Relativism, Discussion Boards, and Geocaching
There appears to be only one discussion on the Groundspeak fora these days. In the end, each thread ends up with KBI, sbell111, and/or Mushtang (among some others) clamoring that no cache should ever be judged lame. Any attempt at trying to judge a cache beyond one’s own experience is something scorned and thus should not be engaged in. And for those who do not listen, they will proclaim that anytime someone dares to suggest otherwise.
As I’ve said before:
Preventing (or even limiting) the existence of lame caches is impossible. It is impossible for the simple reason that there is no consensus definition of the word “lame” (or crappy, or ‘microspew,’ or whatever you want to call it) as it applies to geocache hides, and there never will be.
KBI, 22 Jan 2007, emphasis his
This relativism is interesting. I am quite familiar with it as I employed this tactic during my undergraduate program. Dr. Schlecht can corroborate that. During my senior independent study (The Meaning of Death), I used to sit with Lud rattling off the relativist’s mantra. “You can’t judge me.” “Who is so mighty as to tell me what to do?” “Sure, anything’s game.” etc. Meeting after meeting I would be challenged. It was easy to fall back on relativism. There is no work involved. All is accepted because nothing is “better” than anything else.
To hell with community. It can never be advanced because whatever advancement is, is no better than something else. That is the relativist’s strength. There is no way to knock the theory.
Except that relativism fails. Once pushed, a relativist states that there are no lame caches absolutes; all is relative. Yet that statement, all is relative, is an absolute. This circuitous argument is nonsense. Of course, we see that demonstrated in the fora.
For most of us (there are no serious relativists these days), we hold that some things are better than others. We accept that there are gradations of things. And we judge experiences all the time.
It’s easy to see with morals. Do you have any pronouncements about what Jeffrey Dahmer did?
We judge smaller matters too. “She shouldn’t speak to her children like that.” “Why do they have their pants hanging down below their butts?” “Brittney Spears should not be out carousing.” “What was Michael Jackson thinking when he did that?”
Each of those statements is made based on some standard. How are those standards determined? Over time, a community creates its mores. Many of these standards point to absolute truths. We jail those who kill others for drug money because as a society we accept that murder is wrong.
With geocaching, there are no universal truths in an of itself. We draw upon what we know from other areas of life and apply to our game. So, when Criminal points out caches that people have claimed to have found when in fact they haven’t found them, it is easy for him to describe that as a lie. When it is habitual, one may go further in his judgment.
Clarifying the mores for the activity would be beneficial for all of us. But some will never participate in the discussion earnestly. The relativists “justify” micros on smelly dumpsters because
At the end of the day, the only standard that anyone should go by when hiding a cache is whether they would like to find it. If you stick to that standard, your cache will be successful.
sbell111
First, notice Mr. Bell’s use of should. It sure sounds as though he prescribing how others are to play the game when he uses that word. Had anyone else done so, I am certain we would have heard about dictating how others play the game.
This argument stems from an earlier post Mr. Bell made:
I do disagree somewhat with one tiny point you made, however. That is that ‘lame’ caches hurt the game because people emulate them. I would argue that if they are emulated, then they must have been liked. If a cache was enjoyed, then it couldn’t have been lame.
Despite his claim, an emulated cache can be lame. Permit me to illustrate this with an example.
In November 2001 I found Microcache, an Altoids tin hidden in a newspaper bin in Rittenhouse Square. I liked the cache. I liked it so much that the very first cache I placed, Founder’s Avenue, emulated the cache; I placed an Altoids tin in a Daily Journal’s bin on Landis Avenue. Here, Mr. Bell and I agree: folks emulate caches they like.
But there is more to the story. My Founder’s Avenue cache was lame. I even said so on 28 August 2006:
This cache was indeed lame.
Someone is certain to invoke KBI’s assertion that there is no consensus as to what lame is. But Bell uses lame to support his flawed assertion. I was the one who emulated a cache and I am the one who proclaimed it lame. There is no ambiguity based on definitions. I am the only one involved.
My definition of lame, whatever it is, is all that matters here. I was able to apply it not only to my cache, but also the cache that I emulated. And since my Founder’s Avenue cache begot another cache, I can easily apply that judgment to it as well. The point being, an emulated cache can easily be lame.
I stipulate that there will not be consensus on the definition of lame. I learned this lesson when I tried to build consensus that are caches better than a virtual that could be googled. There were folks who would not concede that point. That, however, is not the end of the debate.
One can establish standards. Standards define acceptability. In this case, they shape good hides.
One thing relativists will point out is that there is not consensus as to these standards. Indeed, there are not. Relativists can tune out now for there is nothing remaining that pertains to them.
These standards are most definitely my standards. But they are shaped by common ideals. I have no expectation that these will be adopted and made into guidelines rules. These do not serve that purpose. Rather, they can be used to demonstrate what is possible.
One may not construct his standards the same way I have mine. Disregard that for a moment. Will a cache based on these standards be a good cache, however you define good?
That is what matters. Will a good cache result in accepting these standards? Seekers desire good caches. Not all good caches are ones they can/will complete. That does not negate whether or not a cache is good.
If each hider placed his caches based on a known set of criteria, I imagine folks would be able to identify those caches they desired to seek. To that end, here are the standards I have used to place my caches.
Feel free to adopt them, comment on them, add to them, dismiss them, whatever. Most important, consider your standards when you place a cache. The community will be better for it. If one strives to place the best cache he can, the seekers of that cache will more likely be impressed. Isn’t that what hiding a cache is about?