thedeadpirate

So, is it TPTB's intention that logbooks be signed or not?

Looks like I deleted my ignore list a bit prematurely.

But, how are you gonna police those finds????

You must have been. The only thing I really disagree with Toz about is how far he takes the argument. Which, by the way, is the only reason I've taken this argument as far as I have. When you decide to pick apart a sentence, you can spend hours upon hours arguing every single word. But at the end of the day, it is clear to most people that logbooks should be signed, regardless of whether this is an absolute requirement or not. We are basically on the honor system in this game. We have a responsibility to respect each others' wishes since this game depends on the charity of others.

Are you actually saying that you learned from your mistake instead of throwing in the towel and refusing to hide anymore caches?

No, not at all. Absolutely nothing. It only re-enforces what I have said all along. While it may be their intention that logbooks be signed they know there are times when this is not possible. That's what I have said all along. So I'm not sure what your point is. Both you and Toz seem the think I disagree with the 2 of you.

Nope. People do it all the time.

What's silly for one is a good way to pass time for others. (btw, I agree with you, but I happen to be a silly ole' fart)

Did you ever get a resolution to this?

I'm gonna have to concede this point. I was thinking of this thread where a bunch of Joranda's caches were deleted supposedly in retaliation, even though he had signed the logbooks. But, it appears as this was never resolved. Or at least, if it was he did not post the resolution in that thread. I think I'll bump it and see it there was ever an answer.

Oh, I did find the spoiler comment. *** Edited to add that I meant bad language, hate language, using the listing as a forum, etc. I just assumed that when I said spoiler that most people understood that I meant those as well.

So while a cache owner could let the log stand he does so at the risk of having his cache archived for lack of maintenance. I've never seen this done for a physical cache, but I have seen virtuals archived because a cache owner allowed armchair logging So JoeCacher logs a find saying he found the cache but didn't sign it because of the wasps. But JoeCacher makes no mention that he didn't actually go to the site. He just logs the find as if he did go. Kblast sees the log. He feels bad due to the wasps incident so he feels like he should just go ahead and let JoeCacher keep that log. You're saying that even though neither Kblast nor TPTB realize that JoeCacher really just phoned it in that Kblast is really risking having his cache archived for lack of maintenance? Again, the only purpose of that statement is to prevent a cache owner from levying additional logging requirements. A cache owner can delete logs when the physical log was signed. If the owner feels the log is a spoiler or if the log contains inappropriate language, is abusive, or is off-topic, he can clearly delete the log (and in some cases risk being in violation of the guidelines if the log isn't deleted). I don't think Groundspeak would reinstate any of these logs. They would tell the finder to re-log the find without the objectionable material. Didn't I cover the "if it contains a spoiler" earlier? I'm pretty sure I did. If I didn't, I surely meant to. I've pretty much always included that exception. I've also said that the finder can relog that find sans the spoiler part and there's nothing the CO can do about it. (provided his name is in the logbook or his sticker or his stamp.) (I added the sticker and stamp due to this particular threads topic) I don't remember the exact thread. But I am 99% sure you are wrong here. But I'll concede that point for the time being. It's late, so I'll have to wait until tomorrow to dig up that thread.

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache. Jessejoe, don't listen to her. If there is a multi within a 10 mile radius, don't bother trying to hide a cache. Leave that to the professionals and soothsayers. Oh, and if there's a mystery/unknown with 25 miles, just forget about it. Exactly. Just be honest with the guy. No need to beat around the bush.

Oh Toz, for someone who pays such particular attention to phrasing, you missed my post. Reread it and then tell me again that I misunderstand your reasoning. I didn't say he should log a find having never left his living room. I say he could. Do you dispute that should the CO choose to let that log stand that it is his prerogative? The only thing the guideline says is that as long as your John Hancock is in the physical logbook that the CO cannot delete that log. And if the CO does delete it, that TPTB will most likely reinstate it. (the guidelines don't actually say that last part; just TPTB's track record.)

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache. Jessejoe, don't listen to her. If there is a multi within a 10 mile radius, don't bother trying to hide a cache. Leave that to the professionals and soothsayers.

Just wait until everyone wakes up in the morning.

Yep. That's what everyone said. Some folks just shouldn't hide caches anyway. If you're going to get that upset because a reviewer applies the guidelines like he's supposed to, then you're really gonna go nuts when folks start bad mouthing your leaky film canister.

Actually, following TOZ's reasoning, this person could have logged a find having never left his living room. There is nothing in the software that prevents this. It would be up to you whether or not you allowed that log to stand. However, once that finder found the real cache and signed the log, then you would no longer have a valid reason to delete his log unless he posted a spoiler.

vicinity = if you have reason to believe that there's a multicache layed out in that area. And how would one deduce this, ESP? ESP combined with a search of nearby caches would probably work. But if you didn't want to make an educated guess about whether or not that multi in the general vacinity might interfere, then you could always just hide the cache and then be prepared to move it if the reviewer it was too close. OR, you could just call the reviewer a jerk because he's doing his job and refuse to hide anymore caches.

I've had pretty good luck with handing evil ninjas hammers and chisels and pointing them towards the rock in question.

So you're bad mouthing a reviewer because YOU didn't bother to do the multi so you could have all the coords in your gps? Get some breath mints and try again. It's not the end of the world.

How is that even possible? Somebody has to find it first.And I can be the first to say that there is no just FTF game of finding my cache. So what. Most CO's don't acknowledge it, yet people still compete. It matters not what the CO says. And how dare you even suggest that people not compete! That's what geocaching is all about! Also you can't require that there is no 'FTF game' on your cache. I assume that would be considered an ALR...What I thought. Dont take me serious, I am blowing things in the wind. WHAT? ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WERE JUST SUGGESTING DOING AWAY WITH COMPETITIVENESS JUST TO GET OUR BLOOD BOILING???? *** read my sig

How is that even possible? Somebody has to find it first. And I can be the first to say that there is no just FTF game of finding my cache. So what. Most CO's don't acknowledge it, yet people still compete. It matters not what the CO says. And how dare you even suggest that people not compete! That's what geocaching is all about!