How would you handle this?

March 7, 2009

A cacher or maybe a team of cachers comes to your area for a hunt. They do not find the cache at the posted coord’s. Instead of a DNF a cache is pulled out of their pocket or pack, log signed and dropped at that location. This is then logged as a smiley. No mention of cache replacement.

Example 1 – The cache was actually gone.

Example 2 – Original cache was available 8’ away from the cache they signed and dropped off.

I have handled this with emails but I am wondering if I made this a bigger issue than what it actually is.

Yes I realize we should follow some rules and let others play as they wish but this just does not sit well.

Thanks for any thoughts or opinions.

2k · March 7, 2009

Sounds like a lame way to keep the numbers up. If you didn't find the cache, well, then you didn't find the cache.

22k · March 7, 2009

If the cache was still present I would simply explain that and ask that they return to sigh the correct logbook. That should be enough of a hint that they need to go back now or delete their Found it until they do return. If wasn't taken care of by the next time I did cache maintenance the log gets deleted.

If they dropped a cache and mine was missing, I'd go do proper maintenance and grumble under my breath but leave the Find.

Not saying I'm right or wrong, just how I'd handle it.

Edited March 7, 2009 by BlueDeuce

March 7, 2009

Sounds like a lame way to keep the numbers up. If you didn't find the cache, well, then you didn't find the cache.

Thats my point. You hit the nail on the head! I do not want to be the cache police. I guess it is just a little disheartening.

Edit to add: I looked up to them. They had my respect and I thought they were what it was about and how it was done. I followed their post, comments etc.

LIVE AND LEARN I GUESS

Edited March 7, 2009 by The finch farmers

38.2k · March 7, 2009

If it was my cache I'd just hit the delete button on the found it log. If it was somebody else's cache there isn't much you can do, because it's up to that cache onwer.

Edited March 7, 2009 by briansnat

7.3k · March 7, 2009

Ditto what BlueDeuce said.

On my own cache, a replacement of a missing cache would annoy heck out of me, but I'd let it ride. This has happened to me only once, and that's what I did - got annoyed, let the finds ride, and got out there and replaced their *&^%* film can with my decon.

Found It on a replacement with the cache present would get an email to return and find the cache. Whether I would ultimately delete the find log I can't say. In theory, that sounds right, in practice, I suspect I'd let it go.

I've emailed a few times about caches logged in error. A novice who logged a find on the first 2 stages of a 4 stage cache; I was very gentle - heck, when I was a novice I logged a second find on a tough multi when I returned to drop a bug. Any, he was fine with the news that the Write Note log existed and made the change.

When one guy of a group of 4xers logged a find on a cache of mine, and nobody else in the group logged it, I emailed him and suggested that he'd misentered a GCxxxx. He was okay with that.

The cachers you're dealing with certainly know the difference. I'd guess they'll delete their own finds if you email them about it. I could be wrong.....

Edited March 7, 2009 by Isonzo Karst

March 7, 2009

One weekend they come to town. A cache was actually gone. They dropped one in its place and logged as found. I called one of them and told him I would pick up their drop cache and return it to him and placed an SBA on the cache page due to the fact the owners have left the area and are not taking care of anything.

They show up the following weekend and log a whole bunch more. I get a call on one of mine for a hint from a local cacher. I check back later in the day with the cacher and he tells me he indeed found it. It was not my container. I stopped to check on it and low and behold no new logs on my cache but about 8’ away is another cache they dropped off as a favor.

I would have thought after the 1st call the same thing would not happen a week later. :rolleyes:

March 7, 2009

One weekend they come to town. A cache was actually gone. They dropped one in its place and logged as found. I called one of them and told him I would pick up their drop cache and return it to him and placed an SBA on the cache page due to the fact the owners have left the area and are not taking care of anything.

They show up the following weekend and log a whole bunch more. I get a call on one of mine for a hint from a local cacher. I check back later in the day with the cacher and he tells me he indeed found it. It was not my container. I stopped to check on it and low and behold no new logs on my cache but about 8’ away is another cache they dropped off as a favor.

I would have thought after the 1st call the same thing would not happen a week later.

This sounds totally bizarre...so they actually carry around ready to drop caches in case they cant find a cache? And then drop their own cache because they either don't have the time to continue searching or think the cache is not there? HOW LAME :rolleyes: I would delete their found log and also keep their cache container.

March 7, 2009

This sounds totally bizarre...so they actually carry around ready to drop caches in case they cant find a cache? And then drop their own cache because they either don't have the time to continue searching or think the cache is not there? HOW LAME :rolleyes: I would delete their found log and also keep their cache container. :unsure:

Yep thats it. Too each their own but in my mind not right!

3.3k · March 7, 2009

What you encountered is a "number padding scheme" used by power cachers interested in the maximum geocache finds per hour. Rather than than taking more than two minutes to find your cache, they whip out their throw-away 35mm canister so they can get their find. It is all about the numbers for this type of cacher. :rolleyes:

9 times out of 10, this is the same type of cacher that leaves found it logs like this,

#3 of 159 today TFTC!" :unsure:

I would delete their log, and then email them with an invitation to re-visit your cache and find it.

38.2k · March 7, 2009

This sounds totally bizarre...so they actually carry around ready to drop caches in case they cant find a cache? And then drop their own cache because they either don't have the time to continue searching or think the cache is not there? HOW LAME dry.gif I would delete their found log and also keep their cache container.

The practice is more common than you realize. And the hilarious thing is that they make believe they are performing a service.

Edited March 7, 2009 by briansnat

March 7, 2009

The practice is more common than you realize. And the hilarious thing is that they make believe they are performing a service.

I was told they did it as a favor.

1.7k · March 7, 2009

1. Delete their log without prejudiced. No sign no smillie.

2. Become torn between taking their "DNF cache" or leave it as a decoy.

Not my fault if somebody else decides to turn my traditional into a mystery. :anibad:

14.3k · March 7, 2009

Out here people call the owner to confirm the location and ask them if they want the cache replaced if it is indeed missing.

38.2k · March 7, 2009

The practice is more common than you realize. And the hilarious thing is that they make believe they are performing a service.

I was told they did it as a favor.

Yeah, it was a real favor for you to have to make a trip out there and remedy the situation that they created.

2.2k · March 7, 2009

if it were my cache it would probably depend on what kind of mood I was in at the time... :anibad:

On someone else's I'd just let it go. I once hunted a cache that had been muggled and one of the most respected locals replaced it and claimed a find, with the owners permission. I couldn't find the replacement, but did find the original where a muggle had opened it up and left it about 60 feet away. I claimed a find and told the story in the online log and moved on.

March 7, 2009

If it was my cache I'd just hit the delete button on the found it log. If it was somebody else's cache there isn't much you can do, because it's up to that cache onwer.

Exactly... And, if I run by for a maintenance check, pickup their "fake" find and toss it into the nearest garbage can.

I would also probably send an email stating "The cache IS there and a their "new replacement" cache isn't needed, but thanks anyway. Feel free to go back and find the cache for the smiley if you like"

Edited March 7, 2009 by wkmccall

7.7k · March 7, 2009

There are a few occasions when I asked a cache owner if the cache is indeed missing, with a detailed description of the location and hide, and if they would like me to replace the cache for them since it is convenient for me. So far they have always declined and made the maintenance run themselves.

My feeling on this is that it is not only dishonest to "replace" a cache when you cannot find it (yes, yes, "how can you cheat in a game where there are no winners" etc but still...) it is also rude to the cache owner.

March 7, 2009

There are a few occasions when I asked a cache owner if the cache is indeed missing, with a detailed description of the location and hide, and if they would like me to replace the cache for them since it is convenient for me. So far they have always declined and made the maintenance run themselves.

My feeling on this is that it is not only dishonest to "replace" a cache when you cannot find it (yes, yes, "how can you cheat in a game where there are no winners" etc but still...) it is also rude to the cache owner.

Makes good sense to me! :anibad:

8.3k · March 7, 2009

What you encountered is a "number padding scheme" used by power cachers interested in the maximum geocache finds per hour. Rather than than taking more than two minutes to find your cache, they whip out their throw-away 35mm canister so they can get their find. It is all about the numbers for this type of cacher.

9 times out of 10, this is the same type of cacher that leaves found it logs like this,

#3 of 159 today TFTC!"

I would delete their log, and then email them with an invitation to re-visit your cache and find it.

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.

Jim

4.8k · March 7, 2009

If the cache was gone, I would be annoyed, but would likely leave their find log. If the cache was there, I would go remove the one they dropped to prevent confusion and I would delete their find log.

2.1k · March 7, 2009

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.

The later cachers didn't actually find the cache that was posted on gc.com - they found an impostor.

8.3k · March 7, 2009

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.
The later cachers didn't actually find the cache that was posted on gc.com - they found an impostor.

so would you delete the logs or leave them stand? I almost would bet that the later finders thought they found the real thing .

Jim

2.1k · March 7, 2009

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.
The later cachers didn't actually find the cache that was posted on gc.com - they found an impostor.

so would you delete the logs or leave them stand? I almost would bet that the later finders thought they found the real thing .

Delete the log, email the finder to tell him what's happened. The only way the finder should get confused is if the fake container can nearly match the description of the real container (so he can't tell whether he's found it or not). Assuming that the cacher actually takes cache descriptions/data into the field with them or checks the cache listing before logging the find.

If I go out looking for a cache listed as a decon container or medium-sized lock-n-lock, and find a 35mm film canister, I'm only padding my numbers if I log that as a find.

Or maybe I'm spoiled by the other cachers in the areas I frequent, who generally make the logbooks in their caches distinctive (clearly prepared at home, with details unique to the cache - not done in the field), making it harder to put out a fake.

8.3k · March 7, 2009

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.
The later cachers didn't actually find the cache that was posted on gc.com - they found an impostor.

so would you delete the logs or leave them stand? I almost would bet that the later finders thought they found the real thing .

Delete the log, email the finder to tell him what's happened. The only way the finder should get confused is if the fake container can nearly match the description of the real container (so he can't tell whether he's found it or not). Assuming that the cacher actually takes cache descriptions/data into the field with them or checks the cache listing before logging the find.

If I go out looking for a cache listed as a decon container or medium-sized lock-n-lock, and find a 35mm film canister, I'm only padding my numbers if I log that as a find.

Or maybe I'm spoiled by the other cachers in the areas I frequent, who generally make the logbooks in their caches distinctive (clearly prepared at home, with details unique to the cache - not done in the field), making it harder to put out a fake.

seems a bit harsh and probably will create ill feelings, especially among newer cachers. I would think a better course would be to leave them stand and just get rid of the impostor.

Jim

3.1k · March 7, 2009

I am quite pleased by the fact that most power cachers ignore my caches!!

Because it requires too much effort on their part to find them. Either clever hides, or good long hikes.

And I don't get the "Nice hide, TFTC" logs either.

3.3k · March 7, 2009

What you encountered is a "number padding scheme" used by power cachers interested in the maximum geocache finds per hour. Rather than than taking more than two minutes to find your cache, they whip out their throw-away 35mm canister so they can get their find. It is all about the numbers for this type of cacher.

9 times out of 10, this is the same type of cacher that leaves found it logs like this,

#3 of 159 today TFTC!"

I would delete their log, and then email them with an invitation to re-visit your cache and find it.

So what would you do with the legitimate finders of the dropped cache? Delete their logs and invite them back to find the real cache? That strikes me as a real nasty thing to do.

Jim

Good Hypothetical Jim,

If I discovered a difficult hide of mine was replaced with a 1/1 film canister in plain view, I would figure out who left the lame replacement cache, and delete their find. As for the other finders of the replacement, I would contact them individually, and advise them of what they found. I would politely ask them to delete their find, and request they return to find the real cache. I would give them a few days to respond. If they ignored my request, I would delete their finds.

1.3k · March 7, 2009

I was told they did it as a favor.

They forgot to add the words "...to themselves".

Personally, I'm not interested in finding their cache when I am out looking for your cache. If numbers are all that are holy to them, why don't they just drop a micro at Burger King and keep logging their own cache? It would save them the trouble of leaving the house and going geocaching.

seems a bit harsh and probably will create ill feelings, especially among newer cachers. I would think a better course would be to leave them stand and just get rid of the impostor.

I could get behind that idea. I always check to see the size of the container before I hunt for it and I'm not going to mistake a film canister for a regular sized cache. But, if it's listed as a micro (and possibly even a small) and it's at GZ, I probably wouldn't know that it was an imposter unless the CO made specific mention of unique camo, placement, method of opening, etc. I'd sign the log assuming I had made a legitimate find. If the CO wanted to delete my find and asked me to re-find the cache to get the smiley, I'd probably just let him/her delete the find and move on to another cache....unless there was a compelling reason to return to GZ :anibad:

Bruce

4.7k · March 7, 2009

in general, i'd delete those finds.

in practice however, it happened at one of my caches this winter and the guys were actually doing me a favor.

they looked for longer than i might expect them to, and they excavated a BIG snowpile to see if my container had dropped but might be found.

i was in the truck playing minesweeper.

they reported the cache missing and i confirmed it missing. they gave me a new container. i didn't see any reason to make them make a trip later on to "find" the container they gave me in the place where they knew i'd put it.

likewise, they didn't expect me to make a special trip to put out a new container in the place where we all knew it was.

worked out nice.

their container has so far held up much better than mine.

11.2k · March 7, 2009

I think in either case they should NOT get credit for the find. I can't believe people really do this!

March 7, 2009

What you encountered is a "number padding scheme" used by power cachers interested in the maximum geocache finds per hour. Rather than than taking more than two minutes to find your cache, they whip out their throw-away 35mm canister so they can get their find. It is all about the numbers for this type of cacher.

9 times out of 10, this is the same type of cacher that leaves found it logs like this,

#3 of 159 today TFTC!"

I would delete their log, and then email them with an invitation to re-visit your cache and find it.

That sounds right to me.

7.9k · March 8, 2009

I have DNFed 426 caches. (well I have 426 DNF logs, there may be duplications)

I'm certain that at least some of those were because the cache was missing.

I have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER even remotely been tempted to leave a throw-down cache in any of those cases.

Anyone who says they are doing that as 'a favor' or 'service' is lying to themselves and everyone else.

Next they will be logging post-dated finds on archived caches.

If they didn't find the container placed by the cache owner, and sign the log IN THE CONTAINER PLACED BY THE CACHE OWNER, then it's a DNF, pure and simple.

I would send a polite note saying so, and ask them not to litter my cache sites while attempting any finds on my caches in the future. If they didn't delete their own finds, then I would be forced to do so myself, since they didn't find MY cache.

Innocent finders following after the 'cache replacement crew' are a different matter...I think I would let them slide. I would probably let them know what happened, and let their consciences decide for them.

March 8, 2009

Here's a long-standing thread on this topic:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=66648

Personally, I have claimed a find for a replacement cache I left once, and only once. Why I did it:

1. The cache owner was clearly MIA, and had ignored months and months of DNFs.

2. A previous finder had seen the DNFs and written an encrypted note describing exactly what the cache was and where it should be.

3. The cache description was long and elaborate with lots of great information on the area - it would be a shame to see it archived.

4. There was an ALR (take a picture), which I did.

Yeah, claiming a find instead of writing a note is a bit iffy, but in my mind I "found" exactly what previous finders of the original cache and future finders of the replacement would claim smilies for, and I did fulfill the additional logging requirements. If the cache owner had asked me to change it I would have done so, but since the absent cache owner is the reason I hid the replacement in the first place that obviously didn't happen.

But dropping a film canister for every cache you can't find, when there might still be an actual cache present or at least an active owner who can replace it properly, is totally not cool. Delete!

1.8k · March 8, 2009

After checking my cache, and finding the new one nearby on the ground, the found logs get deleted and if the new cache is of suitable quality to be one of mine, we get a new cache in the area.

2.7k · March 8, 2009

The practice is more common than you realize. And the hilarious thing is that they make believe they are performing a service.

I was told they did it as a favor.

I am so glad that I read the forums. I've just learn a way that I can do cache owners a favor, increase my find count and I never have to hunt for a cache again! I can get a never ending supply of film canisters from a local photo shop and with a ream of printer paper I can make thousands of cache logs. I bet by the end of the month I could do favors for all the cache owners in my county and send my smiley count soaring! :anibad:

edited to fix broken quotes.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Glenn

March 8, 2009

sounds like these power cachers don't believe in the DNF rule. You didn't find it so log a DNF...sheeesh, how hard can that be to understand?

9.3k · March 8, 2009

How would you handle this?

I'm not sure. I reckon I'd need to face it first hand before I could say with any degree of certainty how I'd react.

I know I would check my cache, to determine if it were actually missing, and bring a replacement just in case.

I would definitely CITO out their container.

I would probably let all the logs stand. :anibad:

3.3k · March 8, 2009

sounds like these power cachers don't believe in the DNF rule. You didn't find it so log a DNF...sheeesh, how hard can that be to understand?

Here is a 32 page thread titled Found It = Didn't Find It. For some, it is all about the numbers.

March 8, 2009

I want to thank everyone for their input. The discussions sum up my thoughts, opinions, ideas and understanding of the overall situation. I feel better. Again I did not want to come across as the C police but what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. I should not let it bother me :anibad: but I try to be as honest as I can and do things in the accepted manor.

See below.

March 4 by The finch farmers (214 found)

I am logging this as a DNF. I drove to the west side. I never got out of the car. Went to the east side. Never got out of the car. I could not get as close as I hoped and did not have time for a hike. Had to get to the Moulton Locker to pick up some meat. Very nice area and we will be back.

Thanks for the hides.

Hey is there any fish in there?

Again thanks for everyone's time and thoughts.

Edited March 8, 2009 by The finch farmers

8k · March 8, 2009

While I agree with most of what has been said about the problems that can be caused by leaving a replacement cache, I am bothered by the puritans who are somehow able to infer the motivation of the people who do leave replacement and claim a smiley while doing so. Oh, to be a puritan, where every actions is caused by people who would cheat to increase their numbers. The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter. If the numbers don't matter they what is the harm of someone claiming a find when they leave a replacement cache (assuming they know the cache was missing and have been told by the owner or a previous finder just how to hide the replacement). Replacement caches are generally left when there have been several DNFs in a row, and generally for a cache that is easy to find so there aren't many other DNFs. The cache owner, for one reason or the other, hasn't disabled the cache and seems to be slow about checking out the DNFs and replacing the cache if needed. The people who leave a replacement seem to be genuinely concerned about a cache being "unfindable" because it is missing. The sooner there is a replacement for the missing cache the better for other cachers and the better for the cache owner who is saved a maintenance trip. I have seen people leave replacements for caches that don't have a string of DNFs, I even seen them on FTFs. I personally would never in these instance assume the cache was missing, but I suspect that people who leave replacements here genuinely believe the cache is missing and that they are saving the cache owner a maintenance trip. My preference is to assume that cache replacement is motivated by a true belief that this helps the sport, rather than accusing these people of cheating. I would rather the effort be spent explaining why a replacement cache may in fact cause more work for the cache owner and may be depriving future finders of experiencing the cache the owner as intended. (And unlike puzzle cheat sites, cachers who want to find the cache the owner intended may not be able to if they don't know or can't tell if they found the replacement cache)

3.9k · March 8, 2009

If it happened on my cache, I'd delete the bogus find without hesitation and then go try and fix the cache (replace the container if it were missing or verify the original is still there).

When it happens on someone elses cache I only hope they remedy the situation before I end up finding the wrong container if I hunt the cache, but the bogus find doesn't bother me in the slightest.

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.

I've been saying that for years.

14.3k · March 8, 2009

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.
I've been saying that for years.

Aren't these so-called "Puritans" just following the guidelines?

38.2k · March 8, 2009

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.
I've been saying that for years.

As a person who has been accused of being one of these so-called Puritans, I can assure you both that you are wrong. Saying wrong things for years doesn't make you right.

1.7k · March 8, 2009

I decided to try to put myself into the hypothetical of logging a "DNF container" and had my log deleted because of it.

Wanna know what thought keeps popping up?

FRELLL!!! Some scum sucker blocked me! Oh well if I didn't find it, then I didn't find it. Time to go back and find the real container.

It is just as simple as that and I know I'll never be capable of reiterating "If you didn't find it, then you didn't find it." enough.

I found a pile of obvious geo trash once, after dealing with MPPD I went back to the spot to clean it up and it was all missing. I assume the CO had been there to clean it up during the time I was being questioned because when I got back to home base the cache had been disabled. Even if I had run into the CO I would not have claimed a find for one simple fact "No container and log".

Now if the CO would have been willing to rummage my geobag or van for a replacement then that would have been a different story but I would not have and did not dare do it of my own accord.

3.9k · March 8, 2009

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.
I've been saying that for years.
Aren't these so-called "Puritans" just following the guidelines?

Being into other peoples numbers so much that you label everything they do as "cheating", simply because you don't like the fact that they have more finds than you, is following the guidelines?

1.5k · March 8, 2009

Seems pretty basic to me.

If the cache is missing, then it is up to me to replace it, not someone else. After all, it is my cache! For someone to drop another, whether mine is missing or not, without asking me first is simply rude and presumptious! I ALWAYS deal with any problems with my caches as soon as possible. Ususlly within a day or two. (Recent exceptions on four caches due to some flooding. We were going on holliday so I disabled them myself until we got back, just on the possibility that there was a problem with them). Please don't presume to place me in the group of cache hiders that don't maintain their caches!

If someone were so presumptious to "Help" me, I would delete their find without a thought, and then check on my cache and fix whatever problem there was (if any). After all, they didn't find my cache, did they? Their artificial number wouldn't stand on my cache page. Their "DNF cache" would go into the nearest trash bin.

If there were some later finds on the new cache, (unlikely because of the low number of cachers around here) I would leave them, because those folks would have been led astray by the rude actions of the "helper"! I might send them a note to let them know there is a real cache there that they can find. I'd even let them keep both finds if they wanted! I wouldn't penalize these cachers because of someone else's medling.

To me, replacing a full log book, or drying out a wet cache before replacing, a "needs maintenance" log etc, with a note to me to do proper maintnance is being helpful. Replacing my cache with one of their own to get a smiley is nonsense.

Just yesterday a cacher sent me an email about one of my caches that is apparently missing. He found and described the camo system which was detailed enough that there is no doubt he found the cache. The actual inner cache container and log book is gone. He didn't try to "fix" my cache, but sent me the email. I thanked him and told him to log the find. After all, he did find the cache. Not his fault the log book was gone. IMHO, this is how the matter should be handled. I know some will say "No signature in the log, no find", but I would MUCH rather do it this way than have someone drop some lame container under the guise of "Helping" me!

1.5k · March 8, 2009

double post. Groundspeak really needs to fix this!

Edited March 8, 2009 by BC & MsKitty

38.2k · March 8, 2009

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.
I've been saying that for years.
Aren't these so-called "Puritans" just following the guidelines?
Being into other peoples numbers so much that you label everything they do as "cheating", simply because you don't like the fact that they have more finds than you, is following the guidelines?

Is it OK then in your world to label people with fewer finds as cheaters without being accused of being into numbers?

Edited March 8, 2009 by briansnat

3.9k · March 8, 2009

The puritans claim that they are not into numbers, but in fact they show again and again that they are the ones to whom the numbers matter.
I've been saying that for years.
Aren't these so-called "Puritans" just following the guidelines?
Being into other peoples numbers so much that you label everything they do as "cheating", simply because you don't like the fact that they have more finds than you, is following the guidelines?
Is it OK then in your world to label people with fewer finds as cheaters without being accused of being into numbers?

Not really. In my world I don't label people playing this game as a cheater, because I don't see how cheating is even possible.

The people that seem to be the loudest to shout that the numbers shouldn't matter seem to be the ones that get upset the most when a player enjoys increasing their find count.

38.2k · March 8, 2009

The people that seem to be the loudest to shout that the numbers shouldn't matter seem to be the ones that get upset the most when a player enjoys increasing their find count.

Have you considered perhaps that what bothers us is the idea that numbers matter so much to others that they often engage in practices that we feel are detrimental to the game?

Edited March 8, 2009 by briansnat

How would you handle this?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment