Before I Become Jaded and Cynical

[jholly]

By the way, in this forum, even those with hundreds or thousands of posts often have to put up with hostile and dismissive posts from others with hundreds or thousands of posts. At least we are an equal opportunity bunch of snarks.

 

Nothing that a good dose of bacon wouldn't cure.

 

Get it?

 

Bacon? Cure?

 

eh, nevermind.

 

Well at least we didn't have to deal with him finding hamsters in the cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

As the OP on this thread I would like to make some comments if my "noobie" status allows me to.

 

Part of the purpose of posting to begin with, was to gather other players opinions on this topic. I wanted to know how others felt. Another purpose was to guage the "feel" of the forum. I belong to several different forums on Hunting, Hotrodding, Antique Vehicles, Firearms, ect... probably 12 total. I post comments and read posts when I have the time, so I am not a frequent poster on ANY of them. (even though I have been a member of a couple of them going on ten years)

 

I have to be honest, I also frequent many other forums and the forum here is BY FAR the most hostile forum I've ever participated in, outside of politics. If I were a noob coming in here for the first time I would probably just cower and never come back.

 

Puh-leease. Surely you can't be serious. Ever been to a pro sports forum? Ugliest allegedly moderated stuff you'll ever see. makes this look like a knitting forum or something. And don't get me started on Usenet. Unmoderated, and death threats are made daily. I was relentlessly stalked by two whack-jobs on Usenet in 2003.

 

Holy cow, that post by the OP came right after mine. I hope it wasn't directed at me (but I'm pretty sure it was). If it was, it was totally misunderstood, to epic proportions, unlike any I've ever seen. I was just pointing out that with you only having 8 finds, it was very easy to find the cache in question (in your finds in your profile), and the logger.

Edited January 30, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[knowschad]

I have to be honest, I also frequent many other forums and the forum here is BY FAR the most hostile forum I've ever participated in, outside of politics. If I were a noob coming in here for the first time I would probably just cower and never come back.

Puh-leease. Surely you can't be serious. Ever been to a pro sports forum? Ugliest allegedly moderated stuff you'll ever see. makes this look like a knitting forum or something. And don't get me started on Usenet. Unmoderated, and death threats are made daily. I was relentlessly stalked by two whack-jobs on Usenet in 2003.

Holy cow, that post by the OP came right after mine. I hope it wasn't directed at me (but I'm pretty sure it was). If it was, it was totally misunderstood, to epic proportions, unlike any I've ever seen. I was just pointing out that with you only having 8 finds, it was very easy to find the cache in question (in your finds in your profile), and the logger.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again today... let's not compare ourselves with forums that are worse than us. That is a loser's game. Let's try to be the best forum around, and when we fall short, as I'm sure we will, we might not be half bad.

[Mr.Yuck]

I have to be honest, I also frequent many other forums and the forum here is BY FAR the most hostile forum I've ever participated in, outside of politics. If I were a noob coming in here for the first time I would probably just cower and never come back.

Puh-leease. Surely you can't be serious. Ever been to a pro sports forum? Ugliest allegedly moderated stuff you'll ever see. makes this look like a knitting forum or something. And don't get me started on Usenet. Unmoderated, and death threats are made daily. I was relentlessly stalked by two whack-jobs on Usenet in 2003.

Holy cow, that post by the OP came right after mine. I hope it wasn't directed at me (but I'm pretty sure it was). If it was, it was totally misunderstood, to epic proportions, unlike any I've ever seen. I was just pointing out that with you only having 8 finds, it was very easy to find the cache in question (in your finds in your profile), and the logger.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again today... let's not compare ourselves with forums that are worse than us. That is a loser's game. Let's try to be the best forum around, and when we fall short, as I'm sure we will, we might not be half bad.

 

Ok. After all, you are the Güber Genius. But when I hear someone say this is the worst forum they've ever seen, what do you expect me to say? Don't mind me, I'm still like laying on the floor dumbfounded trying to understand how my post could have been misunderstood so badly to lead to that epic rant.

 

I give it an 8.5 by the way.

[+tozainamboku]

MM thank you for Moderating, most Moderators are un appreciated, and often resented.

 

I reread the post I just put up and it does come off as being written by a red-faced, vein- popping, frothing and spitting typer.

Rest assured this is not the case. I was taught to speak my words quietly and clearly, years ago, and I try to do this today.

I thank those who I feel need it, and if someone offends me, I try to make them aware of it, as they might not have intended to. If they assume something about me, I correct them if their assumption is wrong.

I have not made many comments on this thread as I was asking for opinions, not looking to broadcast my own.

I don't like the inference I am a "troll".

I found the line in the Guidelines after moving on to the idea of hiding some caches. Had I seen it earlier I might have posted it sooner.

I am new, but plan to continue this hobby, and hope to meet others who might be local, or just passing through, who might want to get together.

With all the "clues" I don't think I am hard to find!!!!

I apologize if my words seemed rude or written in anger. I seldom let anything anger me.

 

You're no troll. You just ran into the some of the usual suspects who think that the louder they proclaim their indifference to bogus logs, the more it shows their superiority to us pitiable folk who think that bogus logs should be discouraged.

 

I think the OP was upset by TWU's post. TWU is certainly not one the usual suspects to "proclaim their indifference to bogus logs". I think the OP misread TWU's post however. He did not dismiss the OPs concern because he only has eight finds. If you read his post he is saying that because the OP only has eight finds it was east to find the cache in question. TWU did not see evidence that any serial bogus logger had logged the cache. If the name wasn't in the log perhaps there is another reason other than "cheating". Only after this post did the OP present new evidence that he received a response from the person whose log he questioned saying that he signed the log with a different name and that that name too was not in the log.

 

I still find it strange that a person would post a bogus find just on this cache (or just on a few caches). The real bogus loggers - were are told - would be serial loggers trying to get an inflated find count. I couldn't imagine anyone posting just one bogus log on cache in order make briansnat (or briansnat's friend) waste their time looking for a cache that isn't there. But that might be why I'm not a TV reporter in Waco, Texas.

 

Nobody is saying that bogus logs should not be deleted. What is being said is that cache owners are the ones given responsibility to delete these logs. If a cacher finds evidence that a log might be bogus, it seems more proper to contact the owner of the cache to take care of it. Why would one question a found it log just because you didn't see someone's name? It's a different matter if you saw it happen again and again. Then I'd be suspicious, otherwise I'd figure the person just forgot to sign - it happens.

 

Once the OP decided to take it on himself to investigate, he opened a can of worms and he will have to live with his decision. In this case he got an answer from the person whose log he questioned that didn't seem truthful. Perhaps he actually caught a person who was bogus logging. In most cases he would have just gotten someone who felt they legitimately found the cache, angry with him. Several people have suggested to the OP that it might be a better policy to not let the lack of a signature in a cache log bother him. Others suggested the right approach would be to pass the information along to the cache owner and then forget about it.

[+BlueDeuce]

....when I hear someone say this is the worst forum they've ever seen, what do you expect me to say? ...

 

This is the roughest forum I've ever been in.

 

I've done woodworking, scroll saw, I think maybe dieting, a little computer, oh House of Leaves - They specifically said to not duplicate previously posted topics.

[+bittsen]

....when I hear someone say this is the worst forum they've ever seen, what do you expect me to say? ...

 

This is the roughest forum I've ever been in.

 

I've done woodworking, scroll saw, I think maybe dieting, a little computer, oh House of Leaves - They specifically said to not duplicate previously posted topics.

 

This is the third least hostile forum I've ever frequented.

Least hostile you posted and waited for a moderator to approve your message before they would allow it on the board. I posted there 3 times.

Second least hostile is a forum dedicated to a specific topic and everyone loves it so nobody fights (and off topic posts are discouraged)

And this one.

 

Then the rest are more hostile...

[+NeecesandNephews]

I really appreciate the posters who have taken the time to read all this, and help me understand some of the "rules" that are (or aren't) followed.

Briansnat thank you also for Moderating. I am trying to change it from a thankless job to one that is appreciated. I also had to laff at your pity reference. You are SURELY worthy of pity having to carry the weight of that impressive note under your avatar everywhere you go!!! I laffed at the original post also.

I take it those stats weren't earned by driveby???

bflentje I have been roasted to a crisp on another forum for posting on a thread like this one... asking OPINION. Guess mine was wrong!!!

My avatar is kind of tongue in cheek but accurate none the less!!

Mr. Urkel kindly accept my apologies if I took your post the wrong way. It wasn't my intention to appear to flame you but simply to defend my position. I hope you didn't perceive my post as that way either. I am new, and the last thing I want is to make enemies. That is NOT why I am here.

 

I wasn't really trying to be covert in my references. I assumed anyone who 'cached would have no trouble following those cords!!! I intend to ridicule this person every time I get the chance. While I am not Sherlock Holmes I think its two college kids. One is actually caching, because I have seen his name on the logs. (again this one is an easy find) I think the person I was referring to is a wanna-be. Trying to keep up with his buddy.

I think what really irritated me about it was the cache in question is incredibly simple. You can park within five feet of it. And yes... its right behind our house. The cache was placed originally as a Boy Scout excercise. He lived right down the street.

I didn't start this thread in an upset frame of mind. I just wondered if this was common.

I am sure this is a hobby I can really get into. I'm having some fun with it so far. I really want the wife to be a part of it because she doesn't hunt game. I am secretly trying to brainwash her!!!

I think I can fit in easily with this group!!!!! And the hobby fits in with my lifestyle. And my experience. Only problem is I am used to finding things in a scope!!!

Thanks again to all who have responded!!

[+NeecesandNephews]

8.5???? Your kidding??? These judges have been bought!!!! That was a 9.0 at LEAST!!! I'm loggin this one. 8.5 is close enough to say I found it!!! I even signed. lmao

 

This is NOT the worst forum I belong to. We haven't even come close here.

 

Oh and btw (edit) I am not really concerned about this one person. I mean he only has like 22 finds. I was concerned about the practice. I think some posters are missing that point. I am surprised that the number of posts was not more slanted one way.

tozainamboku I found this on all eight finds we have logged so far.Thought I had said that earlier in the thread. Not a big deal... like I said... I just want to understand if this is accepted. I am surprised it is tolerated at all.

Edited January 30, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+BlueDeuce]

....when I hear someone say this is the worst forum they've ever seen, what do you expect me to say? ...

 

This is the roughest forum I've ever been in.

 

I've done woodworking, scroll saw, I think maybe dieting, a little computer, oh House of Leaves - They specifically said to not duplicate previously posted topics.

 

This is the third least hostile forum I've ever frequented.

Least hostile you posted and waited for a moderator to approve your message before they would allow it on the board. I posted there 3 times.

Second least hostile is a forum dedicated to a specific topic and everyone loves it so nobody fights (and off topic posts are discouraged)

And this one.

 

Then the rest are more hostile...

 

As the Wicked Witch said - Oh, what a world, what a world!

[knowschad]

This is the third least hostile forum I've ever frequented.

Well, now... that's a huge surprise.

 

[knowschad]

This is NOT the worst forum I belong to. We haven't even come close here.

BITTSEN!!!!! Get busy, dad gummit! There is work to do!

[+bittsen]

This is NOT the worst forum I belong to. We haven't even come close here.

BITTSEN!!!!! Get busy, dad gummit! There is work to do!

 

Are you kidding? I got a time-out for using the word "donkey".

[+aka Momster]

I really appreciate the posters who have taken the time to read all this, and help me understand some of the "rules" that are (or aren't) followed.

Briansnat thank you also for Moderating. I am trying to change it from a thankless job to one that is appreciated. I also had to laff at your pity reference. You are SURELY worthy of pity having to carry the weight of that impressive note under your avatar everywhere you go!!! I laffed at the original post also.

I take it those stats weren't earned by driveby???

bflentje I have been roasted to a crisp on another forum for posting on a thread like this one... asking OPINION. Guess mine was wrong!!!

My avatar is kind of tongue in cheek but accurate none the less!!

Mr. Urkel kindly accept my apologies if I took your post the wrong way. It wasn't my intention to appear to flame you but simply to defend my position. I hope you didn't perceive my post as that way either. I am new, and the last thing I want is to make enemies. That is NOT why I am here.

 

I wasn't really trying to be covert in my references. I assumed anyone who 'cached would have no trouble following those cords!!! I intend to ridicule this person every time I get the chance. While I am not Sherlock Holmes I think its two college kids. One is actually caching, because I have seen his name on the logs. (again this one is an easy find) I think the person I was referring to is a wanna-be. Trying to keep up with his buddy.

I think what really irritated me about it was the cache in question is incredibly simple. You can park within five feet of it. And yes... its right behind our house. The cache was placed originally as a Boy Scout excercise. He lived right down the street.

I didn't start this thread in an upset frame of mind. I just wondered if this was common.

I am sure this is a hobby I can really get into. I'm having some fun with it so far. I really want the wife to be a part of it because she doesn't hunt game. I am secretly trying to brainwash her!!!

I think I can fit in easily with this group!!!!! And the hobby fits in with my lifestyle. And my experience. Only problem is I am used to finding things in a scope!!!

Thanks again to all who have responded!!

 

A few months down the road, if want to hide a few caches of your own, will this be a decision you regret?

[Mr.Yuck]

8.5???? Your kidding??? These judges have been bought!!!! That was a 9.0 at LEAST!!! I'm loggin this one. 8.5 is close enough to say I found it!!! I even signed. lmao

 

This is NOT the worst forum I belong to. We haven't even come close here.

 

Oh and btw (edit) I am not really concerned about this one person. I mean he only has like 22 finds. I was concerned about the practice. I think some posters are missing that point. I am surprised that the number of posts was not more slanted one way.

tozainamboku I found this on all eight finds we have logged so far.Thought I had said that earlier in the thread. Not a big deal... like I said... I just want to understand if this is accepted. I am surprised it is tolerated at all.

 

OK, 9.0 it is!! No problem with the misunderstanding, I'm just happy you saw the explanation. I admit that I didn't see some of your posts saying that the guy claimed to sign with another name, and that wasn't in the logbooks either.

 

I would say most people frown on this practice. Whenever these discussions occur (and they have many times), there seems to be a small minority of the same posters who seem to espouse the textbook Libertarian principle of "it doesn't harm anyone", and a lively discussion follows. One of these people did a pretty good job of defending me though, so thanks.

 

I'd say the most famous phony logging incident only happened a year or two ago. Some guy claimed about 2,000 drive-by finds all over America. This of course came to the attention of this forum, as well as several regional geocaching forums as he "hit" their area's. I believe this retired guy really was traveling to these places, just logging the caches as drive-by's. Groundspeak did in fact step in and wipe out the logs.

 

Oh, the cache behind your house. That seemed to invoke a little response too. I was just saying a vacant lot in a residential neighborhood was a pretty strange place for a cache. I always shake my head when I see cache placements in view of people's houses. It's like you're some guy living there for 20 years, and then one day, out of nowhere, weirdo's start showing up and acting all suspicious in view of your window. We are very fortunate you became a Geocacher, rather than a enraged neighbor on the phone with the local Police Department.

[+sbell111]

Beyond this, I merely find your behavior in threads like this one to be amusing and just a bit pitiable.

 

Glad that I can entertain you and thank you for having pity on me.

I dont pity you. Perhaps if your posts were new I would, but I have seen it for too long.

 

(You are incorrectly defining the word.)

 

Being contrary, telling him his concern isn't necessary (thank you very much) and dismissing the point he makes as a failure are not the actions of someone who "is not bothered by the issue." Someone who "is not bothered by the issue" and truly thinks that Brian failed to make his point would merely dismiss the thread with a passing "Meh!" Something you did not do.

 

Get your story straight.

You are confusing the OP's issue with the actual conversation in the thread.

 

Gee. this issue again? Actually, the OP has only 8 finds. This is very easy to figure out. By the way, someone really dropped a cache behind your back yard in a residential neighborhood? The "phony logger" just joined 11 days ago, and has logged 22 finds, I believe it was. Perhaps they don't even know they have to sign the logbook! Or maybe they just didn't have a pen that day.

Or maybe he changed his nick or previously cached as a team or entered the wrong date or some combination thereof.

 

... And to everyone who replied... I am amazed nobody pointed out the written words of Groundspeak themselves.

Geocaching> Getting Started With Geocaching> Cache Listing Requirements/ Guidelines

subheading: Logging of All Physical Caches

..." Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical logbook has been signed."...

I think this sums it all up. At least it does for me.

You are misapplying that guideline.

 

The guideline requires all cache owners to allow an on line find if the logbook is signed. It makes no statement as to what the cache owner must do if the logbook is not signed.

 

This is NOT the worst forum I belong to. We haven't even come close here.

BITTSEN!!!!! Get busy, dad gummit! There is work to do!

 

Are you kidding? I got a time-out for using the word "donkey".

Political discussion belongs in off-topic.

 

<I'm certain that their are typos in here. I'm posting from several feet away with a sleeping baby on my chest,>

Edited January 30, 2010 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I really appreciate the posters who have taken the time to read all this, and help me understand some of the "rules" that are (or aren't) followed.

Briansnat thank you also for Moderating. I am trying to change it from a thankless job to one that is appreciated. I also had to laff at your pity reference. You are SURELY worthy of pity having to carry the weight of that impressive note under your avatar

BS is not a moderator in the Geocaching Topics area. His views are his alone.

[+briansnat]

Beyond this, I merely find your behavior in threads like this one to be amusing and just a bit pitiable.

 

Glad that I can entertain you and thank you for having pity on me.

I dont pity you. Perhaps if your posts were new I would, but I have seen it for too long.

 

(You are incorrectly defining the word.)

 

pitiable

Function: adjective

Meaning:

1 arousing or deserving of oneʼs loathing and disgust

2 deserving scorn

3 deserving of oneʼs pity

 

I assumed you meant the 3rd definition, but if you meant the 1st or 2nd one, that's cool too

Edited January 30, 2010 by briansnat

[+NeecesandNephews]

Hahahaha I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to tell me I am "misapplying that guideline"

 

sbell111 I don't see how you interpret that one simple line to mean it "requires all cach owners to allow an online find if the log is signed". I didn't see the word "requires " or " allow" any where in that sentence. I didn't even see "must". Only the word "CAN " which implies permission, and "ONCE" which implies "after certain requirements have been met". I love liberal interpretations!!!!!!

My interpretation "allows online posters to log it as found ONLY after the logbook is signed" The word ONLY is MINE. Since neither of us drafted the original document I don't claim to be right or wrong.

 

You might want to read the thread again as to the claims of the hunter regarding his name. There is no debate about what name he uses now... used years ago...was born with...ect. The person told me what name he signed with. It is not on the log. I have whipped this horse for the last time.

 

I thanked briansnat for Moderating. Why does this bother you???? Never mind... I don't really want to know.

 

Urkel the cache is not even in a vacant lot. We live (as you can see from the google map) on an "in and out"... not exactly a cul-de-sac, but we are what I consider rural. The cache is located in the alley in a particularly odd quirk in the fencing. You describe the situation exactly. We have been wondering what these strangers are doing when they drive up, as most peoples first attempt at this is from the front of our property. No one has jumped our fences yet that I am aware of. lol They were usually too quick making an exit for me to ask. The nice couple who introduced us to this hobby made the mistake of parking their truck too far away from the actual cache, and I managed to get between them and it in a narrow alley. lol

 

The question was posed " will I regret this?" in reference to a comment I made about ridiculing someone. I regret it already. Thank you for pointing out my error. No I am not being sarcastic.

[+Inmountains]

I own about a dozen caches here in the small town I live in, Bayfield, Colorado. All the caches are within 2 miles of my house. So I check them and find that people who have logged finds on them have NOT signed the log any where. Then I email them to ask if they had trouble with the cache as I see they logged a find but did not sign the log. Wow, they rip my head off. You would think I was an NBA ref who called a foul on Kobe Bryant. So I just stopped bothering with calling folks out on their CHEATING. If they want to CHEAT, that is their business.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Inmountains I totally agree with you. As a poster pointed out earlier in the thread I "opened a can of worms"

 

(edit) I am new so I am just now looking at the guidelines for hiding. Nowhere near ready to do that yet. I am curious asa hider, can you REQUIRE in your listing that the log be signed before claiming?I have not found anything in the Guide pertaining to this.

Seems like it might be a catch-22 situation. You offend by deleting someones driveby... your cache might dissappear. Before I get flamed please note I said "might " With the "passion" that has been displayed on this forum its not a stretch of the imagination to entertain this thought.

 

Your town description is similar to ours. Living in rural Oklahoma we are not as "paranoid" (not meaning to be insulting just lack a better word) about strangers around as we dont have the crime, ect. that bigger cities do. We have a lot of hunters in this area and they are always "scouting". Just not in our backyard!! lol

I have been curious why all these people are pulling up next to our property, and when we found out, we had a good laugh about it. The cache was originally hidden by a teen in the neighborhood as a Boy Scout excercise in GPS. I DO wish someone involved had taken the time to mention it to us. The neighbors on the other side of the alley have all got stockade privacy fences so they don't notice it like we do. We have chain link.

Several logs mentioned the reluctance of the finders to enter this area, so when I found out I tried to make it apparent in my log, that we were ok with it and encourage others to find it.

The CO has since moved out of the neighborhood and repeated attempts to contact him have been a dead end. But its only been a few days so... I talked to the Scout leader who said as long as the cache was in good shape he couldnt do anything about it. I really dont care to have it moved or archived. I kinda like the idea of possibly being able to meet other cachers this way.

Edited January 30, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+tozainamboku]

Hahahaha I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to tell me I am "misapplying that guideline"

 

sbell111 I don't see how you interpret that one simple line to mean it "requires all cach owners to allow an online find if the log is signed". I didn't see the word "requires " or " allow" any where in that sentence. I didn't even see "must". Only the word "CAN " which implies permission, and "ONCE" which implies "after certain requirements have been met". I love liberal interpretations!!!!!!

My interpretation "allows online posters to log it as found ONLY after the logbook is signed" The word ONLY is MINE. Since neither of us drafted the original document I don't claim to be right or wrong.

 

Since you don't know the history of the guideline, you are reading far to much into it.

 

Geocaching.com used to allow what were called "additional logging requirements" or ALR caches. These were caches where the cache owner would say that in order to log a find online you must do something in addition to finding the cache. That task would usually be something like posting a funny picture of yourself at the cache site or using a certain word in you log. Challenge caches where you have to accomplish a certain geocaching related goal (e;g. finding at least one cache in each county in your state) are also a type of ALR.

 

Some cache owners began to have ALRs that were no longer simple task that were fun to do. Some ALRs were burdensome and it seems like the cache owners were just trying to find reasons to delete online find logs. TPTB decided to no longer allow ALRs except for a few geocaching challenge types. They also decided that existing ALRs caches were not grandfathered - that cache owners were to stop deleting logs because of failure to do an ALR. The new guideline was written to say that once you have signed the physical log you can log online (i.e. you don't have to do any ALR that might be on the cache page). In addition, cache owners are told to cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

 

At the time the new guideline was published, I complained that the puritans (I term I sometimes use to refer to people who are overly concerned with whether the log is signed) would certainly interpret this a a requirement that the log must be signed before one could log a find on line. Several moderators and Groundspeak lackeys responded that this was not the intention of the new guideline. Unfortunately, intended or not it has had this effect. I'm sorry you feel that it is so important that the log be signed that you got personnaly involved in a case where you found a online find that seemed bogus.

 

I, and as far as I can tell, everyone else agree that logging online find for caches that you never looked for is wrong. I think it is more sad and silly that someone feels the need to do it. Certainly, it might in rare instances, cause a cache to be inconvenienced or cause a cache owner to postpone necessary maintenance. There is a protocol for dealing with these loggers. The primary thing is for cache owners to delete these logs. If someone continues to do it, Groundspeak can ban that account.

[+NeecesandNephews]

tozainamboku thank you for weighing in. If I didnt already! You will notice I posted that I wasn't on the original drafting committee, so anything I "interpret" is just my opinion. I did read the ALR you refer to and how that process was handled. I might ask how you came to the conclusion I don't know the history of the guideline, but that would be being contentious wouldn't it?? After all... the information you refer to is still available.

So... no argument from me. In MY thinking, the "rule" is posted as is. Despite its "intention" it says what it says.

I personally don't understand why anyone would want to practice this driveby logging. For every reason someone has posted for the "basis" of why they Geocache, most of them are contrary to the driveby theory.

 

If I go somewhere for the view, I want to SEE it. Not just say I was there. If I go for the cache I want to log it. This is all my opinion... so its subjective. Not meant to be a point of contention.

Why is it too much to ask... if you go the the (hypothetical) memorable sight, and are glad you visited when you might not have otherwise been there... that if you don't find the cache and sign the log, don't log it online????

When we play Monopoly and I land on Park Place I don't insist on buying Boardwalk too...because I was right there... I just didnt land on it!!!

As I stated in an earlier post... to ME... its simply a matter of character.

[+sbell111]

Beyond this, I merely find your behavior in threads like this one to be amusing and just a bit pitiable.

 

Glad that I can entertain you and thank you for having pity on me.

I dont pity you. Perhaps if your posts were new I would, but I have seen it for too long.

 

(You are incorrectly defining the word.)

 

pitiable

Function: adjective

Meaning:

1 arousing or deserving of oneʼs loathing and disgust

2 deserving scorn

3 deserving of oneʼs pity

 

I assumed you meant the 3rd definition, but if you meant the 1st or 2nd one, that's cool too

That definition does not require that pity is given.

[+sbell111]

Hahahaha I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to tell me I am "misapplying that guideline"

 

sbell111 I don't see how you interpret that one simple line to mean it "requires all cach owners to allow an online find if the log is signed". I didn't see the word "requires " or " allow" any where in that sentence. I didn't even see "must". Only the word "CAN " which implies permission, and "ONCE" which implies "after certain requirements have been met". I love liberal interpretations!!!!!!

My interpretation "allows online posters to log it as found ONLY after the logbook is signed" The word ONLY is MINE. Since neither of us drafted the original document I don't claim to be right or wrong.

TPTB went to great lengths to clarify this guideline. A forum search should turn up what you need.

[+sbell111]

tozainamboku thank you for weighing in. If I didnt already! You will notice I posted that I wasn't on the original drafting committee, so anything I "interpret" is just my opinion. I did read the ALR you refer to and how that process was handled. I might ask how you came to the conclusion I don't know the history of the guideline, but that would be being contentious wouldn't it?? After all... the information you refer to is still available.

So... no argument from me. In MY thinking, the "rule" is posted as is. Despite its "intention" it says what it says. ...

I agree with the bolded bit. However, I think that you are reading into this guideline something that isn't there.

 

Here's the guideline that you referenced:

Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical logbook has been signed.

 

It plainly states that a geocacher can log any cache online if he has signed the physical logbook. No one can take those smilies away from him.

 

However, you are making the assumption that the inverse of the guideline is true; that caches may not be logged online if the logbook is not signed. This is not stated in the guidelines. In fact, TPTB have stated that the arbiter of whether these logs should stand is the cache owner. This gives the cache owner the flexibility to allow a smiley if the finder could not sign a wet log and still be able to delete an armchair find.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Hahahaha I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to tell me I am "misapplying that guideline"

 

sbell111 I don't see how you interpret that one simple line to mean it "requires all cach owners to allow an online find if the log is signed". I didn't see the word "requires " or " allow" any where in that sentence. I didn't even see "must". Only the word "CAN " which implies permission, and "ONCE" which implies "after certain requirements have been met". I love liberal interpretations!!!!!!

My interpretation "allows online posters to log it as found ONLY after the logbook is signed" The word ONLY is MINE. Since neither of us drafted the original document I don't claim to be right or wrong.

TPTB went to great lengths to clarify this guideline. A forum search should turn up what you need.

I'm sorry sbell111 but that right there is funny. You are quick to weigh in on a discussion with a "generality" like that??? Instead of qouting the facts, that YOU refer to, you suggest i do a forum search!!! As if peoples opinion is going to change the "intent" of what is simply a black and white one line sentence??? Wow!!!! Thanks for your help. You don't even want to take the time to substantiate your posts.

[+NeecesandNephews]

tozainamboku thank you for weighing in. If I didnt already! You will notice I posted that I wasn't on the original drafting committee, so anything I "interpret" is just my opinion. I did read the ALR you refer to and how that process was handled. I might ask how you came to the conclusion I don't know the history of the guideline, but that would be being contentious wouldn't it?? After all... the information you refer to is still available.

So... no argument from me. In MY thinking, the "rule" is posted as is. Despite its "intention" it says what it says. ...

I agree with the bolded bit. However, I think that you are reading into this guideline something that isn't there.

 

Here's the guideline that you referenced:

Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical logbook has been signed.

 

It plainly states that a geocacher can log any cache online if he has signed the physical logbook. No one can take those smilies away from him.

 

However, you are making the assumption that the inverse of the guideline is true; that caches may not be logged online if the logbook is not signed. This is not stated in the guidelines. In fact, TPTB have stated that the arbiter of whether these logs should stand is the cache owner. This gives the cache owner the flexibility to allow a smiley if the finder could not sign a wet log and still be able to delete an armchair find.

Sbell111 you are absolutely correct!!!! I totally agree with what you said. I was posting a reply myself at the same time you were so forgive me.

I AM making the assumption that the inverse applies!!!!! And I have repeatedly stated this is MY opinion. As I have a couple of times throughout this thread, I have commented on MY views on the subject.

You and I both know WE are not going to convince anyone the way they are playing is wrong, or cause them to change it.

You play they way you want. So will I. The issue here won't really come into play for me until I hide my first cache. As I have repeatedly said, I was just sampling the acceptance of this pratice with a group I am new to. I certainly dont want to get into a lengthy "argument" about it.

As I have pointed out... lots of assumptions are being made here ( some of them my own) and not all of them are correct, nor can some of them be proven to be right or wrong.

[+tozainamboku]

tozainamboku thank you for weighing in. If I didnt already! You will notice I posted that I wasn't on the original drafting committee, so anything I "interpret" is just my opinion. I did read the ALR you refer to and how that process was handled. I might ask how you came to the conclusion I don't know the history of the guideline, but that would be being contentious wouldn't it?? After all... the information you refer to is still available.

So... no argument from me. In MY thinking, the "rule" is posted as is. Despite its "intention" it says what it says.

I personally don't understand why anyone would want to practice this driveby logging. For every reason someone has posted for the "basis" of why they Geocache, most of them are contrary to the driveby theory.

 

If I go somewhere for the view, I want to SEE it. Not just say I was there. If I go for the cache I want to log it. This is all my opinion... so its subjective. Not meant to be a point of contention.

Why is it too much to ask... if you go the the (hypothetical) memorable sight, and are glad you visited when you might not have otherwise been there... that if you don't find the cache and sign the log, don't log it online????

When we play Monopoly and I land on Park Place I don't insist on buying Boardwalk too...because I was right there... I just didnt land on it!!!

As I stated in an earlier post... to ME... its simply a matter of character.

I have no objection to people who have a personal rule of not posting a find log online unless they have actually signed the log. And I accept that a cache owner might want to use the physical log as the primary proof that an online log is not bogus. Not the only proof - just the primary proof. I would hope that a reasonable explanation perhaps with alternate proof like a photo of the cacher at the cache or a detailed description of what they found would satisfy the owner.

 

What I object to are people who insist that there is some rule that has never existed. People who give the "Find Count" a meaning that it doesn't have. Early on, I realized that the online logging on Geocaching.com is not the most critical part of geocaching. Many people never post a single find online even though they may have signed the physical log at the cache. The online logs are just a kind of social networking site for geocachers to share their experience if they would like. Just as people are free to not log online at all, it is also possible for people to post false logs. This problem is not unique to geocaching. If you look at someone you don't know Facebook page you'll likely look at it a little skeptically as you know that some people will lie or exaggerate. However, geocaching has a mechanism that limits bogus logging. Cache owners can delete bogus logs. A serial liar who posts finds again and again for caches they never found would soon be discovered and Geocaching.com has banned accounts that do this (just as Facebook has banned account for violations of their TOUs).

 

One issue we have is the misguided belief (IMO) that there is a competition to get higher find counts. This may be what is motivating some of the "cheaters". I have no doubt that it is what motivates some of the reaction to the bogus logs as well. I wonder what response we would get if someone were to post bogus DNF logs. Would there be as much of an outcry as there is over bogus finds? I doubt it; yet a bogus DNF is more likely to cause someone to bypass a cache that is really there or make the cache owner take an unnecessary maintenance trip than a bogus find is to cause the opposite problem. I wish that instead of counting the finds they counted all your logs. Perhaps that would give people a better perspective on the issue of bogus logs.

 

It's interesting you bring up Monopoly. I don't think I ever played the game with anyone who follows the printed rules to the letter. There is always some house variation. Monopoly is a game after all. People can have fun playing it however they want. This is the same in geocaching. If you make it a competition between yourself and someone who doesn't always sign the log, you're bound to get an ulcer worrying about all the cheaters. If you realize that you play your way and someone else plays their way and you can't compare find counts with someone you don't really know, you will have more fun. If you realize that in any large group of people there are a few who will be dishonest even though there is no advantage in being so, you can keep having fun and keep doing what you can to reduce the already very small number of bogus logs by encouraging cache owners to delete them.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I would add as an afterthought... a question to those who would claim "TPTB went to great lengths to clarify this guideline". Why didn't they clarify it IN the Guideline if that is true... instead of on this forum where many an opposite opinion might surface????

Another question... In pointing out "my assumption" the inverse applies... how would it be any different than me pointing out "your assumption" it doesn't apply???????

I dont want to argue any more.... this is getting way off the basis of this thread.

 

toz... I personally don't have the "find count" as part of my playing. At least not in the sense of competing with others. That would be futile. I will never be the top finder. The only weight I give my find count is in my personal accomplishment. I want it to grow, for my own self-satisfaction, not for the competition.

 

I would like to add... I feel there should be circumstances when a person be allowed the find when they did not sign. If it was my cache... and someone posted a NM with a wet log entry, I would no way deny the find. I would expect to see two entries to that instance though. One NM, and one FI.

I also take into consideration that there may be handicapped individuals playing who by reason of their disability, were unable to sign. Same thing... I would in no way deny them the find.

 

Forgive me if I appear argumentative, I just like to have the basis for peoples opinion included.

You can say "#####" sucks, but I wish you would take the time to explain why you feel that way.

[+The Blorenges]

 

<snip> I would like to add... I feel there should be circumstances when a person be allowed the find when they did not sign. If it was my cache... and someone posted a NM with a wet log entry, I would no way deny the find. I would expect to see two entries to that instance though. One NM, and one FI.

I also take into consideration that there may be handicapped individuals playing who by reason of their disability, were unable to sign. Same thing... I would in no way deny them the find. <snip>

 

 

Fortunately, there are such circumstance; they come under the heading of, "at the cache owner's discretion"

 

and we were grateful for this after MrB's recent Find on this cache...

 

Egypt Touristic Tour.

 

I'm pleased to report that the cache owner was happy to accept the emailed photographs as proof of the find. If he had not been happy then we would have deleted the log (with some regrets, admittedly).

 

MrsB

[4wheelin_fool]

I own about a dozen caches here in the small town I live in, Bayfield, Colorado. All the caches are within 2 miles of my house. So I check them and find that people who have logged finds on them have NOT signed the log any where. Then I email them to ask if they had trouble with the cache as I see they logged a find but did not sign the log. Wow, they rip my head off. You would think I was an NBA ref who called a foul on Kobe Bryant. So I just stopped bothering with calling folks out on their CHEATING. If they want to CHEAT, that is their business.

 

Usually when that type of thing happens the cache owner tries to insulate themself from all the hot wired geocachers. They decide to create an alternate account to hide their caches with, as to avoid problems.

The next thing they realize is that someone could possibly still figure out it is their account in some way. An account with no finds is usually viewed with suspicion, so they go out and make a few valid finds on caches but it gets rather boring because they really aren't getting any credit under their regular name. So, the next step is to log a few fake finds on caches that they haven't visited....

[+briansnat]

People who give the "Find Count" a meaning that it doesn't have.

 

I would think it was a count of geocache finds.

[+tozainamboku]

I would add as an afterthought... a question to those who would claim "TPTB went to great lengths to clarify this guideline". Why didn't they clarify it IN the Guideline if that is true... instead of on this forum where many an opposite opinion might surface????

I've often made the same complaint and gotten the response from TPTB that the purpose of the guidelines is to provide them in a form that can be read in one sitting and for the most part be easily understood. They could write a bunch of legalese detail rationale and clarification of the guidelines, but then no one would read them and in fact them might end up being less understandable. This means that from time to time someone misinterprets or misunderstands the guidelines. And so from time to to time the guidelines are updated to clarify these points. The volunteer cache reviewers whose job it is to enforce the guidelines are privy to a lot more information. They regularly get clarification of the guidelines from Groundspeak and they have their own forum to discuss issues when needed. Sometimes a reviewer or a Groundspeak lackey will share this information in the forums and that is what they did here. They are 24 pages of discussion on the ALR guideline change here, starting with MissJenn's announcement of the change and some clarification and explanations that were not part of the text in the guidelines themselves. Posts #91 and #643 by riviouveur - the French reviewer who was part of the group that crafted the new guideline - make it clear that they refer to not deleting logs solely for failure to do an ALR and should not be interpreted to mean something else. There is of course still an implication that writing in the log book is part of finding the cache. However the guidelines have never said anything about whether a cacher might not still claim an online find even if he didn't complete this step. Except for a few puritans, it is clear that most cache owners would not delete finds if the finder had an reasonable excuse for not being able to sign the log.

Edited January 30, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+tozainamboku]

People who give the "Find Count" a meaning that it doesn't have.

 

I would think it was a count of geocache finds.

Actually it is the total number of "Found It", "Attended" and "Webcam Photo Taken" logs that an account has entered that have not been deleted.

 

briansnat's find count might be the number of geocaches he found. I don't care enough to go to New Jersey and check logs to verify this. My count can be adjusted as you see fit by looking the Truth In Numbers section of my profile, though admittedly this is not up to date.

Edited January 30, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+NeecesandNephews]

toz... now that I have finished my daily chores, I had the opportunity to go the the forum post you pointed out. I will have to differ with you on this one. I cannot tie ALTERNATE listing requirements or the way they are now handled ( no longer used) as having ANYTHING to do with the signing of the logbook in a cache. Signing the log book is NOT an "alternate listing requirement." And in fact I believe that is the reason it is STILL there. Just my opinion. True there is page after page of discussion about the "alternates". But I fail to find any "clarification" stating signing the logbook is part of these changes, nor been lifted. I will continue searching!

[+thedeadpirate]

I think someone is now arguing just to be arguing.

 

Groundspeak has been very clear on what that line in the guidelines means. It was clearly to put an end to the additional logging requirements and not to prevent someone from logging online without signing the log.

 

There are a number of situations where it might not be possible to sign the physical log. It is left up to the cache owner's discretion whether or not to allow those logs.

 

The change to the guidelines was to ensure that as long as you have, in fact signed the physical log that your online log cannot then be deleted.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Geobain you too are welcome to back up your statements that "Groundspeak has been very clear on what that line in the Guidelines means" by posting EXACTLY where they have done that. If I am wrong it wont be the first time, but sorry if I don't just take your word for it. I started this thread asking for opinions. If this is your opinion you might state that in your post. If you are stating this as Fact please be prepared to back it up.

 

toz......

*Upon further reading in the referenced thread YOU, yourself agree that the Guide implies you sign the log, then log online. In more than one instance. You also voice your displeasure about it. Sounds to me like you are still harboring bad feelings towards "the Puritans" and are trying to sway me to your way of thinking. For the record... its NOT working!!!

 

From your French reviewer who you seem to recognize as the designated speaker for the Guideline committee: post 643 in the refered thread>>>>>>>

 

Having participated in the drafting of the new guideline wording, please let me assure you that the first sentence of the section, to which you are referring in this (and a couple of your previous posts in this forum)

 

QUOTE

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

are not indicative of any change of policy towards cache logging by Groundspeak, whatsoever. They are simply there to clarify that, following the removal of ALRs, there is now no other requirement beyond signing the log to be able to say, online, "Yes, I found this cache".

 

These are the posted words from someone who says he was on the committee that drafted those Guidelines. The rest of you will have to forgive me if HIS words take precedence over yours.

 

I am going to have to question your grasp of the english language if you read ANYTHING into that that indicates signing the log is NOT required. Saying "NOW no OTHER requirement BEYOND signing the log" is about as clear as it gets!!!!!!! There is no way this is my "bad interpretation"

[+thedeadpirate]

Geobain you too are welcome to back up your statements that "Groundspeak has been very clear on what that line in the Guidelines means" by posting EXACTLY where they have done that. If I am wrong it wont be the first time, but sorry if I don't just take your word for it. I started this thread asking for opinions. If this is your opinion you might state that in your post. If you are stating this as Fact please be prepared to back it up.

 

You can speak to hear yourself speak all day long if you wish. I have been around during all the discussions and Toz pointed out the relevant information already. You are choosing to ignore some pretty clear explanations of the guideline change.

 

Since you are still sticking to your guns even with the evidence clearly displayed to you, then one can only assume that you just want to argue.

 

That is fine. I will retire back to the bleachers and watch the rest of this play out.

[knowschad]

I think someone is now arguing just to be arguing.

Someone? ROFL!!! I think there are quite a few someones doing what they usually end up doing around here... arguing just to be arguing.

[+thedeadpirate]

I think someone is now arguing just to be arguing.

Someone? ROFL!!! I think there are quite a few someones doing what they usually end up doing around here... arguing just to be arguing.

 

Ok, you got me. But I was trying to be nice. I've already received enough warnings this weekend.

[+sbell111]

tozainamboku thank you for weighing in. If I didnt already! You will notice I posted that I wasn't on the original drafting committee, so anything I "interpret" is just my opinion. I did read the ALR you refer to and how that process was handled. I might ask how you came to the conclusion I don't know the history of the guideline, but that would be being contentious wouldn't it?? After all... the information you refer to is still available.

So... no argument from me. In MY thinking, the "rule" is posted as is. Despite its "intention" it says what it says. ...

I agree with the bolded bit. However, I think that you are reading into this guideline something that isn't there.

 

Here's the guideline that you referenced:

Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical logbook has been signed.

 

It plainly states that a geocacher can log any cache online if he has signed the physical logbook. No one can take those smilies away from him.

 

However, you are making the assumption that the inverse of the guideline is true; that caches may not be logged online if the logbook is not signed. This is not stated in the guidelines. In fact, TPTB have stated that the arbiter of whether these logs should stand is the cache owner. This gives the cache owner the flexibility to allow a smiley if the finder could not sign a wet log and still be able to delete an armchair find.

Sbell111 you are absolutely correct!!!! I totally agree with what you said. I was posting a reply myself at the same time you were so forgive me.

I AM making the assumption that the inverse applies!!!!! And I have repeatedly stated this is MY opinion. ...

The problem is, your assumption is neither supported by the guidelines nor actions or statements made by TPTB.

 

The guideline means what it says and only what it says. If you attempt to make it mean more than it says, you are the one that should be finding this substantiation.

toz... now that I have finished my daily chores, I had the opportunity to go the the forum post you pointed out. I will have to differ with you on this one. I cannot tie ALTERNATE listing requirements or the way they are now handled ( no longer used) as having ANYTHING to do with the signing of the logbook in a cache. Signing the log book is NOT an "alternate listing requirement." And in fact I believe that is the reason it is STILL there. Just my opinion. True there is page after page of discussion about the "alternates". But I fail to find any "clarification" stating signing the logbook is part of these changes, nor been lifted. I will continue searching!

The bolded bit may be the source of your confusion. You see, the guideline that you previously referenced isn't just a bot of old verbiage that was left over with the ALR change. It is the very thing that was added to do away with ALRs. Edited January 31, 2010 by sbell111

[+NeecesandNephews]

I guess if you all read what the "French Reviewer" said who was not " "around" when these discussions were going on" , but IN them, ON the committee, and you still dont understand it... nothing I say is going to matter.

Geo I take it you cant back your "facts " up??? Because you sure dodged that opportunity.

 

Stick a fork in me... I'm done. Astonished with peoples grasp of the language, or lack of, but done none the less.

[+thedeadpirate]

You see, the guideline that you previously referenced isn't just a bot of old verbiage that was left over with the ALR change. It is the very thing that was added to do away with ALRs.

 

Exactly and that is what MissJenn covered in her post at the beginning of the thread Toz linked to.

 

3. A section called Logging of All Physical Caches has been added to the guidelines.

Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed.

 

If it is appropriate for your cache location or theme, you may ask the cache seeker to accomplish an optional and simple task, either close to the cache site (normally within 0.1 miles or 161 meters) or when writing their online log. For example, wear the goofy hat inside the cache container and upload a photograph. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish optional tasks. Cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks.

 

This guideline change applies immediately to all logs written from April 4, 2009 and going forward. Older caches with "additional logging requirements" (ALRs) are not grandfathered under the older guideline. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

[*]Cease deleting logs based on additional logging requirements.

[*]Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into an optional and simple task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

[*]Adjust your geocache listing by editing the text then contact a reviewer to change the cache type, if appropriate.

[+thedeadpirate]

I guess if you all read what the "French Reviewer" said who was not " "around" when these discussions were going on" , but IN them, ON the committee, and you still dont understand it... nothing I say is going to matter.

Geo I take it you cant back your "facts " up??? Because you sure dodged that opportunity.

 

Stick a fork in me... I'm done. Astonished with peoples grasp of the language, or lack of, but done none the less.

 

It's really simple.

 

If you are the cache owner and you go check the physical logbook and cannot find the online logger's name there, you are well within your rights to delete the online log.

 

However, if you are the cache owner and someone logs an online find and then emails you and explains that the logbook was shredded to bits and he couldn't sign it, you are still within your rights to delete the online log, but you are also well within your rights to allow it to stand.

 

The ALR section is only there to prevent cache owners from deleting logs of legitimate finders.

 

If it's not your cache, then by all means, contact the cache owner, contact the logger, contact Groundspeak, or come to the forums and make a big deal of it. That is also well within your rights.

 

Or, you can just go find some caches and let the cache owner take care of it.

[+bittsen]

Or you could just not pet the sweaty things and....

 

Oh look... A butterfly

[+thedeadpirate]

Or you could just not pet the sweaty things and....

 

Oh look... A butterfly

 

Wow, he sure is colorful.

 

[knowschad]

I guess if you all read what the "French Reviewer" said who was not " "around" when these discussions were going on" , but IN them, ON the committee, and you still dont understand it... nothing I say is going to matter.

Geo I take it you cant back your "facts " up??? Because you sure dodged that opportunity.

Stick a fork in me... I'm done. Astonished with peoples grasp of the language, or lack of, but done none the less.

It's really simple.

If you are the cache owner and you go check the physical logbook and cannot find the online logger's name there, you are well within your rights to delete the online log.

However, if you are the cache owner and someone logs an online find and then emails you and explains that the logbook was shredded to bits and he couldn't sign it, you are still within your rights to delete the online log, but you are also well within your rights to allow it to stand.

The ALR section is only there to prevent cache owners from deleting logs of legitimate finders.

If it's not your cache, then by all means, contact the cache owner, contact the logger, contact Groundspeak, or come to the forums and make a big deal of it. That is also well within your rights.

Or, you can just go find some caches and let the cache owner take care of it.

If there is one post in this thread to pay attention to, it is this one by Geobain... at least, it sums things up the way that I see it.

 

If I may elaborate on the ALR thing, TPTB made it perfectly clear that the intent of those changes to the guidelines were to stop the stupid logging requirements (maybe they should have called them SLR's instead of ALRS?) such as, "to log a find, you must take a picture of yourself picking your nose while standing on one foot. If not, your log will be deleted". That, and only that, was the reason for the change, and for anyone to read anything more into it is hogwash.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Yes.

 

The bottom line is that it is an issue between the cache owner and the cacher who posted the found log.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Darn it !!! I said I was done but you guys keep reeling me in!!! I am so easily manipulated!! lol

 

Geo the question I have is- Do you then agree that the Guideline requires signing the log???

Before you answer I am not concerned ( nor was I ever) with the ALR's. It is clear they are gone.

Everything I have read seems to say that signing the log is a requirement for posting a find.

 

Again... before you answer... let me clarify I agree with everyone who has posted that there are circumstances I feel should be taken into consideration before deleting a find that doesnt have the corresponding physical log entry. I spent twenty minutes drying one page of one of the few finds we have, just so I could sign it. I am confident the Owner would have let me have the find if I didnt sign the log.

 

If I was hiding a cache, and someone took the time to email me or post the reason he didnt sign, and it was legitimate, I would let his Find stand.

I might add if someone sends me an email and says the log was wet, when previous AND subsequent finds made no mention of it, that one wouldn't pass. I am talking within reason in this example. If someone said it was wet and three months later someone said it was fine, this reasoning wouldnt apply.

I would hope if someone had logged a FI, then emailed me that they were unable to sign the physical log, that they would also log a NM on the online. At the time we signed the dried out log, I was unfamiliar with the NM post, and simply noted in my Found It post the log was WET.

I am not really concerned with whether or not others follow the rules. At least not to any great extent. I am , however, concerned with what those rules actually say.

This thread was started as an opinion guage and quickly turned into a rules argument. I am just as responsible for this as anyone. With so many varying opinions I felt the need (my own) to try and sort out what the rules actually say. I guess since its subject to the actual owner of the cache, it doesn't matter.

Somehow I think it should!!!

 

OK gimme the fork back!!!