Jump to content

Rediculious Event: Number Game????


AtoZ

Recommended Posts

Maybe im a tad slow, but I still dont get the whole cheating concept here. My find count has no bearing whatsoever on your enjoyment of caching.

 

I could go right now and log 1000 finds on a cache of mine and you can still go pick up your GPS and hunt tupperware.

 

Someone inflating their numbers has no negative impact on the rest of us.

Sir, we undercharged you for the event cache held in our park. According to the logs 20,000 people atteneded instead of the 200 you told us about. Our park just can't take that kind of traffic, if geocaching is like this I'm afraid we are going to have to ban it.

 

or maybe

 

Logs like this. "We logged 100 caches, 37 of them cemetery caches, what a hoot! Check out the photos' incuding the one called "The Money Shot" I'm logging all these here even though they would not get approved on GC.com."

 

or possibly.

 

Logs like this. "What a cool event in Yellowstone. We found 40 event only caches and only one person got scalded, too bad they didn't check with the NPS before they buried that one."

 

Yes finding and loggong unapproved caches can harm my game. Most won't but I'm not worried about most. Just the one.

 

If that doesn't answer your question we can get back to debating the numbers angle. :D

Link to comment

Good heavens! I care about thousands of things that don't hurt me in any way. Like whether Egaz Moniz really deserved a Nobel for inventing the lobotomy. Or when a crappy movie gets the Academy Award and a movie I really liked gets totally ignored. Whether steroid use has invalidated sports records (and I don't even like sports). Journalists plagiarizing really frosts my hindquarters. It ticks me severely to see someone cut line, even if it isn't the line I'm standing in.

 

I haven't made up my mind on this specific logging issue, but I absolutely reserve the right to judge whether I think somebody is playing the game well or poorly. And to care quite a lot about it, too.

Link to comment
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There is however a difference between simply thinking someone is wrong and chastising them for having a different opinion.

Looks to me that both sides of the argument are chastizing each other equally. You ain't sitting there silently thinking disapproving thoughts about the disapprovers, are you? You've posted as much as anyone.

Link to comment

:D

 

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question? Are you asking what does the official decision have to do with the debate, or are you poking fun at my wording?

 

If it is the second, than okay, :D

 

if its the first, the whole topic was about if the multiple posting should be allowed, and when the man who runs the site says no, that should end the argument, right?

Edited by VegasCacheHounds
Link to comment
I'm sorry, I don't think I understand your question?  Are you asking what does the official decision have to do with the debate, or are you poking fun at my wording?

No, I'm saying that, while this is by far the best geocache listing site on the internet, it isn't Geocaching. The policies of the site determine what little numbers appear next to what usernames, but they have no effect on what the community of people who play this game (or sport, or ham sandwich, or whatever you insist on calling it) feels is fair play or shabby play.

Link to comment

Ill be the first to admit that I am not exactly proficient with words and can often come across combative and harsh and I dont mean too.

 

I simply think that there is room for everyone to enjoy the game in a way that best suits them.

 

With this level of popularity, it is impossible to please everyone so the best we can do is just go on with the game in our own way and let others do the same with the exception of blatant destructive behavior.

Link to comment
Ill be the first to admit that I am not exactly proficient with words and can often come across combative and harsh and I dont mean too.

Goodness, it wasn't a critique. I just meant that "let people play any way they want" is as much a line in the sand as any other. And one that a lot of game-playing folks find natively uncomfortable to live with.

Link to comment
...I absolutely reserve the right to judge...

You have an absolute right to offer your opinion, however...NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANOTHER! At the risk of stepping on toes here: There is a divine existence which holds that power. No man (or woman) has that right.

 

As for this ridiculous discussion...give it a rest! People are going to log caches and events as they see fit. You can't change how I allow people to log my caches and I can't change that about yours so let it be!

 

The name calling and belittling of opinions is rude too! Although we've found quite a bit of humor in many of the statements here, we would appreciate it if people would stop repeating themselves. Make your point and move on! And for goodness sakes, when you are making that point, please, please, please use a spelling that is somewhat recognizable. I may want to look it up in the dictionary (you know, that little book where those of us with a basic grasp of the English language go when we're unsure of what the heck you're saying.).

 

Our point (also known as our opinion): Logging a geocache that was loaded into my GPSR and uncovered by CB or myself when we were out caching together makes me smile...so why shouldn't my log smile too?

 

Perhaps some of you would like a member of the WGA to assist you in planning and executing an event. Then you too could see how much fun it is! And I'm willing to bet that those attending will appreciate a little more of what we actually go through here. There are no freebies...unless you count the logbook at the sign-in table. Yes, there is a logbook at the sign-in table.

 

For the record, there have been several people from other states who have attended our events and used them as guides for hosting their own. One example of a log (which can be seen on the page for GCJV9Q) is: "Great event. Many thanks to the WGA for showing us how to do things right. I hope we can repeat this success at our upcoming EIGA Hike -n- Seek in Waterloo (Iowa)..."

 

And not that it matters, but the person who started this thread has since sent us an e-mail apologizing for doing so. I'm only sorry that we started reading it. I am pretty sure we're done with this thread now but one never knows... Thanks to those in support of our efforts and good luck in getting people to open their eyes :D and minds :D . To all of you we say, "Happy Caching!"!

 

RESUME MUD-SLINGING! :D

 

MajorBrat

Link to comment
You have an absolute right to offer your opinion, however...NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANOTHER!

I am not a Christian. I reserve absolutely the right to judge others in any way I choose.

 

I don't have the right to prosecute my judgement by force, but I certainly have made no attempt to do so.

Link to comment
Me, too!  I care deeply and passionately about many things that do not effect me directly.  Thank god this isn't one of them!  :D

Yeah, but what about Egaz Moniz?

Anyone who has to Zs in his name deserves something.

You still can't use it in Scrabble. Why couldn't he call it the Egaz technique? :D

Link to comment
I am pretty sure we're done with this thread now...

 

You may be done with it, but us lobotomized topic derailers will continue to take it in new and unimagined directions. :D

To boldy go where no derailed thread has gone before.

Link to comment

I for one hate "structured programing". When I was programing, I wrote programs my way, I knew where everything was... in college they tried to teach us structured programing and I hated it.

It's not even a matter of structure so much as modularity, ie how much of it is hard-coded. If it's written for modularity it'd be very easy to add new cache/log types, but if all the types are hard-coded then it would be rather difficult.

 

I can say that geocaching.com is the best Rubbermaid™ Management System on the market, thankyouverymuch.

 

I certainly can't deny that! I prefer Lock 'n Locks, though.

Edited by Tidalflame
Link to comment
I for one hate "structured programing". When I was programing, I wrote programs my way, I knew where everything was... in college they tried to teach us structured programing and I hated it.

It's not even a matter of structure so much as modularity, ie how much of it is hard-coded. If it's written for modularity it'd be very easy to add new cache/log types, but if all the types are hard-coded then it would be rather difficult.

TMTOWTDI.

Link to comment
Might i remind users what event cache started this forum

 

WGA Geo-Campout 2005

if you look at the logs you will find that it does look like they are just logging to be logging

I disagree. It just looks like they had a ton of temporary caches at the three-day event.

i know that.. i am making a point to say that it will look like it to other cachers..that don't know

Edited by Charles Iverson
Link to comment

I sat at work today, bored as usual, so I spent a good portion of my shift writing what was to be my next post on this thread.

 

I have to say, it was brilliant! An absoloute masterpiece of logic, philosophy, common sense, and persuasiveness with some Karma sprinkled on top for a little extra "Zing". It was so good, that I was certain that all of the "hardliners", to borrow the term, would instantly be swayed to my way of thinking.

 

As I finished it and started proofreading (in case you didn't notice I tend to make a lot of typographical errors LOL) when I suddenly realized- "What difference will it make?"

 

No matter how much discussion, the "log 'em all" contingent is never going to change it's mind. They feel they are right, with very good reasons for feeling the way they do, and that is just the way it is.

 

The "Hardliners" feel just as strongly that they are right, they also have very valid reasons for their opinions, and are not going to be swayed any more than the "log "em all" crowd. Thats just the way it is, too.

 

The one seemingly possible avenue for compromise between the 2 sides was quickly and completely shot down by TPTB, and I am sure there were valid reasons for that as well, even if they weren't expressed.

 

When that is taken into consideration, it seems that there will never be an amicable resolution to the issue, so it won't make any difference at all, other than to further raise the angst level on the forums, and make myself look like more of an a** than I really am.

 

In the end, you only have to answer to yourself. If you feel right and just in logging them, go ahead. If you don't feel that it is right, then don't. It is just a game, one where the numbers are meaningless to anybody but yourself.

 

Will log them next time? I honestly couldn't tell you. I don't know if a few smileys (deserved or not) is worth the level of angst displayed here- on both sides.

 

But I will never condemn anybody on either side of the issue, or label them "cheaters". I guess that is what got me riled up in the first place, and it went from there.

 

Whether or not you log them has no effect on me, so I have no reason to get upset about your stats either way.

 

That being said, I do hope that if I ever cross paths with any of you on step 9 of a 12 step multi, that we can shake hands as friends and go get the rest of them together.

 

 

Then I can run home and double log 'em all- need to get those stats up!!!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

i will have to agree

I will never condemn anybody on either side of the issue, or label them "cheaters". its just that i hear some people saying its not right in doing what they are doing

they are caches i know that and you have to go hunt for them

 

the only porblem i see is there is a problem with users logging in event temp caches

 

and other users getting all bent out of shape about it

not knowing what they are

 

i meen when i started posting on here i was a bit bent out about it

 

i meen they were logging stuff like

 

(cachers name) found

 

rock or bigfoot or stairs

 

and i was like What!!! they must just be out to get the points by making fake logs (cheating on finds)

but then i found out they were caches and got in to the thing of they need to have there own log type in the event log

as do

 

will attend

note

attended

 

and they come up with icons that show it

and they are logged with them..

 

what i say is lets try it and see how it works out just don't shoot it down

just try and if it works it works!!! and if it does not work o well at least we tryed it...

 

edit: errors

Edited by Charles Iverson
Link to comment

disclaimer: I only read a little over half the posts.....

 

to me it is about integrity:

seems like people have found a way to 'beat the system'

 

honesty and integrity are the most important values to me, but as many have posted; "to each their own"

 

GC has guidelines.......why? some say "who cares?"

 

I'm proud to be one who cares.

Link to comment
For time's sake, I only logged 10 fake finds on this archived cache of mine.

 

Please describe the negative impact on you?

My example was non approvable caches being logged and giving fuel to the fires that happen here and there. Most recently SC.

 

However post a fake "Fire!" log on a cache that happens to be in SC in a historic area and see what harm comes of it.

 

You are right in that your fake logs don't directly impact me. If you did enough fake logs you would be a living joke in this activity and you would be shunned by the geocaching community the same way cache maggots are. But at least you do understand enough to have chosen an archived cache for your test.

 

Edit: I was cheated! There were no fake logs. What a sham!

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
If I go log 1000 finds on a single cache, I challenge anyone to give me a legitimate way that this hurts you.

 

My numbers are important to me, and I've gotten them the old fashioned way - one at a time.

 

People who log 100 event cache finds aren't playing a "different game", or "the same game a different way" - they're playing the same game as I am and cheating at it.

I really respect this directness.

 

People are fooling themselves with all their justifications. We all know what is RIGHT.

 

WH....you go on about 'how does it hurt you' and such....well, it DOES hurt me to see people act in certain ways. Maybe it doesn't to you. If not, then why are you even engaged in a social forum such as this?

Link to comment
WH....you go on about 'how does it hurt you' and such....well, it DOES hurt me to see people act in certain ways.  Maybe it doesn't to you.  If not, then why are you even engaged in a social forum such as this?

Mostly for the social aspect of it. When I go out caching either by myself or with others. I am out for a variety of reasons that include friendship, exercise, adventure, excitement and fun. Whether or not someone logged a few extra smileys somewhere doesn't take away from the enjoyment, for me anyways.

 

My stats current show that I have 629 finds under my belt. Have I "earned" them all in your eyes or maybe I faked a few. Will discovering the answer change how you enjoy the game? If I was a complete fraud and never actually found a single cache are you all of a sudden not having fun?

 

You and everyone else are free to play how you want and have your own opinion on whether or not someone is playing the game the way you think it should be played. My opinion differs and I will continue to enjoy every moment of the game regardless of that little number next to your name or what means you used to obtain it.

Edited by WH
Link to comment

I think some of the recent posters may have misunderstood what this thread is about.

 

We are not talking about fake logs, or fake caches.

 

They were real caches. I don't think that it is really in dispute whether or not actual caches were found and logged.

 

The issue is whether those caches should or should not be logged, since they were not listed seperately on the GC.Com website.

 

Many people feel that it was improper to have logged each cache at the event, since they were not listed individually. Their stance is that it should not count as individual caches, since they were all lumped under one listing. One cache page one log.

 

Others feel that it is one cache, one log, regardless of how many cache pages are used to list them.

 

I don't feel that it is really a question of cheating, or lack of integrity. It is a difference of opinion on what exactly justifies a log, and what doesn't.

 

I can tell you that when I made those logs, I thought that that was the way it was done. I did not feel like I was cheating, or displaying a lack of integrity. I thought I was logging caches that I had found.

Link to comment

In case you're wondering how logging finds for caches listed on the site might hurt someone... well, we always say that this game is not about the numbers, but I imagine that for some people it is. I don't care much about my find count (it would be impractical for me to care about it anyway since there are undoubtedly some people I couldn't hope to catch up to if I had a million years to cache), but I imagine that if I was a very competitive person who did play for the numbers, I'd be rather irked that someone was posting finds for caches not listed on the site. Perhaps I'd just be being oversensitive, but who's more in the right: a player who plays for the numbers but only logs caches listed on the site, or a player who logs temporary caches that were not listed?

 

I think the most apt reason for not logging these temporary caches is the whole TerraCaching/NaviCaching argument. You don't log your TerraCaches here; you don't log your NaviCaches here, so what reason is there to log your temporary caches here when they're not listed on the site? I don't personally use KeenPeople.com, but I believe another poster mentioned that they have a system for tracking cache finds across different listing sites, so why not use that?

 

Besides the issue of players who do play for the numbers, the fact is that logging temporary caches does skew the stats. It's an abuse of the system. Not a major one, and to be honest it doesn't really affect anyone, but is an abuse. I honestly don't care much about whether or not someone logs temporary caches. I just don't see the necessity in doing it when:

 

a) It clearly bothers many people

B) There are other systems out there (KeenPeople) which are (to my knowledge) designed specifically for logging other types of caches

Edited by Tidalflame
Link to comment
I imagine that if I was a very competitive person who did play for the numbers, I'd be rather irked that someone was posting finds for caches not listed on the site.

 

 

If somebody wants to make this a competitive sport, that is their issue, not mine. Just because they wish to have a competition doesn't mean that everybody else has to participate to their standards. I choose not to compete with anybody, if they want to compete with me, that is their problem.

 

It is impossible to compete by the numbers anyway. A 1/1 parking lot micro counts 1 find, just like a 5/5 3 day hike. I could see a competitive person having an issue with that, but we are not about to tell people that they cant log caches under a certain difficulty level to make Mr. competitive happy.

 

I think the most apt reason for not logging these temporary caches is the whole TerraCaching/NaviCaching argument.  You don't log your TerraCaches here; you don't log your NaviCaches here, so what reason is there to log your temporary caches here when they're not listed on the site?

 

The event wasn't listed on Terracaching or Navicaching, it was listed on here. The argument could be made that since the Event was listed here, then the caches were here.

 

I just don't see the necessity in doing it when:

 

a) It clearly bothers many people

 

LOL, I think that many people are bothered by people policing their stats for them, too.

 

Many People are bothered by a lot of things, micros in parking lots, caches that are too easy, caches that are too hard, too long of a hike to the cache, no hike (parking lot caches), Virtuals, multis, etc, etc, etc,- just about every cache is going to have somebody that has a problem with it of some kind.

 

Some of the things that people are bothered by in just this section of the forum in the last 2 days:

 

Golf Balls

Cleaning junk out of caches

Cemetary Caches

Poison Ivy

Lack of Diversity in the pictures on the main GC.com Page

Hard Caches/Easy Caches

Micro Madness

writing "SL" in logs

Virtuals, and logging them

Locationless Caches

 

If we banned everything that some people didn't like, we wouldn't have many caches left.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
those who play by the (GC)rules and do things on the up-and-up don't have to do all this explaining

I'd hate to think I've been playing against the (GC)rules in any way, could you please post a link to these rules for how to log your cache finds?

Link to comment
those who play by the (GC)rules and do things on the up-and-up don't have to do all this explaining

I'd hate to think I've been playing against the (GC)rules in any way, could you please post a link to these rules for how to log your cache finds?

I am playing by GC rules. At least the rules that were around on 8/23/01.

 

OLD Post "EVENT CACHES"

 

If you look at the posters you may recognize a name or two. This was and is an exceptable practice and for a time it was needed to reduce the ues of GC numbers as we were running out.

 

If your worried about the numbers! DON't LOOK AT THEM!!!!!

 

Team Sand Dollar

Link to comment
those who play by the (GC)rules and do things on the up-and-up don't have to do all this explaining

I'd hate to think I've been playing against the (GC)rules in any way, could you please post a link to these rules for how to log your cache finds?

Especially since Jeremy has weighed in on this thread saying he doesn't care that some groups like to log their temporary caches this way.

Link to comment
Good heavens! I care about thousands of things that don't hurt me in any way. Like whether Egaz Moniz really deserved a Nobel for inventing the lobotomy. Or when a crappy movie gets the Academy Award and a movie I really liked gets totally ignored. Whether steroid use has invalidated sports records (and I don't even like sports). Journalists plagiarizing really frosts my hindquarters. It ticks me severely to see someone cut line, even if it isn't the line I'm standing in.

 

I haven't made up my mind on this specific logging issue, but I absolutely reserve the right to judge whether I think somebody is playing the game well or poorly. And to care quite a lot about it, too.

Well said. I still don't care if someone logs a kazillion finds on an event page, but well said.

 

And I think Egaz Moniz does deserved a Nobel Prize! :)

Link to comment
those who play by the (GC)rules and do things on the up-and-up don't have to do all this explaining

I'd hate to think I've been playing against the (GC)rules in any way, could you please post a link to these rules for how to log your cache finds?

playing the idiot doesn't strengthen your stance

YOU know that the numbers either accurately reflect what was accomplished, or they don't.

 

games, games, games

it's not THAT hard to be straight and honest, be it logging caches, or in how you communicate on these forums

Link to comment
playing the idiot doesn't strengthen your stance

YOU know that the numbers either accurately reflect what was accomplished, or they don't.

 

games, games, games

it's not THAT hard to be straight and honest, be it logging caches, or in how you communicate on these forums

Fabricating "(GC)rules" as a means to defend your argument is what leads to erosion of your argument's strength. Don't think you can get out of factually backing your argument by attacking the approach I take at ridiculing it.

 

Prove your point or all _you_ are doing is playing word games.

 

The fact that you can't quote any (GC)rules on this is entirely the crux of the matter. Anyone that doesn't like this manner of logging events has no justification for shaming those that do like it into not doing so. The one overriding fact here is that both people are having fun.

 

You can *say* "you're not playing right" or "you're a cheat", but the only recourse you have is to have the cache owner change the logs because this game is ultimately played between the cache owner and the cache finder. Since in this case the cache owner is sponsoring this logging activity, you have no recourse. I think that's been made abundantly clear, so I'm out.

Link to comment

LOL, you're funny.......but.....

When I said "play by the (GC)rules", I was using a saying that has long been understood by most people to mean; playing fair, doing things the 'right' way, being straight.

Maybe you took it literally, and then I'm sorry we had a miscommunication.

Or, maybe you didn't.............you know which, and whether you are playing games with me or not.

It seems to me that you are.

 

One thing that many people dislike about these forums, is all the armchair lawyers with their so-called 'logic'. I am in court every week, and I laugh (and cry) to myself at all the distortion of truth that flies, because of legal banter and discourse that has been allowed to supercede truth.

Link to comment

Correction. YOUR version of the truth.

 

Our opinions may differ but mine is just as valid as yours and there is plenty of room in this game for both viewpoints. Ultimately, the cache owners have the final say in what is and is not acceptable logging practices. So your opinion and mine matters not.

 

If the cache owner approves, so be it.

Link to comment

Since temporary caches can be placed anywhere and while the intent may not to be to cause the gamer harm. If the caches are buried, on lands that require a permit and the event owner has no permit, are in certain spots frowned upon by the geocaching community, there is a great harm in logging them even if they are logged on the event page. This argument isn't a numbers argument. It's a Logging caches that should not even exist harms the game argument. Even if 99% of all the caches placed on a temporary basis are harmless (and I have no doubt they are) it's the 1% that are an issue.

 

If it's not approvable here don't log it here. If it's approvable here, well, then list the dang thing and make everyones life easier.

Link to comment
How about instead of asking where it says you can't log any friggin thing you want to as a find, where does it say you can log non-gc.com approved caches on the site?

I jsut did some searches. I couldn't find any instances where it said that logging miltiple finds at an event was not allowed.

 

I did, however, find a few instances where it was clearly stated by TPTB that it iis allowed:

 

Guidelines for events

 

and again here

 

Quote from TPTB in those threads:

I couldn't give two hoots if someone wants to log an event cache twice. It's their find count and there is no competition here. So if you find a cache at an event, knock yourself out.

 

I gues my question is, what's the point? People at the event seek these things out, so what's wrong with using the event cache page?

Link to comment
If it's not approvable here don't log it here. If it's approvable here, well, then list the dang thing and make everyones life easier.

It was the automobile buying public that killed the Edsel. They just didn't buy it.

 

Maybe it will be the geocaching community that will phase out the logging temporary caches through peer pressure. Many people are just not "buying" the arguments in support of the practice.

 

Weeding out the suggestions that WGA people underhandedly cheated (which of course they didn't) and other negative comments, this has been a pretty good discussion.

Link to comment

I agree with CY.

 

I am hosting a CITO on the 18th of June. For this event I set 5 new permanent caches.

 

This decision was made last year when I received an e-mail from our area reviewer that I would have to scale back my temporary event caches because it's not about numbers. I agree it's not about numbers but cachers like to hunt caches. I never gave it a thought when I placed the caches that I was trying to raise anyones numbers. The caches were set to highlight different areas of Otter Creek Park, (as requested by the park Naturalist).

 

I didn't have any real heartburn over the request but I also didn't scale back the caches. I always try to respect and grant the wishes of the area reviewer concerning placed caches. This was onetime I couldn't honor his request. We were in the process of trying to open up Otter Creek Park for caching it wouldn't have been cool not to respect the wishes of the park Naturalist. It was up to the cachers on how they logged their caches.

 

I won't have this problem in the future because permanent caches will be set at any event that I host. That is with available space taken into account.

 

Basset

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...