Cheating?

20.7k · December 30, 2003

This thread took an unexpected turn into the realm of cheating. I drafted a comment, but found that I might be a cheater. Since it was not on topic, I thought that it might be a good idea to create a thread to discuss the topic.

The suggestion was made in the other thread that cache owners must police their Locationless caches better to eliminate cheating. I believe that this is a good idea that should be implemented for all types of caches, not just LCs. This, however, may not stop all 'cheating'.

What is cheating?

We all agree that those who forge pictures to log LCs and find answers for virts on-line rather than going to the location are cheating, but other situations are not as clear.

From time to time, a cacher will find an object that fits the theme of a cache, but not all of the posted requirements. These cachers can log the find with the permission of the cache owner. Is the finder cheating? Is the cache owner?

I have found 'regular' caches after the owner has archived it and stated that it was removed. (I was working from old printouts.) I felt fine with my found log. (Over a year later, I retrieved the cache.) Was I cheating?

Is finding a LC after it was archived any different? What if the cache owner said it was OK?

Occasionally, someone will attempt my 'WD's Original' virtual and fail to find the object. I often explain wht the actual object is and give these cachers the option of logging it as a find if they desire. I don't wish to make someone pay a bunch a second time just to find my virt. Certainly cachers who take me up on my offer aren't cheating. Am I?

Then, of course, you have owners of missing 'regular' caches who suggest that others log it as a find because they found the location, if not the box. Did either party cheat?

What about those that take others to caches which they have already found. If these parties gice hints until the cache is found, is it cheating?

Finally, there is the 'Phone-A-Friend' option. If someone allows others to phone him/her to obtain clues for caches which he doesn't own, is the hint giver or the hint requester cheating?

2.1k · December 30, 2003

Yes

Now figure out which question that answer goes to. lol

I think it depends on the person and should really rely on whether or not if htey feel they are cheating. Personally I don't like any of it. It's all cheating to me. I have no problem with a person needing more clues after searching for a cache, but to get the extra bit or help first I don't care for. There is one thing on cheating that is really my pet peeve. I know a lot of people do it and feel it's ok, but I don't like it when someone logs a find on a virtual before getting a response from the owner. I think they should wait a significant amount of time for a reply and then if no answer then they log it. I also think that it's the owners responsibility to respond to the emails. I think it should be a requirement and falls under properly maintaining a cache.

2.3k · December 30, 2003

We all agree that those who forge pictures to log LCs and find answers for virts on-line rather than going to the location are cheating, but other situations are not as clear.

Well, even that is not so clear... What if you found a virt or LC and took a picture of it but forgot to have your GPS in the picture, or lets say that picture didn't come out...

From time to time, a cacher will find an object that fits the theme of a cache, but not all of the posted requirements. These cachers can log the find with the permission of the cache owner. Is the finder cheating? Is the cache owner?

I would guess that if the cache owner is okay with it, then it can not be cheating (perhaps skirting the rules)...

I have found 'regular' caches after the owner has archived it and stated that it was removed. (I was working from old printouts.) I felt fine with my found log. (Over a year later, I retrieved the cache.) Was I cheating?

You weren't but the cache owner sure was!

Is finding a LC after it was archived any different? What if the cache owner said it was OK?

This is a strange thing... Why would you archive a LC?? The only reason I can think is that you don't want to see it on your list anymore... I logged one I worked very hard to plan only to see the owner archive it a few days before I logged it... I logged it anyway and heard no complaints. I even offered to adopt it from the owner just so it would not have to be archived. Never heard back...

Then, of course, you have owners of missing 'regular' caches who suggest that others log it as a find because they found the location, if not the box. Did either party cheat?

Yes.

What about those that take others to caches which they have already found. If these parties gice hints until the cache is found, is it cheating?

Finally, there is the 'Phone-A-Friend' option. If someone allows others to phone him/her to obtain clues for caches which he doesn't own, is the hint giver or the hint requester cheating?

Giving hints is not cheating...

I only just heard of "Using a Life-Line/Phone a Friend" to find a cache... again hints are not cheating but I personally would feel the experience has less value for me if I was forced to get multiple hits...

Edited December 30, 2003 by Doc-Dean

December 30, 2003

... There is one thing on cheating that is really my pet peeve. I know a lot of people do it and feel it's ok, but I don't like it when someone logs a find on a virtual before getting a response from the owner. I think they should wait a significant amount of time for a reply and then if no answer then they log it. I also think that it's the owners responsibility to respond to the emails. I think it should be a requirement and falls under properly maintaining a cache.

Let's quantify a "significant" amount of time, because this is a BIG pet peeve of mine. I'm not waiting more than two days for a response acknowledging that I got the right answer from a tarnished brass plaque at the foot of a statue of some Spanish explorer. Is that really cheating or being cheated?

December 30, 2003

What is cheating?

We all agree that those who forge pictures to log LCs and find answers for virts on-line rather than going to the location are cheating

Oh, this is going to be an interesting topic to track!

2k · December 30, 2003

Am I alone? Dosen't everybody have a little voice that tells them when they are doing something they shouldn't?

Am I the only one who:

Reported cash income on my taxes while I was in collage.

Left a note when I dinged a car in the parking lot.

Gave the airhead cashier back the $20 extra change.

and on

My point is cheaters will cheat, honest people will be honest.

Cheaters live with those choices, honest people live with thier choices.

On the other thread Brain made a point to the effect that ignoring cheating was tactic approval. If I catch somebody cheating I call them on it. Adding more rules only provides the chance to cheat more. The way to change society is to teach good values to the children, and to teach others by example.

Would adding a bunch of rules and restricting the types of caches available really change our social morals? I'm kind of doubting it.

EDIT: added full quote from briansnat, it bears repeating.

Doc-Dean, in all aspects of our society there are certain mores. Cheating at anything is considered by most to be unacceptable. There is cheating at solitare and cheating company shareholders out of millions of dollars. In between there are other levels of cheating. Some cheating rises to the level of a crime while other cheating, though not a crime, should at least have a stigma attached to it; the stigma of disapproval.

Cheating at geocaching is not a crime, but the least the community could do is make it known that it isn't acceptable. To ignore it, is to give it tacit approval.

And no, cheating at geocaching is not victimless. As I've pointed out before, it can cause other geocachers to waste valuable time.

Edited December 30, 2003 by rusty_tlc

December 30, 2003

I don't do virts anymore as a rule, but it did seem to me that it is customary around here for the finder to log the find and then send the email. If the owner is acually maintaining the cache, he then can delete any logs that are not in compliance with the cache requirements. This puts the onus on the owner to maintain the virt.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Just another reason for me not to do virts.

-ST

December 30, 2003

Am I alone? Dosen't everybody have a little voice that tells them when they are doing something they shouldn't?

It would seem not, unfortunately.

December 30, 2003

I personally wouldn't log something I didn't find, whether the container was missing or I found the wrong item on a virtual hunt. But I try not to get too upset by those who do otherwise; if it's important to them, well, it didn't hurt me. I would not go so far as to call it cheating, though I secretly think it's a little lame. I don't want people logging my cache if they just got close to where it used to be, nor do I want them logging a find again on their second visit. But, honestly, I'm not going to police that either. The only thing that I think is worth quibbling about is something that would mislead other cachers (logging a find on a non-present cache irritates me because sometimes I just skim the last few logs, see smileys, and figure all is well).

If you find an archived or disabled cache, I see absolutely nothing wrong with logging a find on it. You found it, regardless of the status of the cache page. With virts and locationless, though, the object is *always* going to be in place, and the verification/consent of the owner is in integral part of the find. What does it mean to "place" a virt or locationless? Placing a physical cache is obvious. It seems that owner intent is important to non-physical caches, so when that's gone, the cache is 'gone.' I would not log an archived virtual or locationless without that owner consent. There's no other way for a virt or locationless to have a finite lifespan. With regular caches, if the cache is in place the cache is in place. If the owner wanted to remove it, they could. When the owner pulls a virt or locationless on the site, it's the equivalent of going into the field and pulling the physical cache, since this is all the owner CAN do (without involving flagrant vandalism). This may seem a weird distinction, but that's how my brain works.

If the owner of a cache tells you to log it, regardless of the situation, I don't think the word for it is 'cheating,' though I'm really not comfortable logging something I didn't truly find. I might call it 'cheating' if you take someone along who's found the cache and they give you hot/cold clues till you find it, or phone a person for similar information, but not in a "you are evil and should not log a find" way. I sometimes use the term 'cheating' for prematurely reading the hint. Ultimately it's left to the cache owner; if a log does not satisfy your requirements for a find, you can delete it. If the owner doesn't care or lets it stand, or even suggests making the log, it's none of my business really. And that's the way it should be. (Okay, once in a while I tear my hair out when I see a blatant failure logged as a find, but that's just personal annoyance; I love DNF logs and wish people wouldn't hesitate to post them. They make the best reading.)

5.3k · December 30, 2003

I don't do virts anymore as a rule, but it did seem to me that it is customary around here for the finder to log the find and then send the email. If the owner is acually maintaining the cache, he then can delete any logs that are not in compliance with the cache requirements. This puts the onus on the owner to maintain the virt.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Just another reason for me not to do virts.

-ST

I agree. Just post it as a find and send the email. I always note in the email that I have already logged it. If I don't have the correct info, the owner can delete the log and let me know.

Think of it like a regular cache. You don't have to wait for the owner to check the cache log before you log it online, do you?

December 30, 2003

:blink:

You know caching is suppose to be fun...virtuals, locationless, GC caches...all fun...

How can cheating on these be fun ?

December 30, 2003

I don't do virts anymore as a rule, but it did seem to me that it is customary around here for the finder to log the find and then send the email. If the owner is acually maintaining the cache, he then can delete any logs that are not in compliance with the cache requirements. This puts the onus on the owner to maintain the virt.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Just another reason for me not to do virts.

-ST

I agree. Just post it as a find and send the email. I always note in the email that I have already logged it. If I don't have the correct info, the owner can delete the log and let me know.

Think of it like a regular cache. You don't have to wait for the owner to check the cache log before you log it online, do you?

What should you do if you know an owner doesn't maintain the virt? ie, they never check the find logs to the emails. Why waste the time and disk space sending the emails when you know they aren't going to be read.

On the other hand I've had a bad experence with a rest stop virt. The virt had bad coordinates and I sent an answer to the very, very general question and my find got whacked. Oh well...

5.9k · December 30, 2003

Am I alone? Doesn’t everybody have a little voice that tells them when they are doing something they shouldn't?

No, not alone at all. Most don’t listen though… 

Reported cash income on my taxes while I was in collage.

Never had the problem, although I always correct the cashier when he/she gives me incorrect change even when it’s beneficial to me. I remember what it’s like to have your drawer come up short.

Left a note when I dinged a car in the parking lot.

When I was 17 I dinged a car at the 7-11 and left. Later that night I came out of the strip club across the turnpike from Bowl-a-rama (parked car there so parents wouldn’t see it parked at the strip club) and my car had been mashed by a drunk bowler. Karma I guess…

Gave the airhead cashier back the $20 extra change.

See above

Would adding a bunch of rules and restricting the types of caches available really change our social morals? I'm kind of doubting it.

No, we don’t need any more dadgum rules that for sure.

But in the end, it’s just a game. If I find someone has fraudulently claimed one of my caches, I’d delete the log if I were sure. There is no competition and the site won’t track stats for those very reasons. The cheaters are only cheating against themselves. As for virts and LCs, if you hunt them and care about them, you should know going in that it’s entirely on the honor system. Don’t be too disappointed if you discover that honor is lacking.

December 30, 2003

I said this on a similar topic (and at the risk of repeating myself):

"As far as padders and cheaters go, I think communities such as the geocaching community, tend toward self-regulation. My perception of the geocaching community is that we are, for the most part, honest and good people. I'm sure that there is a very small minority who would stop at nothing to bring their numbers up. Most folks are good at smelling rats and I think most of us would tend to distance ourselves from those kinds of people."

I agree with Criminal - no more stinking rules.

Let your conscience be your guide (and hopefully you were raised right).

22k · December 30, 2003

In geocaching, to cheat is to violate rules dishonestly.

In situations where caches are found with information not normally provided to cachers simply lowers the level of difficulty for that cacher.

Whether or not to log it as a find is a personal choice.

We recently had a tricky newly placed cache that a person was provided additional information to help verify the accuracy of the placement. That person declined to post as the first to find as they had insider information.

If I tell my 7 seven year old daughter on a cache hunt that "maybe you should look near that log over there." Am I supposed to tell her, "okay, but since I helped you, you really didn't find the cache."?

There was no cheating or dishonesty in either example.

Edit: one too many l's

Edited December 30, 2003 by TeamX40

2k · December 30, 2003

How about this!!!!!!

We all form a pact, after 1/1/4 we replace the logs in all our caches with new ones. Then review every paper entry and match it to a web log on this site. No entry in the paper log, bada bing bada boom delete the web log! That will teach those no good rotten cheaters a thing or three!!!! Lets look at the score board in Feb and see who's on top then.

(Voice of reason) But rusty, the competitive ones are probably legit. Deleting a bunch of logs won't change the standings much.

Yea, but we will be vindicated!!!!!!!

(Voice of reason) But won't that take a lot of time? Wouldn't it be more fun to find or hide some caches?

Well ok, lets go caching. Let these guys debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

2.3k · December 30, 2003

How about this!!!!!!

We all form a pact, after 1/1/4 we replace the logs in all our caches with new ones. Then review every paper entry and match it to a web log on this site. No entry in the paper log, bada bing bada boom delete the web log! That will teach those no good rotten cheaters a thing or three!!!! Lets look at the score board in Feb and see who's on top then.

(Voice of reason) But rusty, the competitive ones are probably legit. Deleting a bunch of logs won't change the standings much.

Yea, but we will be vindicated!!!!!!!

(Voice of reason) But won't that take a lot of time? Wouldn't it be more fun to find or hide some caches?

Well ok, lets go caching. Let these guys debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I see a nice white jacket in your future!

2k · December 30, 2003

So what I keep my sock puppet on the desk top for everybody to see? The little voice told me it was wrong to set up a new account just to make a point.

2.6k · December 30, 2003

No, we don’t need any more dadgum rules that for sure.

Just say NO to Liberal over regulation!

Since new players don't read the rules before trying the game, I don't see how making new rules will improve anything. This game should be as simple as possible. New players shouldn't have to do research before starting out.

Think "Small Government". Everyone should be happy. Not just the idealists.(which are never happy)

But in the end, it’s just a game.

That's exactly it. Everyone gets something different out of it. :blink:

24.7k · December 30, 2003

Geocachers would never cheat. They would never threaten to adjust your attitude if you delete their log, they would never stalk you via PM, they would never scare off women who post pictures of scars on their knee's, nor would they forget to mention a fiance after accepting an online marriage proposal, they wouldn't steal caches, pirate caches, shoot caches, or leave drugs in caches. They wouldn't tear up an area around a cache in frustration because the difficulty was set at 4 and they can't find it. They would never photoshop the same stupid hand and etrex legend into internet photos for locationless finds. They would never get involved in flame wars.

All in all I find geocachers to be wholesome refreshing people who you would trust sight unseen to watch your kids.

The reality is we have all the same issues as any other group of people. We are a real slice of life. I'm happy with the peer pressure system for what's legit and what's not. Don't require me to enforce rules I'm not interested in enforcing on my caches. I'll pull the plug on this site and this hobby the day this stops being fun.

December 30, 2003

White collar conservative flashin' down the street pointin' their plastic finger at me, ha!

-Jimi Hendrix

2.6k · December 30, 2003

White collar conservative flashin' down the street pointin' their plastic finger at me, ha!

-Jimi Hendrix

Yeah. What was he smokin'?

1.6k · December 30, 2003

I agree with the person who said it's just a game.

And with Renegade_Knight in the fact that Geocachers, REAL Geocachers, are fair, and non cheating people. Those people who cheat, are something other than geocachers, they're cheaters, plain and simple...

2.1k · December 30, 2003

I agree with the person who said it's just a game.

And with Renegade_Knight in the fact that Geocachers, REAL Geocachers, are fair, and non cheating people. Those people who cheat, are something other than geocachers, they're cheaters, plain and simple...

I agree, plus you can't stop people from cheating. The cheaters are going to keep it that way...lol

Actually are they cheating? There really aren't any rules or regulation to it, so the only cheating one could really do is place a cache on NPS land.

December 30, 2003

White collar conservative flashin' down the street pointin' their plastic finger at me, ha!

-Jimi Hendrix

Yeah. What was he smokin'?

I just had to think of something that had "conservative" in it and also hinted at repression (or over-regulation as it were).

I guess I'm not getting the connection between liberal and over-regulation. Help me out here (at the risk of getting off-thread).

20.7k · December 30, 2003

This is pretty much what it has come to. No one can say what cheating is, but we are all against it.

By the way, has anyone suggested more rules? Many have come out against them, but I missed where they were even suggested.

1.6k · December 30, 2003

Yeah, one thing you have to look at is that really there are very few bold RULES in geocaching. One of them being no caches placed on NPS land. But seriously, all Groundspeak/TPTB/Jeremy have really given us is guidelines for play. Those guidelines are to be interpreted however you want.

However, as geocachers, (and not as cheaters) we have developed our own form for geocaching. Not really rules, but stuff that can earn/lose people's respect for you. Once again, you don't even have to really follow good form, but if you don't people'll lose respect for you, and you'll be looked down on, but there are no penalties.

Yah, there's penalties for breaking groundspeaks "guidelines" but nothing serious.

The question is really, what is good form and what is bad form? And will anyone ever make a solid decision...

December 30, 2003

I've been pondering a response and here's what I setttled on:

Is it really cheating if you're only Geocaching with someone else's spouse?

Back to the real topic...

I was concerned about cheating maybe 75 caches ago. Stats were important. Now, I could care less what someone counts. If anyone logs a find on my caches, I try to validate it against the terrain I remember, but does it really hurt me if they missed out on a cool spot or some PAM (plastic army men)? If they're cheating, i assume they'll get bored and quit. Serves them right, I say. Their loss.

1.3k · December 30, 2003

I dont really see the big deal if people want to cheat. It's not like the people win stuff if they have 1000 finds or something. I don't cheat, because I dont really see a point to it. I doubt people check my profile often to see what my stats are. I care what my stats are, because they are mine. When i see that i have 40-some finds, i'm proud of myself because i havent been doing this for very long. Anyways, i think if cheaters wanna cheat, then go ahead. Now if there was some incentive to cheat, i may bend the rules a little.

2.1k · December 30, 2003

I dont really see the big deal if people want to cheat. It's not like the people win stuff if they have 1000 finds or something. I don't cheat, because I dont really see a point to it. I doubt people check my profile often to see what my stats are. I care what my stats are, because they are mine. When i see that i have 40-some finds, i'm proud of myself because i havent been doing this for very long. Anyways, i think if cheaters wanna cheat, then go ahead. Now if there was some incentive to cheat, i may bend the rules a little.

Likely answer from a RAT....lmao just kidding with ya, couldn't help it...

1.1k · December 30, 2003

Could you define "logging"?

2.6k · December 30, 2003

Selective "logging" or clear cutting?

1.6k · December 30, 2003

I think he was looking for the other less, eco-killing logging...

...The kind that involves getting on some website called geocaching.com...

1.1k · December 30, 2003

GREAT TOPIC!!!

I am filling this as I go along reading the postings.

A little inner voice told me to answer this topic.

First thing out of the box. I have a few virtuals out. I have posted right on the webpage for anyone who thinks they have the right answer to post their log, send me a seperate e-mail with the requested information and they will not hear from me unless their answer is wrong. I think it is simpler for me and the cache hunter. There have been a few that have had to change their log to a note or not found but I have had no problems with anyone yet. Knock on wood.

As for cheating. I guess the only person who can really answer the question about cheating on a cache is the person looking back at you in a mirror. The rest of us take your word for it that you did everything right.

Unless proven wrong. But, bust our trust one time and you will be in doubt for the rest of your life. And that apply's to the rest of our dealings with you even outside of this game.

Besides, what have you to gain? A bigger find count? Big flipping deal. Join several cachers with a lot of finds as a group and then pat yourself on the back with the big number of finds.

Enough for right now. We have a large BONFIRE in about three feet of snow to go meet some local cachers at. Later.

I think he was looking for the other less, eco-killing logging...

And do you reallly want to get into this topic here?????

logscaler.

Edited December 30, 2003 by logscaler

1.3k · December 30, 2003

That's Lucy. She's my pet rat. Yeah. Cheating is for suckers. I think it's a huge waste of time. There's just no point!

December 30, 2003

Geocachers would never cheat.

They would never photoshop the same stupid hand and etrex legend into internet photos for locationless finds.

ROTFLMAO!!!! :blink: :mad:

December 30, 2003

Let the cheaters cheat. Why should we care? I look at it like golf. If someone wants to cheat they will. If they want to brag about it later I just point out the mulligans and foot wedges to them and if they don't I don't say anything it's just the way they enjoy themselves.

LCs are not cheating they are just different. I would like to see them counted as a separate total but they are not so the playing field is even for everyone. Log them or don't it's up to you. Since you can log them just like anyone else can you shouldn't view it as cheating just because you choose not to log them.

VCs are OK I guess. Far from cheating though. I haven't done any but the closest caches to me that I haven't done are all virtual. They would make great places for traditional or mult-caches but since they are already taken as VCs it is unfortunate. Maybe I could cheat and use them as part of a multi and just not inform the approver about those legs of the cache?

5.3k · December 30, 2003

Geocachers would never cheat.

They would never photoshop the same stupid hand and etrex legend into internet photos for locationless finds.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

I found this thread...does that count??

3.9k · December 30, 2003

I didn't read this whoile thread. OK, I didn't really read any of it, but I was just wondering. Who are these people cheating against?

December 30, 2003

I didn't read this whoile thread. OK, I didn't really read any of it, but I was just wondering. Who are these people cheating against?

Themselves mostly.

There's arguments that fake 'Finds' on missing caches could mislead the cache owner and those actually hunting for the container, stuff like that, but for the most part the only people being 'harmed' are the ones who are lying.

1.8k · December 30, 2003

Does anyone else find it interesting that the words 'cheat' and 'cheaters' also contain the word 'EAT'. Yes, I know, both words also contain the word 'heat' as well. But, lets just focus on the the word 'eat'. Okay, stay with me on this one, what happens to everyone that has ever tried to stay on a diet? They eventually 'cheat'. Why? Because of an overwelming desire to 'eat". Now, what happens to people that constantly 'cheat', thats right, you guessed it, they eventually break down and 'eat'. So, it goes without saying, people are ALWAYS going to cheat because people are always going to try and diet. Tada.

2.3k · December 30, 2003

Does anyone else find it interesting that the words 'cheat' and 'cheaters' also contain the word 'EAT'. Yes, I know, both words also contain the word 'heat' as well. But, lets just focus on the the word 'eat'. Okay, stay with me on this one, what happens to everyone that has ever tried to stay on a diet? They eventually 'cheat'. Why? Because of an overwelming desire to 'eat". Now, what happens to people that constantly 'cheat', thats right, you guessed it, they eventually break down and 'eat'. So, it goes without saying, people are ALWAYS going to cheat because people are always going to try and diet. Tada.

What's most frightening is that I think I understood that!

December 31, 2003

i hate saying this but arent GC cheaters only cheating themselves out of interesting walks and exercise? oh no someone just made their find count higher by cheating....well he doesnt REALLY deserve the accolades that are presented to people who find lots of caches because he didnt really do it...........

I dont play for stats I play for the ability to be the first person to see an open field glistening in the previous nights snow fall

1.1k · December 31, 2003

What's most frightening is that I think I understood that!

So are carbs bad or good. I am so confused. Anybody got a donut I can cheat, uh, I mean eat?

1.2k · December 31, 2003

So are carbs bad or good.

Why, yes, they are.....lol.

Agreed on many levels. Cheating in Geocaching is just cheating yourself. Geocachers shouldn't cheat. Yada, yada, yada......

The most profound one was about how since this is NOT a competition, how can you cheat anyway?

Once again I say, I don't care if someone is cheating in Geocaching. I pay attention to MY numbers and NO ONE else's. Period. If I find someone has logged one of my caches and it is obviously not a legal find, I simply deal with it. No problem, no arguements, just deal with it. I don't come to the forums and rant and rave about people cheating, etc, etc, etc,.......

I don't care how many cache finds you have, or how few, or what kind of caches you find, or don't find. I'm glad you're caching, I'm glad I'm caching.

That is how I feel about it.

:blink: :bad: :bad:

1.1k · December 31, 2003

I would much rather argue about poor trades. When we started caching a few months ago we where 'afraid' of a fellow cacher thinking we had traded poorly. Obviously I spent some time readin the forums while I waited for my GPSr to arrive.

Our 1 cache has been in place for about 2 months now and has been well received. After its 25th find I went to do some maint. and found a horrid trade. Overall the locals did a great job but 1 person had left dirty, old toys. REALLY dirty old toys, like old dog chew toy toys. What the H is that? You wanna pump your numbers, go ahead. You want to cheat your fellow cachers with trash trades, do it in someone elses cache. I really want to drop this garbage off in one of this persons caches. Doing so while making a point, would cheat the next guy along the line, not my intended cacher. So I have kept this crap as a reminder. Every time I open my Geopack I see these worthless pieces of S.

To me, bad trades are cheating. Cheating your fellow cachers out of the friendly spirit that keeps this sport alive. Happy New Years you cheap S**&%^&&*&$%!

December 31, 2003

1.1k · December 31, 2003

December 31, 2003

i enjoy looking at my numbers to see how many caches i have found. if someone else has 2000 finds it doesn't deminish my expierience. let the cheaters cheat. they aren't impressing me and they only mess up their own profile.

1.8k · December 31, 2003

i enjoy looking at my numbers to see how many caches i have found. if someone else has 2000 finds it doesn't deminish my expierience. let the cheaters cheat. they aren't impressing me and they only mess up their own profile.

Exactly my point!!! Let the cheaters cheat and the eaters eat!!! :blink:

Cheating?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment