Is sanctioned cheating at events common?

[+myotis]

I am curious if sanctioned cheating at events is now a common practice or if MOGA is just an exception. There were two types of sanctioned cheating for the MOGA Mega Event. GC2EWFJ

 

The first (and IMHO the most egregious) was certain volunteers (I am not sure how they were picked) were told they could claim finds on caches they did not find as a reward for volunteering at the event. GC2Q78J is an example of a cache that was very difficult and had numerous DNFs (including mine) that was being claimed as a find in exchange for volunteering.

 

As part of the event they have competition. Punches are hidden on the course and people who must pay a competition fee compete to find the punches. (I think it is great if people want to have a punch finding competition.) As a reward for their fee and finding punches, the competitors are allowed to claim a find on a caches they have not found. Here is the website where they have a list of the punch numbers and the cache they can claim a find as a reward for finding the punch. http://www.mogageo.com/ The punch course is in a State Park and the caches they get to claim are on ACOE managed lands. It is much easier and pleasant to go through the woods in the State Park than the ACOE managed land. The state park is flatter and the state does a much better job getting rid of the invassive species. Many of the caches are in invassive jungles of Russian Olive and Bush Honeysuckle-it is extremely difficult and unpleasant to get to many of the caches. So if you pay the fee, you can claim the finds with a much more pleasant and easy walk. This alternative means to claim the caches is only available one day. It seems to me if people are going to be able to claim finds from the competition, they should be competing to find caches not punches. If they are going to allow alternative ways to claim caches, I don’t understand why you have to pay to use the easier and more pleasant way and why this is only available one day.

 

I’ve been caching for almost 10 years and I have never seen anyone being told they could cheat in exchange for volunteering. I’ve always thought you had to find the cache to claim it as a find and I dd not think event organizers could overrule the rules of geocaching. Is this a common practice now? I hope not.

[+StarBrand]

Sigh. Just when I think things can't really sink lower.......

 

No find, No sig on log = no find log online ---> to me anyway.

 

What you describe seems to be an abuse of the intended function of the logging system here at the website but I know it most certainly is allowed by the programming and by any Cache owner that chooses to turn the other cheek. My what a cheesy thing to do - award 'finds' for doing other things.......

[+briansnat]

If what you say is true, it's probably the silliest idea since pocket caches and retirement cards.

 

That said, it harms nobody so I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

 

I think the practice will give a lot of people a good chuckle at the expense of the frauds who claimed finds though. Amazing how some people are so willing to compromise their integrity for the sake of increasing their numbers.

Edited April 4, 2011 by briansnat

[jholly]

I have to agree with StarBrand, things are sinking. I've heard and probably don't have a big issue for claiming multiple finds on an event for finding the temporary caches placed around the event grounds for the event.

[+ShowStop]

Geocaching is no longer about the find, its about the numbers.

[+briansnat]

Geocaching is no longer about the find, its about the numbers.

 

Numbers are fine as long as they involve finding geocaches. Once you get away from that it ain't geocaching.

 

What's next, giving out Found Its for helping the CO with his yard work? Using Found Its as currency? Selling Found Its?

 

The whole thing is absurd beyond belief, but the unfortunate thing is that someone out there might see this post and think "Hey, what a good idea".

Edited April 4, 2011 by briansnat

[+Kameharem]

why does anyone care if someone wants to claim a find as payment for an event? I wouldn't do it because I want to actually find caches, not pretend to find them, but I am only doing this activity for myself so I don't care what other people think of the way I play.

[knowschad]

Geocaching is no longer about the find, its about the numbers.

 

Numbers are fine as long as they involve finding geocaches. Once you get away from that it's hard to call it geocaching anymore. What's next, giving out Found Its for

helping the CO do yard work?

Brilliant!! Now I know how I'm going to get my yard whipped into shape this spring. Thanks!!

[jerosk]

why does anyone care if someone wants to claim a find as payment for an event? I wouldn't do it because I want to actually find caches, not pretend to find them, but I am only doing this activity for myself so I don't care what other people think of the way I play.

 

Couldn't agree more! If people want to cheat, then let them... I (and with me many many others) like the adventure of finding a cache. The numbers are for myself, not to show off

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

[+OienLabs]

Why stop there.

If you give me one favourite, I will let you log 10 smilies on my event.

[+StarBrand]

...

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

Because they call themselves Geocachers.

 

I am a Geocacher and I don't want to be associated with that kind of lowball standard - that's why I care.

[jerosk]

...

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

Because they call themselves Geocachers.

 

I am a Geocacher and I don't want to be associated with that kind of lowball standard - that's why I care.

 

So you are not only geocaching for yourself, but you also worry about what others do? I'm a geocacher too but I really don't care if my neighboor-geocacher logs find he didn't find... It is up to the CO to delete them! Obviously you compare yourself with those 'lowball standard'.

[+KoosKoos]

Nothing new, really....

 

After pocket caches and GW4

 

And I noticed that my post toward the end of that thread still sums up my feelings every time I hear about things like this.

 

"I've seen it mentioned before....but why must everything you do "earn" you a smiley?

 

I've never really cared what others do to count their smileys (giving away bonus smileys, etc)...but I do have a problem when you're abusing the use of listed caches to do it.

 

This isn't going to take away from my enjoyment of this activity really, but I sure can't see the justification in congratulating anyone for a "milestone" any more.

 

Whatever accomplishment they might have stood for, they're now just a count of "something you did", but maybe not found a geocaching.com cache. "

[+M 5]

why does anyone care if someone wants to claim a find as payment for an event? I wouldn't do it because I want to actually find caches, not pretend to find them, but I am only doing this activity for myself so I don't care what other people think of the way I play.

 

Couldn't agree more! If people want to cheat, then let them... I (and with me many many others) like the adventure of finding a cache. The numbers are for myself, not to show off

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

 

Why do you care that other people care, if you are so enlightened?

[+tozainamboku]

meh

 

If someone is so silly as to claim finds for doing something other than finding a cache, the best response is to laugh at them for doing something silly. The worse response may be to call what they do "cheating". If it is cheating, then it must be that the smiley is worth cheating for.

 

Ah well, I can always laugh at those who get so riled up over what they perceive as cheating. It's just as silly as claiming a find on cache you didn't find as a "reward" for volunteering at an event.

 

Offering a find for something other than finding your cache - silly

Logging a find for something other than finding the cache because the cache owner allows it - silly

Calling someone who logs a find without finding the cache, or a cache owner for allowing it, a cheater - silly

[+briansnat]

...The worse response may be to call what they do "cheating". If it is cheating, then it must be that the smiley is worth cheating for.

 

There must be some perceived reward, otherwise people wouldn't do it.

Edited April 4, 2011 by briansnat

[+tozainamboku]

...The worse response may be to call what they do "cheating". If it is cheating, then it must be that the smiley is worth cheating for.

 

There must be some perceived reward, otherwise people wouldn't do it complain about others doing it.

FIFY

[+briansnat]

...The worse response may be to call what they do "cheating". If it is cheating, then it must be that the smiley is worth cheating for.

 

There must be some perceived reward, otherwise people wouldn't do it complain about others doing it.

FIFY

 

Really. How so?

[+myotis]

...

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

Because they call themselves Geocachers.

 

I am a Geocacher and I don't want to be associated with that kind of lowball standard - that's why I care.

 

So you are not only geocaching for yourself, but you also worry about what others do? I'm a geocacher too but I really don't care if my neighboor-geocacher logs find he didn't find... It is up to the CO to delete them! Obviously you compare yourself with those 'lowball standard'.

 

I think this is more complex than just people cheating. It is event organizers sanctioning cheating and telling people to cheat.

 

Another reason I care is last night one of the legitimate finders of the cache I pointed out (The water was cold and I was wet up to my waste and the waves were getting higher so I headed back to shore without getting to the cache) emailed me thanking me for my log calling out the cheaters and indicated they were so disgusted with the sanctioned cheating they likely would not come back.

 

I'd be less upset with it if the cheaters had just signed TFTC instead of acting like they were special and could claim it without finding the cache. It makes all geocacher look bad.

 

I've never liked the trading punches for caches, but at previous MOGAs they at least had the punches in similar locations so they could argue at least they were doing something equivalent. But if they had the competition finding caches instead of punches, they would need less volunteers. I also think the event organizers are putting the competitors in a difficult situation by making the competition punches instead of caches. If it was me, I would not log the caches - but I can understand how one could rationalize claiming the find when the event organizers tell them to.

[+Manville Possum]

I am curious if sanctioned cheating at events is now a common practice or if MOGA is just an exception. There were two types of sanctioned cheating for the MOGA Mega Event. GC2EWFJ

 

The first (and IMHO the most egregious) was certain volunteers (I am not sure how they were picked) were told they could claim finds on caches they did not find as a reward for volunteering at the event. GC2Q78J is an example of a cache that was very difficult and had numerous DNFs (including mine) that was being claimed as a find in exchange for volunteering.

 

As part of the event they have competition. Punches are hidden on the course and people who must pay a competition fee compete to find the punches. (I think it is great if people want to have a punch finding competition.) As a reward for their fee and finding punches, the competitors are allowed to claim a find on a caches they have not found. Here is the website where they have a list of the punch numbers and the cache they can claim a find as a reward for finding the punch. http://www.mogageo.com/ The punch course is in a State Park and the caches they get to claim are on ACOE managed lands. It is much easier and pleasant to go through the woods in the State Park than the ACOE managed land. The state park is flatter and the state does a much better job getting rid of the invassive species. Many of the caches are in invassive jungles of Russian Olive and Bush Honeysuckle-it is extremely difficult and unpleasant to get to many of the caches. So if you pay the fee, you can claim the finds with a much more pleasant and easy walk. This alternative means to claim the caches is only available one day. It seems to me if people are going to be able to claim finds from the competition, they should be competing to find caches not punches. If they are going to allow alternative ways to claim caches, I don’t understand why you have to pay to use the easier and more pleasant way and why this is only available one day.

 

I’ve been caching for almost 10 years and I have never seen anyone being told they could cheat in exchange for volunteering. I’ve always thought you had to find the cache to claim it as a find and I dd not think event organizers could overrule the rules of geocaching. Is this a common practice now? I hope not.

And why does this not suprise me? Bet I can guess who one of the cheaters is. Same one that armchaired their way to Platinum level EarthCache Master?

[+tozainamboku]

...The worse response may be to call what they do "cheating". If it is cheating, then it must be that the smiley is worth cheating for.

 

There must be some perceived reward, otherwise people wouldn't do it complain about others doing it.

FIFY

 

Really. How so?

You know I'm basically agreeing with what you said in this post. I wouldn't go so far as to use the the phrase "compromise their integrity". My guess is that these people view the find count somewhat differently than you do and feel that logging a find for some alternate reason is allowed; but in anycase doing so seems silly since any "points" you accumulate this way will be viewed as worthless by those who don't agree.

 

I think this is more complex than just people cheating. It is event organizers sanctioning cheating and telling people to cheat.

The issue is that cache owners are allowed for the most part to determine what is a bogus find. Puritans check the logs and sometimes, IMO, delete legitimate finds just cause they can't find the signature. Other cache owners may allow finds for just being in the right area. And a few cache owners will allow finds that aren't related in any way to finding their cache. I believe this last view is silly. It depends on geocachers viewing the smiley as some kind of reward and then viewing the activity they did instead of finding the cache as worthy of the reward. The best response, IMO, is to shun the idea that the smiley is any sort of reward. The found it log should be used to indicate that you found the cache - period. Cache owners who allow finds for other than finding their cache are silly. Fortunately, you can't force anyone to log a find - so if you went to MOGA and participated in any of these events you don't have to log the caches. Cachers who do log these caches because the owner allows it are, IMO, using the find log for a purpose other than what it was intended for. They are silly if they believe others will look at these finds as "legitimate". Cachers who feel "cheated" because they found a particularly difficult or high-terrain cache and then find that others logged this cache for participating in an event elsewhere, have the knowledge that they actually found the cache. It's their choice to feel cheated. I wouldn't let someone else's actions take away from my geocaching enjoyment.

[+StarBrand]

.... Obviously you compare yourself with those 'lowball standard'.

 

Yes - I'd like to think so. I hope most of the folks I have come across in my life expect much much more out of me then to lie about finding something I haven't even searched for.

[+PokerLuck]

Ok, now for the other side of the story. The MOGA organizers haven't responded, so I'll give it a try.

 

It used to be that the same caches were used for the competitions and as regular caches. The caches had a punch in them for the competitors, but they were also loggable as regular caches. The problem was that the regular cachers thought the punches were swag and took them, ruining it for the competitors. They tried putting them nearby, but still had the same problem. So they separated them by a larger distance, so the competitors could find the punches and non-competitors could find the regular caches, which made everyone happy.

 

Except that the competitors now could not log their caches. As a benefit, the organizers allowed the competitors to log a regular cache that corresponded to each punch cache that they found. It's their cache, right? They can accept whatever form of signature they want, even if it's just a punch on a piece of cardboard.

 

Anyone who thinks that the competition was a walk in the park is way off. Saturday at MOGA was miserable. It hovered near freezing the entire day, and it was continuous rain, snow, or sleet the entire time. The ground may have been flatter, but it was pure muck. The fields had been plowed in the fall and were mostly alternating furrows of mud and pools of ankle-deep water. A significant part of the strategy was deciding whether to slog it though the muck or take the longer way around on drier ground.

 

Worrying that someone else might get some perceived benefit that you didn't reminds of the guy who lies awake all night, worried that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

Edited April 4, 2011 by PokerLuck

[+jmw61]

I thought Geocaching consisted of this...

 

Easy Steps to Geocaching

Register for a free Basic Membership.

Click "Hide & Seek a Cache."

Enter your postal code and click "search."

Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.

Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.

Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.

Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.

Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

[+StarBrand]

...

Worrying that someone else might get some perceived benefit that you didn't reminds of the guy who lies awake all night, worried that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

"Finds" are now a 'benefit' for some accomplishment not related to finding a cache??

 

Go have your fun. Why feel the need to log it as a Geocache find??

 

Maybe I should start allowing finds on my caches for the winners of the local 3k run. Seems just as logical.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Couldn't agree more! If people want to cheat, then let them... I (and with me many many others) like the adventure of finding a cache. The numbers are for myself, not to show off

Why are there still so many people who worries about what others do? As long as they don't destroy caches I'm ok with cheating

 

Classic example of how moral integrity has gone downhill and people are to worried about being politically correct, to stand up and defend honesty. They would rather say "it ok, it not hurting anyone!".

 

Or maybe it is just showing their own integrity.

 

John

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I thought the volunteer thing was really silly, but this blatant stuff is beyond:

 

"we spotted this one early, but didn't have the desire or the means to access the cache. later, we met XXXXXXX and XXXXXX, and XXXXXX's's son had a kayak. in exchange for 4 Boulevard Wheats, his son paddled out the cache, and brought it a bit closer, so we could sign the log.

[+PokerLuck]

"Finds" are now a 'benefit' for some accomplishment not related to finding a cache??

 

They DID find the cache. The CACHE was the COMPETITION CACHE. Because the non-competitors kept messing things up, they had to create decoy caches further away. If you want to complain about something, complain about the non-competitors stealing the punches.

[+Manville Possum]

I thought the volunteer thing was really silly, but this blatant stuff is beyond:

 

"we spotted this one early, but didn't have the desire or the means to access the cache. later, we met XXXXXXX and XXXXXX, and XXXXXX's's son had a kayak. in exchange for 4 Boulevard Wheats, his son paddled out the cache, and brought it a bit closer, so we could sign the log.

This is common with group caching, sign the log from the comfort of your vehicle.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Might as well not call this geocaching. Your looking for hole punches. LMAO. No sig No find. I thought geocaching wasn't a competition. Seems kinda lame to me, but what do I care. Oh yeah, I don't. If your cache isn't part of this then don't worry about it. Everybody plays a little different.

[+kklems]

Were the physical caches at the event? If so I guess they can log the cache. In the end they lose out on the experience of finding it the way it was intended. I can remember years ago there used to be traveling caches that would go to events and get signed. Same thing with TB's. If the actual caches were not present than I don't understand how anyone could claim to have found it? Than again I guess I don't care about the numbers.

[+myotis]

I thought the volunteer thing was really silly, but this blatant stuff is beyond:

 

"we spotted this one early, but didn't have the desire or the means to access the cache. later, we met XXXXXXX and XXXXXX, and XXXXXX's's son had a kayak. in exchange for 4 Boulevard Wheats, his son paddled out the cache, and brought it a bit closer, so we could sign the log.

This is common with group caching, sign the log from the comfort of your vehicle.

 

I thought they deserved a gold star for finding a creative way to get the cache. When the cache was placed, you could walk to it. Its spring and the lake level is up. It is a little over a 100 feet out in the lake in a tree.

[+TerraViators]

A similar thing happened at Texas Challenge 2011. Cachers were spotted punching score cards of cachers who did not participate in the hunt. Sadly, these cachers were on the winning team.

[+myotis]

Ok, now for the other side of the story. The MOGA organizers haven't responded, so I'll give it a try.

 

It used to be that the same caches were used for the competitions and as regular caches. The caches had a punch in them for the competitors, but they were also loggable as regular caches. The problem was that the regular cachers thought the punches were swag and took them, ruining it for the competitors. They tried putting them nearby, but still had the same problem. So they separated them by a larger distance, so the competitors could find the punches and non-competitors could find the regular caches, which made everyone happy.

 

Except that the competitors now could not log their caches. As a benefit, the organizers allowed the competitors to log a regular cache that corresponded to each punch cache that they found. It's their cache, right? They can accept whatever form of signature they want, even if it's just a punch on a piece of cardboard.

 

Anyone who thinks that the competition was a walk in the park is way off. Saturday at MOGA was miserable. It hovered near freezing the entire day, and it was continuous rain, snow, or sleet the entire time. The ground may have been flatter, but it was pure muck. The fields had been plowed in the fall and were mostly alternating furrows of mud and pools of ankle-deep water. A significant part of the strategy was deciding whether to slog it though the muck or take the longer way around on drier ground.

 

Worrying that someone else might get some perceived benefit that you didn't reminds of the guy who lies awake all night, worried that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

 

So are you saying the weather was only bad where the competion was? I guess a couple miles away where the caches were it was nice and sunny.

 

If it is OK to cheat and log caches you did not find, what's the problem with someone cheating on the competition? If you think cheating is OK, what's the need for a punch?

 

Maybe if there was leading by example and requiring people to find the caches to claim a find, it would be reasonable to conduct the competition on the honor system. But if you don't trust cachers to compete fairly, it can be done without a punch. Write a code on the cache lid - if they don't have the code, don't count it.

[+PokerLuck]

 

So are you saying the weather was only bad where the competion was? I guess a couple miles away where the caches were it was nice and sunny.

 

If it is OK to cheat and log caches you did not find, what's the problem with someone cheating on the competition? If you think cheating is OK, what's the need for a punch?

 

Maybe if there was leading by example and requiring people to find the caches to claim a find, it would be reasonable to conduct the competition on the honor system. But if you don't trust cachers to compete fairly, it can be done without a punch. Write a code on the cache lid - if they don't have the code, don't count it.

 

Umm, wait a minute. You're the one who made it sound like the competition caches were so easy. My point was that the competition caches were just as hard to find as the non-competition caches.

 

You keep throwing the word "cheating" around. How about toning down the inflammatory words? The point I'm trying to make is that the competitors did find a physical cache. It was a container with a lid, and competitors were required to sign a piece of paper proving that they found it. While the paper was a bit unusual, it was still a piece of paper that was delivered to an official of the competition at the end of the competition. The paper was unique to each team or individual who was competing. The punches were unique to each cache and were proof that each team or person had found the corresponding cache. While this may be a slightly different way of proving that the person found the cache from what people are used to, it seems to me to be a reasonable proof.

 

Rather than griping so much, all the detractors who have posted here should suggest an alternate method of achieving the goals of the competition while preventing non-competitors from spoiling the competition. If you have a better way of doing that, let's hear it.

[+WRASTRO]

So are you saying the weather was only bad where the competion was? I guess a couple miles away where the caches were it was nice and sunny.

 

If it is OK to cheat and log caches you did not find, what's the problem with someone cheating on the competition? If you think cheating is OK, what's the need for a punch?

 

Maybe if there was leading by example and requiring people to find the caches to claim a find, it would be reasonable to conduct the competition on the honor system. But if you don't trust cachers to compete fairly, it can be done without a punch. Write a code on the cache lid - if they don't have the code, don't count it.

 

Umm, wait a minute. You're the one who made it sound like the competition caches were so easy. My point was that the competition caches were just as hard to find as the non-competition caches.

 

You keep throwing the word "cheating" around. How about toning down the inflammatory words? The point I'm trying to make is that the competitors did find a physical cache. It was a container with a lid, and competitors were required to sign a piece of paper proving that they found it. While the paper was a bit unusual, it was still a piece of paper that was delivered to an official of the competition at the end of the competition. The paper was unique to each team or individual who was competing. The punches were unique to each cache and were proof that each team or person had found the corresponding cache. While this may be a slightly different way of proving that the person found the cache from what people are used to, it seems to me to be a reasonable proof.

 

Rather than griping so much, all the detractors who have posted here should suggest an alternate method of achieving the goals of the competition while preventing non-competitors from spoiling the competition. If you have a better way of doing that, let's hear it.

Did the cachers in the competition actually find the caches they logged online finds for? At the posted locations of said caches? If not I am rather inclined to lump this in with logging an event cache multiple times. Lame.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

 

So are you saying the weather was only bad where the competion was? I guess a couple miles away where the caches were it was nice and sunny.

 

If it is OK to cheat and log caches you did not find, what's the problem with someone cheating on the competition? If you think cheating is OK, what's the need for a punch?

 

Maybe if there was leading by example and requiring people to find the caches to claim a find, it would be reasonable to conduct the competition on the honor system. But if you don't trust cachers to compete fairly, it can be done without a punch. Write a code on the cache lid - if they don't have the code, don't count it.

 

Umm, wait a minute. You're the one who made it sound like the competition caches were so easy. My point was that the competition caches were just as hard to find as the non-competition caches.

 

You keep throwing the word "cheating" around. How about toning down the inflammatory words? The point I'm trying to make is that the competitors did find a physical cache. It was a container with a lid, and competitors were required to sign a piece of paper proving that they found it. While the paper was a bit unusual, it was still a piece of paper that was delivered to an official of the competition at the end of the competition. The paper was unique to each team or individual who was competing. The punches were unique to each cache and were proof that each team or person had found the corresponding cache. While this may be a slightly different way of proving that the person found the cache from what people are used to, it seems to me to be a reasonable proof.

 

Rather than griping so much, all the detractors who have posted here should suggest an alternate method of achieving the goals of the competition while preventing non-competitors from spoiling the competition. If you have a better way of doing that, let's hear it.

 

Hold the competition on day 1, release them to everyone else on day 2.

[+Manville Possum]

I thought the volunteer thing was really silly, but this blatant stuff is beyond:

 

"we spotted this one early, but didn't have the desire or the means to access the cache. later, we met XXXXXXX and XXXXXX, and XXXXXX's's son had a kayak. in exchange for 4 Boulevard Wheats, his son paddled out the cache, and brought it a bit closer, so we could sign the log.

This is common with group caching, sign the log from the comfort of your vehicle.

 

I thought they deserved a gold star for finding a creative way to get the cache. When the cache was placed, you could walk to it. Its spring and the lake level is up. It is a little over a 100 feet out in the lake in a tree.

I have a similar 5/5 listing that got group cached. One member carryed the cache back to the geomobile so the other "finders" could sign the log. Lame way to get a smiley.

[+PokerLuck]

Hold the competition on day 1, release them to everyone else on day 2.

 

That's a good idea. I don't know why they didn't do it that way. They had more about 130 permanent caches added for the event, plus about 100 more caches that made up the skull and crossbones in the surrounding area.

[+myotis]

I thought the volunteer thing was really silly, but this blatant stuff is beyond:

 

"we spotted this one early, but didn't have the desire or the means to access the cache. later, we met XXXXXXX and XXXXXX, and XXXXXX's's son had a kayak. in exchange for 4 Boulevard Wheats, his son paddled out the cache, and brought it a bit closer, so we could sign the log.

This is common with group caching, sign the log from the comfort of your vehicle.

 

I thought they deserved a gold star for finding a creative way to get the cache. When the cache was placed, you could walk to it. Its spring and the lake level is up. It is a little over a 100 feet out in the lake in a tree.

I have a similar 5/5 listing that got group cached. One member carryed the cache back to the geomobile so the other "finders" could sign the log. Lame way to get a smiley.

 

I would agree with you on the 5/5. But the cache they found would be classified a 1/1.5 when the floods go down. So I would call what they did creative, not lame.

 

I hid a 5/5 once that required a 20 mile backpack. But nowadays there are lame 5/5s. Theres a 5/5 down on the Current River that you can walk to easily in about an hour and to claim the 5/5 Earth Cache all you have to do is tell how big you THINK the cave entrance is.

[+briansnat]

Let's just forget about caches and change the name of the sport to geologging. Actually we can apparently throw the geo part away too. We can become logging.com.

 

Or maybe the people who are into that kind of stuff can start their own website and leave this one for people who are into finding geocaches.

[+M 5]

There is way too much "let everyone play how they want". With all the whining and political correctness, we can't even have rules, only guidelines. Everyone is going to keep pushing the limit, like has happend on Virtuals and ALR's. I wish Groundspeak would, and in some cases could, make hard and fast rules and enforce them. It would make this hobby a lot healthier animal. It will never happen, but I can dream.

[mresoteric]

 

I have a similar 5/5 listing that got group cached. One member carryed the cache back to the geomobile so the other "finders" could sign the log. Lame way to get a smiley.

 

If someone could carryth cache back to the geomobile then could it really be considered a 5/5?

[+StarBrand]

 

So are you saying the weather was only bad where the competion was? I guess a couple miles away where the caches were it was nice and sunny.

 

If it is OK to cheat and log caches you did not find, what's the problem with someone cheating on the competition? If you think cheating is OK, what's the need for a punch?

 

Maybe if there was leading by example and requiring people to find the caches to claim a find, it would be reasonable to conduct the competition on the honor system. But if you don't trust cachers to compete fairly, it can be done without a punch. Write a code on the cache lid - if they don't have the code, don't count it.

 

Umm, wait a minute. You're the one who made it sound like the competition caches were so easy. My point was that the competition caches were just as hard to find as the non-competition caches.

 

You keep throwing the word "cheating" around. How about toning down the inflammatory words? The point I'm trying to make is that the competitors did find a physical cache. It was a container with a lid, and competitors were required to sign a piece of paper proving that they found it. While the paper was a bit unusual, it was still a piece of paper that was delivered to an official of the competition at the end of the competition. The paper was unique to each team or individual who was competing. The punches were unique to each cache and were proof that each team or person had found the corresponding cache. While this may be a slightly different way of proving that the person found the cache from what people are used to, it seems to me to be a reasonable proof.

 

Rather than griping so much, all the detractors who have posted here should suggest an alternate method of achieving the goals of the competition while preventing non-competitors from spoiling the competition. If you have a better way of doing that, let's hear it.

You have done a mighty poor job of explaining this 'competition' and what is/was going on - I know many if not all have no idea what this is/was at all.

 

The only question I have is: were the caches that they logged online found by them at the posted coordinates on the day of the competition - are they all legit listed caches on this site?? Not logged previously by same players??

[+myotis]

 

You have done a mighty poor job of explaining this 'competition' and what is/was going on - I know many if not all have no idea what this is/was at all.

 

The only question I have is: were the caches that they logged online found by them at the posted coordinates on the day of the competition - are they all legit listed caches on this site?? Not logged previously by same players??

 

NO the caches they logged on line where NOT found by them. The caches they logged were about 3-4 miles from the competition. In the competition, they found punches. Go to http://www.mogageo.com/ scrooll down a ways and you will come to the instructions. They list the competition punch and then list the cache (which is miles away and they Did NOT find) that they can log as a reward for finding the punch.

 

The second and the much more egerious cheating was some volunteers (I hid some of the caches and no one ever told me I could cheat-I would have objected if they had) were told they could log some of the 130 caches hidden for the event as a reward for helping to hide caches or punches.

[+StarBrand]

 

You have done a mighty poor job of explaining this 'competition' and what is/was going on - I know many if not all have no idea what this is/was at all.

 

The only question I have is: were the caches that they logged online found by them at the posted coordinates on the day of the competition - are they all legit listed caches on this site?? Not logged previously by same players??

 

NO the caches they logged on line where NOT found by them. The caches they logged were about 3-4 miles from the competition. In the competition, they found punches. Go to http://www.mogageo.com/ scrooll down a ways and you will come to the instructions. They list the competition punch and then list the cache (which is miles away and they Did NOT find) that they can log as a reward for finding the punch.

 

The second and the much more egerious cheating was some volunteers (I hid some of the caches and no one ever told me I could cheat-I would have objected if they had) were told they could log some of the 130 caches hidden for the event as a reward for helping to hide caches or punches.

Sorry - my comments were directed at PokerLuck - not you. The attempted defense of what happened is ill explained at best.

[AZcachemeister]

Disgusting.

Yet, not truly surprising.

There are apparently a bunch of people out there who have completely lost sight of what this is really about.

Maybe they never understood it in the first place.

 

The laissaiz-faireists aren't helping.

[+joranda]

I was at the event. It was the only cache that I did not go after cause I really wasn't feeling up to getting wet. I seen a fellow area cacher friend of mine log it and I know that they wouldn't get wet for it either. Even email them about in case they logged it by mistake. Never heard back. I guess that one extra smiley was worth it. LOL. Oh well, it is only a game.

[knowschad]

LOL. Oh well, it is only a game.

So is baseball. And football. They have rules and ethics.

[+joranda]

Ok, now for the other side of the story. The MOGA organizers haven't responded, so I'll give it a try.

 

It used to be that the same caches were used for the competitions and as regular caches. The caches had a punch in them for the competitors, but they were also loggable as regular caches. The problem was that the regular cachers thought the punches were swag and took them, ruining it for the competitors. They tried putting them nearby, but still had the same problem. So they separated them by a larger distance, so the competitors could find the punches and non-competitors could find the regular caches, which made everyone happy.

 

Except that the competitors now could not log their caches. As a benefit, the organizers allowed the competitors to log a regular cache that corresponded to each punch cache that they found. It's their cache, right? They can accept whatever form of signature they want, even if it's just a punch on a piece of cardboard.

 

Anyone who thinks that the competition was a walk in the park is way off. Saturday at MOGA was miserable. It hovered near freezing the entire day, and it was continuous rain, snow, or sleet the entire time. The ground may have been flatter, but it was pure muck. The fields had been plowed in the fall and were mostly alternating furrows of mud and pools of ankle-deep water. A significant part of the strategy was deciding whether to slog it though the muck or take the longer way around on drier ground.

 

Worrying that someone else might get some perceived benefit that you didn't reminds of the guy who lies awake all night, worried that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.

 

Well said. I too was one of the people there in the competition. I did both the singles and team. It was no walk in the park and the weather did work against us.