Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Great area for a hike and a milestone. Congratulations.
I think I can claim around 14 total, one of which is #100 on the list which was a great 18th birthday present from my parents.
Congratulations. I just read the logs (and then some more logs) and it sounds like a great spot for a milestone.
@marc_54140 wrote:
Starbucks is now an officially recognized therapy center for people who can not make decisions ….
Welcome back.
I must publicly apologize because a few of my comments here have raised some questions from others. Unfortunately some of the comments require insider knowledge of specific situations and without this context they could easily be misintrepreted I also didn’t want to bring specifics into this forum because of the controversial nature so I was trying to stay general.
I apologize to anyone that feels I was calling them out specifically because that was certainly not the intention.
As a past temporary LCG admin, it’s very tough to verify all the activity. Especially with multiple people involved when they don’t all log at the same time. I had numerous cases where people shorted themselves of points and we tried to correct it. I give the admins credit for actually reviewing all the submissions, because they could easily just rubber-stamp them and give everyone what they submit (good / bad).
I’m guessing that a majority of my favorite points have also been awarded to lonelies. As noted earlier by others, these are generally off the beaten path or interesting puzzles.
Just to clarify – I’m not pointing fingers at anyone or accusing anyone of anything. I’m just trying to spur some discussion around some things that might need further definition now that there are lots more people involved in the game.
I interpret (interpret being the “key” word here) the rules to note that the first cacher or group of cachers on a day to get the 2x points. I would assume that 2 people finding it at different times on the same day would not both get double points, but only the first to sign the log.
6.b.2.d
If two teams find a cache at the same time, both teams are eligible for the bonus.My assumption is that if the condition is not met the second cacher does not get the points.
Another opportunity for “gamemanship” would be if you found it the same day another cacher found it, but you knew they didn’t play the LCG. Nobody would be any the wiser about who logged it when and there would only be 1 claim for it.
By definition the LCG is a game. In fact “Game” is right in the title “Lonely Cache Game”.
The game is based on a series of “tasks” undertaken by the various participants that are then reported and tracked via a website. The problem is the individual tasks completed are “on your honor”.
One potential scenario for “gamemanship” would be for a single cacher to sign the name of multiple individuals (or sign a group signature) to a lonely cache log sheet. This is then reported on gc.com as a find by each individual account and also on this website for the points in the game. The problem is there’s no way for anyone to verify anything other than the admins can check to ensure each account also logged it as a find.
Another potential scenario for “gamemanship” would be pre-dating a signature on the log a couple days before the lonely would get extra points. The finder could wait with logging it and claim 2x points.
Prizes / Awards / Bragging Rights could easily be an incentive for people to cheat, bend the rules, etc. Because most of the process is based on “on your honor” there are many opportunities for dishonesty and gamemanship. Considering it’s a game with a very small set of rules, there are numerous opportunities for various levels of “gamemanship”.
I think the LCG is a great concept and certainly wouldn’t want to see it abandonded because it adds great value to the hobby as a whole. I also may / may not seek out “lonelies”, but choose not to play the game portion any longer by claiming the points on this website. This is not much different than others I know that geocache, but never log anything online to track their progress (i.e. the numbers truly don’t matter to these people and there are more than you think that do this)
Exactly why I quit playing the LCG. I look at the list when it comes out each cycle to see what’s out there, but based on what I’ve seen in the last 1 1/2 years I decided to quit playing the game. I’ve witnessed multiple instances that appear to be outright “cheating” (a step worse than gamemanship) based on my observations (both in person and via others).
The intention of the game is great and I think Wisconsin caching is better because of it. Unfortunately as soon as you attach a “score” to something, it appears some people will do almost anything to “beat” their perceived “competition”.
@huffinpuffin2 wrote:
Works great, CJ!
Wish list (never ending…..:oops:) include “0” for missing alphanumerics in output.
Have never seen a Challenge that seeks this info, but assuming there is one, this would be a valuable submission/addition to the ‘GSAK Macros’, with reference to/from the Challenge cache. 🙂 🙂
I found the challenge series via comkelp profile. It’s in Iowa near Des Moines if my memory is correct. My macro doesn’t technically meet the requirements though because you are supposed to list the caches by name. The macro could be changed to easily accomplish this though. Challenge cache road trip??????
AHHH! It feels good to dabble in programming for a change.
Got it working via a macro:
http://webpages.charter.net/edmarks/GSAK/FoundCachesByInitialCharacter.gskYou should be able to “right click” on the link and save this to your PC and then install the macro.
It runs a query for the “FOUND” caches and displays the data in a webpage.
Not sure of a macro, but thinking this should be doable via the built in filtering. You may need to do 26 filters (one for each starting letter), but …
Don’t have my PC with GSAK handy right now, so I can’t test my theory. Writing a macro to do this should be pretty easy though and maybe I’ll give it a whirl tomorrow.
Not sure about this because I’ve seen different variations of cache challenges involving the letters of the alphabet. Almost every one that I’ve seen has specifics regarding the cache name.
Examples:
1) Starts with the letter (simple requirement)
2) Starts with letter, but ignore numbers in front of it.
3) Starts with letter, but ignore WSQ (and similar)
…I think you get the idea, but if you could be more specific in what you’re trying to accomplish perhaps there’s a solution.
Just wondering if “term in office shall be two years” shoud be adjusted to account for slight differences in the annual board meeting date.
Suggestion: “term in office shall be two years to coincide with the date of the annual board meeting” or something similarly creative to account for the fact it’s not always an exact date.
-
AuthorPosts
