CO changing a challenge requirement

3.7k · February 19, 2015

So...hypothetically...

Say a challenge gets published and someone posts a note pointing out a loop hole in the requirements and then posts his or her qualifications for the challenge which just so happen to exploit this loop hole.

What's the rule on the CO changing the rules to close the loop hole? Is it frowned upon or is it open and acceptable for the CO to tweak the requirements of a challenge cache "willy nilly" without running it through the reviewer?

Edited February 19, 2015 by J Grouchy

7.4k · February 19, 2015

So...hypothetically...

Say a challenge gets published and someone posts a note pointing out a loop hole in the requirements and then posts his or her qualifications for the challenge which just so happen to exploit this loop hole.

What's the rule on the CO changing the rules to close the loop hole? Is it frowned upon or is it open and acceptable for the CO to tweak the requirements of a challenge cache "willy nilly" without running it through the reviewer?

I don't know for sure, but I would expect that as long as the change was in keeping with the original spirit and intention of the challenge cache as it was originally published, it would be okay. The only people who would take issue are those who no longer qualified.

February 19, 2015

When I looked at the cache, I had the same thought you did. It stated Birthday, which in my understanding is the day you are born and each of the same day of the year from that point forward. I was about to write out three special to me FTFs. Now that I have looked at the cache and the "clarification", it seems to be an EXTRA bit of rule and not a Clarification. As such, it can be argued that it is invalid. Good luck, as this cacher seems to be exempt from certain issues.

3.7k · February 19, 2015

When I looked at the cache, I had the same thought you did. It stated Birthday, which in my understanding is the day you are born and each of the same day of the year from that point forward. I was about to write out three special to me FTFs. Now that I have looked at the cache and the "clarification", it seems to be an EXTRA bit of rule and not a Clarification. As such, it can be argued that it is invalid. Good luck, as this cacher seems to be exempt from certain issues.

I think this person is mad because it's the second time their grammar was corrected on a cache title...

1.7k · February 19, 2015

So you guys are talking about a specific cache?

3.7k · February 19, 2015

So you guys are talking about a specific cache?

Yeah: http://coord.info/GC5MMPQ

In retrospect, I should have just posted a 'Found it' log with those qualifications instead of a note pointing out the loophole.

Meh...whatever.

9.2k · February 19, 2015

Clarification added. Must be at least 1 year old. Thought that was obvious.

Obviously not! :laughing:

Maybe because they wrote it and knew what they meant... :rolleyes:

1.7k · February 19, 2015

So you guys are talking about a specific cache?

Yeah: http://coord.info/GC5MMPQ

In retrospect, I should have just posted a 'Found it' log with those qualifications instead of a note pointing out the loophole.

Meh...whatever.

Meh - you qualified before the "clarification" so just go ahead and find it!

1.7k · February 19, 2015

On your original topic, yeah I would say this kind of clarification is ok IMO (notwithstanding allowing anyone to log who has already indicated their qualification pre-clarification), as it doesn't alter what the challenge is all about. I've seen much much worse, where the challenge itself is materially altered by a rule change... then it gets dodgy...

February 19, 2015

I would have sent an email to the owner about the grammar issue with the title, rather than post it in a note on the cache page...

As to the requirement...I think you qualified before the loophole was closed.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

1.7k · February 19, 2015

I would have sent an email to the owner about the grammar issue with the title, rather than post it in a note on the cache page...

Oh yeah, if it was me, I would have let that one go. I don't have enough hours in the day to correct all the grammar errors in cache pages and titles!

Edited February 19, 2015 by funkymunkyzone

15.3k · February 19, 2015

I don't know for sure, but I would expect that as long as the change was in keeping with the original spirit and intention of the challenge cache as it was originally published, it would be okay.

And as long as the revised requirements still meet the current interpretation of the guidelines, of course. For example, you couldn't revise the requirements to count only caches found after the challenge cache's publication date.

Regarding the actual challenge cache in question, I suppose the obviousness of the CO's interpretation depends on which definition of "birthday" you're using. Some uses refer to the day of birth/founding/whatever, some uses refer to an anniversary of that day, and others can refer to either. Given the ambiguity, I would expect the text of the cache description to clarify the meaning. And the original text clarified "any year". But that wasn't what the CO really meant, so the revised text added "at least 1 year old".

Of course, there's still ambiguity over when a cache is "placed". Is that the "Hidden" date at the top, or the date the cache was published? What if the "Hidden" date at the top is exactly a year before the date the cache was published? Does that mean the FTF attempts can still be considered as being on the cache's birthday, for purposes of this challenge?

7.5k · February 19, 2015

In my area, at least, everyone would expect the owner to close the loophole without thinking twice about it. In particular, the person posting the note listing the exploitative achievement would not be expecting to make the find based on them, although some, including me, would find it amusing to run out and make a real find based on the loophole, and if someone did that, I can't see how the CO could reject it if the find was posted before the loophole was closed.

I've just noticed that there's more discussion about the specific case, and I haven't looked at it yet, but my initial impression is that the discussion is about whether this is just a loophole being closed or is a substantial change to the requirements, but that's not the question asked in the OP, so, for now, I'm just responding to the original question.

7.5k · February 19, 2015

OK, I've looked at the posted case, and I find it amusing, even before I realized that the OP was referring to him or herself when he or she said "his or her qualifications" in the OP.

So now that I've seen the details, I definitely think there's no problem with changing the requirements to close this loophole. At the same time, if Mr. or Ms. Grouchy had claimed the find before the loophole was closed, I'd back the find to the hilt.

While I agree with the logic that says the day you were born is a birthday, I also support the CO's desire to focus on the birthday celebration, something that doesn't traditionally happen on that first birthday because the baby's too busy with other things.

But I have to admit that it's really hard for me to support someone who could edit the description to close that loophole but can't be bothered to remove the apostrophe from "it's" at the same time. That's just a crime!

The birthday challenges in my area are always quite clear about this detail, and normally they're structures so that at least some of the birthdays need to be at specific ages. They've also learned to avoid the problem niraD points out by specifically saying whether they're talking about the hidden date or the publication date.

6.1k · February 19, 2015

It seems the options are to archive it and republish a new one with the edit, or simply edit it. The spirit of the intention of the challenge is more important than any loophole.

7.8k · February 19, 2015

But I have to admit that it's really hard for me to support someone who could edit the description to close that loophole but can't be bothered to remove the apostrophe from "it's" at the same time. That's just a crime!

...but that's way off in another text field! :laughing:

What's even less excusable are the two grammatical errors in the paragraph of the description that they were already editing: "celebrate their birthday's" (remove apostrophe) and "maybe caches do to" (should be "too")! :laughing:

Getting back on topic...

I see no problem with a CO making clarifications on challenge requirements, as long as that's what they are and they aren't "changes". In the case of the cache in question, I consider it a clarification and have no problem with it.

...now they just need to make further clarifications as per niraD's post. If this challenge had been published near me, I would have raised those questions as soon as I saw the listing, because this description just isn't clear enough. You could even suppose that their own qualifying caches could hint at the placed/hidden/published distinction, but those three caches all have identical "Hidden" and publication dates, so that's no help.

Edit to add: Also, for someone with over 7000 finds, they sure don't say much in their own logs! One of their recent FTF logs reads simply "FTF! TFTC", and few contain more than a handful of words or acronyms. :rolleyes:

Edited February 19, 2015 by The A-Team

10.1k · February 20, 2015

A birthday is an occasion when a person or institution celebrates the anniversary of their birth. Birthdays are celebrated in numerous cultures, often with a gift, party, or rite of passage.
Many religions celebrate the birth of their founders with special holidays (e.g. Christmas, Buddha's Birthday).

Note the distinction between birthday and birthdate: The former occurs each year (e.g. December 18), while the latter is the exact date a person was born (e.g., December 18, 1998).

From Wikipedia

I'm going to agree with the CO. A 'birthday' is a celebration of one's 'birthdate'. (Or, if you prefer "Birth Day". If OP is going to pick on the CO because the OP does not understand what a 'birthday' is, then it was nice of the CO to clarify. (Too bad he didn't correct his spelling issues, though.) But the CO is correct. Your first birthday is a year after your birthdate.

February 20, 2015

If we are going to define, perhaps using something such as Merriam-Webster is a better choice.

: the day when someone was born or the anniversary of that day

: the day when something began

7.4k · February 20, 2015

What is the purpose of starting the discussion with hypotheticals if the actual purpose is to complain about a particular cache?

2k · February 20, 2015

Its the CO's challenge and they learned that the interpretation of their challenge was not working when published so they quickly corrected it. Don't see what the big deal is.

You did not have a log deleted or something.

I once FTFed a challenge cache that had its rules changed immediately going forward after I FTFed as he was not clear in his intentions on the challenge. It happens.

Edited February 20, 2015 by lamoracke

19k · February 20, 2015

Because I detest challenge caches, I will recommend that it just be archived.

3.7k · February 20, 2015

What is the purpose of starting the discussion with hypotheticals if the actual purpose is to complain about a particular cache?

So you don't think the general question is valid merely because I use one specific example? Isn't that how these sorts of issues arise as a forum discussion? I honestly just wanted to know the limitations of challenge cache changes a CO could make...or if there were any at all. So this was as good a time to ask as any since this is a recent example.

6.1k · February 20, 2015

Are there currently any FTF challenge caches?

2.7k · February 20, 2015

Because I detest challenge caches, I will recommend that it just be archived.

+1 - especially when the cache page has so many grammatical errors.

15.3k · February 20, 2015

Are there currently any FTF challenge caches?

Yes. There are a few that were placed before the change to the guidelines that prohibited challenge caches based on "a competition between geocachers". For example, GC2RR86.

7.5k · February 20, 2015

So you don't think the general question is valid merely because I use one specific example? Isn't that how these sorts of issues arise as a forum discussion? I honestly just wanted to know the limitations of challenge cache changes a CO could make...or if there were any at all. So this was as good a time to ask as any since this is a recent example.

I can't speak for any reviewers, but I would expect that the CO can modify the requirements any way he likes without consulting a reviewer as long as the spirit of the challenge is unchanged. Furthermore, it would take a truly extreme example for me to think that the CO himself wasn't the highest authority on what the spirit of the challenge was.

And just to be absolutely clear: when the general case is expressed exactly as in the OP, then my answer isn't merely that of course the CO can close a loophole at any time, but to go further and say that it would be quite ungracious for a seeker to think otherwise. Thinking a CO shouldn't be free to close a loophole is about the same as thinking a CO shouldn't be free to correct a grammatical error.

4.6k · February 20, 2015

If we are going to define, perhaps using something such as Merriam-Webster is a better choice.

: the day when someone was born or the anniversary of that day

: the day when something began

That surprises me slightly I have to admit - on the basis that the first anniversary of a person's birth is typically described as their first birthday. That's probably the definition I would have applied in the context of this challenge.

OTOH - similar challenges I have seen did explicitly state from day 1 that the caches must be at least 1 year old - and whether it was the placed date or publication date that was to form the basis of that calculation.

I wonder how much qualification creep would be considered acceptable before a cut-off point was reached beyond which the challenge as it stood at that point in time was considered a completely different challenge to that originally posed?

1.1k · February 20, 2015

Honestly, I see no loophole there, because finding cache the year after it was published is much easier than on the first day of its existence, considering hints in logs, and the obvious fact that the new caches are not in the PQ that you normally make no later than the previous day...

7.4k · February 20, 2015

If we are going to define, perhaps using something such as Merriam-Webster is a better choice.

: the day when someone was born or the anniversary of that day

: the day when something began

The cache owner is the one who can best define and describe what was intended.

3.7k · February 20, 2015

So you don't think the general question is valid merely because I use one specific example? Isn't that how these sorts of issues arise as a forum discussion? I honestly just wanted to know the limitations of challenge cache changes a CO could make...or if there were any at all. So this was as good a time to ask as any since this is a recent example.

I can't speak for any reviewers, but I would expect that the CO can modify the requirements any way he likes without consulting a reviewer as long as the spirit of the challenge is unchanged. Furthermore, it would take a truly extreme example for me to think that the CO himself wasn't the highest authority on what the spirit of the challenge was.

And just to be absolutely clear: when the general case is expressed exactly as in the OP, then my answer isn't merely that of course the CO can close a loophole at any time, but to go further and say that it would be quite ungracious for a seeker to think otherwise. Thinking a CO shouldn't be free to close a loophole is about the same as thinking a CO shouldn't be free to correct a grammatical error.

I'm actually not even saying the CO was wrong to close the loophole...I was merely asking how GS reviewers looked at it and how much of a modification was acceptable without it getting archived. In the interest of full disclosure, I actually had a similar loophole in my own challenge cache that I closed in a similar manner. Me not being a megalomaniacal CO, I wasn't too worried about the FTF using the loophole against me since I was less concerned about the challenge itself and more concerned with the theme of the cache and puzzle. The example in the OP just reminded me of all this.

2.2k · February 20, 2015

Hypothetically? Bad idea.

In this case? Good call from the CO -- no harm, no foul.

Much like the CO, I would have thought it was obvious. After all, what parents ever hold a "Second Birthday Party" when their child turns one?

3.7k · February 20, 2015

Hypothetically? Bad idea.

In this case? Good call from the CO -- no harm, no foul.

Much like the CO, I would have thought it was obvious. After all, what parents ever hold a "Second Birthday Party" when their child turns one?

I often hear folks say "happy birthday" to a newborn. It's the day of their birth, after all.

Besides, it's incumbent upon the CO to be as clear in their rules as possible, and the rules as originally posted said only "If the cache was placed on 7/4/11, you would need to find it any year on 7/4." Period. End of rules.

Any year.

Technically, one could post a found it log with the date being 2 years BEFORE it was placed and it would be on the cache's "birthday".

But this isn't about 'pulling one over' on the CO...it was only about how much the rules could be modified before it becomes an issue with TPTB.

2k · February 20, 2015

I think the clarification is within the spirit of the challenge, but I'm not sure why it needed to be made, although I understand the reasoning behind it. One year old, under the "old" guideline isn't obvious to me either. My initial search of my finds would be where my find date and the placed date match. I wouldn't look at the age of the find to see if I qualified, only if they matched.

7.5k · February 20, 2015

Honestly, I see no loophole there, because finding cache the year after it was published is much easier than on the first day of its existence, considering hints in logs, and the obvious fact that the new caches are not in the PQ that you normally make no later than the previous day...

Really? I almost always find year old caches harder to find because of things like migration, camo mellowing, Nature adding camo, and the FTF day geotrail has time to fade. But the thing that really makes first day finds so much easier isn't finding the cache, it's that many people get first day finds for so many reasons other than satisfying this challenge, such as FTFs and the fresh new cache aura. First anniversary finds are just a 1 out of 365 coincidence unless you intentionally seek them out, which is what the challenge cache is trying to encourage.

But, really, I assume the CO wanted to excluded first days finds just because he didn't consider it a birthday, so we don't really have to worry about how easy they are.

I'm actually not even saying the CO was wrong to close the loophole...I was merely asking how GS reviewers looked at it and how much of a modification was acceptable without it getting archived.

But that's not the question you asked. Closing a loophole isn't modifying the criteria at all, it's only fixing a bug in how the criteria was stated.

3.7k · February 20, 2015

Honestly, I see no loophole there, because finding cache the year after it was published is much easier than on the first day of its existence, considering hints in logs, and the obvious fact that the new caches are not in the PQ that you normally make no later than the previous day...

Really? I almost always find year old caches harder to find because of things like migration, camo mellowing, Nature adding camo, and the FTF day geotrail has time to fade. But the thing that really makes first day finds so much easier isn't finding the cache, it's that many people get first day finds for so many reasons other than satisfying this challenge, such as FTFs and the fresh new cache aura. First anniversary finds are just a 1 out of 365 coincidence unless you intentionally seek them out, which is what the challenge cache is trying to encourage.

But, really, I assume the CO wanted to excluded first days finds just because he didn't consider it a birthday, so we don't really have to worry about how easy they are.

I'm actually not even saying the CO was wrong to close the loophole...I was merely asking how GS reviewers looked at it and how much of a modification was acceptable without it getting archived.

But that's not the question you asked. Closing a loophole isn't modifying the criteria at all, it's only fixing a bug in how the criteria was stated.

Perhaps the term "loophole" is inaccurate...only a loophole to anyone who knows the original intent in the first place. But I would argue it IS modifying the criteria since only the CO could truly know the intent. I never state in my Note that it's a loophole, only that the challenge as written was much easier than most folks were assuming.

There is nothing in this that excludes finds on the day it was placed (i.e., a cache placed on 5/10/2014 and found on 5/10/2014 qualifies), therefore many, but not all, FTFs qualify.

Based on this, I offer the following proof:

6.1k · February 20, 2015

If you had simply listed your qualifications and went out and found it, you probably could have gotten away with it. However you explicitly mention the loophole, which indicates that you at least suspected that it was something that the CO did not intend.

There is nothing in this that excludes finds on the day it was placed (i.e., a cache placed on 5/10/2014 and found on 5/10/2014 qualifies), therefore many, but not all, FTFs qualify.

Edited February 20, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

2.6k · February 20, 2015

I have seen many cases where the CO clarifies details of a challenge if they get questions or find there are some misunderstandings.

Reviewers aren't triggered as a result of an owner changing the description.

This example seems a minor clarification.

In general, a cache owner needs to be careful when changing the description that it still meets the guidelines. And it would not make sense to change the spirit of the challenge completely. If an owner did that you could flag it to a reviewer.

Edited February 20, 2015 by redsox_mark

February 20, 2015

When I looked at the cache, I had the same thought you did. It stated Birthday, which in my understanding is the day you are born and each of the same day of the year from that point forward. I was about to write out three special to me FTFs. Now that I have looked at the cache and the "clarification", it seems to be an EXTRA bit of rule and not a Clarification. As such, it can be argued that it is invalid. Good luck, as this cacher seems to be exempt from certain issues.

I think this person is mad because it's the second time their grammar was corrected on a cache title...

Grouchy - I find it interesting that you would even take the time to correct the grammatical error, to be honest.

Do you have some sort of negative history with this CO? I ask because the note you wrote on the cache page seemed more like an expression of personal grudge against the person than anything else.

3.6k · February 21, 2015

So you guys are talking about a specific cache?

Yeah: http://coord.info/GC5MMPQ

In retrospect, I should have just posted a 'Found it' log with those qualifications instead of a note pointing out the loophole.

Meh...whatever.

Since at the beginning of this posting did not mention a specific cache I would say this is open to any challenge. I know of a cacher who put out a challenge and cachers were qualifing for it. Then the CO deleted a log off one cacher and then changed the rules so that cacher couldn't qualify. But they did and logged the cache again. Again the CO deleted the log and changed the rules again. They didn't delete any other cacher's log. Is this called Cache Rage? Of course Groundspeak stopped this. So it would depend on what is changed, like making the challenge more difficult then originally posted.

Like when a CO created one about caches with snake names thinking it would be hard. Turned out it was too easy when there were already caches in our area with names of snakes. He knew he couldn't change the rules once the cache was published and logged.

edit:typo

Edited February 21, 2015 by jellis

5.3k · February 21, 2015

There are so many poorly-written cache pages out there that it is hardly surprising this sort of thing comes up. For challenge caches, in particular, cache owners seem to have a hard time being clear about requirements.

In this case it is abundantly obvious that the loophole violated the CO's intent.

6.1k · February 21, 2015

When I looked at the cache, I had the same thought you did. It stated Birthday, which in my understanding is the day you are born and each of the same day of the year from that point forward. I was about to write out three special to me FTFs. Now that I have looked at the cache and the "clarification", it seems to be an EXTRA bit of rule and not a Clarification. As such, it can be argued that it is invalid. Good luck, as this cacher seems to be exempt from certain issues.

I think this person is mad because it's the second time their grammar was corrected on a cache title...

Grouchy - I find it interesting that you would even take the time to correct the grammatical error, to be honest.

They may have edited the qualifications to make them more precise, but they did not edit out the apostrophe in the title. Wonder if something like that would disturb someone enough to post a Needs Archived.

7.5k · February 21, 2015

Perhaps the term "loophole" is inaccurate...only a loophole to anyone who knows the original intent in the first place. But I would argue it IS modifying the criteria since only the CO could truly know the intent.

Huh? After your first sentence, I was going to argue that since the CO's the only one that can truly know the intent, then that automatically means that if they think it's a loophole, it's definitely a loophole. Then I read your second sentence which says exactly the opposite, although I can't follow your reasoning.

I never state in my Note that it's a loophole, only that the challenge as written was much easier than most folks were assuming.

No, but in the exposition of this thread, you called it a loophole, so I'm a little puzzled why you're trying to change your tune now.

3.1k · February 25, 2015

So...hypothetically...

Say a challenge gets published and someone posts a note pointing out a loop hole in the requirements and then posts his or her qualifications for the challenge which just so happen to exploit this loop hole.

What's the rule on the CO changing the rules to close the loop hole? Is it frowned upon or is it open and acceptable for the CO to tweak the requirements of a challenge cache "willy nilly" without running it through the reviewer?

I mean, the gist of this conversation is to ask if the cache "needs Reviewer attention". If it ends up being a thorn in one's side, a kindly email to the Reviewer can certainly get some kind of relief from the worry about if it should be re-reviewed.

CO changing a challenge requirement

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation