GOF and Bacall

This one seems different than the other "It isn't in the rules" arguments. Most of them are actually over how things are interpreted. This one just plain isn't there. Yes, the cache can be changed to remove that particular ALR. But then it isn't the same cache anymore. How is a bonus smiley for hiding a new cache any different than requiring the finder to hide one in the first place? Not to mention the whole multi logging argument that will be brought to the forums the first time someone gets a bug up their skirt.

A user that goes by the name Prime Suspect has compiled a lexicon of terms that is a good source of definitions of odd words of geocaching. See it here. It is linked to in this very useful thread.

I won't second guess the actions of a cacher that is "on the spot" in such a situation. You now what was happening there/then and used your best judgment. Having pulled the cache,and having an irate neighbor, whether right or wrong, I think you played it right. The cache owner didn't respond so the Needs Archive log is a good call. Just because you post that type of log does not mean that it will be archived immediately. The reviewer will get the notice that a problem exists and handle it from there. I think that log type needs to be renamed to something a bit less intimidating. Perhaps "Notify Groundspeak" or "Alert Reviewer" would be less problematic? To the side topic - As I understand it the forced adoptions ended due to legal questions involving ownership. By letting cachers adopt a cache without prior owners consent Groundspeak was usurping the original owners rights. Another argument could be made that by transferring ownership of a cache Grounspeak is asserting that they have some rights to the title so to speak. If that was the case then they possibly could be held liable for any consequences arising from a cache placement. Easier to maintain a legal buffer if they say we don't own it so we can't transfer that ownership.