Jump to content

Poli, A Fairy Tale


Recommended Posts

I've given this some thought and I've come to a decision which I think a few of you will be glad to hear, although you might not like the way I present it.

 

Ta'hell with the bunch of you.

I'm going to continue to cache, and log my caches in the way that I think is right, and I don't give a flying f*** what you think.

It would have just taken one post from TPTB to put an end to all this. But they don't seem to give a dam, so why should I?

 

I'm sure that by this time several of you are reaching for the "Report" button. Don't bother. I'm taking a self-imposed hiatus from this crap. I'll be back to the forums when I think I can stomach it again. If ever.

Link to comment

You forgot cache owners being ostracized by some in their local community because they deleted illegit finds from their cache logs.

 

Its gone from "I'm playing my own game" to "I'm playing my game and you had better accept it or I'll make life miserable for you".

 

Miserable...perhaps, but I was awarded this brilliant white robe as compensation!!!Woohoo!!! :(

 

It's funny how POLI counting the same dollar thousands of times didn't have any effect on the number of dollars I have in my wallet (or bank account).

 

Good point.

 

On the other hand, it still proves that POLI is an idiot.

 

ROFLMAO :(

 

I admit, at first glance, that I thought that this thread belonged in the off topic section, but then the shades were thrown open, and I understood.

 

I was trying so hard to keep my hands away from the keyboard with this thread, but once again, I've been drawn in, and dropped the mouse to put in my $.02. Oh well :(

Link to comment

 

Then don't lose the paper, and don't write the code down wrong.

Rules are rules. If one is too much of a POLI to manage the task, then too bad.

 

Again, if the idea is not perfect, that doesn't mean it's not better then the current situation. It may open up some worm cans, as you suggest. But it will also close a few.

 

What's the harm in allowing it as at the cache owner's option?

 

Once upon a time there was this guy named Bret who shopped at a store called POLI-MART. Bret bought a lot of stuff there, including his printer supplies, CD's and a bunch of other stuff. One day while walking out of the electronics department with his printer cartridge he was stopped by a store employee who said, "I'm sorry sir, but you'll have to pay for that here."

 

"Why?" asked Bret

 

"Store POLIcy. I'ts to prevent theft."

 

"But I wasn't going to steal it," Bret said. But it didn't matter. Bret had to write one check at the electronics counter and another one later at the main check-out. Bret was inconvenienced, and amazingly enough, people who steal still continued to steal.

 

A few months later Bret had terrible allergies and went to POLI-MART for his allergy medicine. Being cheap, he bought them over the counter.

 

"You can't get these over the counter," said the pharmacist. "You have to bring this card to the desk and we will get them for you."

 

"Why? I've always gotten them like this before," said Bret."

 

"Store POLIcy," said the pharmacist. "It prevents meth users from making drugs out of them."

 

"But I'm not a meth user," said Bret, "I'm an allergy sufferer." But it didn't matter, because POLIcy is POLIcy.

 

So Bret took the card to the pharmacist and he wasn't allowed to ring up his own medicine any more. And in the meantime, meth users continued to make meth.

 

The moral of MY story: I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoops because other people break the rules. The only thing these options do is tick off honest people. The dishonest will continue to be dishonest. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and if I'm expected to write down a code word or in some other way prove to you that I was at your cache then I probably won't go to your cache.

 

If you're so concerned about my honesty, get off your butt and go look for my name in your logbook.

 

Bret

Link to comment

My goodness,, nerves have been struck! I guess the guilt he is carrying was just too much for him to handle!

 

Seriously though, it's really sad that we can't have a rational discussion on here without people freaking out. I hate to see stuff like that above, but i guess it's inevitable. :(

Link to comment
I disagree, if for instance you called me up and asked if I had a widget you could borrow and I say "sure do, come and get it". I look for it and then remember I gave my widget away, when you get here my exact first words to you would be "I lied to you". ...
Actually, you are just using hyperbole with your friends. In fact, you were wrong when you thought you had the widget (and you're wrong now :( ). You weren't lying.

 

I agree the lines are drawn differently for different cachers. Locally there is a "somewhat-accepted" practice of "Beta Testing" a cache if you are on the same hike with the hider when they place the cache. I know some local cachers won't log those as a Find, while others do. In other parts of the country, logging those as a "Find" would be abhorrent. :(
Let's say that you find a cache that is listed on another site. You log your find on that site and move on with your life. A few months later, the cache owner cross-lists the cache on gc.com. Since you already found the cache, you log your find on gc.com.

 

Here's a different situation: You go to an event and they hand out cache pages of caches hidden for the event. You find the caches during the event. A few days later, the caches are listed on gc.com. You log the caches online since you found them.

 

Were your smilies appropriate? If those finds were kosher, then so is beta testing a cache. Either way, you found a cache (without assistance) prior to the cache being listed on GC.com. Once it was listed, you logged your find.

Link to comment

I've given this some thought and I've come to a decision which I think a few of you will be glad to hear, although you might not like the way I present it.

 

Ta'hell with the bunch of you.

I'm going to continue to cache, and log my caches in the way that I think is right, and I don't give a flying f*** what you think.

It would have just taken one post from TPTB to put an end to all this. But they don't seem to give a dam, so why should I?

 

I'm sure that by this time several of you are reaching for the "Report" button. Don't bother. I'm taking a self-imposed hiatus from this crap. I'll be back to the forums when I think I can stomach it again. If ever.

I don't care what you guys say, that forumcide is a solid 8.

Link to comment

 

Then don't lose the paper, and don't write the code down wrong.

Rules are rules. If one is too much of a POLI to manage the task, then too bad.

 

Again, if the idea is not perfect, that doesn't mean it's not better then the current situation. It may open up some worm cans, as you suggest. But it will also close a few.

 

What's the harm in allowing it as at the cache owner's option?

 

Once upon a time there was this guy named Bret who shopped at a store called POLI-MART. Bret bought a lot of stuff there, including his printer supplies, CD's and a bunch of other stuff. One day while walking out of the electronics department with his printer cartridge he was stopped by a store employee who said, "I'm sorry sir, but you'll have to pay for that here."

 

"Why?" asked Bret

 

"Store POLIcy. I'ts to prevent theft."

 

"But I wasn't going to steal it," Bret said. But it didn't matter. Bret had to write one check at the electronics counter and another one later at the main check-out. Bret was inconvenienced, and amazingly enough, people who steal still continued to steal.

 

A few months later Bret had terrible allergies and went to POLI-MART for his allergy medicine. Being cheap, he bought them over the counter.

 

"You can't get these over the counter," said the pharmacist. "You have to bring this card to the desk and we will get them for you."

 

"Why? I've always gotten them like this before," said Bret."

 

"Store POLIcy," said the pharmacist. "It prevents meth users from making drugs out of them."

 

"But I'm not a meth user," said Bret, "I'm an allergy sufferer." But it didn't matter, because POLIcy is POLIcy.

 

So Bret took the card to the pharmacist and he wasn't allowed to ring up his own medicine any more. And in the meantime, meth users continued to make meth.

 

The moral of MY story: I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoops because other people break the rules. The only thing these options do is tick off honest people. The dishonest will continue to be dishonest. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and if I'm expected to write down a code word or in some other way prove to you that I was at your cache then I probably won't go to your cache.

 

If you're so concerned about my honesty, get off your butt and go look for my name in your logbook.

 

Bret

 

OK, fair enough. It's inconvenient. But you are still stating the same fallacy that brinsnat did. You are saying that since some people will cheat, we may as well not do anything at all.

 

Again, should we continue to "inconvenience" olympic athletes, just because some athletes will still find a way around drug tests?

 

So far the only arguments I'm hearing are:

1) It's inconvenient

2) Some people will still find a way to cheat.

Link to comment

 

OK, fair enough. It's inconvenient. But you are still stating the same fallacy that brinsnat did. You are saying that since some people will cheat, we may as well not do anything at all.

 

Again, should we continue to "inconvenience" olympic athletes, just because some athletes will still find a way around drug tests?

 

So far the only arguments I'm hearing are:

1) It's inconvenient

2) Some people will still find a way to cheat.

 

Inconvenience is fine....go check the logbooks for my signatures. If YOU are the one who's concerned about it then YOU should be the one who is inconvenienced.

 

Bret

Link to comment

 

OK, fair enough. It's inconvenient. But you are still stating the same fallacy that brinsnat did. You are saying that since some people will cheat, we may as well not do anything at all.

 

Again, should we continue to "inconvenience" olympic athletes, just because some athletes will still find a way around drug tests?

 

So far the only arguments I'm hearing are:

1) It's inconvenient

2) Some people will still find a way to cheat.

 

Inconvenience is fine....go check the logbooks for my signatures. If YOU are the one who's concerned about it then YOU should be the one who is inconvenienced.

 

Bret

 

Why?

Link to comment

There is an owner of a virt that is placed in a location that is somewhat expensive to get to. The cache page doesn't describe exactly what the object is that you are looking for and, due to topography, it is hard to get an accurate fix at ground zero.

 

The cache owner often gives people who do not identify the exact item the option of logging the virt as a find.

 

Let's kill him.

 

I'll get the tar, you get the feathers.

Link to comment

The moral of MY story: I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoops because other people break the rules. The only thing these options do is tick off honest people. The dishonest will continue to be dishonest. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and if I'm expected to write down a code word or in some other way prove to you that I was at your cache then I probably won't go to your cache.

 

If you're so concerned about my honesty, get off your butt and go look for my name in your logbook.

 

Bret

 

Well said, Bret. Come and find my cache. Log it if you want. Log it twice if you really want. Hell, log it even if you DON'T find it. I've got much more important things to worry about than whether or not your signature in my log book matches your log online. And yes, I read my logbook every time I visit my cache, but only to see what people think of my cache and to see if they have anything interesting to say - not to find out who's "cheating", I don't have time for that.

 

And I sure as HELL don't have time to police OTHERS logs.

Link to comment

Pulls out LARGE gun

 

Shoots horse

 

Shoots horse again

 

Just to be certain chops horse into little bitty teeny tiny itsy bitsy pieces

 

Burns horse

 

Scatters ashes of horse to the four winds

 

Holds memorial service for horse

 

Threatens same punishment for anyone carrying crops, whips, paddles or other beating implements.

Link to comment

Pulls out LARGE gun

 

Shoots horse

 

Shoots horse again

 

Just to be certain chops horse into little bitty teeny tiny itsy bitsy pieces

 

Burns horse

 

Scatters ashes of horse to the four winds

 

Holds memorial service for horse

 

Threatens same punishment for anyone carrying crops, whips, paddles or other beating implements.

 

What's your point? Don't you think that constantly complaining that other people are talking about something that you've grown tired of is in itself kind of un-original? If you don't like it, don't read it. Sheesh!

Link to comment

The moral of MY story: I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoops because other people break the rules. The only thing these options do is tick off honest people. The dishonest will continue to be dishonest. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and if I'm expected to write down a code word or in some other way prove to you that I was at your cache then I probably won't go to your cache.

 

If you're so concerned about my honesty, get off your butt and go look for my name in your logbook.

 

Bret

 

Well said, Bret. Come and find my cache. Log it if you want. Log it twice if you really want. Hell, log it even if you DON'T find it. I've got much more important things to worry about than whether or not your signature in my log book matches your log online. And yes, I read my logbook every time I visit my cache, but only to see what people think of my cache and to see if they have anything interesting to say - not to find out who's "cheating", I don't have time for that.

 

And I sure as HELL don't have time to police OTHERS logs.

 

You guys are perfectly welcome to NOT use a confirmation code in your cache hides. but again, nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why other hiders shouldn't have the option if they want to use it.

 

It just seems to me that the larger issue here, is that there is basically nothing that anyone can suggest to improve gc.com that doesn't have a well-rehearsed refutation waiting by the folks who have discussed it in other threads years ago. That's what keeps this site stuck in a rut. Would it be so bad to please those people who would like that option? Is inconvenience the only harm you can think of?

 

I'm not just being argumentative. I'd really like to see the site adapt and improve as time goes on. It's not healthy to rest on your laurals and stubbornly resist anything new. Why are we so disfunctional and hesitante to change? What are we afraid of?

Link to comment

Surely you're not assuming my White Robe reference has anything to do with the Klan?

I would hate to see my "snarky" comments twisted to show support for a hate group.

 

Well I doubt its an allusion to Gandalf or Catholic priests.

First I want to apologize to anyone who even slightly thought I was referring to the Klu Klux Retards when I was making my "White Robe" comments. In my oh so humble opinion, those people, (and I use the term loosely), are every bit as bad as the Nazi Party.

 

Allow me to clarify now that any time I make a "snarky" White Robe comment I am referring to the intolerant zealots found in some organized religions throughout history. Picture some clown in a White Robe shouting "Kill The Infidels!" and you'll get the general idea I was shooting for.

 

Edit to add: BrianSnat, You Are Da Man!

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

 

It just seems to me that the larger issue here, is that there is basically nothing that anyone can suggest to improve gc.com that doesn't have a well-rehearsed refutation waiting by the folks who have discussed it in other threads years ago. That's what keeps this site stuck in a rut. Would it be so bad to please those people who would like that option? Is inconvenience the only harm you can think of?

 

I'm not just being argumentative. I'd really like to see the site adapt and improve as time goes on. It's not healthy to rest on your laurals and stubbornly resist anything new. Why are we so disfunctional and hesitante to change? What are we afraid of?

 

I'm sorry, I'd love to stay and talk this out, but I just finished loading my "Caches along a Route" pocket queries and I need to get on the road. Long trip today.

 

Bret

Link to comment
The moral of MY story: I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoops because other people break the rules. The only thing these options do is tick off honest people. The dishonest will continue to be dishonest. I'm tired of being inconvenienced and if I'm expected to write down a code word or in some other way prove to you that I was at your cache then I probably won't go to your cache.

 

If you're so concerned about my honesty, get off your butt and go look for my name in your logbook.

 

Bret

Well said, Bret. ...
You guys are perfectly welcome to NOT use a confirmation code in your cache hides. but again, nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why other hiders shouldn't have the option if they want to use it.

 

It just seems to me that the larger issue here, is that there is basically nothing that anyone can suggest to improve gc.com that doesn't have a well-rehearsed refutation waiting by the folks who have discussed it in other threads years ago. That's what keeps this site stuck in a rut. Would it be so bad to please those people who would like that option? Is inconvenience the only harm you can think of?

 

I'm not just being argumentative. I'd really like to see the site adapt and improve as time goes on. It's not healthy to rest on your laurals and stubbornly resist anything new. Why are we so disfunctional and hesitante to change? What are we afraid of?

I'm with Bret and Rob on this one. If a cacher is concerned about false finds on his cache, there has been a mechanism in place since day one to protect him. All he has to do is match up the paper log with the online one. If there are any inconsistencies, he can shoot an email to the logger and ask him/her 'what's up?. If his/her answer doesn't pass the smell test, delete the logs.

 

I don't think that this issue deserves the implementation of new rules and procedures for finders.

 

BTW, I didn't realize that this site was stuck in a rut. They keep throwning out new goodies that help people play (like google maps and 'caches alonng a route').

Link to comment

Surely you're not assuming my White Robe reference has anything to do with the Klan?

I would hate to see my "snarky" comments twisted to show support for a hate group.

 

Well I doubt its an allusion to Gandalf or Catholic priests.

First I want to apologize to anyone who even slightly thought I was referring to the Klu Klux Retards when I was making my "White Robe" comments. In my oh so humble opinion, those people, (and I use the term loosely), are every bit as bad as the Nazi Party.

 

Allow me to clarify now that any time I make a "snarky" White Robe comment I am referring to the intolerant zealots found in some organized religions throughout history. Picture some clown in a White Robe shouting "Kill The Infidels!" and you'll get the general idea I was shooting for.

 

Edit to add: BrianSnat, You Are Da Man!

Wow... it took until post #117 to invoke Godwin's Law...

Link to comment

......Allow me to clarify now that any time I make a "snarky" White Robe comment I am referring to the intolerant zealots found in some organized religions throughout history. Picture some clown in a White Robe shouting "Kill The Infidels!" and you'll get the general idea I was shooting for.

..wearing robes made from the finest POLI-esther .... <_<

Link to comment
And now, the rest of the story;

POLI was so happy with his new found wealth that tears were often observed dripping from his cheeks.

Then along came POWR, (Pompous, Obtuse, White Robe), who saw POLI having fun and enjoying life. POWR was so full of self hatred that he couldn't stand to see someone actually enjoying themselves. As such, he made it his life mission to destroy POLI's joy, by calling him a "Liar" and a "cheater" every time he announced another find.

 

Somehow, there remained a shred of humanity deep within POWR's black heart, and guilt started to creep in as a result of all the vitriol he had hurled at poor POLI. Rather than acknowledge the guilt by considering the impact of his actions, POWR decided to recruit other arrogant, intolerant people to his cause, using a recent Al Gore invention known as the Internet. Sadly, POWR's ranks swelled, as numerous like minded souls scurried to get their own white robe, and the Holy Church of BerthaBetterThanYou was founded.

 

POLI was so distraught over this, that he gave up caching all together, and returned to politics, becoming our 42nd President.

 

I think this is how the story really continues:

 

POLI was so happy with his new found wealth that tears were often observed dripping from his cheeks. Then along came POWR (Points Out Wacky Reasoning) who pointed out to POLI that all he still had in his pocket

was $1 and he was fooling himself by thinking he was rich. Well POLI bristled at the suggestion that he was not rich. How could he not be? He found thousands of dollars. POLI's defenders came out of the woodwork. They said if POLI thinks he has thousands of dollars, then he has thousands of dollars and POWR has no right

to point out the obvious - that POLI only has $1. POLI's defenders then went on to call POWR all kinds of vile names - likening him to the KKK, all because POWR pointed out the obvious. POLI, bouyed by the support, continued dropping and finding the dollar in an effort to accumulate wealth, fame and the admiration of others. Others noticed the adulation heaped on POLI and began to emulate him. POLI soon gave up caching and using his new found ability at financial smoke and mirrors, became a New Jersey state senator.

I think you were one state off. I believe Poli is a transplanted NY state senator <_<

Link to comment

You guys are perfectly welcome to NOT use a confirmation code in your cache hides. but again, nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why other hiders shouldn't have the option if they want to use it.

 

It just seems to me that the larger issue here, is that there is basically nothing that anyone can suggest to improve gc.com that doesn't have a well-rehearsed refutation waiting by the folks who have discussed it in other threads years ago. That's what keeps this site stuck in a rut. Would it be so bad to please those people who would like that option? Is inconvenience the only harm you can think of?

 

I'm not just being argumentative. I'd really like to see the site adapt and improve as time goes on. It's not healthy to rest on your laurals and stubbornly resist anything new. Why are we so disfunctional and hesitante to change? What are we afraid of?

 

I pretty much agree with this as well - why not give the Cache hiders a few different options with their cache? If a conformation code is needed, it's pretty easey to say so on the cache page. Or if there are other ideas floating around, they may be worth a try.

 

It may add a little bit of "spice" to have to deal with each cache individually, rather than go on "cache sweeps" where you're doing the same thing over and over and over... JMHO

Link to comment
I pretty much agree with this as well - why not give the Cache hiders a few different options with their cache? If a conformation code is needed, it's pretty easey to say so on the cache page. Or if there are other ideas floating around, they may be worth a try.

 

It may add a little bit of "spice" to have to deal with each cache individually, rather than go on "cache sweeps" where you're doing the same thing over and over and over... JMHO

One man's 'spice' is another's 'work'.

Link to comment
You guys are perfectly welcome to NOT use a confirmation code in your cache hides. but again, nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why other hiders shouldn't have the option if they want to use it.

 

Owners already have the option. If you want to require a confirmation code on your caches, you are welcome to do it -as long as you have a logbook in it as well.

Link to comment

Surely you're not assuming my White Robe reference has anything to do with the Klan?

I would hate to see my "snarky" comments twisted to show support for a hate group.

 

Well I doubt its an allusion to Gandalf or Catholic priests.

First I want to apologize to anyone who even slightly thought I was referring to the Klu Klux Retards when I was making my "White Robe" comments. In my oh so humble opinion, those people, (and I use the term loosely), are every bit as bad as the Nazi Party.

 

Allow me to clarify now that any time I make a "snarky" White Robe comment I am referring to the intolerant zealots found in some organized religions throughout history. Picture some clown in a White Robe shouting "Kill The Infidels!" and you'll get the general idea I was shooting for.

 

Edit to add: BrianSnat, You Are Da Man!

 

I don't think I have used the 'white robe' term in any of my forum posts (feel free to search them and point out my error if I am wrong) but everytime I saw the term used I too thought of generic intolerant zealots and not any particular organization. Have I been wrong about the forum usage of this term all along? <_<

Funny thing is that they, like the puritans usually wore black, not white. I guess we started using white robes to symbolize purity? <_<

 

I agree, Richard's forumcide was a solid 8, perhaps even an 8.5. Well done <clapping>!

 

IMO the root of the problem is that the folks being talked about in the forums don't bother to read the forums, and never get the message. But at this point geocaching is bigger than a few miscreants taking liberties with caches and thier logs. The problems being discussed in the forums represent a very small percentage of the daily load of logs and caches. The sport is quite healthy and the growth positive.

However, forum conversation, much like the evening news, must focus on the negative to be attractive. :mad:

Link to comment
I pretty much agree with this as well - why not give the Cache hiders a few different options with their cache? If a conformation code is needed, it's pretty easey to say so on the cache page. Or if there are other ideas floating around, they may be worth a try.

 

It may add a little bit of "spice" to have to deal with each cache individually, rather than go on "cache sweeps" where you're doing the same thing over and over and over... JMHO

One man's 'spice' is another's 'work'.

 

Personally I find it inconvenient to carry a pencil and sign a log. What if I forget my pencil?

 

Bottom line is, the reason we cast aspersions on anyone with an idea around here, is not because we don't agree with the ideas. It's the age old social order thing. It's an instinct to band together against outsiders that keeps us humans in groups that square off against each other.

 

*sigh*

 

'nuff said.

Link to comment

 

Its gone from "I'm playing my own game" to "I'm playing my game and you had better accept it or I'll make life miserable for you".

 

"It's gone from" ? Perhaps, but a long time ago!

 

To me, this statement is an adequate descritpion of the entire "politically correct" (AKA "Holier than thou" and "tolerant") movement that has run rampant in this society for many years now.

 

It is a MUCH bigger issue than just a few bogus cache logs. It has permeated our entire society.

 

The "tolerant", the "politically correct", say "You MUST allow me to play MY way or you are INTOLERANT and I will, in turn permit you, too, to play MY way- YOUR WAY is hatred and should be banned".

 

The shoe fits either foot. But neither the "tolerant" nor the "righteous" can seem to get that.

 

In reality, this "my way or the highway" attitude is as old as humanity itself- it only SEEMS to have gotten ugly in recent times.

 

I saw a sign in someone's yard today that read, "You have free speech as long as you say the right things". Pretty well sums up the current state of "freedom" extant today.

Link to comment

Can you, perhaps, point out a couple of cachers who are hiding a large number of caches and logging their own hides as finds? :lol:

I can easily name one who, by his own admission, regularly logs finds on caches that he didn't actually find. As a matter of fact, he considers those faked finds to be some of his best times while caching. :P

 

Why would anyone do this? Do the points actualy matter? I can understand not logging DNF in some cases because they want to give it another go under different conditions OK. But to log finds that didn't happen is like cheating and it's not like you get anything for the most finds (is it) ... when in this case we do get stuff when we find the cache (unless it is a micro one).

Link to comment

My own pet peeve: If a owner and a cacher both agree on a log and that log is posted for everybody to see, why do the "geo-cops" have to step in and say that's wrong? Everything has already been settled and approved by the involved parties.

 

For example, pieces of a muggled cache container are found but no log sheet and the owner suggest logging it as a find. Or, a cacher travels many miles to find velcro of a muggled cache but no container and knowing they may never return to the area again ask the owner if a found log is ok. The owner says it's ok and the log is made explaining to ALL what was done.

 

IMOHO geocops need to get out more and do their OWN caching.

 

And if you must know, NO - none of those examples apply to any of my finds.

Link to comment

My own pet peeve: If a owner and a cacher both agree on a log and that log is posted for everybody to see, why do the "geo-cops" have to step in and say that's wrong? Everything has already been settled and approved by the involved parties.

 

For example, pieces of a muggled cache container are found but no log sheet and the owner suggest logging it as a find. Or, a cacher travels many miles to find velcro of a muggled cache but no container and knowing they may never return to the area again ask the owner if a found log is ok. The owner says it's ok and the log is made explaining to ALL what was done.

 

 

That's not really the issue, per se. At least in the situation you describe above, something was found, at a place where it was intended to be found. The issue at hand is whether someone can log a.) nothing, b.) nothing at a place other than where the something once existed, c.) nothing over and over again, and d.) someone else's nothing on your archived something, all to build a high smilie count.

 

This is the transcript of the cache in question. The prominent note was originally logged as a 'found it' entry.

 

Cache Logs

 July 15 by RRRR (0 found)

When the logsheet is returned, I'll fix and re-enable this cache. In the meanwhile, there should be no "Found it" logs entered on this cache page until the cache is replaced and enabled again.

 

It also should go without saying that "Finds" for this cache supposedly made at any location other than the posted coordinates for this cache are considered illegitimate, and are indicators of poor sportsmanship as well.

 

 July 13 by zzzz (0000 found)

zzz Was the log in the place it was intended to be? Did the cache owner have anything to do with the log being there? Hey I've got an idea! If you want to log Chicago-area caches try coming to the chicago area.

 

 July 12 by zzzz (0000 found)

zzzz: "The cache log was at the MidWestGeoBash where I signed it.... Since i did sign the offical log, does this count??? Just curious."

 

You're kidding, right?

 

 July 8 by zzzzzz (0000 found)

The cache log was at the MidWestGeoBash where I signed it. I was not the party that brought it to the bash so you'll have to ask that person. Since i did sign the offical log, does this count??? Just curious.

 

 July 7 by zzzzz (0000 found)

This one is missing

 

 July 7 by zzzz (0000 found)

If it's missing, how was it logged as "FOUND"?

 

 July 6 by zzzz (0000 found)

I signed the log. I did a CITO in the area and found the log laying in the bushes The plate was missing. The log will be mailed to the owner as soon as I get an address.

 

Out with zzzz and zzzz getting warmed up before the MWGB. Turned out to be a record breaking day for us. This series was great. We vowed to not leave Northern Chicago until we found them all. We did our best. We went to every one. Some were in need of maintainance. Thanks for a super fantastic series of caches. They were excellent. Such a great idea. Now you got to know I'm going to steal this idea. It's too good to pass up.

 

 July 5 by RRRR (0000 found)

This cache is indeed missing, so it's now temporarily disabled.

 

DISABLED means the cache is NOT THERE, so currently, this cache cannot be "Found". There should be no "Found it" logs entered on this cache page until the cache is replaced and enabled again.

 

Initialing, signing (or sticking a sticker onto) anything other than the cache log itself does not count as a legitimate "Find" for this or any other cache in this series that is disabled. Please refrain from doing so.

 

Your patience is appreciated. After all, there are plenty of other, active caches in the neighborhood to be found! Thanks, and have fun!

 

 July 5 by zzzz (0000 found)

Another one thats missing...saw deer in the creek nearby..lots of mosquitoes signed in the vicinity anyways.

 

 July 4 by zzzz (0000 found)

Couldn't sign log because it's missing!

 

 June 24 by zzzz (0000 found)

In from Maine and having fun finding so many caches...TFTC!

 

At least in the situation you described in your post, something was found to verify the remains of the cache to an owner's satisfaction, and he or she allowed the find between the two parties. That's a little grayer than the issue above, which are "indicators of poor sportsmanship as well." RRRR (the reviewer...)

Link to comment
This is the transcript of the cache in question. The prominent note was originally logged as a 'found it' entry.

 

 July 8 by zzzzzz (0000 found)

The cache log was at the MidWestGeoBash where I signed it. I was not the party that brought it to the bash so you'll have to ask that person. Since i did sign the offical log, does this count??? Just curious.

Funny, the cache page says this was a note, not a found log. I can't find any indication that the log has been altered in any way from exactly how it reads now. I have looked at the cache page, the log itself on a separate page, and the view of all the logs for the cache.

 

Do you have access to some way of seeing a different log than I do?

Link to comment
This is the transcript of the cache in question. The prominent note was originally logged as a 'found it' entry.

 

 July 8 by zzzzzz (0000 found)

The cache log was at the MidWestGeoBash where I signed it. I was not the party that brought it to the bash so you'll have to ask that person. Since i did sign the offical log, does this count??? Just curious.

Funny, the cache page says this was a note, not a found log. I can't find any indication that the log has been altered in any way from exactly how it reads now. I have looked at the cache page, the log itself on a separate page, and the view of all the logs for the cache.

 

Do you have access to some way of seeing a different log than I do?

 

I think that was a subsequent log after the original found one was deleted or edited. The reviewer had instructed the owner to remove all the false finds for a cache that was not in its intended location. This was one a a few from 2 or 3 from the series that were taken to MWGB if I'm not mistaken. Similar series of logs are on more than one of the caches.

Link to comment
This is the transcript of the cache in question. The prominent note was originally logged as a 'found it' entry.

 

 July 8 by zzzzzz (0000 found)

The cache log was at the MidWestGeoBash where I signed it. I was not the party that brought it to the bash so you'll have to ask that person. Since i did sign the offical log, does this count??? Just curious.

Funny, the cache page says this was a note, not a found log. I can't find any indication that the log has been altered in any way from exactly how it reads now. I have looked at the cache page, the log itself on a separate page, and the view of all the logs for the cache.

 

Do you have access to some way of seeing a different log than I do?

 

I viewed the link when it was originally posted a few days ago, before the 'found it' was changed to a 'note." That's why the comments that followed it seemed so disparaging.

Link to comment

Oops-- I got the two logs switched, which makes it worse. I gave credit for changing the log from a 'found it' to a "note"; I stand corrected. The logger hasn't rectified the transgression, and is still claiming it as a find.

You are still confused. There are two different caches. As far as I can see, neither one has been edited since it was posted. If I were going to report things in the forums, I would double check the accuracy of my facts.

Link to comment

Oops-- I got the two logs switched, which makes it worse. I gave credit for changing the log from a 'found it' to a "note"; I stand corrected. The logger hasn't rectified the transgression, and is still claiming it as a find.

You are still confused. There are two different caches. As far as I can see, neither one has been edited since it was posted. If I were going to report things in the forums, I would double check the accuracy of my facts.

 

Read my post following up on Corps of Discovery's correction closely. See the part about getting the logs switched? See the part about standing corrected for the switch? See the part about the logger not having rectified the transgression?

 

I said I gave credit to the logger for changing a 'found' to a 'note'; however, in Corps of Discovery's post listing the two different caches, one can see that the Bob 67 cache still shows a bogus 'found it' log for signing the cachelog at the MidWestGeo Bash. The log about signing the Bob 64 cachelog at MidWestGeoBash is posted as a note. I was incorrect and I stand corrected, not confused.

 

I had given the cacher credit for doing an honest thing, when in fact, the cacher has done no such thing. If someone posts a found for a cache log they did not find legitimately, it is not a find. Do you think it's honest to log a cache that was taken away from its base, to be signed at a distant place?

Link to comment

Can we please get back to the fairy tale?

 

After 8 years as President of these United States, Poli retired, then paid someone to write a book of myths detailing "His Life". Handwringers bought zillions of copies of the book, thus ensuring Poli's financial well being. 8 years after he retired, Poli's wife was elected as President. The Presidential staff was a bit perplexed regarding Poli's title, but decided to call him "First Lady", since he played the sax. :D

Poli can now be found wandering the White House lawn, repeatedly picking up the same dollar bill, yelling "Found it!", much to the dismay of the Secret Service.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...