Joypa

Hugh Jazz? Come on, that's funny.

The OP asked if it was ok to restrict who finds a cache. I say that, unless you are prepared to enforce whatever rules you decide on to restrict who finds the cache, it is totally pointless to add restrictions. If I decide that no one wearing a green shirt is allowed to find my cache, I'd better stand by the cache day and night with a stun gun or the restriction has no meaning. The overall point is that a group of people can sit around a table and make a bunch of rules but the key to it all is in the enforcement. I am not advocating anyone breaking rules. I do not plan to break any rules. But there are people out there who will not hesitate to break rules. Then, what you gonna do, huh? You steppin? Huh? You wanna try somptin? Huh? I'd like to see you try.

I agree with your last paragraph but you're being a little harsh with the never let anyone win philosophy. If I'm playing peek-a-boo with a two year old, I'm not scarring them for life if I let them win. Generally, I play to win but there are some reasonable exceptions.

I have a suggestion for TPTB. Seems like this Travel Bug forum is composed of 95% discussions about geocoins. Why not give it its own Forum? Leave the poor old TB Forum to people interested in TB's.

Well, the truth is we all get to play the way we want. The cache owner makes his rules and everybody else either complies with or ignores them. So it goes.

Did you follow the link to that cache? Go read it. The owner wants a picture of your dog with the cache in the picture, among other things. Yeah, it could be photoshopped, but if someone wants to claim one stinkin' cache badly enough to go to all that trouble just to cheat, let 'em! It's a game, for crying out loud!!! I'm trying to find the area where you and I disagree on this point. Lets see....You can falsify a photo. You can falsely claim the find. You can violate the owner's rules for claiming a find. The rule can't be enforced. Nope. Don't see it.

Well heck, most 'rules' of caching are hard to enforce. I think that most things like this are meant to be self-policing. If you're gonna cheat, you're gonna cheat (but who are you really cheating anyways?) Its just like the people who log a find on a cache that they never visited. Without checking the paper log, is there anyway of enforcing that rule? Well, that's exactly my point. No sense getting worked up about some cacher making rules for his cache. He can't enforce them.

The photo was to be of the dog WITH the cache container. Pretty hard to do unless you were actually there. (Well, I guess you could Photoshop it but.......) Yeah, doesn't take much to edit a photo.

Re: The dog cache. This is nuts. What is to prevent the ethically challenged from claiming they had a dog with them? You can always get a photo of the neighbor's dog. My point is- the rule is unenforceable.

I don't know why it's "obvious" what the cache owner's motive is. It could be what you say but there might be some other reason.

Yes, I see the problem created if two bugs with the same tag are out there. I'd just have to be pretty sure the person who has my TB is gone for good. Looks like others have done this so I'll probably give it a try at some point....say 6 months.

This question is actually more interesting than it initially appears. Once the cache is posted, anybody can look for it and sign the log so the restriction does not look like it can be enforced. Ah, but then the owner can delete a log, claiming it does not comply with his requirements...and the find goes away. Hmmm....Good way to make enemies. Wonder what the motive is?

No, it's not ruining the game. It's interesting.

Hmmmm... A nightmare you say? Tell me more. What did you have to go through?

Hey. woops. I put this on the wrong topic. Feel free to chastize me and move it.

As a computer idiot, I am asking how to get the emoticon's in this thread not currently on the menu. Can someone instruct me? This thread is a gas!

I have a question for the board. I have a TB that has been in a cachers hands for 3 1/2 months. They do not respond to my emails and have shown no activity in quite awhile. I know....boo hooo. My idea is to give it up for lost and replace it. I have the duplicate tag and can match the previous TB description. I could "grab" the bug back and make the duplicate and place it in a cache. The original only went 32 miles so I would not be grossly distorting the mileage. What do you think? I am assuming that the cacher that had the bug has gone inactive. Obviously, if they rediscover the hobby, I have two of the same bug out there and that would be a problem. Opinions please. Guidelines and rules also.

If you think Greenwood cemeteries need ISQ's, then why don't YOU do the research, take the photos and hide the cache? Then WE could go and find it!! It would up your find-to-hide ratio from 28 - 0 ..... We don't need the coordinates. We KNOW the coordinates!! Hmmm....Not nice.

You are doing everything you can. It is encouraging that the cacher responds to your emails. Sound like you'll be fine. Just be patient. This happens to all of us.

I like keeping track of my numbers but I realize they are only of interest to me. Every cachers sets their own rules about what they will log. Because each cacher has a different set of rules (and for a number of other reasons) they do not mean anything relative to one another. What matters is whether or not you are respected within the community and whether or not you respect yourself. Amen.

You can do what you want, but I'd be very careful about deleting someone's log because you think they didn't pick up trash. I don't see how you could conclusively link the two and, even if you did, deleting someones log is pretty rude and should be limited to situations where obvious clues about the cache are given or the language is abusive.

I just use the rough estimate of 5 feet for every .001 coordinate minute. So .800 would be approximately 800x5= 4000 feet. This is ballpark stuff.

I like your avartar.

How much wood should a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck should chuck wood?

I'm happy with my approver---never had a problem. Because of this, I can not relate to Snoogans' issue personally. Here is where I think you draw the line: If the approver is following guidelines and not posting hostile or sarcastic comments, he/she is vindicated. In this case, I do not see where the approver overstepped the bounds. I do understand Snoogans' frustration with not being able to get the approval, but he was not following guidelines and now admits he was in error. Seems like he's over it and we can all move on with our lives now.