Do You Feel its Appropriate to Name Chronic Serial False Loggers

[Clan Riffster]

Now I will out a person who leaves an inaccurate record of their geocaching experience by not logging every cache they find.

I reckon I need "outing". I'll save you the trouble and "out" myself.

My finds record is woefully inaccurate, in that there are at least a couple dozen caches I've found which I have not, and will not log.

Does that qualify me for serial fake not-logger status?

[+TotemLake]

Would you have these same people sneak in from the out of bounds to get a goal in any other game? No. Would you let the referee maybe allow it? Or would you voice off a foul to the opposing team and let everybody else know it? Ask yourself why that is.

Because you are describing competitive games, which is irrelevant here. You are confusing Geocaching with competition.

 

Geocaching is not a competition. Those things you say only apply when points, wins, and losses are at stake. A "found it" log is not a point, a run, a basket, a touchdown, or any other credit which can be tallied to determine who "wins." A "found it" log is simply a documentation of a find.

 

Bogus points don't cheat me when I'm not competing.

Now who is obfuscating the point?

Not me.

 

You used a 'competition' analogy. I merely pointed out that the competition analogy does not apply to non-competitive pastimes.

 

I was always talking integrity. Leave the competition out for a moment. Think of the integrity of the game. Then where does that leave it?

I dunno, you tell me.

 

Do you think I'm being cheated out of something when a cache owner allows a cacher to post a bogus log? I've inventoried my assets, and I haven't seen where anything has gone missing.

 

If you see where I've been harmed by bogus logs, please point it out.

I used a game analogy.

AND I also was very careful to say INTEGRITY. You chose to see it as a competition analogy. So, yes you.

 

That's your choice to do that, but I made my post very clear.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Peer pressure works in a number of ways, but is not effective unless someone chooses to respect it.

 

If they so choose then they will respond to criticism of the issue itself and not need to be singled out or identified. The vast majority of us are like this... we recognize that 'play it your way' only applies within acceptable norms and practices and we adjust our game accordingly.

 

Forum discussion of an issue identifies and/or helps to develop consensus and clarify the majority opinion, which may not be known until an issue arises.

 

Then, it serves to alert those who stray from 'the way things are done' that they may be veering off the track... not necessarily wrong, just doing something different, which is not the same as 'wrong' but is good to know. Geocachers being almost by definition individualists can then make their own decision whether to follow the herd and to what extent.

 

Peer pressure can educate the actor(s) that while what they are doing is allowed it is not supported or approved of by their community.

 

A behavior may be beyond the pale, and unacceptable. Peer pressure through a majority condemnation of the practice in these forums can show that those behaviors will not be tolerated. Such derived consensus and peer pressure in such cases may give Groundspeak a reading on what the community finds unacceptable and lead to an adjustment in the stated guidelines.

 

In all of those cases addressing the issue rather than the individual is effective and should be the first resort. That is in large part what forums do... they allow us to discuss issues with the point being to determine how the community majority feels about the issue.

 

Then comes the situation where community consensus drives change to the entire game. The practice of multi-logging events for temporary 'event caches' found at that event was created by one of Groundspeak's most beloved Reviewers, but once that practice grew out of hand, with people logging the event because they heard someone fart at the event (yes, it happened) or because they saw a cache sitting on the picnic table where dinner was being served (yup, that happened several times) or folks logged Found It on event caches just because they attended the event, even though they did not find the hidden event caches, opinion rightfully changed and peer pressure served to put a stop to that practice.

 

I was a strong proponent of event caches and for years included them in every event I hosted and logged them at every event I attended where they were allowed (It was up to event host to allow them or not). I still think they are a great idea, and lacking a way to log Found It for temporary event caches I have no problem with multi-logging the event. When that practice became a forum topic it quickly grew into a heated issue, was discussed frequently and at length, and ultimately the practice was determined to be unacceptable to the community majority while admittedly allowed under the guidelines.

 

As a vocal proponent of multi-logging events for event caches found I put myself out there for criticism, yet very few posters attacked me personally - they kept it to the issue. Based on the sum of the discussions it was determined that this practice should stop, and it did. Some people, perhaps either embarrassed to have done something now deemed unacceptable or to bring their history in line with current practices, went back and deleted their event multi-logs. I and others did not. I found almost 200 hidden event caches at numerous events in maybe 15 states and logged them in what was then the acceptable manner, and I am not ashamed of that. Still, abuse of the practice, community consensus derived through discussion and the resulting peer pressure showed me that the practice had become untenable, so I no longer do it.

 

Peer pressure addressing the issue worked, and it worked with very little if any personal identification or criticism of those of us who multi-logged event caches.

 

The instant case of armchair logging is a bit different. I do not believe that there is anyone today who truly believes that logging a cache that they have never even looked for is an acceptable part of geocaching. There was a time when 'anyone can log this cache' was acceptable, but I don't think such caches are allowed today. Again, peer pressure made a change in the practices of the game and moreover made a change in the very guidelines we follow. If memory serves very little of the debate surrounding the acceptability of armchair caches was addresses to individuals, it was addressed as an issue, and that worked for those who chose to respect it.

 

The difference now is of course that logging caches that you did not find has been widely and clearly repudiated for some time and no one with any awareness of this game's practices believes it to be acceptable. Again, peer pressure through public consensus has made a practice unacceptable, and a review of the history of this debate would show that discussion has been mostly framed around the issue without identification or direct condemnation of the actors.

 

So this brings us to people who do not particularly care what others think. Consensus opinion and peer pressure do not work with these folks... guidelines only work when they are found to be in violation of them and enforcement action looms.

 

There are folks who take "play it your way" to the extreme, way beyond its intended meaning of 'the game is flexible, within accepted practices' to 'I can do whatever I want'.

 

Chronic false loggers fall into this attitude. They know that the practice is unacceptable, and do not care. Anyone with any regard for their reputation or standing in the community responds and conforms to consensus and certainly to peer pressure. This group does not, and some may even get off on having a bad reputation... they may think that being a rebel or non-conformist or individual means doing whatever they want without regard to the mores and customs of the community.

 

Much of this is, of course, a factor of anonymity. I have met but one cacher who admits to armchair logging. He is a good friend and I have a lot of respect for the man. He is very well known in this community and most of you would be amazed to know who he is. He makes no excuses and will tell you, if asked, that he enjoys sitting at his computer 'finding' and logging caches all over the world. His attitude is 'if you don't like it, tough... it is allowed under the guidelines'. Which in fact it is - it is up to the cache owner to delete the fake log if they choose to. Caches are not, to my knowledge, archived because the owner allows fake logs.

 

I do not know nor do I care how many of his thousands of logs are legit. At a guess I would say far more than 90% are true finds. Since I have never heard of him using his find count to try to prove anything or to assure his status in the community I could care less. If he ever says something like "my find count makes me an uber-cacher" then I will likely change my mind.

 

Known community consensus and indirect peer pressure do not work here... he has no misconception that what he does is acceptable to the community, but he enjoys it and says that he does not care if you approve. At the same time you will never see him come into these forums and argue for his actions, so obviously he DOES care how he is thought of. Personal identification (outing) and the resultant direct peer pressure might work here, if he were identified, because he does enjoy a popular and respected role in the geocaching community.

 

If you knew someone like this who logged armchair caches but in every other way benefited and contributed mightily to the game and community would you publicly call him on it? I will not. Being anonymous at least in this particular facet of our activity means that he can enjoy his armchair practices without losing face in the community, and his doing so has minimal to no effect on the rest of us.

 

Should he be 'outed' and singled out for criticism? I do not think so. It is my belief that he and armchair loggers like him comprise a small fraction of players and at most provide forum fodder for those of us without better things to discuss at the moment.

 

Does it somehow harm the game that these few individuals choose to ignore the consensus opinion? No, they will always be a small minority and their actions really don't amount to much in the overall scheme of things.

 

On balance, then, peer pressure works to define and elucidate common practices and to promote 'acceptable' practices by discussing issues generically, but not so much by identifying, criticizing or otherwise 'outing' individuals who don't play it our way.

 

Not everyone will conform even if and when consensus is reached; there will always be a small percentage who could care less what the community thinks, at least so long as they are anonymous, but that's human nature and no enforcement or penalty or public humiliation need be enacted or would be effective for these few.

 

I am with Groundspeak on this one... discuss the issues, not the individuals.

Edited September 28, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+TotemLake]

double post

Edited September 28, 2008 by TotemLake

[+TrailGators]

He makes no excuses and will tell you, if asked, that he enjoys sitting at his computer 'finding' and logging caches all over the world. His attitude is 'if you don't like it, tough... it is allowed under the guidelines'. Which in fact it is - it is up to the cache owner to delete the fake log if they choose to. Caches are not, to my knowledge, archived because the owner allows fake logs.

Here is the applicable section of the guideline:

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

I don't read this guideline to mean delete bogus logs if you feel like it. The site expects people to be responsible and to delete them. I think the site gives a lot of latitude but it's clear that they don't want this practice of bogus logging to occur. So IMHO think your buddy is violating the spirit of the guidelines. However, this is an important point and if I am misinterpreting the guidelines then the mods can chime in and I may learn something new.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

He makes no excuses and will tell you, if asked, that he enjoys sitting at his computer 'finding' and logging caches all over the world. His attitude is 'if you don't like it, tough... it is allowed under the guidelines'. Which in fact it is - it is up to the cache owner to delete the fake log if they choose to. Caches are not, to my knowledge, archived because the owner allows fake logs.

Here is the applicable section of the guideline:

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

I don't read this guideline to mean delete bogus logs if you feel like it. The site expects people to be responsible and to delete them. I think the site gives a lot of latitude but it's clear that they don't want this practice of bogus logging to occur. So IMHO think your buddy is violating the spirit of the guidelines. However, this is an important point and if I am misinterpreting the guidelines then the mods can chime in and I may learn something new.

I agree that he is violating the spirit and perhaps even the literal meaning of the guideline and I in no way defend him. The point I was making is to the topic question... should he be named in this public forum as a way to stop him. He and the armchair cachers like him do not respond to consensus or peer pressure else they would not still be doing it.

 

Your quote of the guidelines does raise an interesting question... it puts the responsibility on the cache owner to delete bogus logs, it does not state that bogus logs cannot be posted. That being the case then cache owners who refuse to delete bogus logs are the transgressor, not the person who logged the fake find!

[+TrailGators]

He makes no excuses and will tell you, if asked, that he enjoys sitting at his computer 'finding' and logging caches all over the world. His attitude is 'if you don't like it, tough... it is allowed under the guidelines'. Which in fact it is - it is up to the cache owner to delete the fake log if they choose to. Caches are not, to my knowledge, archived because the owner allows fake logs.

Here is the applicable section of the guideline:

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings. The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

I don't read this guideline to mean delete bogus logs if you feel like it. The site expects people to be responsible and to delete them. I think the site gives a lot of latitude but it's clear that they don't want this practice of bogus logging to occur. So IMHO think your buddy is violating the spirit of the guidelines. However, this is an important point and if I am misinterpreting the guidelines then the mods can chime in and I may learn something new.

I agree that he is violating the spirit and perhaps even the literal meaning of the guideline and I in no way defend him. The point I was making is to the topic question... should he be named in this public forum as a way to stop him. He and the armchair cachers like him do not respond to consensus or peer pressure else they would not still be doing it.

 

Your quote of the guidelines does raise an interesting question... it puts the responsibility on the cache owner to delete bogus logs, it does not state that bogus logs cannot be posted. That being the case then cache owners who refuse to delete bogus logs are the transgressor, not the person who logged the fake find!

I don't think this will stop these people either because they obviously don't care what people think. However, one of the main benefits of posting the names of the big violators was to make people aware of who these people are so they can do a better job at being responsible and keeping their caches free of bogus logs. I know if I saw one of those infamous names pop-up on one of my caches then I would check it out.

[+markandsandy]

I don't think this will stop these people either because they obviously don't care what people think. However, one of the main benefits of posting the names of the big violators was to make people aware of who these people are so they can do a better job at being responsible and keeping their caches free of bogus logs. I know if I saw one of those infamous names pop-up on one of my caches then I would check it out.

My sentiments exactly.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I don't think this will stop these people either because they obviously don't care what people think. However, one of the main benefits of posting the names of the big violators was to make people aware of who these people are so they can do a better job at being responsible and keeping their caches free of bogus logs. I know if I saw one of those infamous names pop-up on one of my caches then I would check it out.

My sentiments exactly.

I agree with both of you, and, in fact, many of us used the information in that way when Geoposer (along with a couple of others whose names I forget) was outed on this forum (and Geoposer did log a find on one of my Psycho caches) and when a fake logger was outed a couple of years ago on the Maryland Geocaching Society forum after having cut a wide swath of fake finds throughout the state (actually, I believe that at least TWO chronic serial fake find loggers have been outed on the MGS forum, but I am way too lazy to bother to check in order to find out for sure...)