Weekend
I don’t have the complete results of The Franchise Walk Hunt yet. I’ll wait until the CoC release the official list.
Meanwhile a few random thoughts and happenings over the weekend.
Recee
I was on the road on Saturday preparing for an up-coming closed hunt. The organizing committee had billed the hunt as a family outing for their staff and I was told to prepare a few children friendly questions. A prefect excuse to bring along my 2 boys on the trip and besides I was feeling rather guilty leaving them at home on the weekend again! I was going to a beach resort and the boys were excited. At first, they were busy challenging each other in spotting names of their favourite tv and carton characters. Not very long into the journey, they were already restless and kept asking if we were there yet? In the end, with frequent McDonald’s stops and breaking up brotherly fights at the back of the car, I didn’t get to do much work and drove straight to the beach resort. For the rest of the afternoon, we just hang out at the beach.
By the time we got home it was very late at night. I was dead tired. A hunter sms the results of the Franchise hunt but I was too tired to blog about it.
It’s a small world
What is it about Klang traffic these days? I attended a friend’s daughter birthday party and got caught in a massive jam on a Sunday! Anyway I was seated at the table with some other guests when the host introduced me to the rest and said something about me and treasure hunts. Turns out 2 of the guys there were actively hunting during the 80s and they spoke about their many treasure hunt adventures. They mentioned a Pulau Besar hunt and I assumed this must be the Kiwanis Hunt. I dropped a couple of “old-timer” names and they all seem to know each other pretty well. Small world indeed.
Our treasure hunt community is a very small world. If you hunt regularly, chances are you will be known by or know almost everyone. Maybe not intimately but at least by name, by look or by reputation. And if you choose to win by cheating, you will get recognized all for the wrong reason very quickly. Don’t think the hunters don’t know when you cheat. One example is, this morning, I was talking to a few hunters about their weekend hunt experience and all along they were talking about this particular “Pakatan” teams. I don’t know these people but the next time these teams take part in other hunts, I’m sure someone will come along and point these guys out.
I’m reminder of what Fuad said during one of his briefing. The organisers and CoCs can only do so much to prevent teams from cheating. They can implement thousands of rules & regulations. In the end, if teams want to cheat, they will find a way. Nobody can stop them from cheating because the decision to cheat is all within them. In their hearts and minds.
AG Wannabe said:
I expect that during the next few weeks or at least the next few hunts, the “Pakatan” teams will be under some amount of limelight. The regulars and not-so-regulars will be tapping each others’ shoulders to find out who these “celebrities” are. With this undue attention, I expect some of them to lie low for the next few hunts, only to emerge again in the month of August (when a few big hunts are scheduled) and return to their dishonest ways. Sigh, doesn’t this “situation” remind one of the Malaysian judiciary and how they handle the “hot and spicy” cases?
But pause for a brief moment and decipher this following thought.
Is what “Pakatan” doing, any different from what a lot of teams in this fraternity, including regulars and not-so-regulars alike, are doing? It is no big hidden secret that teams (including some of those that finish on the podium week in and week out) circulate questions and treasures to friends, to “non-participating” Masters, to CoCs even, etcetera. So these teams could be running in a team of 5,6,7,8,9,10 even, although physically they only appear on the scene with 3 or 4 members.
No difference? I tend to agree!
To cut the chase, my call is for all to clean up their act (not just the “Pakatan” team), adopt some professionalism, be proud of your own team’s capabilities and win based on your own true strengths and merits. Only then, will the plaques hanging on the walls have an extra sweetness to it!
—————————————————————————-
So to all the pots out there: Stop picking on the kettles until you have cleaned up your own act.
And to all the Masters and CoCs out there: Pause for 3 seconds the next time you receive that Treasure or Route question on your Nokia N95. It is an adrenaline rush to some to break these questions which their fellow Masters find difficulty in, I know. But do you really want to be a participant in this unethical dealing?
—————————————————————————-
Food for thought!
ckoh said:
Wow! Nokia N95! Mine’s just Nokia N70. I bet if it’s more modern than the N70, I won’t know how to use it… hehehe.
AG, I think it is very good if we can find a way to ensure the so-called ethical conduct by treasure hunters. But perhaps it is an uphill task for the CoC to achieve. I am convinced that by trying to control it, it is apt to result in more injustice rather than not.
Resourcefulness is a very powerful word. And because everyone owns a cellphone these days, it is very difficult to draw the line between what’s resourcefulness and what’s unethical conduct.
Maybe if we can organise a hunt like the amazing race, where each team brings along a camera man, then it would be possible to minimise cheating. And even then it’s not guaranteed, unless if those camera men are also unaware what’s coming next as the hunt progresses!
I think it is naive to plead to all hunters to play a “professional” game. I don’t believe anyone is gonna heed that call.
Whenever I clerk a hunt, I always remind the hunters not to collaborate between teams. But I also know that if they want to cheat, it is extremely difficult to stop them.
dua kali lima said:
allow me to give my two sen worth of opinion.
the issue here is about cheating during hunts and it seems that cheating to many is when teams from the same or different categories collaborate or have MOUs. The argument is that two collaborating teams of four people would then have “eight minds” compared to the usual four. many put this as unfair and akin to cheating, right? but consider this possibility - two teams, each with two members, collaborate. it is also cheating? based on the above premise, it certainly is as they are collaborating but wait, they only have four minds. so how?
therefore, to me, the so called pakatan teams are just being resourceful and utilising their resources to the fullest. hunts are all about planning, strategies and tactics, like the revelation by AG that “many teams (including some of those that finish on the podium week in and week out) circulate questions and treasures to friends, to “non-participating” Masters, to CoCs even, etcetera. So these teams could be running in a team of 5,6,7,8,9,10 even, although physically they only appear on the scene with 3 or 4 members.”
i know many would disagree with me but i think if we consider collaborating or MOUs as cheating, then getting outside help is also cheating, no matter how you want to look at it because you are employing extra minds to assist you.
don’t tell me i am cheating when i call my mum to ask about some local dish or a friend who is an expert on english football.
the solution here is simple - if you abhor MOUs, then don’t do it but it does not give you the right to label other people who hold different views as cheats or liars. remember, hunt is supposed to be fun, so go out there and enjoy.
ckloh said:
dua kali lima,
You are not alone here. I tend to agree that getting outside help and MOUs are no difference, both employing extra minds to help. You can call both as resourcefullness or both as cheating, depends on the ways you see it. And cheating is a strong word, if you believe in religion, cheating is a sin.
I am not suggesting I will do MOUs in actual hunts, I won’t, not because I think MOUs is wrong, but I believe teams that are better than mine will simply not doing MOUs with my team, why share it? And teams that about the same level with mine, will probably not impact the final result, and I believe doing MOUs consume time. The time consumed will be better use in breaking the clues itself which might improve the final positioning, and breaking the clue itself is the fun part, where fun is a big reason why I indulge in this game at first. Some might not agree, but never mind, I will not try to give long explanations/arguments on this, as they will have no ends.
However, just an idea, if some COCs really particular on ensuring no extra resources helping the 4 participants, maybe they can introduce the 3rd part.
Treasure hunt normally divided into 2 parts, route questions and treasure questions. COCs might want to introduce the 3rd part where cryptic/hunt clues are asked but in this parts it is closely monitored by the marshalls, and anyone that caught getting external helps inclusive of googling will be getting yellow cards or red cards.
On this part of the questions, 4 of the members shall go into a room, one team by one team, where marshalls will give them clues and the team need to solve it in the room without any help and this is monitored by the marshalls. Difficult and almost impossible to implement right, where have so many resources (marshalls/time/venue) ?
The other way of doing it on my opinion, is apart from the normal route question and treasure question, the COC introduce the third part, cyber question, where the COC need to use their video camera and record a 3 to 5 minutes clips of shops and possible signs. Put it in youtube. After the normal hunts, the first 20 participants that complete the hunt need to go into a cybercafe where the COC has booked 20 computers in a row for example. All the team members need to view the youtube at the same time, and there is 5 to 6 marshalls there to monitor. Anyone found collaborating or use their mobile to get external helps will be penalised or even disqualified. After all of the participants completing their answers, the next 20 teams will do the same process and monitor by the same marshalls.
By doing it, at least the winner will need to do very well in this third part, cyber question, where no resources are available, and they really need the brain of 4 to do it.
We all knows that dropping 1 treasures will greatly impact the final positioning, if the COC set the third parts and points given equivalent to the treasure points, it means the winner are most probably determined by who having the best brains in the team. Never mind on the earlier route question and treasure question where there is possible some non-hunting master helps to solve.
Instead of asking the participants to behave, the question is, is the COCs willing to do extas by getting a 3 to 5 minutes video clips put it into youtube and having all the hassle of doing extra by doing it in a cybercafe. During the hunt time, most cybercafes are opened and not really have alot of customers, thus, the COC might even get it done with no additional cost by getting some cybercafe owners to sponsor it.
KNizam said:
i still remember last year’s putrajaya treasure hunt 2007. we need to get into this kinda of room. somewhere near precint diplomatic. we need to match the merdeka logo with the year. no one is allowed to use handphone. even a ring can disqualify a team. that’ll be challenging isn’t.
whatever it is. my team still enjoying every single hunt that we participated. we even blog about it pre and post the hunt. we did enjoy because our objective is more towards jalan2 cari makan and cuti2 malaysia. that’ll be cool isn’t it
AG Wannabe said:
ckoh: I think it is naive to plead to all hunters to play a “professional” game. I don’t believe anyone is gonna heed that call.
AG Wannabe: Just imagine that IF the prophets that went around the world to share Christianity had this same (negative) thought, the religion would have ceased a long time ago. The intent of my message is to create awareness. Eg. it is ok to hug a fellow-person that has contracted the AIDs virus; it is not ok to dump a cigarette butt on the street after finishing the last puff etc. There will be followers and there will be non-followers. My wish is that the former will outnumber the latter over time.
dua kali lima: But consider this possibility - two teams, each with two members, collaborate. it is also cheating? based on the above premise, it certainly is as they are collaborating but wait, they only have four minds. so how?
AG Wannabe: Unless you have an ulterior motive, why not combine the 4 heads into 1 team rather than running in 2 teams of 2 heads? Is it part of your agenda to maybe grab to sets of prizes rather than 1? Depriving another team of their deserved prize, because of this collaboration, I consider this trait as dishonesty as well. The next time the thought of collaboration comes in your mind, think about this. Imagine if the Top Masters catches on, and decides to collaborate in every single event, even scraps will be wiped off from the plates leaving nothing for minnows like us.
AG Wannabe said:
Just to add, I don’t feel the onus is on the CoC / Organizer to patch all the loopholes that the-dishonest choose to manipulate. These worthy people already have their hands full:
- creating the event
- publicising the event
- looking for sponsors for the event
- planning the logistics for the event
… all to ensure that we have a fun and memorable time out.
All the suggestions provided above, creates additional logistics and additional logistics leads to additional costs and more logistics. The onus should be on the participant(s) to decide whether they want to play fair or whether they want to be dishonest.
Yes, technology does encourage the-dishonest, however it also has a way of catching up with them. Look at how this lady ended up by choosing to be dishonest:
http://english.cri.cn/2886/2007/10/06/48@281137.htm
Mike said:
AG Wannabe,
I know you are using examples to illustrate your points. But try leaving politics and religion out of it. We only need one or two people to pick on the eg given and things can spiral out of control.
This early reminder also goes out to everyone, stay focus.
ckoh said:
AG,
Please don’t get me wrong; I am not an advocate of unethical conduct in treasure hunts. But maybe we have slightly different criteria of what constitutes “professionalism”.
I share your wishes too; and if indeed one of these days we can really see the “followers” outnumbering the “non-followers” I’ll be among those who will be very happy.
“There will be followers and there will be non-followers. My wish is that the former will outnumber the latter over time.”
— AG Wannabe
But I’d like to be realistic; and if being realistic amounts to thinking negatively, then I suppose that’s what I have to live with.
When I started hunting, there was one occasion when I hunted against another team of girls from my own company. We were all new hunters back then. But they ended up doing better than my team. I was devastated. Consider this question which I failed to answer:
Q) Morning after a holiday?
A) May 2
I can only laugh at myself when I look at this question now. But during that hunt, somehow I did not think of 1st of May being a public holiday. The other team—they were my staff—got the intended answer. I felt horrible because I was under pressure to perform better than my staff. I put myself under that pressure!
And then later I found out that they didn’t get the answer too. Instead, they actually called up another hunting team and was supplied with that answer. I considered that as cheating, but apparently they didn’t share my view. If I had to do it all over again, I will still not collaborate with another hunting team.
But getting help from non-hunting persons, now that’s different! If that is deemed as being “unprofessional”, then I’m afraid it is highly unlikely that you will ever be able to find very many “professional” teams, if any.
I hate to break it to you, my friend, but although I admire your courage and positive outlook, perhaps you have a very, very long wait before you get to see the former will outnumber the latter over time.
Cheers!
AG Wannabe said:
Cheats are cheats period. It does not matter how they cheat. Students sharing answers with each other during an exam are cheats. Students sending exam questions to their friends or families for help while sitting for an exam are also cheats.
I am prepared to wait. After all, those suffering from AIDs had also waited a long time before they were finally accepted by their families and friends. And how was this breakthrough achieved? Simply through awareness and education.
My wish is for all to help spread this message that both practices are non-acceptable PERIOD. As it takes 2 hands to clap, I am throwing down the gauntlet to all (Masters and CoCs especially) to stop responding to that weekend SMS asking for help to a specific Treasure or Question. Just remember that by offering to help a team, you will be disappointing another.
G said:
Calling for outside help to check on certain facts is being resourceful which is allowed by COCs and sometimes even encouraged, but calling for help among those who are also in the hunt equates to collaboration and that is cheating.
ckoh said:
“Students sending exam questions to their friends or families for help while sitting for an exam are also cheats.”
—AG Wannabe
Please forgive me, AG, I did not realise that you are treating treasure hunts the same as written examinations.
“I am prepared to wait.”
—AG Wannabe
Good luck with your wait, my friend.
RajKumar-MenInBlack said:
Is the AG still waiting ?
G said:
Pardon my ignorance, are handphones allowed in examination halls these days ? The last time I sat in an examination hall, handphones is a non-thing.
sad said:
AG Wannabe,
I must tell you that i fully agree with you. Cheats are cheats. It doesn’t matter whether it is done with an MOU or it is done with an sms to other non-hunting masters. In fact, the regulars/masters should portray an even cleaner image as they should lead by example.
ckoh,
As a CoC yourself, what level of professionalism do you see displayed by the hunters when you clerk a hunt? Actually, you can ignore this question because it appears that the hunting community is not on the same page when the definition of “professionalism” comes to mind. On a different note, I remember some time ago when there were rules that handphones were not allowed. The intent was good but not practical as it was impossible to enforce. So, CoCs generally accepted that handphones will be allowed.
ckloh,
It is extremely difficult to organize to that detail especially if the crowd is big. How then do you ensure that the people from the first 20 do not share any answers with the next 20.
Anyway, i am just curious to know this. Quite often, we see teams being DQ-ed for being late. Anybody knows how many are DQ-ed for cheating/collaborating? Again, if no enforcement on the rules, people will continue to flout them.
ckoh said:
sad,
Please don’t be sad.
It is very easy to forget that the word “cheat” is subject to the rules of the game. And those rules are not necessarily based on anyone’s ideals.
What do you think of the “speed suit” worn by some swimmers for international swimming contest? Would you consider those wearing them as cheating? Well, my opinion is that they were not cheating. But recently, I was given to understand that those suits have been outlawed. Therefore from this point onwards, if anyone puts the suit on during a competition, then I would consider him cheating.
I dare say that it is impossible to police the hunters during a hunt. If you can find a way to stop them from sending out SOSes to other parties, then yes, let’s all make it a rule to disallow outside help. I am all for it!
Let me send out a challenge to any CoC who dares to declare that he can control the hunters from getting outside help. I have thought about it long and hard, but I have not come to a satisfactory solution. And I doubt that any CoC has achieved anything better.
to be continued…
ckoh said:
Since we can’t enforce that rule, then it has now become a practice—in fact almost an implied rule—that hunters are allowed, even encouraged, to seek outside help when the hunt is in progress. If it is accepted and practised by all, then who am I to say that it amounts to cheating? It is only cheating is when one does something against the rule.
You may not like the idea of many other people helping from the sidelines; and I don’t like it either. But if the CoC tries to make it a rule that no outside help is admissible, then what could potentially happen is that only the good guys will be punished! Those who follow the rules will stand no chance to compete, because others will secretly seek outside help anyway. And they can get away with it because it will be very difficult for the CoC to catch them. That’s why I said by trying to make a rule against outside help, it will only cause more injustice rather than not.
to be continued…
ckoh said:
arghh!!… something is wrong with my connection!… having troubles posting!!… hehehe
ckoh said:
so I say let allow outside help! If in the end a teams solves a question because of 10 people’s efforts, then so be it! But then don’t forget that every team can do the same, fair and square. When it is a rule that every team can do it, then how can it amount to cheating?
ckoh said:
When I was in secondary school, we were not allowed to use electronic calculators during the exams. Anyone caught using one will be considered as cheating!
These days calculators are used widely in secondary school exams. That is the rule—calculators are allowed somehow. Are these students cheating in their math exams?
AG Wannabe said:
ckoh, you definitely have employed the wrong if-you-can’t-beat-em-let’s-join-em attitude. It makes me wonder if during a riot outbreak and some people are stealing from the shops, whether you will do the same? Ignore the personal attack (did not mean it), I am just trying to make a point.
If you paid attention during hunt briefings, there is NO CoC that has ever implicitly said that you can get outside help to SOLVE Treasures and Questions (from those hunts that I have joined anyway). So this unethical practice has never received any kind of endorsement, neither has it been turned into an acceptable rule.
I am in my personal capacity trying to spread the awareness that if everyone agrees that what the “Pakatan teams” are doing is wrong, this “common” practice by some teams are no different!
ckoh said:
AG Wannabe,
Please be assured that I will most definitely not steal during a riot. Instead I think it is likelier that I would probably be busy protecting my family and property.
And no, I am not adopting the “if-you-can’t-beat-em-let’s-join-em attitude”. I am just saying that between the two, I would choose something that everyone can do, i.e. let it be a level playing field.
It is something like allowing the kids these days to use the calculators in the exams. If we allow all of them use it, then would it be fair to all? Whether or not they’re now advantaged with the help of the calculators is a different matter altogether. If I can be sure that no calculators are allowed in the exam room, then it is also possible to ban them totally. However, if I am unable to control somehow, then I would choose to allow everyone to use the calculators. Otherwise some will smuggle in a calculator to the disadvantage of the obedient students.
In the same way, I am unable to control the hunters from seeking outside help during the hunt. Trust me, I would like to control them, but I am unable to guarantee that I can. And if I insist to adopt the rule of “no outside help”, then I can be certain that the good guys will be disadvantaged.
Therefore, the way I see it, I am “forced” to the option of allowing all to have the freedom to seek outside help. Whether or not they’re answering questions entirely on their own abilities is a different matter.
If you would like to solve all your questions entirely on your own, please, by all means, we are not stopping you. But don’t don’t stop others from seeking outside help because there is no rule that stops them from doing so. Although the CoCs do not endorse seeking outside help as a rule, they are also keeping silent on it. When there is no rule that disallows outside help, then as far as I am concerned I am not breaking any rule when I do eventually seek outside help!
ckoh said:
AG Wannabe & sad,
It is unfortunate that you are unable to see the difference between “collaboration with other hunting teams” and “getting outside help”. You put both of them under the same category of “cheating”.
I put it to you that they are not the same. Allow me to explain, and then let’s see if your confused minds can make any sense out of it.
In the case of “collaboration with other hunting teams”, it is known that the CoC expressly say that it is disallowed; i.e. there is a rule against it. Therefore if I were to collaborate with another team during the hunt, I would be breaking the rule. In such a case, I am cheating because I am breaking the rule.
In the case of “seeking outside help”, there is no rule that disallows it. Maybe a brave CoC would go as far as not encouraging it, but not exactly make it a rule against it—I stand corrected, if there are CoCs who have actually made it a rule, please announce it here. In this case, if I end up seeking outside help during the hunt, I am not breaking any rule (because there is no rules against it). If I am not breaking any rule, then how can I be cheating?
Imagine that A & B are participants in an amazing race from Johor to Penang. When they’re flagged off, they’re told that whoever reaches Penang first will be the winner.
Now A quickly jumps onto a train. While on it, he makes a call to book a taxi at the next station. Then onto a bus etc. But when he reaches Penang, B is already enjoying his dinner, whereas A hasn’t even had lunch. Turns out that B took a fast plane to Penang.
Is B cheating? How can he be cheating when there is no rule against taking the plane? Is it his fault that A is just too dumb to think of that mode of transportation?
bewildered said:
if we can allow teams to get outside help cos we can’t ensure total compliance if a ban is imposed, then the same treatment should also be given to MOUs. after all, we agree that MOUs and seeking outside help are pretty much the same. it is injustice to brand MOU teams as cheats but not those who seek outside help.
to teams which engage in seeking outside help but quick to holler “cheats” against MOU teams, pls stop being hypocrites because for all intents and purposes, you are no angels either.
so let’s make it clear what constitutes cheating. from my understanding, cheating is when a team gets “soalan bocor”, tulips bocor, help from the CoC and tips from the organisers. other than these, we call them resourcefulness.
to G, i can’t fathom your logic that employing outside help is ok but not from fellow hunters. sometimes, teams don’t have MOUs per se but just helping out with a couple of the tough questions, especially for the beginners. can we accuse them of cheating? i don’t think so.
let say a team of six want to take part in a hunt. obviously, they have to be split into two teams of 2 + 4 or 3 + 3. and naturally, they will cooperate as they are from one team. can you imagine one saying no to his hunting buddy’s request for assistance just because they have to field two teams?
to ckoh, u have a valid point. so, why not we “legalise” MOUs and outside help. i think it can put in place hunters with the houlier than thou attitude.
bewildered said:
to add to my earlier comment.
why are hunters so worked up with MOU teams and outside help? i have no problems with either. in fact, if we manage to beat such teams without resorting to such tactics, wouldnt victory be much more the sweeter? i advocate that we take this as a challenge and strive to be better
another poser: i still do not comprehend why cocs make that distinction between outside help and inside help (mou). they are essentially the same, help is help no matter where it comes from - fellow hunters, non-hunting masters, cocs, friends, parents, relatives, the world wide web, dictionary, thesaurus, bomoh, mediums etc etc. why are certain instances condoned and others not? sigh
AG Wannabe said:
ckoh, like I mentioned in my posting made at 10:02 am, the onus is NOT on the CoC to patch all the loopholes. But when you wear your participant hat, you CAN decide whether you want to play fair or to CHEAT.
Again I raise the big question that if everyone agrees that what the “Pakatan teams” are doing is wrong, this “common” practice should also be considered WRONG!
The rules usually states that a team must consist of between 2 - 4 pax. When a 5th or 6th or 7th or 8th or 9th person helps you to solve a Treasure question, or a route question, or happens to be in the sector to help you solve a route question, how can that be still “within the rules” ???????
Plainly said, I don’t have a solution against both types of collaboration. However I don’t condone either. I want to play fair and I hope by spreading the word, many more will join the bandwagon and play fair.
Enough said, I am going home.
ckoh said:
bewildered,
I don’t have the answers to every question. I am merely pointing out that from my point of view, one can only cheat when he breaks a rule. It just so happens that there is a rule against MOUs. But there is no rule against seeking outside help. So strictly speaking MOU is cheating; whereas outside help isn’t.
Having said that, I do agree that a help is a help no matter where is comes from. I don’t know how it has come to a stage where MOUs are outlawed, whereas outside help (from non-hunting persons) are not. I can only guess that MOUs are at least a little easier to control, because I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of hunters do no indulge in MOUs.
I suspect many hunters do not consider seeking outside help as cheating, rather mere resourcefulness, and are therefore more inclined to indulge in it.
I don’t think we will come to a 100% consensus on what constitutes “resourcefulness”. But once the door is opened to the outside world, it is impossible to draw the boundary.
Although I have no evidence to support it—and I am not claiming that this is the popular view—I am convinced that most strong teams do not do the MOU nonsense; not only because there is a rule against it. Rather I think most of them genuinely treat MOU as “cheating”.
As to AG’s pursuance of “fair play”, I have nothing against it. I must point out, however, that the word “fair” is a relative term. As far as I am concerned, when everybody is subject to the same sets of rules, I consider that as “fair”. Obviously AG’s definition of “fair” is different from mine. I respect his views and wish him all the best for his long wait to achieve his dreams.
ckoh said:
By the way, AG, as I said earlier, I have nothing against you “playing fair” according to your definition. Of course that is your right. If that makes you happy, then by all means, please continue to do so.
My interpretations are different. To me, as already explained above, MOUs are cheating, and I shall refrain from indulging in them.
Seeking outside help, to me, is “fair” because everyone else is allowed to do the same. It is none of my business if you decide not to do it. All I know is that everyone is allowed to do it, and so I am doing it! Therefore I shall continue doing it until such time when I am told that there is a rule against it.
Mike said:
bewildered and everyone else,
sometime my wife hunt with her own team in the same hunt, she doesn’t get a single help from me. In fact, we don’t even say hi during the hunt. We make sure we play fair and we make sure we are seen to play fair.
1. there are about 20/30 of regulars teams, these are also the top teams in the field. everyone of us know each other. It’s a common understanding, we don’t consult among competing teams.
2. who are these teams that cheat? There are all new comers. And because they have a wrong attitude toward the game, they never last long. They are just there to win, after few tries and they get no where, they will just fade away and stop hunting. The regular are there week in and week out because they love the challenge. Every year we organise a private invitation only hunt during some festival season. No prizes!!!! Everyone turns up! These teams who cheat probably think we must be crazy to waste our time.
3. most CoCs and these regular teams are not too bothered about these teams that copy from each other. In most cases they make NO DIFFERENCE to the results. This blog has enough hunt results, to show prove of that. All newer teams that have made it to the top, all do it the hard way. They hunt often and play fair. The learn the hard way. There is no short cut.
4. I have hunted with most of these teams. I can tell you, this thing about asking other non competing hunters is very minimal. These teams are the best in the field, if they cannot solve it, chances are the hunters at home would not help much. And in big hunts like theSun every of these teams are participating.
5. so okay, his blog will no longer be bothered nor bring up this subject. If you think copying from each other is being resourceful, so be it. We will leave these people to their own world.
LETS US MOVE ALONG.
patrick - blurr squad said:
Dear all… I believe all this chaos about “cheating” was triggered off following Pertama’s treasure hunt where there were two categories. The allegations are that those in the media category sought assistance from those in the open category. So far, there is plenty of unhappiness over this. However, like many others, I dont see a solution to this. The only thing I can gather is when there are two categories, the COC should do his best to go the extra mile and prepare two sets of questions. This can help solve one part of the problem, but will not curb it altogether. Having taken part in several hunts, I have discovered that teams can collaborate in all kinds of ways. One way is to exchange answers, the other is for one team to focus on buying the treasures and the other is for both the “co-operating” teams to break up and cover different sectors and then meet up later and exchange answers. This is all rife and has happened before. Sadly, like CKOH has mentioned above, there is practically NO WAY to resolve this. It would be impossible to ban handphones. We are also equally unhappy and upset that such things are going on, especially since we, like many others have invested alot of time and money in trying to better our hunting skills, only to be “robbed” of victory by certain cheats. But like mentioned earlier, we are so far going only on allegations. It is difficult to come by solid proof that a particular team has cheated. But to all those heartbroken guys, gals and gays out there, believe me, somehow, somewhere, the truth will prevail. And when these teams, COCs of whoever are exposed, they should be banned altogether by all hunt organisers. Perhaps, their names and teams etc should be put up in all hunt websites to ensure they dont hunt anymore. Till then, we have no choice but to continue doing our best and rest assured that someday the truth will prevail. Till then guys keep the faith and keep on hunting!!
Mike said:
Thank you for all your comments, suggestions, sharing, concern and questions for the 2 blog postings: PERTAMA results and Weekend. I’m sure all parties, the organisers, CoCs and hunters have taken note of some of the issues.
Lets conclude this discussion and move along.
Thank you.
ckoh said:
Mike,
Are you a vampire or something? You never seem to sleep, do you?… hehehe
iphone games music said:
Nice blog, i have added it to my favourites, greetings