Groundspeak and COVID-19

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, ccx said:

I for myself take the D* / T* thing quite serious for myself.

FWIW, I take the difficulty and terrain ratings pretty seriously myself. They should be used by cache owners to communicate with potential seekers, to let them know roughly what kind of difficulty and terrain to expect.

 

But I don't take statistics based on these ratings seriously at all. Nor do I take seriously any claims that these ratings are points that are somehow "earned" by those who find the caches.

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, ccx said:

I was trying to make a point throughout all my communications here that being reasonable and interacting with each other is a key point.

For as long as I've been playing, I've been a little disappointed that the reviewers and GS can be pretty heavy handed when a reasonable discussion would seem more appropriate since they almost always have goodness and truth on their side. But I remind myself that likely 9 times out of 10, when they try to be nice and reasonable, it just encourages the perpetrator to react poorly and the situation to go from bad to worse. So I tend to give them a pass even when it turns out, as in this case, they could have said, "No, sorry, we've considered the special circumstances carefully, and we're still not going to let you do that."

 

In fact, even though you assure me that that would have led to a simple resolution, I can't help but imagine that your post would have been twice as angry if GS had tried to explain their reasoning because now you'd have something to argue against. As it was, you could only complain that there was no discussion.

[+arisoft]

12 hours ago, ccx said:

This is playing the game against the owners , who are the foundation of the game.

 

This has been my own feeling almost from the beginning of this hobby. Sometimes this escalates to the point where an owner cannot tolerate the situation and quits.

[+ccx]

On 3/31/2020 at 8:52 AM, dprovan said:

For as long as I've been playing, I've been a little disappointed that the reviewers and GS can be pretty heavy handed when a reasonable discussion would seem more appropriate since they almost always have goodness and truth on their side. But I remind myself that likely 9 times out of 10, when they try to be nice and reasonable, it just encourages the perpetrator to react poorly and the situation to go from bad to worse. So I tend to give them a pass even when it turns out, as in this case, they could have said, "No, sorry, we've considered the special circumstances carefully, and we're still not going to let you do that."

 

Well, I for myself keep trying. In the very beginning of the thread I was mentioned that I also delete logs occasionally. But, I communicated before in every single case and quite a just few made a mistake because they found a final that coincided with my my mystery coordinates - took me a while to find out. In other cases a typo in the cache code led someone to my hiking multi instead of the hiking multi he really did, which was apparent from the log. Communication solved all cases. In a way I can imagine that reviewers also face confrontative cases, but I sincerely hope that the community scores better that 9 out of 10. The "No, sorry, we've considered the special circumstances carefully, and we're still not going to let you do that." is the kind of reply I eventually got 3 days later. And this was very appropriate.

 

I actually consider the reviewer teams as strict, but also very constructive in their communications. The hiking caches I own have finals in a national park, so it is tough to find good hides, which also comply with the associated rules. The reviewers have been very picky, but also very supportive when communicating with the authorities on that. Also very appropriate. The case leading to this thread was actually the first time when I experienced a different, non-communicative style, through an anonymous action. There was not even a reviewer commenting on it, so I had no point of communication to resolve. As much as I try to interact respectfully with people - when I feel treated with disrespect, I tend to react in a similar way. It is a weak point for sure.

 

On 3/31/2020 at 8:52 AM, dprovan said:

In fact, even though you assure me that that would have led to a simple resolution, I can't help but imagine that your post would have been twice as angry if GS had tried to explain their reasoning because now you'd have something to argue against. As it was, you could only complain that there was no discussion.

 

Regrettably, this is a prejudice you have and it adds to the one which a few here carry along: "You have disrespected the 'be in the book' rule. The one and only reasonable reason for that must be your urge to cheat, no matter what you say." I explained myself a lot here. Apparently this does not count much, so I do not see much motivation to continue on that. Just to stress it again - after resolving the matter with GS, I have no no couch logs and all my caches are couch log free (and this does concern not just the one log that has been questioned, but their whole log history).

 

Fun fact on the whole story: It is apparently possible and seemingly acceptable by GS, to log a traditional for being on site and WITHOUT signing a book. I know a case where it is a Corona action of an owner, who decided that the potential of spreading the virus though people touching his container and logbook is not acceptable to him. So he now requests people to photograph a sticker at the location with some indication of their own presence on site - similar procedure like for a virtual. No book to sign, although it is a traditional cache and GS rules say "... at minimum, all of these geocaches will have a logbook". This seems to have happened in agreement with reviewer, as cache coordinates have been changed for that too. I think it is a creative idea, but for the more fundamentalist people here it would just be against the rules and to be condemned according to the earlier replies in this thread.

 

On 3/31/2020 at 2:11 AM, niraD said:

But I don't take statistics based on these ratings seriously at all. Nor do I take seriously any claims that these ratings are points that are somehow "earned" by those who find the caches.

 

Yes, I also do not believe statistics for the well known reasons. But for ME it is showing respect to the owners that I solve their caches in the way they intend it to be. And therefore I EARN these ratings for MY personal records. Geocaching for me is not check-marking, but facing those D / T challenges and enjoying the game in itself. This surely created some of my underestimation of the importance of the check marks apparently. As written above, I have understood that and there is no need to get back to this specific point more.

 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by ccx

[+dprovan]

39 minutes ago, ccx said:

Well, I for myself keep trying. In the very beginning of the thread I was mentioned that I also delete logs occasionally.

It took me a minute to figure out what you were talking about because, although it might seem odd, I see little similarity between what a CO does and what the powers that be do. A CO has a lot of say in his cache, but, nevertheless, he has no authority. He's just another person playing a game with his friends, so, yes, of course I agree he should be patient with others, thorough in his explanation, and flexible when he can. As I said, I wish TPTB could be like that, but the fact is that they're just making decisions: yes you can do that or no you can't. In a case like this, there's no explanation: the people promoting virtual logs know full well they're against the guidelines, so there's no need to explain that. There's really no advantage for the powers that be to be nice once they've made a decision after considering all the facts. That's one of the reasons I don't think I could ever be a reviewer.

 

45 minutes ago, ccx said:

I actually consider the reviewer teams as strict, but also very constructive in their communications.

Reveiwers are great. They're always fair and helpful. But we're talking about a situation where all the cards are on the table. There's no possible outcome other than "No". In that situation, I can understand when they see no reason to pretend there's anything to talk about.

 

48 minutes ago, ccx said:

Regrettably, this is a prejudice you have and it adds to the one which a few here carry along: "You have disrespected the 'be in the book' rule. The one and only reasonable reason for that must be your urge to cheat, no matter what you say."

No, in fact, I don't agree with that statement. This isn't about a matter of opinion whether a guideline can or can't be broken. And, in fact, I think the idea that respect has anything to do with following the rules is absurd. This is simply observing that TPTB have made a decision, so that's that. In this case, I happen to agree with their decision because I don't see the benefit and dislike the precedent, but my purpose here is to support the TPTB's actions once they made the decision regardless of how I feel about their ruling.

 

51 minutes ago, ccx said:

Fun fact on the whole story: It is apparently possible and seemingly acceptable by GS, to log a traditional for being on site and WITHOUT signing a book.

I can see them being more lenient in the case of a CO allowing a find that doesn't result in a signed log. I haven't seen them mind that in the case of a container that can't be opened, although I'm sure they'd get upset if it went on a while without the container being replaced. So I'm not surprised they're allowing it, but I also won't be surprised if they change their minds after it becomes more obvious this is going on as a matter of course.

[+TerraViators]

On 3/31/2020 at 3:35 AM, arisoft said:

 

This has been my own feeling almost from the beginning of this hobby. Sometimes this escalates to the point where an owner cannot tolerate the situation and quits.

Agreed.

[+cerberus1]

On 3/31/2020 at 4:35 AM, arisoft said:

This has been my own feeling almost from the beginning of this hobby. Sometimes this escalates to the point where an owner cannot tolerate the situation and quits.

 

On topic with your reply to " This is playing the game against the owners , who are the foundation of the game."...

Fortunately in this current situation, owners here are placing new caches during  this virus thing.   

 - Over a dozen this past weekend, and three today.  

We have no COs TD their hides yet either.     Guess issues between COs and finders are pretty-much location specific...

[+Viajero Perdido]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

here

 

Where?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 3/30/2020 at 4:33 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

When I do a rope climb, usually I have someone with me.   We're a team.

On high vertical climbs I may depend on that belayer for my safety, whether they can climb themselves or not.

I used to team-up with a genius who's in a wheelchair.  He can't climb, and I'm dyslexic.    

When he solved  mysteries,  I'd access the hide, bring it to him and go back up.   We were a team, and both get that find.

On every cache, the CO was fine with that.   

We've even seen fun photos of Groundspeak's Lackeys caching in a group. Who knows if everyone "solved the puzzle".    

That's  not "cheating"...   

 

There are, of course, many example where a "team" will collaborate, more or less equally in finding caches.   

 

There are also plenty of example for "teams" members that will use the fact that they're part of a team (even if the team didn't exist before the caching started and somehow dissolves when it comes time to log finds)   to justify logging finds even when they didn't actually "find" the cache. 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

Where?

Clicking on cerberus1's profile, Northeast Pennsylvania.

[Ageleni]

Sounds like people might be using Geocaching.com as an all-purpose virtual scavenger hunt site.  Online scavenger hunts are fun, but they are not geocaching.