Marta&Filip

In an instance like this the people who found the cache honoring the owners wishes were the FTF. There is no debating that point. Those who didn't play by the rules don't deserve the log. No rightful log. No FTF. It's pretty simple as long as you think the cache owner has some say in their cache. If the cache owner isnt' allowed to set the rules for the finders then you are right, but in that world it's groundspeaks cache and they are fully liable for it. What does it mean "to play by the rules"? Do you mean that the owner wishes are superior to what? To all? If the owner's wish is out of law, physical principles or logic, the finder can just ignore caches like this? If the owner's requirement is, that the FTF can make only Johann Sebastian Bach, I can just ignore this cache?

I would welcome it, because I am interesting in the ethical principles generally. But I am not sure what has to be a goal. The FTF is not covered by any guidelines, because it is not possible at all in my opinion. FTF is some artificial add-on what makes geocaching more competitive and more attractive for people who want to race. Geocaching is open activity based on some ethical principles what are not 100% unique. I am skeptic to create some FTF code. Just have a look this threat. Relatively simple "problem" and so many different opinions. Basically the goecaching is declared as a non competitive activity. It is very cool to declare that "I am not interesting in the points". But this is not 100% true because people mostly count Founds, the most of cachers knows exactly the number of their Founds and they very often congratulate each other to some round numbers of Founds as 100, 200, 500... I see any schizophrenic aspect there.

Renegade Knight this was not race or competition. The wish of the owner was to make common FTF, means all the attendees will sign FTF. Finally the result was: 1) The cache has been found only by the first, some of the attendees do not know the exact cache location till now. The attendees stand in the queue to sign the logbook, later the logbook has been sent round to sign it, because it was comfortless to stand in the queue. 2) Big disappointment of attendees, because they have got the promise from the owner and they looked forward to be the first (all of them), but some unfair cachers made FTF sign before. 3) The attendees asked the owner how to manage with FTF and the owner told them, that they are the first from moral point of view, because he does not accept the sign of this shameful cachers who did not accept his request. 4) The night cachers have been condemned by the community because they violent ethics. 5) The night cachers used argument that the request was not ethical. Thanks to all for replays.

The cache has been published on the midnight before the event. The COs request was: "The cache has been dedicated for common FTF sign of the all event attendees, so we ask any impatient FTF hounds to wait for the whole group." This was not event competition. The FTF hounds (not event attendees) went to the woods on the night, after publishing, and found the cache early morning with the log: "Sorry, but we do not agree with this artificial (served) FTF. One has to fight for FTF."

Yes, yes, I wanted to use sarcastic instead ironic. Oh my English! Thank you wimseyguy, now I understand.

Thanks to all for answers. I have understood only I have some troubles to understand wimseyguy. Sorry I am not native English speaker, so I do not understand if you are serious or ironic. Is it ethical to control by the owner who can get FTF, or you are ironic? This I cannot understand at all. The FTF hound would really feel good about what? About to get this poured FTF or to take over the others attendees? Thanks to all for your opinions.

1) Owner asks the cachers do not hunt his cache because he prepared it for the event and he wants to organize collective FTF for all attendees. 2) The group of cachers does not accept the CO wishes and makes the night FTF before. Who is violating any ethics?