Approvers and FTF

9.4k · October 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
It would be difficult to prove that an approver was doing the push and run, unless it was continously happening and within a short period of it getting approved.

Except for on Zuuk's post, there has not been a documented problem with this. So far, the approvers have been acting ethically with respect to FTF's. Why not shelve this unless a real problem develops?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.3k · October 24, 2003

quote:
Originaly posted by Canadazuuk
But on the contrary, my locked thread was intended to show that there was a geocacher, other than MrGigabyte, who had the most FTF logs in the Vancouver area.

Not that I'm saying MrGigabyte is (or isn't) an approver. (Some will say he is Cache-Advance.)

The complete stats that CO Admin wished to see would only *further* show that MrGigabyte is not the FTF leader.

Perhaps if having the most FTF means that you are Cache-Advance, another Vancouver area cacher has had his cover blown?

I do not know.

The statistics were weighted in favor of showing only caches that MrGigabyte had logged. Despite even this obvious bias, he did not come out as the FTF leader. And if you examine his finds, you will note a handful of kayak only caches (hidden by Jomarac5), and many shared FTF.

is it possible to do this without getting personal and bringing up names?

I work for the QOFE that works for the Frog

The Frog is my friend

2.1k · October 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Except for on Zuuk's post, there has not been a documented problem with this. So far, the approvers have been acting ethically with respect to FTF's. Why not shelve this unless a real problem develops?

By saying this, you are either dismissive of Zuuk's problems with his approver or you are being dismissive of finding a solution to his problem. That is why not. Also, by "waiting for a real problem", you are dismissive of the points I have made previously in this thread as to the reason guidelines are put in place to *prevent* real problems from arising.

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

October 24, 2003

Again, I am sure most people could care less about being first finders to a cache. TPTB have already stated their views about this and seem to be in agreement with you. This is why Jeremy probably doesn't want any hint of a competetive element to this site, like statistics, or anything else. Just brings out a lot of bad behavior and makes it a mess to clean up.

We can't just start making up a bunch of guidelines just to prevent every little hiccup that may occur here. What next... a 20 page booklet on guidelines we have to read and then a written test before we can partake in this global, non-competitive, family oriented activity?

The only competition is between you and the box out there... go find it.

___________________________________

Moondog3.com - Portland Geocaching

October 24, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Navdog:
Again, I am sure most people could care less about being first finders to a cache.

I think you're probably wrong about that. Most people seem to be quite excited about getting a FTF.

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

1.6k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by CO Admin:

is it possible to do this without getting personal and bringing up names?

I wish it were. The names had already been brought up.

For the record: I have no issue with any approvers or admins.

Some people appear to have interpreted the previous thread I had started as being my way of suggesting there IS an issue with a rumoured admin. While I was merely representing some of the statistics, I should point out that I was alarmed at the overtones of the various threads that HAD named names. Threads I was not part of, nor took part in.

Having not had a chance to qualify my statistics in the previous thread (it got closed), and noting here that some people believed I was pointing to an issue with admins, I felt it neccessary to respond, and bring clarity to my own opinion.

Again, for the record:

I have no issue with any approvers or admins, especially as it relates to the approval of caches, or any FTF logs.

Best regards,

canadazuuk

2.1k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Navdog:
What next... a 20 page booklet on guidelines we have to read and then a written test before we can partake in this _ global, non-competitive, family oriented activity?_

3 things:

1) 20 guidelines on a webpage to read for the _APPROVERS_, yes. They are going to be the gatekeepers of appropriateness for our "family oriented activity", then they should be mandated by the community's guidelines as to what is appropriate or not!

2) Secondly, who said it can not competitive? Just because Jeremy doesn't want stats doesn't mean people who geocache don't want stats and it's clear that some people like trying to outdo each other, themselves, and set day/week/time records. This game *can* be competitive and it won't interfere with anyone else's enjoyment of the game, so there's no reason it shouldn't be for those people.

3) Who said everything about this has to be family-oriented?? Just because everything I find in most caches is McToys and bouncy balls does not mean that it's only a kid's game. I'd venture to say a good number of the people playing this game are either single or playing the game by themselves because their family thinks they are crazy. Again, so long as you don't interfere with the family next door's way to play the game, then you can play it any way you want.

Keep all of this in mind, please.

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

3k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
2) Secondly, who said it can not competitive?

Jeremy did. I think his exact words were "Not on MY website!"

The approvers are charged with "toeing the company line," therefore they should seek to be uncompetitive. And most of them are.

Actually, the thing I found interesting about these "Approvers and FTF" discussions was Jeremy's "tough nuts" statement. I found it very peculiar, not to mention inconsistent, that he often has expressed a need to be "proactive" in some areas while ignoring potential problems in other areas.

But if an approver, playing "fair-and-square," beats you to a FTF, all I can say is "tough nuts."

October 25, 2003

I'll bet that dude from Idaho was an approver. So when he approved my Elk Country cache he jumped in the car and grabbed the FTF. It was that dadgum Geocoin in the box that did it.

This offensive junk should have been locked a long time ago. If you have a problem with an approver, USE EMAIL! Don't paint everybody with the brush.

________________________________________________________

" When you come to a fork in the road....Take it " - Yogi Berra

9.4k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Except for on Zuuk's post, there has not been a documented problem with this. So far, the approvers have been acting ethically with respect to FTF's. Why not shelve this unless a real problem develops?

By saying this, you are either dismissive of Zuuk's problems with his approver or you are being dismissive of finding a solution to his problem. That is why not. Also, by "waiting for a real problem", you are dismissive of the points I have made previously in this thread as to the reason guidelines are put in place to *prevent* real problems from arising.

I am not dismissive at all of the problems Zuuk and Co. have mentioned. Since there are no OTHER issues with approvers being FTF anywhere else in the world, their issue should be worked out privately. The other 30 or so approvers shouldn't have to have their privledges revoked because of allegations against one approver.

TPTB have alrady said they will not tolerate abuse and that they have already addressed the FTF issue amongst the approvers in the past. Since there are no other approvers abusing the system, why create yet another rule? If everyone started complaining about their local approver getting all the FTF's, then you might have a case for limiting FTF's among them.

quote:
Also, by "waiting for a real problem", you are dismissive of the points I have made previously in this thread as to the reason guidelines are put in place to *prevent* real problems from arising.

(I know I already quoted that part above, but wanted to comment on it again.)

Some people have killed others with their car. Should we take away your car because of them?

You could jump off a bridge and die, should we remove all the bridges 'just in case'?

I don't have a problem being proactive where the situation has merit but making a blanket policy just because of one allegation of abuse? Get real.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

2.1k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
2) Secondly, who said it can not competitive?

Jeremy did. I think his exact words were "Not on MY website!"

The approvers are charged with "toeing the company line," therefore they should seek to be uncompetitive. And most of them are.

Actually, the thing I found interesting about these "Approvers and FTF" discussions was Jeremy's "tough nuts" statement. I found it very peculiar, not to mention inconsistent, that he often has expressed a need to be "proactive" in some areas while ignoring potential problems in other areas.

But if an approver, playing "fair-and-square," beats you to a FTF, all I can say is "tough nuts."

It looks like that's the way it will be around here. As for who said it was competitive...the original statement refers to the "activity" and so that is to which I am refering, not whether this listing site helps in any way to play the competition games.

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

2.1k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
I am not dismissive at all of the problems Zuuk and Co. have mentioned. Since there are no OTHER issues with approvers being FTF anywhere else in the world, their issue should be worked out privately. The other 30 or so approvers shouldn't have to have their privledges revoked because of allegations against one approver.

This same argument works both ways. If the other approvers are not currently in conflict with a suggested guideline such as this, then there's no revocation of anything they aren't already doing. It's like saying "well, only one armed robbery has happened on campus; that should be settled privately, and since no one else is having this problem we don't need a law against it".

quote:
TPTB have alrady said they will not tolerate abuse and that they have already addressed the FTF issue amongst the approvers in the past. Since there are no other approvers abusing the system, why create yet another rule?

Because these vaunted TPTB *asked* us what guidelines we would like to see! Some of us would like to see a guideline to help delineate the bounds of approvers' use of pre-knowledge when it comes to the trust given to them with the data behind our cache hidings. *Again*, rules are not only set in place to curtail everything currently going on!

quote:
Some people have killed others with their car. Should we take away your car because of them?
You could jump off a bridge and die, should we remove all the bridges 'just in case'?

I don't have a problem being proactive _where the situation has merit_ but making a blanket policy just because of one allegation of abuse? Get real.

Your analogies are not even approximately equal to this situation. It is more like having laws to punish anyone for stepping out of line even though most people do not step out of line. Most people don't go around raping, murdering, or terrorizing because they know better...not because of a law/guideline. The same would hold true in this case. The guideline should still be in place to clearly mark what is and is not allowable. Otherwise, it is a totalitarian system that uses its own perception of "out of line" to judge against those who had no guidelines to determine the legality of their own actions.

Right now, an approver could begin logging every third cache as a FTF seconds after clicking "okay"...just barely enough to *maybe* begin upsetting people. It would be up to Jeremy et al to determine if this is inappropriate or not or if he even *meant* to do it. A guideline would solve this situation immediately and, if construed correctly, impartially. The blame would be on those establishing the rules (us) as opposed to all sorts of the same mixed bag that we see in the forums every day when Jeremy et al decide something for the rest of us...because they can and because a system was not setup well enough to hear from the community who wanted to give voice to their opinion.

This was a chance to do just that for once in helping suggest guidelines for the approvers. Unfortunately, good ideas, such as this, which may not have been completely hammered out, were sunk by continual noise from posts such as the one I'm currently responding to. They do not argue anything that furthers the conversation because they always return to "none of the other approvers are being a problem right now"...which is not what guidelines are suggested or implemented to help *GUIDE* an approver who may have questions about what is allowable or *LINE* exactly where an approver has stepped out of their bounds.

This is my last post on the subject, because it seems that all anyone would like to do is setup the other 270 degrees to force a circle on what has started as a good idea.

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

9.4k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ju66l3r:
Your analogies are not even approximately equal to this situation. It is more like having laws to punish anyone for stepping out of line even though most people do not step out of line.

Exactly my point. MOST approvers do not step out of line on being FTF with 'priveledged information', yet you want a new law passed to prevent them from doing so. TPTB have already told them not to abuse their position. If they do, they won't be approvers very long.

You may argue that ONE approver has abused this position, but it is only an allegation unless there is proof. Zuuk and Jomarac have given their information to TPTB. The ball is in their court now.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 25, 2003

And if anyone bothered to read Zuuks stats or his posts here on the subject, they seem to prove he has no problem in his area either.

--------------------

Personal slave of The Frog.

October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
MOST approvers do not step out of line on being FTF with 'priveledged information', yet you want a new law passed to prevent them from doing so. TPTB have already told them not to abuse their position. If they do, they won't be approvers very long.

Lets say saxman is right when he claims that approvers with FTF is something that happens no where in the world.

If they did make a rule, by his own admission, who would it hurt?

Methinks thou doth protest to much.

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by NJ Admin:
And if anyone bothered to read Zuuk's stats or his posts here on the subject, they seem to prove he has no problem in his area either.

I believe Zuuk was actually trying to show with his statistics that the approver in question couldn't possibly have been taking advantage of his position: I believe the rational went something like this:

Out of the Approver's last 165 finds, a only 26 of them were FTF's, or a measly 15.75% of his finds.

Another cacher, GranvilleIsland, from the same 165 caches, had a whopping 33 FTF's or an amazing 20% of his finds.

Because the Approver had only the second highest number of FTF's than GranvilleIsland, he couldn't possibly be doing anything wrong because numbers don't lie.

It was actually me who stated that I thought there was something fishy going on in my statement:

quote:
Originally posted by Gorak:
A couple weeks ago I did my morning search for new caches close by and came up empty. 1 hour later I searched again and came up with a new cache that already had the FTF logged. It was logged by a local cacher locally known to be an approver. Maybe a coincidence?

When I related this story to another cacher they told me that they had gone for a FTF on a different cache a few weeks previously. They found the log book already signed by the same local cacher. It was signed with a date and time that would not occur for another few hours.

Personally I don't' think the stats really prove anything one way or the other, but they certainly reinforce my suspicions. Nor do they address the post-dated log entry which, of course, was only hearsay.

However, the whole issue is moot because Jeremy proclaimed:

quote:
Originally proclaimed by Jeremy:
1. Reviewers should be able to get the first shot at any cache listing if they so choose, as long as they approve the cache before getting in their vehicle to go on the hunt.

If other folks don't like #1 or #2, tough nuts.

In other words, its perfectly ok for the approvers to take advantage of their advance knowledge of both the cache location and when it will be approved to enable them to race to the cache and get their FTF before anyone else realizes its even listed. It's their Jeremy-given right.

It has been proclaimed and so shall it be.

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

October 25, 2003

I just reviewed and posted four or five caches in a park that I used to frequent as a college student many years ago. I e-mailed the cache owner that I was looking forward to hunting for them. I may in fact hunt them tomorrow morning. I may be the first to find these, or I may not. That's really not important to me, but enjoying hunting them will be. I'm looking forward to it, and am not going to twiddle my thumbs waiting for someone else to log them first.

quote:
How about the approver approves the cache (duh!) but the cache owner has the power as to _when_ to post it. Strategic timing could make for some interesting senario's

If you're worried about an approver cheating just ask him in a "note to approver" to please instantly disable it after approval. Explain that you don't want it to be active quite yet. Then you can reenable it at your leasure. Just don't submit it disabled or it won't be displayed on the approval queue.

Regards,

erik - geocaching.com admin

9.4k · October 25, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Ish-n-Isha:
If they did make a rule, by his own admission, who would it hurt?

It would hurt approvers that want to be FTF! Didn't you read the thread? What is wrong with an approver being FTF as long as they aren't abusing their admin powers to do so?

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

24.7k · October 25, 2003

I read Hydee's posts and thought about it. It sounds a lot like insider trading. If an approver uses their knowledge to do what Joe Geocacher can't when it comes to a FTF it's abuse. If they don't, it's not.

3k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
If you're worried about an approver cheating just ask him in a "note to approver" to please instantly disable it after approval. Explain that you don't want it to be active quite yet. Then you can reenable it at your leasure.

I don't understand how this would stop a rouge approver from taking unfair advantage of "privileged information." I also fail to see any benefit to the cache owner ... disabled caches are visible on the seek lists, aren't they? If I recall correctly, logs can also be posted to disabled pages.

If I understood the quote erik responded to, that person was suggesting the cache remains "invisible" after approval until the owner decides to make it available.

Edit: I don't know what Breaktrack's "Good Grief" was referring to, but the concept of allowing a cache owner to decide when to make an approved cache visible/available seems to be a good idea, worthy of consideration.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on October 26, 2003 at 07:58 AM.]

1.2k · October 26, 2003

Good Grief.

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

1.2k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Breaktrack:
Good Grief.

That may be the most intelligent thing said in this thread yet.

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

4.5k · October 26, 2003

It's not right if approvers take advantage of fore=knowledge to be FTF. It's also bad to business as it'll turn people off to geocaching.com

Alan

1.2k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:
It's not right if approvers take advantage of fore=knowledge to be FTF. It's also bad to business as it'll turn people off to geocaching.com

Alan

Its not right if Doctors delay treating patients so they can watch a football game. Just cus its not right doesnt mean they do.

Just because something isnt right, does NOT mean that people ARE doing it. Personaly I am tired of seeing the good name of the approvers trashed because if something that MIGHT happen.

People, this thread is a slap in the face to all the fine approvers who give there time so we may cache. Dont may unfounded accusations. If you think you know of a problem the forum is NOT the place for it. Send an E-mail to approvers@geocaching.com and list your info there. Lets give these find people a break and stop maligning their integrity

Lapaglia

Muga Muchu (forget yourself, focus)

4.5k · October 26, 2003

I never said they were doing it. I have no knowledge of that. I'm sure they're honorable people. I was making a point that it wouldn't be right if they did and it would be bad for business.

Alan

2.1k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lapaglia:
Just because something isnt right, does NOT mean that people ARE doing it. Personaly I am tired of seeing the good name of the approvers trashed because if something that MIGHT happen.

People, this thread is a slap in the face to all the fine approvers who give there time so we may cache. Dont may unfounded accusations. If you think you know of a problem the forum is NOT the place for it. Send an E-mail to approvers@geocaching.com and list your info there. Lets give these find people a break and stop maligning their integrity

You are completely out of line. You have mixed up your threads. This thread is not about accusing any current approver of anything at all. This discussion is about the need for/idea of a guideline that delineates the way in which an approver can make a FTF without abusing their privelege to the information and timing of a cache's approval. There are other threads for discussion of approver problems. Please confine your shaming antagonism and poor analogies to those threads. Thanks.

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

2.1k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Lapaglia:
People, this thread is a slap in the face to all the fine approvers

No, only a slap in the face to those who may do what is considered wrong in this case. If someone accuses a person of doing something wrong, it doesn't mean they are accusing them all.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

"TOUGH NUTS" - for those who don't like it...

1.3k · October 26, 2003

quote:
If someone accuses a person of doing something wrong, it doesn't mean they are accusing them all.

It then follows that there is no need to create a rule to regulate all of the approvers (who are self regulating) because one of them is allegedly breaking a rule that doesn't even exist.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

2.1k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
It then follows that there is no need to create a rule to regulate _all_ of the approvers (who are self regulating) because _one_ of them is _allegedly_ breaking a rule that doesn't even exist.

This does not even come close to following from the previous statement. I will not dull discussion with the formal symbolic logic behind these statements to prove this explicitly, but I hope that by referring you to my post from 8:46 AM 10/25/03 higher on the page you can remember why we make laws against rape, even though the majority are self-regulating against raping people.

Your claim does not make sense and yet we still write laws to delineate where good and bad behavior are concerned. The laws are the legislative side of things. The accusations are the judicial side of things. One does not have any logical following from the other (i.e., we do not accuse _because_ of laws and we do not legislate _because_ of accusations).

Neither point of view (we should have a guideline dealing with this specific question vs. we should not have said guideline) is not going to logically out-maneuver the other. We can only propose sound reasons for why we hold to one case or the other and then let the arguments hold weight with those making the decisions (as is the nature of our monopolistic organizational system in this community). They will obviously bring their views to the table as well, which is somewhat unfortunate due to their obvious entanglement in the issues (this and others proposed for approver guidelines).

--

http://healinghearts.freeservers.com/pandee.html

1.2k · October 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bloencustoms:
It then follows that there is no need to create a rule to regulate _all_ of the approvers (who are self regulating) because _one_ of them is _allegedly_ breaking a rule that doesn't even exist.

I wish I'd have said that....lol.

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."

1.3k · October 26, 2003

I do understand the reason for laws, they help to stop a problem before it happens. If a person grew wings, and began to fly around attacking endangered birds, it would make sense to create a law preventing people from attacking endangered birds. Making a law to prevent people from growing wings is ridiculous. There are only a small number of approvers relative to the entire number of geocachers. I believe that the number is small enough that there is no need to make a rule to prevent them from abusing their "power" if that's how it is percieved. I really think that the chances of someone who has been selected to be an approver (and fairness is a likely requisite) abusing their power, are about as good as someone growing wings. And if someone does abuse their position, once it is proven, they likely won't be approving anything anymore. Then you are left with a pool of trustworthy approvers that need not be stifled with silly regulations.

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

1.4k · October 29, 2003

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
is it possible to do this without getting personal and bringing up names?

I'm curious as to why you oppose mentioning names, and as such you have deleted a post that contained names, but you then quote the entire offending post and put it in your own post.

What was the point of deleting the offending post?

*****

3.8k · October 29, 2003

It was probably a "spell it out" example of what shouldn't be posted in the forums. You know, so there would be no questions about how to post.

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

October 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
CO Admin wrote:
is it possible to do this without getting personal and bringing up names?

I'm curious as to why you oppose mentioning names, and as such you have deleted a post that contained names, but you then quote the entire offending post and put it in your own post.

What was the point of deleting the offending post?

*****

The post had been reported to the moderation queue and the moderator unintentionally deleted the post instead of approving it. So he quoted it so the post would remain.

hydee

I work for the frog

Please don't throw sand when playing in the sandbox!

3.8k · October 30, 2003

quote:
the moderator unintentionally deleted the post instead of approving it.

Is it my imagination, or has this been happening a lot lately?

I have to commend any moderator who admits a mistake like this, and makes ammends, but it does seem like it happens often.

I have a mental picture of a moderator sitting in front of an old time telephone operator board, pulling and plugging connections in a frenzy.

Is it really that hard? Hydee, why don't you show us a picture of you...moderating the boards? Maybe that will shed some light on the complications facing our moderators daily.

If you don't want to post a picture of yourself, I'll understand, with all that anonyminity going around!

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

2.3k · October 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

quote:
the moderator unintentionally deleted the post instead of approving it.

Is it my imagination, or has this been happening a lot lately?

I have to commend any moderator who admits a mistake like this, and makes ammends, but it does seem like it happens often.

I have a mental picture of a moderator sitting in front of an old time telephone operator board, pulling and plugging connections in a frenzy.

Is it really that hard? Hydee, why don't you show us a picture of you...moderating the boards? Maybe that will shed some light on the complications facing our moderators daily.

If you don't want to post a picture of yourself, I'll understand, with all that anonyminity going around!

===============_"If it feels good...do it"_================

**_(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")_**

.

TO be completely honest. one of the medications I am taking cause some hand tremors. Normally not a problem however at times it will cause my hands to jerk a little and this had been a problem with buttons and checkboxs that are close together. I believed I have solved the problem by obtaining a separate switch that does the same thing as the left mouse button. I now place the mouse. take my hand off and verify the position of the pointer. Then use my new switch to click the mouse. I believe this will solve the problems. I am sorry if anyone was unconvinced by my mistakes.

CO Admin

Social Secretary to the QOFE

The Frog is my friend

1.6k · October 30, 2003

I thought that I was the only one whose forum activities were affected by 'meds' (or lack thereof).

(And if the truth is desired, then you should know that I AM NOT schizophrenic, and I do not take any medications of any kind, for anything. I am thankful that the one or two people who started the whole 'zuuky on meds' concept have stopped. I doubt that anyone truly affected by a disorder (of sorts) requiring medication would be pleased at the continuous 'fun' that was made of 'taking meds'. I heard a rumour a few days ago that someone started a thread called 'Is canadazuuk schizophrenic?'... yeah, really funny... )

Anyway, I had a couple posts and/or threads accidently affected by CO Admin, but things were fixed before I even knew anything had happened...

No problems here.

1.6k · October 30, 2003

I like olives on my pizza.

1.2k · November 1, 2003

Am I missing something here? Is gc.com giving out rewards for FTF's? Are there stats for FTF's? Do we get our names listed in the Honorable Mentions of Who's Who in Geocachers of the World because we have a bunch of FTF's? Who really cares? I don't care if I have say 20 FTF's, and someone else has more, or an approver has a bunch more. This is all really silly. Now if gc.com mailed gold coins to anyone who finds a new cache first, then I think it would matter. Then there would need to be a rule that Approvers cannot participate, because then and only then could they abuse the system and go out and get rich finding the caches and receiving the rewards. But as it stands now...no rewards...no stats...who cares?

3k · November 1, 2003

I don't know what all the excitement is about, because Jeremy clearly stated, back on April Fool's Day, that (the name that was mentioned) "was an approver for a short time but isn't one now." In the same post, Jeremy questioned whether "Deception runs deep?" and also stated "He (the name that was mentioned) was just being silly..." about the individual's misdeeds.

Pretty well sums up the issue and why the type of rule suggested in this thread would be irrelevant.

1.4k · November 1, 2003

quote:
The Navigatorz wrote:
Do we get our names listed in the Honorable Mentions of Who's Who in Geocachers of the World because we have a bunch of FTF's? Who really cares?

They way that some people go after them you *would* think that there's a special prize for them, but even still, there are some who apparently do care (even if they shouldn't).

quote:
BassoonPilot wrote:
I don't know what all the excitement is about, because Jeremy clearly stated, back on April Fool's Day, that (the name that was mentioned) "was an approver for a short time but isn't one now."

But it turns out that what Jeremy said isn't, is.

*****

November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Navigatorz:
Am I missing something here? Is gc.com giving out rewards for FTF's?

Some cache owners are known to put special FTF prizes in their caches ranging from certificates to very expensive items. So yes, there can be real rewards for FTF.

____________

Gorak

I love frogs. They taste like chicken. Yum.

"Humanity has advanced, when it has advanced, not because it has been sober, responsible, and cautious, but because it has been passionate, rebellious, and immature." --Tom Robbins

November 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by The Navigatorz:
Am I missing something here? Is gc.com giving out rewards for FTF's? Are there stats for FTF's? Do we get our names listed in the Honorable Mentions of Who's Who in Geocachers of the World because we have a bunch of FTF's? Who really cares? I don't care if I have say 20 FTF's, and someone else has more, or an approver has a bunch more. This is all really silly. Now if gc.com mailed gold coins to anyone who finds a new cache first, then I think it would matter. Then there would need to be a rule that Approvers cannot participate, because then and only then could they abuse the system and go out and get rich finding the caches and receiving the rewards. But as it stands now...no rewards...no stats...who cares?

If you try for FTF a lot, you end up, every now and then, having more of a challenge than you thought you would get. For many reasons, coordinates could be wrong, the hint could be misleading, or my favorite, other experienced cachers have looked for the cache, but failed to find it. In that case, you know you are going to have to think outside the box, even if there are no other problems with the cache. I like to ad a bit more of a challenge by hunting at night, but I guess is stupid to hunt at night because "as it stands now...no rewards...no stats...who cares?"

If you geocache for (physical) rewards or stats, than your logic works fine.

A lot of times an FTF hunt is no more of a challenge than any other cache hunt, but I find FTF hunts (particularly at night) have a much better chance of entertaining me.

In my last cache hide, I left an expensive FTF prize, I'm not sure how I'd feel if the approver got to it first and took it (if it was immediately after approval). I really doubt that would happen, as I've seen no speck of evidence that the approvers around here have anything but the highest integrity (smooch smooch), and don't seem to have been bitten by the FTF bug. I guess it's a chance you take though. But hey, sometimes the FTF doesn't take the FTF prize.

I do think the official geo-stand allowing approvers to claim FTF after approval is fine, if there is a problem somewhere with a specific approver, that should be dealt with, but no need to change policy.

___________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

1.3k · November 3, 2003

All systems are open to abuse and this is no different. Unfortunately there is no way to stop it. You could play a zero tolerance rule into affect where no approver could log a FTF. Just like in professional sports they do not allow gambling. One could argue “I wouldn’t play unfair” but the temptation is still there. All it takes is for one person to mar the system for everyone else. That being said, an approver who wishes to take advantage of the trust given to them could simply use another account to log their finds and no one would be the wiser.

I would just hope that people enjoy this for the fun that it is. If there are approvers out there taking advantage, just remember that you are only cheating yourself, or maybe a small child that was really looking forward to a FTF, and you will have to live with it.

Approvers and FTF

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation