Fake Profile, Fake Finds - What To Do?

[+woofiegrrl]

I have a cache on my watchlist that is probably the hardest cache in the world to get to, bar none. Literally. Today somebody put a joking log entry on the cache saying "oh, this is just a drive-up cache." I looked at this person's profile - their name is even a joke - and they registered TODAY. How can I report a faker to the site owners? Does it matter?

 

(If you know what cache I'm talking about, you can mention it - I just wasn't sure if I should or not.)

[+The Leprechauns]

The owner of the cache is able to delete logs that are bogus, fraudulent or not within the stated requirements.

 

Accounts which violate the website's terms of use can be reported to the contact address.

[+woofiegrrl]

The owner of the cache is able to delete logs that are bogus, fraudulent or not within the stated requirements.

 

Accounts which violate the website's terms of use can be reported to the contact address.

Does deleting the log also change the "last found on" date when you're looking at search results? Just wondering.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I have a cache on my watchlist that is probably the hardest cache in the world to get to, bar none. Literally. Today somebody put a joking log entry on the cache saying "oh, this is just a drive-up cache." I looked at this person's profile - their name is even a joke - and they registered TODAY. How can I report a faker to the site owners? Does it matter?

 

(If you know what cache I'm talking about, you can mention it - I just wasn't sure if I should or not.)

 

Oopos! Just found this thread! I had just started a thread on the same topic, but from a different angle, about ten minutes ago. The forum moderators may merge the topics if they wish, although they are coming from somewhat different perspectives and it might be more "clean" to leave them as separate threads. I am fine with it either way!

 

Woofiegrrl, I too had a number of his/her "finds" on my watchlist, and so I noticed the phenomenon right away. Well, Lep's reply to you, just below your original post, tells you all you wanted to know. I usually just delete fraudulent logs on our caches. . . And yes, to my best knowledge, deleting the log resets the "last found" date!

[+ReadyOrNot]

I have a cache on my watchlist that is probably the hardest cache in the world to get to, bar none. Literally. Today somebody put a joking log entry on the cache saying "oh, this is just a drive-up cache." I looked at this person's profile - their name is even a joke - and they registered TODAY. How can I report a faker to the site owners? Does it matter?

 

(If you know what cache I'm talking about, you can mention it - I just wasn't sure if I should or not.)

 

The apparent rule is that all cheating should be disregarded because it doesn't really effect YOUR enjoyment of caching. So cheat on cheaters, TPTB don't care.

[+woofiegrrl]

The apparent rule is that all cheating should be disregarded because it doesn't really effect YOUR enjoyment of caching. So cheat on cheaters, TPTB don't care.

Yeah, that's why I wasn't sure if it mattered. It genuinely doesn't affect us much, especially not the way this one is operating - only tagging extreme caches with joke logs. I did hear back from TPTB, though: "We are aware of this account. Thank you."

[+wiseye]

Give us the cache, why not?

[+Stunod]

TPTB don't care.

The account is now banned. I guess they do care.

And I'm sure TPTB know who created the sock...

[+woofiegrrl]

As Vinny mentioned in the other GeoPoser thread, the cache is Chomolongma (GCP7JV) which is located on Mount Everest.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

TPTB don't care.

The account is now banned. I guess they do care.

And I'm sure TPTB know who created the sock...

 

Interesting, as it was quoted numerous times over the past week that TPTB were not and would not become 'logging cops'. What part of the TOU did the account violate? I don't want to sound confrontational about it, I am really interested in the answer. I do think banning was an appropriate response.

 

FYI: no, it wasn't me. Altho I was wondering what would happen in just such a situation. So thanks to whoever it was and hope you don't get into too much trouble. Just remember next time that it's better to ask about something before acting it out.

[+Stunod]

I think it has been said in the past that the reviewers would not be the "logging cops".

TPTB have said (and shown) that they will not tolerate abuse of the system.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

The apparent rule is that all cheating should be disregarded because it doesn't really effect YOUR enjoyment of caching. So cheat on cheaters, TPTB don't care.

Yeah, that's why I wasn't sure if it mattered. It genuinely doesn't affect us much, especially not the way this one is operating - only tagging extreme caches with joke logs. I did hear back from TPTB, though: "We are aware of this account. Thank you."

 

Yes, my reasoning exactly. At least this fake finder had the courtesy to leave humorous and silly logs, although they could have been a bit longer and more entertaining. . .! And I notice that right before the account was banned, she/he logged a find for our Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations

 

I will likely leave the humorous log entry in place for a few days before deleting it, so that everyone may have a good laugh about it. Overall, as long as it is obvious that such log entries are fake, I feel that they are rather harmless!

[+ReadyOrNot]

TPTB don't care.

The account is now banned. I guess they do care.

And I'm sure TPTB know who created the sock...

 

I'm confused now. So which cheating is okay and which isn't. I need help because I can't wrap my brain around this one.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I think it has been said in the past that the reviewers would not be the "logging cops".

TPTB have said (and shown) that they will not tolerate abuse of the system.

 

The "Abuse of the system" in question is a logging abuse is it not? If the account got disabled it is because of the logging abuse that took place.

 

EDIT: I read a recent post with basically the same observation as mine above. I would add -- What is fake about the account? It had to have had a real email address attached to get validated. The only thing fake were the logs. I will also add that I COMPLETELY AGREE with the ban and think others that abuse the logging by cheating should suffer the same fate.

Edited May 12, 2006 by ReadyOrNot

[+The Leprechauns]

TPTB don't care.

The account is now banned. I guess they do care.

And I'm sure TPTB know who created the sock...

 

I'm confused now. So which cheating is okay and which isn't. I need help because I can't wrap my brain around this one.

This situation is readily distinguishable from the other threads you've been following. Tip: Analyze the logging behavior from the cache owner's perspective.

[+ReadyOrNot]

This situation is readily distinguishable from the other threads you've been following. Tip: Analyze the logging behavior from the cache owner's perspective.

 

Please answer with specifics. Why was the account disabled? You say the situation is readily distinguishable. I don't believe it is, can you specify what distinguishes this case from a case where somebody posts a FIND when they didn't find it. Thanks for your cooperation!

[+Prime Suspect]

This isn't someone who's made some questionable logs (logging a find because they found where it should have been, etc.). This is an account that was created solely to post bogus logs on difficult caches, where the poster brags about how easy they are. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

Edited May 12, 2006 by Prime Suspect

[+ReadyOrNot]

This isn't someone who's made some questionable logs (logging a find because they found where it should have been, etc.). This is an account that was created solely to post bogus logs on difficult caches, where the poster brags about how easy they are. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

Ok.. Gotcha! So what's the difference between posting a bogus find and posting a bogus find? Perhaps there are different levels of bogusness (I like that word). Posting a bogus find for the purpose of cheating and raising your find count varies from posting a bogus find for humor reasons? It seems to me the posting for humor reasons is less dangerous than posting for cheating reasons. Just my opinion I guess.

[+Mopar]

This situation is readily distinguishable from the other threads you've been following. Tip: Analyze the logging behavior from the cache owner's perspective.

 

Please answer with specifics. Why was the account disabled? You say the situation is readily distinguishable. I don't believe it is, can you specify what distinguishes this case from a case where somebody posts a FIND when they didn't find it. Thanks for your cooperation!

This is easy. It those other threads, the cache logs were made by legitimate cachers with the respective cache owner's prior permission.

 

In this case it seems that a bogus account was used to post obviously bogus logs that the cache owners did not give permission for. Such actions might be considered harrassing the cache owners.

[+ReadyOrNot]

This situation is readily distinguishable from the other threads you've been following. Tip: Analyze the logging behavior from the cache owner's perspective.

 

Please answer with specifics. Why was the account disabled? You say the situation is readily distinguishable. I don't believe it is, can you specify what distinguishes this case from a case where somebody posts a FIND when they didn't find it. Thanks for your cooperation!

This is easy. It those other threads, the cache logs were made by legitimate cachers with the respective cache owner's prior permission.

 

In this case it seems that a bogus account was used to post obviously bogus logs that the cache owners did not give permission for. Such actions might be considered harrassing the cache owners.

 

Okay, that makes sense to me. So, the rule is the cache owner can do whatever they want regardless of the rules? So if I want to create a logless cache and manage the find/DNF myself through an email confirmation code #, I can do that right? I'm having a really hard time finding where the rules start/stop and where the speculation starts/stops.

 

Does this sound right: "A cache owner can do anything they want within the guidelines, unless it's a pocket cache, then it's okay to go outside the guidelines. A logger can do anything they want as long as the cache owner says its okay, even if outside the guidelines set by gc.com. A logger will only be stopped if the cache owner determines that the behavior which is not regulated by gc.com 'annoys' the cache owner" -- That sound about right. I'm trying my best here, really.

[+Woodbutcher68]

. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

But my travel transporter machine was almost finished. I was going to do caches all around the world in one day!

[+briansnat]

This isn't someone who's made some questionable logs (logging a find because they found where it should have been, etc.). This is an account that was created solely to post bogus logs on difficult caches, where the poster brags about how easy they are. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

Ok.. Gotcha! So what's the difference between posting a bogus find and posting a bogus find? Perhaps there are different levels of bogusness (I like that word). Posting a bogus find for the purpose of cheating and raising your find count varies from posting a bogus find for humor reasons? It seems to me the posting for humor reasons is less dangerous than posting for cheating reasons. Just my opinion I guess.

 

Legit cachers posting bogus finds = OK

Bogus cachers posting bogus finds = not OK

[+ReadyOrNot]

This isn't someone who's made some questionable logs (logging a find because they found where it should have been, etc.). This is an account that was created solely to post bogus logs on difficult caches, where the poster brags about how easy they are. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

Ok.. Gotcha! So what's the difference between posting a bogus find and posting a bogus find? Perhaps there are different levels of bogusness (I like that word). Posting a bogus find for the purpose of cheating and raising your find count varies from posting a bogus find for humor reasons? It seems to me the posting for humor reasons is less dangerous than posting for cheating reasons. Just my opinion I guess.

 

Legit cachers posting bogus finds = OK

Bogus cachers posting bogus finds = not OK

 

What about Bogus Cachers posting Legit Finds

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

But my travel transporter machine was almost finished. I was going to do caches all around the world in one day!

 

May I borrow it when you are done, and after you have completed your travels? Sue accidentally damaged our time travel device last year, and she had promised to repair it by April, but it is still not working, and I miss that near-instant travel.

[+Team Torque]

I'm with you ReadyOrNot. It was obvious these finds were posted for the humor factor. Pocket caches and such are logged to boost numbers. To me that seems more like lying.

 

I don't think TPTB can continue with their position of not being log police because only they can lock out a account. Sure a cache owner can delete the log entry. Big deal. As moderator of a forum I can tell you having the power to suspend or lockout accounts is the only way to stop unacceptable behavior. Of course behavior has to be defined and it seems like they don't even want to take a stand on things like logging 30 finds in one event cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

But my travel transporter machine was almost finished. I was going to do caches all around the world in one day!

 

May I borrow it when you are done, and after you have completed your travels? Sue accidentally damaged our time travel device last year, and she had promised to repair it by April, but it is still not working, and I miss that near-instant travel.

 

I checked ahead, she fixes it now six years from now. Once you pass through the loop you'll be paying her a compliment for working so fast.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

. He posted finds on caches in Texas and China, on the same day.

 

But my travel transporter machine was almost finished. I was going to do caches all around the world in one day!

 

May I borrow it when you are done, and after you have completed your travels? Sue accidentally damaged our time travel device last year, and she had promised to repair it by April, but it is still not working, and I miss that near-instant travel.

 

I checked ahead, she fixes it now six years from now. Once you pass through the loop you'll be paying her a compliment for working so fast.

 

Thanks much for this info!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm with you ReadyOrNot. It was obvious these finds were posted for the humor factor. Pocket caches and such are logged to boost numbers. To me that seems more like lying.

 

I don't think TPTB can continue with their position of not being log police because only they can lock out a account. Sure a cache owner can delete the log entry. Big deal. As moderator of a forum I can tell you having the power to suspend or lockout accounts is the only way to stop unacceptable behavior. Of course behavior has to be defined and it seems like they don't even want to take a stand on things like logging 30 finds in one event cache.

 

I agree that those finds were likely done for the humor factor. I actually enjoyed them, even though one of my caches was one of the targets.

 

As for your wish that gc.com admins and reviewers would start acting as log police, here are my thoughts:

• First, that is asking a lot of them -- a big step beyond their role right now.
  Second, that could take a lot of time and funds and volunteer reviwers (about ten to twenty times as many as we have now) to do it even halfway right.
  Third, any such approach is bound to open them (gc.com reviewers and admins) to all sorts of attacks and criticisms that they are not being fair. Sounds like a big headache to me.
  Lastly, I useta be a pilot, and our avionics support specialists always had a mantra regarding our flight electronics and instruments: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Allow me to amend that here to "If it ain't very broke, don't mess with it!"
  

And lastly, yes, I know what you mean about managing forums and groups. I run many email list groups on some controversial topics, and I tend to manage them tightly, so I know what you are talking about. In fact I often get accused of exactly the same things that some malcontents accuse Jeremy of on the gc.com forums. It can take a lot of time and care to manage list groups and fourms.

[+NotNutts]

Another difference is that this bogus account was obviously made to make a point. With the recent threads arguing the morality of logs, someone got cute. I think it's funny (definitely not a 'criminal' act) and I think TPTB were wrong to suspend the account. Let the cache owners delete the logs if they want.

 

tink, tink--my 2 cents

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Another difference is that this bogus account was obviously made to make a point. With the recent threads arguing the morality of logs, someone got cute. I think it's funny (definitely not a 'criminal' act) and I think TPTB were wrong to suspend the account. Let the cache owners delete the logs if they want.

 

tink, tink--my 2 cents

 

Well, I agree in part, but I do not think it was "wrong" for the admins at gc.com to have deleted the account, but rather, I would personallly prefer that they had let it stand for now. As you wrote, the cache owners can always delet fraudulent logs, and unless the account-holder turns into some kind of maggot (i.e., filing lots of annoying fraudulent finds, or re-filing them repeatedly after a cache owner has deleted prior "finds"), I would have preferred that the account had been allowed to stay operative. It was kind of funny. I will likely eventually delete the fraudulent find log for our Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations, but for now, I plan to let the log stand as it is for at least a few days, as part of the record/history of the cache, so that everyone has a chance to have a good laugh at it.

[+JakeBond]

My vote is to delete obvious logs, notify owners, but otherwise, let them alone. who's competing?

 

i understand that fake loggers detract from the perception of this as a legitimate sport, but then again, how important are perceptions?

 

For what its worth, i think extreme caches like urban number 9 (see above) should accurately track real finds versus virtual visits simply for archival purposes and to respect those of us (you) that actually accomplish these enormous feats.

 

...just my .02

[Moonsovrbend]

Forums are great! I am the owner of one of the four geocaches this person logged visits to today - and I was going to start a topic on this to see what everybody thought i should do - Alas - it is already done - Thanks!

 

I did not delete this persons "find" but out of respect for those who have found or are planning to find my cache - i wrote a note - maybe this was inappropriate but it how i chose to deal with it

[+woofiegrrl]

Regarding which bogus logs are "okay" -

 

I think posting a SERIES of bogus logs, as GeoPoser did, is not okay. Individual bogus logs should be evaluated individually, but creating an account just to post a series of fakes seems abusive to me.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Forums are great! I am the owner of one of the four geocaches this person logged visits to today - and I was going to start a topic on this to see what everybody thought i should do - Alas - it is already done - Thanks!

 

I did not delete this persons "find" but out of respect for those who have found or are planning to find my cache - i wrote a note - maybe this was inappropriate but it how i chose to deal with it

 

As I have written earlier, I am not overly upset at the fake log entry for our PUC #9. I plan to let it stand for at least a few days so everyone can have a good laugh, and then Ii will let my heart tell me whether to delete the log or not. Snoogans, who owns Quantum Leap, which was also hit by GeoPoser today, has announced that he plans to let the fake log entry stand, as part of the history of the cache. And, it is worth noting that Gokyo Ri, the cache at 17,000 feet in Nepal which has been missing in action for over a year, was one of the finds claimed by GeoPoser. The owner of that cache has already allowed one armchair or virtual find on his missing cache already, and so I guess one more fake find will not harm Gokyo Ri much!

[+JakeBond]

Did anyone consider that geoposer did this so obviously that he/she wanted to push this subject and bring this topic out into the open, possibly to expose those who do it a bit more discretely?

 

Could there be a silver lining? or am i just a fatal optimist?

[+budd-rdc]

Another difference is that this bogus account was obviously made to make a point. With the recent threads arguing the morality of logs, someone got cute. I think it's funny (definitely not a 'criminal' act) and I think TPTB were wrong to suspend the account. Let the cache owners delete the logs if they want.

 

tink, tink--my 2 cents

 

It seems TPTB has better tools to figure out if an account is bogus or not, so I would just complain to them and let them handle "bogus logs" appropriately, which is what happened here.

 

Seeing how people are eager to "just to prove a point" on many things, would you trust an owner's judgement on whether the account/log is bogus? Example: He might delete logs "just to prove a point" without looking for solid proof.

 

Did anyone consider that geoposer did this so obviously that he/she wanted to push this subject and bring this topic out into the open, possibly to expose those who do it a bit more discretely?

 

Could there be a silver lining? or am i just a fatal optimist?

 

Is Geocaching "morals" in such dire straits that people need to resort to this for a solution?

 

I see a connection between NFL and Geocaching now. Second offender (who retaliates "just to prove a point") usually gets the yellow flag.

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

As Vinny mentioned in the other GeoPoser thread, the cache is Chomolongma (GCP7JV) which is located on Mount Everest.

 

Wow. For such a remote cache, there sure are an awful lot of coins in it.

Edited May 13, 2006 by ParrotRob

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

As Vinny mentioned in the other GeoPoser thread, the cache is Chomolongma (GCP7JV) which is located on Mount Everest.

 

Wow. For such a remote cache, there sure are an awful lot of coins in it.

 

Yes, I started a whole thread in the coins/TB section of the forum about the bizarre (to me!) practice of people moving coins and TBs thru caches which they have never visited. Very odd. . .

[+JakeBond]

"Seeing how people are eager to "just to prove a point" on many things, would you trust an owner's judgement on whether the account/log is bogus? Example: He might delete logs "just to prove a point" without looking for solid proof."

 

Cant a cache owner take the log book and verify the finds online with who logged the book? Thats how i do it. and they are the OWNER. you have no choice but to trust their judgement. its their cache and they can do whatever with it they please.

[+Team Torque]

 

As for your wish that gc.com admins and reviewers would start acting as log police, here are my thoughts:

• First, that is asking a lot of them -- a big step beyond their role right now.
  Second, that could take a lot of time and funds and volunteer reviwers (about ten to twenty times as many as we have now) to do it even halfway right.
  Third, any such approach is bound to open them (gc.com reviewers and admins) to all sorts of attacks and criticisms that they are not being fair. Sounds like a big headache to me.
  Lastly, I useta be a pilot, and our avionics support specialists always had a mantra regarding our flight electronics and instruments: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Allow me to amend that here to "If it ain't very broke, don't mess with it!"
  

 

Yup it would be a big step but I would set it up like this. I would have an email address where complaints could be sent. Anytime a cache owner deletes a log they have an option to email a complaint. Now I would not get in the middle of squabbles between a cache owner and a cacher but it would become quickly apparent what cachers were getting multiple complaints.

 

And if pronounced king I would stop the practice of logging 50 finds on one event cache or archived cache.

 

If this person was trying to make a point they did a good job. I guess if you get a few legit finds first you can post bogus finds with the only fear of having your log deleted but don't post bogus finds for your first ones or you are out of here.

[+budd-rdc]

Cant a cache owner take the log book and verify the finds online with who logged the book? Thats how i do it. and they are the OWNER. you have no choice but to trust their judgement. its their cache and they can do whatever with it they please.

This is what I usually do, and so far, I get more names in the log book than the online logs, which I don't mind.

 

Many have expressed in the past that it's a badge of honor NOT to reconcile log book and online logs, because it is an anal/control-freakish thing to do. In the context of this discussion, people were implying owners would be able to "guess" what's bogus or not, and that's what I was questioning.

[+Glenn]

This situation is readily distinguishable from the other threads you've been following. Tip: Analyze the logging behavior from the cache owner's perspective.

 

Please answer with specifics. Why was the account disabled? You say the situation is readily distinguishable. I don't believe it is, can you specify what distinguishes this case from a case where somebody posts a FIND when they didn't find it. Thanks for your cooperation!

This is easy. It those other threads, the cache logs were made by legitimate cachers with the respective cache owner's prior permission.

 

In this case it seems that a bogus account was used to post obviously bogus logs that the cache owners did not give permission for. Such actions might be considered harrassing the cache owners.

If I'm understanding this correctly then fake logs on active caches are delt with by banning the offending user account while fake log entries on archived caches are allowed or at the lest a blind eye is turned to them. Is this an accurate observation?

 

On another note. It can be argued that because TPTB only banned the account, and didn't touch the logs he made, so therefore TPTB are not in the log police business. But think about this. What was the cause of the banning and what was the expected result from the banning.

[+Renegade Knight]

...On another note. It can be argued that because TPTB only banned the account, and didn't touch the logs he made, so therefore TPTB are not in the log police business. But think about this. What was the cause of the banning and what was the expected result from the banning.

 

Based on another thread it would appear that at least some PTB are in the log police business.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...On another note. It can be argued that because TPTB only banned the account, and didn't touch the logs he made, so therefore TPTB are not in the log police business. But think about this. What was the cause of the banning and what was the expected result from the banning.

Based on another thread it would appear that at least some PTB are in the log police business.

Will you please give me an example to illustrate your last statement? I do not doubt that they much cross that line once in a while -- if only accidentally -- but at this moment I cannot think of which thread you must be referencing. Thanks!

[+Renegade Knight]

...On another note. It can be argued that because TPTB only banned the account, and didn't touch the logs he made, so therefore TPTB are not in the log police business. But think about this. What was the cause of the banning and what was the expected result from the banning.

Based on another thread it would appear that at least some PTB are in the log police business.

Will you please give me an example to illustrate your last statement? I do not doubt that they much cross that line once in a while -- if only accidentally -- but at this moment I cannot think of which thread you must be referencing. Thanks!

 

You may have figured it out already but in this thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ic=132019&st=50

 

The Cache owner has had his ability to delete logs blocked.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

...On another note. It can be argued that because TPTB only banned the account, and didn't touch the logs he made, so therefore TPTB are not in the log police business. But think about this. What was the cause of the banning and what was the expected result from the banning.

Based on another thread it would appear that at least some PTB are in the log police business.

Will you please give me an example to illustrate your last statement? I do not doubt that they much cross that line once in a while -- if only accidentally -- but at this moment I cannot think of which thread you must be referencing. Thanks!

 

You may have figured it out already but in this thread:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ic=132019&st=50

 

The Cache owner has had his ability to delete logs blocked.

 

Gotcha! Thanks for the ilustration! I was fully aware of the thread, but I did not make the mental leap! In fact, in that case, I fully agree with TPTB; I feel that the cache owner was being incredibly arbitrary and dishonest (and hostile) in deleting logs and hiding the fact that the cache was disabled and missing in action. Thanks!

[+Prime Suspect]

Did anyone consider that geoposer did this so obviously that he/she wanted to push this subject and bring this topic out into the open, possibly to expose those who do it a bit more discretely?

 

Could there be a silver lining? or am i just a fatal optimist?

More likely it's a 13 kid whose mother took away his XBox, and who has too much time on his hands.

[Clan Riffster]

The cheaters have blasphemed The Holy Church of Perpetual Ammo Cans and should be struck down with furious anger!

[4wheelin_fool]

Another difference is that this bogus account was obviously made to make a point. With the recent threads arguing the morality of logs, someone got cute. I think it's funny (definitely not a 'criminal' act) and I think TPTB were wrong to suspend the account. Let the cache owners delete the logs if they want.

 

tink, tink--my 2 cents

 

It looks like good target practice to me. Once it appears in the forums on the radar screen, then it's fair game. Maybe someone was skeet shooting and substituting their socks for clay pigeons. Ya never know.

[Proverbs]

I guess I kinda have a slight issue with the guys and gals passing geocoins and travel bugs back and forth at the various meetings around the country but it's not a big deal. So they get to log a bunch of finds, what do I care. I enjoy getting out and stomping through the grass, seeing things I've never seen before etc. The truth is that if they aren't out finding the caches then I don't hafta bump into them and wait till they leave etc. when I'm on a hunt. So log till your heats content, stay at home on your pc and kick back. I'll be out searching. I must confess I sign every log but only log my visit on the site about half the time. For me it's not about how many logs I have but what I find and see along the way.