1) Having never been to or organised an event cache I'm not real sure. The thing that MUST be put into perspective is the amount of time, effort and even money put into the project. Something like the Beni event would have taken ages to organise but the waypoints / caches would have been known to the organiser. Some credit should be given to an organiser of an event like this. With something like a 4x4 weekend or dinner event, I can see no problem with the organiser logging this as a find as long as they turn up.<p>
2) Why would ANYBODY want to set a cache and then log it as a find? I thought the major fun of caching was the thrill of the chase. If someone is so interested in stats for the sake of trying to beat someone else, they are sad, sad individuals. Teams like Maccamob and Tangles to name two of the bigger finders have got their totals through work, not just convenience.<p>
3) A grey area. Yes, move it for safety reasons ONLY. The original setter would have to be notified immediately with reasons. Moving it for muggle reasons would be hard. The cache setter, you think, would have a fair knowledge of the area where they set the cache.
Ethics of geocaching
-
The Rats
- 5000 or more caches found
- Posts: 436
- Joined: 08 April 03 12:44 pm
- Location: Wollongong NSW
- Contact:
Re: Ethics of geocaching
Wow, theres the sixty four million dollar question??? Do I log my own upcoming event. I for one probably won't log my own event, thats part and parcel of hosting an event. Fair enough if theres more than one team involved in the organisation then thats a way for them to get some credit.EcoTeam wrote:swampgecko wrote:Would like the feedback of the Australian geocaching community on a few matters.
How do you all feel about the following issues.
1. Logging your own event cache?
2. Logging your own cache find?
3. Moving another player's cache to "more suitable location"?
But really the first 2 points could be rolled up into one by taking a step back and thinking why are people keen to log either their own event or their own caches? I think its so people can see their cache tally increase. Would we be still keen to log our own if we could only log a "note". I think not.
As for moving another persons cache. I think it should only be done with the cache owners approval. I remember a southern sydney cache that the finder couldn't put back into the orginal hidding spot after finding it due to mugglers coming close to GZ so they took it upon themselves to hide the cache in a new location, posting the new coordinates in their log. This I feel is a no-no and I know the cache owner wasn't too happy.
Throwing another curve ball, what else could we include in our ethics.
What about appropriate cache locations? or appropriate cache contents? just a few ideas to get everyone thinking.
My 2 cents worth
Dave
My 2 cents
I donÂ’t disagree with any of the above really its all a mater of context, I feel though if we are talking about ethics maybe we should address the effects of geocaching on others or the environment. Is it right that an area containing a waypoint/cache be defoliated by people looking for a it. Is it the fault of the person hiding it if it happens, or if the seeker solely to blame. Should we avoid hiding caches in sensitive areas that is public land open to the public but home to a endangered species or under regeneration. I have concerns about some places I have put caches I just hope that, and so far in those location people have been, careful of the environment. I think these and other issues are the real ethical challenges of Geocaching. The issues above might best be described as etiquette as they effect only our community and are about getting along together, I think we need an etiquette and we need to make it clear to new cachers. Most learn it from another cacher of course along with other tricks of the trade. An ethical statement really should be about our responsibility to the wider community and the environment.
-
Mind Socket
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
- Location: Gladesville, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Ethics of geocaching
I began drafting a set of guidelines with some other cachers some time ago, and have since deleted the document. Too many grey areas and too many differing opinions. Each cache placement/log/swap simply needs to have some common sense applied and constructive criticism should take care of the rest. Guidelines do eventually end up being too limiting if they are strictly set or adhered to, so if it's done, it needs to be done carefully.The Rats wrote:Throwing another curve ball, what else could we include in our ethics.
What about appropriate cache locations? or appropriate cache contents? just a few ideas to get everyone thinking.
My single guideline is "don't do anything that would annoy or inconvenience several others, unless you don't like them". Works universally and lets people learn from their mistakes.
- Rog ... "GPS owners for actual Geocaching"
-
swampgecko
- It's all in how you get there....
- Posts: 2185
- Joined: 28 March 03 6:00 pm
Having watched this thread with great interest over the last 2 days I have come to one main conclusion.<P>
Even though the majority of geocachers would like to see a local code of ethics, there is enough people that would possibly ignore the code and just do what they do now.<P> Am I correct in this assessment? I believe that I am. It would just be adding a burden that really we don't need. As an Approver I have two sets of guidelines to follow, the guidelines that we are now suppose to be using, the secondary site guidelines, and approver guidelines, why do I want to weigh myself down with another set? Our own personal values should be more than enough.
Just as a side issue. Approvers are just that "approvers". Someone you should turn to if you have an idea for a cache and are unsure if you think it will work or not. Approvers are not geopolice, we are not there to sort out problems between cachers, we are all big enough and ugly enough to fight our own battles.
Even though the majority of geocachers would like to see a local code of ethics, there is enough people that would possibly ignore the code and just do what they do now.<P> Am I correct in this assessment? I believe that I am. It would just be adding a burden that really we don't need. As an Approver I have two sets of guidelines to follow, the guidelines that we are now suppose to be using, the secondary site guidelines, and approver guidelines, why do I want to weigh myself down with another set? Our own personal values should be more than enough.
Just as a side issue. Approvers are just that "approvers". Someone you should turn to if you have an idea for a cache and are unsure if you think it will work or not. Approvers are not geopolice, we are not there to sort out problems between cachers, we are all big enough and ugly enough to fight our own battles.
Your trying to trick me arn't you .
*thinks even harder about situation*
Recalls advice - "...when in hole, stop digging"
Change of topic may work here:
I never knew there was such a word as "Ruleified". I have only heard it three times and each time was by another cacher while caching locally or at an event. I agree Swampy - What ever you call it people are just going to do what they have always done. Dare you to do a survey on who ever read the fine print. The net will be no exception.
In the classroom I take it for granted that common sence is not always common. I the real world most reasonable people have common sence. Geocaching seens to attract reasonable people. My other past time is Volkswagens. This attracts ugly people who are sometimes unreasonable, but nice. I guess my hobbies are all about seeking a balance.
* bugger * ...am I in another hole?
Bronze.
.*thinks even harder about situation*
Recalls advice - "...when in hole, stop digging"
Change of topic may work here:
I never knew there was such a word as "Ruleified". I have only heard it three times and each time was by another cacher while caching locally or at an event. I agree Swampy - What ever you call it people are just going to do what they have always done. Dare you to do a survey on who ever read the fine print. The net will be no exception.
In the classroom I take it for granted that common sence is not always common. I the real world most reasonable people have common sence. Geocaching seens to attract reasonable people. My other past time is Volkswagens. This attracts ugly people who are sometimes unreasonable, but nice. I guess my hobbies are all about seeking a balance.
* bugger * ...am I in another hole?
Bronze.
Seriously now:
I wouldn't move another persons cache unless it was trashed.
I couldn't give a rats arse what my count is so would waste joules considering the pros and cons of logging Beni event cache.
What was the third?
Uh that's right, your own find:
Your hides are listed - Start logging hides as finds and cache locations will soon become crap pasted needle dens washed in bong water and landscaped by Steve Irwin and Don Bourkes adopted Indonesian, republican love child.
Perhaps I lost the seriousness there for a moment.
Bronze.
I wouldn't move another persons cache unless it was trashed.
I couldn't give a rats arse what my count is so would waste joules considering the pros and cons of logging Beni event cache.
What was the third?
Uh that's right, your own find:
Your hides are listed - Start logging hides as finds and cache locations will soon become crap pasted needle dens washed in bong water and landscaped by Steve Irwin and Don Bourkes adopted Indonesian, republican love child.
Perhaps I lost the seriousness there for a moment.
Bronze.
-
EcoTeam
- 200 or more found
- Posts: 1267
- Joined: 03 April 03 7:57 pm
- Twitter: EEVblog
- Location: Crestwood, NSW
- Contact:
You are correct Swampy.swampgecko wrote:Having watched this thread with great interest over the last 2 days I have come to one main conclusion.<P>
Even though the majority of geocachers would like to see a local code of ethics, there is enough people that would possibly ignore the code and just do what they do now.<P> Am I correct in this assessment?
It might serve some purpose for newbies (if they even get to read the guidelines as they would most likely not know about this group), but would probably be of no value to most regular cachers who already follow their common sense anyway.
It doesn't matter how hard anyone tries, the situation will always be that only a few percent of cachers in Oz would care enough to contribute their opinion to the formation of any guideline. Heck, I can't even get enough people to simply vote for best NSW cache!
If the majority aren't involved in the discussion, then we must ask, do we want the guidelines to be the opinion of just a select few?
Should we assume that those who don't vote or contribute don't want any new guidelines? - I think we should. In which case, that means no new guidelines.
EcoDave
-
Mind Socket
- Posts: 1329
- Joined: 29 March 03 6:04 pm
- Location: Gladesville, Sydney
- Contact:
My 2c worth:
I examine the probity and propriety of people's actions and decisions for a living (no, I'm not a copper, I'm a 'special auditor' - the bastard offspring of a lawyer and an accountant, but without the soul
). Over the years I've found that codes, guidelines, standards, policies and the like are completely and utterly useless as benchmarks for or regulators of human behaviour.
Most people let common sense and the golden rule govern their actions. Occasionally they'll slip up, but more often than not they've got a voice in their head that prompts them to ask somebody else if they did the right thing, and more often than not they'll change their behaviour if the concensus is that they didn't. They watch and learn, and think carefully / consult widely before doing something that will upset the status quo.
Codes and the like aren't much use to them, because they have an internal moral and logical compass that tells them where to go in almost any situation that arises. For example, they might move a cache for some reason, but it'd be a pretty bloody good reason, and they'd inform the owner, and they'd move it back and apologise if the owner said they'd rather it had stayed where it was.
Then there are those people for whom "common sense" was a 1920 silent film directed by Louis Chaudet, the golden rule was something Noah used to measure cubits on the ark, and conscience is what you are when you haven't had enough to drink. They do what they want until they get caught, at which time they feign ignorance, dumb innocence and confusion - unless they're lucky enough to have somebody waive a written document that's anything other than legislation at them. Then they'll proceed to use said document against their accuser, and they will almost always win.
It usually goes like this:
"What's that?"
"It's the code/set of guidelines/policy that's accepted by the community in which you live/work/play."
"Never seen it."
"But everybody knows about it, and abides by it."
"Like I said, never seen it. If it's so important, seems like I should've signed something to show that I agreed to be bound by it, doesn't it?"
"Well..."
"Show me where it says I can't do what I did?"
"Why, that's right here under Article Foo, Subclause Bar..."
"Ah, but I was <insert stupid circumstance that wouldn't have affected a reasonable, moral, thinking person in the slightest, but for some reason rendered this moron incapable of rational thought - for example, robbing a bank while wearing red shoes>. That's not explicitly covered, is it?"
"Well, no, but a reasonable person..."
"Hey, now we're getting subjective. Anyway, it's just a code/guideline/policy - I don't really have to follow it, do I? Is that document law, or just something a committee drew up? Do you actually have the authority to enforce it or to penalise me in any way?"
"No."
"Be seein' ya!"
Your first response is usually to try to tighten the guidelines to cover what they didn't cover before. However, this usually has the opposite effect to the one desired - the document becomes more complex, and Joe "I'll just take a dump in this cache - it doesn't say in the rules that I can't" Schmoe has even more room to wiggle. As Mind Socket said, "Too many grey areas and too many differing opinions."
Eventually you reach the point where our legal system is now - "How can a poor dumb schmuck like me be expected to know all them fangiluted laws?" The difference is that, under the law, ignorance is now excuse, and society has a remedy through the justice system. With codes, guidelines and the like, nobody has recourse to do nuthin'. They're only good for people who agree to be bound by them - the kinds of people didn't need them in the first place.
I like swampgecko's and The Bronze's approaches:
- "Even though the majority of geocachers would like to see a local code of ethics, there is enough people that would possibly ignore the code and just do what they do now."; and
- "In the real world most reasonable people have common sense. Geocaching seens to attract reasonable people."
To make a long rant short, I don't think a code of ethics would be helpful. You can't proscribe a standard of ethics or common sense - you have 'em or you don't. Deal with those who breach community norms on a case-by-case basis, giving them a chance to realise that they could do things differently next time and an opportunity to make it right. Treat those who continue to display an IDGAF attitude like plague victims, and they'll go away.
Cheers!
Matt
I examine the probity and propriety of people's actions and decisions for a living (no, I'm not a copper, I'm a 'special auditor' - the bastard offspring of a lawyer and an accountant, but without the soul
). Over the years I've found that codes, guidelines, standards, policies and the like are completely and utterly useless as benchmarks for or regulators of human behaviour.Most people let common sense and the golden rule govern their actions. Occasionally they'll slip up, but more often than not they've got a voice in their head that prompts them to ask somebody else if they did the right thing, and more often than not they'll change their behaviour if the concensus is that they didn't. They watch and learn, and think carefully / consult widely before doing something that will upset the status quo.
Codes and the like aren't much use to them, because they have an internal moral and logical compass that tells them where to go in almost any situation that arises. For example, they might move a cache for some reason, but it'd be a pretty bloody good reason, and they'd inform the owner, and they'd move it back and apologise if the owner said they'd rather it had stayed where it was.
Then there are those people for whom "common sense" was a 1920 silent film directed by Louis Chaudet, the golden rule was something Noah used to measure cubits on the ark, and conscience is what you are when you haven't had enough to drink. They do what they want until they get caught, at which time they feign ignorance, dumb innocence and confusion - unless they're lucky enough to have somebody waive a written document that's anything other than legislation at them. Then they'll proceed to use said document against their accuser, and they will almost always win.
It usually goes like this:
"What's that?"
"It's the code/set of guidelines/policy that's accepted by the community in which you live/work/play."
"Never seen it."
"But everybody knows about it, and abides by it."
"Like I said, never seen it. If it's so important, seems like I should've signed something to show that I agreed to be bound by it, doesn't it?"
"Well..."
"Show me where it says I can't do what I did?"
"Why, that's right here under Article Foo, Subclause Bar..."
"Ah, but I was <insert stupid circumstance that wouldn't have affected a reasonable, moral, thinking person in the slightest, but for some reason rendered this moron incapable of rational thought - for example, robbing a bank while wearing red shoes>. That's not explicitly covered, is it?"
"Well, no, but a reasonable person..."
"Hey, now we're getting subjective. Anyway, it's just a code/guideline/policy - I don't really have to follow it, do I? Is that document law, or just something a committee drew up? Do you actually have the authority to enforce it or to penalise me in any way?"
"No."
"Be seein' ya!"
Your first response is usually to try to tighten the guidelines to cover what they didn't cover before. However, this usually has the opposite effect to the one desired - the document becomes more complex, and Joe "I'll just take a dump in this cache - it doesn't say in the rules that I can't" Schmoe has even more room to wiggle. As Mind Socket said, "Too many grey areas and too many differing opinions."
Eventually you reach the point where our legal system is now - "How can a poor dumb schmuck like me be expected to know all them fangiluted laws?" The difference is that, under the law, ignorance is now excuse, and society has a remedy through the justice system. With codes, guidelines and the like, nobody has recourse to do nuthin'. They're only good for people who agree to be bound by them - the kinds of people didn't need them in the first place.
I like swampgecko's and The Bronze's approaches:
- "Even though the majority of geocachers would like to see a local code of ethics, there is enough people that would possibly ignore the code and just do what they do now."; and
- "In the real world most reasonable people have common sense. Geocaching seens to attract reasonable people."
To make a long rant short, I don't think a code of ethics would be helpful. You can't proscribe a standard of ethics or common sense - you have 'em or you don't. Deal with those who breach community norms on a case-by-case basis, giving them a chance to realise that they could do things differently next time and an opportunity to make it right. Treat those who continue to display an IDGAF attitude like plague victims, and they'll go away.
Cheers!
Matt
-
Quasar
- 3000 or more caches found
- Posts: 91
- Joined: 05 April 03 7:11 pm
- Twitter: quasar217
- Location: Ringwood, Victoria
- Contact:
I don't often post in here, but this is an interesting one. Regarding the initial questions, I don't see that it matters much. I can't see a problem with logging your own event cache, but logging your own cache as a find? Well it's a bit silly, would anyone actually do that?
Are people that concerned about their finds tally going up? Your planted tally goes up when you plant a cache, but I guess that doesn't appear on your logs. Maybe it should (Logged by Quasar: Found: xx Planted yy).
A code of ethics is an interesting idea, part of me says it's getting too bogged down in regulations, but maybe it shows that the sport is maturing, and would help newcomers find their feet in the game.
I think those questions initially posed for this thread are fairly minor, but a code of ethics should address things like cache contents (make them half decent), environmental issues (placing to minimise trampling of vegetation) etc.
As far as locationless caches go - I really like them, great fun, I particularly enjoy logging trig points - but I think that they're not geocaches and should be a seperate game entirely.
Glenn
Are people that concerned about their finds tally going up? Your planted tally goes up when you plant a cache, but I guess that doesn't appear on your logs. Maybe it should (Logged by Quasar: Found: xx Planted yy).
A code of ethics is an interesting idea, part of me says it's getting too bogged down in regulations, but maybe it shows that the sport is maturing, and would help newcomers find their feet in the game.
I think those questions initially posed for this thread are fairly minor, but a code of ethics should address things like cache contents (make them half decent), environmental issues (placing to minimise trampling of vegetation) etc.
As far as locationless caches go - I really like them, great fun, I particularly enjoy logging trig points - but I think that they're not geocaches and should be a seperate game entirely.
Glenn