How do you thwart "cheaters"?

[+tozainamboku]

Many times we have seen the argument "Why get upset by the cheaters when the only ones that are cheated are themselves." Certainly that seems the case for someone who doesn't do all the stages of a multi; even more someone who doesn't follow the reflective tacks to find a night cache. It seems that a cache owner puts out a cache like this because they feel cachers will have fun going from stage to stage. Sure, someone who calls a friend to get the the final stage and skips the rest of the cache will get to sign the log and claim a find. But the cache owner will know that they didn't have as much fun as they could've had they done the cache as intended.

 

I suppose a cache owner may feel cheated out of the cacher not being able to give their reaction to experiencing the cache as intended. They may, in fact, be disappointed that someone felt the smiley face and the find count was more important than having the fun that was offered. But frankly, at the risk of invoking Godwin's Rule, a cache owner looking for ways to thwart this behavior begins to sound like the fun nazi. "YOU VILL HAVE FUN THE VAY I INTENDED IT. NO PHONING FRIENDS UND HAVING LESS FUN ALLOWED."

Edited December 8, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Snoogans]

How does one cheat in a game with NO winners?

 

There's really only losers when you think about it awhile: Lost caches, lost travel bugs, lost coins, lost GPSrs, lost walking sticks, lost FRS radios, lost hats, lost sunglasses, need I go on?

 

No control issues here, but I'm greatly entertained when I get to read about them.

 

Some of the over complicated counter measures are real knee slappers.

 

Hey, whatever it takes to get the reins back. Go for it! Thanx for lettin' me watch.

 

Whichever way you find my caches is fine by me. PAF, email, etc. Might as well herd cats as tryyy to thwart social geocachers.

 

Good luck!

[+Von-Horst]

Why not replace the intermediate stages with intermediate caches?

 

That way finders will be 'forced' to follow the route that you wish them to take.

 

I understand that the Canadian reviewers are a little more strict (or domineering!) about trying to make trails/series into multis but this ciould work....

 

Mike

[Dj Storm]

Clever ideas to thwart the PAF network:

- for multis:

move the final, and spread the new coordinates across the stages;

put the logbook(s) in some intermediate stage(s); (both ideas come from posters on this thread)

- for puzzle caches, I saw an interesting hide on this forum; didn't remember the cache (to give proper credit):

the puzzle was a Mastermind game, web based, on an external site; each solver got a different code to break; this way the cache owner (and every cacher) can see if the finder solved the puzzle.

 

I don't mind if someone uses $$ power, hires a helicopter and drops the terrain rating from 5 to 1.5; or if he bushwhacks and rises the terrain from 2.5 to 4; or uses his mental abilities to solve the puzzle in an easier way, or to shortcut the multi. All of them have worked for the cache.

I am somewhat bothered when a finder gets the coordinates from a friend, without solving the puzzle or the multi. They didn't 'find' the whole cache if they do this.

If I hide a high terrain or high difficulty cache, I somehow expect the finders to walk the walk, and/or do the required brainstorming. I would like that every finder (even those part of a group) does the requirements before signing the log. Having the logbook effectively handed over to sign cheapens the hide. My hide. If I put the cache in a tree, it's there for those who will do the effort of climbing the tree; or bring a ladder; or a jetpack; or a fishing rod with some sort of claws, etc.

[CoyoteRed]

How does one cheat in a game with NO winners?

I'm kind of surprised you said their are no winners. How does one have a game with no winners? I dunno. Maybe it's not a game then.

 

While I don't see it as a game, I do see the hobby as individual mini adventures the cache owner sets up for the seeker. The difficulty rating of the hide is bit a like a challenge from the owner to the seeker and when the cache is found, the seeker wins. Caches are set up for there to always to be a "winner" when the seeker puts in enough effort.

 

Maybe I'm just now putting it all together. Maybe the fundamental differences between some of this hobby's participants is the way we see the hobby. Some see the hobby as a game overall and strive to be "first"--which is kind of like driving home and having to always be in the lead. Some see the hobby as simply something to do. Some see each cache as a mini adventure.

 

It could be the folks who see the hobby as simply something to do or are always striving to be "first" don't see the big deal in cheating to log a cache. The ones that see the hobby as a bunch of mini adventures and always "win" when the cache is found, do see a big deal in cheating. I'm in the latter group. I see cheating as little different than logging a cache twice. The cheater didn't put forth the effort to find the cache, he was shown the cache. Being given the coordinates is similar to a previous finder pointing right at a cache. It goes from a challenge to a gimme.

 

The analogies of skipping to the last page of a book is dead on. Sure, you know how a book ends but still doesn't mean you've read the book. Checking the solution of a crossword when you're stuck means you filled in the solution, not that you've solved it. Being handed the solution of a puzzle, the coords to a final, or spoiler to the hide is similar, yet one then pretty much certifies they did the cache when they log it online. That, to me, is being disingenuous at the very least.

 

So, if you insist on calling geocaching a game, then yeah, absolutely there are winners--every time someone finds a cache.

 

That conclusion then tells you that there can be cheats. It's those who choose to log a cache online they didn't find or signed the log without putting forth the effort required.

[+sbell111]

I think that it's shortsighted to consider it cheating if a person doesn't do every bit of work envisioned by the cache owner. In my opinion, it's not cheating if the person signed the logbook.

 

It is not cheating if someone susses the final location of a puzzle or multi without finding (solving) each step.

 

It is not cheating if someone gives a person (me) a hint to a hard cache (puzzle or no) that he has had trouble with.

 

It is not cheating if you find a cache with someone who worked the puzzle.

 

It is not cheating if you go caching with someone who simply has better cache sense than you.

 

It is not cheating if you stumble upon a cache that you weren't even looking for.

 

I think that we need to be less concerned about other people. Too often, we try to control the behaviors of others when we just need to worry about our own lives.

Edited December 8, 2008 by sbell111

[+KBI]

I think that we need to be less concerned about other people. Too often, we try to control the behaviors of others when we just need to worry about our own lives.

Word.

[CoyoteRed]

I want to make something perfectly clear for my above post. The activity the OP writes about in his OP is, IMHO, cheating.

 

He's not talking about short cutting a multi. He is not talking about being part of a team as low participatory member. He is not talking about a stumble. He is not talking about solving a puzzle differently than the owner intended. He is talking about the coords to the final of his cache being shared and those who take advantage of that information basically turning the cache into a traditional.

 

Having one's signature in a logbook has nothing to do with whether someone cheated. It only means, to me, whether you're "entitled" to log it online. I like that rule. It's simple and straight forward. Concrete. If they cheated to get their name in the book, then that is something they have to live with. I'm not going to worry about it beyond fixing the cache to prevent it from happening again.

[+Isonzo Karst]

While I'm not a cache owner who spends much time concerning myself with cachers who short-cut my caches, I do respect the OP's right to try to keep the integrity of of his cache, with its attendant difficulty (night/multi) and terrain rating intact. I think his efforts in that represent a courtesy to those who find his cache from the cache listing.

 

I'm also put in mind of a response by eigengott to a thread about FTF fraud.

 

If acceptance for sharing of coordinates for the endpoints of multi-cache becomes commonplace, it surely spells the end of multi-caches.

[+Tequila]

I agree with what CoyoteRed has written in the post immediately above.

 

In this case, I created the cache as part of a series that includes at least one of each cache type (Traditional, Multi, Letterbox, Mystery, Wherigo). I did this for my own enjoyment but also to add to the variety in the area. There are not many Wherigo's around. I also made a couple of the caches easy drive up traditionals for those who wanted simple ones to do. As the series developed I searched for more creativity and decided that a night/firetack would be a neat idea. There are no other night caches in the general area and I felt it would give cachers an opportunity to try something new.

 

What was really disappointing is that no one sought out the short cut. One of the finders pro actively took it upon himself to be a "hero" and published via email the location of the final to a select group of other cachers. IMHO, no matter how you paint it, that is CHEATING. It turned a 2 km Letterbox into a 800 meter Traditional. Why???? Just so people could pad their numbers faster? If I wanted to put out a traditional, I would have done that. The mistake I made was putting the final closer to the trailhead. I won't do that again.

 

Will I lose sleep over this? NO. Will I wake up in the middle of the night and write down a cool idea on how to make a more challenging cache adventure? YOU BET.

 

Do I care if a group finds the cache? No. Not as long as everyone made the trek and experiences the adventure (in this case, finding fire tacks at night) I had intended.

 

Would I be upset if the whole group just went straight to the final so they could move on to the next cache and get a high find count for the trip? Yes.

 

I really didn't start this thread to debate what does/does not constitute cheating. I agree that the game is different for everyone. I started this thread to hopefully get creative juices flowing and exchange some great ideas on how to make more challenging adventures.

 

Unfortunately, as so often happens in these forums, certain posters feel the need to morph it into a different discussion, usually with a confrontational tone. That is as sad as publishing the coordinates to the final, IMO.

 

To the ones who have suggested creative ideas, again, thank you and keep them coming. I like some of them and will add them to my repertoire.

 

Again I ask those that want to discuss merits of cheating etc. to please take it to a new or existing thread dealing with that topic. Thank you in advance.

[Dinoprophet]

I'd point out that it's not always about "cheating", however one defines that. Many multis are laid out to prevent bushwhacking, trespassing, illegal parking, etc.

[CoyoteRed]

I'd point out that it's not always about "cheating", however one defines that. Many multis are laid out to prevent bushwhacking, trespassing, illegal parking, etc.

"But, that's too controlling! Stop being the Fun Police!"

[+sbell111]

... What was really disappointing is that no one sought out the short cut. One of the finders pro actively took it upon himself to be a "hero" and published via email the location of the final to a select group of other cachers. IMHO, no matter how you paint it, that is CHEATING. It turned a 2 km Letterbox into a 800 meter Traditional. Why???? Just so people could pad their numbers faster? If I wanted to put out a traditional, I would have done that. The mistake I made was putting the final closer to the trailhead. I won't do that again.

... and if the people who got the email want to find the cache your way, they will.

Will I lose sleep over this? NO. Will I wake up in the middle of the night and write down a cool idea on how to make a more challenging cache adventure? YOU BET.

 

Do I care if a group finds the cache? No. Not as long as everyone made the trek and experiences the adventure (in this case, finding fire tacks at night) I had intended.

 

Would I be upset if the whole group just went straight to the final so they could move on to the next cache and get a high find count for the trip? Yes.

 

I really didn't start this thread to debate what does/does not constitute cheating.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you called them 'cheaters'.

I agree that the game is different for everyone. I started this thread to hopefully get creative juices flowing and exchange some great ideas on how to make more challenging adventures.

You gave the solution in this very post. Make the final location farther from the parking area. Set up the intermediary steps so they actually lead people to the cache.

Unfortunately, as so often happens in these forums, certain posters feel the need to morph it into a different discussion, usually with a confrontational tone. That is as sad as publishing the coordinates to the final, IMO.

Publish? Didn't you state that the coordiantes were emailed to a few players? That's not the same as publishing them for all the world to see.

 

It is one thing for my buddy to give me some info and quite another for him to publish it for the world.

To the ones who have suggested creative ideas, again, thank you and keep them coming. I like some of them and will add them to my repertoire.

 

Again I ask those that want to discuss merits of cheating etc. to please take it to a new or existing thread dealing with that topic. Thank you in advance.

Isn't it funny that you high five those people who agree with you in the 'cheating' discussion but chastise those that disagree for being off-topic. I would argue (and am) that if you open the thread up to one side of the discussion (which you have), then it is open to the other side.

[+KBI]

One of the finders pro actively took it upon himself to be a "hero" and published via email the location of the final to a select group of other cachers. IMHO, no matter how you paint it, that is CHEATING. It turned a 2 km Letterbox into a 800 meter Traditional. Why???? Just so people could pad their numbers faster? If I wanted to put out a traditional, I would have done that. The mistake I made was putting the final closer to the trailhead. I won't do that again.

 

Will I lose sleep over this? NO. Will I wake up in the middle of the night and write down a cool idea on how to make a more challenging cache adventure? YOU BET.

In my opinion this is a relatively respectable and healthy attitude.

 

Even though you criticize those who take the shortcut (by calling them "cheaters" – I disagree with your assessment, but as you indicate that’s really beside the point), you also take responsibility for the 'problem' yourself. If a cache challenge can be bypassed it is obviously not the fault of the clever bypasser who chooses to 'cheat' himself out of a cool experience; the problem lies with the faulty design itself, and you seem to understand that intuitively. I don’t mean to insult you or your cache, so please don’t take offense; I am merely observing the fact that you are experiencing a common mistake many of us have been through already, and from which many of us are still learning.

 

I have found, both from my own imperfectly-designed caches as well as from challenges I’ve defeated via unintended shortcuts, that one must be clever and thorough when designing a puzzle or any other caching challenge. If there is a shortcut, people WILL take it. If you really feel so strongly about not wanting people to take those shortcuts, then you’ve got to close them up yourself. (Another suggestion, BTW, is to have a friend or two 'play test' a cache design before you publish it to the public. Second opinions, beta tests – whatever you want to call them – are invaluable.)

 

I am impressed that you have taken responsibility by way of asking for advice in this thread instead of simply attacking the character of those who take your unintended shortcut, and I thank you for that. Not everyone in your position has been so magnanimous.

 

I hope this thread helps you, and I look forward to hearing which modification you ultimately select. I expect to learn from your experience as well ... and I thank you for that too.

Edited December 8, 2008 by KBI

[+tozainamboku]

How does one have a game with no winners? I dunno. Maybe it's not a game then.

I'm not aware that a game has to have winners and losers. In game theory there is the classic definition of a zero sum game where the winners gains are equal to the losers losses, but there are other games where the players can cooperate and get a better outcome for everyone. In plenty of real games there are no winners or losers as we commonly use these terms. Everyone wins so long as the players adhere to the basic rules. What we have here is a dispute over what the rules for geocaching should be. Some say that you must follow the requirements laid out by the hider to find the cache, others say that you only need to sign the log. It might be argued that you only need to leave the cache hidden as the owner intended and if you trade you should leave something of similar value to what you took. There may be cheaters, but it is arguable what constitutes cheating.

While I'm not a cache owner who spends much time concerning myself with cachers who short-cut my caches, I do respect the OP's right to try to keep the integrity of of his cache, with its attendant difficulty (night/multi) and terrain rating intact. I think his efforts in that represent a courtesy to those who find his cache from the cache listing.

 

I'm also put in mind of a response by eigengott to a thread about FTF fraud.

 

If acceptance for sharing of coordinates for the endpoints of multi-cache becomes commonplace, it surely spells the end of multi-caches.

It sure is easy to apply Kant's categorical imperative to anything. Don't like phone a friend. Then just say "If everyone shared the the coordinates for the endpoints of multi-caches that would mean the end of multicaches. Therefore getting the results from a phone a friend is morally wrong". IMO this is nonsense. But then I think Kant is nonsense because he says you should not lie to someone you know is trying to kill another person about when his victim is hiding because lying is always wrong (What if everyone lied?.....).

Clearly there are many people who are willing to find all the stages in a multi because they accept that the cache owner placed the cache this way for a reason. Still, many complain that if one stage of a multi is missing they can't complete the cache. I have been caching with a group when we get to a missing stage in a multi (or perhaps we just couldn't find that stage). A phone a friend lets us skip to the next stage an perhaps to find the cache. It seems to me we can each make our own judgment as to when we want to shortcut the cache. I personally believe that those who do may have cheated themselves out of some fun the cache owner had planned for them. But they haven't cheated anyone else.

I'd point out that it's not always about "cheating", however one defines that. Many multis are laid out to prevent bushwhacking, trespassing, illegal parking, etc.

"But, that's too controlling! Stop being the Fun Police!"

There is no way to know the intent of the cache owner had in setting up the multi. Cachers should respect all local laws and regulations when searching for a cache. A cache owner who sets up a multi to guide the finder to cache without violating law and regulations has no guarantee that the finder will behave better than if they hid a traditional. It may make it easier for the finder, especially if the cache description indicates that following the multi is the best way to access the cache. I would say that cache owners who delete logs because they know or suspect the finder had to violate laws or regulations to find the cache are probably being too controlling. But some argument can be made that by deleting logs they encourage proper behavior of other cachers and they let land managers know that geocaching can provide some sanction against cachers that violate park rules. I don't see a similar argument for a multi that cache owners place simply to provide a different experience than a traditional cache.

[+Tequila]

... What was really disappointing is that no one sought out the short cut. One of the finders pro actively took it upon himself to be a "hero" and published via email the location of the final to a select group of other cachers. IMHO, no matter how you paint it, that is CHEATING. It turned a 2 km Letterbox into a 800 meter Traditional. Why???? Just so people could pad their numbers faster? If I wanted to put out a traditional, I would have done that. The mistake I made was putting the final closer to the trailhead. I won't do that again.

... and if the people who got the email want to find the cache your way, they will.

Will I lose sleep over this? NO. Will I wake up in the middle of the night and write down a cool idea on how to make a more challenging cache adventure? YOU BET.

 

Do I care if a group finds the cache? No. Not as long as everyone made the trek and experiences the adventure (in this case, finding fire tacks at night) I had intended.

 

Would I be upset if the whole group just went straight to the final so they could move on to the next cache and get a high find count for the trip? Yes.

 

I really didn't start this thread to debate what does/does not constitute cheating.

Perhaps you should have thought of that before you called them 'cheaters'.

I agree that the game is different for everyone. I started this thread to hopefully get creative juices flowing and exchange some great ideas on how to make more challenging adventures.

You gave the solution in this very post. Make the final location farther from the parking area. Set up the intermediary steps so they actually lead people to the cache.

Unfortunately, as so often happens in these forums, certain posters feel the need to morph it into a different discussion, usually with a confrontational tone. That is as sad as publishing the coordinates to the final, IMO.

Publish? Didn't you state that the coordiantes were emailed to a few players? That's not the same as publishing them for all the world to see.

 

It is one thing for my buddy to give me some info and quite another for him to publish it for the world.

To the ones who have suggested creative ideas, again, thank you and keep them coming. I like some of them and will add them to my repertoire.

 

Again I ask those that want to discuss merits of cheating etc. to please take it to a new or existing thread dealing with that topic. Thank you in advance.

Isn't it funny that you high five those people who agree with you in the 'cheating' discussion but chastise those that disagree for being off-topic. I would argue (and am) that if you open the thread up to one side of the discussion (which you have), then it is open to the other side.

 

Go back and read Post # 1and see what I specifically stated as the purpose of this thread. And stop looking to agitate by making a big deal over the use of the word "publish" as opposed to "email". The intent of the sentence was quite clear.

 

If you don't have any creative ideas to add to this discussion, please take your comments elsewhere.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Tequila

[+JohnnyVegas]

What I have done on the past when I know some one has not found one of may caches as intended, I just delete their find. I had one very well known high numbers cache place a micro were he thought my cache should have been (Mine was not a micro) so I deleted his find, He then called me on the phone and told me i was F*(&(0 with his numbers, I told him he did not find my cache

 

I have aslo seen people log finds of mine that have been archived for a long period on time, these I also delete.

 

I have pissed people off doing this, but then cachers know I do not tolerate BS finds. i have even checked the logs in my caches if I have suspected a BS find.

[+JohnnyVegas]

How does one have a game with no winners? I dunno. Maybe it's not a game then.

I'm not aware that a game has to have winners and losers. In game theory there is the classic definition of a zero sum game where the winners gains are equal to the losers losses, but there are other games where the players can cooperate and get a better outcome for everyone. In plenty of real games there are no winners or losers as we commonly use these terms. Everyone wins so long as the players adhere to the basic rules. What we have here is a dispute over what the rules for geocaching should be. Some say that you must follow the requirements laid out by the hider to find the cache, others say that you only need to sign the log. It might be argued that you only need to leave the cache hidden as the owner intended and if you trade you should leave something of similar value to what you took. There may be cheaters, but it is arguable what constitutes cheating.

While I'm not a cache owner who spends much time concerning myself with cachers who short-cut my caches, I do respect the OP's right to try to keep the integrity of of his cache, with its attendant difficulty (night/multi) and terrain rating intact. I think his efforts in that represent a courtesy to those who find his cache from the cache listing.

 

I'm also put in mind of a response by eigengott to a thread about FTF fraud.

 

If acceptance for sharing of coordinates for the endpoints of multi-cache becomes commonplace, it surely spells the end of multi-caches.

It sure is easy to apply Kant's categorical imperative to anything. Don't like phone a friend. Then just say "If everyone shared the the coordinates for the endpoints of multi-caches that would mean the end of multicaches. Therefore getting the results from a phone a friend is morally wrong". IMO this is nonsense. But then I think Kant is nonsense because he says you should not lie to someone you know is trying to kill another person about when his victim is hiding because lying is always wrong (What if everyone lied?.....).

Clearly there are many people who are willing to find all the stages in a multi because they accept that the cache owner placed the cache this way for a reason. Still, many complain that if one stage of a multi is missing they can't complete the cache. I have been caching with a group when we get to a missing stage in a multi (or perhaps we just couldn't find that stage). A phone a friend lets us skip to the next stage an perhaps to find the cache. It seems to me we can each make our own judgment as to when we want to shortcut the cache. I personally believe that those who do may have cheated themselves out of some fun the cache owner had planned for them. But they haven't cheated anyone else.

I'd point out that it's not always about "cheating", however one defines that. Many multis are laid out to prevent bushwhacking, trespassing, illegal parking, etc.

"But, that's too controlling! Stop being the Fun Police!"

There is no way to know the intent of the cache owner had in setting up the multi. Cachers should respect all local laws and regulations when searching for a cache. A cache owner who sets up a multi to guide the finder to cache without violating law and regulations has no guarantee that the finder will behave better than if they hid a traditional. It may make it easier for the finder, especially if the cache description indicates that following the multi is the best way to access the cache. I would say that cache owners who delete logs because they know or suspect the finder had to violate laws or regulations to find the cache are probably being too controlling. But some argument can be made that by deleting logs they encourage proper behavior of other cachers and they let land managers know that geocaching can provide some sanction against cachers that violate park rules. I don't see a similar argument for a multi that cache owners place simply to provide a different experience than a traditional cache.

There is no way to know the intent of the cache owner had in setting up the multi.

Nonsence!

The intent of a multi is to all the stages of the multi. It is not to call a freind for the final location. If some one does not want to do all the stages of a multi, they should do multi caches

[+sbell111]

If you don't have any creative ideas to add to this discussion agree with me, please take your comments elsewhere.

I fixed it for you.

[+sbell111]

What I have done on the past when I know some one has not found one of may caches as intended, I just delete their find. I had one very well known high numbers cache place a micro were he thought my cache should have been (Mine was not a micro) so I deleted his find, He then called me on the phone and told me i was F*(&(0 with his numbers, I told him he did not find my cache

 

I have aslo seen people log finds of mine that have been archived for a long period on time, these I also delete.

 

I have pissed people off doing this, but then cachers know I do not tolerate BS finds. i have even checked the logs in my caches if I have suspected a BS find.

Your comparison is not apt. In the OP's example, the finders signed the logbook. If he were to delete the logs, he could certainly experience temporary bannination and a forced reinstatement of the logs. Edited December 9, 2008 by sbell111

[Clan Riffster]

The intent of a multi is to (find?) all the stages of the multi.

While that may be the intent for your multi, don't assume you can paint with a brush broad enough to cover all the rest of us who hide caches. The intent of my multis is to give folks another cache to find. Period. Nothing more. If you find all the stages, that's great! You'll be repeating my journey, seeing the area as I experienced it when I built the cache. If you bypass one or all the stages, and still find the ammo can, great! You reached the objective, and you did it in a way that you preferred. Everybody wins. So long as you're not blatantly controlling, it should be a rather simple concept.

[+tozainamboku]

What I have done on the past when I know some one has not found one of may caches as intended, I just delete their find. I had one very well known high numbers cache place a micro were he thought my cache should have been (Mine was not a micro) so I deleted his find, He then called me on the phone and told me i was F*(&(0 with his numbers, I told him he did not find my cache

 

I have aslo seen people log finds of mine that have been archived for a long period on time, these I also delete.

 

I have pissed people off doing this, but then cachers know I do not tolerate BS finds. i have even checked the logs in my caches if I have suspected a BS find.

Your comparison is not apt. In the OP's example, the finders signed the logbook. If he were to delete the logs, he, he could certainly experience temporary bannination and a forced reinstatement of the logs.

A cache owner can certainly delete a log that appears bogus (e.g. did not sign the physical log) and if the the cache is listed as Unknown with additional requirements, he can delete a log if the finder does not complete the ALR. It is not clear yet if the owner can delete a log for someone not completing all the stages of a multi or delete a log because a finder indicated that he may have violated a local law or regulation (e.g. trespass, bushwhack where off-trail travel is not allowed). It may be that these are implied requirements like signing the physical log. So far I have only seen bannination and reinstatement of logs when the deletion was for a trivial reason usually due to a disagreement between cachers over a non-related issue.

[+JohnnyVegas]

What I have done on the past when I know some one has not found one of may caches as intended, I just delete their find. I had one very well known high numbers cache place a micro were he thought my cache should have been (Mine was not a micro) so I deleted his find, He then called me on the phone and told me i was F*(&(0 with his numbers, I told him he did not find my cache

 

I have aslo seen people log finds of mine that have been archived for a long period on time, these I also delete.

 

I have pissed people off doing this, but then cachers know I do not tolerate BS finds. i have even checked the logs in my caches if I have suspected a BS find.

Your comparison is not apt. In the OP's example, the finders signed the logbook. If he were to delete the logs, he, he could certainly experience temporary bannination and a forced reinstatement of the logs.

I do not agree. The finders did not do the cache as it was intended to be done. I would delete the logs, I do not think anyone would be banned for enforcing the reqiurments for loging a happy face on a cache.

I know one cacher that has banned the well known high numbers that I had trouble with loging any of her finds.

Edited December 9, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

[+Vater_Araignee]

Isn't it funny that you high five those people who agree with you in the 'cheating' discussion but chastise those that disagree for being off-topic. I would argue (and am) that if you open the thread up to one side of the discussion (which you have), then it is open to the other side.

I have to ask...

How is thanking somebody for and idea agreeing with somebody on your side?

Your accusation looks like trolling to me and yes I bit, but I'll break the line too.

I don't have to agree with somebody to give them a possible solution to prevent circumvention of the spirit of the cache, I just have to be nice. Now if I a saw a solution to their issue and I refused to give it that would make me an a**.

 

By the way the thread is open to solutions to prevent bypassing so if it is also open to the "other side" then that would mean "Thwarting possible solutions", not disagreeing with wanting them.

[+Snoogans]

I've given this a great deal of thought (Like, a WHOLE 5 minutes!) and I have a solution to this debate.

 

If it harshes your buzz as a hider that free thinking adults don't dance around on the strings you've pulled EXACTLY, or as near to that as would suit you, to find your cache...... Why don't you teach 'em a lesson and take their fun away. Delete their finds and archive the cache. That will take care of your parental need to thwart/teach a lesson...Then....

 

STOP hiding caches. Or stop hiding the kind of cache (ALR, Multi, Puzzle, etc.) that's causing you heartburn. Problem solved.

 

I mean, you do this for FUN... Right? So, whyyyy participate in an aspect of the activity that might bring you anything less than the desired effect: FUN???

 

It seems like a no brainer to me.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I've given this a great deal of thought (Like, a WHOLE 5 minutes!) and I have a solution to this debate.

 

If it harshes your buzz as a hider that free thinking adults don't dance around on the strings you've pulled EXACTLY, or as near to that as would suit you, to find your cache...... Why don't you teach 'em a lesson and take their fun away. Delete their finds and archive the cache. That will take care of your parental need to thwart/teach a lesson...Then....

 

STOP hiding caches. Or stop hiding the kind of cache (ALR, Multi, Puzzle, etc.) that's causing you heartburn. Problem solved.

 

I mean, you do this for FUN... Right? So, whyyyy participate in an aspect of the activity that might bring you anything less than the desired effect: FUN???

 

It seems like a no brainer to me.

Tiss the ultimate solution. Well second from ultimate, the ultimate would be boobietraping the final so that if it was opened without a key from the previous stage it would incinerate the log or the opener, no sign no smilie.

[+KBI]

I mean, you do this for FUN... Right? So, whyyyy participate in an aspect of the activity that might bring you anything less than the desired effect: FUN???

 

It seems like a no brainer to me.

I’m beginning to see Snoogans’ point, and I have to agree.

 

If a cacher finds your cache via some shortcut, yet he has fun doing it, then shouldn’t you be happy for him? How does it harm you? Or how does it harm the next finder -- the one who enjoys working through the whole thing as designed?

 

It’s like when someone laughs at your joke before you get to the punch line. Do you get mad at him for laughing at something you didn’t intend to be funny ... or are you simply happy you’ve made him laugh, since that was your goal in the first place?

[+tozainamboku]

I mean, you do this for FUN... Right? So, whyyyy participate in an aspect of the activity that might bring you anything less than the desired effect: FUN???

 

It seems like a no brainer to me.

I’m beginning to see Snoogans’ point, and I have to agree.

 

If a cacher finds your cache via some shortcut, yet he has fun doing it, then shouldn’t you be happy for him? How does it harm you? Or how does it harm the next finder -- the one who enjoys working through the whole thing as designed?

 

It’s like when someone laughs at your joke before you get to the punch line. Do you get mad at him for laughing at something you didn’t intend to be funny ... or are you simply happy you’ve made him laugh, since that was your goal in the first place?

But he would have had more fun if he did it the way intended. Had he maximized his fun by hunting the cache as intended he may have thanked the cache owner for the hide instead of thanking his phone-a-friend for the coordinates that allowed him to miss some fun. He shouldn't be thanking his friend. By giving out the coordinates, the friend caused him to lose out on the fun. Sheesh!

Edited December 9, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+BoggyWoggy]

I'm wondering if it is at all possible to:

1) recognize that it is human nature to try and find the "easy way out?"

2) somehow continue to have fun in spite of #1?

3) setup booby traps that physically and socially hurt cheaters? (Just kidding, but, what an idea, huh?)

 

I love geocaching so dang much and am proud to say that I just do my thing and do it well. I hope folks will stop trying to mess up your awesome challenge. That's about all we can do, right? Hope?

[+KBI]

But he would have had more fun if he did it the way intended. Had he maximized his fun by hunting the cache as intended he may have thanked the cache owner for the hide instead of thanking his phone-a-friend for the coordinates that allowed him to miss some fun.

But if such a shortcut has been left open by the hider, even if it requires the complicity of a friend with coords, then shouldn't that decision be up to the seeker?

 

He shouldn't be thanking his friend. By giving out the coordinates, the friend caused him to lose out on the fun. Sheesh!

It’s the friend’s fault the seeker chose the bypass? Did anyone hold a gun to the seeker's head and force him to use his buddy’s coords?

 

 

My hometown paper includes the crossword puzzle solution in the same-day edition, not the next day’s edition as with some other newspapers. If one wishes to cheat oneself out of the fun of cracking the puzzle the hard way one merely needs to turn the page. No need to wait till the next day.

 

Suppose I’m at Starbucks working the crossword and get stuck. Suppose I decide I would get more enjoyment out of the puzzle if only I could get one or two words worth of help from the solution to get me going again. Suppose I have a friend peek at the solution and read out a couple of words for me. Suppose I thank him for doing so – while at the same time NOT sending a thank-you note to the puzzle’s writer for creating the puzzle. Would it then be rational that I should be concerned that my actions might have personally insulted the puzzle writer? Suppose I knew the puzzle writer was right there in the Starbucks watching me. Would that make a difference?

 

Does my "cheat" harm my enjoyment of the puzzle? No. Even if it did, that’s my choice, and my problem.

 

Does my "cheat" harm the puzzle writer? No. Does my "cheat" harm the guy at the Starbucks across the street, the much smarter guy who, unlike me, solves the puzzle without help? No, it does not.

 

If I were that puzzle writer, I believe I would be happy that someone – anyone – was getting enjoyment out of my product. If I were that puzzle writer, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough not to require explicit written gratitude from each solver. If I were that puzzle writer, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough to allow for the possibility that there is more than one way to enjoy a crossword.

 

If I were that puzzle writer, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough not to need to try to control other people’s leisure time behavior, and to instead happily allow them to enjoy themselves while using my product in any way they see fit.

 

But maybe that’s just me. Maybe I’m mentally defective.

[+Snoogans]

I fixed it for you KBI. RK keeps tellin' me I'm too obscure and I see you've caught it too:

 

Does my "cheat" harm my enjoyment of the puzzle cache? No. Even if it did, that’s my choice, and my problem.

 

Does my "cheat" harm the puzzle cache owner? No. Does my "cheat" harm the guy at the Starbucks across the street, the much smarter guy who, unlike me, solves the puzzle cache without help? No, it does not.

 

If I were that puzzle cache owner, I believe I would be happy that someone – anyone – was getting enjoyment out of my product. If I were that puzzle cache owner, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough not to require explicit written gratitude from each solver. If I were that puzzle cache owner, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough to allow for the possibility that there is more than one way to enjoy a puzzle cache.

 

If I were that puzzle cache owner, I would like to hope that my ego would be strong enough not to need to try to control other people’s leisure time behavior, and to instead happily allow them to enjoy themselves while using my product in any way they see fit.

 

But maybe that’s just me. Maybe I’m mentally defective.

 

Not defective. Just ..... what's the adjective I'm looking for here....? A word that means the opposite of anal and controlling.

[+eigengott]

The purpose of this topic is not to rant but rather to seek out ways of preventing this from happening. I am not looking for "delete their logs" or ideas like that. I want to know how you make it "difficult / impossible" to short cut in the field.

 

You could hide traditional caches in remote areas, where a longer hike is the only option (short of using a helicopter) to get there.

Edited December 9, 2008 by eigengott

[+sbell111]

Isn't it funny that you high five those people who agree with you in the 'cheating' discussion but chastise those that disagree for being off-topic. I would argue (and am) that if you open the thread up to one side of the discussion (which you have), then it is open to the other side.

I have to ask...

How is thanking somebody for and idea agreeing with somebody on your side?

Your accusation looks like trolling to me and yes I bit, but I'll break the line too.

I don't have to agree with somebody to give them a possible solution to prevent circumvention of the spirit of the cache, I just have to be nice. Now if I a saw a solution to their issue and I refused to give it that would make me an a**.

 

By the way the thread is open to solutions to prevent bypassing so if it is also open to the "other side" then that would mean "Thwarting possible solutions", not disagreeing with wanting them.

Your post lost me. I simply couldn't follow it. I see that you asked me a question, but I can't understand it enough to give you an answer. Sorry. Edited December 9, 2008 by sbell111

[+The Leprechauns]

Someday we might look back at December 2008 as the beginning of the "Thwart Movement" in geocaching. For seven years we do not see a single thread with the words "thwart" or "thwarting" in the title, but this week we see two. It's a trend!

 

Me, I deal with cheaters by trying to serve as a good example. I don't use a phone-a-friend network, I don't send hints on other people's caches, I don't put spoilers in my logs. Other people can look at this example and arrive at their own conclusion. If they say "hey, that is a very pure and simple way of playing the game, I think I'll do that too" then that's great. If they say "he's too uptight, somebody call the last finder on the cellphone so we can log this cache," that's OK too.

 

I own a multicache that I hid after 20 hours of planning. The early stages require following letterboxing clues and using a compass to shoot a bearing. Eventually the finder winds up at a random man-made object in the middle of the woods. Information from this object gives the final cache coordinates. So, someone comes along and submits that object as a waymark, with a description saying how important the object is for a nearby multicache. Any finder who visits stage one of my multi can now "fast forward" to this waymark, just a few hundred feet away, skipping the circle around the park and missing the funnest part of the multicache.

 

I happened to be an officer for the applicable Waymarking category. I approved the waymark. It met the requirements of the category.

 

So, if you have ethical concerns about "cheating," I encourage you to share your ethical framework politely with other geocachers, especially newcomers, through serving as a good example. A geocacher who leads by example can be a positive influence in the community. A pushy geocacher can be a negative influence.

[+JIMBOBWE]

Plain and simple...Cheaters never win.Besides there are no set guidlines as to how to find a cache.Only guidlines as to placement.Ultimately there will always be geocachers who find shortcuts.I've done it myself.Not intentionally in most instances,but it happens.

Personally i choose not to go after multi's and puzzle caches,only because they tend to be to drawn out to find just ONE cache.Unless of course,it's the only cache around to find or it's going to be enjoyable to find.It's a matter of perspective and personal preference.

Never the less you will never thwart "cheaters".........Deal with it or find a new way to hide caches...

[Mushtang]

Plain and simple...Cheaters never win.

In Geocaching, neither do the people that don't cheat.

[CoyoteRed]

A geocacher who leads by example can be a positive influence in the community. A pushy geocacher can be a negative influence.

Yeah, but which side is which?

[Clan Riffster]

But he would have had more fun if he did it the way intended.

How can one individual possibly dictate what is fun, Vs. what is not fun, for another individual?

For me, part of the fun with a multi is seeing the route the hider took in creating the cache. That's why I don't bypass stages. Just not my cup of Earl Grey. However, I can't help but think of those folks who cache strictly for the numbers. For them, they get their fun by maximizing their find count. They can't be wasting time poking around the woods hunting for stages. They've got more smileys to earn! From the parking, beeline to the final, is the only fun solution. Sheesh...

[CoyoteRed]

It’s like when someone laughs at your joke before you get to the punch line. Do you get mad at him for laughing at something you didn’t intend to be funny ... or are you simply happy you’ve made him laugh, since that was your goal in the first place?

In the OP's case it's closer to where you are telling a joke and a third party comes along blurts out the punch line before you've got it good and set up. Yeah, the recipient knows the punchline, but didn't get the full effect of the joke. Heck, it might not have even been funny.

[+nittany dave]

I like the word thwart!

[+Keith Watson]

It’s like when someone laughs at your joke before you get to the punch line. Do you get mad at him for laughing at something you didn’t intend to be funny ... or are you simply happy you’ve made him laugh, since that was your goal in the first place?

In the OP's case it's closer to where you are telling a joke and a third party comes along blurts out the punch line before you've got it good and set up. Yeah, the recipient knows the punchline, but didn't get the full effect of the joke. Heck, it might not have even been funny.

 

Knock knock.

Who's there?

The interrupting sheep.

The interrupting sheep (Baaaaaaaaaa) who?

[+KBI]

It’s like when someone laughs at your joke before you get to the punch line. Do you get mad at him for laughing at something you didn’t intend to be funny ... or are you simply happy you’ve made him laugh, since that was your goal in the first place?

In the OP's case it's closer to where you are telling a joke and a third party comes along blurts out the punch line before you've got it good and set up. Yeah, the recipient knows the punchline, but didn't get the full effect of the joke. Heck, it might not have even been funny.

Not the same.

 

In your example the listener has no choice – he hears the premature punchline without warning.

 

In the case of the OP’s multicache the recipient DOES have a free choice: He can either plug the (unrequested?) clandestine coords into his GPS and head straight for the final, or he can choose to ignore them and work the multicache in the conventional way.

 

The more I think about this, the more I agree with Snoogans. Make the full meal deal available, but don’t begrudge those who freely choose to rob themselves of potential entertainment by taking a shortcut, even if the shortcut is unintended. As long as the finder of my cache is happy (and doesn't violate any Groundspeak guidelines), then I’m happy. What can possibly be wrong with that?

 

The OP, for the most part, seems to (grudgingly) accept as much; he also understands that the best kind of challenge is one that offers no such shortcut ... and he therefore only seeks to become a better cache designer:

 

Will I lose sleep over this? NO. Will I wake up in the middle of the night and write down a cool idea on how to make a more challenging cache adventure? YOU BET.

A noble attitude, don’t you think?

 

My newest placement is a series of six puzzles. The first two can stand alone, but starting with the third the rest are designed not to be solvable until one has solved each of the previous caches in the series. Number 6, for example, isn’t supposed to be findable until one has succeeded at numbers 1 through 5.

 

But of course I realize that once each of those caches has been found there is a chance the coords might be passed around without my knowledge. Does that bother me? No. Would I delete the online log of anyone who admitted, in his log, to bypassing caches one through five and using PAF coords to find container number six? No, I would not. There is no ALR there. If he found the cache, he found the cache.

 

And if I wrote crossword puzzles for newspapers I also wouldn’t lose any sleep over the idea that some people fill out the squares from the solution instead of noodling them out the hard way.

 

Again, I see no reason to try to control other people’s leisure time behavior. I prefer instead to happily allow them to enjoy themselves while using my product in any way they see fit. The OP doesn’t see it quite that way, but that is his right. And if he succeeds in rigging his multi so as to make it 100% unshortcuttable ... I would still be happy to give his cache a try.

Edited December 9, 2008 by KBI

[+tozainamboku]

My company had an ice cream sundae employee appreciation day where we got to make our own sundaes. I really wasn't in the mood for the butterscotch topping, whipped cream, and maraschino cherry so I just took a dish of ice cream. My boss took me aside to ask what was wrong and why didn't I take advantage of all the toppings the company had bought. I told him I only wanted the ice cream. I don't think he was satisfied with my answer.

[+WebChimp]

With only six cachers having found it, emails were already flying around with the coordinates for the final.

Ideas?

 

I like to put out puzzle caches, not because I'm enamored with finding them, but because I really enjoy writing a puzzle that might be novel for the searcher.

 

These caches usually require research. Some can be done using Google. Some require a trip to the library. Some require good old cognitive thought. Some are 5 difficulty. Some are 2 difficulty. The one thing they have in common is that they will be found very few times in relation to the 1.5/1.5 caches out there. And, that's okay.

 

There are those who will show up at the final coords and sign the log without having solved the puzzle. That's sad for them, because they have missed the point of the cache in the first place. But, as COs, we have no control over that. If the signature is in the log book, the smiley stands.

 

Kind of hard to understand and accept? Yes, at times, it is. But, unless you want to spend your time being the cache police (a fruitless and frustrating occupation), just accept that some people are not going to abide by the ideas you have for how things should be done. The more roadblocks you construct to prevent your idea of cheating, the less likely it will become that the cache will be found by those who really do want to find it by the methods you devised.

 

A previous poster mentioned that the only real rules for geocaching are to find the cache, sign the log book, and report your find online. I think those rules are brief for good reason.

 

If you want to add a rule for a specific cache (Additional Logging Requirement, aka ALR), keep it simple and fun. I can think of only one cache I've hidden that has ALRs, and it's two simple things: Find the cache in the dark of the night, and drop me an email telling me a specific thing about the cache. Those ALRs were added solely to add a bit of spark to what would have been an otherwise dull hide.

 

Happy trails...............

[+9Key]

And before anyone decides that I'm ruining someone else's fun, well let me just say when I get a found log from someone that says's thanks to another cacher on my cache page well, it's kind of a slap in the face. I didn't get a thanks for placing it, maintaining it, or nothing just a thanks to the guy that they called to make the find. After that I've made them so calling someone isn't going to do someone any good.

 

I agree with this. To omit a thank-you for the cache owner while giving props to the PAF informant for helping the finder locate the cache demonstrates very little appreciation for the effort involved in placing a cache or understanding of how the game works. Be good to cache hiders, thank them, help them.. it can only lead to better caches.

 

day before yesterday i phoned a friend.

 

"please tell me it's not in that big brushpile" was really all i needed.

 

when i acknowledged in my log that i had made the call, i wasn't running credits. i was telling the story the way it happened, making my admission that i had at least a little handholding.

 

that's all i do in the logs: tell the story.

 

and you know what? i'm not listing all the people i want to thank. if the cache owner needs more explicit stroking of his ego, i will politely suggest that.. no, what i will probably do is run a series of logs where i thank each and every person who helped me find the cache from the cache owner to the guy who cut the trail right on down to the guy who put the tires on my car.

 

 

likewise if you are at one of my caches, it is enough for me to know you had an experience that made it worthwhile for you. sometimes it is the experience i mean for you to have, and sometimes not.

 

yesterday my most recent cache was first found by guys who didn't really solve the puzzle, but extrapolated enough information to locate the cache. they had a good time. i'm happy.

 

this week i learned that some cachers took a landowner from one of my caches to another of my caches last year when they visited. what a lovely surprise. oh by the way- they shortcut one of the stages.

 

last spring a whole flock of cachers went to a series of five puzzles i had put out. only one of them had done all the work to solve all of the puzzles. they all had a nice walk on pretty trails. they all learned a little something about the puzzle method, and they all had a good time.

 

i know for fact that other cachers have phoned friends for hints at some of my caches. i am thankful that every last person who wants a hint doesn't call me. i really hope that if they need a hint in a pinch that they call one of their friends and not me.

 

people who need so desperately to control someone else's solutions remind me very much of a woman i am no longer friends with: she was a middle-school spanish teacher, and her idea of a good day was a day in which her students did what she told them to because she told them to. her whole enjoyment of her work was in exacting obedience for obedience's sake.

 

if your multi-stage cache is smartly laid out i won't WANT to shortcut it, because i will want to experience it the way you intended. if i perceive that you have given me a ton of nuisance stages, i will consider it my challenge to cut as much out as i can. the more you try to squeeze me into the corral, the harder i will work to subvert you.

 

i'm fun that way.

That's a really good way of thinking of it, flask. Certainly soemthings in there that I should take to heart regarding my caches.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

My company had an ice cream sundae employee appreciation day where we got to make our own sundaes. I really wasn't in the mood for the butterscotch topping, whipped cream, and maraschino cherry so I just took a dish of ice cream. My boss took me aside to ask what was wrong and why didn't I take advantage of all the toppings the company had bought. I told him I only wanted the ice cream. I don't think he was satisfied with my answer.

I don't blame you...I hate maraschino cherries...I think they might be carcinogenic too.

Edited December 10, 2008 by Cedar Grove Seekers

[+traildad]

 

But maybe that’s just me. Maybe I’m mentally defective.

[+Xaa]

I've got a puzzle/multi that is 6 stage's. I got three log book's and placed them at different part's threw out the cache. To claim a "find" on it a person must sign all three logbook's. I figured this way if someone gets them by the puzzle they will still have to hike the whole distance of the cache so they sign all the logbook's. I do move the logbooks around between the stage's at times. It's noted to all the three book's don't need to be signed in the same day cause they might not finish it all the same day.

 

Doesn't this make victims amongst people who are doing your cache in the decent way? What happens regularly with me, is that I get stuck somewhere (either a WP is missing, I misread stuff, can't find it, all kinds of everything can happen that can make life difficult), find a bench, look really good at what I might have done wrong, and how I can try to find back the right track, possibly missing a WP but at least finishing the cache as it was intented.

I suppose this is handled in good manner? If so, this might be a decent solution.

 

The only thing it doesn't stop (of course, since nothing stops that behaviour) is people who take a trip and log for a few friends as well. (Which is happening here in my country, or at least I have serious suspicions that it is happening)

Edited December 10, 2008 by Xaa

[+Xaa]

we are an obstreperous people; if you tell us that we shouldn't drive on that road but we find that we can do so legally, we will. we prefer this to walking in, even though we might be hanging by our seatbelts.

 

if you tell us it can't be done at night and we find that it can legally be done at night, we will go at night. in winter. carrying sleds. we will arrive at the cache after midnight and then sled down the mountain.

 

if you tell me that i need a boat and i have to climb a tree, i will drive out over the ice with a stepladder.

 

I suppose these are nice stories, I guess cache owners will laugh when they read the logs, as long as it is done respectfully and legally.

 

I'd say there is a big difference between your examples (someone trying to make this a challenge trying to outsmart the owner in a perhaps funny but relatively respectful way), or people who just trade end coordinates so they can put their name on a piece of paper.