Cheating on puzzles?

[+J Grouchy]

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

 

I feel that way about challenges.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Again, I must wonder - is the purpose of the cache for people to enjoy it, or is the purpose of the cache to control others?

 

Well what do you think?

 

I think it's pretty weird for a cache owner to sit at home fretting and lashing out at people who don't find their cache in a particular way. If the cache is put back safely for the next cacher to find, who cares? Other cachers aren't puppets who should dance for my amusement.

 

I'd be inclined to agree that some of the responses cited earlier in the thread appear somewhat extreme.

 

And at the same time - there's nothing wrong with the cache creator having the expectation that people will invest the time and effort to complete the cache in the way intended, rather than degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator - nothing at all.

 

I don't recall anyone suggesting that cachers are puppets who should dance for anyone's amusement but their own - I assume that everyone has complete freedom in the caches they choose to find - or to ignore.

[+Team Microdot]

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

 

I feel that way about challenges.

 

I must confess - I do too - a little - some of the more difficult ones in any case - but others seem to love them, and lap them up.

 

But I would never dream of logging a find on one UNLESS I had properly fulfilled ALL of the requirements - because it would be pointless.

 

OTOH - I don't begrudge anyone setting them - nor do I fret at them 'cluttering up my map' - I simply take the view that they are a challenge I am neither equipped nor inclined to rise to - at least for now And if I walk past one - I might sign the log, just in case I ever do properly qualify for them.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

As a CO, I have no problem with a group of people going out together for one of my puzzles, when only some of them have actually solved it. (Not much I can do about it anyway)

 

How about if none of them had actually solved it?

 

Depends. Was it a case of PAF? If so, then see:

 

I don't like it when folks contact each other with the query - "Can you give me the solution?". Not much I can do about that either, but I would rather have them contact me for a nudge or a hint than PAF for the solution.

 

If someone figured out where it was some other way, "Oh well". I guess I didn't make the puzzle hard enough.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

And either way, I've learned not to worry about it too much.

[+narcissa]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

[+Roman!]

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

 

I feel that way about challenges.

 

I must confess - I do too - a little - some of the more difficult ones in any case - but others seem to love them, and lap them up.

 

But I would never dream of logging a find on one UNLESS I had properly fulfilled ALL of the requirements - because it would be pointless.

 

OTOH - I don't begrudge anyone setting them - nor do I fret at them 'cluttering up my map' - I simply take the view that they are a challenge I am neither equipped nor inclined to rise to - at least for now And if I walk past one - I might sign the log, just in case I ever do properly qualify for them.

 

Logging a find on a challenge cache you don't qualify for breaks GS rules and the CO can delete your log which is not true for puzzles found other ways than the CO intended.

[+Team Microdot]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

 

Correct - on all points.

 

I'm talking about measurable impact - not mind reading.

[+Team Microdot]

Logging a find on a challenge cache you don't qualify for breaks GS rules and the CO can delete your log which is not true for puzzles found other ways than the CO intended.

 

Correct - but the OP didn't concern itself with Groundspeak's rules - so why invoke them now?

 

Although I'd quite like to see narcissa's questions around fun vs control / dancing puppets applied to challenge caches here

[+narcissa]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

 

Correct - on all points.

 

I'm talking about measurable impact - not mind reading.

 

What measurable impact is there if someone finds a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle?

 

The CO's decision to feel slighted by it is not a measurable impact.

[+narcissa]

Although I'd quite like to see narcissa's questions around fun vs control / dancing puppets applied to challenge caches here

 

I do find it puzzling that these caches have been allowed to proliferate.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

 

Correct - on all points.

 

I'm talking about measurable impact - not mind reading.

 

What measurable impact is there if someone finds a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle?

 

The CO's decision to feel slighted by it is not a measurable impact.

 

The measurable impact is, as I see it, that more and more and more cache finders don't seem to care that a cache owner has invested time and energy to create a cache that is interesting and unique. Let's just eliminate all cache types except for traditionals and make every cache easy to find so that finders can increase their find counts as fast as possible.

[+narcissa]

The measurable impact is, as I see it, that more and more and more cache finders don't seem to care that a cache owner has invested time and energy to create a cache that is interesting and unique. Let's just eliminate all cache types except for traditionals and make every cache easy to find so that finders can increase their find counts as fast as possible.

 

That's a conclusion that you're drawing based on your emotional response. It's not a measurable impact.

[+Roman!]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

 

Correct - on all points.

 

I'm talking about measurable impact - not mind reading.

 

What measurable impact is there if someone finds a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle?

 

The CO's decision to feel slighted by it is not a measurable impact.

 

The measurable impact is, as I see it, that more and more and more cache finders don't seem to care that a cache owner has invested time and energy to create a cache that is interesting and unique. Let's just eliminate all cache types except for traditionals and make every cache easy to find so that finders can increase their find counts as fast as possible.

 

I know some traditionals where the CO invested significant time, money and energy to create some pretty devious hides and see logs like TFTC, couldn't find it so used PAF.

 

Either it's all cheating or none of it is, drawing an arbitrary line on what is ok and what isn't makes no sense to me.

 

Does a CO of a puzzle have the right to get angry at me because I was given the coordinates and then go log my tree climbing cache after getting someone else to climb the tree?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The measurable impact is, as I see it, that more and more and more cache finders don't seem to care that a cache owner has invested time and energy to create a cache that is interesting and unique. Let's just eliminate all cache types except for traditionals and make every cache easy to find so that finders can increase their find counts as fast as possible.

 

That's a conclusion that you're drawing based on your emotional response. It's not a measurable impact.

 

Why does it need to be measurable?

 

I don't need to see some quantified metric to see and feel the impact that "it's all about the numbers" has had on the game.

 

[+narcissa]

Why does it need to be measurable?

 

I don't need to see some quantified metric to see and feel the impact that "it's all about the numbers" has had on the game.

 

Because the original comment that I was replying to specifically said "measurable impact."

 

I don't need to see some quantified metric to see and feel the impact that "everyone has to play by my rules or I'm throwing a fit" has had on the game.

[cezanne]

Does a CO of a puzzle have the right to get angry at me because I was given the coordinates and then go log my tree climbing cache after getting someone else to climb the tree?

 

I think people get angry not in terms of having a right to do so. It's an emotion.

Logging a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle is indeed comparable to logging a tree climbing cache with someone else doing the climb. I cannot climb trees and I will not log tree climbing caches as found, but that's my personal decision. There are many high terrain caches out there that I have to leave out. In principle, everyone who fails to solve a puzzle or does not like to solve a puzzle could do the same.

 

Cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

degrade it to the lowest possible common denominator

 

Again, this conclusion may or may not reflect the mindset of the cache finders. We can't read minds. You may choose to perceive things in the most negative way possible, but it's not rational to assume that you know what other cachers are thinking.

 

Correct - on all points.

 

I'm talking about measurable impact - not mind reading.

 

What measurable impact is there if someone finds a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle?

 

The CO's decision to feel slighted by it is not a measurable impact.

 

Of course that is measurable - the very fact you mentioned it proves that.

[+Team Microdot]

Why does it need to be measurable?

 

I don't need to see some quantified metric to see and feel the impact that "it's all about the numbers" has had on the game.

 

Because the original comment that I was replying to specifically said "measurable impact."

 

I don't need to see some quantified metric to see and feel the impact that "everyone has to play by my rules or I'm throwing a fit" has had on the game.

 

Exaggerating for impact?

 

Supposing that every cache owner who has high expectations of others throws a fit if disappointed?

 

Mind reading?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Team Microdot

[+Roman!]

Does a CO of a puzzle have the right to get angry at me because I was given the coordinates and then go log my tree climbing cache after getting someone else to climb the tree?

 

I think people get angry not in terms of having a right to do so. It's an emotion.

Logging a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle is indeed comparable to logging a tree climbing cache with someone else doing the climb. I cannot climb trees and I will not log tree climbing caches as found, but that's my personal decision. There are many high terrain caches out there that I have to leave out. In principle, everyone who fails to solve a puzzle or does not like to solve a puzzle could do the same.

 

Cezanne

 

That was my point, if you don't solve the puzzle the way the CO intended, doesn't matter how, either it's all cheating or none of it is. Same for tree caches, same for using PAF on a tricky traditional.

[+Team Microdot]

Does a CO of a puzzle have the right to get angry at me because I was given the coordinates and then go log my tree climbing cache after getting someone else to climb the tree?

 

I think people get angry not in terms of having a right to do so. It's an emotion.

Logging a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle is indeed comparable to logging a tree climbing cache with someone else doing the climb. I cannot climb trees and I will not log tree climbing caches as found, but that's my personal decision. There are many high terrain caches out there that I have to leave out. In principle, everyone who fails to solve a puzzle or does not like to solve a puzzle could do the same.

 

Cezanne

 

For once Cezanne - we agree

 

(Quite glad I was sitting down when that happened )

[+Team Microdot]

That was my point, if you don't solve the puzzle the way the CO intended, doesn't matter how, either it's all cheating or none of it is. Same for tree caches, same for using PAF on a tricky traditional.

 

Agreed - as I said earlier:

 

I've logged puzzles I haven't solved - and I consider it cheating.

[+narcissa]

 

Exaggerating for impact?

 

Supposing that every cache owner who has high expectations of others throws a fit if disappointed?

 

Mind reading?

 

I have witnessed some ridiculous geocaching tantrums, but where did I say every?

[+Roman!]

That was my point, if you don't solve the puzzle the way the CO intended, doesn't matter how, either it's all cheating or none of it is. Same for tree caches, same for using PAF on a tricky traditional.

 

Agreed - as I said earlier:

 

I've logged puzzles I haven't solved - and I consider it cheating.

 

So why did you log them, of all my finds I have not cheated on a single one.

[+Team Microdot]

That was my point, if you don't solve the puzzle the way the CO intended, doesn't matter how, either it's all cheating or none of it is. Same for tree caches, same for using PAF on a tricky traditional.

 

Agreed - as I said earlier:

 

I've logged puzzles I haven't solved - and I consider it cheating.

 

So why did you log them, of all my finds I have not cheated on a single one.

 

I'm going to refer you back to your OP and the post of mine that I quoted from.

[+narcissa]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

[+Team Microdot]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

 

Geocachers don't compete with each other?

[+Roman!]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

 

Geocachers don't compete with each other?

 

No they don't, it's not about the numbers, it's about getting off your butt and outside which is the exact opposite of what most puzzles promote.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Roman!

[+narcissa]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

 

Geocachers don't compete with each other?

 

Some do, some don't. Competition isn't a necessary aspect of the activity.

 

I compete against myself, and I'm interested in my own statistics from that point of view. The standards I have for my own geocaching are not applicable to others. I don't expect others to adhere to my standards when finding caches, even the ones I place. As long as a cache is put back properly for the next finder, I see no need to infer disrespect in someone else's geocaching.

[+redsox_mark]

The measurable impact is, as I see it, that more and more and more cache finders don't seem to care that a cache owner has invested time and energy to create a cache that is interesting and unique. Let's just eliminate all cache types except for traditionals and make every cache easy to find so that finders can increase their find counts as fast as possible.

 

I'm going to get a bit philosophical here, but I think the above point is a good one.

 

As a cacher, I like a variety of caches including puzzle caches. I will always attempt to solve a puzzle myself. I may ask for a bit of help. I will log a find if I go out caching with someone who has solved it. I won't ask friends who have solved a puzzle to just give me the answer.

 

As a cache owner; the non-Traditional caches I have hidden I hope cachers will do them generally "as intended" and enjoy them. But I'm not going to get worked up if they don't. I say non-traditionals, as it isn't just puzzles; I have 2 Wherigo caches. I hope people actually play the game. Not because I'm on some power trip, but I spent a lot of effort to create them because I think Wherigo's are fun and want to give others the chance to do them.

 

Now if someone finds one of my puzzles or Wherigos by asking a friend for the final coords - no problem for me if that is what they want to do.

 

But if EVERYONE did that? Then what would be the point of creating a puzzle (or a Wherigo).

 

So I believe the game is better in general if people do these different types as intended. (And I think that most of the time cachers generally do).

[+Roman!]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

 

Geocachers don't compete with each other?

 

Some do, some don't. Competition isn't a necessary aspect of the activity.

 

I compete against myself, and I'm interested in my own statistics from that point of view. The standards I have for my own geocaching are not applicable to others. I don't expect others to adhere to my standards when finding caches, even the ones I place. As long as a cache is put back properly for the next finder, I see no need to infer disrespect in someone else's geocaching.

 

I like that line: I don't expect others to adhere to my standards when finding a cache.

 

More so, I do not think a cacher has the right to contact or call out another cacher for not meeting their standards.

[+narcissa]

More so, I do not think a cacher has the right to contact or call out another cacher for not meeting their standards.

 

And that's where I'm coming from.

 

There was a cache owner in my area who used to delete logs if you found his cache and didn't make a trade.

 

There was another who got his nose out of joint because of mis-matched standards, and his hissy fit culminated in the local caching community's website being shuttered (he was the one who ran it). Someone else started a new site from scratch and it's jointly managed by saner individuals now, but all of the old forum posts and the old domain name were lost. He even bought other similar domain names and sat on them out of spite.

 

A few years ago, there was a period of time when a particular set of very difficult caches started to go missing. There had been a public dust-up over those caches not being found "the right way," so many of us suspect that the rash of cache thefts was related to that.

 

I've seen the other side of the coin too. My husband likes to make very difficult puzzles and letterboxes that require a lot of on-site observation. They are rarely found, but he is always happy to give hints to those who ask. Nonetheless, he's had some very snippy emails about how difficult his caches are, even though he will always give a strong nudge to anyone who asks for one, and he would never begrudge anyone for finding them in a group or with someone else's help.

 

Some people just take this stuff way too seriously, and way too personally. It's supposed to be fun.

[+Team Microdot]

I still don't understand the use of the word "cheating" in this context. What is the advantage gained? Geocaching is a game, but it isn't a competition. You're not taking anything away from anybody else by using an alternative strategy to find a puzzle cache.

 

Geocachers don't compete with each other?

 

No they don't, it's not about the numbers, it's about getting off your butt and outside which is the exact opposite of what most puzzles promote.

 

Certainly not my experience - I regularly see people competing.

 

I tend to solve puzzles when I'm stuck indoors - and then get off my butt and outside when I'm able to, and collect them. And I expect others do the same - which is probably why puzzle finds - at least by people who have solved them - often drop off during summer months.

 

I don't think I've come across a single puzzle that promoted sitting indoors on one's butt over getting outdoors finding caches - YMMV

[+Team Microdot]

Some people just take this stuff way too seriously, and way too personally. It's supposed to be fun.

 

I wondered when that one would roll out

[+narcissa]

Certainly not my experience - I regularly see people competing.

 

The fact that some cachers choose to compete does not mean that we are all required to compete, or to acknowledge those competitions in any way.

[+J Grouchy]

Don't forget, a puzzle cache takes up real estate, image if there was nothing but puzzle caches around and a person didnt like puzzles, wouldn't it be selfish to think they either had to do them or not find any caches.

 

I feel that way about challenges.

 

I must confess - I do too - a little - some of the more difficult ones in any case - but others seem to love them, and lap them up.

 

But I would never dream of logging a find on one UNLESS I had properly fulfilled ALL of the requirements - because it would be pointless.

 

OTOH - I don't begrudge anyone setting them - nor do I fret at them 'cluttering up my map' - I simply take the view that they are a challenge I am neither equipped nor inclined to rise to - at least for now And if I walk past one - I might sign the log, just in case I ever do properly qualify for them.

 

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

[+narcissa]

 

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. When a decent puzzle ends at a guardrail, I can't help but think that at least the cache had something going for it.

[+J Grouchy]

 

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. When a decent puzzle ends at a guardrail, I can't help but think that at least the cache had something going for it.

 

Fair enough...though it IS geocaching and not just geopuzzling. The cache itself ought to, in my opinion, be at least half the fun. If it were ALL about the puzzle, using a geochecker tool with a positive result would be enough to log a find.

[+Team Microdot]

Certainly not my experience - I regularly see people competing.

 

The fact that some cachers choose to compete does not mean that we are all required to compete, or to acknowledge those competitions in any way.

 

Nonetheless - the fact that lots of geocachers compete with one another does mean that it is a competition - at least for them, doesn't it?

 

ETA - and at the risk of echoing another recent poster in this thread - where did I say we are all required to compete?

Edited June 16, 2014 by Team Microdot

[+narcissa]

Certainly not my experience - I regularly see people competing.

 

The fact that some cachers choose to compete does not mean that we are all required to compete, or to acknowledge those competitions in any way.

 

Nonetheless - the fact that lots of geocachers compete with one another does mean that it is a competition - at least for them, doesn't it?

 

It means that some geocachers participate in unofficial side games, but nobody is required to modify their own geocaching to suit someone else's imaginary competition. A geocacher can't be "cheating" if he/she isn't participating in the competition.

 

Our obligation as geocachers is to abide by the guidelines for cache placement and to make sure we put geocaches back where we found them so the next cachers can find them. We are not obligated to humour, or even acknowledge, other people's side games.

[+Team Microdot]

Certainly not my experience - I regularly see people competing.

 

The fact that some cachers choose to compete does not mean that we are all required to compete, or to acknowledge those competitions in any way.

 

Nonetheless - the fact that lots of geocachers compete with one another does mean that it is a competition - at least for them, doesn't it?

 

It means that some geocachers participate in unofficial side games, but nobody is required to modify their own geocaching to suit someone else's imaginary competition. A geocacher can't be "cheating" if he/she isn't participating in the competition.

 

OK - so we've established that for some people geocaching is, to a greater or lesser degree - competitive - they compete against others - treat it as a competition.

 

Unofficial or not - it's still competition.

 

And to be honest even the term unofficial is a bit of a stretch - as contextually it presupposes that Groundspeak IS geocaching - which it isn't.

[+narcissa]

OK - so we've established that for some people geocaching is, to a greater or lesser degree - competitive - they compete against others - treat it as a competition.

 

Unofficial or not - it's still competition.

 

And to be honest even the term unofficial is a bit of a stretch - as contextually it presupposes that Groundspeak IS geocaching - which it isn't.

 

If you are participating in a competition somewhere, that's fine, but it does not apply to Groundspeak listings or those not participating. You'll need to hold "cheaters" accountable in the proper context, which is not here.

 

It makes no sense to call people "cheaters" if they aren't in a competition.

 

If you have puzzle caches listed elsewhere, where geocachers have agreed to abide by some other set of rules that they are now breaking, I can see where "cheating" fits in. But not here. To me, there is no advantage to be gained if you log my puzzle cache without solving it yourself, because I'm not competing with you, or anybody.

[+Team Microdot]

 

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. When a decent puzzle ends at a guardrail, I can't help but think that at least the cache had something going for it.

 

Fair enough...though it IS geocaching and not just geopuzzling. The cache itself ought to, in my opinion, be at least half the fun. If it were ALL about the puzzle, using a geochecker tool with a positive result would be enough to log a find.

 

I have noticed that many challenge caches enforce somewhat onerous requirements and then reward those who complete them with an unremarkable and sometimes pretty awful cache.

 

In fact I've noticed that a large number of challenge caches aren't even at GZ for the rare finds that are made on them - and rely on a throwdown from those who seek them.

 

Please reward yourself for completing this incredibly long-winded challenge by sitting in front of a PC for several hours providing documentary proof that you deserve to place and sign your own film pot at GZ

 

Now THAT sounds like fun!

 

Notice of course that I'm not referring to ALL challenge caches - there are some out there that I've completed and enjoyed all aspects of - including the final.

 

I usually try to ensure that caches I put out as puzzles are in a decent enough location that people would still feel they were worthwhile had they been published as trads. And the location almost always comes before the puzzle rather than the other way around.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. When a decent puzzle ends at a guardrail, I can't help but think that at least the cache had something going for it.

 

So you think cache owners should create caches that have "something going for it", but when they do, and finders circumvent their efforts by just getting the coordinates from a friend, you characterize them as having a "hissy fit", being "venemous and angry" and "controlling", and that they "sit at home fretting and lashing out at people"?

 

[+Team Microdot]

It makes no sense to call people "cheaters" if they aren't in a competition.

 

No - that term refers to the practice of taking shortcuts rather than doing things properly.

 

I know the discussion has been around the houses a little bit - but that bit hasn't changed.

[+Team Microdot]

I guess my problem with challenges is the hides themselves are, in my experience, generally unremarkable. I suppose the reasoning is the CO is more interested in the rules they make up for the challenge itself, the cache hide itself is secondary. Meanwhile, you have this lame guardrail cache completely owning that 876,000 square feet of land that may or may not have a truly interesting place to hide a cache that more people can find and "legally" log.

 

The problem also exists for puzzle caches, too. Too often the COs are focused primarily on the puzzle, the cache hide suffers. I at least try to hide the cache in a scenic or interesting location so the finders don't feel like they wasted a trip.

 

I'm kind of torn on this. When a decent puzzle ends at a guardrail, I can't help but think that at least the cache had something going for it.

 

So you think cache owners should create caches that have "something going for it", but when they do, and finders circumvent their efforts by just getting the coordinates from a friend, you characterize them as having a "hissy fit", being "venemous and angry" and "controlling", and that they "sit at home fretting and lashing out at people"?

 

And what constitutes a decent puzzle?

[+narcissa]

So you think cache owners should create caches that have "something going for it", but when they do, and finders circumvent their efforts by just getting the coordinates from a friend, you characterize them as having a "hissy fit", being "venemous and angry" and "controlling", and that they "sit at home fretting and lashing out at people"?

 

I think cache owners should create the kind of caches they like, regardless of my subjective feelings about that sort of cache.

 

I think that cache owners may understandably feel disappointed when some cachers find the cache without solving the puzzle, but they should refrain from acting out those feelings by attacking other cachers or otherwise behaving in a ridiculous manner. We can't control how other people behave, we can't control how that makes us feel, but we can control how we act.

 

For me, the cachers who do find, and enjoy, my caches as intended more than make up for any disappointment I might feel about someone finding another way. I put my caches out for others to enjoy, not so I can lord over people.

[+narcissa]

It makes no sense to call people "cheaters" if they aren't in a competition.

 

No - that term refers to the practice of taking shortcuts rather than doing things properly.

 

I know the discussion has been around the houses a little bit - but that bit hasn't changed.

 

As far as this site is concerned, "properly" means you found the physical container and signed the log. That's the requirement. I can understand the term "cheating" for armchair logs, but those can be deleted.

[+narcissa]

And what constitutes a decent puzzle?

 

Is my subjective assessment of a puzzle relevant to the thread? If so, why? My idea of a "decent" puzzle likely differs from yours. My point was that if I enjoyed the puzzle, but the actual cache is lame, I'm still sort of okay with the experience because I enjoyed the puzzle.

 

I also understand the other point that it seems kind of lame when a puzzle ends with an unremarkable cache, which is why I said I was torn.

[+Team Microdot]

It makes no sense to call people "cheaters" if they aren't in a competition.

 

No - that term refers to the practice of taking shortcuts rather than doing things properly.

 

I know the discussion has been around the houses a little bit - but that bit hasn't changed.

 

As far as this site is concerned, "properly" means you found the physical container and signed the log. That's the requirement. I can understand the term "cheating" for armchair logs, but those can be deleted.

 

Only if you're limiting the definition of properly to what Grounspeak considers a valid basis for logging a find - which I wasn't.