+Kelux Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Adiós 2016 Bienvenido 2017 Quote Link to comment
+gasbottle Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Two events listed by one cacher is hardly a plague. What's your point? Quote Link to comment
+Team Microdot Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Two events listed by one cacher is hardly a plague. What's your point? If my reading of a rough translation is correct, the event organise is allowing virtual attendance - or non-attendance if we're describing it accurately. Not what events are meant to be about. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 A plague? Has it really become a plague already? Quote Link to comment
+Team Microdot Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 A plague? Has it really become a plague already? Malfeasance perhaps? Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Seems I recall a geocaching society attempted this allowing virtual event logging before and things got locked? Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Seems I recall a geocaching society attempted this allowing virtual event logging before and things got locked? How many did they manage to publish before things got locked? Maybe that's why two more in Chile make a plague... Quote Link to comment
+gasbottle Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 It would be helpful for the OP to be more explicit about his/her concern here. Is this really about 'virtual events', or is it about two being listed close together which should perhaps just be one. I agree that events should be something one attends but I don't see anything in the guidelines that specifically prohibits this. Even signing the log book seems to be optional for event caches. Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Seems I recall a geocaching society attempted this allowing virtual event logging before and things got locked? How many did they manage to publish before things got locked? Maybe that's why two more in Chile make a plague... Maybe someone will remember, I just can't recall all of the details. The group was the Dirtbag Geocaching Society, I'm sure about that part. Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 It would be helpful for the OP to be more explicit about his/her concern here. Is this really about 'virtual events', or is it about two being listed close together which should perhaps just be one. I agree that events should be something one attends but I don't see anything in the guidelines that specifically prohibits this. Even signing the log book seems to be optional for event caches. The fact that the log one posts for getting a smiley for an event is called an "Attended" log should be sufficient. Do the guidelines need to define that "attended" means that one has to actually visit the location, or is that a loophole that can be exploited just to increase find counts? Quote Link to comment
+Team Microdot Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 It would be helpful for the OP to be more explicit about his/her concern here. Is this really about 'virtual events', or is it about two being listed close together which should perhaps just be one. I agree that events should be something one attends but I don't see anything in the guidelines that specifically prohibits this. Even signing the log book seems to be optional for event caches. The fact that the log one posts for getting a smiley for an event is called an "Attended" log should be sufficient. Do the guidelines need to define that "attended" means that one has to actually visit the location, or is that a loophole that can be exploited just to increase find counts? That's the most silly thing about the whole situation. An attendee need not sign a logbook as evidence that they attended, nor can an attendee be required to interact with any other individual. This means of course that anyone can claim to have attended any event whether they were there or not with no burden of proof whatsoever. Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Seems I recall a geocaching society attempted this allowing virtual event logging before and things got locked? This does bring the DGS events to mind... Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted January 4, 2017 Share Posted January 4, 2017 Seems I recall a geocaching society attempted this allowing virtual event logging before and things got locked? This does bring the DGS events to mind... There seem to be more than one DGS .. some take the game back to the original level (no micros, challenging to get at) while there seems to be another who likes to flaunt rules or common courtesy (or appear to be on some wild and ragged edge.) My understanding is an event must be attended physically (or perhaps by a very good means of proxy, e.g. cacher in hospital attends via mobile phone.) Encouraging people who just telegraph their attendance from anywhere is a rule violation. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.