Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Highlands_Guy

Can you log an event if you attend via the Internet?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Meh...I don't even like Skyping/Facetiming with family.  No way I'd get on a video conference with a bunch of strangers.

 

Me neither, but I would watch a virtual event. B)

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/21/2017 at 9:47 PM, Michaelcycle said:

Why would you want to? Getting credit for logging a cache in another country should at least involve setting foot in that country. I never understood the "cooperative caches" where people could get credit for another country by "teaming" up with someone far away. It's a big, amazing and interesting world out there. Go visit it!

Exactly. Might as well call a friend in Italy and have them sign the logbook for you then log a Found it! on the cache even though you never really found the cache. But hey, your friend did. So all is good. ^_^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

An online attendee could have gotten a lot more out of the event than the "drop in and sign the log" attendees.

To whom do you think the online attendee will talk to, if everyone else just drops in and is leaving again?

I have the answer!  To the multi tasking multi connecting machine mentioned above.

Edited by Mausebiber

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

But geocaching is and always has been a game played on a computer. :wacko:

That's like arguing that hiking is a computer game because you look up the trail descriptions online. Yes, it is part of the adventure, but it's not what it's all about. Geocaching is not a game to me, I don't compete against others and I will never win. Nobody else will win that "game" and beat me, also.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Rebore said:

That's like arguing that hiking is a computer game because you look up the trail descriptions online. Yes, it is part of the adventure, but it's not what it's all about. Geocaching is not a game to me, I don't compete against others and I will never win. Nobody else will win that "game" and beat me, also.

 

I'm sorry, but I just don't make the connection or your point. Have a nice day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

Exactly. Might as well call a friend in Italy and have them sign the logbook for you then log a Found it! on the cache even though you never really found the cache. But hey, your friend did. So all is good. ^_^

I can see the two  ape souvenirs on my profile dashboard already...   ;)

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I can see the two  ape souvenirs on my profile dashboard already...   ;)

 

59 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Exactly. Might as well call a friend in Italy and have them sign the logbook for you then log a Found it! on the cache even though you never really found the cache. But hey, your friend did. So all is good. ^_^

I thought there was only one APE souvenir?  I got it for the one in Maryland.

We were caching in Queens one day.  Another cacher walked up with a cell phone.  Showed the other person the cache via the cell phone.  They both logged it.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

I thought there was only one APE souvenir?  I got it for the one in Maryland.

We were caching in Queens one day.  Another cacher walked up with a cell phone.  Showed the other person the cache via the cell phone.  They both logged it.

Oops.  Darn, I thought that the "unarchived version" was gonna get a souvi.  Guess not...

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/26/2017 at 3:15 PM, J Grouchy said:

Perhaps not, but it's just one more example (of which there are many) of the lengths that people will go to in order to log a cache that they didn't really "earn".  Do it if you want.  It doesn't affect anyone...but honestly, nobody can really deny it's utterly silly and ridiculous to even consider it. 

See, that's just as condescending and insulting. You are essentially saying "I can't tell you you're wrong, but you are stupid."  Yes, people actually can deny that it's utterly silly and ridiculous to even consider it. Those are the people who may do it and have no problems with it (and rightly so, because there's nothing authoritative saying they can't do it; only the opinions of people who think for their own standards that it's silly and ridiculous).

Hey, it's ok to not like things - just don't be a jerk about it. mmkay?

Secondly, I don't think anyone here is saying "Yeah! Do it! All the time! Log all the events! It's fun! You should totally log virtual attendance on every event and never go to them!"  No, rather I see people being reasonable in understanding and supporting theoretical reasons as to why it's allowable for someone to log an event without being in physical attendance. Primarily, that the guidelines allow for it. And, everyone seems to be completely supporting the obvious idea that physically attending events is the whole point of having events.  I've never logged an event I didn't physically attend, and likely never would. But that doesn't mean it's "silly and ridiculous" to resort to it for any reason.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

See, that's just as condescending and insulting. You are essentially saying "I can't tell you you're wrong, but you are stupid."  Yes, people actually can deny that it's utterly silly and ridiculous to even consider it. Those are the people who may do it and have no problems with it (and rightly so, because there's nothing authoritative saying they can't do it; only the opinions of people who think for their own standards that it's silly and ridiculous).

Hey, it's ok to not like things - just don't be a jerk about it. mmkay?

Secondly, I don't think anyone here is saying "Yeah! Do it! All the time! Log all the events! It's fun! You should totally log virtual attendance on every event and never go to them!"  No, rather I see people being reasonable in understanding and supporting theoretical reasons as to why it's allowable for someone to log an event without being in physical attendance. Primarily, that the guidelines allow for it. And, everyone seems to be completely supporting the obvious idea that physically attending events is the whole point of having events.  I've never logged an event I didn't physically attend, and likely never would. But that doesn't mean it's "silly and ridiculous" to resort to it for any reason.

You may THINK you are being thoughtful and reasonable in every wordy post, but you are guilty of doing exactly what you accuse me of...being condescending and insulting.  Okay...people CAN deny it's silly and ridiculous.  People can deny anything they darn well choose.  Doesn't change the objective fact that it's silly AND ridiculous.  And for the record, I never called anyone "stupid".  Don't put words in my mouth.  Smart people do silly and ridiculous things all the time...myself included.  I like to think someone will call me out on it if I ever choose to ask peoples' opinions. Someone posed the question, I answered.  I didn't call them stupid, but I'm not going to soothe or coddle anyone and tell them "oh...it's okay...do it if you like but some people might not appreciate it".  No...it's silly and ridiculous.  We're all adults here.  We should all be open to honest discussion.  I have yet to see one valid reason for teleconferencing an event and claiming an "attended".  It's literally no better than using Google Street View to claim a find on a virtual cache.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

  I've never logged an event I didn't physically attend, and likely never would. But that doesn't mean it's "silly and ridiculous" to resort to it for any reason.

I find it ridiculous and silly, no matter what kind of excuse a person comes up with for doing it.

Just like regular caches, you don't have to find every one that's out there. If you can't find it, aren't physically able to find it, or are just too lazy to find it, then concede to the fact that you didn't find it. Don't come up with something lame in an attempt to justify logging it as found.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Doesn't change the objective fact that it's silly AND ridiculous.

Yes. It does.

 

13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

And for the record, I never called anyone "stupid".

I didn't say you did. Read my comment again.

 

13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I didn't call them stupid

No. But you're saying it's objectively silly and ridiculous. Don't mince words.

 

14 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

We're all adults here.  We should all be open to honest discussion.

Yes, we are. And telling someone it's silly and ridiculous to do something they are reasonably allowed to do IS objectively insulting.  If you or I would never do it, that's absolutely fine. If someone else has a good reason to do it with which the event planner agrees, then that's absolutely fine. It's not objectively silly and ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Me neither, but I would watch a virtual event. B)

I might watch and interact on skype or facetime too, if it was an event that i was really looking forward to but couldn't physically attend. That would be better than nothing but i wouldn't try to claim that i was there with an attended log..

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I find it ridiculous and silly, no matter what kind of excuse a person comes up with for doing it.

Ok, you can hold that opinion. I vehemently disagree on the "no matter what kind of excuse" part. It's allowable. And if the event organizer allows it (or ultimately GS agrees in case someone else reports it), then it's deemed a good reason, and refutes "no matter what". Objectively.

 

16 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Just like regular caches, you don't have to find every one that's out there.

Of course you don't. But just like regular caches, the cache owner decides whether a "Find" is legitimate. And ultimately GS decides if there's an abuse going on. It's not my (or your) role to declare objective moral or ethical rulings over and above what is allowable, especially if it has no bearing on how you or I choose to enjoy the hobby.  So let it go.

 

16 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Don't come up with something lame in an attempt to justify logging it as found.

Who ever said "lame" excuses were justifiable?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/23/2017 at 8:38 AM, on4bam said:

As in real life, ethics seem less and less important.

 

Still very much on topic...

 

10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And telling someone it's silly and ridiculous to do something they are reasonably allowed to do IS objectively insulting.  If you or I would never do it, that's absolutely fine. If someone else has a good reason to do it with which the event planner agrees, then that's absolutely fine. It's not objectively silly and ridiculous.

And I agree with J Grouchy, It IS silly and ridiculous.

I wonder when logging "attended" without being there and logging "found" without holding a cache became "normal practice as long as the EO/CO agrees".

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Still very much on topic...

 

And I agree with J Grouchy, It IS silly and ridiculous.

I wonder when logging "attended" without being there and logging "found" without holding a cache became "normal practice as long as the EO/CO agrees".

 

Unfortunately, the notion of entitlement trumps common sense these days.

I really really wanted that souvenir so i'm logging that i attended today's event even though i wasn't actually there. It was nice seeing some of you guys on my phone. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/21/2017 at 11:22 PM, Highlands_Guy said:

If I attend an event via Skype, Facetime, Video Messenger etc, is it valid to log it.

What if the event is in another country and one attends via one of these remote video methods. Should one be able to log it and therefore get credit for the country?

Here's my answer...

If the event organizer allows it, and Groundspeak allows it, and you have no personal qualms about logging it, then I don't see why not. If you can accept having a souvenir for a country in your statistics that you didn't physically visit, then that's your choice; it's not a competition with anyone else.  And, if you can put up with others' negative opinions who compare their own statistics and standards with yours, then all power to ya.

 

Personally, It's quite unlikely I would 'Attend' a standard event virtually though.  It's an interesting idea; at least insofar as if the event organizer created an event which was intentionally to allow virtual attendance, and if Groundspeak would publish such an event (quite unlikely). If they did, I might consider it a novel idea.  But that to me sounds more like a kind of subset of events - that's to say, I believe a standard "Event" listing would expect (and promote) physical attendance. So, an event that encouraged virtual attendance I'd guess wouldn't be publishable as a standard "Event", else would have to be an exception or trial event sub-type at the behest of GS.

I doubt GS would put much weight to holding a Google Hangout style Event listing anyone can pop their face into and log an Attended :)

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I might watch and interact on skype or facetime too, if it was an event that i was really looking forward to but couldn't physically attend. That would be better than nothing but i wouldn't try to claim that i was there with an attended log..

 

I remember the very first ever Virtual geocaching event here that was hosted by the Dirtbag Geocaching Society. It was fun before someone complained and GS stepped and deleted logs and archived the event if I remember correctly. But keeping up with technology for a older generation of geocachers that are aging,.... it may be fun in 10 years to watch a virtual geocaching event as a spectator. They could be a new cache type with it's own icon. I would find it interesting enough to addend another one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I wonder when logging "attended" without being there and logging "found" without holding a cache became "normal practice as long as the EO/CO agrees".

Who said it's "normal practice"? We're talking exceptions and allowances.  Normal practice is physically going to Events. Normal practice is visiting Earthcache and Virtual locations and doing everything that's requested.  Normal practice is finding and signing a logbook.  If anyone is deemed as abusing "abnormal" (yet allowable) practices, GS will make the final call.   Abusing allowances and exceptions is objectively wrong - Groundspeak can enforce that, if they feel it's appropriate to.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who said it's "normal practice"? We're talking exceptions and allowances.  Normal practice is physically going to Events. Normal practice is visiting Earthcache and Virtual locations and doing everything that's requested.  Normal practice is finding and signing a logbook.  If anyone is deemed as abusing "abnormal" (yet allowable) practices, GS will make the final call.   Abusing allowances and exceptions is objectively wrong - Groundspeak can enforce that, if they feel it's appropriate to.

You forget that us human beings are in the mix. You give one person an ok to do something, then more and more people will want to do it. And then here we go, people bugging GS to settle disputes.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally don't have a problem with the concept at a high level, until it comes to statistics aspect of it. If someone gets a one-up on their events attended I really don't care. But if they add a new county, state, country, etc that they had not yet physically visited, that's the problem I have with it. And I cannot reconcile why I have a problem with one concept but not the other..

Edited by bflentje
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If the event organizer allows it, and Groundspeak allows it, and you have no personal qualms about logging it, then I don't see why not. If you can accept having a souvenir for a country in your statistics that you didn't physically visit, then that's your choice; it's not a competition with anyone else.  And, if you can put up with others' negative opinions who compare their own statistics and standards with yours, then all power to ya.

So first you condone the practice.

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who said it's "normal practice"? We're talking exceptions and allowances.  Normal practice is physically going to Events. Normal practice is visiting Earthcache and Virtual locations and doing everything that's requested.  Normal practice is finding and signing a logbook.  If anyone is deemed as abusing "abnormal" (yet allowable) practices, GS will make the final call.   Abusing allowances and exceptions is objectively wrong - Groundspeak can enforce that, if they feel it's appropriate to.

Then you say "virtual" (I'd call them fake) logs are not normal.

If more people would speak out on these fake logs maybe, but just maybe, we'd see less of them. At least, when I see fake logs the logger loses all of my respect (and they probably don"t care, which is fine by me).

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

You forget that us human beings are in the mix. You give one person an ok to do something, then more and more people will want to do it. And then here we go, people bugging GS to settle disputes.

That goes with any rule set.  GS has to decide where the line is. On one hand, you have people complainign they should be able to. On the other, you have people disputing exceptions.  As with any rule change, if it gets to be too large an issue, or a popular enough practice, GS may change the guidelines.

12 minutes ago, on4bam said:

So first you condone the practice.

Only so far as it's allowable, yes.

12 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Then you say "virtual" logs are not normal.

They aren't.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

12 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If more people would speak out on these fake logs maybe, but just maybe, we'd see less of them. At least, when I see fake logs the logger loses all of my respect (and they probably don"t care, which is fine by me).

If you see a virtual log that you think should not be allowed, then speak out. If it's allowed, then let it go. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you see a virtual log that you think should not be allowed, then speak out. If it's allowed, then let it go. Simple.

The found it/Didn't find it thread is a good start then take a good look at any of the older virtuals, some fake logs are sticking out like a sour thumb. Some I came across  even had a photoshopped picture stolen from the internet to "prove" they were there.

But we're drifting away from the fake event logs.... In any case, logging if you were not there just shows a lack of ethics and it makes me wonder if these people behave like that in other parts of their lives too. Must be nice having a colleague, boss, employee like that :rolleyes:

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, on4bam said:

logging if you were not there just shows a lack of ethics and it makes me wonder if these people behave like that in other parts of their lives too.

I agree, if it were worded: "Logging if you were not there without a reasonable explanation shows a lack of ethics."  Two changes - 1. "Reasonable" meaning event organizer- and Groundspeak-permitted, and 2. Without the judging the rest of the person's character and life, especially if reasons are not expicitly known.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

There is an event coming up in my area that will apparently feature a remote connection to other simultaneous events.  At least one remote attendee has logged that they will attend, even though they will be physically at another event at the same time and will presumably be logging that they attended that one.  I'm willing to bet that at least one cacher logs that they attended all the linked events.

It won't be me; I'll be logging the event I'm at, and that's it.  I won't pretend I have a squeaky clean logging history, but like Groundspeak, when it comes to geocaching, I have resolved to make better mistakes tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ok, you can hold that opinion. I vehemently disagree on the "no matter what kind of excuse" part. It's allowable. And if the event organizer allows it (or ultimately GS agrees in case someone else reports it), then it's deemed a good reason, and refutes "no matter what". Objectively.

There is no "good reason".  You can come up with a dozen of what you might consider a "good reason," but they are all lies to prop up a silly and ridiculous need to get a smiley for something they didn't do.  In the hospital?  My sympathies...but you didn't attend the event at the designated location.  In prison?  Tough luck getting arrested and all...but you didn't attend the event at the designated location.  Stuck in traffic?  Sorry, we've all been there...but you didn't attend the event at the designated location.   But the CO says you can log it?  Good for you...but you didn't attend the event at the designated location.  

Far as I know, webcam caches are no longer allowed, so remote logging is no longer really an option in any way, shape or form.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

There is no "good reason".  You can come up with a dozen of what you might consider a "good reason," but they are all lies to prop up a silly and ridiculous need to get a smiley for something they didn't do.

Ok, I see it's futile to hope that you might tone down your antagonistic rhetoric towards things that don't affect you at all, with reason. My points have been made.  Continue in your ways.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Ok, I see it's futile to hope that you might tone down your antagonistic rhetoric towards things that don't affect you at all, with reason. My points have been made.  Continue in your ways.

Talk down to me all you like - I've not done so to you.  You call me insulting, but your condescension is no better.  I've not insulted any single person, but rather what some people will do for a number.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I find all the excuse-making and loophole-searching quite distasteful.  I'm not here to enforce rules or tattle, but I see nothing wrong with calling anyone out when they go to great lengths to justify something which ultimately is meaningless, silly, and yes...ridiculous.

Edited by J Grouchy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Thus, "antagonistic rhetoric towards things that don't affect you at all."

Smile. Go out and find a geocache. Spend time with friends. It's the holidays. Round out the year on a good note instead of "splitting hairs", "calling people out" for things you feel are "meaningless, silly, and ridiculous."  Enjoy life, man.  Yeah, now I'm being condescening because you're being a real bummer.  Let it go.

I'm outtie.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Ok, I see it's futile to hope that you might tone down your antagonistic rhetoric towards things that don't affect you at all, with reason. My points have been made.  Continue in your ways.

Talk down to me all you like - I've not done so to you.  You call me insulting, but your condescension is no better.  I've not insulted any single person, but rather what some people will do for a number.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I find all the excuse-making and loophole-searching quite distasteful.  I'm not here to enforce rules or tattle, but I see nothing wrong with calling anyone out when they go to great lengths to justify something which ultimately is meaningless, silly, and yes...ridiculous.

I agree with J Grouchy and don't see why his arguments should be considered antagonistic rhetoric or how being affected / not affected by the issue being discussed is in any way relevant to the validity of the arguments presented.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Thus, "antagonistic rhetoric towards things that don't affect you at all."

Smile. Go out and find a geocache. Spend time with friends. It's the holidays. Round out the year on a good note instead of "splitting hairs", "calling people out" for things you feel are "meaningless, silly, and ridiculous."  Enjoy life, man.  Yeah, now I'm being condescening because you're being a real bummer.  Let it go.

I'm outtie.

Fine.  When you don't have a response, laugh it off and tell the other guy he's being a "bummer".  Cool. 

You out...so am I, I guess.

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's allowable.

You can repeat this as often as you wont, it does not become right in my opinion.

The guideline is quite clear:  It says, To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period.  It does NOT say, your phone or your laptop must be there.

 

Attend an event

Find events near you and visit the cache page of the event you’re interested in. Read the event description carefully. You may want to bring geocoins to trade, trash bags to collect garbage (CITO), or some food to share. Post a "Will Attend" log and let the event host know how many people you're bringing.

After you attend an event, post an “Attended” log to earn your smiley. To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period. But you’re not required to sign an event logbook.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

After you attend an event, post an “Attended” log to earn your smiley. To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period. But you’re not required to sign an event logbook.

Are events allowed to have multiple sets of coordinates?

I recall a discussion about a recent Virtual Reward listing that specified multiple locations where the logging requirement (taking a photo, IIRC) could be done. If that passes muster with Groundspeak, then could an event have multiple sets of coordinates, to indicate various teleconference event locations that would be remotely connected to allow attendees in those locations to interact?

This doesn't work for someone who wants to drop in via their phone on the spur of the moment, but it could work as an alternative to separate event listings for each teleconference event location. As long as multiple sets of coordinates for an event is okay with Groundspeak, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
11 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are events allowed to have multiple sets of coordinates?

I don't see how they can given that moving events are disallowed...

This wouldn't be a moving event. It would be a stationary event that is stationary at multiple locations.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are events allowed to have multiple sets of coordinates?

Can't answer this question, but I have never seen any event-listings with more than one event coordinate.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Moving events, how I understand it is a boat or a train which is moving.  Still the coordinates are pointing to the train station or the ship dock, once the event is moving, no more attendees can participate.

I remember on case, where an event was listed as a hike and you could have joined the group at various access points.  This was not published by the reviewer, one specific point, a hut in the woods or something with coordinates and a starting and ending time was required.

Edited by Mausebiber

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Can't answer this question, but I have never seen any event-listings with more than one event coordinate.

I've seen events with additional waypoints for parking and registration. Obviously that isn't the same thing as a waypoint for an alternate teleconference event location though.

10 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Moving events, how I understand it is a boat or a train which is moving.  Still the coordinates are pointing to the train station or the ship dock, once the event is moving, no more attendees can participate.

Right. You can have a stationary event at the station/dock (or maybe not, given the latest guidelines/requirements), and you can have a stationary event at the trailhead. But the stationary event must last at least 30 minutes before the group starts moving. And the moving group is not the event, as far as logging Attended is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, niraD said:
46 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
50 minutes ago, niraD said:

Are events allowed to have multiple sets of coordinates?

I don't see how they can given that moving events are disallowed...

This wouldn't be a moving event. It would be a stationary event that is stationary at multiple locations.

So I just define my moving event as a stationary event that's stationary at multiple locations and it becomes publishable - yay!

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So I just define my moving event as a stationary event that's stationary at multiple locations and it becomes publishable - yay!

I think we're talking past each other or something, because I still don't understand how you think an event with multiple stationary locations is the same as a moving event.

The basic concept isn't that different from what I've seen at big events. There are multiple locations where stuff is happening. For example, there might be half a dozen locations featuring a series of classes, a series of discussions on various topics with Groundspeak representatives, a craft area for kids, a photo-op station, vendor booths, a book-signing table, and so on.

The only difference would be that the locations would be set up as teleconference stations, connected to each other remotely.

Let's say I host an event, and I expect 200 people to show up. The local community center has two rooms, and each has a capacity of 120 people. Unlike a hotel ballroom, I can't have the community center remove the partition that separates the room. The rooms are fixed sizes. So I rent them both, and set up teleconference stations so people in one room can interact with people in another.

If the rooms are right next to each other, then I might not even bother listing separate waypoints for each room. But if they're on opposite ends of the community center, I might.

What if the two rooms are in different community centers, across town from each other? What if the two rooms are in community centers in different towns? In different counties? In different states?

I see this as multiple stationary locations for a single event, not as a moving event. No one is moving from one location to the other, not even the organizers (unless the two locations are really close to each other). It isn't the same thing as a moving event at all.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, niraD said:

I think we're talking past each other or something, because I still don't understand how you think an event with multiple stationary locations is the same as a moving event.

The basic concept isn't that different from what I've seen at big events. There are multiple locations where stuff is happening. For example, there might be half a dozen locations featuring a series of classes, a series of discussions on various topics with Groundspeak representatives, a craft area for kids, a photo-op station, vendor booths, a book-signing table, and so on.

The only difference would be that the locations would be set up as teleconference stations, connected to each other remotely.

Let's say I host an event, and I expect 200 people to show up. The local community center has two rooms, and each has a capacity of 120 people. Unlike a hotel ballroom, I can't have the community center remove the partition that separates the room. The rooms are fixed sizes. So I rent them both, and set up teleconference stations so people in one room can interact with people in another.

If the rooms are right next to each other, then I might not even bother listing separate waypoints for each room. But if they're on opposite ends of the community center, I might.

What if the two rooms are in different community centers, across town from each other? What if the two rooms are in community centers in different towns? In different counties? In different states?

I see this as multiple stationary locations for a single event, not as a moving event. No one is moving from one location to the other, not even the organizers (unless the two locations are really close to each other). It isn't the same thing as a moving event at all.

I'm being deliberately facetious.

An Event Cache is a gathering of geocachers.

Is it still a gathering if they are all in different locations?

And if they are all allowed to be in different locations, attending from absolutely anywhere so long as the coordinates are included in a waypoint list, insisting that events cannot move but can be scattered across the entire globe would seem rather ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow!  You people are arguing as if every event could be 'visited' remotely.  Only if the EO set's up a connection at the event would that be an option.  So how could everybody romotely logging events happen when there is nothing at the event to connect to? 

As to being "silly and ridiculous" - isn't that said about geocaching itself?  I've had many people, who aren't in to it, say that.  Can't that be said about just about any activity that you, yourself, find 'beneath' you?  My sister has that opinion about bike rides - she can't see herself doing it (so to her it's silly and rediculous) but does that mean it is the gospel truth? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, The Jester said:

As to being "silly and ridiculous" - isn't that said about geocaching itself?  I've had many people, who aren't in to it, say that.  

 

After 10 years of geocaching and seeing what it has became, I removed those TB's from my vehicle and pretend not to know anything geocaching. B)

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Wow!  You people are arguing as if every event could be 'visited' remotely.  Only if the EO set's up a connection at the event would that be an option.  So how could everybody romotely logging events happen when there is nothing at the event to connect to? 

As to being "silly and ridiculous" - isn't that said about geocaching itself?  I've had many people, who aren't in to it, say that.  Can't that be said about just about any activity that you, yourself, find 'beneath' you?  My sister has that opinion about bike rides - she can't see herself doing it (so to her it's silly and rediculous) but does that mean it is the gospel truth? 

Many of us have these dandy little boxes of ee-lec-tronics about our person which have cameras and microphones and can connect together in the blink of an eye over this Interweb thingy.

 

Yep. That should do it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

An Event Cache is a gathering of geocachers.

Is it still a gathering if they are all in different locations?

A business meeting is a gathering for a common business purpose.

Is it still a gathering if they are all in different locations?

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

And if they are all allowed to be in different locations, attending from absolutely anywhere so long as the coordinates are included in a waypoint list, insisting that events cannot move but can be scattered across the entire globe would seem rather ridiculous.

So if we can convince Groundspeak to relax their prohibition on moving events, then teleconference events will suddenly make sense?

 

I'll continue with my previous thought experiment, but I'll approach it from the other direction. Let's start with two separate event listings, located thousands of miles apart on separate continents. The gatherings are separate events, held simultaneously (taking time zones into account) with teleconference stations set up so that attendees of each event can interact with attendees of the other.

That makes sense, right?

Now let's move the events closer, hundreds of miles apart. Closer, tens of miles apart. At some point, Groundspeak will prohibit listing both events, because they will be scheduled simultaneously and they are not far enough apart to avoid the "event stacking" prohibition.

At that point, would it make sense to list them as a single event, with multiple locations connected by teleconference stations?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

You can repeat this as often as you wont, it does not become right in my opinion.

The guideline is quite clear:  It says, To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period.  It does NOT say, your phone or your laptop must be there.

 

Attend an event

 

Find events near you and visit the cache page of the event you’re interested in. Read the event description carefully. You may want to bring geocoins to trade, trash bags to collect garbage (CITO), or some food to share. Post a "Will Attend" log and let the event host know how many people you're bringing.

 

After you attend an event, post an “Attended” log to earn your smiley. To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period. But you’re not required to sign an event logbook.

 

Ok, i didn't see this particular guideline, specifically the bolded part. I've read it multiple times and can only come up with one meaning. I'm sure someone will come up with another interpretation but sure beats me as to how.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, niraD said:

A business meeting is a gathering for a common business purpose.

Is it still a gathering if they are all in different locations?

So if we can convince Groundspeak to relax their prohibition on moving events, then teleconference events will suddenly make sense?

 

I'll continue with my previous thought experiment, but I'll approach it from the other direction. Let's start with two separate event listings, located thousands of miles apart on separate continents. The gatherings are separate events, held simultaneously (taking time zones into account) with teleconference stations set up so that attendees of each event can interact with attendees of the other.

That makes sense, right?

Now let's move the events closer, hundreds of miles apart. Closer, tens of miles apart. At some point, Groundspeak will prohibit listing both events, because they will be scheduled simultaneously and they are not far enough apart to avoid the "event stacking" prohibition.

At that point, would it make sense to list them as a single event, with multiple locations connected by teleconference stations?

I would say that it ceases to be a gathering if they are all distributed in different locations on the basis that gathered and distributed are fairly opposite in meaning.

I'm not arguing that teleconference events make sense. I would just find it silly if they were considered acceptable while a gathering of people moving from one location to another was still considered unacceptable.

And I can't personally see the point of linking locations by teleconference station if the two 'events' are close enough together that the attendees can interact with each other face to face so to me that doesn't make sense at all and would actually seem to be the opposite of what Groundspeak has in mind in its steering of geocaching events - YMMV.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

You can repeat this as often as you wont, it does not become right in my opinion.

The guideline is quite clear:  It says, To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period.  It does NOT say, your phone or your laptop must be there.

 

Attend an event

 

Find events near you and visit the cache page of the event you’re interested in. Read the event description carefully. You may want to bring geocoins to trade, trash bags to collect garbage (CITO), or some food to share. Post a "Will Attend" log and let the event host know how many people you're bringing.

 

After you attend an event, post an “Attended” log to earn your smiley. To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event during the designated time period. But you’re not required to sign an event logbook.

 

There you go, an unambiguous answer.

"To post an "Attended" log on a geocaching event, you must have been at the coordinates of the event" .

All the combative sophistry is irrelevant, and just makes me wonder about what psychology underlies it,  and worry about what sort of impression it gives of the caching community to new visitors.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

All the combative sophistry is irrelevant, and just makes me wonder about what psychology underlies it,  and worry about what sort of impression it gives of the caching community to new visitors.

 

Hopefully they'll gain the impression that the caching community is filled with lively and engaged people who can feel free to openly discuss their differing opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×