Perceived Staunch Defenders of Everything Perceived Lame...Unite!

[+Snoogans]

Perception IS reality and in Geocaching, doubley so.

 

On CR's "Personal Why" thread and in many others for that matter, there are several references to "the defenders" that I perceive to be casting them/us in a bad light if not outright negative.

 

I don't know exactly who all the defenders are, but I'm pretty sure I'm percieved to be one of THEM/US from participation in my Common Miconceptions That Lead to Angst thread.

 

What does it take to be labeled a defender? (Help me make a list without becoming too redundant. Use green for list items so they stand out.)

 

Is it being outspoken about:

 

Believing that it's good enough if someone wants to participate in geocaching by hiding a cache within the guidelines and making it through the review process to have their cache published and that it's okay if their cache is not one I would choose to hunt.

 

Accepting the responsiblity for how I choose to spend my quality caching time even if I find a cache that failed to blow my skirt up rather than blaming the hider who hid a cache that a reviewer deemed okay to publish for wasting my time.

 

Not expecting a cache owner to entertain, enlighten, post parking coords, have Tremble unit laser perfect coords, new swag from Tiffany &Co., carry me on his back to the cache, or whatever else it takes to float my boat on that particular day, but just to have a cache that meets guidelines and is reasonably maintained.

 

I can suffer a perceived lame cache to live.

 

I have found and enjoyed caches that other people would consider lame.

 

If that's all there is to it I'm proud to be perceived as a defender.

 

Maybe the angsty mob that wishes to abolish perceived lameness from geocaching can give me a reason not to wear their label with pride. Us defenders will call them "Geocaching Abolishionists" since they rail against the perceived lameness that is perceived to be enslaving geocaching from their side of the fence.

 

I still like LPCs. Lots of people do.

 

See, this is the problem. If we could just get people to not like them then we could get rid of the darn things.

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

I never perceived BD to be an abolishionist and I actually suspect this post was made in jest knowing BD, but it illustrates clearly what I perceive to be the GA's (Geocaching Abolishionist's) attitude toward perceived lameness whether or not this poster actually shares in that sentiment.

 

(Disclaimer: Absolutely no personal angst prompted this thread -notice the thread icon and lack of frownies-nor is it intended to generate angst. I'm merely pointing out my perception and I welcome both sides of the fence to comment on it to see where this line of discussion goes.)

 

To US Defenders: Please, no outright GA bashing on this thread. Please try to make your comments as thoughtful as I have.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Snoogans

[+Castle Mischief]

If I join, do I get a newsletter subscription? Will there be a secret handshake?

[+bflentje]

I am in, but you can skip the newsletter.

 

My rules...

- Feel free to use my cache in a challenge.

- Feel free to add my cache to a bookmark.

- I'd prefer a nice long log, but if you write TFTC that's fine.

- Go ahead and hide any kind of cache that's legal, nano, micro or large, I'll still find them.

- Go ahead and hide a LPC, while I think they aren't the coolest, I'll still find them.

- If you walk on the grass to find my cache I am fine with that.

- If you think my puzzles are too hard, contact me, I'll give you a hand.

- If you're with a super cacher on my difficult caches, all I ask is that you sign the log and you're good.

- Don't worry about my numbers and I won't worry about yours.

- If you hide a cache, if you feel strongly about logging it, go ahead.

 

all I ask in return...

- Post no spoilers.

- Sign the physical log.

- Have YOUR version of fun.

[+Totem Clan]

If that list is the only requirements to be a Defender, than I would fit the title but...... (there is always a but)

 

I see my self as a Centrist.

While I agree that LPCs, whether I like them or not, are part of the legit geocaching world. (and I'm using LPCs as an example. Any type of 'unliked' cache or caching style could be used) Banning them would be wrong. That would only lead to more bannings.

However defending anything and everything without the caveat 'but there could be other options' is being just as myopic as the "Attackers" that you are defending against.

 

I think the true path lies in accepting anything that is within the guidelines while setting and teaching a higher standard that is in the best interest of caching as a whole. Beyond that, it's all just personal opinion.

[+bittsen]

If that list is the only requirements to be a Defender, than I would fit the title but...... (there is always a but)

 

I see my self as a Centrist.

While I agree that LPCs, whether I like them or not, are part of the legit geocaching world. (and I'm using LPCs as an example. Any type of 'unliked' cache or caching style could be used) Banning them would be wrong. That would only lead to more bannings.

However defending anything and everything without the caveat 'but there could be other options' is being just as myopic as the "Attackers" that you are defending against.

 

I think the true path lies in accepting anything that is within the guidelines while setting and teaching a higher standard that is in the best interest of caching as a whole. Beyond that, it's all just personal opinion.

 

As I said before. LPCs and their like appear to be the most popular type, just based on the number of finds.

One mans Trache is another mans treasure.

[+Snoogans]

If that list is the only requirements to be a Defender, than I would fit the title but...... (there is always a but)

 

I see my self as a Centrist.

While I agree that LPCs, whether I like them or not, are part of the legit geocaching world. (and I'm using LPCs as an example. Any type of 'unliked' cache or caching style could be used) Banning them would be wrong. That would only lead to more bannings.

However defending anything and everything without the caveat 'but there could be other options' is being just as myopic as the "Attackers" that you are defending against.

 

I think the true path lies in accepting anything that is within the guidelines while setting and teaching a higher standard that is in the best interest of caching as a whole. Beyond that, it's all just personal opinion.

 

Okay. STOP making sense on my GA bashing thread or I'll ask for this thread to be locked! Just kidding. I'm probably more of a Centrist at heart, but I've not given it much thought. Good point.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Snoogans

[+ArcherDragoon]

I am in, but you can skip the newsletter.

 

My rules...

- Feel free to use my cache in a challenge.

- Feel free to add my cache to a bookmark.

- I'd prefer a nice long log, but if you write TFTC that's fine.

- Go ahead and hide any kind of cache that's legal, nano, micro or large, I'll still find them.

- Go ahead and hide a LPC, while I think they aren't the coolest, I'll still find them.

- If you walk on the grass to find my cache I am fine with that.

- If you think my puzzles are too hard, contact me, I'll give you a hand.

- If you're with a super cacher on my difficult caches, all I ask is that you sign the log and you're good.

- Don't worry about my numbers and I won't worry about yours.

- If you hide a cache, if you feel strongly about logging it, go ahead.

 

all I ask in return...

- Post no spoilers.

- Sign the physical log.

- Have YOUR version of fun.

 

Agreed...

 

I was going to start a list after reading the opening...but I think the above pretty well covers what I was going to list...

[+tozainamboku]

I don't see the people who rail against lameness as "Geocaching Abolitionists". Instead I seem them as people would want to cache in Lake Wobegon. In Lake Wobegon every cache is above average. Let's call them "Wobegons" for short.

 

The Wobegons see the caches they prefer as better than average caches. If only there were fewer below average cache then average would better. But then what will the new "lame" cache be? As there are always below average caches, would the definition of "lameness" creep?

 

Now, to be fair, many Wobegons believe that the average has gone down over time. They claim that now a higher percentage of caches are those which lack some creativity or are not placed in locations that meet some subjective level of "wow"-ness. It is hard to show exact statistics to prove this without an agreed upon definition of "lameness". There is almost certainly a degree to which this is base on perception. A newbie cacher will likely find a LPC to be a clever hiding technique, perhaps even a difficult find. After seeing this technique a few times they may feel that it is over used. We seldom see the same complaint over a pile of sticks or rocks. Instead of judging a hiding technique by its effectiveness in keeping a cache from being muggled, the Wobegons prefer to look at how original it is, and they only for caches in certain locations. The issue of location itself is one where individuals will have clear opinions. I like to hike and would prefer all caches to be down a hiking trail. But others prefer to find the park and grabs. The Wobegons have decided that locations should have a "wow"-ness factor. To them the idea of hiding a cache in a parking lot (or worse in the area near the dumpsters behind the strip mall) is a problem. Caches should be in a nice park or where there is a great view or at least at some location that can make a claim to history. The problem with determining when a location is "wow" enough for a cache was demonstrated when this became a guideline for virtuals. Some Wobegons may argue that they are not asking for the level of "wow"-ness that was required for virtuals. They believe that just asking the hider to have a reason for placing the cache beyond that there wasn't another cache within .1 miles would eliminate most of the parking lots and dumpsters. That probably shows a misunderstanding of why the cache are hidden in parking lots and near dumpsters to begin with. They are likely hidden because these make good park 'n grab locations. By definition there is parking nearby a cache cache in a parking lot. These caches can be found relatively quickly, and they are not muggled as often as other urban locations. People will continue to hide caches in parking lots (and near dumpsters) and will find some way to say they are bringing you to an historic location or even a scenic one. It is hard to argue with someone that prefers to search in a park or a public plaza instead of a parking lot, dumpster area, or corner newsrack. The issue is that there are really people who prefer the later places because they can park nearby and grab a quick find.

Edited June 26, 2009 by tozainamboku

[+Totem Clan]

As I said before. LPCs and their like appear to be the most popular type, just based on the number of finds.

One mans Trache is another mans treasure.

That is why they, or whatever example you want to put in their place, should not be banned. However even LPCs and their kin should be done right.

- A good container should used.

- They should be placed so as not to put geocaching in a bad light with the public.

- They should be well maintained.

...and so on.

 

This standard should be used for any cache of course. Every cache should be view on its merits, or lack there of, as a properly hidden and maintained cache as set forth in the guidelines. To go beyond that to either extreme side is merely voicing an opinion and should be seen and taken only as that.

 

Now trying to force an opinion, for or against, that goes beyond that on to anyone or anything is another matter.

[knowschad]

• I defend your use of lame light green text for list items so they stand out, even though they are barely legible.
   
  
• I defend the right for geocaching abolishionists to exist, as lame as they may be.
   
  
• I defend the posters that somehow took this thread seriously. They can't help themselves.
  

 

[+BlueDeuce]

[*]I defend the posters that somehow took this thread seriously. They can't help themselves.

 

See, this is the problem. If we could just get people to not take them seriously then we could get rid of the darn things.

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

er, wait a minute.......

Edited June 26, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Snoogans]

I don't see the people who rail against lameness as "Geocaching Abolitionists". Instead I seem them as people would want to cache in Lake Wobegon. In Lake Wobegon every cache is above average. Let's call them "Wobegons" for short.

 

The Wobegons see the caches they prefer as better than average caches. If only there were fewer below average cache then average would better. But then what will the new "lame" cache be? As there are always below average caches, would the definition of "lameness" creep?

 

 

W's? W bashing? Naaaaaa, I like GA's better. It sorta sings. (Like Harvey Firestein sings) Nope. This is clearly a GA bashing thread.

[+Totem Clan]

[*]I defend the posters that somehow took this thread seriously. They can't help themselves.

 

See, this is the problem. If we could just get people to not take them seriously then we could get rid of the darn things.

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

er, wait a minute.......

Anyone who seriously takes serious anything anyone seriously writes in here seriously needs some seriously serious help.

 

 

 

 

[+Renegade Knight]

Defender here. If you place a spade though, I'll call it a spade. At the end of the day I'll defend your right to place whatever the cache your muse has inspired you to place. Even if it sucks. By doing so, every now and then someone will break free of the mold and create a perfect cache. Most will place something else. That's life.

[+EvanMinn]

...

 

Not expecting a cache owner to entertain, enlighten, post parking coords, have Tremble unit laser perfect coords, new swag from Tiffany &Co., carry me on his back to the cache, or whatever else it takes to float my boat on that particular day, but just to have a cache that meets guidelines and is reasonably maintained.

 

...

 

While I agree with the sentiment, you lose me when you use the False Dilemma logical fallacy to support your point:

 

If people complain about inaccurate coordinates, they are asking for Tremble unit laser prefect coords.

 

If people complain about lame swag, they are asking for Tiffany level swag.

 

Etc., etc..

 

The logical fallacy is that these things are presented as if there are only two options: flawed caches or absurdly high standards. That is a false dilemma because those are not the only two options as there is a lot of room in between those two positions but it is written as if there isn't.

 

I have been active on the website BoardGameGeek for years. Over there, when people submit pictures for a game, they have to be modded by users to be accepted on the website for a game's DB entry.

 

There is a constant stream of threads in the forums from people who have their picture declined and they can't understand why. When people point out it is not quite in focus or needs to be cropped or whatever, someone invariably says that means people are asking for professional level photography.

 

This is the same thing: if someone complains about something not being quite good enough, someone exaggerates the standards they are asking for as a way to belittle their position.

 

Turns me off as it shows they aren't really listening to the other side and are only interested in mocking the other position even if to do so means they have to seriously misrepresent their position.

 

And remember, I agree with you. I just think the point could have been made without belittling or mocking other peoples' position.

[+Snoogans]

And remember, I agree with you. I just think the point could have been made without belittling or mocking other peoples' position.

 

I see what you mean and I forgive you for taking my GA bashing thread seriously.

 

I'm not making a serious point. I made an observation in my OP of how the defenders are referred to on other more serious threads and hit the ball back over the net/fence thoroughly tongue in cheek.

 

I try not to take myself, or my pursuit of all things geocaching too seriously. After all, it's jusssst grown-up idiots lookin' fer tupperware in the bushes fer crissake.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Snoogans

[+Colonial Cats]

I don't see the people who rail against lameness as "Geocaching Abolitionists". Instead I seem them as people would want to cache in Lake Wobegon. In Lake Wobegon every cache is above average. Let's call them "Wobegons" for short.

 

The Wobegons see the caches they prefer as better than average caches. If only there were fewer below average cache then average would better. But then what will the new "lame" cache be? As there are always below average caches, would the definition of "lameness" creep?

 

I believe that almost half of all caches are below average.

[+supertbone]

I love LPCs.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't see the people who rail against lameness as "Geocaching Abolitionists". Instead I seem them as people would want to cache in Lake Wobegon. In Lake Wobegon every cache is above average. Let's call them "Wobegons" for short.

 

The Wobegons see the caches they prefer as better than average caches. If only there were fewer below average cache then average would better. But then what will the new "lame" cache be? As there are always below average caches, would the definition of "lameness" creep?

 

I believe that almost half of all caches are below average.

Had you read the link to Wikipedia it the quote above, you would know that

Unless one has reason to expect a symmetric distribution (such as a bell curve), there is no reason to expect that in a statistical survey exactly half of the participants score above-average, and the other half below-average – this is the distinction between the median (half of participants) and the mean (average). It is possible and even common for a score distribution to be asymmetric. For example, nearly all people have above-average number of legs.

It is very likely that almost all caches are above average. There are however enough very bad caches and very few very good caches to balance them that the average is lower than the median.

[gojkgo]

I believe that almost half of all caches are below average.

 

*snicker

Edited June 26, 2009 by gojkgo

[GOF and Bacall]

I love LPCs.

And I hate 'em. Dose that mean the average user could take or leave 'em?

[+Frank Broughton]

Anyone who seriously takes serious anything anyone seriously writes in here seriously needs some seriously serious help.

 

A M E N !!

[+gof1]

Anyone who seriously takes serious anything anyone seriously writes in here seriously needs some seriously serious help.

 

A M E N !!

Seriously?

[+Mudfrog]

Anyone who seriously takes serious anything anyone seriously writes in here seriously needs some seriously serious help.

 

A M E N !!

Seriously?

 

gof1: Surely you can't be serious???

 

Totem Clan: I am serious, and don't call me shirley...

[+Totem Clan]

So that means we have the Guardians Against Lame Lameness versus the Defenders United in Defence.

 

 

Hmm.

 

GALL or DUD

 

 

I think I'll stay in the middle.

[+ArcherDragoon]

• I defend your use of lame light green text for list items so they stand out, even though they are barely legible.
   
  
• I defend the right for geocaching abolishionists to exist, as lame as they may be.
   
  
• I defend the posters that somehow took this thread seriously. They can't help themselves.
  

Now that is funny...

 

 

But...in all seriousness...the forums shouldn't be taken too seriously...(I am sorry...I seriously couldn't resist)...

[+sseegars]

FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN ON A NUMBERS RUN!

[+Totem Clan]

FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN ON A NUMBERS RUN!

Are you impling that numbers matter.

 

AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

[+Zolgar]

If that list is the only requirements to be a Defender, than I would fit the title but...... (there is always a but)

 

I see my self as a Centrist.

While I agree that LPCs, whether I like them or not, are part of the legit geocaching world. (and I'm using LPCs as an example. Any type of 'unliked' cache or caching style could be used) Banning them would be wrong. That would only lead to more bannings.

However defending anything and everything without the caveat 'but there could be other options' is being just as myopic as the "Attackers" that you are defending against.

 

I think the true path lies in accepting anything that is within the guidelines while setting and teaching a higher standard that is in the best interest of caching as a whole. Beyond that, it's all just personal opinion.

 

This is exactly how I see it.

[+Sioneva]

FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN ON A NUMBERS RUN!

Are you impling that numbers matter.

 

AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

 

Seriously!

[GOF and Bacall]

Anyone who seriously takes serious anything anyone seriously writes in here seriously needs some seriously serious help.

 

A M E N !!

Seriously?

 

gof1: Surely you can't be serious???

 

Totem Clan: I am serious, and don't call me shirley...

I tried to be serious but the attempt was seriously flawed. Sorry.

[+doingitoldschool]

Snoogster - you da bomb. Keep posting.

[+EvanMinn]

And remember, I agree with you. I just think the point could have been made without belittling or mocking other peoples' position.

 

I see what you mean and I forgive you for taking my GA bashing thread seriously.

 

I'm not making a serious point. I made an observation in my OP of how the defenders are referred to on other more serious threads and hit the ball back over the net/fence thoroughly tongue in cheek.

 

I try not to take myself, or my pursuit of all things geocaching too seriously. After all, it's jusssst grown-up idiots lookin' fer tupperware in the bushes fer crissake.

 

I know you weren't serious: note that I pointed out that you were clearly exaggerating.

 

And I agree with your overall point. This is not the first subculture I have been involved in. The same kind of 'sturm und drang' goes on over at BoardGameGeek and every forum I have participated in even going back to the pre-Internet days of BBSs.

 

But jokingly belittling and mocking someone else's viewpoint is still belittling and mocking. Just saying your not serious doesn't make it any less so to people who (rightly or wrongly) feel strongly about it.

[golfgunny]

There's only one LPC on my little island (I think), and I had fun finding it...Does that make me a Defender? So be it!

 

If I defend someone enjoying grabbing a cache when stopping at a Wally World to do some shopping, am I a Defender?

 

If I get a laugh out of Snoogans' posts, am I a defender?

[+traildad]

Perception IS reality and in Geocaching, doubley so.

 

On CR's "Personal Why" thread and in many others for that matter, there are several references to "the defenders" that I perceive to be casting them/us in a bad light if not outright negative.

 

I don't know exactly who all the defenders are, but I'm pretty sure I'm percieved to be one of THEM/US from participation in my Common Miconceptions That Lead to Angst thread.

 

What does it take to be labeled a defender? (Help me make a list without becoming too redundant. Use green for list items so they stand out.)

 

Is it being outspoken about:

 

Believing that it's good enough if someone wants to participate in geocaching by hiding a cache within the guidelines and making it through the review process to have their cache published and that it's okay if their cache is not one I would choose to hunt.

It seems more so that the active defending of "lame" caches and the condemning of those that encourage the group to strive for "better" caches is what earns one that title.

 

Accepting the responsiblity for how I choose to spend my quality caching time even if I find a cache that failed to blow my skirt up rather than blaming the hider who hid a cache that a reviewer deemed okay to publish for wasting my time.

Again more so condemning those that encourage the group to do "better". If one simply "accepted the responsibility" it would not be mentioned in the forum and no one would put them on the "defenders" list. It is what one says about the "complainers" that gets them on the list.

 

Not expecting a cache owner to entertain, enlighten, post parking coords, have Tremble unit laser perfect coords, new swag from Tiffany &Co., carry me on his back to the cache, or whatever else it takes to float my boat on that particular day, but just to have a cache that meets guidelines and is reasonably maintained.

 

I can suffer a perceived lame cache to live.

 

I have found and enjoyed caches that other people would consider lame.

Same as above, it is not what one thinks or does while caching. It is ones expressed opinion about others thoughts and feelings that gets them on the list.

If that's all there is to it I'm proud to be perceived as a defender.

 

Maybe the angsty mob that wishes to abolish perceived lameness from geocaching can give me a reason not to wear their label with pride. Us defenders will call them "Geocaching Abolishionists" since they rail against the perceived lameness that is perceived to be enslaving geocaching from their side of the fence.

 

I still like LPCs. Lots of people do.

 

See, this is the problem. If we could just get people to not like them then we could get rid of the darn things.

 

I just don't see that happening.

 

I never perceived BD to be an abolishionist and I actually suspect this post was made in jest knowing BD, but it illustrates clearly what I perceive to be the GA's (Geocaching Abolishionist's) attitude toward perceived lameness whether or not this poster actually shares in that sentiment.

 

(Disclaimer: Absolutely no personal angst prompted this thread -notice the thread icon and lack of frownies-nor is it intended to generate angst. I'm merely pointing out my perception and I welcome both sides of the fence to comment on it to see where this line of discussion goes.)

 

To US Defenders: Please, no outright GA bashing on this thread. Please try to make your comments as thoughtful as I have.

[+bflentje]

In Lake Wobegon every cache is above average. Let's call them "Wobegons" for short.

 

You see, now I've really taken offense. Anything named after something created by a nutbag can't be above average. And I live near the fabled Lake Wobegon.. (Ok, not REALLY offended, but very concerned)

Edited June 27, 2009 by bflentje

[knowschad]

If that list is the only requirements to be a Defender, than I would fit the title but...... (there is always a but)

 

I see my self as a Centrist.

While I agree that LPCs, whether I like them or not, are part of the legit geocaching world. (and I'm using LPCs as an example. Any type of 'unliked' cache or caching style could be used) Banning them would be wrong. That would only lead to more bannings.

However defending anything and everything without the caveat 'but there could be other options' is being just as myopic as the "Attackers" that you are defending against.

 

I think the true path lies in accepting anything that is within the guidelines while setting and teaching a higher standard that is in the best interest of caching as a whole. Beyond that, it's all just personal opinion.

 

This is exactly how I see it.

 

And Zolgar? How does Zolgar see it?

[Dinoprophet]

Unless one has reason to expect a symmetric distribution (such as a bell curve), there is no reason to expect that in a statistical survey exactly half of the participants score above-average, and the other half below-average

So....there's no reason, unless there is. Thank heaven for Wikipedia!

[+sseegars]

FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN ON A NUMBERS RUN!

Are you impling that numbers matter.

 

AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

 

FEEL FREE TO JOIN IN ON A NUMBERS RUN!

Are you impling that numbers matter.

 

AND WHY ARE WE YELLING?

 

Seriously!

 

By no means! However I know so many who frown upon it that I felt that it should be on the list. Cache your own way, make your own fun!