Jump to content

Dirtbag Geocaching Society


JL_HSTRE
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

[______________] ... is every bit, if not more lame and cheesy as hiding that LPC at Wally World.

Sorry Yuckmeister, on this, I must disagree. :P

(Me? Disagree? Whooda Thunkit?) :lol:

Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter what you fill it with. Anything.

It won't be as lame and cheesy as a Wally World LPC. B)

 

How about filling in the blank with "80 temporary virtual caches for attending an event and walking around looking at animated Christmas displays"? Because that has and does happen, every December. Whether or not people actually come back the next year and look at them again and log them 80 more times is undetermined. But I'll bet it's happened. No names or locations, of course.

Link to comment

[______________] ... is every bit, if not more lame and cheesy as hiding that LPC at Wally World.

Sorry Yuckmeister, on this, I must disagree. :P

(Me? Disagree? Whooda Thunkit?) :lol:

Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter what you fill it with. Anything.

It won't be as lame and cheesy as a Wally World LPC. B)

Logging a TB you never handled or looked at? Sorry, that's much more cheesier than hiding or finding a WWLPC, IMO. You'd have to armchair log the LPC to beat that. :rolleyes:

Dude! I could randomly input alphanumerics till I happened upon a viable travel bug / geocoin combination, and log a discovered on it from the comfort of my living room, and even that would not be quite as lame and cheesy as a Wally World, (or Lowes), LPC. On a scale of 1 to 10, virtual TB logging is an 8.7, whilst Wally World LPCs are a firm 9.3 on the Lame Scale.

Link to comment

[______________] ... is every bit, if not more lame and cheesy as hiding that LPC at Wally World.

Sorry Yuckmeister, on this, I must disagree. :P

(Me? Disagree? Whooda Thunkit?) :lol:

Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter what you fill it with. Anything.

It won't be as lame and cheesy as a Wally World LPC. B)

Logging a TB you never handled or looked at? Sorry, that's much more cheesier than hiding or finding a WWLPC, IMO. You'd have to armchair log the LPC to beat that. :rolleyes:

Dude! I could randomly input alphanumerics till I happened upon a viable travel bug / geocoin combination, and log a discovered on it from the comfort of my living room, and even that would not be quite as lame and cheesy as a Wally World, (or Lowes), LPC. On a scale of 1 to 10, virtual TB logging is an 8.7, whilst Wally World LPCs are a firm 9.3 on the Lame Scale.

 

Does

peg a 10 on the Lame Scale? Personally, I'm thinking it blows the scale away.
Link to comment

[______________] ... is every bit, if not more lame and cheesy as hiding that LPC at Wally World.

Sorry Yuckmeister, on this, I must disagree. :P

(Me? Disagree? Whooda Thunkit?) :lol:

Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter what you fill it with. Anything.

It won't be as lame and cheesy as a Wally World LPC. B)

Logging a TB you never handled or looked at? Sorry, that's much more cheesier than hiding or finding a WWLPC, IMO. You'd have to armchair log the LPC to beat that. :rolleyes:

Dude! I could randomly input alphanumerics till I happened upon a viable travel bug / geocoin combination, and log a discovered on it from the comfort of my living room, and even that would not be quite as lame and cheesy as a Wally World, (or Lowes), LPC. On a scale of 1 to 10, virtual TB logging is an 8.7, whilst Wally World LPCs are a firm 9.3 on the Lame Scale.

 

Does

peg a 10 on the Lame Scale? Personally, I'm thinking it blows the scale away.

 

Put that under a Wally World light post skirt and the lameometer will go off the scale... :laughing:

Link to comment

[______________] ... is every bit, if not more lame and cheesy as hiding that LPC at Wally World.

Sorry Yuckmeister, on this, I must disagree. :P

(Me? Disagree? Whooda Thunkit?) :lol:

Fill in the blank. It doesn't matter what you fill it with. Anything.

It won't be as lame and cheesy as a Wally World LPC. B)

Logging a TB you never handled or looked at? Sorry, that's much more cheesier than hiding or finding a WWLPC, IMO. You'd have to armchair log the LPC to beat that. :rolleyes:

Dude! I could randomly input alphanumerics till I happened upon a viable travel bug / geocoin combination, and log a discovered on it from the comfort of my living room, and even that would not be quite as lame and cheesy as a Wally World, (or Lowes), LPC. On a scale of 1 to 10, virtual TB logging is an 8.7, whilst Wally World LPCs are a firm 9.3 on the Lame Scale.

 

Does

peg a 10 on the Lame Scale? Personally, I'm thinking it blows the scale away.

 

Put that under a Wally World light post skirt and the lameometer will go off the scale... :laughing:

 

I'll admit I've made some comments about that one in the past, and the video maker is totally serious, and is a Charter Member of this website. He even came on here to discuss it, although he left rather quickly. The better one is where he hid a CD in a sidewalk crack where you're supposed to scratch your Geonick into the CD. And the friggin' cops show up in the middle of the video to ask him what he's doing. :blink:

 

EDIT: Dang, he just posted a reply to someone's comment about the disgarded water bottle video 3 weeks ago. Yup, he's serious, and as serious as he's ever been.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

The only downside to the experience, and it was significant for me, was losing a very good friend who believed the stories he'd heard passed around.

 

Since I have first hand knowledge of this exchange with the "friend" to which you refer, I suggest you revisit your exchanges with this person before further portraying inaccuracies in a public setting.

 

That said, and for what it's worth, I have met a few DGS members and a few cachers who eventually became DGS members. I have interacted with a few DGS members on Facebook groups on several occasions and have seen many screenshots (not "stories") of DGS member exchanges with other cachers in forums, on geocache logs, etc. etc.

 

Some of these exchanges were positive, friendly, and complimentary. Some of these exchanges were aggressive, mean-spirited, and of low moral fiber (IMHO).

 

After reflecting, however, on these exchanges, I started to consider other people I've encountered in my life... from other hobbyist groups, forums, jobs, places I've lived, etc. etc. and the personal conclusion I eventually reached is that the DGS is just another group comprised of, you guessed it, the same personality types you might expect to find pretty much ANYWHERE:

 

Some people are very nice

For others, you have to chip away at the outer "ego" layer a bit to get to the "soft gooey center"

Some people are hypercritical cynics (<-- Hey look, here's my category!)

Some members are troublemakers and warmongers

Some people are two-faced liars

Some people are one step above pond scum

... etc... etc...

 

My experiences led me to form opinions about specific individuals, but certainly not EVERY member. As with elsewhere in life, it only takes a few "bad eggs" to ruin things for everyone else. My advice (for the little it's worth) is to form YOUR OWN conclusions based on first hand experiences and facts, then decide for yourself.

Edited by Cryptosporidium-623
Link to comment

My advice (for the little it's worth) is to form YOUR OWN conclusions based on first hand experiences and facts, then decide for yourself.

Great advice. I've noticed that there are a tiny handful of forum regulars who like to paint with very broad brushes. The DGS is comprised of people. As such, they are mostly good folks, with a few less than stellar members, as is true for any group of people. The forum haters minority like to present the myth that the DGS is comprised of ne'er-do-wells, hell bent on the destruction of this hobby.

Link to comment

Bad behavior examples tend to trigger forum threads, whether at the worldwide or local level.

 

Good behavior examples don't tend to produce forum threads:

 

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? There is this guy in my area who likes to take his family out geocaching in the woods, where he teaches them things like orienteering, looking for animal signs, and rock climbing skills. Sometimes they even pack a picnic lunch! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. Sometimes they only find one or two caches in an ENTIRE DAY. What can be done to stop this behavior and get this family's numbers boosted up to where they should be?
Link to comment

Bad behavior examples tend to trigger forum threads, whether at the worldwide or local level.

 

Good behavior examples don't tend to produce forum threads:

 

CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? There is this guy in my area who likes to take his family out geocaching in the woods, where he teaches them things like orienteering, looking for animal signs, and rock climbing skills. Sometimes they even pack a picnic lunch! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. Sometimes they only find one or two caches in an ENTIRE DAY. What can be done to stop this behavior and get this family's numbers boosted up to where they should be?

Very true. When an individual does something which violates the general mores of a hobby, and that person happens to belong to a group, would it be reasonable to start a forum thread depicting the group as problem children, or would it be more appropriate to bash on the individual? For instance, I am a member of the Florida Geocaching Association, the Space Coast Geocachers Assciation, the North East Florida Geocaching Assciation, the Greater Orlando Geocachers, and several other groups. Presume, for argument's sake that I do something incredibly stupid. Something which (almost) everyone would agree was bad. No ambiguity. Would it be acceptable for BillyBobNosePicker to start of forum thread decrying the evils of the FGA?

Link to comment

Very true. When an individual does something which violates the general mores of a hobby, and that person happens to belong to a group, would it be reasonable to start a forum thread depicting the group as problem children, or would it be more appropriate to bash on the individual? For instance, I am a member of the Florida Geocaching Association, the Space Coast Geocachers Assciation, the North East Florida Geocaching Assciation, the Greater Orlando Geocachers, and several other groups. Presume, for argument's sake that I do something incredibly stupid. Something which (almost) everyone would agree was bad. No ambiguity. Would it be acceptable for BillyBobNosePicker to start of forum thread decrying the evils of the FGA?

 

If those actions are condemned by the organization then no. If those actions are condoned and/or encouraged by the organization (whether directly by their leaders or indirectly through their own inactions), then I would say yes. Obviously context is key here.

Edited by Cryptosporidium-623
Link to comment

Very true. When an individual does something which violates the general mores of a hobby, and that person happens to belong to a group, would it be reasonable to start a forum thread depicting the group as problem children, or would it be more appropriate to bash on the individual? For instance, I am a member of the Florida Geocaching Association, the Space Coast Geocachers Assciation, the North East Florida Geocaching Assciation, the Greater Orlando Geocachers, and several other groups. Presume, for argument's sake that I do something incredibly stupid. Something which (almost) everyone would agree was bad. No ambiguity. Would it be acceptable for BillyBobNosePicker to start of forum thread decrying the evils of the FGA?

 

If those actions are condemned by the organization then no. If those actions are condoned and/or encouraged by the organization (whether directly by their leaders or indirectly through their own inactions), then I would say yes. Obviously context is key here.

 

The group stands out as it has a name which denigrates itself. The original post was not picking on anyone in particular, but was questioning whether there is inherent miscreant behavior as a result.

 

What is the DGS? Is their purpose to encourage creative out-in-the-woods non-micro geocaches? Or is it to promote ignoring the guidelines, facilitate armchair logging of caches, share lists of puzzle cache solutions, and share lists of trackables?

 

Since they are known for a few or more of these activities, I'd say it was a little more than individual behavior. With two members being banned recently for harassment, it doesn't add anything positive to their image.

Link to comment

Very true. When an individual does something which violates the general mores of a hobby, and that person happens to belong to a group, would it be reasonable to start a forum thread depicting the group as problem children, or would it be more appropriate to bash on the individual? For instance, I am a member of the Florida Geocaching Association, the Space Coast Geocachers Assciation, the North East Florida Geocaching Assciation, the Greater Orlando Geocachers, and several other groups. Presume, for argument's sake that I do something incredibly stupid. Something which (almost) everyone would agree was bad. No ambiguity. Would it be acceptable for BillyBobNosePicker to start of forum thread decrying the evils of the FGA?

 

If those actions are condemned by the organization then no. If those actions are condoned and/or encouraged by the organization (whether directly by their leaders or indirectly through their own inactions), then I would say yes. Obviously context is key here.

 

I would add that there is also a big difference between FGA or SCGA and DGS. FGA and SCGA are regional organizations whose main purpose is simply connecting and representing cachers within a geographical area, regardless of how those cachers play the game. DGS consists of cachers who claim to follow and promote a certain style of play.

Link to comment

DGS consists of cachers who claim to follow and promote a certain style of play.

As does FGA, SCGA, NEFGA, GOG, CFLAG, TAG, etc, etc, etc.

 

Since the DGS, as a group, does not sanction negative behavior, either toward cachers or caches, can we cease and desist with the DGS bashing threads?

 

No? I didn't think so. :unsure:

Link to comment

DGS consists of cachers who claim to follow and promote a certain style of play.

As does FGA, SCGA, NEFGA, GOG, CFLAG, TAG, etc, etc, etc.

 

Since the DGS, as a group, does not sanction negative behavior, either toward cachers or caches, can we cease and desist with the DGS bashing threads?

 

No? I didn't think so. :unsure:

 

Perhaps we could merge a local SCA chapter into Geocaching - people who beat each others brains out with home-fabricated medieval weapons and armor for the privilege of the much coveted FTF. If nothing else, it provides entertainment for the onlookers. :anibad:

Link to comment

DGS consists of cachers who claim to follow and promote a certain style of play.

As does FGA, SCGA, NEFGA, GOG, CFLAG, TAG, etc, etc, etc.

 

Since the DGS, as a group, does not sanction negative behavior, either toward cachers or caches, can we cease and desist with the DGS bashing threads?

 

No? I didn't think so. :unsure:

 

Does that "negative behavior" include armchair logging events and caches, sharing puzzle solutions, and TB #s, as well as ignoring the guidelines? If a higher than normal percentage of these members do this, they are going to be associated with that. Whether it is officially "not sanctioned" will have no bearing on general impressions.

 

I think it's rather nice that they do not like micros, though. :D

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Very true. When an individual does something which violates the general mores of a hobby, and that person happens to belong to a group, would it be reasonable to start a forum thread depicting the group as problem children, or would it be more appropriate to bash on the individual? For instance, I am a member of the Florida Geocaching Association, the Space Coast Geocachers Assciation, the North East Florida Geocaching Assciation, the Greater Orlando Geocachers, and several other groups. Presume, for argument's sake that I do something incredibly stupid. Something which (almost) everyone would agree was bad. No ambiguity. Would it be acceptable for BillyBobNosePicker to start of forum thread decrying the evils of the FGA?

 

If those actions are condemned by the organization then no. If those actions are condoned and/or encouraged by the organization (whether directly by their leaders or indirectly through their own inactions), then I would say yes. Obviously context is key here.

 

I would add that there is also a big difference between FGA or SCGA and DGS. FGA and SCGA are regional organizations whose main purpose is simply connecting and representing cachers within a geographical area, regardless of how those cachers play the game. DGS consists of cachers who claim to follow and promote a certain style of play.

 

I agree with that. Although there was once in fact a "regional" Geocaching organization that was considered rogue, and anti micro. Although they still exist on the internet, it's pretty much defunct. I am indeed a member, although being a member really only consists of joining a Yahoo Group. I'm sure our most esteemed moderator knows exactly what I'm talking about. :ph34r:

 

@4WF word on the street is that the banned DGS member is a sock. i.e. the DGS persona is a sock puppet for a longer established account, and there is actually only one currently banned person, not two. I will refrain from posting street view pics of the more than two dozen parking lot nanos, parking lot micros, and guardrail micros they have hidden under the primary, 6,000 find, numbers obsessed, account. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

@4WF word on the street is that the banned DGS member is a sock. i.e. the DGS persona is a sock puppet for a longer established account, and there is actually only one currently banned person, not two. I will refrain from posting street view pics of the more than two dozen parking lot nanos, parking lot micros, and guardrail micros they have hidden under the primary, 6,000 find, numbers obsessed, account. :ph34r:

 

Ok, I found it. There were 3 accounts locked, and 2 of them were socks. Some 150 caches were disabled by HQ, many of which were considered lame by DGS's own standards. :rolleyes:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

If a higher than normal percentage of these members do this...

I'm not sure how anyone would establish what the 'normal' percentage would be, in order to establish whether or not a 'higher than normal' percentage conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner.

 

I think it's rather nice that they do not like micros, though. :D

'They' implies all of them. Since this isn't even remotely accurate, I must conclude that, when it comes to bashing the DGS, facts are pretty much irrelevant. A more accurate statement would be something to the effect of, "Many of their more vocal members dislike lame micros".

Link to comment

If a higher than normal percentage of these members do this...

I'm not sure how anyone would establish what the 'normal' percentage would be, in order to establish whether or not a 'higher than normal' percentage conduct themselves in an inappropriate manner.

 

I think it's rather nice that they do not like micros, though. :D

'They' implies all of them. Since this isn't even remotely accurate, I must conclude that, when it comes to bashing the DGS, facts are pretty much irrelevant. A more accurate statement would be something to the effect of, "Many of their more vocal members dislike lame micros".

 

Bazinga! Found that dadgum micro. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I feel we're back to the original question: what is the purpose of DGS? Because at this point it seems like to me like this thread (especially Riffster) has suggested the DGS' mindset is...

 

We micros...well, lame micros...well, some of our members do. We care about cool caches...as defined by however each member defines cool caches. We're not about the numbers, but number-lovers can join. We don't endorse sharing puzzle solutions or TB #'s with other members, but we don't have a problem with it either. We just don't care - we're here to have fun (and ignore rules/normforms if they interfere?).

 

Have I finally hit the nail on the head? Is DGS really nothing more than a glorified nationwide geo-fraternity with no meaningful common ground besides a love of skull-n-crossbone shirts and a loose interpretation of the Guidelines?

Link to comment
Have I finally hit the nail on the head? Is DGS really nothing more than a glorified nationwide geo-fraternity with no meaningful common ground besides a love of skull-n-crossbone shirts and a loose interpretation of the Guidelines?

 

Close. Add "..and a tendency toward high school-like hijinks" and I think you will have nailed it. All you need to do is go to one of their Facebook pages and read the discussions about how to mess with cache owners and TB owners who they don't care for. Rarely do you see an adult step in and say "grow up".

Link to comment

I feel we're back to the original question: what is the purpose of DGS? Because at this point it seems like to me like this thread (especially Riffster) has suggested the DGS' mindset is...

 

We micros...well, lame micros...well, some of our members do. We care about cool caches...as defined by however each member defines cool caches. We're not about the numbers, but number-lovers can join. We don't endorse sharing puzzle solutions or TB #'s with other members, but we don't have a problem with it either. We just don't care - we're here to have fun (and ignore rules/normforms if they interfere?).

 

Have I finally hit the nail on the head? Is DGS really nothing more than a glorified nationwide geo-fraternity with no meaningful common ground besides a love of skull-n-crossbone shirts and a loose interpretation of the Guidelines?

I think your personal Jihad has reached the point of silliness.

 

In your continuing attempt to bash an organization you apparently know very little about, you insist on equating individual behavior with group dynamics. If I were to post a link to a South Florida geocaching group member posting travel bug numbers on Faceybook, would you suddenly break out the pitchforks and torches, directing them toward that group? Or do they get a pass? What if I provided the same type of data against an FGA member? Bash or pass? NEFGA? SCGA? Why is it, you only pull these shenanigans with DGS?

 

Is the DGS so offensive to you that you are willing to trash the group whenever one of its members behaves inappropriately? If so, a reasonable person would be asking themselves, "Why?". Is blaming the individual such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

 

To more accurately address your question, you do know that there is a difference betwixt a group's purpose and an individual person's mindset, right? As stated earlier, the purpose of the DGS could be said to promote quality geocaching. For questions of mindset, wouldn't it be more effective to ask each individual, since a group, by definition, cannot have a mindset.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I feel we're back to the original question: what is the purpose of DGS? Because at this point it seems like to me like this thread (especially Riffster) has suggested the DGS' mindset is...

 

We micros...well, lame micros...well, some of our members do. We care about cool caches...as defined by however each member defines cool caches. We're not about the numbers, but number-lovers can join. We don't endorse sharing puzzle solutions or TB #'s with other members, but we don't have a problem with it either. We just don't care - we're here to have fun (and ignore rules/normforms if they interfere?).

 

Have I finally hit the nail on the head? Is DGS really nothing more than a glorified nationwide geo-fraternity with no meaningful common ground besides a love of skull-n-crossbone shirts and a loose interpretation of the Guidelines?

I think your personal Jihad has reached the point of silliness.

 

In your continuing attempt to bash an organization you apparently know very little about, you insist on equating individual behavior with group dynamics. If I were to post a link to a South Florida geocaching group member posting travel bug numbers on Faceybook, would you suddenly break out the pitchforks and torches, directing them toward that group? Or do they get a pass? What if I provided the same type of data against an FGA member? Bash or pass? NEFGA? SCGA? Why is it, you only pull these shenanigans with DGS?

 

Is the DGS so offensive to you that you are willing to trash the group whenever one of its members behaves inappropriately? If so, a reasonable person would be asking themselves, "Why?". Is blaming the individual such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

 

To more accurately address your question, you do know that there is a difference betwixt a group's purpose and an individual person's mindset, right? As stated earlier, the purpose of the DGS could be said to promote quality geocaching. For questions of mindset, wouldn't it be more effective to ask each individual, since a group, by definition, cannot have a mindset.

 

Groups frequently have mindsets. People are known to act differently in a mob than they would individually. The question is whether the amount of malarkey in the group rises to the level of being concerned about, or even noted. I am not aware of any suspensions among FGA, NEFGA, or SCGA members. Among the DGS there was another incident this past May in which all of the a members caches were disabled and locked for a month. The statement by Briansnat is a little disturbing.

All you need to do is go to one of their Facebook pages and read the discussions about how to mess with cache owners and TB owners who they don't care for. Rarely do you see an adult step in and say "grow up".
I really don't have any tolerance for groups of people who prey on individuals. The fact that this goes on and nobody makes any attempt to step in and stop it speaks volumes.

 

It does appear that the majority does not do any of this, but it still should not be happening at all. Drinking more than 2 cans of soda a day can contribute to diabetes and kidney disease, but the majority will not be affected. However it occurs enough for it to be noted. Cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, not in the majority of people, but still enough to warrant a warning label. I don't think that there is any need for warnings, but the malarkey will be discussed when it happens. You cannot stop people from talking about it. If they don't want to be associated with it, they need to speak out against it, rather than being silent. At first I thought this was a silly discussion about their name, but if some in the group want to play it up that's a different story.

Link to comment

Groups frequently have mindsets.

For a group to have a mindset, all of the members of said group would need to share a common belief system. This phenominum can be seen in certain cults, where the members have been brainwashed to think a certain way. You could also apply the group mindset label to certain hate groups, when applied to the particular context of their demonstrated angst, though I'm not sure that these folks don't qualify for cult status.

 

The group mindset certainly does not apply to the DGS, as they are made up of individuals, with individual belief systems. The only thought that could possibly be applied universally to DGS members is their tendency to prefer quality over quantity.

 

The question is whether the amount of malarkey in the group...

Once again, you are applying individual actions to the group. Whilst, like many other groups, there have been a few members of DGS who have acted inappropriately, it is unreasonable, even unfair, to blame these individual acts on the group.

 

I am not aware of any suspensions among FGA, NEFGA, or SCGA members.

Remember Ashnikes? Do you know how many groups he belonged to?

Should we bash all of those groups for the actions of that individual?

 

It does appear that the majority does not do any of this, but it still should not be happening at all.

Agreed. But once again, where do you place the blame? My life experience tells me that if Billy Bob, a long time member of ABCD, (a fictional group), robs a bank, the blame should most likely be applied to Billy Bob, not to the whole ABCD group.

 

You cannot stop people from talking about it.

I'm not attempting to stop people from talking about the bad behavior of a handful of individuals. Rather, I am pointing out that blaming the group for the actions of an individual is preposterous. In the case of some, who take every chance they can to continue their deliberate targeting of a group, I see this as rising to the level of bullying. I have very low tolerance for bullies.

Link to comment

The group mindset certainly does not apply to the DGS, as they are made up of individuals, with individual belief systems. The only thought that could possibly be applied universally to DGS members is their tendency to prefer quality over quantity.

ALL groups are "made up of individuals, with individual belief systems." That's what a 'group' is. Most groups gather together because of some similar interest/desire/belief, and based on that will have a 'group mindset.' So, saying the DGS does not have a 'group mindset' is false - defining what that group mindset is... ??

Link to comment

The group mindset certainly does not apply to the DGS, as they are made up of individuals, with individual belief systems. The only thought that could possibly be applied universally to DGS members is their tendency to prefer quality over quantity.

ALL groups are "made up of individuals, with individual belief systems." That's what a 'group' is. Most groups gather together because of some similar interest/desire/belief, and based on that will have a 'group mindset.' So, saying the DGS does not have a 'group mindset' is false - defining what that group mindset is... ??

 

Exactly! If you want to see what their mindset is stop by one of their Facebook pages. Perhaps a small percentage actually act out, however the all virtual high fives when acting out is discussed is very telling.

Link to comment

The group mindset certainly does not apply to the DGS, as they are made up of individuals, with individual belief systems. The only thought that could possibly be applied universally to DGS members is their tendency to prefer quality over quantity.

ALL groups are "made up of individuals, with individual belief systems." That's what a 'group' is. Most groups gather together because of some similar interest/desire/belief, and based on that will have a 'group mindset.' So, saying the DGS does not have a 'group mindset' is false - defining what that group mindset is... ??

I think you are confusing group dynamics with group mindset. Without some extensive brain washing, you cannot get the two to mesh. Mindset, at it's simplest, is the core values or beliefs of a group or individual. Since there is no established core values or belief systems common to the DGS other than their oft stated preference for quality over quantity, the term 'mindset' cannot be applied in a negative light to the DGS. I know it's easier to jump on the bullying band wagon, rather than actually look at the facts of the matter, however, in this case, the bullying is both immoral, (as all bullying is), and factually absurd.

 

Constantly posting defamatory comments about a group, which are only applicable to individuals, is foul.

 

I would even argue that this mindless, misdirected bashing qualifies as a TOU violation.

Link to comment

I was certainly interested when i first heard about the DGS. The thought of a group who was into quality over quantity is a group i would like to be a member of. Did some web searching and wasn't able to come up with much but the little i did find made up my mind for me. The first line on their webpage is,,, "DGS, the darkside of Geocaching". While this doesn't mean they're sacrificing caches at the altar and burning TBs, it was enough for me to make up my mind that i wasn't interested afterall.

Link to comment

The group mindset certainly does not apply to the DGS, as they are made up of individuals, with individual belief systems. The only thought that could possibly be applied universally to DGS members is their tendency to prefer quality over quantity.

ALL groups are "made up of individuals, with individual belief systems." That's what a 'group' is. Most groups gather together because of some similar interest/desire/belief, and based on that will have a 'group mindset.' So, saying the DGS does not have a 'group mindset' is false - defining what that group mindset is... ??

I think you are confusing group dynamics with group mindset. Without some extensive brain washing, you cannot get the two to mesh. Mindset, at it's simplest, is the core values or beliefs of a group or individual. Since there is no established core values or belief systems common to the DGS other than their oft stated preference for quality over quantity, the term 'mindset' cannot be applied in a negative light to the DGS. I know it's easier to jump on the bullying band wagon, rather than actually look at the facts of the matter, however, in this case, the bullying is both immoral, (as all bullying is), and factually absurd.

As I said, a group is brought together/defined by common values/beliefs. That's the mindset of the group - individuals will not be confind to *just* those values/beliefs, but will share them, otherwise they won't join the group.

 

Constantly posting defamatory comments about a group, which are only applicable to individuals, is foul.

 

I would even argue that this mindless, misdirected bashing qualifies as a TOU violation.

Don't lump my reply to your "they have no mindset" with others bashing the group. That's a different topic from whether they have a mindset (which I haven't tried to define). I have no opinion about the DGS strong enough to bash them or agree with them.

 

However (general comments, not directed at DGS), if there is a subset of a group acting out, and strongly identifing themselves with said group, then those outside that group will gain a warped view of said group. The group needs to speak up just as loudly to deny such actions, or others will assume they agree with such actions/beliefs.

Link to comment
Constantly posting defamatory comments about a group, which are only applicable to individuals, is foul.

 

I would even argue that this mindless, misdirected bashing qualifies as a TOU violation.

Don't lump my reply to your "they have no mindset" with others bashing the group. That's a different topic from whether they have a mindset (which I haven't tried to define). I have no opinion about the DGS strong enough to bash them or agree with them.

 

Yes, he's managed to lump you into the group of "bullies", while at the same time insisting that DGS should not be judged as a group.

 

However (general comments, not directed at DGS), if there is a subset of a group acting out, and strongly identifing themselves with said group, then those outside that group will gain a warped view of said group. The group needs to speak up just as loudly to deny such actions, or others will assume they agree with such actions/beliefs.

 

Agreed.

 

I just received a report of them posting the TB# of the Original Can of Beans online, requiring Lackey intervention, seemingly part of a pattern of TB abuse.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I think you are confusing group dynamics with group mindset. Without some extensive brain washing, you cannot get the two to mesh. Mindset, at it's simplest, is the core values or beliefs of a group or individual. Since there is no established core values or belief systems common to the DGS other than their oft stated preference for quality over quantity, the term 'mindset' cannot be applied in a negative light to the DGS.

 

It is fair to suggest that the DGS members must share more in common than a "stated preference for quality over quantity". Further, this groups shared perceptions, experiences, and biases form the basis of the "group" mindset.

 

What has been suggested is that "group dynamics" (describing the positive and negative forces within groups of people) has a negative impact on the DGS membership and public image alike. Further, the promotion of the DGS "bad boy" image (and the select few bad apples) leads others to engage in (or accept) "bad" behaviour. In some cases this will be against their own individual ethics, values, and better judgement.

 

The social group is a critical source of information about individual identity. An individual’s identity (or self-concept) has two components: personal identity and social identity (or collective self). One’s personal identity is defined by more idiosyncratic, individual qualities and attributes. In contrast, one’s social identity is defined by his or her group membership, and the general characteristics (or prototypes) that define the group and differentiate it from others

 

Groups don't like uncertainty, so they lean heavily toward consensus-building. A group mindset, or personality, naturally emerges built around the shared perceptions, experiences, and biases of members. Over time, this mindset acts as a "gyroscope" that produces groupthink.

 

Going along with the beliefs or actions of a group can also influence individuals to do harmful and destructive things. A group of peaceful protesters can turn into an angry, riotous mob when only a few members of the group become aggressive and violent.

 

Groups use peer pressure to encourage conformity, and because of natural desires to be liked and belong to a group, many go along with group decisions, even if they are suspect or wrong. In his classic 1955 study on the impact of group size on conformity, Solomon Asch found that a group of just three or four people can significantly influence and distort the perceptual judgments of others. In this experiment, the group was asked a simple question, “Which of these three lines is the same length as the one I am pointing to?”

 

Ninety seven percent (97%) of subjects got the right answer when asked this question individually. However, when the majority of a group (confederates) gave pre-planned wrong answers, over a third of the subjects in over 50% of the trials, went along with the incorrect group perception. As many as 70% of the students caved in to the group’s false view at least once. Some yielded so as not to appear different from the majority– in this case they were strangers– while others begin to see the wrong answer as the right perceptual judgment. Their subjective reality became distorted!

Link to comment

People that have a very dominant left brain hemisphere will always believe they are dirtbags, simply because that is their chosen label. They could sell kittens to help the homeless and that would not matter. The brain relies on symbols and labels for communication and many of us cannot separate the symbolism from reality. It's an interesting topic, as CR is arguing that they are essentially "posers". I can buy that, as thoughout history there have always been people who have tried to project an image that is false, or a belief that is different from who they are. I recall kids dressing up as skaters, who don't skate. People who wear expensive outdoor attire or exercise clothing, who don't ever hike and don't exercise. People who buy large trucks with massive tires that never go off road. People who trailer racecars to events that don't run at all. Under that fancy chromed engine is a motor missing a crankshaft. There are those that get tattoos, shave their head, and ride Harleys, who in reality don't actually fit any type of tough biker stereotype.

 

In this case the argument is that they are all mostly "posers", and are being unfairly characterized as what they say they are. Yeah, I could buy that, but there are also those in the DGS who have a dominant left brain hemisphere who will try to play into the dirtbag fantasy. If someone acts out they don't say anything, as that will only shatter their dirtbag delusion. There might just be more who will want to play it up and be what they say they are.

Link to comment
If I were to post a link to a South Florida geocaching group member posting travel bug numbers on Faceybook, would you suddenly break out the pitchforks and torches, directing them toward that group? Or do they get a pass? What if I provided the same type of data against an FGA member? Bash or pass? NEFGA? SCGA? Why is it, you only pull these shenanigans with DGS? Is the DGS so offensive to you that you are willing to trash the group whenever one of its members behaves inappropriately? If so, a reasonable person would be asking themselves, "Why?". Is blaming the individual such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

 

To more accurately address your question, you do know that there is a difference betwixt a group's purpose and an individual person's mindset, right? As stated earlier, the purpose of the DGS could be said to promote quality geocaching. For questions of mindset, wouldn't it be more effective to ask each individual, since a group, by definition, cannot have a mindset.

 

You seem to think DGS is the same as FGA, SCGA, or NEFGA; I do not.

 

FGA speaks for all geocachers in FL, regardless of how they play the game. NEFGA brings together cachers together in NE FL and SCGA brings cachers together in Brevard; the way you play the game is not relevant to your participation in those groups.

 

South Florida Geocaching isn't even an actual organization; it has no organization or logo, no substance beyond a Facebook group.

 

On the other hand, DGS is a nationwide (worldwide?) group. It claims to support a certain style of play: quality over quantity. So why would someone who doesn't adhere to that style of play want to be part of DGS and why would DGS want them as members? FGA doesn't advocate FL-style (in a palm tree or under palm fronds) is the best hiding style so there aren't really mixed signals to send. I suppose someone from Maine could join FGA, but unless they are snowbirds it wouldn't really make any sense for them to do so.

 

A question to clarify a point: does joining the DGS require anything beyond slapping a logo on your profile and maybe ordering a t-shirt? I've heard you must do certain initiation acts in terms of hides or videos. If the DGS requires any initiation-type activities that means they control their membership and can be judged about who their members are. None of the other groups you mention really control their membership; you "join" SCGA by simply saying you are a SCGA member.

 

As for the individual vs the group: I have seriously considered quiting certain groups because of the behavior of a few prominent members. I'm a gamer who has ceased to go to certain stores because I really disliked 1 or 2 people who regularly played there. One bad experience will stop me going back to a restaurant. There are plenty of folks who write off whole religions or geographical regions because of the behavior of a loudmouthed minority. A few apples does ruin the bunch, at least in my book.

 

I think your personal Jihad has reached the point of silliness.

 

In your continuing attempt to bash an organization you apparently know very little about, you insist on equating individual behavior with group dynamics.

 

I'm still trying to make sense of the organization.

 

I have come to know two types of people in the DGS. I know at least 5 DGS members who at the very least are mass armchair logging TBs and see nothing wrong with that behavior, one of whom recently got a ban. They may also be engaging in other nefarious practices. I know at least 3 members, such as yourself, that are the woods & swamp trompers who like to stick ammo cans in BFE to lead others to scenery. But at least one of those people has expressed a dismissive attitude toward the Guidelines and indifference toward the behavior of the first group. So right now my anecdotal experience is not positive.

 

To put it another way: you start a book club dedicated to reading "quality literature". Some folks show up with the latest Pulitzer-winning biography while you show up up with a famous sci-fi novel. Some people even show up with copies of "Twilight". When I question what the heck the sparkly vampire fanboys are even doing here, one of the sci-fi guys says he hasn't read "Twilight" but doesn't care that people who think it is great literature are in the club. I leave wondering what the heck the point of that book club is and don't come back for the next meeting.

 

Since you feel I know very little about the DGS, please enlighten me on its true purpose and all the ways which I misunderstand (I surely am not the only one). Seriously.

 

The first line on their webpage is..."DGS, the darkside of Geocaching". While this doesn't mean they're sacrificing caches at the altar and burning TBs, it was enough for me to make up my mind that i wasn't interested afterall.

 

Ditto. I don't know why any good person would want to call themselves a "dirtbag" or belong to the "dark side" of anything.

 

However (general comments, not directed at DGS), if there is a subset of a group acting out, and strongly identifing themselves with said group, then those outside that group will gain a warped view of said group. The group needs to speak up just as loudly to deny such actions, or others will assume they agree with such actions/beliefs.

 

+1

 

How simple would it be for the DGS to lay out a few clear guidelines :laughing: on what quality means to them (ammo can good) and what the antithesis of quality is (film can bad), and that people who do not agree with those guidelines shouldn't be part of DGS?

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

Don't lump my reply to your "they have no mindset" with others bashing the group. That's a different topic from whether they have a mindset (which I haven't tried to define). I have no opinion about the DGS strong enough to bash them or agree with them.

My apologies. I was wrong to judge you in that manner. :(

I suspect the endless bullying by folks who have no idea who the DGS is has left me overly defensive.

Your reply did not warrant such a response.

You are officially unlumped! :lol:

 

However (general comments, not directed at DGS), if there is a subset of a group acting out, and strongly identifing themselves with said group, then those outside that group will gain a warped view of said group.

Key word, "Warped".

Link to comment

I just received a report of them posting the TB# of the Original Can of Beans online, requiring Lackey intervention, seemingly part of a pattern of TB abuse.

 

The TB# was already posted to the OCB TB page months ago. TEAM 360 has yet to remove it.

Edited by UMainah
Link to comment

I just received a report...

You get reports? Now I'm jealous! I don't get reports... :ph34r:

Should I send you reports of SCGA, NEFGA, CFLAG, SFGA(?), and/or FGA members sharing TB numbers on Faceybook? I wasn't aware that you have become the go-to guy for such things. Prior to this revelation, (unless, of course, I was inordinately shy), I would've just sent the report(s) to Groundspeak. :P

Link to comment

You seem to think DGS is the same as FGA, SCGA, or NEFGA; I do not.

Then, hopefully, you will avow yourself of this opportunity to educate yourself. To be clear, I do not think that the DGS is the same as the FGA, SCGA and/or NEFGA. As should be immediately obvious, the DGS utilizes different letters, ergo, they cannot be the same. Also, these other groups are somewhat defined geographically, (though they all claim members outside their defined regions), whilst the DGS is not defined geographically.

 

At this point, the differences become fewer.

 

They are groups comprised of geocachers, enjoying the social aspects of this hobby.

 

A question to clarify a point: does joining the DGS require anything beyond slapping a logo on your profile and maybe ordering a t-shirt?

Yes. The initiation rituals are quite lengthy and rigorous, and would make joining the Freemasons seem like signing up for Google Plus. However, these rituals are highly classified. The most I can tell you without risking my mortal soul is that a hamster and a slushee are involved. Sorry. :ph34r:

[/sarcasm]

 

There are plenty of folks who write off whole religions or geographical regions because of the behavior of a loudmouthed minority.

That's true. There are closed minded bigots out there who will judge an entire group based on the actions of a few bad apples. As a cop, I see this on a regular basis. Some dummy with a badge does something stupid, and an ignorant few bash all cops for it. It's kinda sad, though, inevitable.

 

I'm still trying to make sense of the organization.

I'll have to take your word for that. From here in the cheap seats, it appears that you have made no effort to get to know the group, as a whole. Rather, it appears that you have repeatedly judged them based entirely on the actions of a few. From my experience, the process of "trying to make sense of' any group requires, at a minimum, an open minded gathering of facts.

Link to comment

I just received a report of them posting the TB# of the Original Can of Beans online, requiring Lackey intervention, seemingly part of a pattern of TB abuse.

 

The TB# was already posted to the OCB TB page months ago. TEAM 360 has yet to remove it.

Two questions:

1. What groups does TEAM 360 belong to?

2. Can we start a bunch of threads bashing those groups? :ph34r::lol:

Link to comment

Don't lump my reply to your "they have no mindset" with others bashing the group. That's a different topic from whether they have a mindset (which I haven't tried to define). I have no opinion about the DGS strong enough to bash them or agree with them.

My apologies. I was wrong to judge you in that manner. :(

I suspect the endless bullying by folks who have no idea who the DGS is has left me overly defensive.

Your reply did not warrant such a response.

You are officially unlumped! :lol:

Well, I don't know about that - my wife still thinks I'm a lump ... sometimes. Maybe I'll hang on to this and see if I can use it as a kind of "get out of jail free" card. :rolleyes:

 

However (general comments, not directed at DGS), if there is a subset of a group acting out, and strongly identifing themselves with said group, then those outside that group will gain a warped view of said group.

Key word, "Warped".

A matter of perspective. If most of the group is quiet, the only evidence is the action of the few. Even in a court of law, circumstantial evidence can convict.

Link to comment

 

Yes. The initiation rituals are quite lengthy and rigorous, and would make joining the Freemasons seem like signing up for Google Plus. However, these rituals are highly classified. The most I can tell you without risking my mortal soul is that a hamster and a slushee are involved.

 

Is PETA going to get involved with this now that hamster use is an issue?

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

I just received a report...

You get reports? Now I'm jealous! I don't get reports... :ph34r:

Should I send you reports of SCGA, NEFGA, CFLAG, SFGA(?), and/or FGA members sharing TB numbers on Faceybook? I wasn't aware that you have become the go-to guy for such things. Prior to this revelation, (unless, of course, I was inordinately shy), I would've just sent the report(s) to Groundspeak. :P

 

Yes. Send me all of the reports you have about any general group ignoring guidelines or inappropriately sharing TB#s. I don't think there will be any, but the offer is there. I wont divulge exactly why I received this information, as I am not the go-to guy for any of this stuff, but you may guess..

  • Perhaps there are people discussing the Dirtbag Geocaching Society outside of this forum. Imagine what they could be saying, and with no way to stop it!
  • There is a inquiry by personal injury lawyers to determine whether a lawsuit involving DGS members and harassment could be of any merit.
  • Part of an information gathering campaign by the NSA on unscrupulous rouge groups that threaten US security.
  • Part of a blog by disgruntled geocachers who are disgusted at the current attitude of ignoring guidelines, harassment, and apathy by reviewers and Groundspeak.
  • A campaign by the competing underground "Scumbag Geocaching Society", who are jealous of the undeserved attention the DGS receives, and seek to undermine the DGS and take control of the dark side.
  • An unsolicited email from the owner of the Original Can of Beans owner, Team360, who also wondered if you would not hold individuals in the KKK responsible for the group they belonged to.

Link to comment

I just received a report of them posting the TB# of the Original Can of Beans online, requiring Lackey intervention, seemingly part of a pattern of TB abuse.

 

The TB# was already posted to the OCB TB page months ago. TEAM 360 has yet to remove it.

Two questions:

1. What groups does TEAM 360 belong to?

2. Can we start a bunch of threads bashing those groups? :ph34r::lol:

 

We could compare it to police officers. In Philadelphia there have been over 60 arrests since 2009 of police officers who have been found robbing dope dealers, assault, extortion, drinking on the job, stealing drugs and DUI among other crimes. At some point people will start to associate this behavior with the group they belong to, due to the sheer amount of illegal activity.

Link to comment

A matter of perspective. If most of the group is quiet, the only evidence is the action of the few. Even in a court of law, circumstantial evidence can convict.

In this case, 'quiet' may not be the best choice of words. The Dirtbags I've met so far are a fairly boisterous bunch. But I get the reference. (I think... :ph34r: ) in thins case, quiet would be synonymous with well behaved, and those who are not quiet would represent the rule breakers. Maybe? :unsure:

 

Is PETA going to get involved with this now that hamster use is an issue?

The alleged hamsters are all above the age of consent... :ph34r:

 

Send me all of the reports you have about any general group ignoring guidelines...

I wasn't aware that there were any groups ignoring guidelines.

I've seen instances of individuals ignoring guidelines, but I've never seen a group do this.

Sometimes, like TEAM 360, these individuals belongs to groups.

But, as mentioned earlier, I don't advocate the bashing of a group for the actions of an individual.

That would be bullying, and it's not something I'm particularly fond of.

 

But if I do hear of a group ignoring guidelines, I'll be sure to let you know. B)

 

We could compare it to police officers. In Philadelphia there have been over 60 arrests since 2009 of police officers who have been found robbing dope dealers, assault, extortion, drinking on the job, stealing drugs and DUI among other crimes. At some point people will start to associate this behavior with the group they belong to, due to the sheer amount of illegal activity.

Out of roughly 50,000 police officers in Pensylvania, I'd say that 60 arrests over a 5 year period is pretty good odds, though, I'll agree that even one arrest is one too many. Perhaps someone who is really bad at math, or is already a closed minded bigot, would associate these 60 criminals with the group they belong to. On a slightly related note, did you know that there are more priests arrested every year than there are cops arrested? It's true. But by that same token, when I see someone calling a priest a highly negative slur, I remind them not to judge one person, or one group, by the actions of another.

Link to comment

I was certainly interested when i first heard about the DGS. The thought of a group who was into quality over quantity is a group i would like to be a member of. Did some web searching and wasn't able to come up with much but the little i did find made up my mind for me. The first line on their webpage is,,, "DGS, the darkside of Geocaching". While this doesn't mean they're sacrificing caches at the altar and burning TBs, it was enough for me to make up my mind that i wasn't interested afterall.

 

I don't think there were ever any quality over quantity allegations, and "the group" is known to engage in activities that are the antithesis of the quality caching philosophy, such as logging attends for events you watched on ustream.com, and armchair logging distributed lists of TB's.

 

I think I should explain the word Dirtbag again though, although I have in the past. The DGS appears to have it's roots amongst some Army friends at Ft. Bragg. "Dirtbag" is a common term in the U.S. Army, and sort of a term of endearment. So I have no problem with the name, and think it's rather funny, as a retired 22 yr. Army Reservist. I would imagine basic training recruits are regularly referred to as Dirtbags these days, although I, and the other members of my basic training company in 1983 were regularly referred to as "knuckleheads" by the Drill Sergeants, another term of endearment in the U.S. Army. Anyone up for the Knucklehead Geocaching Society? It sounds much more friendly. :laughing:

 

"The Dark Side of Geocaching" moniker? I don't normally associate armchair logging TB's as the dark side, but rather the horrifically lame side. But whatever floats their boat, I suppose. Throw in the militant, abusive "screw you" armchair logging of some poor guy's TB that's been missing for two years, and you have yourself a forum thread. :blink:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

A matter of perspective. If most of the group is quiet, the only evidence is the action of the few. Even in a court of law, circumstantial evidence can convict.

In this case, 'quiet' may not be the best choice of words. The Dirtbags I've met so far are a fairly boisterous bunch. But I get the reference. (I think... :ph34r: ) in thins case, quiet would be synonymous with well behaved, and those who are not quiet would represent the rule breakers. Maybe? :unsure:

Quiet as in not speaking out against the actions of the few.

 

Notice that the police are very vocal about wrong actions of a few officers. Outsiders don't get to form opinions by just the actions the few "bad apples", but by the group standing up and condemning such actions.

 

To generalize, if a group speaks out against the actions of a few members, that moves the actions to an individual level. If a groups says nothing about such actions, they are giving silent consent to those actions.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...