Jump to content

Website-based Puzzle Caches


Hockeyhick
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

It has been a subject with our group. Some of us wanted to do some web-site based puzzle caches. There are some that already exist that are not, as current requirements require, on "public" webspace.

 

What constitutes "public" webspace? What is the difference, when a pzzle cache, who's website may be down can be archived and disabled like any other.

 

Couldn't Groundspeak offer up space on this site for web-based puzzles as a Premium Membership Feature?

 

Thanks!

Link to comment

Don't read too much into that - I think by "public" all they mean is a website that is generally available with no passwords or restrictions 24/7 - (with the execption of a few minor outages once in a while). Lots of ways to get such space - your ISP will probably provide you some cheap or free.

Link to comment

We have tried that...

 

We were told that personal websites could not be used for puzzle caches, only "public" sites.

 

I agree with you, but here in South Carolina, our reviewers see it differently.

Seems odd - do you have a link to the site that was denied?

Link to comment

We have tried that...

 

We were told that personal websites could not be used for puzzle caches, only "public" sites.

 

I agree with you, but here in South Carolina, our reviewers see it differently.

That seems strange... we have a puzzle cache ("Scatter-brained Crab") that has the puzzle information stored on the personal web space provided by our ISP. It was listed without any problems (less than 2 months ago, so it's not an issue of grandfathering).

Link to comment

As long as the web site in question is freely available to anyone who points their web browser at it I don't see what the issue would be.

 

Okay, the only obvious issue I can come up with is the geocaching.com site being used to link to the puzzle site which has content over which Groundspeak has no control. Kind of weak, but if Yahoo can get dragged into court and sued for their search engine turning up links to sites with pirated MP3 files, well, lawyers just love that sort of stuff. *sigh*

Link to comment

Unless you have your own domain and server space, your "personal web space" is probably some freebie megabytes given by to you by your ISP, on condition of maintaining an account with them. Considering how often people change ISPs (or how often ISPs get sold/merged/taken-over), they're not very perminant.

Link to comment

Unless you have your own domain and server space, your "personal web space" is probably some freebie megabytes given by to you by your ISP, on condition of maintaining an account with them. Considering how often people change ISPs (or how often ISPs get sold/merged/taken-over), they're not very perminant.

 

The issue is not "perminant," The issue is "public."

 

This is all that the guidlines have:

 

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

The Delorme Challenge is set up on that very principle.

 

Honestly, every website that the public can type and access is "public."

Link to comment

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

 

The Delorme Challenge was granted special permission from Groundspeak.

Link to comment

HockeyHick,

 

Ok fine - send me the page you put together and I will host (free) on one of my own personal domains. Should put the "public" part to rest.

 

(assuming of course that there is no objectionable content)

 

The hosting issue isn't the problem. I have web space. (Grrrrowlfan.net) Several of our local members have web space. Our Geocaching group's website can be used, as well. I just don't get it.

 

The above moderators post has been the standard line thrown back at us.

 

This started as a 10 cache contest (1 for each county in the Upstate South Carolina Geocaching Group area) and a bonus cache to be given via email to all that completed the twn initial caches. That was shot down because of the email situation.

Also, one of our members wanted to do a multi-leg, in which one leg was close toi another of his own caches. That was shot down.

Yet another issue arose via the web-page based puzzle cache idea was shot down, when as has been proven on this board, there are many out there, and very recent ones, I might add.

 

With the first problem came up, we refered to the Delorme Challenge. Yes, we are aware that the mere presence of a cache doesn't guarantee aproval. Some of us have had no problem getting caches approved, while others have had to walk through fire.

 

As for the Delorme Challenge being granted special permission, let's look at that:

 

Here in South Carolina, only one person maintains that cache, one email address to get the final cache.

 

With our 10 cache contest, there are several members maintaining the cache, and with that, several email addresses to use to get the bonus cache coords.

 

On top of that, the Delorm Challenge requires one to buy the Delorme Atlas, which is a direct violation of terms here, because of the comercial nature of the cache.

 

The moderator hasn't addressed the issue of "public" websites, which was my original question.

 

Personally, I had no problem getting my cache apprved,but others apparently had a different reviewer than I.

 

Me thinks that something is rotton in Denmark.

 

Oh, and I am working on getting the puzzle website address, to let you see whatever the problem may be.

Link to comment

Ok first, The Delorme Challenge was another issue and the cache Hockey is talking about was going to be done like another one in place already in the area.

 

The Delormer Challenge did present some issues in terms of trying to mold a cache like it.

 

CR--your fishing let me know what you catch

Edited by geoholic28
Link to comment

The Sticking point may be the email for a final cache. Maybe you could create some kind of web page where a code entered from the other caches could verify and provide the coordinates.

 

That issue was resolved by having each cache contain a letter that would be substituted for a number. Simple solution there.

 

I just don't understand the webpage puzzle being shot down. It meets the three-month guildline, and to be honest, would last longer that most stupid lamp-post micros.

 

My guess is that we have a reviewer here in SC that has blackballed certain users. Now that I have said that, I'll probably make the list, too.

 

All this is doing is forcing those of us who love this hobby, (and up until a month ago have been feverous supporters of Geocaching.com) to go to rival sites for our fix.

Link to comment

Only 10 caches?? And they're actual, physical caches??

 

There is no need to go the email route when its so easy to put a number in each cache then have a formula of some sort to figure the coords for the bonus cache.

 

The DeLorme caches are different in that they are no a definite set of caches to find, so you can't just add codes. They are a special case because a) the hiders got special approval from Groundspeak, b] DeLorme Corp. granted permission to use their name and their maps, and c) DeLorme Corp. bought advertising on geocaching.com.

Link to comment

Only 10 caches?? And they're actual, physical caches??

 

There is no need to go the email route when its so easy to put a number in each cache then have a formula of some sort to figure the coords for the bonus cache.

 

The DeLorme caches are different in that they are no a definite set of caches to find, so you can't just add codes. They are a special case because a) the hiders got special approval from Groundspeak, b] DeLorme Corp. granted permission to use their name and their maps, and c) DeLorme Corp. bought advertising on geocaching.com.

 

Once again, this isn't about the 10 cache/bonus cache set-up as a whole.

 

This is a question as to why some web-based puzzle caches are allowed, the definition of "public" webpages, and if Groundspeak would set aside a small portion of their server space for the inclusion of puzzle web-pages (just like the space used for pictures.)

Link to comment
if Groundspeak would set aside a small portion of their server space for the inclusion of puzzle web-pages

 

Interesting idea. And a new one too. I'm too technically illiterate to have any idea if this is likely. But it does solve the issue of website reliability.

 

Yes, because luckily the geocaching.com site never breaks! :laughing:

 

I also don't understand the problem of where the site is hosted. The argument that someone might change ISPs and lose their space could happen, but no less likely than a cache getting muggled in my opinion.

 

Once again, I think the bigger issue is that SOME reviewers read this "guideline" one way, and OTHER reviewers read it a different way. I'm not saying that either reviewer is wrong, but it highlights the difficulty that sometimes arises due to the "flexibility" in our guidelines and it leads to frustration by hiders.

Link to comment

The cache they were trying to model is called "The Scarlet Letter" if you wish to look at the cache page.

 

I think two issues were merged into one and caused some confusion.

 

The bonus cache and one of the ten caches both had issues. One of the ten caches wanted to be like the website cache that is already active. The bonus cache was going to be like the DeLorme Challenge in emailing for the final coords.

 

As I understand now, the Bonus Cache was changed, not to what the owner wanted, but was changed enough to get approved.

 

Hope this helps clear some confusion up, Hockeyhick, as for the blackball issue, I do see a new cache from you today so guess your not as high on the list as you thought :laughing:

Link to comment

I also don't understand the problem of where the site is hosted. The argument that someone might change ISPs and lose their space could happen, but no less likely than a cache getting muggled in my opinion.

plus, if you change ISPs, you can always update the cache page to reflect the new location...

Link to comment

<taps glass on monitor> Is this thing on?

 

As I said, I haven't had real issues with any of my caches.

 

The website that was to be used is not freebie space from a provider, but purchased server space.

 

Just looking for some clear, simple amswers, and offering a posible solution.

Link to comment

Seems to be more to this query than we currently know. Got to be more than just "public" webspace.

 

I agree. There's a whole lot of talking around in circles and not a whole lot of "this is the problem and here's how to fix it" statements.

 

I mean if no one wants to talk about it then say that or talk in a hypotheticals and such.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment

Looks like the OP's latest cache was published today. So, uhh, what's the problem again? :)

 

Oh wait, I see the problem. The OP didn't use html so I can't even click on a link to a website that he's so worried about. I'd have to copy and paste. No thanks :grin:

Link to comment

The "OP" has a name.

 

And this has nothing to do with my own personal experiences at posting caches. Once again, I haven't had a problem with getting on posted. SCR has not been, in any way, rude or unreasonable with me.

 

I can't give you a link to a web-page that I don't have. However, the potential cache in question was done by a college student and is hosted on his payed for server, not a freebie account. If I can get the site, by all means, I'll list it.

 

It was refused for the reasons that it was not hosted on a "public" webpage, but a personal one.

 

My original question is why? What is the difference?

 

And...if you use your brain and scroll back up, I was wondering if Groundspeak could offer us premium members a small fragment of their space for such caches.

 

If you don't have an answer, or are just trying to be a jerk, please move on.

Link to comment

The "OP" has a name.

 

And this has nothing to do with my own personal experiences at posting caches. Once again, I haven't had a problem with getting on posted. SCR has not been, in any way, rude or unreasonable with me.

 

I can't give you a link to a web-page that I don't have. However, the potential cache in question was done by a college student and is hosted on his payed for server, not a freebie account. If I can get the site, by all means, I'll list it.

 

It was refused for the reasons that it was not hosted on a "public" webpage, but a personal one.

 

My original question is why? What is the difference?

 

And...if you use your brain and scroll back up, I was wondering if Groundspeak could offer us premium members a small fragment of their space for such caches.

 

If you don't have an answer, or are just trying to be a jerk, please move on.

 

Hey everybody, I'm TheWhiteBuffalo. My friend HockeyHick is discussing some issues I had posting my website. Here's a link to a screenshot of the Index.

 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i122/rry...er/BEVIndex.jpg

 

Here's a link to a screenshot of one of the Web-based Virtual stages.

 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i122/rry.../BEVSscreen.jpg

 

There are additional pages exactly like these. Once you've figured out the answer to the question on the page, you insert that answer into an example URL. (The answer to this one was Jim Turner, which would lead you to the nex screenshot) The new URL takes you to an additional page that lists the coords for the next "real world" stage. Here's a link to a screenshot of one of the Web-based Virtual stages giving the coords.

 

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i122/rry...r/BEVAnswer.jpg

 

This site is hosted by http://www.ixwebhosting.com/. It's a website I was building then converted to solely geocaching. Additional pages on the site are exactly the same as those listed above with plot summary from different chapters, and different questions.

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

Edited by thewhitebuffalo
Link to comment
Now I'm really confused. Those screenshots say they are for a cache called "L.E.G. #1" but L.E.G. #1 was published today. If you had some problem getting that cache published, it has obviously been resolved to the satisfaction of the reviewer, so perhaps this thread can be closed now :laughing:

 

Cause it was changed to something not related to what they wanted to do is why it was published. Did you happen to go look at the cache?

Link to comment

Yes, L.E.G. #1 was published. The geocache has been altered so that it requires no use of my website. I thought it would be fun and interesting to include web-based portions. I still don't understand why it was a problem to list my website as part of this geocache. I was told, and I quote:

 

"I am sorry but that is a private website open to the public not a public website. If you want this cache listed then I suggest you put the information on the cache page not on a seperate website."

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

Edited by thewhitebuffalo
Link to comment

 

"I am sorry but that is a private website open to the public not a public website."

 

 

:laughing:

 

Is this meaning I couldn't host a portion of a cache on my own personal website, but if it were on, say, Google, then that's okay? If I have no control over the content then it's okay, but not if I do. That's how I'm reading it.

Link to comment

 

..."I am sorry but that is a private website open to the public not a public website...."

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

 

Wow - that statement is one of the most confusing I have seen in a long time. I have read it over and over and still can't make much sense out of it. I would love to see an example of a website that is public open to the public. Aren't all websites owned by somebody and therefore private?

 

I'd love to see some clarification. It is badly worded at best. I think what they are saying is that the site being used didn't seem all that permanent (for some reason).

Link to comment

This seems really strange to me... So what exactly is a "Public Website"? I would have interpreted that to mean something that doesn't unfairly restrict cachers from entering (like you can't have required information on a website that you only give select people access to).

Link to comment

 

..."I am sorry but that is a private website open to the public not a public website...."

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

 

Wow - that statement is one of the most confusing I have seen in a long time. I have read it over and over and still can't make much sense out of it. I would love to see an example of a website that is public open to the public. Aren't all websites owned by somebody and therefore private?

 

Exactly, even gc.com is a private website that's open to the public, where's the difference?

Link to comment

When I first read the guideline, I interpreted it to mean that a general interest website was fine, while one that had pages created expecially for the cache was not. In other words, there should be not one website created just to house the data, but perhaps dozens of websites that might have the information being sought, because it is something that many people might want to know for any of a number of reasons.

 

Now that the questions has been specifically asked, I want to know if my interpretation is off the mark or not.

Link to comment

No problem HockeyHick. Everyone has good questions, questions I've had over the past few days. I had no time to debate the ins and outs of this particular issue as my cache had to go live by a certain date. If anyone has any ?s concerning the setup, description, or contents of my website, feel free to ask via this thread, pm me, or email me at rryanmiller@charter.net I'll do my best to provide you with all possible information.

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

Link to comment

When I first read the guideline, I interpreted it to mean that a general interest website was fine, while one that had pages created expecially for the cache was not. In other words, there should be not one website created just to house the data, but perhaps dozens of websites that might have the information being sought, because it is something that many people might want to know for any of a number of reasons.

 

How does that fit with Scatter-brained Crab published only 2 months ago Hidden: 5/19/2006? Is this not housing data? Is this dozens of websites? What number of reasons would a person want this information?

 

Not an attack, merely questions exploring this answer. Feel free to play the devil's advocate here.

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

Link to comment

When I first read the guideline, I interpreted it to mean that a general interest website was fine, while one that had pages created expecially for the cache was not. In other words, there should be not one website created just to house the data, but perhaps dozens of websites that might have the information being sought, because it is something that many people might want to know for any of a number of reasons.

How does that fit with Scatter-brained Crab published only 2 months ago Hidden: 5/19/2006? Is this not housing data? Is this dozens of websites? What number of reasons would a person want this information?

 

Not an attack, merely questions exploring this answer. Feel free to play the devil's advocate here.

 

R. Ryan Miller

TheWhiteBuffalo

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree. Of course, the obvious answers to your response is:

1) no previously existing cache creates a precedent for another cache

2) the guidelines are subject to alternative interpretation by various parties and your reviewer may or may not have done the same thing

3) your example may or may not be seen in the same way

 

You may be able to find myriad other examples that are similar, but that doesn't answer the question (or get your cache published the way you originally wished).

 

You could probably also find examples of caches that were turned down using similar data. I have also seen caches using webspace turned down for other reasons. Certainly I have seen denials because of having to download something, or sign up for something, or because there were ad banners running on the webpages. I can recall not too long ago someone being turned down for some cyptic puzzle because their puzzle required one particular enigma decoder, rather than just any decoder--and it had to be downloaded. There was another case where someone wanted to use a small downloadable graphic or some sort--a tiny programlet, and probably innocent, but not acceptable.

 

The questions at hand remains "What is the intent of requiring a public website for puzzle caches?" and by extension, "What is meant by the teminology "public website"?

Link to comment

There is still something being left out...the OP mentioned several different things that were prohibiting publishing that don't make sense;

 

1. The bonus cache issue. Several caches, including ones that have been release within the last 60 days or so, have a "bonus cache". Some use the letter number method, others (albeit the extreme minority) use a email.

 

2. Many have links to other websites. The term "public" is being used here in a vague manner. What about using a site like Geochecker, which I use on two recently approved puzzle caches to verify coords.

 

3. Not sure what the "blackballing" had to do with this. The statement didn't appear to be finished.

 

4. Was this put through the appeal process?

 

I would think that a "public' website as it has been described through this thread would be less desireable because of advertising and, as mentioned, lack of content control.

Link to comment

There is still something being left out...the OP mentioned several different things that were prohibiting publishing that don't make sense;

 

1. The bonus cache issue. Several caches, including ones that have been release within the last 60 days or so, have a "bonus cache". Some use the letter number method, others (albeit the extreme minority) use a email.

 

2. Many have links to other websites. The term "public" is being used here in a vague manner. What about using a site like Geochecker, which I use on two recently approved puzzle caches to verify coords.

 

3. Not sure what the "blackballing" had to do with this. The statement didn't appear to be finished.

 

4. Was this put through the appeal process?

 

I would think that a "public' website as it has been described through this thread would be less desireable because of advertising and, as mentioned, lack of content control.

 

1. I have no public opinion for this issue.

 

2. I like the website you mentioned. However, there is a difference with geochecker and the site with which we had issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Geochecker verifies coords. The websites we were planning to use presently and in the future contian "web stages". This was devised to spice up the cache and increase the difficulty of the cache by coaxing the cacher to and from real world locations and the internet. (via computer, blackberry, etc)

 

3. I have no public opinion for this issue.

 

4. Yes, these two issues, emailing for coordinates and the website were both appealed. The links in my previous posts show exactly what the site looks like. There are no ads or any form of advertising anywhere. There is one link on the entire site--the link to the webmaster's email account. There are no other internal or external links. The content is specifically related to the geocache. I have complete control of the content posted within. I own the domain and its corresponding folders. Email is not required to receive coordinates for the particular geocache associated with the website, nor has it been. The quote in my previous post was not from the reviewer, but directly from appeals. (I have removed the names in order to dissuade bias)

 

I'd like to hear Groundspeak's definition of "public website" or at least a better explanation for denying my request. What are the boundaries, or parameters for what's acceptable? The comments I received from the appeals process led me to believe that websites are generally unacceptable, present and future. Again, my responses aren't meant to attack. I encourage responses that may or may not directly clash with my opinion, in the end that helps me and hopefully others understand.

Link to comment

I don't understand what "public" means in this context. Could the appropriate reviewer please step up and explain?

 

I agree, not sure about the fishing comment because there is an anonymous forum name for the SC_Reviewer. I think G28 may be a bit defensive/confused here.

 

1. The website cache in question was compared to the Scarlet Letter. the Scarlet Letter was published prior to this website cahe and falls under the GC supremacy protection act here, however, there is a cache listed above that was published post guideline changes that is similar. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c5-03cf7f0d432a Hmmm....

 

2. The website cache was to HELP cachers with this cache, I can speak freely about this because I completed it yesterday. It would have greatly enhanced this cache. Has anyone here done the cache?

 

New Topic

 

3. The Bonus in this series was modled after the DeLorme Challenge in SC. So what if you have to email the user who published it? Does GC want that much control over the listings? Are the cachers resposible for their hides? When there is an approval process, does that indicate that the reviewer or GC takes the reponsibility? I doubt it. by the way the bonus is being monitored by several cachers, the DeLorme in SC is hosted by one cacher. Which one has a better chance of having issues? Hmmm....

 

4. Appeals? right... I appealed that the DeLorme Challenge was a violation of the guidelines. You have to email the owner to get the final coords. You also have to purchase a product that is endorsed by GC, a DeLorme Map. Understand I was trying to prove a point by comparing the two, looks to me like you have to be "in" to get the good stuff approved.

 

To prove my point, I stuck a magnet behind a sign on a rock. I got permission from the town Mayor, signed and blessed by a wandering monk. Filed in the Submission court of cache publishing and TADA! another cheap low quality hide that is becoming so famous here.

 

I love the bells and whistles on GC, but the review process and the wide variation of how the guidelines are used by the reviewers is the root of all the above mentioned problems.

 

Why don't we publish our own caches if we truly are responsible?

 

Just my opinion, I would like to hang but I must go hide some more dull magnets with notorized signatures since that is the prefered listing to approve.

 

TalesFromTheSurface

 

Public Website= A website that is controled by Big Brother???

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

I was going to stay out of this, but I really HAVE to chime in...

 

Any website is by definition public (a resource available to the public) unless it requires credentials to log in, but all websites, other than .gov, are ALSO by definition private (not owned publicly). Any statement to the contrary is a strawman argument. The only thing in real question is how permanent a site is. As has already been stated here, geocaching.com itself is a private website. I personally think it's foolish to draw a distinction between a large commercial website and a smaller one run by an individual, yet with its own valid domain name and dedicated web space (I do however think that free space on an ISP's site is very fragile and cannot really be trusted long-term; it's too dependent on the ISP's good graces). And how is this different than adding to a listing an image stored on a non-gc.com server?! I can completely understand the INTENT behind GC's guideline: they don't want a listing to depend on information which may not be 24/7 available (not that gc ever goes down??? Heh.). However, as a web-based company, they certainly understand web business practices, and I'm sure most of the reviewers do too. However, I've noted that various reviewers interpret guidelines differently. "What we have here is a failure to communicate." What we NEED here is official guidance from TPTB.

 

With that said...

 

Even Geochecker is private. I know because I set it up. And CoyoteRed understands that sissy-n-cr.com, with a similar checker, is private. And Evince is private... etc. etc. etc. They've all been set up by private individuals.

 

At the risk of perverting the original intent of Geochecker, I would note that anyone can create a link with whatever embedded waypoint and name they wish to use. The link can thus contain slightly encypted information - only requiring clicking it to decode. There's really no hard-n-fast way to require it to map to a real cache. For example, this Geochecker link has a made-up code embedded in it. That could probably be used for something.

 

Just as an aide, I took a slightly different approach when I created "Rope-A-Dope" . I put a version of the puzzle (a literal 9-piece puzzle) on the cache listing, so you can do a scissors cut-n-paste if you must, but I also put a much nicer javascript web-based click-n-drag version in a folder on my home business site and linked it in. Got the best of both worlds - no GC worries, but still easier for finders to use if they wished.

 

I wonder what GC would say if Geochecker hosted puzzle information on its pages? Would that be any different for this puzzle cache in question?

 

My recommendation: anything hosted on a site that is NOT an ISP free web page should be acceptable. Requiring ANYTHING beyond that is asking for unverifiable information. Although it's a safe bet, you can't even guarantee that gc.com itself, or cnn.com, or any other big-name site, will be around a year from now.

Link to comment

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

 

The Delorme Challenge was granted special permission from Groundspeak.

 

Thank you Moderators for your responses however, is it possible to contact someone at Groundspeak to address the "Public Website" issue being discussed and address this thread. Please do not respond with the "Appeals" suggetion. That is not an answer that clarifies the question (See appeals responses in above thread). That is more like the Cookie Cutter response in quotes. It appears that we were denied by our reviewer the ability to publish caches that are being published elsewhere under the same guidelines.

 

Thank You

 

Edit: This is not meant to be sarcastic, the above quote stands firm on the guidelines however, the DeLorme is an exception to the guidelines, when are exceptions ok? If I as a cacher am the responsible party, let me be responsible or the cache can be archived.

Edited by TalesFromTheSurface
Link to comment

I will echo what I said above and what others have said. (Maybe twist it just a bit)

 

What exactly is "public" in context of a website?

 

Did the reviewer act appropriately in denying this puzzle cache because the website seemed more private than public? (assuming all is as described above) {Not trying to "call" anybody out here - just want everybody to be on the same page and understanding the definition}

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...