Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Love Cachers

Challenge Caches Returning?

Recommended Posts

I'm just going based on people's comments who want to 'log [physical] caches they found' without having to worry about ALRs (that doesn't include puzzles or multis, since you can log them found once you've signed the physical log). That means, a search for caches one can log Found (without the ALR) shouldn't be hindered or altered by implementation of challenge stars.

 

Of course the alternative is just to hide/exclude all challenge caches from the search if desired. But then you end up with the complaints about such caches 'taking up space' (like challenge power trails, or small woodlots filled up with a few challenges), and they can't be logged even if the person has physically found them.

Which of course would happen anyway were the Find+Qualification locked. No way around that I suppose.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

In other words, an idea with a plan is still only an idea - similar to a Challenge Cache in many ways, which is why I struggle with the idea that challenge caches MAKE people go out and achieve goals, because they don't. Challenge caches don't MAKE people do anything - it's making the decision and investing the required effort that makes them meet the goal. People make themselves achieve goals.

 

On that basis Challenge Caches are just ideas - and ideas can be communicated in all sorts of alternative ways.

 

You can't achieve a goal without knowing what that goal is. That's the very first step, defining the goal so you can make the decision to invest the time and effort to meet the goal. For me, that's what a challenge cache can be. It's a defined goal which initiates everything else one does to complete that particular goal. That's the inherent value in challenge caches, at least for me.

Share this post


Link to post

 

In other words, an idea with a plan is still only an idea - similar to a Challenge Cache in many ways, which is why I struggle with the idea that challenge caches MAKE people go out and achieve goals, because they don't. Challenge caches don't MAKE people do anything - it's making the decision and investing the required effort that makes them meet the goal. People make themselves achieve goals.

 

On that basis Challenge Caches are just ideas - and ideas can be communicated in all sorts of alternative ways.

 

You can't achieve a goal without knowing what that goal is. That's the very first step, defining the goal so you can make the decision to invest the time and effort to meet the goal. For me, that's what a challenge cache can be. It's a defined goal which initiates everything else one does to complete that particular goal. That's the inherent value in challenge caches, at least for me.

 

So the value lies in the idea - I get that :)

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really see any solution that Groundspeak is going to come up with that will please everyone (Is that even remotely possible?). Looking forward to whatever does come up later this month. Honestly, I hope they grandfather the existing ones rather than archive them. I wouldn't be overly upset if new ones were discontinued. I've met most of the challenge goals I've wanted to meet and most of those were ones like the Fizzy, the Jasmer, and others of that nature. I don't really have an interest in the bookkeeping type of challenges unless I happen to be close, through the luck of my existing finds.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

 

And those would be....?

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

 

And those would be....?

 

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

Share this post


Link to post

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

 

And those would be....?

 

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

 

Or even a forum thread :)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really see any solution that Groundspeak is going to come up with that will please everyone (Is that even remotely possible?).

Nope, definitely not possible. I don't think anyone even thinks it's remotely possible to please everyone :). But if that's reason for dismissing any idea, then everything in life would be all or nothing; and ultimately, nothing. We shouldn't have geocaching, because some people abuse the pastime and upset landowners. Doesn't mean geocaching should go the wayside...

So, hopefully GS has used this time wisely to make a decision - whether it's nothing, or an improved something, since the 'all' option is impossible.

 

Looking forward to whatever does come up later this month. Honestly, I hope they grandfather the existing ones rather than archive them [Presuming you mean here only if they decide to end challenge caches?]. I wouldn't be overly upset if new ones were discontinued. I've met most of the challenge goals I've wanted to meet and most of those were ones like the Fizzy, the Jasmer, and others of that nature. I don't really have an interest in the bookkeeping type of challenges unless I happen to be close, through the luck of my existing finds.

I don't mind doing any of those types of challenge caches; even bookkeeping ones - I typically do those ones passively over time. And I think we'd find that opinions of different types of challenges are across the board amongst those who do enjoy challenge caches. I hope they don't get rid of challenge caches entirely unless there's some universal problematic reason with the concept and GS hasn't justified the work necessary nor found any desire to address it. =/

But yep, in that case, if CCs don't come back, I hope existing CCs are not archived, but grandfathered. And that would sadden me :cry:

Share this post


Link to post

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

And those would be....?

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

Or even a forum thread :)

And we already had that with custom-designed badges people could place in their profile html themselves. That ability still exists. So obviously there's more of a draw to challenge caches as they exist than merely setting your own goals, whether you like to brag about your accomplishments on your profile or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

And those would be....?

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

Or even a forum thread :)

And we already had that with custom-designed badges people could place in their profile html themselves. That ability still exists. So obviously there's more of a draw to challenge caches as they exist than merely setting your own goals, whether you like to brag about your accomplishments on your profile or not.

 

I would wager that convenience is a significant factor in that draw.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't really see any solution that Groundspeak is going to come up with that will please everyone (Is that even remotely possible?).

Nope, definitely not possible. I don't think anyone even thinks it's remotely possible to please everyone :). But if that's reason for dismissing any idea, then everything in life would be all or nothing; and ultimately, nothing.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Or to put it another way, challenge stars give COs the choice to decide to let people treat their cache like a physical cache that can be Found like any other towards their find count (addressing the complaint about CCs that people can't log them found even though they found them).
Yep. And I think that's the problem with the proposal. Challenge caches are confusing enough, without adding the inconsistency that would occur when some COs do allow finds without qualification (i.e., without the challenge star) and other COs don't allow finds without qualification.

 

Perhaps a simpler two-tiered system - which would rely on standardised challenges and some automated means to demonstrate qualification.

 

  • All challenge caches can be logged as found if the log is signed - qualified or not
  • Challenge star automatically awarded on qualification - possibly illuminating a star icon on your found log to differentiate standard finds from qualified finds
  • Allow finders to opt-in or opt out i.e. those who have no interest in or dislike the idea of challenge stars are never awarded any - unless they opt in at some future point

 

The way I see it, this would allow those who like challenges to go all out at qualification, those that can take them or leave them to accrue stars by default off the back of their standard caching patterns - without having to do the 'book-keeping' and those who have zero interest to opt out completely.

 

Yes? No?

NO!

 

Forget the stars and anything else that cheapens the challenge cache experience. Just like any other cache, there are some that we dislike or are too difficult for us. Like those caches, we can ignore the ones we don't want to mess with.

Share this post


Link to post

One important thing to keep in mind:

 

All of the solutions being proposed here solve problems that are not what caused the hiatus in the first place.

 

They only address certain whines that have been brought up in the forums.

 

They are irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post

Forget the stars and anything else that cheapens the challenge cache experience. Just like any other cache, there are some that we dislike or are too difficult for us. Like those caches, we can ignore the ones we don't want to mess with.

How do stars cheapen the challenge cache experience?

 

I agree though, people can indeed ignore challenge caches like they can ignore any other cache they don't like.

 

Still, if challenge caches stay around, how would the stars (which would function like Difficulty and Terrain rating) cheapen the challenge cache experience [for you]?

 

One important thing to keep in mind:

All of the solutions being proposed here solve problems that are not what caused the hiatus in the first place.

They only address certain whines that have been brought up in the forums.

They are irrelevant.

Agreed.

However as often repeated we don't know specifically what caused moratorium :P (only that amount of appeals work is one of if not the motivating factor). Given this thread doesn't really have a specific subject matter other than challenge caches in general, I don't think discussing solutions to common concerns is irrelevant; futile, maybe, but interesting most of the time :lol:

:drama:

Share this post


Link to post

One important thing to keep in mind:

All of the solutions being proposed here solve problems that are not what caused the hiatus in the first place.

They only address certain whines that have been brought up in the forums.

They are irrelevant.

Agreed.

However as often repeated we don't know specifically what caused moratorium :P (only that amount of appeals work is one of if not the motivating factor).

 

But we do know: the number of appeals for rejected challenge cache placements. The issue of people being unhappy about their logs being deleted has never been significant. It's only discussed here because some forum regulars have been exceptionally vocal about it.

 

I have no trouble with the discussion -- just so that nobody is under the impression that we are discussing "fixing" challenge caches in any meaningful way. IMO, all the proposals here would make them less fun, but that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post

But we do know: the number of appeals for rejected challenge cache placements. The issue of people being unhappy about their logs being deleted has never been significant. It's only discussed here because some forum regulars have been exceptionally vocal about it.

Agreed, but I shall once again quote the official explanation for the moratorium:

 

However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.

In order to properly evaluate and fully focus on the challenge cache system, it is necessary to have a period of time that is free of new submissions.

 

Numerous concerns. At one point it was indeed said that the reason was excessive appeals on publishing. If that were the only reason, it would be stated as such. As it is, there are other known concerns with the system and so the moratorium is, ideally, a time for them to consider all such issues, and hopefully come up with an improved concept.

 

I have no trouble with the discussion -- just so that nobody is under the impression that we are discussing "fixing" challenge caches in any meaningful way.

Also agreed. But it's certainly fun (ymmv) to ponder ways the system can be improved. That's why we're allowed to post suggestions in the forum and discuss their merits and drawbacks before GS makes any decision to consider and/or implement them.

 

IMO, all the proposals here would make them less fun, but that's just me.

... wait, even your challenge stars suggestion?

 

(actually I don't recall seeing an actual explanation as to why such a suggestion would make challenge caches 'less fun' other than just that it would; I'd love to see that reasoning-- not, of course, that simply disliking an idea is not a valid opinion to hold :P but the 'why' is more enlightening)

Share this post


Link to post

Forget the stars and anything else that cheapens the challenge cache experience. Just like any other cache, there are some that we dislike or are too difficult for us. Like those caches, we can ignore the ones we don't want to mess with.

How do stars cheapen the challenge cache experience?

 

I agree though, people can indeed ignore challenge caches like they can ignore any other cache they don't like.

 

Still, if challenge caches stay around, how would the stars (which would function like Difficulty and Terrain rating) cheapen the challenge cache experience [for you]?

 

One important thing to keep in mind:

All of the solutions being proposed here solve problems that are not what caused the hiatus in the first place.

They only address certain whines that have been brought up in the forums.

They are irrelevant.

Agreed.

However as often repeated we don't know specifically what caused moratorium :P (only that amount of appeals work is one of if not the motivating factor). Given this thread doesn't really have a specific subject matter other than challenge caches in general, I don't think discussing solutions to common concerns is irrelevant; futile, maybe, but interesting most of the time :lol:

:drama:

For me, if i accept a challenge, i try to complete the challenge. I feel i've accomplished something if i do. One of the rewards for me is getting to log the cache found when all is completed. I'm sure you'll say that it shouldn't matter but it would make a difference to me if people could log these without completing the challenge the CO intended.

 

As a challenge cache owner, i'm not sure why i would want to even place a challenge cache if this were to come to pass. I set our CCs out for a reason, to offer up something a bit different from all the other typically placed caches out there. I may be wrong but i would imagine there are other CC owners who feel the same way.

 

Getting a star would be like getting a souvenir,,, something i could care less about.

 

I have no trouble with the discussion -- just so that nobody is under the impression that we are discussing "fixing" challenge caches in any meaningful way. IMO, all the proposals here would make them less fun, but that's just me.

Agreed. Reducing reviewer headaches needs to be accomplished, otherwise, not much else needs fixing.

Share this post


Link to post

I know the first Jasmer was placed in 2008 and even then the CO hadn't qualified. There are some from 2007 I know about but not sure when the first one officially came into being. The first fizzy was in 2007. I see one in Norway from 2006.

Using the Advanced Search, it appears the first Challenge cache (that is still enabled) is the NorCal DeLorme from 1/1/2004.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed, but I shall once again quote the official explanation for the moratorium:

However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. ...

This part of the moratorium announcement makes me think that the Challenge Stars and 'Found It' vs 'Qualified' options for logging would not help resolve the logging issue.

 

...

Challenge caches can also be very difficult to publish due to the large amount of subjectivity involved relative to other geocaches. While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ.

In order to properly evaluate and fully focus on the challenge cache system, it is necessary to have a period of time that is free of new submissions.

This part of the moratorium announcement makes me think that the Challenge Panel idea that was discussed in a couple older threads might be a good idea, since it would directly address the submissions issue. Those other threads were:

(topic now locked)

Share this post


Link to post
IMO, all the proposals here would make them less fun, but that's just me.

... wait, even your challenge stars suggestion?

 

I have not made any suggestion having to do with "challenge stars."

 

And yes, I do think the "challenge stars" suggestion would make them less fun. My opinion only, of course, but it adds needless complexity and obscurity.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post
IMO, all the proposals here would make them less fun, but that's just me.

... wait, even your challenge stars suggestion?

 

I have not made any suggestion having to do with "challenge stars."

 

And yes, I do think the "challenge stars" suggestion would make them less fun. My opinion only, of course, but it adds needless complexity and obscurity.

 

I refer you to your own words in post #3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

 

And those would be....?

 

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

 

Or even a forum thread :)

Neither of which have the same "reach" as a cache page. They wouldn't be downloadable in PQ's or thru the API so msny cachers would never see them. I can't remember when the last time I hit any other page other than my profile(s), search page or the map. And we all know how small a percentage of cachers read the forums.

 

So you need to come up with a method that is as easy and universal (to cachers) as cache pages are. It needs to sortable and be able to be indiviualized so cachers can 'ignore' those ideas of no interest to them. And a way to mark which ones are completed so they don't clutter the list. Oh, it should be regional so ideas for Washington State aren't mixed with ideas for UK (as an example). And user updateable. There may be other functions I'm not thinking of right now.

 

So, what are you proposing?

Edited by The Jester

Share this post


Link to post

 

Those ideas though could be communicated in all sorts of different ways without challenge caches themselves being needed.

 

And those would be....?

 

Well I suppose the most basic would be a list on geocaching.com

 

Or even a forum thread :)

Neither of which have the same "reach" as a cache page. They wouldn't be downloadable in PQ's or thru the API so msny cachers would never see them. I can't remember when the last time I hit any other page other than my profile(s), search page or the map. And we all know how small a percentage of cachers read the forums.

 

So you need to come up with a method that is as easy and universal (to cachers) as cache pages are. It needs to sortable and be able to be indiviualized so cachers can 'ignore' those ideas of no interest to them. And a way to mark which ones are completed so they don't clutter the list. Oh, it should be regional so ideas for Washington State aren't mixed with ideas for UK (as an example). And user updateable. There may be other functions I'm not thinking of right now.

 

So, what are you proposing?

 

No - I don't need to come up with anything at all - I've demonstrated that there are alternatives to the current challenge cache model which dispels the myth that people 'need' them.

 

Are those alternatives perfect? No. Is the current model perfect - clearly not. If you have something which fits your idealistic set of requirements let's hear it - and don't forget to add resolutions for the other functions you may not be thinking of right now as you come up with them :)

Share this post


Link to post
For me, if i accept a challenge, i try to complete the challenge. I feel i've accomplished something if i do. One of the rewards for me is getting to log the cache found when all is completed. I'm sure you'll say that it shouldn't matter but it would make a difference to me if people could log these without completing the challenge the CO intended.

Ok, so this addresses the concern that GS will make every challenge cache loggable without qualification. Like you I don't want to see that happen. But for me, only because I see that it detracts from the fun of the CC as an owner, if I'm one who doesn't want people to 'earn' the smiley if they don't qualify. On the flipside, if challenge stars are implemented, then I won't be seeing CCs as earning smileys any more, but rather earning the C stars (like I'd 'earn' T stars for climbing trees or going out on water). The value of challenge caches, for me at least, if stars were implemented would be earning that C rating in my stats for qualifications, and now much more accurately as the complexity and difficulty of challenge qualification is better described by a rating of 1-5 rather than merely 1-smiley.

 

So, personally I agree with your sentiment - forcing every challenge cache and owner to work with a system where anyone can earn a smiley by finding the cache and there is no distinction for qualifying for the associated challenge is a Bad Idea.

 

Agreed. Reducing reviewer headaches needs to be accomplished, otherwise, not much else needs fixing.

However, plenty of other people disagree that nothing else needs fixing ;)

 

I suppose you could interpret my stance on this not as that challenge caches themselves need fixing (I love'em as they are!), but the fact that there are complaints about certain aspects of challenges that need fixing.

 

However, there are many aspects of challenge caches that can make them frustrating for the community. They are neither a separate cache type nor do they have a specific attribute, so the logging requirements are easily misunderstood. ...

 

This part of the moratorium announcement makes me think that the Challenge Stars and 'Found It' vs 'Qualified' options for logging would not help resolve the logging issue.

re cache type/attribute/filtering:

Implementing a property flagging a cache as having a challenge (ie the challenge star rating) provides a filterable property and allows challenge caches to be posted as any other existing physical cache type. The "challenge" of the challenge cache is, technically, an ALR, and as challenge caches currently exist, they may be created in the form of a traditional+alr, multi+alr, or puzzle/mystery+alr (but right now can only be posted as an Unknown). Instead of creating a new cache type, and in addition to other aspects of the stars concept, challenge stars allow more flexibility in how one publishes a cache while still providing the "reward" for qualifying in a more accurate challenge rating, earning them in your stats just as you would difficulty or terrain stars.

 

Logging requirements are misunderstood because CCs appear as a typical Unknown cache, which is generally understood still as do-something-determine-coords-sign-log-post-found. But the ALR throws a wrench in that. And some challenge caches are not at the posted coordinates; some require solving a puzzle in addition to qualifying, or doing a field puzzle, etc. IMO, challenge stars allow the actual method of locating the physical cache to remain intact using existing cache properties/types, while adding the "ALR" as a flag that allows CCs be easily filtered out if desired, and the UI can easily be designed in such a way to reflect that so that logging them or understanding them is no longer confusing.

 

I have not made any suggestion having to do with "challenge stars."

D'oh! Sorry, got you mixed up with frinklabs. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

 

Or even a forum thread :)

 

I didn't visit the forums for about 6 months as my interest in caching waned a bit. I come back and I see the same people having the same discussions. I'm pretty sure that this method would be one of the least productive ones to share ideas with a wider audience. Bookmark lists? I rarely look at my own lists, much less anyone else's list. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work. It's there, it's public (if you make it so), and it can be seen by whomever visits a particular cache that might be on the list. I just have my doubts that this method would work very well for sharing ideas with a wider audience.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Or even a forum thread :)

 

I didn't visit the forums for about 6 months as my interest in caching waned a bit. I come back and I see the same people having the same discussions. I'm pretty sure that this method would be one of the least productive ones to share ideas with a wider audience. Bookmark lists? I rarely look at my own lists, much less anyone else's list. That doesn't mean it wouldn't work. It's there, it's public (if you make it so), and it can be seen by whomever visits a particular cache that might be on the list. I just have my doubts that this method would work very well for sharing ideas with a wider audience.

 

And you'd probably be correct - my intention was only to dispel the myth that people need challenge caches. :)

Share this post


Link to post

But so many people want challenges.

 

Not denying that there are people out there who want challenges - I know some personally.

 

What number that amounts to I personally have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post

So then, what's your purpose, your intent, your goal, of so emphatically repeating your point that people don't "need challenge caches"? If you are legitimately neutral on the concept, and it's obvious that people don't physically "need" challenge caches but rather just strongly desire them because they enjoy them, then what is your point intended to accomplish in this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

So then, what's your purpose, your intent, your goal, of so emphatically repeating your point that people don't "need challenge caches"? If you are legitimately neutral on the concept, and it's obvious that people don't physically "need" challenge caches but rather just strongly desire them because they enjoy them, then what is your point intended to accomplish in this discussion?

 

Mainly just what it has accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post

...which is?

 

:laughing:

 

I knew that was coming.

 

To demonstrate that there are options. More options = greater choice and flexibility.

 

By the way - do you think it's a bad thing to state one's point so emphatically?

Share this post


Link to post

...which is?

I knew that was coming.

 

To demonstrate that there are options. More options = greater choice and flexibility.

No challenge caches isn't more options. Those options exist with or without challenge caches. Saying they aren't "needed" (implying nothing would change if they were gone) is not correct, because something is gone - challenge caches, which people enjoy. So yes, while more options = greater choice and flexibility, that's only accomplished when challenge caches exist, otherwise you've just removed an option merely because it's not "needed", in a game where nothing is "needed" and everything is merely enjoyed.

 

By the way - do you think it's a bad thing to state one's point so emphatically?

Nope. But it's better when it's a productive reason for/against which can be discussed and addressed. Without that, it's pointless. No 'bad', pointless. Well, bad if it raises angst needlessly. =P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

...which is?

I knew that was coming.

 

To demonstrate that there are options. More options = greater choice and flexibility.

No challenge caches isn't more options. Those options exist with or without challenge caches. Saying they aren't "needed" (implying nothing would change if they were gone) is not correct, because something is gone - challenge caches, which people enjoy. So yes, while more options = greater choice and flexibility, that's only accomplished when challenge caches exist, otherwise you've just removed an option merely because it's not "needed", in a game where nothing is "needed" and everything is merely enjoyed.

 

I wish you wouldn't keep making claims that I'm implying things - I am quite capable of speaking for myself and communicating with a fair degree of precision what I want to communicate - so let's just stop with the whole implying thing.

 

By the way - do you think it's a bad thing to state one's point so emphatically?

Nope. But it's better when it's a productive reason for/against which can be discussed and addressed. Without that, it's pointless. No 'bad', pointless. Well, bad if it raises angst needlessly. =P

 

Who gets to decide what is productive and what isn't? Is it you?

Share this post


Link to post

I wish you wouldn't keep making claims that I'm implying things - I am quite capable of speaking for myself and communicating with a fair degree of precision what I want to communicate - so let's just stop with the whole implying thing.

Ok then, inferring.

 

Who gets to decide what is productive and what isn't? Is it you?

All of us. Well ultimately, the moderators. And viewing how a discussion goes when someone continues to repeat a point that's rebutted over and over again based on its implication (or inference), it doesn't seem very productive, does it? When a discussion goes in circles without producing any useful result, it's not very productive, is it? How has your point evolved? What has it addressed based on our responses? It boils down to you keep saying "challenge caches aren't needed", and we keep saying "but we enjoy them", to which you response "but they're not needed because..." and we respond "sure but we enjoy them because...". Round and round we go. Not very productive. Do you disagree? Unless of course you want us to go round in circles, in which case yep, productive.

Our perspectives are not technically in disagreement. We agree no one "needs" challenge caches. And you understand that many people "enjoy" them. So why keep hammering down that point that they're not needed? What is it intended to accomplish?

Share this post


Link to post

I wish you wouldn't keep making claims that I'm implying things - I am quite capable of speaking for myself and communicating with a fair degree of precision what I want to communicate - so let's just stop with the whole implying thing.

Ok then, inferring.

 

No - what's happening is you're imagining that I'm implying or inferring something which I'm not.

 

Who gets to decide what is productive and what isn't? Is it you?

All of us. Well ultimately, the moderators. And viewing how a discussion goes when someone continues to repeat a point that's rebutted over and over again based on its implication (or inference), it doesn't seem very productive, does it? When a discussion goes in circles without producing any useful result, it's not very productive, is it? How has your point evolved? What has it addressed based on our responses? It boils down to you keep saying "challenge caches aren't needed", and we keep saying "but we enjoy them", to which you response "but they're not needed because..." and we respond "sure but we enjoy them because...". Round and round we go. Not very productive. Do you disagree? Unless of course you want us to go round in circles, in which case yep, productive.

Our perspectives are not technically in disagreement. We agree no one "needs" challenge caches. And you understand that many people "enjoy" them. So why keep hammering down that point that they're not needed? What is it intended to accomplish?

 

I have tried several times to summarise my position and move on and sadly that has involved restating what I've said - free of what others try to claim I have said or thought, or am implying or inferring - and then the same attempts at rebuttal are issued, sometimes worded differently but still ultimately arguing the same point - so if you need to chastise anyone for going round in circles the circle of people you need to include houses more than me alone :)

 

My point hasn't evolved - I'm not even sure how facts evolve - they simply are.

 

In your final paragraph you do actually acknowledge things I've actually written here - so I know you have read them and yet you don't seem to want to accept them - so the circle goes around again.

 

I'm glad though that we agree no one needs challenge caches. Maybe we can draw a line under that now and move forward.

Share this post


Link to post

 

To demonstrate that there are options. More options = greater choice and flexibility.

 

 

You're providing us with a conditional If...then statement. If there are more options then there is greater choice and flexibility. I fully agree. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

I'm assuming that you agree with the fact that a challenge cache is an option available to cachers. That does not imply, infer, or mean that they're needed; only that they're an option available for cachers to pursue if they'd like.

 

The negative side of the conditional statement has to be true then, in order for your statement to hold true as well. If there are less options then there is less choice and flexibility.

 

If challenge caches are gone then there's one less option available, meaning less choice and flexibility. How is that a good thing for geocachers?

 

Edited for punctuation. It's my grammar OCD, even though I have a tendency to miss split infinitives.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

Ok then, inferring.

No - what's happening is you're imagining that I'm implying or inferring something which I'm not.

Um. First, you know what inferring means, yes? Second, that is the impression you are giving - what we infer - by your constant "you don't need geocaches" statement. You say you're neutral. Would you be just as fine with it all if they were to return? If not, then you're not, and that is the impression we get from you. If that's wrong, then perhaps you should find a better way to express your points that results in less misunderstanding.

 

I have tried several times to summarise my position and move on and sadly that has involved restating what I've said - free of what others try to claim I have said or thought, or am implying or inferring - and then the same attempts at rebuttal are issued, sometimes worded differently but still ultimately arguing the same point - so if you need to chastise anyone for going round in circles the circle of people you need to include houses more than me alone :)

 

My point hasn't evolved - I'm not even sure how facts evolve - they simply are.

 

In your final paragraph you do actually acknowledge things I've actually written here - so I know you have read them and yet you don't seem to want to accept them - so the circle goes around again.

 

I'm glad though that we agree no one needs challenge caches. Maybe we can draw a line under that now and move forward.

Accept what? Your point was that we don't need challenge caches. Read my last post again. Your last sentence doesn't flow with the one before it. We agree. So why do you keep pushing this fact that "they're not needed" when we're arguing that we enjoy them, except to promote some position that it's better if not return? Which as you say is not your point. So what IS your point? What is your goal? What is your intent?

 

coachstahly -- exactly!

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, I cannot wait until GS decides what it is doing, and we can stop these long contorted arguments!

Share this post


Link to post

 

To demonstrate that there are options. More options = greater choice and flexibility.

 

 

You're providing us with a conditional If...then statement. If there are more options then there is greater choice and flexibility. I fully agree. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

I'm assuming that you agree with the fact that a challenge cache is an option available to cachers. That does not imply, infer, or mean that they're needed; only that they're an option available for cachers to pursue if they'd like.

 

The negative side of the conditional statement has to be true then, in order for your statement to hold true as well. If there are less options then there is less choice and flexibility.

 

If challenge caches are gone then there's one less option available, meaning less choice and flexibility How is that a good thing for geocachers?

 

Sure - if there's fewer options there's less choice and opportunity for flexibility - you're right.

 

Given that I've not advocated for removal of challenge caches though I can't see how it's relevant.

 

On the other hand, you ask How is that a good thing for geocachers? - if you're referring to the prospect of challenge caches being gone then that would be a good thing for some geocachers - the ones who don't care for them. Or are we just ignoring those?

 

Another way in which this thread has been useful, in my opinion, is in the way it has demonstrated how much time can be spent going around in circles, denying facts, arguing scemantics, claiming to know what others are thinking, making claims that people have said things they haven't said and on and on it goes - and this is a small thread with a small group of active participants.

 

I can well imagine this sort of thing being a significant contribution to the decision to have the moratorium in the first place - it must be so demoralising to those who have to deal with it on a daily basis - especially those who are doing it as unpaid volunteers.

 

Look at it this way for a moment - if people can invest so much time desperately trying to prove that they need something they don't actually need, and shying away from opportunity to consider alternatives - what is the likelihood that bringing back challenge caches in ANYTHING other than the original format will be acceptable? My guess - virtually nil - and more of the same will ensue. Personally I wouldn't feel inspired to invest the required effort under those circumstances.

Edited by Team Microdot

Share this post


Link to post

So why do you keep pushing this fact that "they're not needed" when we're arguing that we enjoy them,

 

How does your enjoying them equate to them being needed?

 

If you need them, just out of idle curiosity, what will you do if they don't return?

Share this post


Link to post

If challenge caches did not exist

 

Then I would not have discovered many wonderful places and new ways to cache

 

Therefore: All else being equal, challenge caches were a necessary condition for me finding certain wonderful places and new ways to cache.

 

Therefore, challenge caches were needed.

 

This is a simple syllogism: If not A then not B => If B then A.

 

A = "challenge caches exist"

B = "I would find certain wonderful things"

 

The difference between the rational discussion and the moralist discussion is in the second statement. Change "would" to "could" and the syllogism is no longer true.

 

The new syllogism would be:

 

If challenge caches did not exist

 

Then I could (by some unspecified process) still find the same wonderful things I would have using challenge caches

 

Therefore challenge caches are not a necessary condition for finding those wonderful things

 

This second syllogism is basically content-free, which is why so many people find it less than helpful in this discussion. It's what is known as a tautology, in which an initial assumption is treated as a conclusion. In this case, the initial assumption (it is in principle possible using some unspecified non-challenge-cache process to discover the same things one could via challenge caches) is identical to the conclusion (challenge caches are not needed to find those things) which means no logical reasoning was actually used.

 

The reason that it turns into a moralist argument is the implication that if, in the absence of challenge caches, you would not do the required process to find the wonderful things then you are lazy or otherwise morally deficient. It echoes a set of moral arguments in historical Christianity about sin and human responsibility that are quite complex and don't belong here anyway.

 

This lesson in formal logic has been brought to you by His Fizziness.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post

if, in the absence of challenge caches, you would not do the required process to find the wonderful things then you are lazy or otherwise morally deficient.

 

Who said that? :o

Share this post


Link to post

On the other hand, you ask How is that a good thing for geocachers? - if you're referring to the prospect of challenge caches being gone then that would be a good thing for some geocachers - the ones who don't care for them. Or are we just ignoring those?

Why, yes, of course we're ignoring people that don't care when considering a feature that other people enjoy. I can't believe you'd ask that with a straight face, so I assume you're pulling our legs, which is consistent with the rest of the discussion.

 

I can well imagine this sort of thing being a significant contribution to the decision to have the moratorium in the first place - it must be so demoralising to those who have to deal with it on a daily basis - especially those who are doing it as unpaid volunteers.

I can't think of any way the discussion you've generated is relevant to the moratorium.

Share this post


Link to post

 

On the other hand, you ask How is that a good thing for geocachers? - if you're referring to the prospect of challenge caches being gone then that would be a good thing for some geocachers - the ones who don't care for them. Or are we just ignoring those?

 

 

I'm not ignoring those people. They have the current option to ignore challenge caches, just like everyone else has the option to ignore ANY type of cache they don't like. Put them on their ignore list and never think of them again.

 

Let's boil it down to the simplest of terms. There are really only two options on the table that I'm talking about. I'm not debating their worth or value for this particular point, nor am I examining why a decision was made. That's irrelevant in the point I'm trying to make here. Whether or not you love them, hate them, or are neutral about them, it all boils down to a simple choice which we all currently have. Do I find them or not?

 

Hypothetically, let's say Groundspeak chooses to ban/archive/remove them from caching. Great for those who dislike them and have chosen NOT to find them. However, there's no change in their situation with regard to not finding them. They weren't going to find them before the ban and now they don't have the choice to find them because they're not there. The end outcome is still the same. The only difference is the manner in which it's reached. One is an active choice while the other has no choice to make.

 

However, those that chose to do challenge caches have now been limited in their option to find them. In fact, they can't go out and find them because their choice has been eliminated. There are NO challenge caches to find. The end outcome is now the opposite or negative side of what they had before.

 

If one side isn't impacted either positively or negatively, and the other side is only affected negatively, then it's a draw/loss. There's nothing positive for either side in this particular decision to ban challenge caches, focusing solely on the basic choice of whether or not to find a challenge cache.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

And... who on earth here is "denying facts"? dry.gif

We all are. TMD will say everyone who doesn't agree with him is ignoring his "fact" in [whatever number post]. While he is ignoring my "fact" in [another whatever number post]. He's complaining about his own actions when complaining about everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post

 

On the other hand, you ask How is that a good thing for geocachers? - if you're referring to the prospect of challenge caches being gone then that would be a good thing for some geocachers - the ones who don't care for them. Or are we just ignoring those?

 

 

I'm not ignoring those people. They have the current option to ignore challenge caches, just like everyone else has the option to ignore ANY type of cache they don't like. Put them on their ignore list and never think of them again.

 

Let's boil it down to the simplest of terms. There are really only two options on the table that I'm talking about. I'm not debating their worth or value for this particular point, nor am I examining why a decision was made. That's irrelevant in the point I'm trying to make here. Whether or not you love them, hate them, or are neutral about them, it all boils down to a simple choice which we all currently have. Do I find them or not?

 

Hypothetically, let's say Groundspeak chooses to ban/archive/remove them from caching. Great for those who dislike them and have chosen NOT to find them. However, there's no change in their situation with regard to not finding them. They weren't going to find them before the ban and now they don't have the choice to find them because they're not there. The end outcome is still the same. The only difference is the manner in which it's reached. One is an active choice while the other has no choice to make.

 

However, those that chose to do challenge caches have now been limited in their option to find them. In fact, they can't go out and find them because their choice has been eliminated. There are NO challenge caches to find. The end outcome is now the opposite or negative side of what they had before.

 

If one side isn't impacted either positively or negatively, and the other side is only affected negatively, then it's a draw/loss. There's nothing positive for either side in this particular decision to ban challenge caches, focusing solely on the basic choice of whether or not to find a challenge cache.

 

You make a good point with sound logic :)

 

That binary value though is limited in its usefulness.

 

I think it's been indicated by Groundspeak that challenge caches amount to ~1% of all cache submissions. Assuming they don't all get published then I would guess that challenge caches amount to <1% of all published caches - which would have some bearing on the impact of challenge caches not coming back.

 

The question is - what % of cachers would be affected (is it around the same 1% mark or is it more?) and to what degree i.e. would they quit caching altogether or just carry on largely as they were in the absence of challenge caches? Of course we don't see the big picture so we don't know the answers - but I imagine Groundspeak have a more rounded view of those stats.

 

Then we have to remember that challenge caches don't just impact on cachers - a significant party that springs to mind is the volunteer reviewers and also some lackeys and we also have to factor in the net impact to the game overall arising from the impact on those parties.

 

I guess there are far fewer reviewers than there are geocachers and I expect that losing reviewers is going to have a greater impact on the game than losing cachers - depending on numbers of course. If reviewers are lost and nobody else steps up to the plate then the overall net impact to everyone would be quite considerable.

 

So I guess the moratorium provides a good opportunity to assess the overall net impact on all sides of no new challenge caches as the basis of deciding what to do next, taking into account some of the analogue rather than just binary variables.

 

Please note - the numerous wild guesses made in this post are presented as is - with no warranty of any kind, express or implied :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

And... who on earth here is "denying facts"? dry.gif

We all are. TMD will say everyone who doesn't agree with him is ignoring his "fact" in [whatever number post]. While he is ignoring my "fact" in [another whatever number post].

 

You think I ignored your "fact"?

 

Whether it was a "fact" or a fact - which one do you think I ignored?

Share this post


Link to post

And... who on earth here is "denying facts"? dry.gif

 

I think various people have tried to over the course of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×