I think they worry too much about other people's find counts. As I stated above, once the bogus logger is detected he will be the subject of far more scorn than any benefits that he might get because of a higher find count. Cache owners may in fact wish to keep bogus logs from their own caches because an accurate record on their cache is important to them. The guideline requiring cache owners to do this is likely because Groundspeak prefers that the logs are accurate as well. This is after all a geocaching site and not a practical joke site. However there is not much that Groundspeak can do except ask cache owners to be responsible for the quality control of post to your page and occasionally ban a repeat offender.

[+traildad]

 

You've stated you don't understand why someone would be upset at the same time you say that you wouldn't allow it on your own caches.

And I've also explained, over and over, that what I don't understand is why someone is upset about a fake log on someone else's cache, not their own. I'd delete a fake log if I knew about it only because I want to maintain accurate numbers. The thing I don't understand, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain, is why it upsets someone if a fake log is allowed to remain on a different person's cache. There's no discrepancy there at all.

 

I don't think it really is about being upset that someone allowed a fake log to remain. I don't think any of the topics recently suggested someone had allowed a fake log to remain. It is about the concept of fake logging and condoning fake logs. Maybe your repeated claims to not understand is being mistaken for disapproval. Maybe you are trying to say that you are unable to understand and would someone please explain it to you. Of course if this were true, when it is explained to you, which it has been, you would then need to say "Oh I see" or "I still don't get it" not "well you can't prove it was a fake log so it doesn't really matter". The responses to the explanations belie the suggestion that it is like saying "you don't understand how a computer works". So if you were to ask others to help you understand their point of view instead of dismissing it, you might find your self finally able to say "Oh I understand." Maybe you still won't agree, but hey this is a forum and that's ok.

[+traildad]

 

In a way, not logging your finds is being untruthful. And of course the same is true for the people who don't log DNFs. Unlogged DNFs cause way more people to look for a cache that might be missing than bogus logs do. Perhaps some people feel you can fail to tell the truth all you want, but if your lie gets you a bigger find count it is evil. I think they worry too much about other people's find counts.

This is starting to sound like thou protest est too much. To say that not logging a find is being untruthful is silly. It is not a very social way to play the game, but it is not untruthful. If you do something and don't tell anyone about it, how is that a lie?

 

I would agree with you that unlogged DNFs are wrong and maybe as bad as false logging. Maybe even worse since it must happen a lot more often.

[+Mudfrog]

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..

But this is the crux of the debate. Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

 

Some take the view that whether it can be proven or not, some bogus logs harm or inconvenience other people. Doing harm and even unjustly inconveniencing another person could certainly be considered evil. Some people however take a the inconvenience or embarrassment of practical joke as a part of everyday life. They may plot how to get even with the joker but in the end this give and take is part how we relate to one another. The problem with the internet is that you don't see or know the other person. A person may post an intentionally bogus log with the idea of tricking other cachers to go out of their way to look for a cache. They may think of it a harmless prank or practical joke. Since there is really not a way to get even, you might even feel that this is not like a practical joke in the common sense. As it turns out, if someone were to repeatably log bogus finds, they would risk having Groundspeak ban their account. So there is not much point in someone to continue to play this joke. After pissing off a few people in one area or other they aren't likely to get much enjoyment out of it. Once they are discovered they can't even boast about their inflated find count anymore.

 

I think there are also those that find the idea that someone would lie in the geocaching logs evil in itself. That leads to all sorts of moral issues about the logs that bogus found it logs seem the least of what we should worry about. Is is OK to lie in your log on a liars' cache? I posted a DNF on liars cache that I found and only later posted a find. The DNF was a lie and so was the find in that is was dated wrong (but it was dated April 1 ). What about all the people who find the cache and don't log it online. In a way, not logging your finds is being untruthful. And of course the same is true for the people who don't log DNFs. Unlogged DNFs cause way more people to look for a cache that might be missing than bogus logs do. Perhaps some people feel you can fail to tell the truth all you want, but if your lie gets you a bigger find count it is evil. I think they worry too much about other people's find counts. As I stated above, once the bogus logger is detected he will be the subject of far more scorn than any benefits that he might get because of a higher find count. Cache owners may in fact wish to keep bogus logs from their own caches because an accurate record on their cache is important to them. The guideline requiring cache owners to do this is likely because Groundspeak prefers that the logs are accurate as well. This is after all a geocaching site and not a practical joke site. However there is not much that Groundspeak can do except ask cache owners to be responsible for the quality control of post to your page and occasionally ban a repeat offender.

 

I didn't say that everyone thinks bogus logs are inherently evil. I probably shouldn't have even used evil as an adjective here but i believe that some people, me for instance, see bogus logs in a different light. Allthough this is part of it, it's not the affect that a bogus log might cause for a geocacher that i think is so wrong. It's really the fact that someone would lie about it in the first place that i have more of a problem with. A bogus log, one that is purposely posted to fool others in order to get a smilie, is a flat out lie. For me, a lie is wrong, even on this small and inconsequential issue. Some on here don't look at this or even care about this aspect of a false log. They are only looking at what geocching related problems it might cause and this, i think, is why our debates on the topic get so lively at times.

 

Just for the record, i do agree with Mushtang, KBI, and others in that bogus logs are not a big problem. It's only happened one time on one of our caches and was easily remedied. Also, i agree that while a bogus log could cause a geocaching related problem for a few cachers, it probably would never have any affect on the majority of cachers out there. As i said above, my problem with bogus logs is based more on principle and ethics...

[Mushtang]

You've stated you don't understand why someone would be upset at the same time you say that you wouldn't allow it on your own caches.

And I've also explained, over and over, that what I don't understand is why someone is upset about a fake log on someone else's cache, not their own. I'd delete a fake log if I knew about it only because I want to maintain accurate numbers. The thing I don't understand, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain, is why it upsets someone if a fake log is allowed to remain on a different person's cache. There's no discrepancy there at all.

I don't think it really is about being upset that someone allowed a fake log to remain. I don't think any of the topics recently suggested someone had allowed a fake log to remain. It is about the concept of fake logging and condoning fake logs. Maybe your repeated claims to not understand is being mistaken for disapproval. Maybe you are trying to say that you are unable to understand and would someone please explain it to you. Of course if this were true, when it is explained to you, which it has been, you would then need to say "Oh I see" or "I still don't get it" not "well you can't prove it was a fake log so it doesn't really matter".

I've had several people try and explain why they think fake logs are worth getting upset about ("because it's a lie and a lie is always wrong", or "It's taking away from the integrity of the game", etc.) but in the end all these explanations just don't make sense, so I continue to not understand why it upsets folks.

 

Perhaps if I keep saying that I'm NOT trying to tell people that they shouldn't get upset by a fake log on someone else's cache, eventually people will stop saying that I AM suggesting that?

 

The responses to the explanations belie the suggestion that it is like saying "you don't understand how a computer works". So if you were to ask others to help you understand their point of view instead of dismissing it, you might find your self finally able to say "Oh I understand." Maybe you still won't agree, but hey this is a forum and that's ok.

The "how a circuit board works" thing was only to try and explain that "I don't understand it" does not equal "I think it shouldn't be".

[+traildad]

 

I've had several people try and explain why they think fake logs are worth getting upset about ("because it's a lie and a lie is always wrong", or "It's taking away from the integrity of the game", etc.) but in the end all these explanations just don't make sense, so I continue to not understand why it upsets folks.

 

The part in red could be thought to mean that the people that are explaining are making an argument that is false. Do you mean they are making a poor argument or that you have a different perspective and don't agree? I could say that going around stealing $3.00 from people here and there is not a problem. It isn't much money and nobody is really getting hurt. If someone argued that it is wrong, should be condemned and should not be done what would it sound like if I said they weren't making sense?

 

To say you have a different point of view and don't agree is not the same thing as saying someone doesn't make sense. Your claim of not making sense is a put down. If I don't make sense because I am a rambling drunk or because I can't spell and use horrible grammar, "sense" has a certain meaning. If I make a good reasoned argument and you say I don't make sense then it tends to mean that you think I'm wrong, or made a poor argument.

 

What I don't understand is why if fake logging is not worth getting upset about why oh why would it be worth responding to so many posts to say over and over again that you don't understand.

[+sbell111]

And I've also explained, over and over, that what I don't understand is why someone is upset about a fake log on someone else's cache, not their own. ...

I don't think it really is about being upset that someone allowed a fake log to remain. I don't think any of the topics recently suggested someone had allowed a fake log to remain. It is about the concept of fake logging and condoning fake logs. ...

There are two subsets of 'condoning fake logs'.

 

The first would be fake logs on caches that you own. Personally, I don't condone fake logs on caches that I own. Just like you and Mushtang, if I am reasonably certain that a log to one of my caches is fake, I will delete it.

 

The second subset is fake logs on caches that I don't own. If I discover a fake log to a cache that I don't own, I may inform the cache owner of it. This is dependant mainly on how well I know the cache owner. If someone asks for my advice about a fake log, I will advise them to delete it. Beyond this, I could care less about fake logs. I have no real interest in whether the cache owners delete these or not and I will not be bothered one way or the other. I honestly don't understand why other cachers would get upset about this practice and can't fathom why some cachers would expend any energy trying to enforce a higher level of honesty in this game then is found in society. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

 

I've had several people try and explain why they think fake logs are worth getting upset about ("because it's a lie and a lie is always wrong", or "It's taking away from the integrity of the game", etc.) but in the end all these explanations just don't make sense, so I continue to not understand why it upsets folks.

 

The part in red could be thought to mean that the people that are explaining are making an argument that is false. Do you mean they are making a poor argument or that you have a different perspective and don't agree? ...

Aren't those two things the same?

 

If I try to convince you of something and you aren't buying what I'm selling, it is because the argument I am making is not sufficient to convince you. I am making a poor argument to get you to agree to alter your perspective.

To say you have a different point of view and don't agree is not the same thing as saying someone doesn't make sense. Your claim of not making sense is a put down. ...

Often times in these forums we type a quick reply and move on with our lives without realizing the million ways that others may decide to disect our positions. A good example of this can be found in the 'sticker' thread. The OP stated that he would contact the sticker user to tell him to 'sign the logs'. Many readers took this to mean that he wanted the finder to return to his caches and sign the logbooks. He actually meant that he was going to suggest that the cacher physically sign future logbooks.

 

I'm convinced that my misunderstood posts are typically do to my posting laziness, but I won't speak for Mushtang. I will make the suggestion that you mentally alter his post to read '... in the end all these explanations just don't make sense to me'.

 

In general, what we post in these forums are our opinions. We should try not to get too upset if someone doesn't specifically state so in every sentence of every post.

Edited September 4, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

I've had several people try and explain why they think fake logs are worth getting upset about ("because it's a lie and a lie is always wrong", or "It's taking away from the integrity of the game", etc.) but in the end all these explanations just don't make sense, so I continue to not understand why it upsets folks.

The part in red could be thought to mean that the people that are explaining are making an argument that is false. Do you mean they are making a poor argument or that you have a different perspective and don't agree? I could say that going around stealing $3.00 from people here and there is not a problem. It isn't much money and nobody is really getting hurt. If someone argued that it is wrong, should be condemned and should not be done what would it sound like if I said they weren't making sense?

As Sbell said very well, it doesn't make sense to me. Even if the reasons given aren't given in an attempt to change my point of view, I still don't think they're valid reasons for me, and therefore they don't make sense.

 

If I make a good reasoned argument and you say I don't make sense then it tends to mean that you think I'm wrong, or made a poor argument.

Bingo! I think you're wrong or making a poor argument when you (or anyone) says something like "Fake logs don't really do any consequential damage, but I get upset about them because they're a lie, and a lie is always wrong". That's not a direct quote from anyone, but it's one of the arguments I hear the collective other side making. I think it's a pretty poor argument. So when someone makes that argument I can't understand why they're allowing something so meaningless to upset them.

 

When I mention how I feel about it, I get attacked and am told that I'm trying to tell someone how to think, or what they should feel. Then I read people post that I think people should be able to play the game however they want no matter what they want to do.

 

What I don't understand is why if fake logging is not worth getting upset about why oh why would it be worth responding to so many posts to say over and over again that you don't understand.

Because people keep saying over and over again that I've contradicted myself in post, or they keep saying over and over that I said something that I never said, and so therefore I feel that I must explain myself over and over in hopes that somehow you (and others) will finally get it, and will stop telling me (and others) that I'm saying things that I'm not.

 

Go back and read a few posts and you'll understand. In THIS thread, go read posts 2 and 6, and you'll see that I'm just posting replies to the OP and giving my opinion, and making suggestions on how to not let a fake log bother him. Pretty simple.

 

Then read posts 14 and 17 and you'll really see why I wanted to post replies to them and point out that they're crediting me with things I never said. The rest of my posts were pretty much me replying to posts and saying, "No, that's not what I said, what I said was ..., and what I believe is ..."

[+sbell111]

Mushtang doesn't care about chinldren

Edited September 4, 2008 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

I've had several people try and explain why they think fake logs are worth getting upset about ("because it's a lie and a lie is always wrong", or "It's taking away from the integrity of the game", etc.) but in the end all these explanations just don't make sense, so I continue to not understand why it upsets folks.

The part in red could be thought to mean that the people that are explaining are making an argument that is false. Do you mean they are making a poor argument or that you have a different perspective and don't agree? I could say that going around stealing $3.00 from people here and there is not a problem. It isn't much money and nobody is really getting hurt. If someone argued that it is wrong, should be condemned and should not be done what would it sound like if I said they weren't making sense?

As Sbell said very well, it doesn't make sense to me. Even if the reasons given aren't given in an attempt to change my point of view, I still don't think they're valid reasons for me, and therefore they don't make sense.

 

If I make a good reasoned argument and you say I don't make sense then it tends to mean that you think I'm wrong, or made a poor argument.

Bingo! I think you're wrong or making a poor argument when you (or anyone) says something like "Fake logs don't really do any consequential damage, but I get upset about them because they're a lie, and a lie is always wrong". That's not a direct quote from anyone, but it's one of the arguments I hear the collective other side making. I think it's a pretty poor argument. So when someone makes that argument I can't understand why they're allowing something so meaningless to upset them.

 

When I mention how I feel about it, I get attacked and am told that I'm trying to tell someone how to think, or what they should feel. Then I read people post that I think people should be able to play the game however they want no matter what they want to do.

 

What I don't understand is why if fake logging is not worth getting upset about why oh why would it be worth responding to so many posts to say over and over again that you don't understand.

Because people keep saying over and over again that I've contradicted myself in post, or they keep saying over and over that I said something that I never said, and so therefore I feel that I must explain myself over and over in hopes that somehow you (and others) will finally get it, and will stop telling me (and others) that I'm saying things that I'm not.

 

Go back and read a few posts and you'll understand. In THIS thread, go read posts 2 and 6, and you'll see that I'm just posting replies to the OP and giving my opinion, and making suggestions on how to not let a fake log bother him. Pretty simple.

 

Then read posts 14 and 17 and you'll really see why I wanted to post replies to them and point out that they're crediting me with things I never said. The rest of my posts were pretty much me replying to posts and saying, "No, that's not what I said, what I said was ..., and what I believe is ..."

 

The debates in these forums can get pretty fired up at times and it does come across that both sides get quite upset about things. Let me reassure you, i'm just not upset about this and in fact, forget about this thread as soon as i leave it. But while we're posting in the thread, and i think you would agree,,, you, i, and others, do want to get our points across as well as we can and i think this sometimes makes it look as though we are some very upset and angry posters.

 

I will say it again, i don't like liars and if i know that a person lies about something like this, then i am going to form a negative opinion about that person. Am i upset that they lied about finding someone elses cache? NO, but at the same time, i'm not going to trust them as far as i can throw them. You may not understand why i think lying is wrong but it is very clear to me, and therefore NOT meaningless.

 

On the second paragraph i bolded out,,, have you asked yourself why so many people think you have said or implied things you say you have not? I mean, surely you must be wondering why this happens so often...

[+Mudfrog]

Mushtang doesn't care about chinldren

 

I remember that!

 

Just didn't remember it being Mushtang,,,

[Mushtang]

You may not understand why i think lying is wrong but it is very clear to me, and therefore NOT meaningless.

It's not that I don't understand why lying is wrong, it's that I don't understand why this particular lie is a problem to anyone other than the cache owner and the liar. That, and the fact that I see that lies are not all equally bad, make me think that this particular lie is completely meaningless, yet so many people seem to think it's a big deal.

 

On the second paragraph i bolded out,,, have you asked yourself why so many people think you have said or implied things you say you have not? I mean, surely you must be wondering why this happens so often...

I've often wondered that. It's not like I'll say things in one thread and then a month later someone remembers it wrong in another thread. It happens in back to back posts. Go read posts 63, 64, and 65 in this thread to see an example.

 

It's like I'll say, "I don't like extremely hot jalapeños and don't know how people can enjoy the taste" and then someone comes right behind me and says, "How can you tell people they shouldn't eat them just because YOU don't like them?"

 

And I sit there not knowing exactly how to reply to something that disconnected.

[+sbell111]

... have you asked yourself why so many people think you have said or implied things you say you have not? I mean, surely you must be wondering why this happens so often...

I assumed it was a debate tactic. Edited September 4, 2008 by sbell111

[Mushtang]

... On the second paragraph i bolded out,,, have you asked yourself why so many people think you have said or implied things you say you have not? I mean, surely you must be wondering why this happens so often...

I assumed it was a debate tactic.

That's true, I suppose it could be intentional that folks want to pretend I said something just so they could argue against it. Perhaps I was being too generous with my assumptions that this never occurred to me.

[+KBI]

What did you think I was "pretending?"

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.

Oh. I had no idea that’s what you really meant. You seemed, by your reference to 'smileys,' to be talking about cache logs, not forum posts.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

It seems that you have a "problem" with people posting in the forum that they don't "like" bogus logging.

If that's how it seems to you, then you and I have not achieved successful communication.

 

I don’t have a "problem" at all with those who distain bogus logging. Quite the opposite, in fact; they entertain me endlessly.

 

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?

Because I like to type.

 

Seriously: All I have done here is express my opinion ... and then defend my opinion when it is attacked and ridiculed.

 

I might just as easily ask you why you seem to be so bothered by the fact that I’m NOT bothered by bogus logs.

 

It comes off looking as though you are trying to convince people that bogus logging is good ...

Only if you misunderstand.

 

... or at the very least not bad.

If you add “in KBI’s opinion” to the end of “not bad,” then you’ve got it.

 

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.

False? Can you support that conclusion?

[+KBI]

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.

Neither do I.

 

I believe it is unpardonably rude to challenge another forum participant’s right to express his or her opinion.

 

Your point? Who do you believe has committed this crime?

[+KBI]

The debates in these forums can get pretty fired up at times and it does come across that both sides get quite upset about things.

Are you against the forums?

 

What do you have against the forums?

 

Why are you now suddenly telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy the forums?

[+Lil Devil]

I'm definitely enjoying this discussion!

[+Mudfrog]

... On the second paragraph i bolded out,,, have you asked yourself why so many people think you have said or implied things you say you have not? I mean, surely you must be wondering why this happens so often...

I assumed it was a debate tactic.

That's true, I suppose it could be intentional that folks want to pretend I said something just so they could argue against it. Perhaps I was being too generous with my assumptions that this never occurred to me.

 

No pretending here. I have read your posts and while i don't believe you have ever specifically stated that you condone false logging, your debating so forcefully that a false log is harmless and shouldn't bother anyone, comes across, at least to me, that you're pretty much saying,,, go for it, it doesn't hurt a thing.

 

But, from your more current posts, i now know that you don't condone them at all. From a geocaching standpoint, i think we are in agreement in that they themselves aren't detrimental to caching and when they do occur, they don't cause widespread problems for cachers. The "morality" side of the coin is where we look at things differently and is something that neither of us is apt to change our feelings about anytime soon..

[+Mudfrog]

The debates in these forums can get pretty fired up at times and it does come across that both sides get quite upset about things.

Are you against the forums?

 

What do you have against the forums?

 

Why are you now suddenly telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy the forums?

 

I've reread my statement that you quoted a few times and i still can't figure out what your questions have to do with it.

[+eigengott]

Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

 

To answer questions like this, you can often apply a simple test: What if everybody (or at least a large majority) would write bogus logs? Would geocaching still be fun, do logs bear any meaning then? Imagine you get over 90% percent bogus logs for your caches - a nice mixture of Found, DNF, NM, SBA.

 

Now try the opposite: If everybody would write true logs, would that harm anyone or spoil the fun of geocaching?

 

So, a few bogus logs are surely no big deal. Still they should be deleted and one should speak out against them because they fail the simple test shown above.

 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

[+KBI]

The debates in these forums can get pretty fired up at times and it does come across that both sides get quite upset about things.

Are you against the forums?

 

What do you have against the forums?

 

Why are you now suddenly telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy the forums?

I've reread my statement that you quoted a few times and i still can't figure out what your questions have to do with it.

I read your post, and while I don't believe you have specifically stated that you think I shouldn’t enjoy the forums, your statement that "debates in these forums can get pretty fired up at times" comes across, at least to me, that you're pretty much saying... that I, KBI, should not enjoy the forums.

 

That is what you appear – to me, anyway – to be saying.

 

Therefore that IS what you are saying.

 

So tell me: Why are you now suddenly telling me that I shouldn’t enjoy the forums?

[+sbell111]

But, from your more current posts, i now know that you don't condone them at all. From a geocaching standpoint, i think we are in agreement in that they themselves aren't detrimental to caching and when they do occur, they don't cause widespread problems for cachers. The "morality" side of the coin is where we look at things differently and is something that neither of us is apt to change our feelings about anytime soon..

Actually, I suspect that morally, we all basically agree also. I certainly believe that lying is morally wrong. However, I don't believe that it follows that an occasional bogus log is going to cause humanity to falter. Further, I don't believe that the affect of these few bogus logs to other people caches affect my gameplay at all and, therefore, are any reason for me to get upset, at all.

To answer questions like this, you can often apply a simple test: What if everybody (or at least a large majority) would write bogus logs? Would geocaching still be fun, do logs bear any meaning then? Imagine you get over 90% percent bogus logs for your caches - a nice mixture of Found, DNF, NM, SBA.

 

Now try the opposite: If everybody would write true logs, would that harm anyone or spoil the fun of geocaching?

 

So, a few bogus logs are surely no big deal. Still they should be deleted and one should speak out against them because they fail the simple test shown above.

 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

I believe that you are misrepresenting misapplying Kant's position. In my opinion, the moral test that you describe would be handy to determine whether an individual should make a bogus log, not whether the community should get all bent because the practice occasionally happens.

 

Edited to correct a bit of posting laziness.

Edited September 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+traildad]

 

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

I believe that you are misrepresenting Kant's position. In my opinion, the moral test that you describe would be handy to determine whether an individual should make a bogus log, not whether the community should get all bent because the practice occasionally happens.

Which is fine as long as we remember that no one has suggested or supported the idea that everyone should get all bent. I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

 

Edited to fix quotes

Edited September 6, 2008 by traildad

[+KBI]

Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

To answer questions like this, you can often apply a simple test: What if everybody (or at least a large majority) would write bogus logs? Would geocaching still be fun, do logs bear any meaning then? Imagine you get over 90% percent bogus logs for your caches - a nice mixture of Found, DNF, NM, SBA.

 

Now try the opposite: If everybody would write true logs, would that harm anyone or spoil the fun of geocaching?

Tozainamboku asked: Why are bogus logs inherently evil?

 

This argument does nothing to convince me that bogus logs are inherently evil.

 

This argument only convinces me that bogus logs—if they ever, hypothetically, were to constitute over 90% percent of the logs posted to my caches—would be decidedly inconvenient. That doesn’t make them evil.

 

Inconvenience and evil are not the same thing.

 

Bogus logs are uncommon. My experience shows them to be quite rare. In order to have something to present as a counterargument here you have created a nonexistent hypothetical in which bogus logs are overwhelming in numbers. Yes, I understand the hypothetical is presented merely as a thought experiment, not as an observation or even as a prediction – yet that still doesn’t make the bogus logs evil.

 

So, a few bogus logs are surely no big deal. Still they should be deleted ...

Agreed.

 

A cache owner should delete any log which misleads, gives away secrets, violates the guidelines, or in any other way threatens or spoils the fun of the cache hunt to an unacceptable degree.

 

... and one should speak out against them because they fail the simple test shown above.

Feel free to speak out about anything you perceive as wicked or sinful, but don’t expect me to join you on this one.

 

Your irrelevant analogy gives me no reason to “speak out” against something I see as no more than a benign oddity.

[Mushtang]

No pretending here. I have read your posts and while i don't believe you have ever specifically stated that you condone false logging, your debating so forcefully that a false log is harmless and shouldn't bother anyone, comes across, at least to me, that you're pretty much saying,,, go for it, it doesn't hurt a thing.

I've never debated that a false log is harmless and shouldn't bother anyone. If you're under the impression that I have, and then assume that I'm pretty much saying that people should go for it, you're making an assumption about a false assumption.

 

This is exactly why I've had to defend myself about a dozen times in this thread. If you'd like me to state my position about false logs, again, so you can see what I've said, I'd be happy to. I'd state them again without you asking but I've already done that so many times it's clear you're not reading them, and just making assumptions based on something else.

 

But, from your more current posts, i now know that you don't condone them at all. From a geocaching standpoint, i think we are in agreement in that they themselves aren't detrimental to caching and when they do occur, they don't cause widespread problems for cachers.

Oh wait... maybe you actually have read, and understood, my posts in this thread. So now I'm seriously confused as to why you felt the need to post all the false assumptions above?

[Mushtang]

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

I believe that you are misrepresenting Kant's position. In my opinion, the moral test that you describe would be handy to determine whether an individual should make a bogus log, not whether the community should get all bent because the practice occasionally happens.

Which is fine as long as we remember that no one has suggested or supported the idea that everyone should get all bent. I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

A false log can alter a cache's statistics in a way that I, as the owner of that cache, would want to correct by deleting that log. That's the only harm I can see - the harm to the statistics. So no, I don't see how it can "harm others".

 

If the cache owner doesn't care, and the false logger doesn't care, then I also can't see how it becomes "bad for geocaching". How does this practice degrade the game?

[+sbell111]

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. - Kant

I believe that you are misrepresenting Kant's position. In my opinion, the moral test that you describe would be handy to determine whether an individual should make a bogus log, not whether the community should get all bent because the practice occasionally happens.

Which is fine as long as we remember that no one has suggested or supported the idea that everyone should get all bent. I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

I'l certainly agree with the first one. The second one, not really. The third one, I don't think so. Edited September 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+KBI]

I believe that you are misrepresenting Kant's position. In my opinion, the moral test that you describe would be handy to determine whether an individual should make a bogus log, not whether the community should get all bent because the practice occasionally happens.

Which is fine as long as we remember that no one has suggested or supported the idea that everyone should get all bent. I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

I count four ... but I’ll take a crack at it:

 

It is wrong to false log ...

I agree with this one – as long as by “wrong” we mean “clumsy, bungling, and procedurally incorrect,” not “wrong” as in “sinful, evil, and immoral.”

 

 

... and it can "harm" others.

I agree with this one as well – as long as by “harm” we mean “cause potential (yet rare) inconvenience,” not “harm” as in “inevitably infect others with corruption, sleaze, evil, social decay and other horrifying forms of family un-friendliness.”

 

To some degree it is bad for Geocaching.

Yes, to some degree bogus logs are bad for Geocaching. So are misdated logs, tardily-posted logs, bad weather, rush-hour traffic, and faulty AA batteries. "To some degree," that is. Accepting that each of these things presents some nonzero degree of threat to the hobby doesn’t make them inherently evil.

 

No one has suggested or supported the idea that everyone should get all bent.

This statement is factually incorrect.

 

Maybe this viewpoint is not your position, but it is the viewpoint of many, if not most, of the people who have expresses indignation over the fact that some of us are simply untroubled, on any ethical level, by bogus logs.

[+Kohavis]

If the bogus cacher mentioned in the OP is reading all this bickering, I'll bet he's laughing his butt off.

 

Moderators - This thread needs to be ditched!

[Mushtang]

If the bogus cacher mentioned in the OP is reading all this bickering, I'll bet he's laughing his butt off.

 

Moderators - This thread needs to be ditched!

Why? The discussion is regarding false logs, which is the whole point of the original post, so it's definitely on topic. We're maintaining a civil discussion and not getting personal. I see no forum guidelines being broken.

 

If you're not enjoying the discussion it's not necessary that you read this thread, but that's no reason to suggest that the rest of us not be allowed to enjoy it too, is it?

[+Moose Mob]

If the bogus cacher mentioned in the OP is reading all this bickering, I'll bet he's laughing his butt off.

 

Moderators - This thread needs to be ditched!

The OP got his answer on page one. It wasn't excactly clear nor was it outlined, but it was there.

 

We have allowed this thread to be presented to Congress to address th finer points of content, grammer, and philisophical viewpoints. Not that the topic needs these views, but it keeps these people busy until they have a chance to go caching again.

[+Kohavis]

The topic even has this bogus cacher's name in the title, and all the arguing is giving him what he wants - attention.

 

The OP should have mentioned the problem in more general terms without throwing the spotlight on someone who would abuse the sport.

 

I'm a forum admin myself, and one rule of running a forum is that you don't call attention directly to people like that. It feeds their egos and likely will create a situation where they'll try something even more outrageous next time - to "outdo" themselves. They thrive on this kind of thing.

[+sbell111]

The topic even has this bogus cacher's name in the title, and all the arguing is giving him what he wants - attention. ...

I thought that he wanted smilies.

 

That being said, I'd agree with you if the thread was about some yahoo destroying caches, but it's not.

[+Moose Mob]

Steve has a good point. False loggers pretty much get bored and fall away. It's just too easy to do, no challenge. The only attention they get is an e-mail saying their log was deleted and a seldom read thread lost in a website somewhere.

 

Edit to add: typically we do not allow "calling out" of cachers, but when this thread started, the decision was made to let it ride. Since then the topic has not been about the person, but rather it has beenm focused on the act. Really, nobody gives a rat's butt about the cacher sice it's likely a sock puppet for a bored player.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Moose Mob

[+ReadyOrNot]

If the cache owner doesn't care, and the false logger doesn't care, then I also can't see how it becomes "bad for geocaching". How does this practice degrade the game?

 

Oh good golly.... "Is false logging causing the degradation of geocaching" was a different topic wasn't it? This topic isn't about degradation. You've already said it was not harmful, then you were shown a quote were you found it to be harmful, now your changing the conversation to degradation. Pick a target and stick with it. Its hard to debate someone who bounces all over the place.

[+KBI]

Moderators - This thread needs to be ditched!

The OP should have mentioned the problem in more general terms without throwing the spotlight on someone who would abuse the sport.

Thank you for popping in to helpfully instruct others in how they should more properly post. I am sure your comments will be greatly valued by those you criticize.

 

I'm a forum admin myself ...

Truly? Then let me ask you this: When someone wanders in to your forum and demands that a thread be shut down, and you politely explain to them why you haven’t shut it down, but then the new person continues to tell you your business anyway – how do you respond?

[+Moose Mob]

OK kids, let's keep this civil.

[+KBI]

If the cache owner doesn't care, and the false logger doesn't care, then I also can't see how it becomes "bad for geocaching". How does this practice degrade the game?

Oh good golly.... "Is false logging causing the degradation of geocaching" was a different topic wasn't it? This topic isn't about degradation. You've already said it was not harmful, then you were shown a quote were you found it to be harmful ...

I haven't seen any inconsistency on Mushtang's part. Your repeated baseless accusations do not constitute proof. He politely invited you to provide proof of the alleged inconsistency in his posts, but so far you haven’t.

 

Misinterpretations on your part don't count.

[+Kohavis]

Moderators - This thread needs to be ditched!

The OP should have mentioned the problem in more general terms without throwing the spotlight on someone who would abuse the sport.

Thank you for popping in to helpfully instruct others in how they should more properly post. I am sure your comments will be greatly valued by those you criticize.

You're welcome.

 

I'm a forum admin myself ...

Truly? Then let me ask you this: When someone wanders in to your forum and demands that a thread be shut down, and you politely explain to them why you haven’t shut it down, but then the new person continues to tell you your business anyway – how do you respond?

Why are you getting hostile at me? And please point out where I "continue to tell the staff here their business". I made a suggestion, and three posts later I explained myself when someone directly asked me "why?".

 

You need to switch to decaf, KBI. And that suggestion is made in the spirit of constructive criticism

[+tozainamboku]

The topic even has this bogus cacher's name in the title, and all the arguing is giving him what he wants - attention.

 

The OP should have mentioned the problem in more general terms without throwing the spotlight on someone who would abuse the sport.

 

I'm a forum admin myself, and one rule of running a forum is that you don't call attention directly to people like that. It feeds their egos and likely will create a situation where they'll try something even more outrageous next time - to "outdo" themselves. They thrive on this kind of thing.

I agree that FTF Jaeger is probably having a good laugh what a few of his bogus logs has caused. I've even postulated in this thread that bogus loggers may be doing so as a kind of practical joke on cachers. But on the other hand, if this thread were lock another one would start in a few days and same people would be debating the same issues as whether or not one should care about bogus logs. It seems unreasonable to close this thread now just because the bogus logger was named in it.

 

With that I'd like to post my response to traildad

I think the point is that, it is wrong to false log and it can "harm" others, and to some degree it is bad for Geocaching. Does anyone disagree with these three ideas?

 

It is wrong to false log - yes in the sense of the intent of the online log is to share your geocaching experience, thank the hider for the cache, and keep track of you personal caching history. False logs are not meeting the intent of the online logs.

 

It can harm others - only has been shown in a theoretical sense. Yes people do use what others have written in the logs to decide whether to look for a cache or to find hints as to where to look. Some naive person believing that all the logs are 100% truth might make decision based on a false log. In reality, the logs are always treated as somewhat suspect - even though the overwhelming majority are true - and cachers use their own common sense in deciding when to look for caches or where they should look.

 

To some degree it is bad for Geocaching - I don't see this. One thing I like about Geoaching is that the logging is based on a honor system. While caches have physical logs that cache owners may check, the guidelines are written is such a way that cache owners can decide what is legitimate and how much policing they are going to do. If the guideline were changed to require the owner confirm each find you'd have a lot fewer caches hidden and a lot fewer people bothering to log their finds online. There is no official winner so the the find count doesn't matter. Individuals may wish to strive to find more caches or be impressed by someone with a high count but that is not what Geocaching is really about. It's about having fun looking for caches and there isn't a number to keep track of how much fun you had.

 

If logs were 100% honest we might not get some of the great logs where people embellish their experiences looking for the cache. Now I suspect you don't feel that embellishing a log is bad for Geocaching and what you are more concerned about is the log that says 'Found It' where the cache wasn't found (or even looked for). Is Geocaching worse off because we have this ongoing thread? I suspect that many people enjoy reading it from time to time. The truth is that in any group of people, some will lie for what seems like the silliest of reasons. Geocaching deals with this by asking cache owners to delete bogus logs when they find them and by occasionally taking measures such a banning accounts of repeat offenders. The current process seems to keep bogus logging under control without placing undo burdens on the cache hiders and finders that would interfere with the game be fun. Taking measures to eliminate or further reduce the number of bogus logs would in my opinion be worse for Geocaching than the few bogus logs we currently get.

[+KBI]

Why are you getting hostile at me?

No hostility intended.

 

Your request for thread closure was fairly blunt. My response to your request may have been blunt as well.

 

Is it okay for you to be blunt, but not for me?

 

And please point out where I "continue to tell the staff here their business". I made a suggestion, and three posts later I explained myself when someone directly asked me "why?".

That’s your interpretation.

 

My interpretation is that you casually dismissed Moose Mob’s polite decline of your request to lock the thread, and continued to expand on why you wanted it closed.

 

I even asked you a reasonable question -- which I notice you didn't answer.

 

You need to switch to decaf, KBI. And that suggestion is made in the spirit of constructive criticism

No thanks. I personally think decaf should be illegal.

[+getgrim]

After reading three pages of this, I just had to enter my own suggestion to this never ending thread of finger pointing.

 

Guys, it's a game. To some, it's more. I enjoy being out with my family and finding the caches, FTF or otherwise. There are the guys that always want to be the first to find, so be it. My life is unaffected either way be it a bogus FTF or legitimate. Unless there is a winning Powerball ticket in the cache for every FTF, the competition factor to me is a moot point. But to others it's as important as air.

 

That's their perspective. To me, if a bogus entry was made, oh well. Get over it and move on. I have two caches of my own and have had the same problem, not FTF mind you, but it happens. If you want to get ulcers over it, be my guest.

 

My suggestion is just live with the fact that there are people out there that make fun of our sport and do everything to sabotage it at every turn. This is the same for just about every sport out there. There is nothing you can do to them personally, so trying to start a fight in here because you are "actually" frustrated at the original culprit is going to get you nowhere but unpopular in a hurry.

 

Seems to be the ultimate goal here with some.

 

Just my take on this.

[+sbell111]

After reading three pages of this, I just had to enter my own suggestion to this never ending thread of finger pointing. ...

Three pages in three weeks is nothing. The really explosive threads will go to a dozen pages in an hour or two.

[Mushtang]

If the cache owner doesn't care, and the false logger doesn't care, then I also can't see how it becomes "bad for geocaching". How does this practice degrade the game?

Oh good golly.... "Is false logging causing the degradation of geocaching" was a different topic wasn't it? This topic isn't about degradation. You've already said it was not harmful, then you were shown a quote were you found it to be harmful, now your changing the conversation to degradation. Pick a target and stick with it. Its hard to debate someone who bounces all over the place.

Well, there goes the "civil discussion" part.

 

Traildad suggested that false logs was bad for geocaching, and I replied that I didn't think it was. I'm sorry you have an issue with the way the particular wording I used was similar to another thread. You'll just have to live with that.

 

It's also hard to debate with someone that constantly ignores me when I state my position and claims that I actually believe something different. I'm not going round and round with you any more on that point. If you haven't gotten it yet, you never will. Good day sir.

 

BTW, it's spelled "you're", not "your".