Signed Logbook As A Team, But...

7.2k · November 17, 2005

Should a group of cachers who normally cache seperately, i.e. not a couple, not a family, who have many, many finds logged seperately, sign the log in a single entry as a team and then log online seperately?

I've always held that when you're out finding caches with friends you each log your own handle and made your own entry.

However, recently I've seen a group of cachers form a "team" and make a single entry into the logbook and then log the cache online under seperate handles.

Is the onus on the owner of the cache to investigate and reconcile who is on what team? What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

My first thought was to delete any log that doesn't corrospond to a logbook entry, then it was to just let it slide because they did mention they are part of the team. However, this has been bothering me. If this becomes an acceptable form of verification, then it opens a whole different can of worms.

Thoughts?

November 17, 2005

Personally, I don't really care to verify. If someone wants to claim they found one of my caches, and its believable that they did, than fine by me. Who are they cheating? Themselves is all.

So, in my opinion, I don't think it matters if they all sign the log as one, but log online as individuals.

6.5k · November 17, 2005

It's only a can of worms if you are turning the handle of the can opener. I see nothing wrong with this practice at all, have participated in it many times, and will continue to do so. Anyone who deletes one of my finds does so for no good reason.

I cannot speak for other teams, but we have even created an account for ours, which links to each members individual profile. In addition this disclaimer is on the Team profile page to prevent carping like this thread is trying to stir up:

As a team, Team CHB has found over 1100 geocaches. The combined number of found geocaches for the team members is over 16,000. The team usually puts Team CHB in the written logs but the individual team members log the find using their normal gc.com username.

PS with the exception of the notorious razor team, I have never challenged someone who logged one of my caches. You play the game by inflating your numbers, you have greater problems then logging false finds.

It's a game; let's keep it FUN! :mad:

November 17, 2005

I would think if someone falsely says they are part of the team, the other team members that were actually on the team would alert you.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between this and just trusting people who find on their own.

I would just let it slide, they are just cheating themselves if they didn't go.

3.9k · November 17, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

People play this game different ways. There's no prize for first, there's no punishment for cheating, so there really doesn't need to be any rule enforcement does there?

If you want to play the game your way, where you verify every log online with a sig in the log book, and delete the finds you can't prove, you're welcome to do that.

But I'd suggest you make it more clear on your cache pages that you intend to do this. That way, the people that play the game the way you described won't have a find deleted. Either that, or they would be forewarned and take the chance.

November 17, 2005

Am a member of the Team STFU, but I do not cache with them all the time. The members of the team only log the caches online that they have been to on line. They have probably found 1,000 more caches than I have as a team.

It comes down to individual integrity, if I was there , I log on line if not I don’t. The cache owner has control over their cache page and logging instruction.

If you do not like this practice, put a note on your cache page saying that you must individually sign the log, but on micros it sure saves a lot of room.

There are caches now where you must take a picture answer question besides logging the log book, to me that’s not a regular cache and they go on my Ignore list, but that’s another problem

JOE

6.7k · November 17, 2005

I do team cache runs frequently.

I went on 3 last week - one was myself taking a new Mom, Dad, Son and Daughter on a leisurely tour around Birmingham for kid-friendly traditionals (we found 14).

One was joining 28 cachers with various experience levels from absolute newbie to +2500 finds on a multi-car numbers run (68, I think, in 10 hrs.) around Huntsville, AL.

The other was 10 cachers in 3 cars doing whatever cache was in front of us for 28 in ~10 hours.

This Saturday we have an event in South Alabama and plan an all-night cache run afterward in Columbus GA.

In each case we made up a team name and whoever found the cache first signed it for everyone.

Back at home everyone (except me, as I rarely log caches anymore) signed in and logged each cache they'd been to.

One benefit is that a single team name doesn't fill up a micro log like 28 names would.

I would guess that about 70% of the time the owners of the caches we hit will either be with us or be a friend of at least one of us that knows in advance that we're coming through his/her area.

We have one cacher in Alabama that asks cache runs to avoid her caches, and we do.

Having done dozens of such runs as well as cached on my own and casually with friends to thousands of caches in 17 states, attended 57 events and hosted 6, I can tell you that I have never seen anyone fake a log!

What would be the point? As in any community, your personal rep is all you have.

If a player became known as a cheat they'd quickly find themselves on the outside of the group.

I have, I think, 27 active caches at the moment, and have never read the written logs on one of them, but expect that if I ever do I won't find a name I have any reason to suspect.

I do read every online log, however, and don't blink an eye at a name I've never heard of - if we don't have a basic level of trust of geocachers we're likely in the wrong game!

If someone not on a team were to log and say they were there they'd likely get away with it on my caches, as I am just not gonna spend my time scanning logs looking at cachers's logs with suspicion!

By the same token, if a player on a team run stops for lunch and the rest of us move on, they won't later try to log those they missed before rejoining the group, as they'd then lose all credibility with the group.

Ed

9.1k · November 17, 2005

On an ad hoc basis, I've gone geocaching with groups of six, ten and even twenty geocachers. When signing as a "one time only" team, it is to save time and space. If 20 people signed individually, this would likely trigger the need for a maintenance visit by the owner -- especially for a microcache or nanocache.

Responsible members of temporary teams will say in their online log that they were there as part of "Team Whatever" and that the log was signed using that name. This way, the owner can see all the logs on the same date, and know which cachers are associated with the group log.

I've never had this practice questioned before by any cache owner for any of my logs.

38.2k · November 17, 2005

If someone says he found the cache, that's good enough for me. If he claims to have been part of a team when he signed the book, but logs separately, that's also good enough for me.

Unless someone gives me a reason to believe that he is lying, I don't bother comparing the online log with the paper log. So far nobody has given me a reason to check up on them.

November 17, 2005

I see no problem with this practice. Both times large-ish groups visited my area and planned to hit a bunch of my caches I was contacted prior to the visit and asked if a group sticker or group name would be OK to use in logbooks. Seemed mighty civil of them -- even if some of them were from Indiana/Kentucky!

On a recent weekend caching in TN with my kids we used a team name to save time and space, but the online logs explained who we were, who was part of the group, and how we signed the written logs.

But take it to the extreme -- I sign my name and my kids' names in the logbook. Should their finds count since they didn't actually sign the logbook? I think most folks would agree that that doesn't sound right.

6.7k · November 17, 2005

But take it to the extreme -- I sign my name and my kids' names in the logbook. Should their finds count since they didn't actually sign the logbook? I think most folks would agree that that doesn't sound right.

Yes, if they were there. That's the basic point of a single sig like a team name.

On cache runs it's common for multiple carloads to pull up, everybody jump out, whoever finds it signs the team name, and everybody back in the cars.

Some of the folks that were in the group may not have even seen the cache, much less touched or signed it! More commonly the group stands around talking about the cache, cacher or whatever while the finder signs the log.

When I am leading a wagon train on a numbers run I often don't leave the car - I am busy charting a route to the next caches! These are usually drive-up micros and the team making the find is 10' away in full view, but still I didn't 'find' the cache.

I cache on crutches and it often takes me more time to get out of the car and to the cache then it does for them to find it, sign it and get back in the car.

I personally don't log caches much anymore, but if I do I have no qualms about logging these! I was there, just like the rest of the group, and only one can actually find it anyway.

If we're not chasing numbers and are just having a slow fun cache trip, it's common to spot the cache, back away and let each of the others find it on their own. I suppose that's the more legitimate way to do it, but that style just won't work when you've got limited time!

Even on casual multi-person hunts, it's not uncommon if we have say three or four folks for the actual finder to sign everyone's name while the others trade items, log bugs in and out or just stand around and shoot the breeze.

Ed

Edited November 17, 2005 by TheAlabamaRambler

6.1k · November 17, 2005

It's only a can of worms if you are turning the handle of the can opener.

LOL. Yes, I think teams would notice false logs by others. Just be carefull before you delete any logs as it may have been visited by a team.

18.9k · November 17, 2005

There is a lot of just plain old basic trust in this little activity. Just another example of it.

3.8k · November 17, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

7.2k · November 17, 2005

I like the notion of creating a user account under the name of the team so an owner can look up the team name when needed.

I also like the idea of a team policing their own and calling someone out if they cheat under the team name. Keeps the team reputation on a favorable level.

Thanks, folks, I feel better with this practice. If other members of the "team" can vouch for any other member's find and the team itself is upstanding, then I'm fine with it.

24.7k · November 17, 2005

The physical log book in my circles is like the hot potato. Nobody want's to be stuck signing it. When someone gets the short straw they sign for everone.

I'm liking that idea of a team name in the log. It would save writers cramp.

7.2k · November 17, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

But where does this road lead? Just what purpose does then the logbook serve?

November 17, 2005

Thanks for posting this. I've considered doing this and was curious to know how more of the community felt. We have 3 accounts in our family (mine, hubbys, and one for the kids). Since one person usually signs for all 3, I've been trying out some abreviated versions of our names (try signing 3 semi long names ((mine is the shortest of the three)) in a blinker log). So I went ahead and created a Team Account wtih a brief bit of text and links to the profile pages for each of the 3 accounts. Is there anything specific that I should put on the page?

Friv

38.2k · November 17, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

I'm going to have to quote the great AuntiWeasel on this one, because I think she said it best in a thread some time ago. I hope AW doesn't mind my resurrecting it, but I think it applies here too:

Good heavens! I care about thousands of things that don't hurt me in any way. Like whether Egaz Moniz really deserved a Nobel for inventing the lobotomy. Or when a crappy movie gets the Academy Award and a movie I really liked gets totally ignored. Whether steroid use has invalidated sports records (and I don't even like sports). Journalists plagiarizing really frosts my hindquarters. It ticks me severely to see someone cut line, even if it isn't the line I'm standing in.

I haven't made up my mind on this specific logging issue, but I absolutely reserve the right to judge whether I think somebody is playing the game well or poorly. And to care quite a lot about it, too.

Edited November 17, 2005 by briansnat

3.9k · November 17, 2005

Waiting around for 20-30 minutes at a cache waiting for everyone to sign/sticker the log book does cramp the day a little bit. So, we sign th ebook with a group name. If someone complains, then we will handle it. Until then, no issues.

November 17, 2005

Whenever I can get my sweetie to go caching with me, I always sign the logs as "Clothahump and SWMBO found it". If it's me alone, I just sign it as "Clothahump found it". However, I'm the only one with an account; she's not deeply enough hooked to log her finds. She just likes the hike (and hopefully, the company :cool: ).

3.8k · November 17, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

But where does this road lead? Just what purpose does then the logbook serve?

Having a logbook in a cache is a requirement, on this site, to get it listed. I have not seen any requirements to actually log a find in the physical logbook or online.

It's your call as a cache owner to allow or forbid finds as you see fit. Personally, I don't worry about such matters. :cool:

6.5k · November 17, 2005

Should a group of cachers who normally cache seperately, i.e. not a couple, not a family, who have many, many finds logged seperately, sign the log in a single entry as a team and then log online seperately?

Is the onus on the owner of the cache to investigate and reconcile who is on what team? What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

If they want to. To me the purpose of signing is to prove they were there, if they sign one thing in the book, and then use another online thats fine, hopefully they would be clear that x=y. personally when group caching I almost always put 'welch' in the book, either writting a log myself or just signing the bottom anothers log. If we're really in a hurry I'll just tell them to write in the log for me.

"However, recently I've seen a group of cachers form a "team" and make a single entry into the logbook and then log the cache online under seperate handles."

That could get very confusing, unless they or at least one of them explains who the 'team' was/is.

The cache owner is the one to compare the online and phyisical logs (they want to/ need to)

The finder is the one to sign themselves in the log books.

I think what your asking is, what's a signature? Personally except for a couple caches, I don't compare the two logs so it doesn't matter. But I would accept acutal written logs and signatures, stamps, stickers, muddy fingerprints, anything that would be their 'mark'. If its not their usual they should say so up front to avoid being audited and/or having logs deleted.

However, I leave it to each cache owner to decide what is acceptable in logging their cache. If your having trouble with people not signing, or signing in something you don't find acceptable you might want to put it on the cache page that you will be checking and they logs should be [your specs]. Of course some may not do it that way, you either choose to let them slid or have them changed or deleted.

1.5k · November 17, 2005

I prefer to sign my own name.

However on some of our recent "Cache Machines" here in the Pacific Northwest, while > 100 people may find the same cache on the same day... we tend to do the "One Log for Everyone" thing when logging those micro's that only have room for a 30-40 logs.

4.7k · November 17, 2005

for reasons i do not understand, i have become the recording secretary for a couple of the regular teams i cache with.

for example, i write both my name and crashco's. it has been so long since he has signed his own name that i doubt he can remember how to form the letters.

when you read our online logs there's usually no way to doubt we were both there.

and if he signed for himself, how would i have the opportunity to say things like

"crashco usually does not read what i write about him in the log, so when you see him or when you're writing your own log, please feel free to imply that i said something unflattering."

or, more recently

"i hate him. he can sign his own darn name if he remembers how."

in this case i did compel him to write his own name.

oh, wait. he didn't sign his name. he signed "hated one".

delete our logs if you like. we're not playing by tournament rules.

if you delete our logs, we write logs attached to some other cache in which we make fun of you and quote our logs in their entirety along with an explanation that you deleted our log. we're fun that way.

2.3k · November 17, 2005

Signing the log book is a requirement to claiming a smilie on our caches. :cool:

November 17, 2005

I am a member of a team, and we have a team account, as well as each of us has a personal account. I do not log "team" finds, if I was not personally present with the team, on my personal account. The team may have the find if the 3 others in my team found it, but you won't see it on my personal account as a find.

I see nothing wrong with logging a find as a team, and as an indivdual if you were present at the find with the team.

Team members do go out on their own, and the team I belong to, not all members are present all the time of the find, but it is logged as a team and on our own personal accounts in geocache.com.

We usually log in the book, the team name, and the members present at the time, in case the owner of the cache wants to know who we are.

I don't think its something to make a big deal out of though.

7.2k · November 18, 2005

if you delete our logs, we write logs attached to some other cache in which we make fun of you and quote our logs in their entirety along with an explanation that you deleted our log.

I will only delete logs that are not legitimate, or compromise the cache or the game in some way.

I'm not afraid of deleting logs if need be and I don't care who you are.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification. Nothing more.

7.3k · November 18, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

But where does this road lead? Just what purpose does then the logbook serve?

Having a logbook in a cache is a requirement, on this site, to get it listed. I have not seen any requirements to actually log a find in the physical logbook or online.

It's your call as a cache owner to allow or forbid finds as you see fit. Personally, I don't worry about such matters.

From the Geocach FAQ page:

What are the rules in Geocaching?

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

1. Take something from the cache

2. Leave something in the cache

3. Write about it in the logbook

9.4k · November 18, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

You guys cared enough to post.

4.7k · November 18, 2005

if you delete our logs, we write logs attached to some other cache in which we make fun of you and quote our logs in their entirety along with an explanation that you deleted our log.

I will only delete logs that are not legitimate, or compromise the cache or the game in some way.

I'm not afraid of deleting logs if need be and I don't care who you are.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification. Nothing more.

*giggle*

7.3k · November 18, 2005

if you delete our logs, we write logs attached to some other cache in which we make fun of you and quote our logs in their entirety along with an explanation that you deleted our log.

I will only delete logs that are not legitimate, or compromise the cache or the game in some way.

I'm not afraid of deleting logs if need be and I don't care who you are.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification. Nothing more.

*giggle*

:cool: :huh:

3.9k · November 18, 2005

if you delete our logs, we write logs attached to some other cache in which we make fun of you and quote our logs in their entirety along with an explanation that you deleted our log.

I will only delete logs that are not legitimate, or compromise the cache or the game in some way.

I'm not afraid of deleting logs if need be and I don't care who you are.

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification. Nothing more.

I guess what it boils down to is that it is your cache log. If you feel the person wasn't there, then delete thier log.

I use the physical log to see the last few people there. If anyone wants to log a fake find on my cache, it doesn't bother me at all.

If we discuss the details of the process, purpose, and procedure to the point where folks get upset and angry, then the "fun" part of this game is lost.

24.7k · November 18, 2005

...What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification. Nothing more.

They were there, they found the cache, they signed the log book. If you take it at face value they did everthing they were supposed to do and it's legit.

If you wish to invest the time and email the members of the group and verify, that is your call. In the past I had a cache owner who kept deleting my son's finds. I finally emailed him and asked what's up. What was up was that my son's geoname didn't appear in the log and when we created the account the names in the book didn't mesh with his geoname. I verified my son found it with me and they took me at my word and that was that.

November 18, 2005

As long as aomeone in that group doesn't respond that another did not participate, then I'd let it go. Events are setup in this same manner. A lot of teams are formed in the games that are played and everyone gets a Smilie :cool: at the end of the day. Granted, the host/owner(s) are there to see everyone and most haev "logs" to sign in at the event, but it's one cache and a lot of people get their Smiles :huh: on from it. ... now, someone cut the limb off behind me.

8.4k · November 18, 2005

It's only a can of worms if you are turning the handle of the can opener. I see nothing wrong with this practice at all, have participated in it many times, and will continue to do so. Anyone who deletes one of my finds does so for no good reason.

It's a game; let's keep it FUN!

I've done this once and I see no problem with it.

I went cachin' with the NEFGA Jeep club after GWIII.

After 20 or so folks waited in line to sign the first micro of a 30+ cache day, we just had one person sign GWIII4WD for the group. It saved time and we probably get a couple extra caches because of it and STILL made it 60 miles back to the farewell dinner on time.

Best durn day of cachin' I've ever had.

Thanks to ClanBarron for the awesome photo.

Personally, I don't really care to verify. If someone wants to claim they found one of my caches, and its believable that they did, than fine by me. Who are they cheating? Themselves is all.

I'm with you.

I won't delete someone's find based on the log book. I've only deleted one find ever and I regret doing that even though it was for good reason. :blink:

I guess I'm just not that anal.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Snoogans

10.1k · November 18, 2005

Sign the log, please. Thank you.

When I cache with my caching cohort, I sign the log: Harry Dolphin and Andy Bear were here. When I cache alone, I sign: Harry Dolphin was here.

For a larger group, we sign all the names of the cachers. Hary Dolphin, FunnyNose, Circles and Andy Bear were here.

That may take a while with large groups, and may necessitate more frequent log replacements, but, so be it.

4.7k · November 18, 2005

we always sign everyone's name. problem is i get to do it. i don't know where you live, but for a lot of our year this is an important distinction: the person who has to sign has to take off their gloves.

3.9k · November 18, 2005

We figure that on our next group road tripo, we will preprint stickers with all of the folks that are planning on attending, then scratching out the names of folks that cancel, and the anyone joining late can add the thier name to the sticker as we drive.

Last time it was 19 names... it'll make life easier on everyone.

6.1k · November 18, 2005

What I'm trying to understand in this thread is if ad hoc team names are a legitimate form of verification.

Yes. Just keep in mind that it is a only a game. There are no geocaching "cops" per se, only "referees". Although everyone is entitled to referee their own caches in their own fashion, the general consensus seems to allow team signatures as legitimate. GAME ON ! :blink:

4.8k · November 18, 2005

I would think if someone falsely says they are part of the team, the other team members that were actually on the team would alert you.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between this and just trusting people who find on their own.

I would just let it slide, they are just cheating themselves if they didn't go.

This is my view too.

I tend to sign my own name, or when in a group maybe someone will sign my name for me while I watch, since passing the log book around seems unecessary if I have nothing to add other than my name. Once I was part of a large group and we took to signing with a team name that day to make it easier. I mentioned it in online logs. I didn't think twice about it and would hope my online logs would not be deleted, but I do see the point. Yet I also do think that other people there would likely chime in and verify that the person was there for a deleted log, or would be annoyed and state that the person was not there if he or she faked an online find log.

November 18, 2005

If they all found it, and the log says that they found it as a team...even if one one entry then I don't see why they couldn't log it individually on line...I go caching with my girlfriend and make only one entry in the log book something along the lines of "out caching with ironwoman and geopuppies. TNLNSL" but we both have our own accounts

4.7k · November 18, 2005

i have decided that soon i will assemble an expedition with 40 or 50 people, and we will each write a long log entry, essentially telling the same story.

.... in which state whould we plan to make our roadtrip?

edit: never you mind why

Edited November 18, 2005 by flask

3.9k · November 18, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

You guys cared enough to post.

Me replying with "Who cares?" to this post doesn't show that I care if someone claims they were part of a team that went caching when they weren't.

It shows that I have an opinion about if it should bother a cache owner or not.

The OP asked for my thoughts, and I provided them.

6.5k · November 18, 2005

i have decided that soon i will assemble an expedition with 40 or 50 people, and we will each write a long log entry, essentially telling the same story.

.... in which state whould we plan to make our roadtrip?

edit: never you mind why

count me in i love the idea

plus i think cacheing with you for a day would be a hoot

/me posting in all lower case without smilies like flask does

3.8k · November 18, 2005

What's to prevent someone just saying they were on such and such a team?

And more importantly, who cares?

Exactly my sentiments.

You guys cared enough to post.

Me replying with "Who cares?" to this post doesn't show that I care if someone claims they were part of a team that went caching when they weren't.

It shows that I have an opinion about if it should bother a cache owner or not.

The OP asked for my thoughts, and I provided them.

What he said. :rolleyes:

And it's good to know Jeremy has an opinion, too.

4.7k · November 18, 2005

i have decided that soon i will assemble an expedition with 40 or 50 people, and we will each write a long log entry, essentially telling the same story.

.... in which state whould we plan to make our roadtrip?

edit: never you mind why

count me in i love the idea

plus i think cacheing with you for a day would be a hoot

/me posting in all lower case without smilies like flask does

aww, gee, that's so sweet of you.

it may (or may not) interest you to know that when i write anything out by hand, i use ALL CAPS.

see? symmetry.

i'm thinking south carolina. march. sharpen your pencils.

and while you're at it, scout out some parking lots in which we could drop some micros that we can get maintained by locals.

(this is as close as i get to using a smilie.)

7.2k · November 19, 2005

i'm thinking south carolina. march. sharpen your pencils.

Come on down. We'd love to have you.

7.2k · November 19, 2005

Alright, after reading the thread and the responses therein, talking with others, and thinking long and hard. I figure the practice is alright in my book provided the simplest of things is done.

In fact, this was done by the group which prompted my query in case you were wondering.

As long as someone in the group simply mentions what "team name" you signed the book with AND details in the online log who all was in the group at the time then that should be fine. (...for me and my caches. I'm not trying to say this is how it has to be, or even should be, done. Yes, this pretty much the same as some have said above.)

This means at least one person would be vouching for each of the persons there. Anyone who later tries to horn in on the "find" will have to explain why they weren't included in the original list. This still allows for streamlining of signing the logbook for whatever reason you deem necessary and a measure of verification and cache control which everyone is charged with when they place a cache. This would mean user accounts would not have to be created for a team and ad hoc teams can be as fluid as a different one for each cache.

It would be nice if each person in the group had their name included in the entry so others reading the logbook could see who has proceded them, but I wouldn't require it--no more so than requiring trading trinkets. I would figure this would be nice for others who visit the cache to be able to see recognizable names and know who proceded them.

Thanks everyone for allowing me to get my mind around this issue. Actually, the solution was pretty simple and still allows me to keep control of the online logs. (Something I figure I owe to those who actually find our caches.)

Thanks again.

4.7k · November 19, 2005

i'm thinking south carolina. march. sharpen your pencils.

Come on down. We'd love to have you.

great. pencil me in.

oh, that's me, crashco, and tharagleb, but neither of them signs his own name if he can help it.

*big smooch*

(which is why i get to write things like that in the logs and then i sign their names. makes me giggle.)

Signed Logbook As A Team, But...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment