Publisher hunting FTF

[+J Grouchy]

If the caches are multis and puzzles, then the reviewers have a distinct advantage over everyone else, since they know the coordinates of stages and final locations and how to solve puzzles.

 

On my puzzles, I have not explained the solution to my reviewer for any of them...so he may know the answers, but not necessarily how they are solved. If he requested it in order to publish it, I'd have no problem giving that info, but he never has.

[+AutisticMajor]

IMO, the only way anything unfair would happen would be this sequence of events:

 

1-Reviewer publishes cache.

2-Reviewer logs FTF.

3-Reviewer visits cache site(s), signs log.

 

Swapping steps 2 and 3 makes it perfectly fine and normal.

 

also posters seem to be assuming reviewers have some special ability to determine exactly where a cache is.

[+bflentje]

While I would generally agree that all Reviewers should not pursue FTF's, I was totally OK with your statement, until this.. that there comment is pretty lame and uncalled for.

 

I thought that the caching community in this state were a wonderful group. Now I start to wonder if I was wrong.

 

Corrected some spelling

[+ChileHead]

IMO, the only way anything unfair would happen would be this sequence of events:

 

1-Reviewer publishes cache.

2-Reviewer logs FTF.

3-Reviewer visits cache site(s), signs log.

 

Swapping steps 2 and 3 makes it perfectly fine and normal.

 

Every once in a while I see people (not reviewers) log the FTF before they visit the cache site. Usually it's a joke that they delete right away, but I have seen people do it to keep the FTF hounds away so they can go find it when they get a chance.

 

I'll admit I did it once. A "liar's cache" was published about 10 miles away I didn't have time to go to, so a few minutes after it was published I posted a BS story about already being in the park, grabbing the FTF, as well as a bunch of other lies. A few hours later I visited the cache site and the log was still blank so I logged in as FTF. But hey - it was a liars cache!

[+kunarion]

posters seem to be assuming reviewers have some special ability to determine exactly where a cache is.

Especially since I typically include a photo of the hide in place, in my reviewer note. How could he possibly know where it is?

 

My reviewer recently got "co-FTF" on a cache. Took them 4 hours, and a tree climb. I don't think it's in the tree. Maybe. I haven't found it. But I'm guessing the local reviewer has no special ability to determine exactly where a cache is.

 

That cache was super evil, but I don't hide caches in a way that I expect cachers will have trouble finding. So anybody can be First. But if the same reviewer always had FTF on my caches, that would seem a little creepy after a while, since there's no evidence that my caches require on-site inspections prior to being published. Unless he just can't wait to find mine.

Edited September 3, 2013 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

Now lets look at this situation from the outside: You are expecting the reviewer, who is choosing play the game the way he/she enjoys it, to change their actions because someone might hypothetically think they have an unfair advantage because their notification doesn't have to travel through all of the internets before reaching them.

There's nothing hypothetical about the many advantages a reviewer has. What's hypothetical is that they would use those unfair advantages for personal gain. But, yes, I'm saying that it's because of that perception of hypothetical yet inconceivable abuse that I would expect a reviewer to have accepted the need to change their behavior before they agreed to be a reviewer.

 

I would have to say that publicly accusing someone of cheating in a public forum is an overtly hostile act and is due to a perceived personal personal insult from a person who feels shame for not receiving the most high and glorious honors of FTF and all of the eternal bragging rights.

No matter how many different ways I've said that I do not ever expect any reviewer to cheat, you still accuse me of actually accusing a reviewer of cheating.

 

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I really have no particular interest in FTFs and have no concerns whatsoever that I will lose an FTF to a reviewer, so your claim that this conversation has something to do with me underscores the fact that you're not actually reading what I'm saying.

 

On the other hand, you have an excellent point about FTF honors being overblown, and how stupid someone would be to feel shame at not receiving them. I hope the reviewer in question listens to you about that.

[4wheelin_fool]

What you guys are doing is immediately assuming he is "cheating" without any evidence at all.

Not at all. I'm not saying I think the reviewer is cheating. I'm saying that I'm surprised -- very surprised, actually -- that the reviewer isn't worried about me thinking he's cheating. I'd expect him to do everything in his power to make sure I'm not worried about it. Frankly, I don't even care if he's cheating, but as a über fair and impartial reviewer of the type we're all used to, I would assume he's worried about the worst case of someone that cares and is paranoid about it, not the friendly case of someone like me that would find any such cheating amusingly pathetic.

 

I don't think he should an obligation to prove that. This is a friendly game, not professional sports. I am aware of a reviewer who caused a minor ruckus by claiming FTF on caches that they never visited. It was a powertrail and someone else signed them in with a team name. They also hid a multi with most of the stages only 300 feet from other caches and published several puzzles with the finals very close to other traditionals. I suspect that it was because they personally don't think that the proximity rules should count, but they have indicated it was an accident. Also moved several caches a few miles instead of archiving so that there would be no evidence to the land manager or others of where they were. Then there is their young relatives who hid a few behind private property signs and used defacement on others. These are the type of things that can be tolerated by other players, but by a reviewer could be questionable. There are a few other things, but all in all it is nothing to get concerned about. What you guys are complaining about is minor stuff, similar to someone who says that a little league coach should not be related to any of the players. There is no evidence that anything wrong was done, but there could be? I think you guys are blowing this FTF thing way out of proportion.

 

No matter how many different ways I've said that I do not ever expect any reviewer to cheat, you still accuse me of actually accusing a reviewer of cheating.

 

You haven't printed the words, but by saying they should not participate in FTF is certainly implying that they could be, and not much different.

Edited September 3, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Don_J]

IMO, the only way anything unfair would happen would be this sequence of events:

 

1-Reviewer publishes cache.

2-Reviewer logs FTF.

3-Reviewer visits cache site(s), signs log.

 

Swapping steps 2 and 3 makes it perfectly fine and normal.

 

also posters seem to be assuming reviewers have some special ability to determine exactly where a cache is.

 

How about 3,1,2, since we are talking hypothetically. I have a feeling that anyone that is disposed to do something like that wouldn't make it through the vetting procedure to become a reviewer in the first place.

[+frinklabs]

When submitting caches with puzzles, we are required to indicate how it is solved. What if a reviewer was first to find a particularity difficult mystery cache?

 

Meanwhile, I am surprised to learn that it isn't conditional on becoming a reviewer that you recuse yourself from FTF altogether.

[Clan Riffster]

What if a reviewer was first to find a particularity difficult mystery cache?

Then they would get the FTF on a particularly difficult mystery cache.

Why is that a problem?

[+Tyros]

Meanwhile, I am surprised to learn that it isn't conditional on becoming a reviewer that you recuse yourself from FTF altogether.

I agree. Even if the reviewer is honest, some people will find it suspicious.

I once read an interview with a European reviewer, and one of the disadvantages of being a reviewer, was not be able to participate in FTF hunting anymore.

[+frinklabs]

What if a reviewer was first to find a particularity difficult mystery cache?

Then they would get the FTF on a particularly difficult mystery cache.

Why is that a problem?

 

Since they have been given the solution to the submitted cache ahead of time, then their process of obtaining the coordinates is tainted -- by knowing the solution.

[Keystone]

What if a reviewer was first to find a particularity difficult mystery cache?

Then they would get the FTF on a particularly difficult mystery cache.

Why is that a problem?

 

Since they have been given the solution to the submitted cache ahead of time, then their process of obtaining the coordinates is tainted -- by knowing the solution.

Which is why reviewers don't go for quick FTF's on anything other than a cache located at the posted coordinates, as I explained in greater detail back in Post #13.

[Clan Riffster]

Meanwhile, I am surprised to learn that it isn't conditional on becoming a reviewer that you recuse yourself from FTF altogether.

I agree. Even if the reviewer is honest, some people will find it suspicious.

Presumed guilty until proven innocent?

[+Kealia]

Wow. I haven't been on this part of the forums in a long while and I guess some things never change.

 

There is really that much uproar over an unofficial game within the game that nobody actually gets credits for?

 

So...let's look at some facts here:

- A player is somewhat of a FTF hound

- That player gets asked to VOLUNTEER his time to the game that he/she enjoys by being a reviewer

- That player/reviewer still gets the occasional FTF

- That player/reviewer is called out for somehow cheating or using their position to gain an advantage

 

That about sum it up?

 

And I'll agree with those that posted saying that thinking that a reviewer should have to go above and beyond to remove all shadow of doubt that they could possibly cheat in any manner is ridiculous. That says more about the people that would even think of them cheating than it does about the reviewers not wanting to remove themselves from the game.

[+dprovan]

No matter how many different ways I've said that I do not ever expect any reviewer to cheat, you still accuse me of actually accusing a reviewer of cheating.

You haven't printed the words, but by saying they should not participate in FTF is certainly implying that they could be, and not much different.

You think I think they cheat, but what I'm saying is that I can imagine someone else thinking they might cheat, and that potential misconception on that someone else's part is what I would expect the reviewer to consider.

 

Have you ever wondered why casinos don't let dealers for highstakes poker games play in the games they're dealing, no matter how trustworthy the dealers are considered?

[+Kealia]

Because there are millions of dollars on the line there and this is about the ability to post some words on an internet site and get a virtual smiley in return? Nothing more, nothing less.

[+dprovan]

So...let's look at some facts here:

- A player is somewhat of a FTF hound

- That player gets asked to VOLUNTEER his time to the game that he/she enjoys by being a reviewer

- That player/reviewer still gets the occasional FTF

- That player/reviewer is called out for somehow cheating or using their position to gain an advantage

 

That about sum it up?

I'm not sure anymore what the specific case is we're discussing, but how I'm saying it should go is like this:

 

- A player is somewhat of a FTF hound

- That player gets asked to VOLUNTEER his time to the game that he/she enjoys by being a reviewer

- That player/reviewer decides whether to accept the honor of being a reviewer based on whether he can stop being an FTF hound since if he continues to be an FTF hound, there will always be people that wonder if he's playing fair

- That player/reviewer still gets the occasional FTF when it's in the normal course of events, but he doesn't compete for FTFs like he used to.

 

There is really that much uproar over an unofficial game within the game that nobody actually gets credits for?

I agree that FTFs aren't a big deal, which is why I think the reviewer's decision to give up being an FTF hound would be a no brainer. He's the one you should be talking to about how important FTFs should be to him, not those of us that don't care much about FTFs but have no trouble keeping in mind that some people most definitely consider FTFs a very big deal, whether we like that or not.

[+dprovan]

Because there are millions of dollars on the line there and this is about the ability to post some words on an internet site and get a virtual smiley in return? Nothing more, nothing less.

So are you saying that it's OK for reviewers to cheat?

[Clan Riffster]

- That player/reviewer decides whether to accept the honor of being a reviewer based on whether he can stop being an FTF hound since if he continues to be an FTF hound, there will always be people that wonder if he's playing fair

- That player/reviewer tells all his friends that they should give up the FTF game, for fear that some self entitled cacher might wonder if they are providing an unfair advantage to them. As long as we're bowing to the guilty until proven innocent obliviots, we might as well push it to its logical conclusion.

[+Kealia]

Nope. I'm saying that it shouldn't even cross people's minds that they would. There is nothing at stake here. Add money to the equation and that changes things, basic human nature unfortunately.

 

I'll use an example like you did: I'm a coach of 14-18 girls, and I'm male. I would never be alone with a girl in the gym or in a room because of the fear of how it might be perceived. That's the world we live in today and that is a situation that has major consequences.

 

There is absolutely no comparison to the situation of a reviewer and a FTF and having to worry about what people think in THAT situation. Yes, this is a game/hobby/RASH that people are passionate about but that passion needs to be taken in perspective. If there were money on the line, I would UNDERSTAND and MAYBE even agree with people worrying about the possibility of 'cheating' because there is a prize on the line that holds some value. The greater the value of a prize, the more likely people are to cheat - again, unfortunate.

 

For somebody to worry about somebody else cheating when there is nothing of value at stake is just mind boggling to me, though. It comes down to character I suppose and how people think about each other. Again, I think people worrying about others cheating in circumstances like THIS says more about the thinkER than the thinkEE.

 

Apologies if my thoughts aren't totally coherent. I blame cold medication

[+Ambrosia]

Some of the things brought up in this thread don't even make sense to me. You're dealing with some very low probabilities.

 

1. A lot of areas are reviewed by multiple reviewers, so when a cache actually comes up in a home territory, how often is it actually published by the reviewer that happens to live a few miles away?

 

2. If the reviewer is publishing, they are likely to be publishing a bunch of caches at once and probably won't stop to run out for a ftf.

 

3. How often does a cache owner actually put a description of their hide or a picture of it in a reviewer note? Very very rarely.

 

Even if someone put a description or picture in a reviewer note, how does that actually help with a ftf, unless it's a very difficult hide (not as common), and multiple people are looking in the same area vying for a ftf?

 

So, unless a reviewer is actually sitting next to a cache and publishing it before or after getting a ftf on site (which is a whole other issue entirely), then I don't see the issue with a traditional hide. The reviewer really doesn't have any more info than any other cacher does, most of the time.

[Keystone]

This evening I scored an FTF on a traditional cache, just in honor of this thread.

 

Hey, if someone's gonna hide a cache 400 feet from my church's parking lot, where I can be found two to four times each week, you can bet I'm gonna find it the next time I'm there. I published the cache before leaving work, then fought my way through 40 minutes of rush hour traffic (including an armored truck vs. car accident on one of the two major bridges out of downtown). I arrived to lead Bible Study class, smelling like FTF.

 

The subject of the Bible Study was "Why is there so much injustice in the World."

[+SirDonB]

This evening I scored an FTF on a traditional cache, just in honor of this thread.

 

Hey, if someone's gonna hide a cache 400 feet from my church's parking lot, where I can be found two to four times each week, you can bet I'm gonna find it the next time I'm there. I published the cache before leaving work, then fought my way through 40 minutes of rush hour traffic (including an armored truck vs. car accident on one of the two major bridges out of downtown). I arrived to lead Bible Study class, smelling like FTF.

 

The subject of the Bible Study was "Why is there so much injustice in the World."

 

Nice... do I need to say more?

[+Don_J]

 

- That player/reviewer still gets the occasional FTF when it's in the normal course of events, but he doesn't compete for FTFs like he used to.

 

 

After reading Belken's post, this appears to be case. It seems that the chances of any one individual getting a FTF in that area has been greatly increased since he became a reviewer.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

Exactly. As best I can tell, having the Reviewer get every FTF is the only way to stop all the self entitled whining that the local FTF hounds do whenever they were too slow to nab the coveted spot at the top of the log. I really don't get why this Reviewer agreed to wait 24 hours before hunting caches. If they wait 24 seconds, then the whole idiotic FTF game is compromised beyond redemption.

Really. I thought the point in the reviewer being FTF is that he can then see if the cache is in violation of the guidelines and retract it before anyone else finds it and copies the illegal idea. In fact, I think reviewers should be required to find all caches before publishing them.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I published the cache before leaving work

 

I hope your boss is not reading this.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Because there are millions of dollars on the line there and this is about the ability to post some words on an internet site and get a virtual smiley in return? Nothing more, nothing less.

So are you saying that it's OK for reviewers to cheat?

 

They're not cheating. They're geocaching. Once a cache is published, it's open season to find for everyone, including the person who published it. If a reviewer really wanted to "cheat", they could go to the coordinates before publishing the cache and sign the log.

 

With the millions of caches that have been published over the years, reviewers have had plenty of opportunities to abuse their priveledges...and it's so rare that they do that we almost never hear about it. With those millions of caches, there has also been plenty of opportunities for FTF's for reviewers and every once in awhile, they nab one. Good for them!

[+Mudfrog]

Because there are millions of dollars on the line there and this is about the ability to post some words on an internet site and get a virtual smiley in return? Nothing more, nothing less.

So are you saying that it's OK for reviewers to cheat?

 

They're not cheating. They're geocaching. Once a cache is published, it's open season to find for everyone, including the person who published it. If a reviewer really wanted to "cheat", they could go to the coordinates before publishing the cache and sign the log.

 

With the millions of caches that have been published over the years, reviewers have had plenty of opportunities to abuse their priveledges...and it's so rare that they do that we almost never hear about it. With those millions of caches, there has also been plenty of opportunities for FTF's for reviewers and every once in awhile, they nab one. Good for them!

 

Personally, i want to think that reviewers wouldn't take advantage of their position to cheat in this way. On the otherhand, they are human who do make mistakes and who might let silly things like being ftf cloud their judgement. Loading his gpsr and having his car ready to roll before he hit the publish button might be something a reviewer might do. Going out and finding the cache before he published it could happen. The position he is in gives him advantages, if he ever decides to use them.

 

In the OP's case where the reviewer is known to go after ftfs, yes i can see where it might lead to questions. We here on the forums don't know all the details. Are other cachers consistently arriving 10 minutes after publishing and finding the reviewer's name already in the log? Are tough mystery caches found within an hour by the reviewer? Are only caches with ftf prizes being found first by the reviewer? We simply don't know!

 

To the naysayers here, i would bet that if you did like going after ftfs and you were in an area where this was happening, that you might begin to have questions yourself. Again, i do want to think that things like this never happen. Unfortunately, i learned a longggg time ago to never say never.

[+dprovan]

This evening I scored an FTF on a traditional cache, just in honor of this thread.

Congratulations!

 

Hey, if someone's gonna hide a cache 400 feet from my church's parking lot, where I can be found two to four times each week, you can bet I'm gonna find it the next time I'm there. I published the cache before leaving work, then fought my way through 40 minutes of rush hour traffic (including an armored truck vs. car accident on one of the two major bridges out of downtown). I arrived to lead Bible Study class, smelling like FTF.

Sounds like fun! Now if you had gone on to say, "I enjoyed it so much, I can't wait for more caches hidden closer to home," I think we all might be concerned. And those that know less about you might be concerned that you're thinking that even if you're smart enough not to say it publicly.

 

(By the way, personally I have no problem with the occasional intentional transgression for a good reason, so I would have no problem with you blatantly pulling a stunt where you saw the cache was outside your front door, you published it, you walked out and grabbed it within the minute, and then you flaunted it. That would be a great moment. I just wouldn't want you to make a habit of it.)

 

Which is why reviewers don't go for quick FTF's on anything other than a cache located at the posted coordinates, as I explained in greater detail back in Post #13.

This tells me that it is recognized that there's a potential for abuse, and there are some actions that just aren't done by reviewers because of it. I'm glad to hear that the reviewer community appreciates the problem even if some of the posters in this thread don't get it. But can you help me see where the line is between a puzzle cache and any other cache? Having the coordinates is a big advantage, of course, but why would it be unreasonable for someone to be worried about the smaller advantages like the fact that some COs post hide pictures and the timing advantage that you've incorporated into your FTF story by way of pointing out that you made sure to give everyone else 40 minutes to get there first, I assume to assure us that how you used your inside knowledge didn't result in an unfair advantage?

[4wheelin_fool]

In the OP's case where the reviewer is known to go after ftfs, yes i can see where it might lead to questions. We here on the forums don't know all the details. Are other cachers consistently arriving 10 minutes after publishing and finding the reviewer's name already in the log? Are tough mystery caches found within an hour by the reviewer? Are only caches with ftf prizes being found first by the reviewer? We simply don't know!

 

We don't know, because it hasn't happened. If you read the thread, the OP has said as much.

 

Being rather distrustful and overprotective of the FTF title is cheesy at best. If everyone who went into a store decided to shoplift, very few would get caught and the store would go out of business. Suppose the business decided to search everyone on the way out? The world operates at a certain level of trust, and without it, things fall apart quickly. Next time you drive somewhere, think about how trusting you are about the oncoming cars being driven by someone sober, and not a teen who has been driving for a few days and texting someone. Sure, that could happen so perhaps we should stop driving altogether?

 

Some people trust that their obvious, bad joke is not going to be taken seriously. People drive in and out of the country every day, and trust that their car manufacturer is not going to give away their key code to a drug dealer, simply because he copied the vehicle VIN number by peering through the windshield. People that buy vehicles through auctions which were seized by the government, trust that the authorities searched the car properly and did not inadvertently sell it full of drugs, so that their sons get caught with it, and spend over 8 months in a Mexican prison for something they clearly did not do. Every time that you eat something, think about how much you trust that the food hasn't been poisoned.

 

There is plenty of trust in the world, and you guys don't want to give it to a reviewer for a FTF?

Edited September 4, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

With the millions of caches that have been published over the years, reviewers have had plenty of opportunities to abuse their priveledges...and it's so rare that they do that we almost never hear about it. With those millions of caches, there has also been plenty of opportunities for FTF's for reviewers and every once in awhile, they nab one. Good for them!

I think I've been very clear that there's no problem with "once in a while". The conversation was about an FTF hound, which means frequent attempts. And of course the reviewer won't cheat, but shouldn't he be worried about the fact that the more successful he is at his much loved FTF competition, the more other people in that competition will start wondering?

[+baloo&bd]

Is the reviewer removing the cache after finding it? If not, everyone still has the same opportunity to find it, often easier for the others since a trail may be left. No harm, no foul.

 

It is no different than a CO giving the coords to someone before it is published and they find it. Finding it first is a binary condition, either you are or you aren't. Not sure why so many have an issue understanding that.

[+CanadianRockies]

Being rather distrustful and overprotective of the FTF title is cheesy at best. If everyone who went into a store decided to shoplift, very few would get caught and the store would go out of business. Suppose the business decided to search everyone on the way out? The world operates at a certain level of trust, and without it, things fall apart quickly. Next time you drive somewhere, think about how trusting you are about the oncoming cars being driven by someone sober, and not a teen who has been driving for a few days and texting someone. Sure, that could happen so perhaps we should stop driving altogether?

 

Some people trust that their obvious, bad joke is not going to be taken seriously. People drive in and out of the country every day, and trust that their car manufacturer is not going to give away their key code to a drug dealer, simply because he copied the vehicle VIN number by peering through the windshield. People that buy vehicles through auctions which were seized by the government, trust that the authorities searched the car properly and did not inadvertently sell it full of drugs, so that their sons get caught with it, and spend over 8 months in a Mexican prison for something they clearly did not do. Every time that you eat something, think about how much you trust that the food hasn't been poisoned.

 

There is plenty of trust in the world, and you guys don't want to give it to a reviewer for a FTF?

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

[4wheelin_fool]

Being rather distrustful and overprotective of the FTF title is cheesy at best. If everyone who went into a store decided to shoplift, very few would get caught and the store would go out of business. Suppose the business decided to search everyone on the way out? The world operates at a certain level of trust, and without it, things fall apart quickly. Next time you drive somewhere, think about how trusting you are about the oncoming cars being driven by someone sober, and not a teen who has been driving for a few days and texting someone. Sure, that could happen so perhaps we should stop driving altogether?

 

Some people trust that their obvious, bad joke is not going to be taken seriously. People drive in and out of the country every day, and trust that their car manufacturer is not going to give away their key code to a drug dealer, simply because he copied the vehicle VIN number by peering through the windshield. People that buy vehicles through auctions which were seized by the government, trust that the authorities searched the car properly and did not inadvertently sell it full of drugs, so that their sons get caught with it, and spend over 8 months in a Mexican prison for something they clearly did not do. Every time that you eat something, think about how much you trust that the food hasn't been poisoned.

 

There is plenty of trust in the world, and you guys don't want to give it to a reviewer for a FTF?

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

 

Laws prevent things like this happening, but do not stop it. If we had no trust at all, society would grind to a halt. You trust with your life that the average oncoming driver is not going to drive into you. If you didn't, you wouldn't drive at all. If someone doesn't trust a reviewer with FTF, that is pitiful.

[+dprovan]

Is the reviewer removing the cache after finding it? If not, everyone still has the same opportunity to find it, often easier for the others since a trail may be left. No harm, no foul.

Whether you recognize it or not, the reviewer in question, as an FTF hound, is well aware that some consider the FTF a competition in which being the first one there is everything. So as hard as it is to imagine the reviewer cheating, if he did, he'd be the first one to recognize that that was both a harm and a foul.

 

It is no different than a CO giving the coords to someone before it is published and they find it.

The CO can do whatever he wants with his cache, including annoying other FTF hounds by giving his friend early access. But when required, the CO has to tell the reviewer things about his cache in confidence as part of the review process, and that confidence would be shattered if the reviewer then abused that information to get the FTF.

[+Ambrosia]

With the millions of caches that have been published over the years, reviewers have had plenty of opportunities to abuse their priveledges...and it's so rare that they do that we almost never hear about it. With those millions of caches, there has also been plenty of opportunities for FTF's for reviewers and every once in awhile, they nab one. Good for them!

I think I've been very clear that there's no problem with "once in a while". The conversation was about an FTF hound, which means frequent attempts. And of course the reviewer won't cheat, but shouldn't he be worried about the fact that the more successful he is at his much loved FTF competition, the more other people in that competition will start wondering?

But it's already been said that the reviewer in question has only got a handful of ftf since being a reviewer, so they have already stopped being a "ftf hound", so I don't even know why it keeps getting brought up. I don't mind having a generic academic discussion about reviewers, but saying that this reviewer needs to stop being a ftf hound is rather silly.

[BlueGoblin]

Why not just sort the discussion with altering the logbooks? put 2 lines with FTF.. first one saying FTF Reviewer and second line FTF Player, then the reviewers can fight for FTF amongst themselfs with the extra info and advantages they have and the players gets their fair FTF with the normal info lol

[+CanadianRockies]

Laws prevent things like this happening, but do not stop it.

I never claimed laws entirely stop things like shoplifting or drunk driving from happening. I said laws are sometimes in place because, if we relied just on trust, then that trust sometimes would be abused. Yes, there's lots of trust in the world. There's also lots of laws and procedures that have been adopted because we cannot trust some people.

 

If we had no trust at all, society would grind to a halt.

Once again, no argument from me. But if we relied just on trust, society also would grind to a halt. That explains why there often are policies in place that go beyond just hoping for the best.

 

You trust with your life that the average oncoming driver is not going to drive into you. If you didn't, you wouldn't drive at all.

I don't trust that everybody drives safely out of the goodness of their hearts. Many drive carefully because driving into me would endanger themselves as well. Others drive carefully, because they don't want to be arrested for violating traffic laws. Even with these laws to help protect me, I still own a vehicle with airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, laminated windows, and side-impact protection bars precisely because I do not trust with my life that all oncoming drivers will not drive into me.

Edited September 4, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+baloo&bd]

Whether you recognize it or not, the reviewer in question, as an FTF hound, is well aware that some consider the FTF a competition in which being the first one there is everything. So as hard as it is to imagine the reviewer cheating, if he did, he'd be the first one to recognize that that was both a harm and a foul.

 

It appears the reviewer is publishing and then going and getting from what has been said here so far, meaning those with a lot of time on their hands have as equal a chance of finding it "first", in fact it was pointed out that they got beat out on at least 3 or 4 occasions. Reviewer is not getting it before publication, although there would really again be no issue if they did, and they are not taking the cache with them after they find it so everyone has an equal chance to find it, it would appear no harm no foul.

 

The CO can do whatever he wants with his cache, including annoying other FTF hounds by giving his friend early access. But when required, the CO has to tell the reviewer things about his cache in confidence as part of the review process, and that confidence would be shattered if the reviewer then abused that information to get the FTF.

 

I would agree with the statement that it would be lame to use inside information to find the cache, however it is done everyday by other cachers and is not cheating, unless you count the individual cheating themselves. Cheating implies a competition.

 

You are making the assumption that the reviewer has "inside information" and implying that they are dishonest using it, has this been shown to be the case or even implied/stated here in the thread by those involved? From what was said here, it is unlikely they did have information for at the very least the majority of what they have found. Not sure why everyone assumes the negative of someone, since the individual has at least proven to have enough integrity that GS decided they would trust them with the position.

[+baloo&bd]

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

 

What on earth does the above have to do with this thread or geocaching? Are you proposing contacting your Senator to pass laws about when you can go find a cache?

[+Ambrosia]

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

 

What on earth does the above have to do with this thread or geocaching? Are you proposing contacting your Senator to pass laws about when you can go find a cache?

It's just a post talking about trust.

[+CanadianRockies]

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

What on earth does the above have to do with this thread or geocaching? Are you proposing contacting your Senator to pass laws about when you can go find a cache?

No. I'm saying there are times when one cannot rely simply on trust. Sometimes governments pass laws to help prevent certain things from happening. Sometimes companies have policies in place to help prevent certain things from happening.

[+dprovan]

But it's already been said that the reviewer in question has only got a handful of ftf since being a reviewer, so they have already stopped being a "ftf hound", so I don't even know why it keeps getting brought up. I don't mind having a generic academic discussion about reviewers, but saying that this reviewer needs to stop being a ftf hound is rather silly.

I've been having a generic academic discussion about reviewers and haven't been saying anything about this reviewer.

 

But now I will say that if this reviewer has already stopped being an FTF hound, then that implies he gets my point and wouldn't argue with me. I don't know whether his scaling back was in reaction to whatever concerns there were that sparked the conversation, but let's not rush off without recognizing that something did in fact spark this, although I have no idea what. All that means is that this reviewer might want to consider whether he's done enough. But I don't think he needs our help to figure that out.

[Clan Riffster]

But it's already been said that the reviewer in question has only got a handful of ftf since being a reviewer, so they have already stopped being a "ftf hound", so I don't even know why it keeps getting brought up. I don't mind having a generic academic discussion about reviewers, but saying that this reviewer needs to stop being a ftf hound is rather silly.

I've been having a generic academic discussion about reviewers and haven't been saying anything about this reviewer.

 

But now I will say that if this reviewer has already stopped being an FTF hound, then that implies he gets my point and wouldn't argue with me. I don't know whether his scaling back was in reaction to whatever concerns there were that sparked the conversation, but let's not rush off without recognizing that something did in fact spark this, although I have no idea what. All that means is that this reviewer might want to consider whether he's done enough. But I don't think he needs our help to figure that out.

The entitlement mentality, combined with equal parts of paranoia and a guilty until proven innocent attitude.

[+Mudfrog]

Whether you recognize it or not, the reviewer in question, as an FTF hound, is well aware that some consider the FTF a competition in which being the first one there is everything. So as hard as it is to imagine the reviewer cheating, if he did, he'd be the first one to recognize that that was both a harm and a foul.

 

It appears the reviewer is publishing and then going and getting from what has been said here so far, meaning those with a lot of time on their hands have as equal a chance of finding it "first", in fact it was pointed out that they got beat out on at least 3 or 4 occasions. Reviewer is not getting it before publication, although there would really again be no issue if they did, and they are not taking the cache with them after they find it so everyone has an equal chance to find it, it would appear no harm no foul.

 

The CO can do whatever he wants with his cache, including annoying other FTF hounds by giving his friend early access. But when required, the CO has to tell the reviewer things about his cache in confidence as part of the review process, and that confidence would be shattered if the reviewer then abused that information to get the FTF.

 

I would agree with the statement that it would be lame to use inside information to find the cache, however it is done everyday by other cachers and is not cheating, unless you count the individual cheating themselves. Cheating implies a competition.

 

You are making the assumption that the reviewer has "inside information" and implying that they are dishonest using it, has this been shown to be the case or even implied/stated here in the thread by those involved? From what was said here, it is unlikely they did have information for at the very least the majority of what they have found. Not sure why everyone assumes the negative of someone, since the individual has at least proven to have enough integrity that GS decided they would trust them with the position.

 

I don't think anyone here has implied that a reviewer has been dishonest. They do have inside information but again, we trust that a reviewer won't use it to his advantage. Some of us are simply stating that this could happen if a person decided to do it. Hopefully we won't ever see anything like this happen.

[+dprovan]

Cheating implies a competition.

FTF hunting is, by definition, a competition.

 

You are making the assumption that the reviewer has "inside information" and implying that they are dishonest using it, has this been shown to be the case or even implied/stated here in the thread by those involved?

OK, last time: I'm pointing out that the reviewer does have inside information, although in some cases only the information about when the cache will be published. But I'm not implying that they are using it. I'm suggesting that reviewers consider whether winning the FTF competition is worth the possibility that the people they beat will wonder whether they're winning honestly.

[+Ambrosia]

But it's already been said that the reviewer in question has only got a handful of ftf since being a reviewer, so they have already stopped being a "ftf hound", so I don't even know why it keeps getting brought up. I don't mind having a generic academic discussion about reviewers, but saying that this reviewer needs to stop being a ftf hound is rather silly.

I've been having a generic academic discussion about reviewers and haven't been saying anything about this reviewer.

 

<snip>

Huh, that's not the impression that I got from some of the posts in this thread.

[+SirDonB]

I couldn't help but cringe as I read this, since it mostly hurts the point you're trying to make. There's plenty of trust in the world, but when that trust can be easily abused, we tend to have policies in place that go beyond hoping for the best.

 

We don't simply rely on trust to stop shoplifting; there are laws against it and punishments handed out. Some stores install strategically placed mirrors, install bells that sound when a door opens, and even hire security guards.

 

There also are laws against drunk and distracted driving.

 

We expect car companies to not simply trust everybody who asks for a key code but rather rather to verify that they are speaking to the car owner. If they fail to perform such due diligence, then the car companies could be sued for negligence.

 

The U.S.D.A. inspects food, many food containers are sealed, and there are food tampering laws and restaurant health laws not because we trust everybody but because we don't.

What on earth does the above have to do with this thread or geocaching? Are you proposing contacting your Senator to pass laws about when you can go find a cache?

No. I'm saying there are times when one cannot rely simply on trust. Sometimes governments pass laws to help prevent certain things from happening. Sometimes companies have policies in place to help prevent certain things from happening.

 

So you want Groundspeak to make rules and regulations for Reviewers on being FTF simply because some people can or can't be trusted to do the right thing in an unofficial side game that some cachers play that Groundspeak has no official stand on? How will that solve the problem? You will still have people whining about it no matter what. So in other words, the need of the one out weighs the need of the many? I don't see it as a big deal if a reviewer gets a FTF before me or not, I would hope they would so that if a cache looks legally placed on the internet but in fact is not when boots are on the ground, they can contact the CO BEFORE an army of cachers piss off the land owner and cause geocaching to be looked at in a more negative light than needs be.

[+dprovan]

I've been having a generic academic discussion about reviewers and haven't been saying anything about this reviewer.

Huh, that's not the impression that I got from some of the posts in this thread.

My posts? Could you be specific? I'm having a devil of a time understanding how this fundamental point is being so completely missed, so it would help me a lot if you could show me what I said that gave you the opposite impression.