Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers

[+barefootjeff]

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

I will give you a clue as to how to proceed. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your precious statistical test has a 95% accuracy. What do you think the ratio of false-positives to true positives would be? If you say 1 in 20, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Go read that book. Learn something.

 

Cool! A puzzle cache in the Forums!

A little web surfing led me to some guy's Theorem with P[A] and P[b|A] and stuff. The equation needed a number for the actual amount of bad caches, P[A], so I picked 1%. If I did everything correctly, I find that a cache which is identified as bad has only a 16% chance that it really is bad. I can't find a Geochecker, though.

 

In any case.... To the point of the thread: I'm siding with those who say any algorithm (no matter how accurate) should only be one of the tools available to Reviewers, not the final decider. The experience and judgement of those Reviewers can be applied to a list of possibles generated by any algorithm. (Sorry Reviewers - looks like you can't retire yet!)

 

Then were all on the same side. I don't think anyone as suggested it be anything but a tool to be used by reviewers although some have insinuated just that.

Wasn't the whole thrust of this thread to unilaterally ban COs from adopting caches if they have a poor CHS, which was proposed as a machine-generated aggregate of their caches' GHS scores which in turn are purely machine-generated?

[+dprovan]

What's your definition of a bad cache?

My definition has nothing to do with this, which is a huge part of the problem.

[+Team Microdot]

Wasn't the whole thrust of this thread to unilaterally ban COs from adopting caches if they have a poor CHS, which was proposed as a machine-generated aggregate of their caches' GHS scores which in turn are purely machine-generated?

 

No.

 

The thrust of this thread was the idea of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers.

 

Leveraging the existing GHS and potential extensions to it as part of such a process was one idea that has been discussed.

[+Team Microdot]

What's your definition of a bad cache?

My definition has nothing to do with this, which is a huge part of the problem.

 

So what IS your definition of a bad cache? Just so we know

[+thebruce0]

Who is requiring anything?

If an adopter feels that there's a sense of immediacy because they don't want their personal CHS to be low because of adopting a bad cache, that's their problem. There is no implied immediacy, only inferred.

If even bans could happen or as suggested by someone one could filter to the CHS of cachers, then many adopters will feel forced ...

Once again, subjective. What tangible consequence is there? Not based on feelings.

That said, I very much am not in support of opening up the CHS to the public filtering (see my can of worms comment), because of its inevitable social affect. Having people manually ignore cache owners of their own choice and judgement is sufficient.

 

"What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache."

And that's entirely subjective, because it would depend on how important the adopter's lowered CHS is to themselves. That's it. If they want to adopt a bad cache now but don't want to live with the lowered CHS because of that, that is entirely their own concern.

No, that's much more a problem for the local community which loses precious caches if taking responsibility is discouraged by such a system.

It's a bad cache, in bad condition, with no one willing to maintain it.

Say goodbye to it.

If it's so precious, then adopt it and maintain it. If it's not worth the effort to anyone, then it will be archived. Doesn't matter how "precious" someone thinks it is. That's all.

If it's a "Bad" cache - a good cache identified as a false positive - then as long as the reviewer agrees, it is not in danger of archival. If a cacher adopts it knowing this, they are willing to take to the CHS hit, which may affect their ability to adopt again later by the system, if this particular "Bad" cache's GHS isn't improved.

 

Again, choices? Archive it so they can adopt again, bite the bullet and go and maintain it to improve its score (verification of its findability afaik is considered maintenance and would be positive to the score), or contact a reviewer to find out if there's a way they can have the cache score improved, given that it is known to be in good condition. For the latter we don't know yet if resetting a cache score is something the reviewer can do manually.

Who knows what other alternatives the rare circumstance of a good cache owner with a bad CHS because of a false positive GHS has in order to adopt.

 

If the cache continues to have a problem, it may/will eventually come to the attention of the reviewer and with due process potentially get archived.

It won't if the adopter writes the sort of note I mentioned as the reviewer will then hopefully wait until the snow melted away.

In such a case there is hardly any choice when to adopt the cache if one wants to rescue it. It's much more convincing if someone takes over a cache

and promises to maintain it as soon as possible than if the person who is not able or willing to maintain the cache further writes a note that the cache

will be adopted by someone.

Let me reiterate: "it may/will eventually come to the attention of the reviewer and with due process potentially get archived"

And again: If the cache is problematic, and no one wants to maintain it, and the reviewer deems that there is no sufficiently acceptable argument for leaving it active for a grace period, then it may be archived.

 

If that adopter while owning that bad cache wants to adopt another and is blocked by the automated system because they previously adopted and now currently own a bad cache that drops their CHS, well again, that's their problem they have to deal with; they chose to adopt a bad cache knowing they couldn't go and fix it up. A better choice (per the design of the system) would be to let the bad cache get archived, or let someone else take on the responsibility of fixing it. (and remember, if it's only rated bad due to a false positive, there is no threat of it being archived because the reviewer can make that judgement)

I did not have false positives in mind in my post above. But again in the system you describe as best, everyone would just do what is best for themselves - hardly anything which I regard as a community I wanted to be part of.

What is the action best for themselves? If a "precious" cache is bad, and no one wants to maintain it, then eventually it will be archived. Doesn't matter how precious someone thinks it is. If the "precious" cache is not bad, then as long as a reviewer agrees, it will not get archived. When it comes to adopting in such situations, see above.

 

BTW: I do have a problem with your term "bad cache" as not every cache that has a problem that needs to be fixed warrants to be referred to as bad cache.

1. When I've typed "Bad" cache (note the quotes), it was in reference to a cache considered to be bad by the system which is not. Bad is in quotes. It's a label. It's in reference to the false positive. A good cache that is considered bad by the system, which is not in fact in bad condition.

2. When I type simply bad cache, it is in reference to a cache which is verifiably problematic, having outstanding maintenance issues. Regardless of sentiment.

Now re-read my comments with this knowledge.

Edited March 27, 2017 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

...blah blah blah...

 

Problem solved.

 

...blah blah blah...

You know, it's incredibly annoying to have people who quite evidently know next to nothing about statistics pushing for a statistics-based system for punishing cachers.

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

...blah blah blah...

This is an excellent example of an unhelpful, antagonistic, detestable comment. It's also incredibly annoying when high-and mighty people respond incredibly condescendingly and arrogantly, and boldly insulting in order to attempt to make a point, and in so doing shoot themselves in the foot. What I actually said was cut, and without responding to why there's a problem with anything about it, I'm instead painted as a complete idiot and without knowing me at all.

Without all of that expressed self-righteous rhetoric, it may have been a better comment. But as such, I just ignored the rest of it.

 

 

So on that note, again, who is being penalized? No one has answered the question. There is zero tangible evidence of an objective consequence to good cache owners by an automated system that identifies potential maintenance problems, or expanded to identify potential "maintenance shirkers". Nothing is stopping any actual good cache owner from eventually adopting a cache.

 

Once again, the only "negative" is an impression for a reviewer who may have their attention drawn to a problem, at which point they'll make a decision after due process.

 

I provided example situations about people wishing to adopt, for both good and bad caches, and good and bad owners - RARE ones in the grand scheme - and steps people can take, and I stand by them.

(and that is not the same as me saying such a system should be implemented. Not in the slightest)

 

Wasn't the whole thrust of this thread to unilaterally ban COs from adopting caches if they have a poor CHS, which was proposed as a machine-generated aggregate of their caches' GHS scores which in turn are purely machine-generated?

I believe that indeed was the thrust (not necessarily by title, but certainly by the OP's opening comment). And whether it's just an amalgamation of the 'current score' (false positives play a more significant role) or an identification of previous owner habits (responses to maintenance issues - false positives less influential, but the CHS score is maintained independently of GHS and affected by other factors for some arbitrary period of time).

 

The issue being that in this context (adoption requests), there is already no human judgement in the process, and so any automated system's false positives from any algorithm have an immediate influence on its functionality.

[+dprovan]

So on that note, again, who is being penalized? No one has answered the question. There is zero tangible evidence of an objective consequence to good cache owners by an automated system that identifies potential maintenance problems, or expanded to identify potential "maintenance shirkers". Nothing is stopping any actual good cache owner from eventually adopting a cache.

There's no evidence on the table that adoption by bad cache owners is an actual problem, so there's no reason to think anyone except good cache owners will be penalized.

[+dprovan]

Wasn't the whole thrust of this thread to unilaterally ban COs from adopting caches if they have a poor CHS, which was proposed as a machine-generated aggregate of their caches' GHS scores which in turn are purely machine-generated?

No.

 

The thrust of this thread was the idea of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers.

 

Leveraging the existing GHS and potential extensions to it as part of such a process was one idea that has been discussed.

Why would you lie about this? We can all go back and read the thread over to see it's not true.

 

If you're embarrassed by your one specific proposal in the OP -- "I wonder if the new health score could be leveraged to cut off this avenue of supply so that said caches can be allowed to die a natural death or at least try to make sure that the adopter is able to cope with their new responsibilities?" -- just say so and we'll stop discussing it.

[+thebruce0]

So on that note, again, who is being penalized? No one has answered the question. There is zero tangible evidence of an objective consequence to good cache owners by an automated system that identifies potential maintenance problems, or expanded to identify potential "maintenance shirkers". Nothing is stopping any actual good cache owner from eventually adopting a cache.

There's no evidence on the table that adoption by bad cache owners is an actual problem, so there's no reason to think anyone except good cache owners will be penalized.

But what's "penalized"? That was the focus of the question. The implication being that good cache owners may be incorrectly banned from adopting a cache. I don't see that situation at all.

All situations for a good cache owner which may have a slight bit of extra work have a resolution that doesn't negatively affect them.

Basically, what are some examples of an objective penalization for a good cache owner? I've only seen a few rare possible examples provided, in the grand scheme on things.

(again, this is not me promoting this automated feature)

 

Essentially: In what circumstance might a good cache owner be falsely auto-identified as a "maintenance shirker" with no recourse (a ban) in order to adopt a cache?

Edited March 27, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Wasn't the whole thrust of this thread to unilaterally ban COs from adopting caches if they have a poor CHS, which was proposed as a machine-generated aggregate of their caches' GHS scores which in turn are purely machine-generated?

No.

 

The thrust of this thread was the idea of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers.

 

Leveraging the existing GHS and potential extensions to it as part of such a process was one idea that has been discussed.

Why would you lie about this? We can all go back and read the thread over to see it's not true.

 

If you're embarrassed by your one specific proposal in the OP -- "I wonder if the new health score could be leveraged to cut off this avenue of supply so that said caches can be allowed to die a natural death or at least try to make sure that the adopter is able to cope with their new responsibilities?" -- just say so and we'll stop discussing it.

 

Think whatever you like

 

For me the thrust has always been that which is written in the thread title - banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers.

 

The health score was included as one potential supporting mechanism because it was topical, I had at the back of my mind that other metrics could be brought into play and I figured it would get the thread going. Looks like it worked pretty well

[+thebruce0]

Maybe the thrust of this thread was always just to work towards having the most pages

[+Team Microdot]

Maybe the thrust of this thread was always just to work towards having the most pages

 

1. I reckon I've a long way to go yet

 

2. I'm not entirely responsible for that

 

[+dprovan]

But what's "penalized"?

The point is there's no evidence of a problem and no evidence a procedure that blocks a certain class of adopters would help resolve the problem if there were one. The burden of proof is on the proposal to justify that any burden should be put on any CO regardless of whether you think the burden rises to the level of penalizing them.

[+dprovan]

Think whatever you like

It's there for all to see.

 

For me the thrust has always been that which is written in the thread title - banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers.

Then please suggest a second approach to solving your imaginary problem so we can talk about something you won't deny we're talking about.

[+thebruce0]

But what's "penalized"?

The point is there's no evidence of a problem and no evidence a procedure that blocks a certain class of adopters would help resolve the problem if there were one. The burden of proof is on the proposal to justify that any burden should be put on any CO regardless of whether you think the burden rises to the level of penalizing them.

I don't disagree

 

My point was people keep saying good owners will be penalized in the context of adopting caches. I still don't see any tangible penalization in this context, to the degree that good owners will effectively and incorrectly be "banned" from adopting, even if the automated system leaves room for false negative GHS.

[cezanne]

But what's "penalized"?

The point is there's no evidence of a problem and no evidence a procedure that blocks a certain class of adopters would help resolve the problem if there were one. The burden of proof is on the proposal to justify that any burden should be put on any CO regardless of whether you think the burden rises to the level of penalizing them.

I don't disagree

 

My point was people keep saying good owners will be penalized in the context of adopting caches. I still don't see any tangible penalization in this context, to the degree that good owners will effectively and incorrectly be "banned" from adopting, even if the automated system leaves room for false negative GHS.

 

I disagree as in order to make sense any such system would have to disallow or restrict considerably adoptions from accounts which are not the player accounts of experienced cache hiders. If such a system were implemented, it would also discourage cachers to take over caches that cannot be fixed quickly.

 

You can call it penalization or discouragement or whatever - it will in any case have a negative effect on the willingness of cachers to take over caches (which is already low anyhow in many regions) and rescue them from getting archived which apparently is something who do not seem to care about that much. From the perspective of someone who has caches in mind for which adequate or even better replacements are quite probable to pop up this is understandable. However that's not the scenario I'm concerned about.

 

In my opinion, there is much more to lose than to win with adoption bans. Unmaintained caches can be a problem but regardless of by whom they are owned - there need's to be system for them anyhow.

[+thebruce0]

But what's "penalized"?

The point is there's no evidence of a problem and no evidence a procedure that blocks a certain class of adopters would help resolve the problem if there were one. The burden of proof is on the proposal to justify that any burden should be put on any CO regardless of whether you think the burden rises to the level of penalizing them.

I don't disagree

 

My point was people keep saying good owners will be penalized in the context of adopting caches. I still don't see any tangible penalization in this context, to the degree that good owners will effectively and incorrectly be "banned" from adopting, even if the automated system leaves room for false negative GHS.

 

I disagree as in order to make sense any such system would have to disallow or restrict considerably adoptions from accounts which are not the player accounts of experienced cache hiders. If such a system were implemented, it would also discourage cachers to take over caches that cannot be fixed quickly.

Again.

1. If the account is in good order, no problems with adopting. Regardless of who owns the account. Why would it be banned from adopting, unless one factor is they must own caches already? If not a desireable factor in calculating CHS, then ensure that's not a factor in the proposed system.

2. A cache that is in bad condition and cannot be fixed quickly is destined for archival if a reviewer cannot be convinced to let it remain for a grace period. A person deciding to adopt it while it's in bad condition ... well, I'll just point back to my previous comments, again, on what that means and their courses of action as I see it.

 

You can call it penalization or discouragement or whatever

Big difference there. It's one or the other. Discouragement leads to a personal choice. Penalization is a tangible consequence of a choice. So, where is the penalization for a good cache owner?

 

it will in any case have a negative effect on the willingness of cachers to take over caches (which is already low anyhow in many regions) and rescue them from getting archived

Again. If it's in bad condition and no one is willing to maintain it, let alone adopt it, then it is properly headed for eventual review and potential archival.

 

which apparently is something who do not seem to care about that much.

Howso? I love great caches. I moreso love great caches that kept great. It's sad when a great cache gets archived because its condition degrades and no one is willing to maintain it - neither the current owner nor anyone who may be willing to adopt it. It's not sad because it's up for archival, it's sad because no one is willing or able to maintain a great cache, let alone the one who created it.

 

Caches in bad condition (whether "great", "precious", whatever) that no one wants to maintain and thus head to review for archival is always an unfortunate thing - not because of the system that gets them there, but because no one is backing up how great the cache is by being willing to maintain it. It may be a loss to the community, but the result is justified, because the cache is in bad condition and is not being maintained, which is a condition of cache ownership.

 

For one, the owner in placing a cache that would be hard to maintain should have known that at some point if they didn't want to or were unable to maintain it, that it would eventually get archived.

If someone wants to adopt it, they should know that it is hard to maintain, and keeping it around (in bad condition) merely because it's "special" is not sufficient. It's in bad condition. It needs maintenance. You adopt it, you maintain it.

A cacher willing to adopt it, given its condition and its likely low GHS that may well affect their own CHS for a time, should know that until the cache is maintained (either by personal visit or by reviewer 'fixing' if a false positive low GHS), any of their further adoption requests may be hindered as long as its score is low.

 

And, again, if adoption is a strong desire at that point (even while owning a low GHS cache listing), and the owner is indeed a good cache owner, I would be very shocked if there was no way for a reviewer or HQ to find a way for this new adoption to progress. At this point, the automated system's impression of their being a 'maintenance shirker' because of low CHS would be a false positive if shown to be merely because they are listed as the owner of a cache with a low GHS. So again, the next step would be rectifying that GHS - either by a maintenance visit, by archival, or by reviewer intervention, if that's a technical possibility.

 

The only situation I see a good cache owner being effectively "banned" from adopting a cache would need to meet these criteria:

1. Be owner of a good condition cache perceived as bad by the algorithm's GHS (false positive low GHS), effectively lowering their CHS below the 'ban' threshold (false positive low CHS).

2. Be unwilling or unable to maintain the low GHS cache (eg verify & post an OM), and be unwilling to archive the cache, and be unwilling or unable to find someone else who can maintain it (or even adopt it)

3. After checking with TPTB, find that the Reviewers and GSHQ are unable to manually fix the low GHS that's affecting their low CHS, nor manually process the adoption request.

That = No way around the automated adoption block for a good cache owner.

That's a whole lot of negative circumstances to exist in conjunction with each other to make a strong case that it would be an ineffective system, IMO.

 

 

Which, again, does not mean I would support an automated 'adoption ban by identifying maintenance shirkers based on cache health score' system being enacted. Even if I can see how it can be viable in its purpose at the expense of some relatively rare inconvenience, I just don't think it's a good idea.

 

In my opinion, there is much more to lose than to win with adoption bans.

I don't disagree. But for different reasons.

[cezanne]

1. If the account is in good order, no problems with adopting. Regardless of who owns the account. Why would it be banned from adopting, unless one factor is they must own caches already?

 

Because banning accounts from adoptions does not make sense if it can be circumvented by using a different account.

However by restricting adoptions, it would also hurt those who use a different account than their main player account for a different reason.

 

2. A cache that is in bad condition and cannot be fixed quickly is destined for archival if a reviewer cannot be convinced to let it remain for a grace period.

 

A cache which needs to be fixed is not necessarily in bad condition. It can be just a minor issue to be fixed at one of the stages.

As the "if a reviewer cannot be convinced ...." is true but I refer to cases where it is ususally not an issue to convince a reviewer (=a human being) but it would be an issue to convince an automatic algorithm.

 

A person deciding to adopt it while it's in bad condition ... well, I'll just point back to my previous comments, again, on what that means and their courses of action as I see it.

 

I have not forgotten your comments. I just think that this approach results in discouraging adoptions.

 

Big difference there. It's one or the other. Discouragement leads to a personal choice. Penalization is a tangible consequence of a choice. So, where is the penalization for a good cache owner?

 

For me it is hardly a difference when it comes to the result. Someone who takes over a cache which has an issue and which cannot be maintained further by its owner is a good cache owner, but still has to live with

potential negative effects.

 

it will in any case have a negative effect on the willingness of cachers to take over caches (which is already low anyhow in many regions) and rescue them from getting archived

Again. If it's in bad condition and no one is willing to maintain it, let alone adopt it, then it is properly headed for eventual review and potential archival.

 

That somehow goes in circles. I know many cases where cache owners archived their caches if they could not find someone who took them over when they could not maintain them any longer. Reviewers are not necessarily involved at all.

There are also responsible caches who offer some caches for adoptions.

 

What I'm saying is that the proposed system is providing a further discouragement for adopting caches instead of providing positive encouragement. It's a trivial statement that a cache which has noone who looks after it will eventually be prone to get archived.

 

Caches in bad condition (whether "great", "precious", whatever) that no one wants to maintain and thus head to review for archival is always an unfortunate thing - not because of the system that gets them there, but because no one is backing up how great the cache is by being willing to maintain it. It may be a loss to the community, but the result is justified, because the cache is in bad condition and is not being maintained, which is a condition of cache ownership.

 

We are not talking about the justification of archivals. If someone adopts a cache and does not maintain it, the situation is the same as if the original owner does not maintain it.

I see no reason for adoptions bans on a large scale.

 

For one, the owner in placing a cache that would be hard to maintain should have known that at some point if they didn't want to or were unable to maintain it, that it would eventually get archived.

 

Everyone can come in a situation where they cannot maintain a cache any longer. Of course every cache can end up having to be archived (by the owner or by a reviewer).

 

If someone wants to adopt it, they should know that it is hard to maintain, and keeping it around (in bad condition) merely because it's "special" is not sufficient. It's in bad condition. It needs maintenance. You adopt it, you maintain it.

A cacher willing to adopt it, given its condition and its likely low GHS that may well affect their own CHS for a time, should know that until the cache is maintained (either by personal visit or by reviewer 'fixing' if a false positive low GHS), any of their further adoption requests may be hindered as long as its score is low.

 

I never said that it suffices to keep around a cache because it is special. It's quite a stupid idea however to ban someone from say taking over two caches of the same cacher who became ill. It suffices that one of the two if one of the two caches has an issue that can be fixed only when the weather allows it. Most reviewers (all?) would not have an issue with this scenario.

 

And, again, if adoption is a strong desire at that point (even while owning a low GHS cache listing), and the owner is indeed a good cache owner, I would be very shocked if there was no way for a reviewer or HQ to find a way for this new adoption to progress.

 

............

 

At this point, the automated system's impression of their being a 'maintenance shirker' because of low CHS would be a false positive if shown to be merely because they are listed as the owner of a cache with a low GHS. So again, the next step would be rectifying that GHS - either by a maintenance visit, by archival, or by reviewer intervention, if that's a technical possibility.

 

 

Adoption will hardly ever be a strong desire but a kind of sacrifice to provide a service to the community.

 

I really wonder why all these involved procedures were needed at all - either the process of dealing with caches that requiring maintenance works or it does not work. In the latter case this is not at all related to adoptions.

 

Even if what you describe above would be possible how many would go through the extra trouble including communication with HQ which is a barrier for most cachers anyhow.

[+dprovan]

My point was people keep saying good owners will be penalized in the context of adopting caches. I still don't see any tangible penalization in this context, to the degree that good owners will effectively and incorrectly be "banned" from adopting, even if the automated system leaves room for false negative GHS.

If the procedure says you can't adopt, you've been penalized. It is immaterial if the penalty is nothing more than you having to say, "Are you sure?" so the reviewer can say, "Oh, OK, never mind."

[+fizzymagic]

This is an excellent example of an unhelpful, antagonistic, detestable comment.

 

The comment was intended to be both unhelpful and antagonistic. "Detestable" is in the eye of the beholder. It was meant to be unhelpful because I have no desire to lend any kind of legitimacy to your vicious (and I use that word intentionally) proposal. There is no reason to try to be helpful in a conversation that is based on such a meretricious premise.

 

You may consider this discussion just an interesting intellectual exercise, but I do not. I find even the discussion of such nasty policies offensive. I don't want you to be censored; you have every right to discuss anything you want. But you don't have the right to discuss it without being called on the vacuity and repulsiveness of your position.

 

So on that note, again, who is being penalized? No one has answered the question. There is zero tangible evidence of an objective consequence to good cache owners by an automated system that identifies potential maintenance problems, or expanded to identify potential "maintenance shirkers".

 

As the proposer, it is up to you to provide evidence that your proposal will not lead to bad consequences. The burden of proof is on you. By attempting to shift it to the other side, you have committed a basic logical fallacy.

 

I (and every other cacher out there who just wants to have fun) would consider having to jump through extra hoops to adopt a cache because of some machine-generated statistic a punishment. Your repeated claim that the innocent have nothing to fear shows that, at some level, you understand that as well.

 

I provided example situations about people wishing to adopt, for both good and bad caches, and good and bad owners - RARE ones in the grand scheme - and steps people can take, and I stand by them.

 

Your assertion that such situations would be "rare" was provided with exactly zero evidence. Yet you have the gall to demand that others produce evidence that they would not be rare. Once again, a fallacious (and dishonest) shifting of the burden of proof.

 

To summarize: your proposal is reprehensible, you don't understand the nature of statistical tests, you have provided no evidence to back your position, and you have argued disingenuously. Is that clear enough?

[+fizzymagic]

Big difference there. It's one or the other. Discouragement leads to a personal choice. Penalization is a tangible consequence of a choice. So, where is the penalization for a good cache owner?

 

Another one of your "the innocent have nothing to fear" claims, and, as usual, completely unsubstantiated.

 

Also, your definition of "penalization" is incorrect. I suggest a dictionary. Here's a good start.

 

Penalization can occur completely randomly based on the whims of whoever is doing the punishing. It in no way is necessarily the result of any decision made by the recipient. As would be the case here.