J Grouchy

Oh lordy...here we go again. If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign. I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache. A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion. Do what you want, though. Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF. Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it. So you honestly have three options that are all equally valid: DNF, Note or no log at all.

Use coordinates.

Hey...if I find a quarter or even a nickel in a cache, it's worth more than any of the other moldy, grimy junk inside!

Oh, there will be drama no matter what.

Even if, on day one of the virtual rewards, the CO pursued permission...by day 364 he had to see the writing on the wall. He knew the deadline...so show some respect for the people that gave out this limited reward. Maybe have a backup location so that if permission isn't granted by, say, day 360, you can withdraw Choice A and instead submit Choice B. To me, that shows respect for the rules set out by those that decided to try this rewards system (which, by the way, has earned them no end of grief by so many).

So this person had an entire year, but chose the last few weeks to pursue permission? The timing on all this just doesn't sit right with me and certainly makes it look like gaming the system and that there is preferential treatment. I just get the feeling that anyone else who isn't/wasn't a reviewer would not even be given a chance to publish beyond 8/25, even if they stated they were still waiting for permission. I guarantee that permission will not be granted for the virtual in question...which leads me to believe it's intended as a placeholder while this person, who again was given an entire year to submit a virtual, comes up with one that won't cause security issues. Surely you can understand why it is perceived this way, even if I'm way off base....? Anyway, I know TPTB will probably disapprove of me even talking about this, but that just sort of goes back to my original point...which I guess I'll drop. ~shrug~

It's pretty obvious why not: certain people are treated differently. I know GS claims they don't, but I've witnessed it firsthand and they clearly do. If someone is or has been a reviewer, they get to do stuff that the rest of us don't. This is just one instance, but I can think of others.

Beyond that, there are some who, based on who they are, get an apparent pass on missing the deadline. One in the US (I won't name names or link the GC#) was an old virtual that at some point became inaccessible due to security reasons. The CO was at one point a reviewer and eventually archived it. No surprise, this long-time member got a virtual reward, and, on the very last day possible to publish one of these, re-listed this old virtual. It was published and folks immediately began going out to try to log the find. Problem was, apparently the old accessibility issues remained and the CO was not given permission by the landowners to send folks to this secure location. Several DNFs/Notes (and five days) later, the CO finally decides to chime in and tell people that permission was not granted and it should not have been published. It seems pretty clear to me that this was just done to hold his "spot" so that he could go beyond the publication deadline...that he likely never really intended to publish this same cache as-is, but meant to change it in his own time with no regard for the time limit imposed by the original Virtual Rewards announcement. Meanwhile, it still sits there and people can't log it like it is and this person doesn't really have to give it up apparently...

Don't forget one of the oldest multis out there...https://coord.info/GC1875

That Stone Mountain one, I agree, is kinda wasted. I'm convinced, however, it was placed as a reaction to current events that were playing out at the time. As for Favorite Points, I honestly do not pay them any mind in this case. I personally believe that the majority of those FPs were placed primarily BECAUSE of the fact that they are new virtuals...and not necessarily because of where they were placed or what the subject matter is. I believe it is meant as some sort of informal "vote" on the existence of new virtuals, maybe even some sort of wish for future virtual rewards. I can't really offer any evidence for that claim, of course. Just a hunch.

And no. Please...if you are at one of my caches and somehow you have done the most inexcusable thing ever in human history and forgot or lost your pen...please DO NOT EVER sign with mud, blood, or any other material that is not pencil lead or ink. I'm honestly asking people not to do this on my caches. A photo log is just fine, thanks.

Nah. One post that wasn't particularly detailed. Anyway, it's clearly an overreaction, going straight to "OHMYGODICANTBELIEVEGROUNDSPEAKWOULDSENDMETHISEMAILIHAVETOARCHIVEALLTHETHINGS!!" You're claiming there is no middle ground, that rage-archiving isn't at least a little bit immature?

OH....MY....GOD! Why does this subject keep coming up and why are there still people who freak out when people - humans, mind you...real, fallible, imperfect HUMANS - forget or lose their pen? I seriously have a real problem with people who make such a big issue about this.

Kind of reminds me of the many times my wife will text me a question or an item to pick up at the store on the way home and I will literally respond within ten seconds with a follow-up question of my own...but then she doesn't answer. I'm thinking "You JUST TEXTED ME! You probably still have the phone in your hand! RSVP!!"

In my opinion, the age of the cache should require a HIGHER standard of care and maintenance by the CO. We should only value the age if it is holding up and is preserved by the person who put it there. I see absolutely zero value in a missing cache container.

Maybe that's not what they actually said...but that makes no sense. I've heard "whatever floats your boat"...but boats don't generally "swing".

Oh boy. We had one of those pop up recently. GC7VVTZ

2G speeds...roughly like this:

So there's still one out there that never had a chance...

Nah...I think it's much simpler than that. I'd say a lot of folks who got it were eager to get out there and post it quickly. Then when the deadline approached, anyone left who hadn't submitted decided to hurry up and get it done. The middle section, between November/December and maybe this May/June, was probably a more accurate representation of how frequently virtuals would normally be published if they were open for anyone. I highly doubt many - if any at all - actually worried what others would think about them. Personally, I wouldn't care less. As for those that didn't use the reward...I imagine many, if not most, of them are like me. They maybe log virtuals when they have the opportunity, but really don't care enough about them to bother creating one. I imagine I would have been one of that group of 1400+ that didn't publish one.

You really think people would be that petty? Maybe it happens some places, but I haven't witnessed it yet.

Meh. I'd just delete it and put the onus back on the finder to confirm they found it. I wouldn't fall into the trap of being forced to go out and obtain a special tool to verify...put it back on them to at the very least describe the cache and/or hiding spot.

Hehe...sorry...this was my first thought when I read that:

New teamwork multi, weeks in the making...then this: I know, I know...nobody is obliged to do more than that. Still bloody awful, though.

I posted the OM log two days ago.