+Cache O'Plenty Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Sorry I got off-topic. Got diverted by the previous post about timed releases. Will pay better attention in the future..... Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 9, 2009 Author Share Posted April 9, 2009 Bump. Miss Jenn? Please? ~* Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Star*Hopper, you may have missed it, but your question was quite capably answered by a Volunteer Cache Reviewer in the main announcement thread. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I'll quote an excerpt from that post. Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context. Please keep the discussion on topic about the ALR issue. Groundspeak and/or the volunteer reviewers are not starting a campaign to force everyone in a group to physically sign the log in person in a verifiable way that will stand up in a court of law. Nor is this an assault on Earthcaches or grandfathered virtuals. Cache owners can, in practice, delete any log they feel like. The main change here, as I see it, is that doing so because a specific task has not been achieved, will no longer be considered "acceptable". For those who like everything in black and white, this may pose some questions at the margin. For what I hope is the majority who just want to go geocaching, it should bring some of the fun back into the game in the longer term. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Thanx Keystone! I missed that one too. Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 Star*Hopper, you may have missed it, but your question was quite capably answered by a Volunteer Cache Reviewer in the main announcement thread. I couldn't have said it any better myself, so I'll quote an excerpt from that post. Folks, don't get too hung up on the bit about "the physical log has been signed". This guideline change is all about ALRs. Any redundant wording about signing the log is simply to place the ALR changes in context. Please keep the discussion on topic about the ALR issue. Groundspeak and/or the volunteer reviewers are not starting a campaign to force everyone in a group to physically sign the log in person in a verifiable way that will stand up in a court of law. Nor is this an assault on Earthcaches or grandfathered virtuals. Cache owners can, in practice, delete any log they feel like. The main change here, as I see it, is that doing so because a specific task has not been achieved, will no longer be considered "acceptable". For those who like everything in black and white, this may pose some questions at the margin. For what I hope is the majority who just want to go geocaching, it should bring some of the fun back into the game in the longer term. Here too, Keystone....I gave up on that other mess when it hit page 11! Noting that that reviewer takes it upon himself to speak for TPTB, & realizing we're not privy to any 'back room discussions' he might've had with THE Powers, I do note however he disclaims, "...as I see it", so can't help but deduce it is less than 100% 'official'. That, and moreover his expression of there possibly being some circumstantial doubts, or, "questions at the margin". Additionally, his final 'back to Happy Valley' sentence actually addresses the 'ALR change' effects more than it does, directly, my specific issue. BUT, if that's a policy we all can lean on, it'll have to do I guess. I'm taking it to say if someone indicates or I have knowledge of a find outside the site's stated and description expressed hours of operation (when it's germane), that's a deletin'! With 100+ posts in this thread, & well over two thousand reads, I'd hoped sufficient interest was indicated to've deserved a direct answer.... it's prolly best I quit right there. Slogging on, thru the fog....... ~* Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Sorry for the trouble. I'll leave you alone to your deducing. Quote Link to comment
+Logscaler and Red Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 That 'other' thread's 'give & take' has me mindboggled & I don't want this lost in that quagmire so.... In the case where one states in a cache description that (e.g.) a park's operating hours are 8am - 6pm, & NOT to violate that 'rule' (for lack of a better word).... Is the inclusion of that stricture - "Do NOT violate...." in the cache description considered an ALR? Would NOT including the wording in the cache description affect it being an ALR, and/or influence the cache owner's "right" to delete logs of violators, or must those logs now be allowed? I guess this comes down to: Does the cache owner even have the right to delete logs of obvious violators of site, not geocaching, rules? (I've had 'FTF hounds' do this very thing - totally ignore listed, as well as posted 'Closed' signs at the site.) Thanks for your clarification! ~* Bold and underlined is my edit. I would say this thread has strayed from the original question. I left the FTF hounds out on purpose as the question applies to to all logs, not just FTF hounds. Any answer from the Lily pad? I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that admitting to breaking the law in a log could amount to or be viewed as an admission of guilt by way of confession and therefore be subject to citation. Do you wanna be the one to test the "new" DA? Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 With 100+ posts in this thread, & well over two thousand reads, I'd hoped sufficient interest was indicated to've deserved a direct answer... Maybe TPTB thought that the answer was so completely obvious they didn't consider it worth their time to answer and then deal with having to defend every word, nuance, and possible variation of that answer. Ignoring a nonsensical thread like this seems pretty smart to me. Wish I had their level of self-control. Quote Link to comment
+Allanon Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 With 100+ posts in this thread, & well over two thousand reads, I'd hoped sufficient interest was indicated to've deserved a direct answer... Maybe TPTB thought that the answer was so completely obvious they didn't consider it worth their time to answer and then deal with having to defend every word, nuance, and possible variation of that answer. Ignoring a nonsensical thread like this seems pretty smart to me. Wish I had their level of self-control. Gee, I think I said something very similar about 79 posts ago... Quote Link to comment
+Rockin Roddy Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yet it drew both of you back...go figure! Quote Link to comment
+Allanon Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 Yet it drew both of you back...go figure! I'm a whore, what can I say... Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted April 10, 2009 Author Share Posted April 10, 2009 With 100+ posts in this thread, & well over two thousand reads, I'd hoped sufficient interest was indicated to've deserved a direct answer... Maybe TPTB thought that the answer was so completely obvious they didn't consider it worth their time to answer and then deal with having to defend every word, nuance, and possible variation of that answer. Ignoring a nonsensical thread like this seems pretty smart to me. Wish I had their level of self-control. Nonsensical? Well, that's your opinion & you're welcome to it. Re-reading just the first page will reveal several who obviously oppose that smug assessment. ~* Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.