mresoteric

If GC would change the guideline to that, it would clear things up a lot.

No it doesn't but worrying about caches in Japan seems kind of insensitive given what is going on there at the moment.

Shouldn't we be more concerned about how many lives were lost and how many people have been displaced?

*oops*

I tried this already. You need to define signed.

Maybe if it's a regional thing and everyone tends to ask for permission for their caches they assume that everyone knows permission was obtained without need to say so on the cache.

Bingo! And the bolded part is why some keep correcting misinterpretations whenever this issue comes up.

I think the guidelines are a reflection of the general standards exhibited by geocachers. I'm with you on this. You lost me. I don't think anyone thinks the guidelines say the de facto way things are done is wrong. I think the guidelines already say the de facto way is the intent. It just doesn't say it's limited to the de facto way of logging.

At least I say what I have to say in 2 paragraphs or less.

That is pretty close. The difference is I say the guidelines allow for it and M5 says the guidelines prohibit it but he doesn't want to deal with the whiners.

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier. Humor, dude. Humor. I am just trying to lighten things up a bit here. I still say that you guys aren't anywhere near as far apart in your opinions as you seem to think. Humor, dude. Humor. I'd explain it, but since I was kicked out of the thread I'm not sure how much more I can say.

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier.

You shouldn't tell a frog what he can or cannot do. And don't tell him how to do his job either.

It doesn't really matter what I would do or allow. You guys want to argue what the guidelines clearly state. But for the record I've let cachers log mine without signing, just to avoid a bunch of whining. Not that it was actually right. I've never had a good reason listed on any of mine for not signing. "Forgot pen", "pen in cache didnt work", "saw it, but couldnt' retrieve it" bunch of wimpy excuses. I've found caches that had wet logs, but I've always been able to sign with a gel pen or pencil. Even when soggy. I've found them mowed and stuff everywhere. CITOed and DNFed, although I could have signed a scrap I suppose. I've emailed non-signers and just asked them to edit their logs, but keep the find, (for the reason listed in the little story after this sentence) and they still whined and got indignent. I had a hard cache that had many DNF's (most not posted), lots of inactivity, then one guy writes that he found the cache, but it was damaged. It was slightly, one of the 2 magnets was broken, but it still worked fine. He didnt' reveal that online, only that it was damaged. Next thing you know several people found it, and claimed they couldn't sign it because it was damaged. Totally bogus. DELETE FINDS. Just because the site allows things that are not enforcable, doesn't mean its not against the rules. There have been plenty of bans for abuse of taking advantage of some of the things that can't be stopped beforehand. You could log your own hides 5000 times right now, but is it right? How is that addressed in the guidelines? I'm not arguing about what the guidelines clearly state. I'm arguing that the guidelines don't say what you think they say. For the record, you do not believe there it is ever appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical log in any way. Correct? I think that answers Knowschad question. You have simply tolerated a few "whiny babies". I'm actually surprised to know you have gone that far. There are some who wouldn't mind making mortal enemies out of those same "whiny babies" for sake of what they believe the guidelines say.

@Starband But I don't recall you taking the same hard line, black and white stance that M5 has taken. But you do make a good point. I will revise my question to M5. Is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical logbook in any way?

The difference is while a lot of us readily accept that signing the physical log is the defacto proof of a find, there are others who hold steadfast that you MUST sign the log and nothing else is acceptable. I think that you will be proven wrong about that. These discussions do not generally seem to lend themselves to that level of understanding for some reason. Ok, it's easily settled. M5, is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not sign the physical log?

The difference is while a lot of us readily accept that signing the physical log is the defacto proof of a find, there are others who hold steadfast that you MUST sign the log and nothing else is acceptable.

I got a good laugh at the terminally dumb to do stupid things line. I laughed even harder because you actually found the cache So what does that make you? I gotta grab a paper towel and clean off my monitor now.

It doesn't really matter where it is placed. It still is not the all inclusive statement you think it is.

The guidelines don't really have anything to do with OP's question. He should leave the log alone because it happened before he adopted the cache, not because of whether or not the log was signed.

Not sure what you mean by that. But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand. If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere. If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere. If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger. clueless So you are saying this is not accurate?

I bet there are some nice caches in the woods in your area. We got tons of them here.

Not sure what you mean by that. But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand. If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere. If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere. If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger.

Do you refer to it as a Helen Keller Find because it is really lame? That is quite offensive.

The only thing the guidelines say is that if you sign the physical log you are guaranteed the right to log a find online regardless of any extra requirements someone may want to enforce. It doesn't say you have to log your find online and it doesn't say the owner cannot accept some other proof. But it does mean that if you do not sign the log then you are at the mercy of the cache owner. You should have no expectatin that GC will help you out if you didn't sign the logbook.