mresoteric

In that case this thread can be closed. I might not agree with it but it's not hidden. Maybe someone else learned something too.

Makes perfect sense if you are required to hide another cache. It doesn't make sense if you are just encouraged to hide another cache. I am really confused now. Are the guidelines the same as the knowledge book or is the knowledge book supposed to help explain the guidelines? What Palmetto quoted is in a different place than what I quoted. Maybe that is what is really confusing me.

Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section. I'm not sure why you are trying to smoosh it into that guideline since the one Palmetto cited specifically addressed the issue. Because the knowlege book section she quoted references the agenda guideline as well as keystone's post. I don't believe this is really an agenda issue. And there seems to be confusion among the reviewers as well. IowaAdmin references the ALR guidelines in his blog. I would agree that it seems to be more of an agenda issue than an ALR issue. But everything about this website is a geocaching agenda so I don't understand that reasoning.

Uhh, read what you quoted. It's in 4.3. No, Palmetton posted 4.3 of the Knowlege Books. I posted Section 4, the line denoted 1. in the guidelines. Looking at it again I guess it would be Section 2.1, subsection 4.1 of the guidelines. I don't really know how to properly denote it. Just go to the http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307 and scroll down to section 4 and it's the first line in that section.

Agenda? So it is covered by 4.1 in the guidelines? I admit that I don't fully understand seed caches. But what I have seen doesn't seem that they solicit. They defitely don't have anything to do with religion, politics, charitable or social agendas. They seem to be geared solely towards geocaching, which is why we're all here.

They should. why? there are no ads anyway Because paying customers should not be subjected to ads.

If they were posted on the internet like the other ones we would.

I was googling for geocaching blogs and came across this blog post by a reviewer. http://iowaadmin.blogspot.com/2010/08/churning.html The topic was about churning, but his most recent post is about seed caches. If I read that blog right it seems that not only are caches which require hiding another cache (ALR) are being denied but also any caches which encourage hiding other caches. The first one is covered by the guidelines. The second isn't. I was wondering if there is a hidden rule book that we don't get to see. If so, how are we supposed to follow those guidelines?

There's the problem.

They should.

Where are the ads you see? I don't see any and I am just a regular member.

Any responsable geocacher would know not to place a geocache on school grounds. That has been discussed in these forums before. Your listing should be denied. If I am readying this right, the cache is NOT on school grounds. It is CLOSE to school grounds in a PUBLIC PARK. While I don't agree with the OP's post, mostly because it is needlessly rude and agumentative, I do see why he is upset. He placed a cache in a public park, which normally only requires adequate permission. But due to the proximity to school property, the reviewer is requiring express permission. Since we can't see the placement, we don't really know how it is situated in regards to the school. But I can understand the frustration.

Can't you be right and happy? Nevermind. I'm married. I already know the answer.

How about more debate, less pot stirring. Ah, well lose the ***** words. I was unaware that the word for Hades was not allowed. But if that is a problem, I have removed it. Now, do you mind stop stirring the pot? There's enough going on already without it.

How about more debate, less pot stirring.

This is where you fail to understand the guidelines as written. The fact that they do not list alternate methods of verification does not mean alternate methods of verification are not valid or acceptable. A few years ago there was a fantastic movie. You may have seen it. It was called "A Few Good Men". In this movie the prosecution made very much the same argument as you do. The defense claimed that their clients were ordered to give a Code Red to the victim. The prosecution argued that the base manual of operations does not mention Code Reds, therefore, they were non-existent. It sounded good at face value. But then the defense grabbed the manual and asked the officer to point to the section in the manual that told personnel where the Mess Hall was. The officer stated that it wasn't in there. "Then how do you know where to go eat?" "We just do" I paraphrased that, but you get the idea. Just because something isn't mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it doesn't exist. The only thing the guidelines say is that once you have signed the logbook a CO cannot deny you an online find. Groundspeak does not address any other methods of verification because I think they understand most people feel you should sign the logbook, they understand that there are exceptions, and they don't want to be taxed with ruling whether or not those exceptions are valid. They prefer that CO's deal with their own caches and let them deal with the running of the website, etc. Which side are you arguing? M5 seems to be insisting that you have to sign the log because nowhere else in the guidelines is online logging mentioned with any other requirement than signing the log. So you want to argue that just because there are not other requirements mention doesn't mean there aren't other reasons you can log a find online. In fact, there are no requirements at all for logging a find online (although the guidelines summary page would have you think so). The truth is anyone can go to a cache page and select the Found log and log any cache. Groundspeak cannot police the log and as such can not truly have requirements for logging But there is a guideline that cache owners are responsible for the quality of posts to their cache page and to delete logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or otherwise inappropriate. Should someone post a find log to your cache page that falls in one of these areas you should delete it. In truth the logging guidelines are still upon the cache owner. These guideline indicate a minimum for a log to not be considered bogus. Prior to the ALR guideline change there was no mention in the guidelines of signing the physical log book. It was generally assumed that the cache owner decided what logs were bogus. In fact, however, there were cases where disputes over deleted logs were raised to Groundspeak and Groundspeak made a determination that a cache owner was deleting a legitimate log. One of the criteria Groundspeak would use in determining if the find log was legitimate was whether or not the physical log was signed. In crafting the wording to eliminate the ability of cache owners to delete find logs because of ALRs, Groundspeak decided that keeping the ability for a cache owner to delete an online find because the physical log was not signed was reasonable as they already used the signature to resolve disputes when there was no ALR on the cache. In the latest reorganization, a few guidelines were classified as "logging" guidelines because they didn't fall either under the placement guidelines or the listing guidelines. I think that it would have been better to call this section maintenance guidelines and include the maintenance section from the listing guidelines (they really don't belong there either). Whoever wrote the summary page wrote the logging guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find. I think a better description would be guidelines for cache owners to determine when a log can be deleted. I can see how a person who believes that the signing of the physical log is part of finding a cache would ignore the historical reason for a guideline and try to make it fit the poorly worded description in the summary page. I have stated over and over that my position is that the only thing the guideline says is that if your signature is in the logbook, then you can log a find online. I haven't bothered to get into spoilers, counterfeit logs, etc. since that is nitpicking the primary issue. I am in agreement with your position. But you seem to want argue that as well. I am beginning to see why you have the reputation you have. (I edited to remove a line that could be taken as a personal attack since I would like to remain in this thread)

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area." You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up? I would back you up. That's a bad example though. It doesn't even state the cache was found. Paraphrased but it's an actual post that's been debated before. Let me ask my questions to make my point. bd Who stopped you from asking your question? (edited because apparently you cannot use the word for Hades)

I did mean short-sighted and I don't take it as an attack, though I do think the OP can probably defend himself.

"I got close to area but couldn't search for the cache. I'm sure the owner simply wanted to bring me to the area." You might let that stand, but what if I don't on my cache. Are you going to back me up? I would back you up. That's a bad example though. It doesn't even state the cache was found.

BTW, looks like Toz was right. M5 is interpreting the change precisely in the manner Toz feared it would be interpreted.

It has everything to do with ALRs. I forget where I read about the previous change in which the line you keep repeating was introduced. But it was stated in that thread that the change was strictly to deal with ALRs. The last change was simply a reorganization and not intended to change the substance of the guidelines. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268590&view=findpost&p=4616062 Another problem I have is when someone doesn't agree with someone's point of view they are somehow deemed to be bad parents passing along all kind of bad teachings and habits. I may disagree with your interpretation of a line in the guidelines, but I don't think your hard line, black and white view of the guidelines necessarily makes you a strict, dispassionate parent. (If you have kids)

The only problem I really have is when I read one of these threads and people start telling the person asking that he must delete the find because there was no signature in the log. He is within his rights to do so, but nothing in the guidelines says he must. I don't care about defining what is or is not a signature. I think most people already understand spoilers, off-topic, counterfeit as reasons for deletion. There is no sense in muddying the discussion needlessly. It's hard enough to convince the other side that there are reasonable exceptions to signing the log without getting a legal team involved.

Perhaps short-sided or selfish would have been more appropriate.

This is where you fail to understand the guidelines as written. The fact that they do not list alternate methods of verification does not mean alternate methods of verification are not valid or acceptable. A few years ago there was a fantastic movie. You may have seen it. It was called "A Few Good Men". In this movie the prosecution made very much the same argument as you do. The defense claimed that their clients were ordered to give a Code Red to the victim. The prosecution argued that the base manual of operations does not mention Code Reds, therefore, they were non-existent. It sounded good at face value. But then the defense grabbed the manual and asked the officer to point to the section in the manual that told personnel where the Mess Hall was. The officer stated that it wasn't in there. "Then how do you know where to go eat?" "We just do" I paraphrased that, but you get the idea. Just because something isn't mentioned in the guidelines does not mean it doesn't exist. The only thing the guidelines say is that once you have signed the logbook a CO cannot deny you an online find. Groundspeak does not address any other methods of verification because I think they understand most people feel you should sign the logbook, they understand that there are exceptions, and they don't want to be taxed with ruling whether or not those exceptions are valid. They prefer that CO's deal with their own caches and let them deal with the running of the website, etc.

You are 100% correct. The guidelines do say you can log online once the logbook is signed. It just doesn't say the inverse, which is what you continue to try to convince us of. Why can't a CO enforce that guideline? It's easy to enforce. If you check the logbook and see the signature, you let that online find stand. Simple.