Cheating is only cheating yourself.

[+sbell111]

I feel that some people like to toss the 'about the numbers' label around because it helps them feel more superior. The fact is, many of the practices that they rail against are benign and easily explained. However, since the players in question play differently than these individuals, they must be demonmized in some way, it seems.

[Mushtang]

The people who are most outraged about other cachers cheating are only mad because THEY are the ones obsessed with numbers. They compare their find counts to everyone else's, and if someone has "cheated" and inflated their find count, these complainers don't look as good in comparison.

 

Some people just don't care about numbers, but care even less for cheaters.

 

I know it annoys the heck out of me that someone like Barry Bonds would cheat even though I don't even have numbers to compare to him. I reserve the right to be outraged that Rosie Ruiz would take a cab to the finish line and win the Boston Marathon even though I've never run in a marathon. I can detest someone like Jason Blair who would plagiarize and fabricate "news" stories for the NY Times even though I've never had a desire to be a newspaper reporter. I can have disdain for Milli Vanilli and their phony Grammy win though I'm not a singer.

But if you follow baseball and care about baseball stats, you'd be upset about Barry Bonds cheating. Someone like my mother, who couldn't name a single baseball player and has zero interest in the game, couldn't care less what Barry Bonds is doing.

 

You don't have to participate in a behavior in order to be upset about "cheating" in it, but you do have to care about it.

 

And my point is, the people that say "I don't care about numbers" the most are the same people that get twisted out of shape when someone does something they think is cheating. It's contradictory to suggest that numbers don't matter... unless they're gained by "cheating", in which case they do matter.

 

If you asked my mother what she thought about Barry Bonds cheating at baseball she'd probably reply with, "Oh I don't know anything about that stuff and don't care to". But if you pointed out to her that the lady who just walked off with the blue ribbon at the quilting contest cheated by submitting a quilt she bought somewhere instead of made herself... she'd be very upset. How much would you care about a quilting contest cheater on the other side of the country from you?

[+ReadyOrNot]

I feel that some people like to toss the 'about the numbers' label around because it helps them feel more superior. The fact is, many of the practices that they rail against are benign and easily explained. However, since the players in question play differently than these individuals, they must be demonmized in some way, it seems.

 

You are correct in that there are some behaviors that can be explained and not all the people are cheating, but some are. Those are the ones I disagree with. If you are in a big group and 5 people go to cache A, and 5 go to cache B, and 5 go to cache C and everyone logs 15 caches, that's being dishonest. Call it whatever you want to call it.

[Mushtang]

I feel that some people like to toss the 'about the numbers' label around because it helps them feel more superior. The fact is, many of the practices that they rail against are benign and easily explained. However, since the players in question play differently than these individuals, they must be demonmized in some way, it seems.

 

You are correct in that there are some behaviors that can be explained and not all the people are cheating, but some are. Those are the ones I disagree with. If you are in a big group and 5 people go to cache A, and 5 go to cache B, and 5 go to cache C and everyone logs 15 caches, that's being dishonest. Call it whatever you want to call it.

I'd call it a different way to cache, and then wouldn't think about it again. It certainly wouldn't bother me, because it would have no affect on me.

[+KBI]

As far as the "cheating is only cheating yourself", that's a load of nonsense. Sure some logging practices are absurd, but harmless (multi logging attendeds at events comes to mind), but phony found it logs can and do affect others. Nothing we do is in a vacuum. Our "found it" logs tell the community that the cache was there.

 

If it isn't, you can waste other geocacher's time and money, and you can delay a needed maintenance visit by the owner.

Bad or misleading information can show up anywhere, not just in questionable find logs. People also post bad information in legitimate find logs, as well as in notes, DNFs, and in other forms of online communication.

 

Bad information is not the issue here. It is personal offence over cheating by others that would appear to be the issue here.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I feel that some people like to toss the 'about the numbers' label around because it helps them feel more superior. The fact is, many of the practices that they rail against are benign and easily explained. However, since the players in question play differently than these individuals, they must be demonmized in some way, it seems.

 

You are correct in that there are some behaviors that can be explained and not all the people are cheating, but some are. Those are the ones I disagree with. If you are in a big group and 5 people go to cache A, and 5 go to cache B, and 5 go to cache C and everyone logs 15 caches, that's being dishonest. Call it whatever you want to call it.

I'd call it a different way to cache, and then wouldn't think about it again. It certainly wouldn't bother me, because it would have no affect on me.

 

You assume it bothers me? It doesn't bother me. I just call it what it is. If I see a duck and call it a duck, does that mean the duck bothers me? Claiming a find when you didn't find it is dishonest. It is what it is. Let me check my pulse real quick... (hold on one second......)

 

..

..

..

..

..

 

Nope, not elevated at all..

 

Carry on

[+KBI]

The people who are most outraged about other cachers cheating are only mad because THEY are the ones obsessed with numbers. They compare their find counts to everyone else's, and if someone has "cheated" and inflated their find count, these complainers don't look as good in comparison.

Some people just don't care about numbers, but care even less for cheaters.

 

I know it annoys the heck out of me that someone like Barry Bonds would cheat even though I don't even have numbers to compare to him. I reserve the right to be outraged that Rosie Ruiz would take a cab to the finish line and win the Boston Marathon even though I've never run in a marathon. I can detest someone like Jason Blair who would plagiarize and fabricate "news" stories for the NY Times even though I've never had a desire to be a newspaper reporter. I can have disdain for Milli Vanilli and their phony Grammy win though I'm not a singer.

Barry Bonds and Rosie Ruiz were participating in organized competitions with published, official – and rather strict – rules. If they violated those rules for their own gain, then there is no question they cheated.

 

Jason Blair and Milli Vanilli were professionals who signed legal contracts and who made written – as well as assumed and unwritten – promises to their employers and their customers. Those legal contracts contained specific rules and clear promises. If they violated those rules for their own gain, then there is no question they cheated.

 

It can be reasonably argued that each of those people you listed has cheated someone else.

 

A simple geocacher, on the other hand, does not participate in any organized competition, and has made no legal contract with you regarding his logging behavior. He is merely seeking hidden containers, and (usually) documenting his activity online. If he is doing so by using unusually liberal logging standards – well, he might not be caching the way you or I do, but by doing so he is neither violating any stated rules of game competition nor cheating any employer, customer, or fellow player out of any contractual promise.

 

It can NOT, therefore, be reasonably argued that a cacher who claims a find you or I wouldn’t claim is guilty of "cheating" anyone else. If he is cheating anyone, that cacher is only cheating himself.

 

If I am a baseball or marathon fan, then Barry Bonds’ and Rosie Ruiz’s cheating offends me – and if I paid for a ticket, then I have been economically violated as well. If I am one of their competitors, I have a legitimate reason, maybe even a duty, to file a formal grievance.

 

If I read a fabricated story in the NY Times or buy music from a non-singing fraud then I have similarly been provably cheated.

 

If some confused participant of this hobby, however, simply logs a find in a way that my own personal standards would not normally allow me to do, then that person’s log takes absolutely nothing away from my enjoyment of the game.

 

Whether we call it cheating or not, it simply doesn't bother me. Unless you are participating in some previously-agreed-upon competition with the cacher whose logs you disapprove (or are receiving misleading information from those logs which cause actual inconvenience), then why should it bother you either?

Edited March 28, 2008 by KBI

[+ReadyOrNot]

It can NOT, therefore, be reasonably argued that a cacher who claims a find you or I wouldn’t claim is guilty of "cheating" anyone else. If he is cheating anyone, that cacher is only cheating himself.

 

Ahhhh, but is not cheating oneself still not cheating? Even you are admitting its still cheating.

[+KBI]

It can NOT, therefore, be reasonably argued that a cacher who claims a find you or I wouldn’t claim is guilty of "cheating" anyone else. If he is cheating anyone, that cacher is only cheating himself.

Ahhhh, but is not cheating oneself still not cheating?

Yes, it is.

 

So why do you care?

[+sbell111]

I feel that some people like to toss the 'about the numbers' label around because it helps them feel more superior. The fact is, many of the practices that they rail against are benign and easily explained. However, since the players in question play differently than these individuals, they must be demonmized in some way, it seems.

You are correct in that there are some behaviors that can be explained and not all the people are cheating, but some are. Those are the ones I disagree with. If you are in a big group and 5 people go to cache A, and 5 go to cache B, and 5 go to cache C and everyone logs 15 caches, that's being dishonest. Call it whatever you want to call it.

I have no reason to believe that your example has anything to do with the OP.

[+sbell111]

It can NOT, therefore, be reasonably argued that a cacher who claims a find you or I wouldn’t claim is guilty of "cheating" anyone else. If he is cheating anyone, that cacher is only cheating himself.

 

Ahhhh, but is not cheating oneself still not cheating? Even you are admitting its still cheating.

What would the be cheating themselves out of?

[+XopherN71]

The only thing that I'm getting cheated out of right now is time wasted reading this.

 

Unsubscribing from this black hole of a thread.

 

Y'all wine and complain about something that has absolutely NO effect on you whatsoever if it makes you feel better... I don't see the point, and definitely won't be looking back at this one.

 

Edited March 28, 2008 by XopherN71

[+KBI]

I like the OP's attitude:

 

As I expand my time caching, caching in other areas & reading more online, I've learned so much about how other people "cheat" for lack of a better word. I don't care that they do, but I just feel sorry for them. They cheated themselves out of actually achieving a find.

The OP doesn't judge anyone whose logging standards are different from his, and he doesn't let those "bogus" logs bother him. By the sound of it he isn't even sure the activities described qualify as "cheating."

 

The OP and I would seem to think alike: He doesn't participate in the odd practice of bogus logging, but neither does he condemn it. He simply rolls his eyes and goes on enjoying the game, just like me.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The only thing that I'm getting cheated out of right now is time wasted reading this.

 

Unsubscribing from this black hole of a thread.

 

Y'all wine and complain about something that has absolutely NO effect on you whatsoever if it makes you feel better... I don't see the point, and definitely won't be looking back at this one.

 

 

promise?

[+sbell111]

Somebody subscribed to this thread?

[+briansnat]

As far as the "cheating is only cheating yourself", that's a load of nonsense. Sure some logging practices are absurd, but harmless (multi logging attendeds at events comes to mind), but phony found it logs can and do affect others. Nothing we do is in a vacuum. Our "found it" logs tell the community that the cache was there.

 

If it isn't, you can waste other geocacher's time and money, and you can delay a needed maintenance visit by the owner.

Bad or misleading information can show up anywhere, not just in questionable find logs. People also post bad information in legitimate find logs, as well as in notes, DNFs, and in other forms of online communication.

 

Bad information is not the issue here. It is personal offence over cheating by others that would appear to be the issue here.

 

Bad information can show up anywhere. If you don't see the difference between inadvertently leaving bad information and deliberately deceiving others, no point in discussing this further.

 

Y'all wine and complain about something that has absolutely NO effect on you whatsoever if it makes you feel better.. .

 

Your tune might change the first time you spend an hour looking for a cache that has been missing for 3 months because "It has to be here, JoeGeo logged a find this morning", or you cancel a maint visit on a possibly missing cache of yours because "HarryNumbers" logged a find on it yesterday.

 

But if you follow baseball and care about baseball stats, you'd be upset about Barry Bonds cheating. Someone like my mother, who couldn't name a single baseball player and has zero interest in the game, couldn't care less what Barry Bonds is doing.

 

Typical, "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care". Wrong is wrong. If I knew someone was cheating at a knitting bee I'd come out against it and I don't give a whit about knitting.

Edited March 28, 2008 by briansnat

[+bettsbugs]

As I expand my time caching, caching in other areas & reading more online, I've learned so much about how other people "cheat" for lack of a better word. I don't care that they do, but I just feel sorry for them. They cheated themselves out of actually achieving a find.

 

I've come across logs clearly saying they found the path, didn't find cache, and they guess its not a find, but logged it as found anyway. ???

 

Seen this one too many times to count on our own caches. Several names all written in same handwritting. The other people log online weeks or months later that they found it. I suspect they weren't even there especially since at events they've been seen in different locations. (IE: split up, sign each others names, log twice as many caches as found that way)

 

There is no shame in not finding a cache. No shame at all. Heck, some of our best logs are DNF logs.

 

Honestly, its amusing to me in a way since I'm clearly not this clever and it took me 5+ years to notice how some (not all) people get such high numbers in short amounts of time. Now on the otherhand, if that's standard procedure in other parts of the country & ok with everyone, then I want to move there to increase my numbers! LOL Its pretty much frowned upon where I live.

 

It really does depend on the situation. You have no idea what is going on behind the scenes via emails or notes back and forth between cacher and owner. Here is an example of the first time my husband and I logged a cache that we didn't actually find.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...be-793b6f343209

 

The bottom line is the actual cache location was found even if the cache itself wasn't and we had the owner's permission to log it as a find, so we did so. I do think, that in these instances, the owner has the final say whether or not the cache can be logged as a find or not.

Edited March 28, 2008 by bettsbugs

[+The Jester]

I'll add one comment/view. Cheating/lying bothers me whether it directly affects me or not. Individual moral degradation ("what/who will it harm") will lead to societal (sp?) moral degradation ("everyone's doing it"). Now, whether cheating in a non-competitive game is a sign/symptom/cause/result is up for debate. But it is still wrong - no matter what the PC-loving crowd says, there are standards.

[+KBI]

As far as the "cheating is only cheating yourself", that's a load of nonsense. Sure some logging practices are absurd, but harmless (multi logging attendeds at events comes to mind), but phony found it logs can and do affect others. Nothing we do is in a vacuum. Our "found it" logs tell the community that the cache was there.

 

If it isn't, you can waste other geocacher's time and money, and you can delay a needed maintenance visit by the owner.

Bad or misleading information can show up anywhere, not just in questionable find logs. People also post bad information in legitimate find logs, as well as in notes, DNFs, and in other forms of online communication.

 

Bad information is not the issue here. It is personal offence over cheating by others that would appear to be the issue here.

Bad information can show up anywhere. If you don't see the difference between inadvertently leaving bad information and deliberately deceiving others, no point in discussing this further.

Earlier this week I came across, for the first time, one of the legendary "armchair virtuals" that seem to bother so many people.

 

Sylvester’s Cabin (GC4C6A)

 

Since I was in town with my job I logged it under my CaptRussell account. I walked four miles that day, logged two caches and DNFed one. I enjoyed walking to the cache location, enjoyed seeing the historic old house, enjoyed reading the associated local history (both on the cache page and on location), and enjoyed logging my find ... even though the certificate-link-thingy wouldn’t work. (I emailed the password to the owner.)

 

It was only after I logged my find that I noticed the many bookmark lists, most written in German, denoting the virtual as a cache that can be logged via Internet research only instead of physically visiting the coordinates.

 

Tell me:

• How should the fact that this cache has been logged by many, many people who never set foot in Oklahoma reduce or remove the enjoyment that I experienced?
  
• If you had been caching with me that day and if you had logged the find as well, would the existence of those finds or those bookmark lists have reduced or removed the enjoyment that you would have otherwise experienced that day?
  
• Who was "deliberately deceiving others?"
  
• Who was deceived? Was I deceived? Were you?
  
• Do those many armchair logs on that cache page bother you? If so, why?
  
• Do you think any of the finds on that page constitute "cheating?" If so, then who do you think was cheated? Was I cheated? Were you?
  

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I only want to understand. This is obviously something that you and others feel very strongly about.

 

I agree with you that those armchair logs might have caused a real and practical problem if, say, the target item had been removed or relocated and the finding of the required information on-site was no longer possible. Is that your only objection, or would you still be bothered by the "bogus" logs beyond that issue?

[+TeamGumbo]

If I knew someone was cheating at a knitting bee I'd come out against it and I don't give a whit about knitting.

 

Uh oh, sounds like *someone* has a little knitting fetish, tee hee!

 

[+briansnat]

Do you think any of the finds on that page constitute "cheating?" If so, then who do you think was cheated? Was I cheated? Were you?

 

If that eventually is brought to the attention of TPTB and gets archived, those who lose the chance to find it would be cheated.

[+KBI]

But if you follow baseball and care about baseball stats, you'd be upset about Barry Bonds cheating. Someone like my mother, who couldn't name a single baseball player and has zero interest in the game, couldn't care less what Barry Bonds is doing.

Typical, "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care". Wrong is wrong. If I knew someone was cheating at a knitting bee I'd come out against it and I don't give a whit about knitting.

Is this knitting bee a competition? Do they keep score at knitting bees? I'm not familiar with knitting bees, but I do know a bit about Geocaching, and Geocaching is NOT a competition.

 

I "cheated" at a crossword puzzle today. Got stuck on a word, and brazenly turned the page to the solution because I was curious and impatient. Does that bother you as well? You say "wrong is wrong." Was what I did "wrong?" Were you harmed?

 

As with Geocaching, solving a crossword is a pastime in which the only "competition" is against one's self, and between the wits of the solver and the wits of the person who created the challenge. Taking shortcuts in either doesn't affect anyone else unless they choose to let it bother them.

[+KBI]

Cheating/lying bothers me whether it directly affects me or not.

 

Individual moral degradation ("what/who will it harm") will lead to societal (sp?) moral degradation ("everyone's doing it").

It will?

 

In the specific case of the armchair virtual I discovered, can you show me where the resulting "societal-moral degradation" is? I don't see it.

 

Now, whether cheating in a non-competitive game is a sign/symptom/cause/result is up for debate.

I think a better question is whether such a deed in a non-competitive hobby can even be called "cheating" at all.

 

Lots of folks keep telling me, over and over, in this thread and previous ones, that people are being "cheated" by bogus find logs ... yet nobody can ever seem to produce any actual victims of this cheating. Not even one.

 

Just because your chosen set of standards makes another person’s behavior cause you to feel uncomfortable doesn’t automatically mean that their behavior is wrong. They have their own chosen set of standards, and you have yours. Their behavior might be perfectly fine – within in their chosen standards. What makes you think your standards are superior to someone elses'?

 

If your rights aren’t being infringed, if you aren’t being harmed, and if there are no other victims, then the only reason for you to continue to feel harm anyway is because of your chosen point of view. Nobody can do anything about your chosen point of view but you.

[+Team Snorkasaurus]

Your tune might change the first time you spend an hour looking for a cache that has been missing for 3 months because "It has to be here, JoeGeo logged a find this morning", or you cancel a maint visit on a possibly missing cache of yours because "HarryNumbers" logged a find on it yesterday.

"...HarryNumbers..."?!?

 

!!!HAH!!!

 

I don't know why, but that really cracked me up!

 

We too have seen misleading "found it" logs on caches that were clearly long gone. I had someone log a find on one of our Geocaches while it was down for maintenence. And by maintenence I mean it was sitting on my workbench! I simply deleted the find and sent the Geocacher a note letting them know when the cache would return to the playing field. They never did bother to actually find it... Its a shame too, 'cause it was a fun Geocache!

 

We have previously been accused of cheating because we cache as a "Team". Team Snorkasaurus consists of myself, my spouse and a number of extended team members. As the primary Geocacher (Team Captain?) I have personally found each and every one of our geo-finds. The spouse-a-saurus has participated in approximately 60% and the other members of the team have participated in maybe 20%. If I were logging my/our finds as an individual, I would have exactly the same number; however, I prefer to share the experience with those I love. Although I absolutely agree that false finds are entirely dishonest, it is always good to remember that what appears at first to be cheating may in fact be nothing of the sort.

 

We have no problem logging our DNF's, they give us a chance to be all melodramatic-goofy while informing the cache owner of a possibly missing cache. Or maybe I am just a lousy cacher! No worries either way...

 

Edited March 28, 2008 by Team Snorkasaurus

[+KBI]

Do you think any of the finds on that page constitute "cheating?" If so, then who do you think was cheated? Was I cheated? Were you?

If that eventually is brought to the attention of TPTB and gets archived, those who lose the chance to find it would be cheated.

Hypothetically then, if the cache is eventually brought to the attention of TPTB and it doesn't get archived, would you then be okay with all the bogus logs? I'm just trying to nail down why this troubles you.

[+sbell111]

Y'all wine and complain about something that has absolutely NO effect on you whatsoever if it makes you feel better.. .

Your tune might change the first time you spend an hour looking for a cache that has been missing for 3 months because "It has to be here, JoeGeo logged a find this morning", or you cancel a maint visit on a possibly missing cache of yours because "HarryNumbers" logged a find on it yesterday.

I'm not sure how that would be any different than if I couldn't find a cache that wasn't missing at all.

 

I search for a cache and either find it or not find it.

But if you follow baseball and care about baseball stats, you'd be upset about Barry Bonds cheating. Someone like my mother, who couldn't name a single baseball player and has zero interest in the game, couldn't care less what Barry Bonds is doing.

Typical, "If it doesn't affect me, I don't care". Wrong is wrong. If I knew someone was cheating at a knitting bee I'd come out against it and I don't give a whit about knitting.

I know nothing about knitting bees, but if the rest of the knitters weren't affected by the one person's alternative knitting practices, why should I get all buggy about it? Edited March 28, 2008 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

Hypothetically then, if the cache is eventually brought to the attention of TPTB and it doesn't get archived, would you then be okay with all the bogus logs? I'm just trying to nail down why this troubles you.

 

Cheating.

[+KBI]

I know nothing about knitting bees, but if the rest of the knitters weren't affected by the one person's alternative knitting practices, why should I get all buggy about it?

Apparently you should force yourself to get buggy about it for your own good, and the good of the rest of us, because:

 

Individual moral degradation ... will lead to societal - moral degradation.

Gotta watch those knitters. If we don't keep the clamp-down on their wild "creative knitting," it could be curtains for all of civilization.

[+KBI]

Hypothetically then, if the cache is eventually brought to the attention of TPTB and it doesn't get archived, would you then be okay with all the bogus logs? I'm just trying to nail down why this troubles you.

Cheating.

Can you be a little more vague?

 

The word "cheating" doesn't really answer my yes-or-no question, and it doesn't answer my second question because it doesn't explain why the bogus logs trouble you so much.

[+the hermit crabs]

(I don't know why I haven't clicked the "ignore thread" button on this one yet, but...)

 

I "cheated" at a crossword puzzle today. Got stuck on a word, and brazenly turned the page to the solution because I was curious and impatient. Does that bother you as well? You say "wrong is wrong." Was what I did "wrong?" Were you harmed?

 

As with Geocaching, solving a crossword is a pastime in which the only "competition" is against one's self, and between the wits of the solver and the wits of the person who created the challenge. Taking shortcuts in either doesn't affect anyone else unless they choose to let it bother them.

Interesting choice of example! Interesting to me, anyway.

 

I like crossword puzzles. I like them a lot. For Christmas a few years ago, I got a copy of "The World's Largest Crossword Puzzle." It was enormous: a 7x7-ft grid, with more than 28,000 entries. I taped it to a wall and worked on it off and on for several days, until I hit a snag.

 

The answer to one of the clues had already been used elsewhere in the puzzle, and it is against the rules of crossword-puzzle construction to have a repeated answer anywhere. I thought I must have made a mistake, but no matter how much I tried to re-think it, there were no other possible solutions; the same word was used twice. I stowed that disturbing bit of information away, and continued with the puzzle.

 

Then a day or two later, it happened again! Other errors also appeared, in which a clue's tense or case did not match that of the answer (as if it had been written by someone whose first language was not English). And the last straw for me was when there was an answer that was not a valid word, or abbreviation, or anything I could find anywhere in any web search.

 

I decided to check in a crossword puzzle usenet group to see if anyone there had managed to solve this puzzle. I only wished I checked sooner... There were several threads about it, most full of irritation at the same type of errors I was encountering. Even the one non-word that had annoyed me (out of 28,000 entries) was a major point of discussion, with all of these extremely intelligent expert solvers agreeing that it did not exist.

 

In short, the unanimous agreement was that the puzzle was improperly constructed and was not solvable.

 

So I was able to safely take the puzzle down from my wall and ignore it after that, without feeling like I should continue working on it.

 

If, on the other hand, all of the posts regarding this puzzle had just been things like "I solved it! Woohoo!" or "Took me two weeks, but I finally finished filling in every single square!" then I would have believed it to be solvable, and I would have been banging my head against the wall trying to finish it.

 

Luckily for me, those people had the honesty to say that they did not solve it. Not a single one of them just filled in the squares with random, incorrect letters just to be able to say that they "completed" it.

 

The difference between geocaching and most crossword puzzles is that geocaches have publicly-viewable logs indicating that they have been recently found, which tells the world that they are findable; generally, crossword puzzles do not. I was lucky that this particular monster of a crossword puzzle did have a public discussion area where I could see its solvability status. And in this particular case, it would certainly have been possible for someone to cheat on that puzzle, tell the world he solved and, and thereby "harm" me by causing me to waste my time and get wicked cranky.

 

 

...

 

(I can't believe I bothered to type all that in! I feel like I've just wasted my time and now I'm wicked cranky. )

[metherk]

Some one recently found one of my caches frozen in 3 inches of ice. He emailed me a picture of it and logged it as a find. No he didn't sign the log book but he did find it. What's wrong with that?

[+the hermit crabs]

Some one recently found one of my caches frozen in 3 inches of ice. He emailed me a picture of it and logged it as a find. No he didn't sign the log book but he did find it. What's wrong with that?

I tried to mail my tax payment to the IRS, but the mailbox was frozen in 3 inches of ice. So I emailed a picture of the mailbox and my envelope to the IRS. That should be good enough, I think.

[+sbell111]

Some one recently found one of my caches frozen in 3 inches of ice. He emailed me a picture of it and logged it as a find. No he didn't sign the log book but he did find it. What's wrong with that?

Some would say that he cheated and that you wer a part of the deception. I don't buy their logic.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I know nothing about knitting bees, but if the rest of the knitters weren't affected by the one person's alternative knitting practices, why should I get all buggy about it?

Apparently you should force yourself to get buggy about it for your own good, and the good of the rest of us, because:

 

Individual moral degradation ... will lead to societal - moral degradation.

Gotta watch those knitters. If we don't keep the clamp-down on their wild "creative knitting," it could be curtains for all of civilization.

 

Typical liberal Moral nonsense. Why does the level of cheating matter so much to you? You like everything to be 1000 shades of gray, because it suits your moral relativistic worldview. Cheating is cheating (you said it yourself a few posts back).. They may not be cheating you, but they are cheating themselves, thus, it's still cheating.

 

Who cares if it hurts anyone else, its still cheating... Who cares if it ultimately leads to the downfall of civilization or not? What kind of argument is that?

 

Cheating is cheating is cheating is cheating... Dishonesty is dishonesty is dishonesty is dishonesty...

 

If the store clerk gave you 1 cent too much change back, would you keep it?

If the store clerk gave you 1 dollar too much change back, would you keep it?

What about $100?

What about $1000?

 

1 cent is too much, it should be given back, because its theft regardless of the amount.

 

It's cheating, regardless of who it affects, how many are affected or whether anyone gets hurt..

 

Is that absolute enough for you?

[+KBI]

There are two primary anti-bogus arguments that get used whenever this subject comes up. I believe they constitute two entirely different points:

 

(1) Bogus find logs are bad because they can sometimes cause practical problems.

I agree with this argument 100%. It is one of Briansnat’s favorite points, it is the argument in post about the wall-size-crossword puzzle, and it is a very valid point. Yes, bogus find logs can, in some cases, cause practical problems.

 

Why is it that some people insist on repeating this argument over and over, even though nobody ever contradicts or disagrees with it? I have never seen anyone even suggest that bogus logs never cause practical problems, yet this defense continues to be presented as if it were a raging debate. All it does is serve to confuse the issue.

 

(2) Bogus find logs are bad because bogus find logs constitute cheating, and in all cases cheating is just plain wrong.

This line of argument consists of two separate premises, neither of which I can agree with:

 

(a) Bogus find logs are bad because bogus find logs constitute cheating.

Geocaching is not a competition; therefore cheating on the score cannot exist ... because there is no score. A find count is not a game score. Claiming a “point” you shouldn't have claimed based on someone else’s “point-scoring” standard takes nothing away from the other players. Barring the practical argument above, a bogus cache log no more harmful to other cachers than a bird-watcher’s bogus private diary entry is to other bird watchers. Those who do not choose to be upset by the odd yet benign behavior of others are not harmed. They are therefore not victims, and there is therefore no “cheating.”

 

( In all cases cheating is just plain wrong.

“Wrong” here depends on one’s chosen personal standards and one’s own chosen point of view. Even when it has been shown that no person is harmed by the so-called cheating, others in this forum have continued to insist that they feel wronged by it. If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

 

In short, there are two arguments against bogus find logs: The practical objection and the moral objection.

 

I have no disagreement with the practical objection. Neither does anyone else, apparently; it is not in dispute.

 

I do not understand the moral objection however, and I therefore cannot agree with it.

 

It sure would make this discussion easier if folks could keep the two arguments separate and avoid unnecessarily confusing things.

[+briansnat]

Hypothetically then, if the cache is eventually brought to the attention of TPTB and it doesn't get archived, would you then be okay with all the bogus logs? I'm just trying to nail down why this troubles you.

Cheating.

Can you be a little more vague?

 

The word "cheating" doesn't really answer my yes-or-no question, and it doesn't answer my second question because it doesn't explain why the bogus logs trouble you so much.

 

1. The potential to confuse other geocachers and cause them to waste their time and money.

 

2. The potential to affect geocachers in other ways (delayed maintenance visits, archived virtuals)

 

3. I don't feel that cheating is something that should be condoned, whether or not it directly affects me.

 

In the grand scheme of things are phony found it logs something that should be taken seriously? Of course not, but I don't feel that they're something that should be condoned either. Wrong is wrong, whether it's someone cheating a widow out of her life savings, or someone fudging his find counts. It's a simply a matter of degree.

 

Being that this is a geocaching forum, that is the degree that I'm concerned with here. If you want to discuss

a nation cheating on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, we'll do that in another form.

Edited March 28, 2008 by briansnat

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

 

If you say you saw a bird and you didn't, you are a liar. I don't care if it only affects you or affect 57.9% of the population. If you lie, you are a liar. <--- period

 

If you lie about finding a cache, then you are a liar. <--- period

 

Either it is truth or it is not. This is only black and white, not 1,000,000,000 shades of gray.

[+the hermit crabs]

There are two primary anti-bogus arguments that get used whenever this subject comes up. I believe they constitute two entirely different points:

 

(1) Bogus find logs are bad because they can sometimes cause practical problems.

I agree with this argument 100%. It is one of Briansnat’s favorite points, it is the argument in post about the wall-size-crossword puzzle, and it is a very valid point. Yes, bogus find logs can, in some cases, cause practical problems.

 

Why is it that some people insist on repeating this argument over and over, even though nobody ever contradicts or disagrees with it? I have never seen anyone even suggest that bogus logs never cause practical problems, yet this defense continues to be presented as if it were a raging debate. All it does is serve to confuse the issue.

I told the crossword puzzle story because you mentioned that when you cheated on a crossword puzzle, it harmed no one. Which was true -- only because it was private. Geocaching logs are not private. I was trying to point out to you that the example you brought up was pointless and irrelevant, specifically because of the public/private difference.

 

(2) Bogus find logs are bad because bogus find logs constitute cheating, and in all cases cheating is just plain wrong.

This line of argument consists of two separate premises, neither of which I can agree with:

 

(a) Bogus find logs are bad because bogus find logs constitute cheating.

Geocaching is not a competition; therefore cheating on the score cannot exist ... because there is no score. A find count is not a game score. Claiming a “point” you shouldn't have claimed based on someone else’s “point-scoring” standard takes nothing away from the other players. Barring the practical argument above, a bogus cache log no more harmful to other cachers than a bird-watcher’s bogus private diary entry is to other bird watchers. Those who do not choose to be upset by the odd yet benign behavior of others are not harmed. They are therefore not victims, and there is therefore no “cheating.”

 

( In all cases cheating is just plain wrong.

“Wrong” here depends on one’s chosen personal standards and one’s own chosen point of view. Even when it has been shown that no person is harmed by the so-called cheating, others in this forum have continued to insist that they feel wronged by it. If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

Like the crossword puzzle, this harms no one since the journal you mention is private. If, on the other hand, the lying bird-watcher announces his fake bird-spottings to the world, that can have a significant impact on others.

 

What was that rare woodpecker that was seen down south a few years ago? Hundreds of bird enthusiasts hopped on planes and flew hundreds or thousands of miles for the chance to catch a glimpse of it. If the person who had seen it had made the whole thing up just to bolster his self-esteem, don't you think that the rest of the bird-watching world might get a bit upset?

[+the hermit crabs]

I do not understand the moral objection however, and I therefore cannot agree with it.

 

Have you ever heard the expression "How we do anything is how we do everything?"

[+sbell111]

Typical liberal Moral nonsense. Why does the level of cheating matter so much to you? You like everything to be 1000 shades of gray, because it suits your moral relativistic worldview. Cheating is cheating (you said it yourself a few posts back).. They may not be cheating you, but they are cheating themselves, thus, it's still cheating. ...

Might be better if you didn't make this into a personal issue about KBI.

 

It seams like your whole rant could have been summed up with 'Cheating is bad because it is cheating'. I actually agree with this statement, in general. The problem is, you have to first define 'cheating'.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Typical liberal Moral nonsense. Why does the level of cheating matter so much to you? You like everything to be 1000 shades of gray, because it suits your moral relativistic worldview. Cheating is cheating (you said it yourself a few posts back).. They may not be cheating you, but they are cheating themselves, thus, it's still cheating. ...

Might be better if you didn't make this into a personal issue about KBI.

 

It seams like your whole rant could have been summed up with 'Cheating is bad because it is cheating'. I actually agree with this statement, in general. The problem is, you have to first define 'cheating'.

 

As far as I know, KBI is not a cheater nor a liar, so I'm not sure how this has anything to do with KBI at a personal level.

[+sbell111]

If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

 

If you say you saw a bird and you didn't, you are a liar. I don't care if it only affects you or affect 57.9% of the population. If you lie, you are a liar. <--- period

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

[+sbell111]

I do not understand the moral objection however, and I therefore cannot agree with it.

 

Have you ever heard the expression "How we do anything is how we do everything?"

Never. Please explain. It reminds me of 'We do it this way because we do it this way', which is something that I drive out of every workforce that I'm responsible for.

Edited March 28, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Typical liberal Moral nonsense. Why does the level of cheating matter so much to you? You like everything to be 1000 shades of gray, because it suits your moral relativistic worldview. Cheating is cheating (you said it yourself a few posts back).. They may not be cheating you, but they are cheating themselves, thus, it's still cheating. ...

Might be better if you didn't make this into a personal issue about KBI.

 

It seams like your whole rant could have been summed up with 'Cheating is bad because it is cheating'. I actually agree with this statement, in general. The problem is, you have to first define 'cheating'.

 

As far as I know, KBI is not a cheater nor a liar, so I'm not sure how this has anything to do with KBI at a personal level.

The rant seemed highly personal, whether any of it had any truth is beside teh point.

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

 

If you say you saw a bird and you didn't, you are a liar. I don't care if it only affects you or affect 57.9% of the population. If you lie, you are a liar. <--- period

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

 

So I guess I can define "truth" how I want? That right there is moral relativism... I don't subscribe to that, but you are more than welcome to do that if you wish. Arguing with a moral relativist is like arguing with yourself... What's the point?

[+sbell111]

If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

If you say you saw a bird and you didn't, you are a liar. I don't care if it only affects you or affect 57.9% of the population. If you lie, you are a liar. <--- period

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

So I guess I can define "truth" how I want? That right there is moral relativism... I don't subscribe to that, but you are more than welcome to do that if you wish. Arguing with a moral relativist is like arguing with yourself... What's the point?

If the very thing that you are accusing someone of is not defined, how can you accuse? That's not 'moral relativism', it's common sense.

 

For instance, crimes are (typically) very well defined in Code. Since they are well defined, it can be determined when they have been broken.

Edited March 28, 2008 by sbell111

[+the hermit crabs]

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

At least some dictionaries will list that as an alternative definition (See def #5).

 

But I can only think of one place where "Found it" is equated to "Didn't Find it".

[+sbell111]

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

At least some dictionaries will list that as an alternative definition (See def #5).

 

But I can only think of one place where "Found it" is equated to "Didn't Find it".

There have been numerous examples of people calling others cheaters simply because they didn't play their way. For instance, some would say that I'm cheating if I let others know the coords of a cache prior to it being listed. Others disagree.

 

In another thread, I gave an example of a time when I logged a find on a cache that others would state that I didn't find. Some would say that I cheated. Others would disagree (and the cache owner -who is the only true arbiter- didn't have an issue with it).

 

People throw out 'cheater' very quickly in these forums.

Edited March 28, 2008 by sbell111

[+ReadyOrNot]

If I, as a bird-watcher, fib in my journal that I saw some rare bird that I didn’t actually see, then why in the heck should it bother those who fill their bird-watching diaries with more orthodox and accurate entries? I'm only cheating myself, so if I don't mind being cheated by myself, then how is it "wrong?"

If you say you saw a bird and you didn't, you are a liar. I don't care if it only affects you or affect 57.9% of the population. If you lie, you are a liar. <--- period

If you see a plane and say 'That's a beautiful bird, should I call you a liar, or are you just using an alternative definition of 'bird'.

So I guess I can define "truth" how I want? That right there is moral relativism... I don't subscribe to that, but you are more than welcome to do that if you wish. Arguing with a moral relativist is like arguing with yourself... What's the point?

If the very thing that you are accusing someone of is not defined, how can you accuse? That's not 'moral relativism', it's common sense.

 

For instance, crimes are (typically) very well defined in Code. Since they are well defined, it can be determined when they have been broken.

 

So right and wrong is determined by law? Or is law determined by right and wrong? If law determines what is right and wrong, society would be in a pickle... Oh wait, it is! It's not a crime to cheat on my spouse, so I guess that makes it right? It's not a crime to swear at my kids and call them names, so I suppose that must be right also? If right and wrong is determined by common sense, then where does common sense come from? Law?

 

Round and round we go

[+the hermit crabs]

I do not understand the moral objection however, and I therefore cannot agree with it.

 

Have you ever heard the expression "How we do anything is how we do everything?"

Never. Please explain. It reminds me of 'We do it this way because we do it this way', which is something that I drive out of every workforce that I'm responsible for.

No... it means that if you lie to me about one thing, why would I have any reason to believe that you tell me the truth about anything else? ("You" in the generic sense, not you personally.)

 

It's the reason that we try to teach children to be fair and honest when they're young -- because we want them to grow up being fair and honest adults.