A new scheme?

[+Kit Fox]

Mission 5: Fork in the Canyon

 

March 8, 2008 by zoobum (477 found)

great cache!!!

it wasnt as big as i thought it was going to be

 

zoobum

 

 

This is a new one.

[+flask]

looks like he deleted it.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

looks like he deleted it.

Yes, it looks like someone among the 17 persons who had this APE cache one their watchlist posted a note to the cache page in the wake of the fake find, calling the "finder" on their new-but-backdated find log, and pointing out some other questionable finds claimed by the same "finder."

 

The whole thing of what some people will do in order to get a smiley for some caches, as illustrated here, does make me smile, however! Quite amazing! Humans are very funny beings!

 

Reminds me of the brouhaha about a year ago when I tried to claim a find on every cache on the planet, even on all archived caches, because a mystical enlightenment experience had shown me that "we are all one", and therefore I realized that all those caches were me, and I them, and thus I felt that I deserved to claim a find on every cache in the world. Some problem found a problem with that. Who would have known?

[+Parabola]

Look's like it's gone now. I see some people called him on his "find" as well.

[+MountainRacer]

Brings up an interesting question, though. Wonder why user "projectAPE" (that cache's CO) is banned?

[+Star*Hopper]

Far's I'm concerned, Groundspeak should create a 'Wall of Shame' & when the evidence clearly indicates a fraudulent find, post their username to it, and activate a switch that would 'zero' their find records, and forever prevent them from ever logging another find under that name.

 

Sure, a simple matter to re-register under another name - but they'd have lost all their previous finds, & have to start all over again from nothing. I imagine it wouldn't take long before word got out about this penalty, & it would pretty much curtail, if not halt this foolishness.

~*

[+flask]

Far's I'm concerned, Groundspeak should create a 'Wall of Shame' & when the evidence clearly indicates a fraudulent find, post their username to it, and activate a switch that would 'zero' their find records, and forever prevent them from ever logging another find under that name.

 

Sure, a simple matter to re-register under another name - but they'd have lost all their previous finds, & have to start all over again from nothing. I imagine it wouldn't take long before word got out about this penalty, & it would pretty much curtail, if not halt this foolishness.

~*

 

yeah, but then we get into having to police what actually constitutes a fraudulent find and we have quite a body of evidence here that there isn't complete agreement on it!

 

what percentage of fraudulent finds would you have to have before they pull the plug? if you have 3000 finds and a cache owner attests that two of your finds on his caches are bogus, are you sunk?

 

sure, that find looks pretty cut-and dried.

 

i'll let you in on a little secret: there's a cache near me that i have found, but never logged. when i was at the cache i signed the last page of the logbook and dated it "sometime in the future". my log entry reads "i was never here. just try to prove that i was." it has always been my plan to wait until that cache gets archived and THEN log it.

 

from the online evidence, i'd be tried and convicted of a fraudulent find and my account pulled.

 

i'm not advocating bogus loserly logs, but harsh sanctions will require a good deal of policing, and i don't think it's wise.

[+Star*Hopper]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

Edited March 9, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[Clan Riffster]

I've found a couple of zoobum's hides.

I gotta say, logging a find on a cache that disappeared 7 years ago is just odd...

(of course, having 13 people watching a cache that's been dead for 7 years is almost as odd... )

I was hoping he had simply mistyped a GC number when logging a bunch of finds, (someone from Kalifornia did that to one of my caches recently), but looking at his profile doesn't reveal anything with a similar GC number.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[+Walts Hunting]

I'm with Vinny. If you take a Zen approach and "be the cache" you have found yourself and should get a smiley for it.

[+flask]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

 

well, i've heard tell of some bogus loggers who not only think all of their finds are legit, but many other people do as well.

 

these people do not KNOW they're doing something wrong. and then there's that huge grey area.

 

and who decides what's clear evidence and what's not?

[+scuba dude]

I think it would be up to the CO to determine it. If they pull the cache log and don't find a name that logged it online, then something could be going on.

 

On the other hand I know of some COs that would be rude and snarky and put people they don't like on the "zeroize" list just to feel mor epowerful to themselves.

 

It sounds like the community is doing a decent job of self policing. Now if we could just get TPTB to let cachers adopt caches from owners who stopping monitoring them, things would be even better.

[+scuba dude]

I think it would be up to the CO to determine it. If they pull the cache log and don't find a name that logged it online, then something could be going on.

 

On the other hand I know of some COs that would be rude and snarky and put people they don't like on the "zeroize" list just to feel mor epowerful to themselves.

 

It sounds like the community is doing a decent job of self policing. Now if we could just get TPTB to let cachers adopt caches from owners who stopping monitoring them, things would be even better.

[+Star*Hopper]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

 

well, i've heard tell of some bogus loggers who not only think all of their finds are legit, but many other people do as well.

 

these people do not KNOW they're doing something wrong. and then there's that huge grey area.

 

and who decides what's clear evidence and what's not?

 

Cache Moderators! Push-button to "report this log".

But you're prolly right -- out of (checking.....) 66,266 members we likely wouldn't be able to get 3 volunteers to make up a triumvirate.

~*

[+Chrysalides]

I'm with Vinny. If you take a Zen approach and "be the cache" you have found yourself and should get a smiley for it.

But Vinny is so "out there" I'm not sure he can find himself even when alone in a padded cell

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm with Vinny. If you take a Zen approach and "be the cache" you have found yourself and should get a smiley for it.

But Vinny is so "out there" I'm not sure he can find himself even when alone in a padded cell

Huh? Who told you about the padded cell? How did you know?

 

Gosh, word gets around quickly in the geo world... sheesh!

[+Harry Dolphin]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

 

Hmm... How is flask doing something wrong? Devious? Yes. Mischievous? Yes. But wrong? She found th cache. She signed the log. She just hasn't logged it online yet.

[+Star*Hopper]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

 

Hmm... How is flask doing something wrong? Devious? Yes. Mischievous? Yes. But wrong? She found th cache. She signed the log. She just hasn't logged it online yet.

 

You wanta maybe get a clue what we're talkin' about, & try again??

Meanswhile, here's a tuna with a bagel on his head.

~*

[+flask]

But that's just it -- you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing.

 

If you knew that loss was possibile or even probable as a result of your actions, would you still be so ready to assume that risk?

Methinks not, as you do exhibit signs of intelligence on a regular basis.

 

~*

 

Hmm... How is flask doing something wrong? Devious? Yes. Mischievous? Yes. But wrong? She found th cache. She signed the log. She just hasn't logged it online yet.

 

You wanta maybe get a clue what we're talkin' about, & try again??

Meanswhile, here's a tuna with a bagel on his head.

~*

 

i was kinda mystified by it, too, so maybe you'll enlighten us?

[+Harry Dolphin]

[You wanta maybe get a clue what we're talkin' about, & try again??

Meanswhile, here's a tuna with a bagel on his head.

~*

 

And it's incredibly kind of you to be so patronizing! But, this dolphin prefers trout or salmon. Tuna is a bit large for my snout. You serve bagels with tuna? That is so gauche! You've probably never even had a real bagel!

[+Star*Hopper]

Merely respondin' to your

"well, i've heard tell of some bogus loggers who not only think all of their finds are legit, but many other people do as well.

 

these people do not KNOW they're doing something wrong. and then there's that huge grey area.

 

and who decides what's clear evidence and what's not?"

 

m'dear.

 

Hopefully I wasn't overpresumptious on the "know you're doing sump'n you know you shouldn't be doing" bit....as in, When you KNOW you're doing something WRONG, you know you shouldn't be doing it.

 

Not that you are NOW -- didn't say that. But when you know you are, Lord knows you should have sense enough to know you shouldn't be. (doing it)

I hope. That's kinda THE definition of 'wrong'.

~*

Edited March 9, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[+flask]

 

Not that you are NOW -- didn't say that. But when you know you are, Lord knows you should have sense enough

~*

 

what DO you mean to say by your emphasis of tense?

 

now?

[+Too Tall John]

Not that you are NOW -- didn't say that. But when you know you are, Lord knows you should have sense enough

~*

what DO you mean to say by your emphasis of tense?

 

now?

I'm not sure exactly, because honestly, their post that they were supposedly clarifying made more sense to me than the last one but I think they were saying that while you are currently not doing anything wrong, we as humans are predisposed to doing things wrong on occasion.

 

I personally did my life quota of wrongs early on, so I no longer have to worry about doing wrong.

 

Unfortunately, that does not keep me from being wrong, so I might be...