107 finds, 2 days, around the world!

3.2k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

19k · December 14, 2009

Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?

Call it when you can. In this case, its easy. Bogus logs. Call it.

19k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

3.2k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

3.9k · December 14, 2009

For anyone that thinks that there is no harm to come from this sort of "armchair logging" and that they should just sit silently by and let it continue, please see this recent post by Toz: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=237817

We need to nip these things in the bud, in my opinion.

How is Toz's example different than an ammo can that wasn't being taken care of that had several Needs Maintenance logs on it, and someone finds it after putting it off for months only to find that a reviewer archived it while he was away from the computer (assuming the reviewer also locked the cache page for some reason)?

The owner wasn't taking care of his cache so it was archived for him. You snooze you lose.

Toz waited and waited to go find a cache and found out he waited too long. I've done that lots.

I guess it can be said that in one case bogus loggers were the reason the cache was archived, but can't it also be said that in both cases the reason was that the cache owner wasn't doing his job?

If it were me, I wouldn't count that Find in my GSAK stats if it weren't on the web site, but it doesn't bother me if Toz wants to.

19k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

Ditto. I asked you a question first.

On an aside, why does it seem to me as though you are taking the adversarial stance toward almost every thread these days? I don't remember you always taking that route. Maybe my generalization is all wrong, and you really do disagree in all of these situations, but I need to let you know that is the way I'm seeing it.

3.2k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

Ditto. I asked you a question first.

Why should I bother answering when all it might get me is another invitation to shut up and leave the thread because I dared to disagree with you?

1.4k · December 14, 2009

Lies hurt us all, as does apathy against dishonesty. I don't care if it is politics, finance, or geocaching. I know.. you really don't care about apathy, right?

If lies hurt us all, then what does challenging someone else's right to their opinion do?

So, you are saying that lies don't hurt us?

I am not saying anything. I am asking you a question.

Ditto. I asked you a question first.

On an aside, why does it seem to me as though you are taking the adversarial stance toward almost every thread these days? I don't remember you always taking that route. Maybe my generalization is all wrong, and you really do disagree in all of these situations, but I need to let you know that is the way I'm seeing it.

It is all part of the dumbing down of geocaching. I have used that phrase before. In the earlier years of GC, it probably didn't cross the minds of most if not all cachers to perform stunts like this. There were a few hoaksters and people called them on it. Fake logging is harmfull (for me) because it just cheapens the activity that I enjoy. The same as shotgunning micros for the sole purpose of raising the smiley count, but that is another topic.

18.9k · December 14, 2009

Some small sense of decor.

Some small little bit of integrity.

Some shred of decency.

A little adherence to the the fundamental basics of this pastime.

I get it - I really do - some of of you want a free for all and acceptance of anything and everything. However - can't we have enough small flame left in the black dark corner of our stone cold hearts to care about this one clear violation of the guidelines and abuse of the website????? For just a moment?

Everytime I see such an uncaring individual try to disrupt the 3 simple rules around here it diminishs by another little flake my faith that our little corner of the world is special but instead is becoming just a little bit too much like the rest of it.

3.2k · December 14, 2009

On an aside, why does it seem to me as though you are taking the adversarial stance toward almost every thread these days? I don't remember you always taking that route. Maybe my generalization is all wrong, and you really do disagree in all of these situations, but I need to let you know that is the way I'm seeing it.

Go back and look at your post number 44.

You stated a non-adversarial opinion. I responded with a non-adversarial opinion.

You then responded to my response with a rather unfair and emotional outburst, telling me to take my unwelcome opinion and go away.

If you know me as well as you claim, then you know that I never take kindly to anyone who challenges another person’s right to his opinion. I even defended you in a recent similar exchange when someone challenged yours. Remember?

3.2k · December 14, 2009

I get it - I really do - some of of you want a free for all and acceptance of anything and everything.

This a logical fallacy; an intentional misrepresentation of the arguments of others; a strawman argument.

Nobody in this thread has argued for a "free for all," or "acceptance of anything and everything."

18.9k · December 14, 2009

I get it - I really do - some of of you want a free for all and acceptance of anything and everything.

This a logical fallacy; an intentional misrepresentation of the arguments of others; a strawman argument.

Nobody in this thread has argued for a "free for all," or "acceptance of anything and everything."

4.8k · December 14, 2009

I think the civilized world already has too many regulations. Though I respect the right for Groundspeak to have regulations on the activity they represent, I don't see why there needs to be more (not implying that they are trying to add more regulations). The simple guideline that allows them to archive the listing of caches with owners who aren't adhering to the guidelines they agreed to is enough if they just stuck with it.

When a cache is armchair logged, the cache owner should just delete the log. To have all this angst about how it ruins the activity for all is just silly.

Have angst because the cache owners are not doing their job. Have angst because the caches don't get archived. Why worry about the few idjits who do armchair logging?

Just a humble opinion.

3.2k · December 14, 2009

I think the civilized world already has too many regulations. Though I respect the right for Groundspeak to have regulations on the activity they represent, I don't see why there needs to be more (not implying that they are trying to add more regulations). The simple guideline that allows them to archive the listing of caches with owners who aren't adhering to the guidelines they agreed to is enough if they just stuck with it.

When a cache is armchair logged, the cache owner should just delete the log. To have all this angst about how it ruins the activity for all is just silly.

Have angst because the cache owners are not doing their job. Have angst because the caches don't get archived. Why worry about the few idjits who do armchair logging?

Just a humble opinion.

Grab onto something. You're about to be accused of being a radical anarchist who wants a free for all and who accepts anything and everything.

19k · December 14, 2009

On an aside, why does it seem to me as though you are taking the adversarial stance toward almost every thread these days? I don't remember you always taking that route. Maybe my generalization is all wrong, and you really do disagree in all of these situations, but I need to let you know that is the way I'm seeing it.

Go back and look at your post number 44.

You stated a non-adversarial opinion. I responded with a non-adversarial opinion.

You then responded to my response with a rather unfair and emotional outburst, telling me to take my unwelcome opinion and go away.

If you know me as well as you claim, then you know that I never take kindly to anyone who challenges another person's right to his opinion. I even defended you in a recent similar exchange when someone challenged yours. Remember?

Fair enough, and I apologize. I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd, but I guess there are times when those that really don't care can be affected by those that care too much. Still, I don't think that is the case here, when we are discussing bogus finds. If bogus logs don't bother you, but they do bother me, I fail to see how that can affect the life of anybody but a bogus logger.

4.8k · December 14, 2009

Fair enough, and I apologize. I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd, but I guess there are times when those that really don't care can be affected by those that care too much. Still, I don't think that is the case here, when we are discussing bogus finds. If bogus logs don't bother you, but they do bother me, I fail to see how that can affect the life of anybody but a bogus logger.

Why do you think the "I don't care" crowd should be quiet? That is how STUPID laws get put on the books. Someone screams that they don't like something but they are in the minority but since the majority don't speak up and say "Who cares? It's not important!" then some assume that it IS important and they pass a STUPID law.

If the "I don't care" crowd remains silent then the "special interest groups" win.

This post is not making any accusations towards any cachers, cache owners, PTB, reviewers, etc. It is a genaralization of an opinion and should, in no way, be seen as a lack of respect towards anyone.

1.4k · December 14, 2009

I wonder if anyone has ever suggested validation codes for caches? A code that you'd have to collect out of the cache and enter on the webpage or else you aren't allowed to log?

Well that would work on all but bTraditionals as that would be a ALR

ScubaSonic

3.2k · December 14, 2009

I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd ...

I don’t understand what gives you the right to claim your opinion is superior to mine. I think your bias is distorting your sense of fairness.

What if I told you I was deeply troubled by images of dogs wearing glasses? You obviously don’t have a problem with such a thing. As you would describe it, then, that puts me in the "it bothers me" crowd and you in the "it doesn't bother me" crowd.

Would you then follow your *general* rule and let your opinion "take a back seat" to mine? Or would you defend your right to your own opinion?

19k · December 14, 2009

Fair enough, and I apologize. I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd, but I guess there are times when those that really don't care can be affected by those that care too much. Still, I don't think that is the case here, when we are discussing bogus finds. If bogus logs don't bother you, but they do bother me, I fail to see how that can affect the life of anybody but a bogus logger.

Why do you think the "I don't care" crowd should be quiet? That is how STUPID laws get put on the books. Someone screams that they don't like something but they are in the minority but since the majority don't speak up and say "Who cares? It's not important!" then some assume that it IS important and they pass a STUPID law.

If the "I don't care" crowd remains silent then the "special interest groups" win.

This post is not making any accusations towards any cachers, cache owners, PTB, reviewers, etc. It is a genaralization of an opinion and should, in no way, be seen as a lack of respect towards anyone.

Then, you do care.

8k · December 14, 2009

I guess I've always differentiated between "Greetings from Germany" armchair loggers and what this fellow is vainly trying to do. To me armchair virtual was an "alternative" game. TPTB have spoken that they don't want that particular alternative game played on the geocaching website, despite the fact that it could be played without interfering with anybody who is actually using the site to log there experiences geocaching.

The person this thread is about is also playing an alternative game. This game seems to be to sit in front of a a computer and log 'Found It' logs on random caches. I can't imagine what fun that would be. My guess is that it would get pretty boring after a day or two. In any case, someone just creating fake logs in this way can have there account banned pretty quickly. (I am surprised that that this account hasn't been banned yet. I suspect it will be first thing Monday morning). It is possibly that random bogus logs may cause a cacher to go looking for a cache that isn't there or may cause a cache owner who was waiting for one more DNF before going to do maintenance to think that his cache is OK. It is also true that cache owners who are going to do their maintenance and delete bogus logs will now have to be notified that this guy has made all these bogus logs. Some cache owners may feel the should check the physical log before deleting the logs, others will delete the log right away, and still others will let it stand.

These bogus logs should be deleted by cache owners and the account should be banned for violating the TOU. My issue is with the policy on armchair virtuals. I don't see why these are treated differently than a bogus logger. I would bet that cachers will be able to go out tomorrow and find any of the caches this guy has logged. Oh sure someone might archive a cache that is missing in the meantime or maybe even archive their cache out of disgust that someone would log a bogus find. But in many cases the owners won't even touch their cache page. Many will leave the bogus logs. Some may be owners that haven't logged in to the site in years. How many of the caches that this person logged in the last two days will be archived because the cache owner is absent or refuses to remove the bogus log? I'll wager that none will be archived by Groundspeak because these aren't virtual caches. Grounspeak's policy is to treat virtual caches differently and use bogus logs as an excuse to archive the few remaining virtuals. Why not ban accounts of coach potato loggers like this guy's account is going to be banned, and leave the virtuals that can still be found for the cachers who still enjoy them?

4.8k · December 14, 2009

Another possibility is that there is a robot logging caches at random. Some of the robots filling in text boxes are pretty sophisticated and coud easily be just trudging through the GS database logging finds on caches at random (or relative randomness).

5.7k · December 14, 2009

I am curious though exactly what the person was trying to achieve?!?!?!?

Set a world record.

3.2k · December 14, 2009

It is also true that cache owners who are going to do their maintenance and delete bogus logs will now have to be notified that this guy has made all these bogus logs.

Maybe someone among the Morality Police will volunteer, and will get busy notifying those owners on his own authority.

1.4k · December 14, 2009

I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd ...

I don’t understand what gives you the right to claim your opinion is superior to mine. I think your bias is distorting your sense of fairness.

What if I told you I was deeply troubled by images of dogs wearing glasses? You obviously don’t have a problem with such a thing. As you would describe it, then, that puts me in the "it bothers me" crowd and you in the "it doesn't bother me" crowd.

Would you then follow your *general* rule and let your opinion "take a back seat" to mine? Or would you defend your right to your own opinion?

KBI,

Come on now don't you know "Knowscad" is the All knowing, All seeing Forum NAZI in these here parts, anyone elses opinions and or views are secondary to his he has ULTIMATE POWER !!

ScubaSonic

Edited December 14, 2009 by Scubasonic

6.1k · December 14, 2009

You guys are awfully quick to jump all over someone who can travel over the world in one day, find remote caches and sign them with some secret invisible ink. It's absolutely amazing, considering that they probably have only one finger.

Even so, it's remotely possible that they could be part of the Letterbox/Terracache Mafia. I'm willing to take up a collection so that we can ultimately bribe Groundspeak a large sum of money to release his IP address so that we can track him down and have several thugnerds show up at his house and steal all of the letters off of his keyboard, and possibly his mouse.

3.2k · December 14, 2009

You guys are awfully quick to jump all over someone who can travel over the world in one day, find remote caches and sign them with some secret invisible ink. It's absolutely amazing, considering that they probably have only one finger.

I know which finger it is, and I think he's showing us that finger.

On that I think we can all agree.

9.3k · December 14, 2009

If I end up wasting my time and gas on a wild goose chase because of that idiot's log, then it has affected me and my pocketbook.

Wouldn't that be on you? At least that's how I was taught individual accountability. If I decide to hunt a cache, for whatever reason, I accept fully that any time, money and effort expended have been spent because of a choice I made, not because of something some bozo posted on the Internet. If there's a cache that has caught my eye, which requires more than a short drive to get to, and it's gotten a string of DNFs, I won't dash out of the house and drive across the state based on just one log. If I did take such a naive approach to caching, I would blame myself for any failures I had along the way.

If bogus logs don't bother you, but they do bother me, I fail to see how that can affect the life of anybody but a bogus logger.

It's obviously affecting at least one more person than the bogus logger: You!

The group that you so lovingly classify as the "Don't Care" crowd, (of which I am but a humble part), have demonstrated time and again that they do care, deeply, about stuff that affects them, their friends and/or their loved ones. This silliness doesn't affect them. It wouldn't affect you either, unless you let it get under your skin.

Only you can decide to be bothered by some goober acting like a goober.

December 14, 2009

I am curious though exactly what the person was trying to achieve?!?!?!?

Set a world record.

It just seems like a waste of time to me! I dont think they achieved anything in the process except to annoy a bunch of people! Oh well thats just my opinion. Like I said before everyone's got to have a hobby!

3.5k · December 14, 2009

Boy, people can find stuff to fight about no matter what. I'm the original poster. I just want everyone to know this jerk is out there and to delete his logs, and have asked for his account to be blocked.

This sort of thing happens every now and then. Who knows why? Like taking steriods to win a game but not be a winner I guess.

Lets expose these yahoos and then block their IP's. Works for me.

December 14, 2009

... logging caches at random...

No No ! Not random at all ! Only very very high quality caches !

I can tell you as one of mine has been logged !

More seriously, I think such "disfunction" does not deserve any attention. I 'll just keep my listing clean and that's all. No further fuss about it. (It 's exactly what Geocachingdog is looking for...)

Greetings from Belgium,

RoFi

3.2k · December 14, 2009

I am curious though exactly what the person was trying to achieve?!?!?!?

It just seems like a waste of time to me! I dont think they achieved anything in the process except to annoy a bunch of people!

That’s exactly why running in circles and wailing about it is such a counterproductive response. The wailers have probably given this loser exactly what he wants.

December 14, 2009

So, RoFi - are you going to delete or let stand the 2 logs?

3.3k · December 14, 2009

I just think that the "it doesn't bother me' crowd *generally* should take a back seat to the "it bothers me" crowd ...

I don’t understand what gives you the right to claim your opinion is superior to mine. I think your bias is distorting your sense of fairness.

What if I told you I was deeply troubled by images of dogs wearing glasses? You obviously don’t have a problem with such a thing. As you would describe it, then, that puts me in the "it bothers me" crowd and you in the "it doesn't bother me" crowd.

Would you then follow your *general* rule and let your opinion "take a back seat" to mine? Or would you defend your right to your own opinion?

KBI,

Come on now don't you know "Knowscad" is the All knowing, All seeing Forum NAZI in these here parts, anyone elses opinions and or views are secondary to his he has ULTIMATE POWER !!

ScubaSonic

What a ridiculous comment.

9.3k · December 14, 2009

KBI,

Come on now don't you know "Knowscad" is the All knowing, All seeing Forum NAZI in these here parts, anyone elses opinions and or views are secondary to his he has ULTIMATE POWER !!

ScubaSonic

What a ridiculous comment.

Agreed. I would come up with some other descriptions for it, but I don't want to get banned.

2.6k · December 14, 2009

Boy, people can find stuff to fight about no matter what. I'm the original poster. I just want everyone to know this jerk is out there and to delete his logs, and have asked for his account to be blocked.

This sort of thing happens every now and then. Who knows why? Like taking steriods to win a game but not be a winner I guess.

Lets expose these yahoos and then block their IP's. Works for me.

Currently @ 93 finds and dropping... Their logs took the most imagination

1.1k · December 14, 2009

Don't you guys see? You got DARPA's attention as an advanced social network that was able to locate 8 red balloons scattered across the CONUS in less that a day with advanced warning and knowledge.

So they atempt to see how long it takes to identify a a global pattern without any advanced warning and mobilize. Less than 3 days. Not bad... Not bad...

4.8k · December 14, 2009

KBI,

Come on now don't you know "Knowscad" is the All knowing, All seeing Forum NAZI in these here parts, anyone elses opinions and or views are secondary to his he has ULTIMATE POWER !!

ScubaSonic

What a ridiculous comment.

Agreed. I would come up with some other descriptions for it, but I don't want to get banned.

I concur, though I agree with the sentiments and I would add the word "again" between your word "banned." and the smiley.

December 14, 2009

I wonder if this is a sock puppet account, with the real cacher behind it being a person conducting an experiment on how many people will delete a fairly obvious bogus log.

December 14, 2009

14 logs, atm.

December 14, 2009

I am suspicious as well. It took a physicist two visits to solve my puzzle cache "A Log A Day," yet geocachingdog seemed to pull it off on his first day of caching. I wish hackers and goofers would stay out of our hobby and off our site.

5.3k · December 14, 2009

Nobody in this thread has argued for a "free for all," or "acceptance of anything and everything."

Great! As a non-participant in this little flamewar, I'[ll moderate. You go first: Since you don't argue for acceptance of "anything and everything" wrt to logging of caches, why don't you give an example of something you would think unacceptable and should not be tolerated?

Then people can get a better sense of where you are coming from and what your limits would be. I think that would help the conversation here be more productive.

December 14, 2009

Don't you guys know that that's really Santa Claus? He can travel around the world in one night, it's just taking him a little time to log all the caches!

4.8k · December 14, 2009

Nobody in this thread has argued for a "free for all," or "acceptance of anything and everything."

Great! As a non-participant in this little flamewar, I'[ll moderate. You go first: Since you don't argue for acceptance of "anything and everything" wrt to logging of caches, why don't you give an example of something you would think unacceptable and should not be tolerated?

Then people can get a better sense of where you are coming from and what your limits would be. I think that would help the conversation here be more productive.

Something not acceptable? Cache maggotry.

In the grand scheme of things, bogus finds are WAY low on the list (IMHO)

December 14, 2009

His find count is down to 97 now

if it was me i would delete every log so his count went back to Z.E.R.O so all he whould have acceved is wasting an afternoon logging all his fake finds

December 14, 2009

Some small sense of decor.

Some small little bit of integrity.

Some shred of decency.

A little adherence to the the fundamental basics of this pastime.

I get it - I really do - some of of you want a free for all and acceptance of anything and everything. However - can't we have enough small flame left in the black dark corner of our stone cold hearts to care about this one clear violation of the guidelines and abuse of the website????? For just a moment?

Everytime I see such an uncaring individual try to disrupt the 3 simple rules around here it diminishs by another little flake my faith that our little corner of the world is special but instead is becoming just a little bit too much like the rest of it.

Yeah, the arrogance is getting a little overwhelming...

3.2k · December 14, 2009

Nobody in this thread has argued for a "free for all," or "acceptance of anything and everything."

Great! As a non-participant in this little flamewar, I'[ll moderate. You go first: Since you don't argue for acceptance of "anything and everything" wrt to logging of caches, why don't you give an example of something you would think unacceptable and should not be tolerated?

Then people can get a better sense of where you are coming from and what your limits would be. I think that would help the conversation here be more productive.

You want an example of what I think is unacceptable and should not be tolerated?

Here is one: Chronic snark and unnecessary personal attacks from individuals who can’t seem to control their urge to insult others in place of addressing their academic points.

Like the author of this thread, for example.

That thread contains multiple willful violations of the Guidelines and the Terms of Use on the part of the OP.

Hey, you asked.

December 14, 2009

down to 71 caches

im going to see if any are mine

he even logged one that was disabled the day before because it had be mugged so often

Edited December 14, 2009 by Anno Lynke

3.1k · December 14, 2009

If I change my mind and decide to start caring about people posting fake logs, what will happen exactly?

December 14, 2009

down to 71 caches

Nope. He is at 90 ... can we bet about the lower limit he goes? ... mmm ... 1$ for 77. (Let's have some fun about it ).

1.4k · December 14, 2009

down to 71 caches

Nope. He is at 90 ... can we bet about the lower limit he goes? ... mmm ... 1$ for 77. (Let's have some fun about it ).

...and an "APE" cache too!

I don't believe there is a members only cache on the list. :lol:

107 finds, 2 days, around the world!

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