Do You Feel its Appropriate to Name Chronic Serial False Loggers

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Okay folks, we have all seen the several dozen threads over the past couple of years wherein people have debated endlessly the entire matter of just how serious an offense it is to log a fake online find log for a cache, and where folks on one side of the fence (I would ask: why does there need to be a fence at all...?, but that is a discussion for another thread down the line...!) claim that such behavior is quite harmless, but that they would delete the bogus find log anyway (or at least post an adjacent note from the cache owner on the cache listing page to the effect that the find by xxxx seems to be fraudulent), while others claim that such behaviors pose not only a serious threat to geocaching and ethics in general, but also that they are the BIG Sign of the Beginning of the End of Times.

 

Well, this current thread is NOT about that same old/same old debate! Not at all! And, in fact, thread participants will NOT be allowed to re-visit that tired old argument! Not one bit! Rather, the topic of this current thread is simply this:

 

Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?

 

I have started this thread and posed this question simply because this issue accidentally arose as a side-note to the current thread by Gerboa entitled Blatant False Logging Finds: Any Sanctions? As a result of that thread, I had started a private email correspondence with a cacher who had recently had a serial chronic false find logger file fake finds on some of his caches, and I had asked him if the cacher in question had been outed by geo handle name on any of the relevant geo forums, and his answer surprised me slightly, for it was:

...In a forum, it would not be deemed appropriate to mention the handle of someone that you are accusing of 'cheating'. I did bring up the subject in the xxxxxx forum. It has also been discussed in the xxxxxx NY discussion board. I deleted the finds on [all] my caches.

 

I replied in short order by email as follows:

....Thanks for your note, and for the fun information! I understand the normal tendency toward preserving the privacy of the offender, but actually, over the years, at least two or three fraudulent-log cachers have been outed by their geo handles in the General Topics section alone of the Groundspeak forum, and no one ever made a stink about it (i.e., about privacy), and at least two such fraudulent loggers have been outed by geo handle on the Maryland Geocaching Society (MGS) forum over the past couple of years, and again, no one made a stink about the somewhat-questionable idea of "privacy"!

 

Likewise, a couple of years ago, I outed a well-known West Coast cacher by geo handle, on both the MGS forum and the Groundspeak forum, when he logged an online find on one of our caches, and left, due to his ongoing war of words with another West Coast cacher (apparently an ex-geo-friend), a derogatory and racist remark and photo targeted toward his arch-enemy in his online find log, and again no one made a stink about protecting his questionable "privacy" when I outed him by geo name. BTW, in my post in question, I did not out him and his behavior in order to complain about it or whine about it, but rather to state publicly that I find such behavior exceedingly unacceptable and intolerable and that I chose to deal with it by deleting his online find log (it was a shame, too, as he was quite famous, and a great many cachers coveted the idea of garnering one of his find logs...!)

 

As for me, I attach no great importance to fraudulent finds, and, as I have stated many times on the Groundspeak forum, when I encounter them, I either delete them or I leave them in place with an adjacent note from the cache owner (myself) to the effect that the find log by xxxx (usually Sionevil ) is apparently fraudulent. However, while fake find logs do not really bother me, I must confess that I do become a bit fascinated by the grandiose fraudulent online find logging efforts some of the more egregious offenders, some of whom apparently log hundreds, or even thousands, of fraudulent online find logs! Wow! In fact, that is what sparked our current exchange of emails, as I wanted to learn more about this "finder" and his behavior!

 

Thanks again for the updates!

 

And there you have it! So, you know my position on the matter, and feel free to share your opinion on this subject here, along with any related fun tales! While I will allow a moderate and reasonable amount of thread drift, such as sharing tales of funny chronic serial find loggers and their antics, this thread will NOT be allowed to become yet another venue for the ongoing debate between certain parties over how serious an offense it is to file fake online find logs!

 

Enjoy!

[+BlueDeuce]

While the mods have had issues with the response, I'll have to say.

 

[+fizzymagic]

No problem with me. Since TPTB consider false logging something to be dealt with by means of a community standard, it seems highly appropriate. I would (out of courtesy) send the offender an email to let them know that they are being discussed in the forums so that they have a chance to defend themselves.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

No problem with me. Since TPTB consider false logging something to be dealt with by means of a community standard, it seems highly appropriate. . .

That is pretty much my reasoning as well, plus the fact -- as we saw locally with two chronic serial fake find loggers over the past couple of years -- mentioning their geo handle on a forum allows cache owners to check their online find logs to see if the cacher in question has claimed finds on any of their cache logs, and thus giving them the chance, if they wish, to check such logs against paper logs in their caches.

 

I would (out of courtesy) send the offender an email to let them know that they are being discussed in the forums so that they have a chance to defend themselves.

For the few forum discussions in which I have been involved in which serial chronic fake find loggers (or, in the case I had mentioned earlier, the famed West Coast cacher who made the racist comment) were being discussed, I had not the faintest temptation to bother notifying the cacher in question that their behavior was being discussed on the forum, as, in most cases, they had already failed to respond to numerous inquiries about their behavior sent via PM and email.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+flask]

i'd be happy to see confirmed fake loggers outed.

 

key word: happy.

 

 

 

 

nah, just kidding. the key word is "confirmed".

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

While the mods have had issues with the response, I'll have to say.

 

Y'know, BlueDeuce, I am quite open-minded and tolerant about forum behavior, in fact, quite relaxed about such things, but I must note that such a comment as you made, might, at times, just possibly be viewed as being both hostile and elitist, as well as aloof. Since you bothered to send a post at all, why not at least grace us with your thoughts and feelings on the matter, rather then only telling us via a cute icon that you want to watch some kind of drama that you expect to unfold? Or is too scary for you to take a stand?

[+whistler & co.]

I'm really nosy, so I'll say "Sure it's appropriate!" Unless, of course, you falsely accuse an innocent person, in which case you look like a horse's patoot. So maybe you shouldn't publicly NAME the person...just provide enough clues so that us curious folks can figure it out with a few mouse clicks. But I guess that's not a very PC answer, is it?

[+DocDiTTo]

Yes.

[+ReadyOrNot]

As long as its done in a civil manner, I've got no problem with outting those disobedient, morally corrupt individuals...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm really nosy, so I'll say "Sure it's appropriate!" Unless, of course, you falsely accuse an innocent person, in which case you look like a horse's patoot. . .

Yes, I am nosey too, and that is one more reason why I like it when folks state the geo handle of the cacher whose behavior they are discussing, or at least give us plenty of hints so that we can find the person's identity within two or three clicks!

[+BlueDeuce]

While the mods have had issues with the response, I'll have to say.

 

Y'know, BlueDeuce, I am quite open-minded and tolerant about forum behavior, in fact, quite relaxed about such things, but I must note that such a comment as you made, might, at times, just possibly be viewed as being both hostile and elitist, as well as aloof. Since you bothered to send a post at all, why not at least grace us with your thoughts and feelings on the matter, rather then only telling us via a cute icon that you want to watch some kind of drama that you expect to unfold? Or is too scary for you to take a stand?

 

shaw right, me not have a stand. Apparently you thought I was on topic.

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, so not to be a thread killer.

 

I would have to say that my stand is, as I understand, the forum guidelines don't allow calling out a particular cacher. If you need the site to address the behavior of a particular person you should address that with the people in charge.

 

No one should need any other avenue. Forums included.

 

[Keystone]

... the forum guidelines don't allow calling out a particular cacher.

 

Word.

 

It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Discuss the behavior, don't attack the person.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

... the forum guidelines don't allow calling out a particular cacher.

 

Word.

 

It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom. Discuss the behavior, don't attack the person.

Thanks for weighing in from a moderator's point of view. However, from my perspective, I cannot see how simply naming the offender in order to allow others to examine his/her logs or to alert other cache owners that her/his log finds might be worth examining, would be an attack in any way, shape or form. Indeed, in the cases where the antics of Geoposer and FTF Jaeger were discussed on this forum, I cannot recall anyone, whether forum members or moderators (nor the fake loggers in question) making any ruckus about the cacher having been named on the forum. On the other hand, if a person were to name a particular alleged offender largely or solely for the purpose of attacking him or her in some way, then yes, in that situation I would be all for preventing disclosure of the name of the alleged fraudulent logging offender.

[+TexasGringo]

***It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom.***

 

What do you when your Branded ?

 

Jason McCord travels the country trying to prove he's no fake logger.

[+WRASTRO]

***It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom.***

 

What do you when your Branded ?

 

Jason McCord travels the country trying to prove he's no fake logger.

But the public and the network have spoken. He was cancelled!

 

Fake loggers are to be pitied and despised, unless of course you are a fake logger in which case they should be envied and revered. Fake loggers seem so...fake.

[+TotemLake]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

[+BlueDeuce]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

 

Ah, now I see the bigger tie-in. My open stand on peer pressure never involved using the gc.com forums.

[+Mach2003]

If a forum discussion is ongoing, the object (cacher) of the discussion should be known, so that all lookers' on can see the details for themselves, and not have to depend on the posts others have made. You know missing context and such. Heck even quoted posts in these forums are skewed to make the point of the quoter, but at least the reader can go back and look at the original.

Edited September 27, 2008 by Mach2003

[+TotemLake]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

 

Ah, now I see the bigger tie-in. My open stand on peer pressure never involved using the gc.com forums.

The tie-in was always there every time an opinion is expressed in these forums... including the popcorn muncher. It is a form of swaying your peers to your perception.

 

I will say this about outing someone about false logging. Be sure before you out them. False allegations can lead to libel.

[+BlueDeuce]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

 

Ah, now I see the bigger tie-in. My open stand on peer pressure never involved using the gc.com forums.

The tie-in was always there every time an opinion is expressed in these forums... including the popcorn muncher. It is a form of swaying your peers to your perception.

 

I will say this about outing someone about false logging. Be sure before you out them. False allegations can lead to libel.

 

I think we seem to be mixing two issues. The first is addressing whether or not we should be outing people in the forums. I say no, and it happens to be a forum guideline - Which I'm sorry, I can't do anything else but bring it to point.

 

Popcorn munching? I was addressing the posting not the topic. My bad.

[+TrailGators]

I'm missing something here. Why doesn't the site doesn't just blow away all the logs from the abusers?

[+WRASTRO]

I'm missing something here. Why doesn't the site doesn't just blow away all the logs from the abusers?

I have to go with blowing away the abusers.

[4wheelin_fool]

If it is a bogus account it should be identified.

 

Otherwise no, as fake logs could be accidental. I've noticed cachers confuse finds on similar named caches in another state, or confusing 2 caches that are close to each other. There is plenty of grey area.

[+TotemLake]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

 

Ah, now I see the bigger tie-in. My open stand on peer pressure never involved using the gc.com forums.

The tie-in was always there every time an opinion is expressed in these forums... including the popcorn muncher. It is a form of swaying your peers to your perception.

 

I will say this about outing someone about false logging. Be sure before you out them. False allegations can lead to libel.

 

I think we seem to be mixing two issues. The first is addressing whether or not we should be outing people in the forums. I say no, and it happens to be a forum guideline - Which I'm sorry, I can't do anything else but bring it to point.

 

Popcorn munching? I was addressing the posting not the topic. My bad.

 

They are one and the same. I used popcorn munching as an example of an opinion be it for humor or otherwise.

 

Most forum topics and the ensuing responses are nothing more and nothing less than expressed opinions. Everybody is trying to sway somebody with their opinion or it wouldn't have value to express. We all think our opinions have value and we all place a value on others opinions.

 

Peer pressure broken down in its simplest form is an opinion held by a group with a certain value attached to it. Peer pressure can be effective if the target is not known but it is more effective if it is known.

Edited September 27, 2008 by TotemLake

[+WRASTRO]

If it is a bogus account it should be identified.

 

Otherwise no, as fake logs could be accidental. I've noticed cachers confuse finds on similar named caches in another state, or confusing 2 caches that are close to each other. There is plenty of grey area.

Oh please. There is very little potential for confusion here. If a cacher can't figure out which cache he/she found then we should NOT be defending them. I know what state my find was in. Good grief. No grey area. Cheating or stupid. Neither one deserves any sympathy.

[+BlueDeuce]

False logging needs to be dealt with peer pressure. Adequate peer pressure can't be had without making the alias public.

 

Ah, now I see the bigger tie-in. My open stand on peer pressure never involved using the gc.com forums.

The tie-in was always there every time an opinion is expressed in these forums... including the popcorn muncher. It is a form of swaying your peers to your perception.

 

I will say this about outing someone about false logging. Be sure before you out them. False allegations can lead to libel.

 

I think we seem to be mixing two issues. The first is addressing whether or not we should be outing people in the forums. I say no, and it happens to be a forum guideline - Which I'm sorry, I can't do anything else but bring it to point.

 

Popcorn munching? I was addressing the posting not the topic. My bad.

 

They are one and the same. I used popcorn munching as an example of an opinion be it for humor or otherwise.

 

Most forum topics and the ensuing responses are nothing more and nothing less than expressed opinions. Everybody is trying to sway somebody with their opinion or it wouldn't have value to express. We all think our opinions have value and we all place a value on others opinions.

 

Peer pressure broken down in its simplest form is an opinion held by a group with a certain value attached to it. Peer pressure can be effective if the target is not known but it is more effective if it is known.

 

No doubt.

 

Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?

 

No I don't.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If a forum discussion is ongoing, the object (cacher) of the discussion should be known, so that all lookers' on can see the details for themselves, and not have to depend on the posts others have made. You know missing context and such. Heck even quoted posts in these forums are skewed to make the point of the quoter, but at least the reader can go back and look at the original.

Yes, I agree. This has always been my thinking on the matter as well, and, in fact, for the several forum threads in the past which were devoted to chronic serial fake find loggers, and which named them, that is exactly what most of the folks -- including myself -- involved in the discussion did: we checked out the facts for ourselves.

[+briansnat]

No need for names. Anybody who is interested in who the offender is can usually figure it out quickly anyway.

[+chuckwagon101]

***It's a discussion forum, not a courtroom.***

 

What do you when your Branded ?

 

Jason McCord travels the country trying to prove he's no fake logger.

 

 

LOVE that theme song!

 

On topic......If I have to live under the fear of being "outed" for posting a few thousand "armchair" finds.....then I will never become a ...........CONTENDER!

 

It is just tooooooo HARD to find all those thousands of caches the ...uhhh.....conventional way. HEY! There are just so many hours in the day!! I gotta make a living here ya know!

 

Anyway, if I am going to enjoy all the benefits of THOUSANDS of cache finds under my belt....via the old armchair......I have to have assurance that some DO GOODER is not going to plaster my name all over creation, trying to diminish my ...........hard-won? cache status!!

 

To sum it up....I want FULL coverage of my finds and SMILIES but I want complete anonymity when it comes to HOW I got em!

 

Sighhhhhhhh....the road to being a CONTENDER is fraught with pitfalls!!

 

Peace Out Brother!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If it is a bogus account it should be identified.

 

Otherwise no, as fake logs could be accidental. I've noticed cachers confuse finds on similar named caches in another state, or confusing 2 caches that are close to each other. There is plenty of grey area.

Oh please. There is very little potential for confusion here. If a cacher can't figure out which cache he/she found then we should NOT be defending them. I know what state my find was in. Good grief. No grey area. Cheating or stupid. Neither one deserves any sympathy.

Well, the reality is that the only cases that I have ever seen to date on forums -- whether Groundspeak of local -- where chronic serial fake finder logders were discussed were cases where the geo account in question had logged NUMEROUS fake finds, and they were so unbelievable and so consistently weird that they were obviously not mere temporary mistakes.

 

And, while average everyday well-meaning geocachers -- particularly those who are returning home from a road trip after having found a great many caches -- make occasional mistakes such as cross-logging, that is, accidentally logging an online find for the wrong cache (perhaps a cache located near to the one that they found, or one with a similar name), such mistakes are rather few and far between, and they tend to be caught by the cache "finder" or by the cache owner within a few days and rectified. In fact, we have occasionally seen well-meaning everyday cachers log accidental finds (that is, where they did not find the cache, but mistakenly believed that they had done so) on one of our caches, but in over 90 percent of the cases (and I see cross-logging mistakes only a few of times per year) for the 37 caches which we own, the "accidental finder" themselves detects the problem and deletes the incorrect find log before we even have a chance to get around to sending them an email about it.

 

So, to me, there is quite a world of difference between the signature behaviors and spoor trail left behind by chronic serial fake find loggers on the one hand and by average everyday well-meaning cachers who made a minor mistake on the other hand, and it is my observation that even a casual observer can tell the difference between these two species almost immediately.

 

And, if it is not already obvious from my past posts on this subject, I believe that all such "finders" should, at first, when the behavior has first been noticed, be given the benefit of the doubt until it can be determined whether the incorrect find log was a mere mistake or whether it was a part of a much larger pattern of fake logging by a chronic serial fake find logger. So, to respond specifically to WRASTRO's comment to the effect that:

....If a cacher can't figure out which cache he/she found then we should NOT be defending them. I know what state my find was in. Good grief. No grey area. Cheating or stupid. Neither one deserves any sympathy.

I disagree with WRASTRO strongly here. I believe that the genuine mistakes -- and they do happen -- are made quite innocently and are not at all evidence of "stupidity", and I have great tolerance for such occasional mistakes. And, I believe that not only Sue and I, but the vast majority of cache owners, always react with great compassion and non-alarm to the occasional erroneous find log posted by a cacher who simply has made a mistake. So yes, for me, and for most of us, there is indeed a gray area, just as there are gray areas in all realms of life, and usually in the gray areas, just a tiny bit of patience and understanding, and perhaps compassion, is all that is needed to allow things to get set straight once again!

Edited September 27, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[bogleman]

why not just move the found it-V-DNF thread to the main topics page. Good thread and having more visibility will gather the attention everyone wants (good and bad)

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

why not just move the found it-V-DNF thread to the main topics page. Good thread and having more visibility will gather the attention everyone wants (good and bad)

I suspect that I am having a slow brain morning, but I cannot quite follow what you are suggesting, although I believe that you are suggesting that someone create a new thread devoted to some kind of debate. However, I am lost at this point. Will you tell me more about what it is that you are proposing? Thanks!

[Trinity's Crew]

If we're talking about a serial false logger who blatantly logs cache after cache without actually caching then I see nothing morally wrong with identifying them. Of course you're probably only giving them the attention they were seeking anyway so it's probably best to ignore them publicly.

 

I have also seen some inappropriate examples of highlighting false loggers. A couple of high numbers cachers have been "outed" here on several occasions for a few found logs that some people found questionable. I always thought that violated the forum guidelines.

 

To sum it up I guess I'm saying "Yes but no." and "No." Any questions?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

If we're talking about a serial false logger who blatantly logs cache after cache without actually caching then I see nothing morally wrong with identifying them. Of course you're probably only giving them the attention they were seeking anyway so it's probably best to ignore them publicly.

 

I have also seen some inappropriate examples of highlighting false loggers. A couple of high numbers cachers have been "outed" here on several occasions for a few found logs that some people found questionable. I always thought that violated the forum guidelines.

 

To sum it up I guess I'm saying "Yes but no." and "No." Any questions?

Yes, I agree with you regarding everything that you wrote, and now that you mention it, I do remember that several high-numbers finders (including one who is a good friend and geo-buddy) have, at times, been outed by name, and not exactly as chronic serial fake find loggers, but rather, have been lambasted in some threads for a few questionable finds that fall into one of the historical fuzzy zones (i.e., retirement finds, virtual armchair finds, "found the container but could not sign the log", pocket cache finds at events, event cache finds, etc.). Regardless of whether such attacks are launched on high-number cachers whom I know or upon high-number cachers whom I have never met, I abhor such attacks. In fact, I remember that one bizarre and unwarranted attack on the MGS forum against a local high-numbers cacher grew so virulent that the thread was first locked and then it disappeared in entirety.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I think it appropriate to mention handles when discussing fraudulent logging practices. As BS mentioned, it's easy enough to find out who it is anyway in most cases.

 

I think the peer pressure thing only works in a relatively small window of abuse like inappropriate logging instead outright fraud. Examples, might include logging a tree cache because it was seen instead of retrieving it, no pen, etc. Mass fraud is likely not to be deterred with peer pressure alone.

 

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

 

I just read the forum guidelines again. I didn't see anywhere that said you couldn't name a person and associate that person's behavior to him. The important section in regard to this "3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated" seems to say that as long as you are providing examples and not simply calling someone a poopyhead then you are good to go, notwithstanding the whim of those with the extra buttons.

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

seems to say that as long as you are providing examples and not simply calling someone a poopyhead then you are good to go, notwithstanding the whim of those with the extra buttons.

Well I did have an unfortunate experience that I like to refer to as the seagull incident of '07, but I would still be angry if you called me a poopyhead.

[Trinity's Crew]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

 

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

[bogleman]

why not just move the found it-V-DNF thread to the main topics page. Good thread and having more visibility will gather the attention everyone wants (good and bad)

I suspect that I am having a slow brain morning, but I cannot quite follow what you are suggesting, although I believe that you are suggesting that someone create a new thread devoted to some kind of debate. However, I am lost at this point. Will you tell me more about what it is that you are proposing? Thanks!

This thread - sometimes it is best to call someone out but only as a last resort and when all other avenues have been attempted.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

 

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

'Zackly!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

why not just move the found it-V-DNF thread to the main topics page. Good thread and having more visibility will gather the attention everyone wants (good and bad)

I suspect that I am having a slow brain morning, but I cannot quite follow what you are suggesting, although I believe that you are suggesting that someone create a new thread devoted to some kind of debate. However, I am lost at this point. Will you tell me more about what it is that you are proposing? Thanks!

This thread - sometimes it is best to call someone out but only as a last resort and when all other avenues have been attempted.

Thanks for your clarification! Strangely, that old "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread by Criminal, while it does tend to examine and re-examine the definitions of what exactly constitutes a false find, almost never veers in the direction of covering the antics of chronic serial fake find loggers.

[+TotemLake]

Personally, I think it appropriate to mention handles when discussing fraudulent logging practices. As BS mentioned, it's easy enough to find out who it is anyway in most cases.

 

I think the peer pressure thing only works in a relatively small window of abuse like inappropriate logging instead outright fraud. Examples, might include logging a tree cache because it was seen instead of retrieving it, no pen, etc. Mass fraud is likely not to be deterred with peer pressure alone.

 

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

 

I just read the forum guidelines again. I didn't see anywhere that said you couldn't name a person and associate that person's behavior to him. The important section in regard to this "3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated" seems to say that as long as you are providing examples and not simply calling someone a poopyhead then you are good to go, notwithstanding the whim of those with the extra buttons.

I disagree peer pressure works in a relatively small window. Peer pressure can create a community wide attitude that can lead to positive results with newcomers. This is not to say it can't create bad attitudes. I'm accentuating the positive. When the alias is known (or outed), their logs will be scrutinized a little tighter due to the loss of credibility. Otherwise, you're left to a guessing game each time your cache gets inappropriately logged. For the cache hiders that don't care, bully for them. I'm not arguing for the ones that don't care if the find logs are bogus. But for the cachers that do care, this is an effective tool and it helps to dissuade those that would.

 

Your point about some not caring if they are outed is well taken. Like anything else, all methods of this type keep honest people honest and help identify those that aren't.

Edited September 27, 2008 by TotemLake

[+KBI]

Do you feel that it is appropriate to disclose the geo handles of chronic serial false find loggers when discussing their behavior on a forum, whether it be the Groundspeak forum or a forum for a local geocaching society?

While it doesn’t bother me to see someone else publicly advertize the name of a serial bogus logger, I probably wouldn't go to the trouble of doing so myself. I've got better things to do than to be the Log Police and to risk a nasty and unnecessary escalation.

 

If I stumbled across someone who was logging such a large number of bogus logs that I found it to be an annoyance, I would report the offender’s account name to Groundspeak and leave it at that. I have no doubt the noise would then come to an abrupt stop.

 

I’m as gossipy as the next person – being nosy is FUN – but I see no real, practical value in making a public spectacle out of it. When the offender sees his name being pilloried, one possible result is that he might be shamed into a more acceptable behavior.

 

As Trinity's Crew pointed out, the serial bogus logger may only be looking for attention. Giving them ANY attention in the forums may actually encourage them instead of shaming them.

 

Another, more likely result is that he will lash out and cause even more trouble, out of spite. Today it’s false logs; tomorrow it’s missing caches.

 

Why poke at a hornet’s nest? I say just let Groundspeak deal with it. We pay them to be the Bad Cop.

[+KBI]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

Precisely.

 

There is a wide continuum of logging standards among cachers. You might not agree with what I think counts as a find, or vice versa. But so what? As long as the cache owner is cool with the behavior, and as long as it’s not disruptive to others’ enjoyment of the game, then who cares? Becoming the Standards Police is even more risky and dangerous than becoming the Log Police.

 

Yet one more reason to stay out of it and leave it between the cacher and the owner, or between the cacher and Groundspeak.

[CoyoteRed]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

Because if a group of owners who don't care allow questionable or outright fraudulent logs then it makes it worth it to attempt it on all caches. This puts the owners who do care on the spot of having to delete bogus logs. That why I care. I was one of the cache owners who had to deal with a bogus log.

 

See, it's not just those who log the bogus logs, but the owners who allow the bogus logs. It's precisely the attitude of "it's no skin off my nose" that created the issue of bogus logs. Now we're asked to not discuss particulars? What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted? In some circles, it's not a "find count," but more of a "log count that I've got to stick." I have no problem with anyone pointing out those who fall into that last group.

[CoyoteRed]

I say just let Groundspeak deal with it.

Do they?

[+KBI]

I say just let Groundspeak deal with it.

Do they?

I don’t doubt it. Why do you?

 

If someone posts a bogus log on a cache you don’t own, and you complain to Groundspeak about it, then I fully expect they will tell you, in polite terms, to mind your own business and leave it to the cache owner to handle.

 

If, however, someone posts a massive number of bogus logs – a behavior that disrupts the game due to the sheer volume of bad logs – and you bring it to Groundspeak attention, then I would fully expect them to take immediate and effective action against the perpetrator.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I say just let Groundspeak deal with it.

Do they?

I don’t doubt it. Why do you?

 

If someone posts a bogus log on a cache you don’t own, and you complain to Groundspeak about it, then I fully expect they will tell you, in polite terms, to mind your own business and leave it to the cache owner to handle.

 

If, however, someone posts a massive number of bogus logs – a behavior that disrupts the game due to the sheer volume of bad logs – and you bring it to Groundspeak attention, then I would fully expect them to take immediate and effective action against the perpetrator.

I can tell you that they have already so so in at least a few cases of prolific chronic serial fake find loggers to date; one example is the Geoposer account, which I briefly referenced before. And for just one more example, I, and others, strongly suspect that Groundspeak also quite recently -- in the past month or so -- took some kind of action against, or at least issued a stern warning to, the retired air force guy who had been logging blatant fake finds up and down the Eastern seaboard and across the country. It seems, according to locals, that some of the fake finds he logged were on some PA caches that belonged to at least two PA reviewers, and shortly after those incidents, his find logs simply ceased! (In the meantime, a number of his find logs in PA, NJ, NY and New England had been deleted by cache owners because no corresponding sig was found in the cache logbook.)

[+KBI]

I've seen where "I didn't find it, but I'm logging a find anyway" types simply didn't stop because of peer pressure--even public outing here in the forums. They kept logging. They kept being revered as gods among children. Go figure.

That's where I disagree. You may not like some of the questionable found logs, but if the cache owner allows it then why would anyone care?

Because if a group of owners who don't care allow questionable or outright fraudulent logs then it makes it worth it to attempt it on all caches. This puts the owners who do care on the spot of having to delete bogus logs. That why I care. I was one of the cache owners who had to deal with a bogus log.

So you’re against cache owners being expected to take responsibility for the maintenance of their caches? You want someone else to police the unacceptable cachers, and to reengineer their behavior to make their actions more acceptable to you, before they ever get to your cache?

 

I’m sorry, but as far as I’m concerned that’s just asking too much. "Public" means everyone, not just the well-behaved. If I place a cache in public and then I post the coordinates on a public website, then who am I to whine when the occasional attention-seeking vandal causes mischief? It’s not the most fun part of the hobby, but it’s a responsibility and a risk I agreed to accept when I became a cache owner.

 

That concept was intuitive to me. You leave something out in the open, it might not be there the way you left it when you get back. You post an interactive page on the Internet, it might attract some worthless noise among the intended postings. I'm not excusing the bad behavior; I'm simply pointing out that it's going to happen no matter what you do, and expecting others to do work you initially agreed to do for yourself is overly presumptuous.

 

Instead of griping that some too-permissive cache owner "made" you delete a bogus log, why not just delete the log and be happy that you have now caused the next bogus log to be less likely to appear on someone else’s cache?

 

Bringing attention to those attention seekers by broadcasting their names and "accomplishments" is not likely to encourage them to go away. Better to let our friends the Lackeys handle it quietly and effectively. I’m not sure, but I’m guessing that’s precisely why Groundspeak eventually chose to hide all cache-finding information from those who don’t first provide self-identifying information. It prevents the miscreants from causing trouble anonymously, and allows Groundspeak to quash them more easily.

[+KBI]

What's the use of a find count if its face value can't be trusted?

What does find count have to do with this topic?

 

Until there is a Standard Cache, and until ALL caches are modified to match the Standard Cache – all with exactly the same level of difficulty, and effort required – then any comparison between any two cachers’ find counts will remain meaningless.

 

I don’t cache to compete. I relish the existing variety. I don’t want a standardized competition. I’m perfectly happy with the current non-standardized non-competition in which my find count only matters to me and those few who are interested in my caching history.

 

I don’t need to trust the "face value" of your find count. How can I? Your find count is meaningless already – same as mine. Above each of your cache page logs it says you’ve found six caches. Without my doing a lot of unlikely research, how do I know whether those six finds represent six easy drive-bys or six grueling ten-day arctic dogsled rides? Or a mix? For all I know, your six finds just might represent way more accomplishment than my many hundreds combined.

 

The only thing your find count represents to me is the total number of caches you have logged with the concurrence of the associated cache owners. I figure that's about all I can trust – and I don't even need that much to be happy.