Cheating on puzzles?

[+Team Microdot]

What I was doing was providing an example to answer your specific question as to how cheating could take place without rules being broken - written rules at least, which are the only type which matter, according to your assertion.

 

I expect that they've closed whatever tax loophole allowed that to occur, if it was in fact determined to be "cheating."

 

And yet Groundspeak has staunchly refused to stop people from logging puzzles without solving them.

 

Have they?

 

What does that prove?

 

I just find it curious that some people are so adamant that there is a clear right or wrong in this scenario, and yet, after more than ten years and incessant complaining about it, the only way that this issue has been addressed at all is when Groundspeak asserted that the only requirement to log a find is to sign the logbook.

 

I don't find it even slightly curious.

[cezanne]

I just find it curious that some people are so adamant that there is a clear right or wrong in this scenario, and yet, after more than ten years and incessant complaining about it, the only way that this issue has been addressed at all is when Groundspeak asserted that the only requirement to log a find is to sign the logbook.

 

What other chance does Groundspeak have? Not everything can be regulated by rules.

 

There is no doubt that except for challenge caches for a physical cache it suffices to sign the logbook.

 

It's a completely different question whether it is a good idea and motivating for the cache owner to log caches as found where one has not met major parts of the mission (be it solving a puzzle, visiting the stages, climbing a tree, crawling through a narrow tunnel/cave etc).

 

Yes, you can certainly log a found it for my mystery caches if you only sign the log and visit the final. For some (most?) of them you will end up with a lame cache and I will end up with a boring log.

What's the point of visiting the final of a cache where everything interesting happens before the final?

 

You own just a single mystery cache and that's a one stage cache. Can you imagine how it feels if people visit your multi-stage mystery cache and do not even realize that there are stages and have no idea what

is shown there? They just visit a container at a boring location and sign the log and write the same log for 50 caches they visited on the very same day while they could not even have managed 10 of them if done properly. Is this really what geocaching is about?

 

 

Cezanne

[+narcissa]

Can you imagine how it feels if people visit your multi-stage mystery cache and do not even realize that there are stages and have no idea what

is shown there? They just visit a container at a boring location and sign the log and write the same log for 50 caches they visited on the very same day while they could not even have managed 10 of them if done properly. Is this really what geocaching is about?

 

There are a lot of things that I, personally, don't think geocaching is "about" but that has no bearing on how other people choose to play the game.

 

As I said earlier, I like to contribute to the work leading up to the find when it comes to puzzle caches, but I also don't really care how people find my own caches as long as they put them back. I'm not competing against anybody. I don't care if someone wants to find 50 puzzles the easy way as long as the cache is in place for the next finder. I'm a grown-up, and I can manage the mild disappointment I might feel when someone isn't completely enamoured with one of my geocaches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Feeling disrespected or undermined is not a choice. If you flip me off, I will feel disrespected. If you don't understand that cause and effect then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

You're choosing to equate finding a cache with flipping you off.

 

When someone flips you off, they are explicitly communicating disrespect in an unambiguous fashion.

 

When someone logs your geocache, and you think they may not have solved it themselves, the "disrespect" is a matter of interpretation.

 

It's not the cache finder's fault if you can't control your emotions.

 

More insults?

 

Why do you keep on bringing up emotions? If a CO creates a mystery cache it's pretty obvious to me that reason they listed it as a mystery cache was that they wanted finders to solve a puzzle (otherwise they would have created it as traditional cache). I think it is disrespectful to cache owners (notice that I did not say that I feel disrespected) when someone circumvents the intent of the cache owner by obtaining the coordinates without even making an attempt to solve the puzzle. You don't. Fine, but you can't stop there. You have been throwing out insults by alleging that those responding "can't control their emotions", are throwing hissy fits, are "venemous and angry", "controlling", and are sitting at home "fretting and lashing out at people".

 

Some people believe that when a cache owner expends a little more effort to create a cache that is a cut above the cookie cutter traditional that requires no more effort than it takes to identify a location which is no more than 528' from another cache, stuff a piece of paper into a leaky container and toss it in a bush, that the *courteous* response would be to thank them for their efforts. Other people think that obtaining the smiley is more important than respecting the wishes of the cache owner. Neither group is necessarily expressing their opinion based on an emotional response.

[+narcissa]

Why do you keep on bringing up emotions?

 

Because people are making arguments based on emotion, but trying to pass them off as objective truths.

 

A cache owner may very well feel disrespected if someone uses a shortcut to find their puzzle cache, but it doesn't logically follow that disrespect was intended.

 

I have a few geocaches that are somewhat tricky, and I just don't see the need to get upset if people find them in groups or with help. I don't think it's cheating, I don't think it's wrong. It just doesn't bother me. As long as the cache is put back for the next person to find, it just doesn't matter.

 

My enjoyment was in creating them in the first place. I know that some cachers do appreciate them, and that's enough for me. I don't need to lord over other geocachers and call them cheaters if they find another way to get to the container. I don't need every single finder to validate my existence.

[+tozainamboku]

If a CO creates a mystery cache it's pretty obvious to me that reason they listed it as a mystery cache was that they wanted finders to solve a puzzle (otherwise they would have created it as traditional cache).

I do not understand how you can say this.

 

I think most people create puzzle caches because

1. they enjoy creating puzzles

2. they enjoy solving puzzles and feel that there are other cachers who enjoy solving puzzles.

 

There may be a few people who will create a puzzle because

3. they know that a significant number of people do not like puzzles and they want to have a cache that only a few people will find.

 

I don't believe that most people create puzzle caches because

4. they want people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley.

 

However it is clear that some people have a character flaw where as cache owners they get some sadistic pleasure making people jump through hoops and perhaps from deleting online found logs. It seems this flaw also extends to having a sanctimonious attitude to those who find ways to circumvent solving the puzzle.

Edited June 17, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Why do you keep on bringing up emotions?

 

Because people are making arguments based on emotion, but trying to pass them off as objective truths.

 

 

No. You keep on claiming that the arguments are based upon emotion (an easy way to dismiss an argument). That doesn't mean that they are.

 

 

A cache owner may very well feel disrespected if someone uses a shortcut to find their puzzle cache, but it doesn't logically follow that disrespect was intended.

 

I have a few geocaches that are somewhat tricky, and I just don't see the need to get upset if people find them in groups or with help. I don't think it's cheating, I don't think it's wrong. It just doesn't bother me. As long as the cache is put back for the next person to find, it just doesn't matter.

 

 

That's fine. They're your caches. Nobody is tell you how you should feel about how people find your caches. You, on the other hand, seem to think you can tell others how they should feel (or not feel) about how people find their caches, and when it's not the same as how you feel you've freely tossed out insults.

 

 

My enjoyment was in creating them in the first place. I know that some cachers do appreciate them, and that's enough for me. I don't need to lord over other geocachers and call them cheaters if they find another way to get to the container. I don't need every single finder to validate my existence.

 

Again, they're your caches. Do what you want with them but It's not all about you. I don't think I've seen anyone claim that every single finder must solve a puzzle cache exactly as intended. I just don't think it too much to ask that if a cache owner has put in extra effort to create a puzzle cache that the courteous thing to to do is at least attempt to complete the cache as the owner intended (note: that was not an emotional response).

 

 

[+narcissa]

Again, they're your caches. Do what you want with them but It's not all about you.

 

No, it isn't all about me. It isn't all about you. It isn't all about any single cache owner. No cache owner is going to have the same thoughts about this, so trying to claim that there is an objective right or wrong is fallacious. There isn't a right or wrong.

[+JBnW]

Again, they're your caches. Do what you want with them but It's not all about you.

 

No, it isn't all about me. It isn't all about you. It isn't all about any single cache owner. No cache owner is going to have the same thoughts about this, so trying to claim that there is an objective right or wrong is fallacious. There isn't a right or wrong.

Then why do you insist on shouting down alternative viewpoints?

 

Member name Posts

narcissa 42

Team Microdot 41

Roman! 37

funkymunkyzone 15

The_Incredibles_ 10

cezanne 9

NYPaddleCacher 8

[+narcissa]

Then why do you insist on shouting down alternative viewpoints?

 

We're all free to write comments here. Why are you trying to silence and derail?

[cezanne]

If a CO creates a mystery cache it's pretty obvious to me that reason they listed it as a mystery cache was that they wanted finders to solve a puzzle (otherwise they would have created it as traditional cache).

I do not understand how you can say this.

 

I think most people create puzzle caches because

1. they enjoy creating puzzles

2. they enjoy solving puzzles and feel that there are other cachers who enjoy solving puzzles.

 

There may be a few people who will create a puzzle because

3. they know that a significant number of people do not like puzzles and they want to have a cache that only a few people will find.

 

I don't believe that most people create puzzle caches because

4. they want people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley.

 

Actually, none of the above has been the main motivation for my existing mystery caches.

 

In some cases the homework part somehow prepares for what comes afterwards and it helps to select the right audience for the caches. Several of them

involve sensitive locations where unprepared crowds are an issue. The idea is not to scare off people who do not like puzzles, but cachers for whom quick

finds and the thrill of the hunt for a plastic container are most important. It's a bit comparable to a good and educational Earth cache which is the wrong

choice for those who just want to enjoy a scenic location and do not be bothered with something else.

 

For me it is very important to provide as much help as possible to cachers to make their decision on whether a particular cache could be suitable for them or not.

Several of my caches do not fit to the idea of a light fun activity which requires an appropriate audience.

 

A further issue caused by cachers who just get the final coordinates is that those typically do not read the cache description, do not take into account any restrictions

on visiting times, access and other things that are of importance when visiting a cache. Without this business of coordinate exchance, multi caches and mystery caches have the

advantage that cachers can be forced to some extent to look at the cache description.

 

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

If a CO creates a mystery cache it's pretty obvious to me that reason they listed it as a mystery cache was that they wanted finders to solve a puzzle (otherwise they would have created it as traditional cache).

I do not understand how you can say this.

 

I think most people create puzzle caches because

1. they enjoy creating puzzles

2. they enjoy solving puzzles and feel that there are other cachers who enjoy solving puzzles.

 

There may be a few people who will create a puzzle because

3. they know that a significant number of people do not like puzzles and they want to have a cache that only a few people will find.

 

I don't believe that most people create puzzle caches because

4. they want people jump through hoops in order to get a smiley.

 

Actually, none of the above has been the main motivation for my existing mystery caches.

OK, I'll grant that the list is not exhaustive.

 

Clearly some people use geocaches as educational aids. The want to impart some knowledge to others. Typically you will see a traditional cache with a long write-up, that nobody reads, giving a bunch of information that may or may not be related to the cache location. No doubt that a puzzle where you need to learn something in order to solve the puzzle can be more effective than just writing up the information on the page. If what you learn is related to the cache location, it may make the visit to the cache site more meaningful than simply going to find a hidden container.

 

I'd argue that no matter what the significance of a location is, there are people who are simply going to find the cache and get a smiley. While a cache owner may be disappointed that someone didn't learn the lesson plan, I don't think that you can force someone to learn. A puzzle may be a better solution than a traditional with just a write-up with a bunch of facts, but it is still an imperfect solution.

[+geodarts]

Then why do you insist on shouting down alternative viewpoints?

 

We're all free to write comments here. Why are you trying to silence and derail?

 

This thread has been prone to labels -- disrespect, rudeness, cheating, shouting -- so that viewpoints tend to get lost. There are many people who have personal standards that are different than mine, and we all draw our individual boundaries in different ways. I won't put a label on you if you do not put a label on me.

 

I have one multicache that specifically states that it is not a field puzzle, but it does require you to think a little outside the box and you might get distracted if you do not pay close attention to the cache description. The first finder found the final by brute force. Others have gotten it after hints, from either myself or with a PAF. A couple of people have actually found it "as intended." I have never thought that anyone who has found that - or any of my old puzzles - through any method has been disrespectful. The box is there to be found. Use whatever method you are comfortable in using.

 

I have signed my name to the logbook of some tree climbing caches because I happened to be with the owner when they were doing maintenance or wanted to show off their skills. I have signed my name to some when I took a pole, brought my tree-climbing daughter, been with cachers who enjoy climbing trees, or made the climb myself. I do not think any of the methods indicates disrespect. One cache has only been found by only two of us who brought poles on separate occasions, if anything I see that as a sign of respect for the ability of the person who placed the cache there.

 

I have the same feeling with regard to puzzles. I have brute forced some puzzles -- and some of the best logs I have seen have been from those of us who have done that from time to time. The owners I know think of that as being a sign that their puzzle was indeed puzzling. I have signed my name to question mark caches by solving puzzles, getting hints, being with people who actually enjoy puzzles, and by stumbling upon caches in the field. I don't think of any of these methods is "cheating."

 

I draw my own boundaries. Trading coordinates when I am not with the solver seems pointless because I have no reason to be at the cache location. But as to other methods . . . perhaps I was influenced too much during the last math class I took at the university - required calculus for social science majors. It was pass/fail and the professor told us that since we attended class together and studied together, we should take the final together. I was grateful for that approach and I have not had to use calculus since then (except perhaps on a mystery cache or two). I am also grateful if we are planning a hike and someone volunteers to look up fifteen facts on wikipedia in a game where there are no professed winners, losers, or official leaderboards.

 

In the end, rudeness might be a matter of perspective. Is it more rude to sign a name to a log when taking a group hike that includes a puzzle solver, or to be a puzzle maker and not give any help -- or to give help to some people and not others? Is it more disrespectful to solve a puzzle and use a TFTC or be with someone who solved the puzzle and write a longer log about your adventure in finding the cache?

 

Some people might feel I cheated when we were kayaking and there was a stage of a cache at a sign, a typical "find certain letters on certain lines and use the resulting letter for the solution." My friends suggested that we take advantage of the tide and dispense with the busy work, since they had already found the cache. It did not lessen the adventure for me since there was no great mystery to the cache and I still had to stand up in my yak and somehow keep from tipping the boat when I came to the final, which was visible enough so that others had brute forced it.

 

So if you draw your boundaries in a different way, that is fine. If you object that I did not go through all the hoops, then what is it about e=5 that really means that much to you? You don't have to look at my numbers or give them any special importance -- I hide my detailed stats as much as this site will let me. If if you look at what is posted, I probably will think you have way too much time on your hands and you should spend it doing other things. If you want to compare something, lets talk about yaks, cameras, hiking sticks, or bicycles. If you want to talk about respect, then lets make that mutual and respect each other for the things that matter.

Edited June 17, 2014 by geodarts

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Again, they're your caches. Do what you want with them but It's not all about you.

 

No, it isn't all about me. It isn't all about you. It isn't all about any single cache owner. No cache owner is going to have the same thoughts about this, so trying to claim that there is an objective right or wrong is fallacious. There isn't a right or wrong.

 

So you recognize that different cache owners are going have different thoughts about people finding their caches without solving the puzzle, yet you still condone a practice that you admit some cache owners might find objectionable? There isn't a right or wrong, but that hasn't stopped you from insulting cache owners (and other cachers in general) that don't agree with your view.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

If you want to talk about respect, then lets make that mutual and respect each other for the things that matter.

 

It's a minor point but just out of idle curiosity and given that:

 

I draw my own boundaries.

 

and

 

So if you draw your boundaries in a different way, that is fine.

 

Who gets to decide precisely what matters?

 

Or did you have a specific list of things in mind?

 

If different things matter to different people in differing degrees, and we only respect each other for the things that matter - that mutual respect - presumably where the things that matter to each of us overlap - could end up being fairly sparsely distributed. Although that would fit quite neatly with large parts of this thread.

 

Unless I've completely misunderstood - which is a distinct possibility.

[+narcissa]

So you recognize that different cache owners are going have different thoughts about people finding their caches without solving the puzzle, yet you still condone a practice that you admit some cache owners might find objectionable?

 

There are lots of things that cache owners might find objectionable that the game allows. It's not a matter of condoning or condemning.

 

I condone finding geocaches, signing the physical log, putting them back in place, and writing an online log in a neutral or pleasant tone.

 

Look at the litany of complaints on this forum. Multis are too long and don't give me enough smilies. Puzzles are too hard. Earthcaches aren't containers. Power trails are lame. I can't take my two-year-old to high terrain caches. I hate micros. Big containers get muggled too often. That container leaks. This container is camouflaged too well and it isn't fun. I hate pine trees. I hate lamp posts. There's no swag for kids. All of the swag is for kids. There's no swag. Someone crammed swag into a container that is too small. This isn't a real flash mob. Events aren't containers.

 

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

There are lots of things that cache owners might find objectionable that the game allows. It's not a matter of condoning or condemning.

 

I condone finding geocaches, signing the physical log, putting them back in place, and writing an online log in a neutral or pleasant tone.

 

Look at the litany of complaints on this forum. Multis are too long and don't give me enough smilies. Puzzles are too hard. Earthcaches aren't containers. Power trails are lame. I can't take my two-year-old to high terrain caches. I hate micros. Big containers get muggled too often. That container leaks. This container is camouflaged too well and it isn't fun. I hate pine trees. I hate lamp posts. There's no swag for kids. All of the swag is for kids. There's no swag. Someone crammed swag into a container that is too small. This isn't a real flash mob. Events aren't containers.

 

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

The most reasonable thing that's been posted in this thread so far!

[+Team Microdot]

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

I've noticed along the way how for most of this thread you've dismissed responses from others on the basis that they arise from an emotive basis rather than infallible objectivity - and yet relied heavily on emotive language - mainly negative in its tone - to emphasise your own points.

[+J Grouchy]

 

There are lots of things that cache owners might find objectionable that the game allows. It's not a matter of condoning or condemning.

 

I condone finding geocaches, signing the physical log, putting them back in place, and writing an online log in a neutral or pleasant tone.

 

Look at the litany of complaints on this forum. Multis are too long and don't give me enough smilies. Puzzles are too hard. Earthcaches aren't containers. Power trails are lame. I can't take my two-year-old to high terrain caches. I hate micros. Big containers get muggled too often. That container leaks. This container is camouflaged too well and it isn't fun. I hate pine trees. I hate lamp posts. There's no swag for kids. All of the swag is for kids. There's no swag. Someone crammed swag into a container that is too small. This isn't a real flash mob. Events aren't containers.

 

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

Don't forget about challenges. We all hate those...right?

[team tisri]

Solve a puzzle by any means, intended, not intended, intuition, brute force, whatever - all good. But being handed the coordinates, or trading puzzle final coordinates - that's cheating, and worse, it's downright rude. I often wonder if people who think that's ok would also be the same ones who would copy the entire solution for a crossword puzzle, and pretend they solved it themselves.

 

So what's the difference between being given the coordinates or being out with the person who solved the puzzle and finding it too? I'd bet that almost everyone has done this. Either way you contributed nothing.

 

At what point does a hint become cheating, wouldn't it be cheating getting any hint from anyone other than the CO.

 

Technically none of it is cheating as you have not broken any GS rules.

 

So it's just name in logbook that counts?

 

Cool. I'm not going to bother climbing any more steep hills to find caches, I'll just get someone else to go and put my name in the logbook. No GS rules broken - my name is in the logbook..... Lame!

 

No need for that, just log a find. If it's a micro the chances are the owner won't check.

[+narcissa]

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

I've noticed along the way how for most of this thread you've dismissed responses from others on the basis that they arise from an emotive basis rather than infallible objectivity - and yet relied heavily on emotive language - mainly negative in its tone - to emphasise your own points.

 

I've dismissed the argument "this might make a cache owner feel bad, therefore it is bad."

 

You're not in on the joke, so I'll simply overlook the silliness of you referring to my profile.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

I've noticed along the way how for most of this thread you've dismissed responses from others on the basis that they arise from an emotive basis rather than infallible objectivity - and yet relied heavily on emotive language - mainly negative in its tone - to emphasise your own points.

 

I've dismissed the argument "this might make a cache owner feel bad, therefore it is bad."

 

You're not in on the joke, so I'll simply overlook the silliness of you referring to my profile.

 

Case in point. Team Microdot makes the point that you've repeatedly used negatively emotive language to support your argument, and how do you respond?...by dismissing the point by characterizing it as silly.

 

 

 

 

[+narcissa]

Case in point. Team Microdot makes the point that you've repeatedly used negatively emotive language to support your argument, and how do you respond?...by dismissing the point by characterizing it as silly.

 

Actually, I was characterizing the reference to my profile as silliness.

[+geodarts]

If you want to talk about respect, then lets make that mutual and respect each other for the things that matter.

 

It's a minor point but just out of idle curiosity . . .

 

Who gets to decide precisely what matters?

 

 

We all do.

 

This topic has reminded me of the days when I used to do political organizing. There was a lot of emphasis on consensus, but that often amounted to people expecting others to agree with their agenda. Some here seem to say that you are being disrespectful if you are not playing the game as the cache owner intended. Others state that it is being selfish to expect that - being disrespectful of the ways that others play this game.

 

To me, then, mutual respect is somewhere in the middle. A golden rule kind of thing. I will respect you by playing in the way that I would be find acceptable if it were my own cache. I hope that you would find my caches in the same way. Even if we have different standards, neither of us is being disrespectful, neither of us is cheating. Any other approach amounts to insisting that others agree with you, which at best is an exercise in frustration. Like going back to some of the ALRs.

 

Its a game where the rules that we play by often differ to some extent or the other. The most that I can hope for is that others have fun when finding one of my caches and I have fun if I choose to find another person's cache. Other than that, its just a matter of being human, exchanging viewpoints, and going on with life in the best way that we can.

Edited June 17, 2014 by geodarts

[cezanne]

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

I think that there is a huge difference between stating that one finds something objectionable and shaming out people.

Moreover, if you are really concerned about cachers giving up, you would also need to take into account those owners of complex puzzle caches that decide to archive their caches once coordinate trading starts (this does not happen rarely in my area) and decide not to spend time to come up with further such caches.

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

If we cajole and shame people out of every little thing that someone else finds objectionable, there won't be any geocaches or geocachers left.

 

I think that there is a huge difference between stating that one finds something objectionable and shaming out people.

Moreover, if you are really concerned about cachers giving up, you would also need to take into account those owners of complex puzzle caches that decide to archive their caches once coordinate trading starts (this does not happen rarely in my area) and decide not to spend time to come up with further such caches.

 

Cezanne

 

Honestly if a cacher archives a cache and refuses to put out any more due to how I decided to go about finding their cache then I did the caching community a favor, I would not want to find any more of this persons caches anyways.

[+Roman!]

Once you put out a cache it's out of your hands, you'll get some good logs, some bad logs and a bunch in between, expecting anything else is foolish and getting upset over it is, well, even more foolish.

[+Team Microdot]

If you want to talk about respect, then lets make that mutual and respect each other for the things that matter.

 

It's a minor point but just out of idle curiosity . . .

 

Who gets to decide precisely what matters?

 

 

We all do.

 

This topic has reminded me of the days when I used to do political organizing. There was a lot of emphasis on consensus, but that often amounted to people expecting others to agree with their agenda. Some here seem to say that you are being disrespectful if you are not playing the game as the cache owner intended. Others state that it is being selfish to expect that - being disrespectful of the ways that others play this game.

 

To me, then, mutual respect is somewhere in the middle. A golden rule kind of thing. I will respect you by playing in the way that I would be find acceptable if it were my own cache. I hope that you would find my caches in the same way. Even if we have different standards, neither of us is being disrespectful, neither of us is cheating. Any other approach amounts to insisting that others agree with you, which at best is an exercise in frustration. Like going back to some of the ALRs.

 

Its a game where the rules that we play by often differ to some extent or the other. The most that I can hope for is that others have fun when finding one of my caches and I have fun if I choose to find another person's cache. Other than that, its just a matter of being human, exchanging viewpoints, and going on with life in the best way that we can.

 

 

If you're amenable - I'd like to take this a little further.

 

We all get to decide what matters - OK.

 

The list of things which matters to each of us, and the degree to which each item matters - will differ from the lists of others - we're all unique human beings after all

 

Assuming we don't share lists in advance AND we ONLY share mutual respect on those items from each of our lists which match, there's likely to be a bunch of things which are not subject to mutual respect.

 

Even aiming for somewhere in the middle is wide open to frustration as given that we've not exchanged lists and have no idea of what matters to the other, neither of us knows where the middle is

 

Assuming that we care that other human beings feel respected by our actions and the effects of them - or at least don't feel disrespected by them - and remembering that we have no communication with them prior to these actions - how might we convey our respect / lack of disrespect? Can we respect the wishes of others without knowing explicitly what they are?

[cezanne]

Honestly if a cacher archives a cache and refuses to put out any more due to how I decided to go about finding their cache then I did the caching community a favor, I would not want to find any more of this persons caches anyways.

 

Concrete examples show that the fans of complex puzzle caches see this differently and do not regard coordinate trading via lists in the internet as doing them a favor.

Of course, you do those a favor who hate puzzles caches and cannot simply ignore them.

[+giddeanx]

 

Assuming we don't share lists in advance AND we ONLY share mutual respect on those items from each of our lists which match, there's likely to be a bunch of things which are not subject to mutual respect.

 

Its a good thing we don't have to work on that assumption here. In geocaching there are ways for us to see or at least peak at the CO's cards before we initiate an interaction. We get to read the cache description, take a look at the CO's reactions to other players in the logs, see if a hint is provided, check the difficulty (or how hard the CO thinks the cache should be). If we want to research we can look at the CO's finds. If that fails we can go to the forum were fellow cachers are incessantly hashing out what is acceptable. There are plenty of tools available if a cacher really wants to show respect.

Edited June 18, 2014 by giddeanx

[+Team Microdot]

 

Assuming we don't share lists in advance AND we ONLY share mutual respect on those items from each of our lists which match, there's likely to be a bunch of things which are not subject to mutual respect.

 

Its a good thing we don't have to work on that assumption here. In geocaching there are ways for us to see or at least peak at the CO's cards before we initiate an interaction. We get to read the cache description, take a look at the CO's reactions to other players in the logs, see if a hint is provided, check the difficulty (or how hard the CO thinks the cache should be). If we want to research we can look at the CO's finds. If that fails we can go to the forum were fellow cachers are incessantly hashing out what is acceptable. There are plenty of tools available if a cacher really wants to show respect.

 

Completely agree

 

And I still want to further this discussion with geodarts on the current basis if he's amenable - especially as no doubt someone will be along shortly to protest at the idea of having to do what you describe above for every cache, simply in order to avoid the risk of offending the CO in question.

[+Oxford Stone]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

[+Team Microdot]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

But I'd really prefer to explore the other end of the spectrum - how we can easily convey our respect for other CO's when we don't explicitly know what matters to them and to what degree and hopefully geodarts will be along soon to continue that exploration

[+J Grouchy]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

You are vast. You contain multitudes.

 

/Whitman

[+elrojo14]

That is what I like about Geocaching. It is what you make it. It doesn't matter to me what your standards really are for Geocaching as long as you are following the rules. I for example do not like to discover travel bugs or coins and usually only log them if I move them. You might log every coin you see just to add more icons to your coins screen. You know what? That is cool. Geocaching is what we make it.

 

You might like power trails. I don't.

 

You might like puzzles and might not want to log them unless you solve them.

 

I might hate puzzle caches and not log any or have my Geocaching Class figure them out for me and then I just go find them.

 

Geocaching is what you make it.

 

Now as far as what can you do as a CO? Nothing really. If the person finds the cache and signs the log, they get to keep the find. Those are the rules. Personally I as a cache owner would not care how you found my cache. If you feel comfortable e-mailing someone and asking for the answer and that person would give it to you, you solved the puzzle! That is on you. It has nothing really to do with me.

[+narcissa]

Its a good thing we don't have to work on that assumption here. In geocaching there are ways for us to see or at least peak at the CO's cards before we initiate an interaction. We get to read the cache description, take a look at the CO's reactions to other players in the logs, see if a hint is provided, check the difficulty (or how hard the CO thinks the cache should be). If we want to research we can look at the CO's finds. If that fails we can go to the forum were fellow cachers are incessantly hashing out what is acceptable. There are plenty of tools available if a cacher really wants to show respect.

 

This is a good point. Geocachers who take the time to read cache pages and/or engage with other geocachers will have higher awareness of the particular quirks of different cache owners. As someone who participates in local events, I'm not interested in being intentionally difficult as a cache owner or a cache finder. That means that as a cache finder, I do what I can to find geocaches in the manner intended by the cache owner if I can reasonably ascertain what that is, and as a cache owner I do not scold, shame, delete logs, assume/perceive disrespect, or accuse people of "cheating" if they've found the cache, signed the log, and put it back safely.

[+J Grouchy]

I don't consider geocaching a game or a test, so therefore there can be no "cheating". I consider it a pastime or a hobby...and who cheats on a hobby? If you like to knit and you are having a tough time with a particular stitch on a sweater you are making, so you take it to a friend who helps out - maybe even makes that particular stitch for you so you can complete the sweater - did you cheat? In the end, you have the sweater you want. You can point to the area that you had help on and know that you did not personally make that part. So? And what if you tell people you made the whole thing by yourself? Again...so?

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game". There are no winners or losers.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I don't consider geocaching a game or a test, so therefore there can be no "cheating". I consider it a pastime or a hobby...and who cheats on a hobby? If you like to knit and you are having a tough time with a particular stitch on a sweater you are making, so you take it to a friend who helps out - maybe even makes that particular stitch for you so you can complete the sweater - did you cheat? In the end, you have the sweater you want. You can point to the area that you had help on and know that you did not personally make that part. So? And what if you tell people you made the whole thing by yourself? Again...so?

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game". There are no winners or losers.

 

+1

[+Team Microdot]

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

 

Then what rules are broken in any of Oxford Stone's examples, to qualify them as "cheating"?

[+Ma & Pa]

It's all down to the "you only cheat yourself" adage isn't it?

In the last 24 hours I've, far from the first time, "short circuited" a couple of very long multis by just massaging in numbers / squinting at the penultimate stage. Cheating?

My first T5 I couldn't do the Playfair cipher but noticed the cache was back-referenced in another of the CO's caches, and took a lucky punt. Cheating? Messaged another recent finder of the cache, but he'd not done the other one - he'd simply mapped the day's caches of a prolific cacher who'd found it and got lucky too! Cheating?

A fiendish series of 5 puzzles, 3 of them the answers along a road but with a gap... hint to hard puzzle "low metallic"... looked under railing, there's the cache. no idea how to solve the puzzle. Cheating?

Exchanging large or small hints with other cachers - cheating?

Logging puzzle caches (and the odd tree climb where he didn't tuch the cache) for Oxford Stone Junior, just gone 5 years old - cheating?

Tricky nano in Oxford, multiple DNFs but happened to see some toher cachers get it so logged too. Cheating?

My conscience is clear on all of the above. What I wouldn't do is traipse round a mega event queueing up to log caches, easy or hard, found / retrieved by someone else. Part of the beauty of cacing is that we can all play it our way.

I should stress that I love solving or setting a good puzzle - and indeed a good multi, nothing like the satisfaction of doing it properly - but sometimes unorthodox means are called for. I'm just a bunch of contradictions, aren't I?

 

The short answer to all but your first question is yes.

 

 

My short answer to all is NO. I wouldn't necessarily do all those methods but I wouldn't have problems if others used those methods, even to find my caches.

 

As many have said, the great thing about geocaching is that we all do it a little differently and have fun doing it. Your list is a good example of that and of the things we love about geocaching. You are very much into geocaching and you use ingenuity to figure out a solution to a problem. You have to be a dedicated geocacher to work out a solution using the hints, the descriptions, other logs and even other caches by the CO. The fact that you worked stuff out with other cachers is one of the things that I love about cacheing.

 

I highlighted one sentence of yours as it reminds me of what happened on one of our Micro Logic (ML) puzzle caches. I hid 5 ML caches on a newly discovered trail. Many were able to solve 4 of them but had problems getting the West coords for the fifth cache (ML143). There was clearly a gap on the trail, so armed with the coords for the other 4 and the North coords, cachers tried to locate the cache. First of all they tried putting guesses in the geochecker. We started to see the incorrect guesses climbing into the hundreds on the geochecker but eventually green lights appeared. Others walked the trail and using the info they had, managed to locate the cache.

 

Some figured out the answer to the West coords, others used one of the methods I mentioned above, and others went out with groups of cachers who had the solution or who wanted to walk the line together to locate it. The geochecker has nearly 700 false guesses at this time.

 

No matter which method they used it was all OK with me. And a bonus was the great logs with the stories of their solving, their hike, their searching , their caching groups, etc.

 

Here is the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC40B1F

 

.

 

.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Ma & Pa

[+Team Microdot]

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

 

Then what rules are broken in any of Oxford Stone's examples, to qualify them as "cheating"?

 

None of Groundspeak's that I can see - but then we already covered the fact that behaviour being considered cheating did not actually require the breaking of written rules earlier in the thread.

[+narcissa]

None of Groundspeak's that I can see - but then we already covered the fact that behaviour being considered cheating did not actually require the breaking of written rules earlier in the thread.

 

We also discussed that cheating means gaining an unfair advantage over someone else. Finding a puzzle cache without solving it doesn't give anyone an advantage, nor does it prevent anybody else from finding it. It might annoy the cache owner, but that's not the same thing as cheating.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

 

Then what rules are broken in any of Oxford Stone's examples, to qualify them as "cheating"?

 

None of Groundspeak's that I can see - but then we already covered the fact that behaviour being considered cheating did not actually require the breaking of written rules earlier in the thread.

 

Well, then I guess *I* don't considering all of those cases cheating.

[+Team Microdot]

None of Groundspeak's that I can see - but then we already covered the fact that behaviour being considered cheating did not actually require the breaking of written rules earlier in the thread.

 

We also discussed that cheating means gaining an unfair advantage over someone else. Finding a puzzle cache without solving it doesn't give anyone an advantage, nor does it prevent anybody else from finding it. It might annoy the cache owner, but that's not the same thing as cheating.

 

Sorry - I'm afraid we still disagree on that score - and I'm OK with that.

[+narcissa]

I don't consider geocaching a game or a test, so therefore there can be no "cheating". I consider it a pastime or a hobby...and who cheats on a hobby? If you like to knit and you are having a tough time with a particular stitch on a sweater you are making, so you take it to a friend who helps out - maybe even makes that particular stitch for you so you can complete the sweater - did you cheat? In the end, you have the sweater you want. You can point to the area that you had help on and know that you did not personally make that part. So? And what if you tell people you made the whole thing by yourself? Again...so?

 

Apparently you're "cheating" because the person who designed the sweater pattern *meant* for you to make the sweater a certain way.

 

It doesn't matter that you're the only one who will wear the sweater, most other knitters in the entire world won't even know about the sweater, and you're not winning a prize for finishign the sweater.

 

Even though anybody else can still buy/use the pattern to make their own sweater, you've somehow ruined the entire concept of the sweater by getting help with the tricky stitch.

[+narcissa]

Sorry - I'm afraid we still disagree on that score - and I'm OK with that.

 

You have yet to explain how anyone is actually advantaged or disadvantaged. The fact that something annoys you doesn't make it cheating.

[+Team Microdot]

Sorry - I'm afraid we still disagree on that score - and I'm OK with that.

 

You have yet to explain how anyone is actually advantaged or disadvantaged. The fact that something annoys you doesn't make it cheating.

 

No - I don't.

[+GeoLog81]

Is logging individually the caches found in group a cheating?

 

Technically, one person finds the cache, so only he/she has found it, right? So if the others log it, it's cheating, right?

 

There will always be a place for someone having easier than someone else. Group searching makes it easier, group solving too.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Assuming we don't share lists in advance AND we ONLY share mutual respect on those items from each of our lists which match, there's likely to be a bunch of things which are not subject to mutual respect.

 

Its a good thing we don't have to work on that assumption here. In geocaching there are ways for us to see or at least peak at the CO's cards before we initiate an interaction. We get to read the cache description, take a look at the CO's reactions to other players in the logs, see if a hint is provided, check the difficulty (or how hard the CO thinks the cache should be). If we want to research we can look at the CO's finds. If that fails we can go to the forum were fellow cachers are incessantly hashing out what is acceptable. There are plenty of tools available if a cacher really wants to show respect.

I suppose that puzzle owneres might want to say on their cache page "In order to log a find online you must have solved the puzzle" or "If you post that you got the coordinates from a third party, I will delete you log".

 

I suspect however that these statements, or anything similar, will run into issues with reviewers or Groundspeak.

 

You could make an argument that since some cache owners would like to make these statements, we should respect their wishes even though they can't.

 

However, I believe the majority of puzzle owners are comfortable with online logs where someone didn't solve the puzzle, even if someone got the coordinates from a friend or a so-called cheat site. Even the responses in this thread indicate that most cache oweners are comfortable with this.

 

So it's a small number of cache owners who have problem with online find logs from people who did not solve the puzzle that wants the majority to play the game differently out of respect for a cache owners wishes. In my opinion, what a cache owner wishes doesn't matter. Once a cache is placed and listed on Geocaching.com, the owner's "rights" are limited and their "wishes" are only wishes.

 

I don't consider geocaching a game...

 

I think the problem here is that too many people consider geocaching a "game".

 

Groundspeak seem to think it's a game too - http://www.geocaching.com/guide/default.aspx

I think the issue is not whether you call it a game or a hobby, but what you call "rules". Groundspeak wants simple rules. You find a cache, write in the logbook, and share your experience online. When puzzle owners start adding rules for making an online log based on how the puzzle was solved, that complicates the rules. Right now, only challenge caches can have additional rules for online logging of finds.