touching a cache and logging a smiley

[+dnnsgps]

There is a cacher who is going around on cold winter cache runs and touching the cache container. He does not open it to log it but goes online and logs a smily. Is this allowed?

 

I wouldn't think so, if the cacher contacted the cache owner for a reason as to why he couldn't get the container open and the cache owner allows him to post a find is one thing but to just touch the container and then log the find for a smily to me is an insult as he didn't bother to open the container to log his name.

[+briansnat]

If the the cache owner allows it, it is allowed.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

There is a cacher who is going around on cold winter cache runs and touching the cache container. He does not open it to log it but goes online and logs a smily. Is this allowed?

 

I wouldn't think so, if the cacher contacted the cache owner for a reason as to why he couldn't get the container open and the cache owner allows him to post a find is one thing but to just touch the container and then log the find for a smily to me is an insult as he didn't bother to open the container to log his name.

Signing the cache log is a practice at the very heart of this game. A cacher's signature in the log serves as proof of find and, among other things, keeps the game honest.

 

If the person who you are referring to has some sort of disability and can't open the caches, then fine, he should email the CO an accurate description of the cache and its location. Exceptions can be made, and most owners will accept an accurate description of the cache and hiding place as proof that the cacher did indeed find it.

 

Not wanting to take mittens off and get cold hands while opening the container makes sense to me, as much sense anyway as choosing to live where it gets that cold in the first place!

 

But, absent extenuating circumstances, he should sign the log.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Allowed? 'Tis a matter of terminology or interpretation.

 

Guidelines dictate that there will be a log in each traditional cache.

 

Some cache owners allow it, some don't. As more people get into geocaching, more ideas on what it is/is not the "right" way to do it grow.

 

It is "generally assumed" at geocaching.com that in order to claim a "find", one must sign the log. I guess that means at least opening the cache, rather than just touching it.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

How about,

 

I saw the container, so I'm going to log it.

 

GPSr said I was in the right place, so I'm going to log it.

 

I drove by where it is supposed to be, so I'm going to log it.

 

There were people everywhere so I decided to log it without looking for it, so it won't get muggled.

 

NEXT!

 

 

John

[+t4e]

what's next, logging a find after claiming to have seen the cache on google earth?

 

i used to be bothered by such actions, not anymore

 

at the end of the day geocaching is not a competition, its a game one chooses to play for their own enjoyment

 

those that choose to ignore the rules and make their own, miss out on the real purpose of the game and sucks to be them

[+Mom-n-Andy]

This kind of question keeps coming up over and over.

 

One is supposed to write an entry in the log that is inside the cache as well as log it online.

 

But honestly, does it do any harm to anyone if a geocacher fails to do this? In my opinion neither the cache owner nor the other geocachers who play by the rules is harmed in any way. So what if a person claims a find for touching a cache or even sits at home and claims caches for which he didn't even search?

 

Most of us go geocaching because we like challenges, or being outdoors, or doing something with friends, or some other reason. Our enjoyment should not be diminished because someone else gets their jollies by seeing thousands of found geocaches by their name. Yes, that's lame, but people do lame, stupid things all the time.

[+Castle Mischief]

I touched this cache...

[+Snoogans]

One is only allowed to count coup on a geocache using a genuine Groundspeak Coup Stick which will soon be available at the Groundspeak store....

 

 

Note: you must add your own magic marker on the end.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Snoogans

[+StarBrand]

I must admit to doing just that 1 time. I regret it.

 

There are no "rules" for logging a "find" online and the system allows much of anything. However the guidelines also state that cache owners should delete "bogus" logs. So if you see the practice as "bogus" - feel free to delete the online log.

[+DavidMac]

I touched this cache...

 

... and I'm guessing you had to call the fire department to get your tongue unstuck?

[Clan Riffster]

So what if a person claims a find for touching a cache

Yeah, I agree. It's pretty lame. Is it worth getting worked up over? Not to me. I've got one cache that folks feel determined to log just because they saw the container. If it works for them, who am I to judge? There's a big green lizard that haunts these forums who sums it up pretty well; "Don't pet the sweaty things".

[+tozainamboku]

At its heart, geocaching is a simple game where we go out and find geocaches using a GPS. The creators of the Geocaching.com website thought it would be a nice idea to allow people to write about their geocaching experiences online. They created a system where you could enter a 'Found It' log online after you found a cache, or a 'Did Not Find' log if you looked and didn't find the cache. Later, they provided a way to search for caches that you had not already found (i.e. you hadn't entered an online find). They also started displaying the number of caches found (i.e. the number of online 'Found It' logs you entered). Still, many people would go to find caches and never log them online as it just didn't seem there was much of a reason to.

 

The first geocache, hidden by Dave Ulmer before Geocaching.com existed, contained a log book along with a can of beans and other goodies. Dave asked finders to record it the log book. I suppose that if someone found Dave's cache and only touched the outside of the bucket instead of recording it in the log book, nobody would have cared much. Even had the person posted on the USENET that they had found the stash, nobody would have made a big deal about somebody cheating.

 

Somewhere along the line, someone got concerned that someone might be making a bogus report about finding a cache in the online logs. After some discussion, it became clear that if there was a physical log book in the cache, it could be checked to see if the online log was "legitimate" or not. Of course there were many cases where the physical log couldn't be signed. It could be missing, or too wet to sign. There might not be a pen and the finder may not have brought his own pen. The log might be full and have no place left to write in it. The cover of the cache might be stuck and the finder couldn't get it opened. In most cases, if the finder couldn't sign the log for some reason, the cache owner was expected to be reasonable and consider the cache found. After all, geocaching is a simple fun game and owners shouldn't be deleting logs over some technicality. On the other hand, if the log appears to be a bogus log by someone who didn't find the cache - perhaps didn't even look for the cache - the cache owner should delete it.

 

Some geocachers, whom I have chosen to call puritans, believe the you must sign the physical log in order to log the find online. To them, the online log and the find count have become central to the game; and a firm black and white rule defining when a cache can be logged as found online is essential. The puritans will find evidence to support their view in unlikely places. When Groundspeak decided that having an additional requirement to log a find online (beyond finding a cache) they wrote "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." The puritans have turned this statement around to insist it means "Geocaches can be logged online as Found only once the physical log has been signed." They interpreted the new guideline as meaning that while cache owners may not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks, they can delete logs based solely on whether the cache seeker has signed the physical log. This is unfortunate, because it means that some cache owners are deleting logs of people who have legitimately found the cache but couldn't sign the log for some reason.

 

All of this is somewhat off-topic, since the OP is about a finder who chooses not to sign logs, not someone who couldn't sign the log for some reason. I would say that a cache owner could delete these logs if they so desire. But another cache owner might decide to believe that the person writting the log did indeed find the cache and let the online log stand. I know of some cachers who use the touch the cache rule for a find on nano caches. Their argument is that it sometimes so difficult to roll up the little log an get it back into container, that it just isn't worth spending time signing these. And of course, by not signing these, they are saving the cache owner from having to make a maintenace trip when the log gets full. It is also the case that people who hide nanos are not likely to be puritans. I have not heard of anyone getting a find deleted because they only touched a nano.

[+bflentje]

There is a cacher who is going around on cold winter cache runs and touching the cache container. He does not open it to log it but goes online and logs a smily. Is this allowed?

 

I wouldn't think so, if the cacher contacted the cache owner for a reason as to why he couldn't get the container open and the cache owner allows him to post a find is one thing but to just touch the container and then log the find for a smily to me is an insult as he didn't bother to open the container to log his name.

 

Not allowed in my version of the game. But then I wouldn't know unless the seeker bragged about it in his log. I suggest if that's what you (the collective you) do, keep it hush. I've only done it, with much guilt and angst, once in my 3500 finds. But the cache was embedded in ice and I had no tools along.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Response from the "Puritan". (bolding is mine, words are Groundspeaks)

 

What are the rules in Geocaching? 1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value. 2. Write about your find in the cache logbook. 3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

 

 

This is not MY website so " the puritans" did NOT make this up and post it on the "Frequently Asked Questions About Geocaching" page.

 

 

I will let the "Liberals" with their "whatever blows your fur back" mentality continue to divert the reader to ALR listings and other rhetoric that has nothing to do with it anymore.

 

 

Without rules we have a society of chaos.

 

How you choose to play the game is up to you, but as far as the website, "guidelines" and listing service is concerned, the "rules" are pretty clear. For whatever reason Groundspeak chooses, this is the way they intend for it to be played.

 

 

You are free, however, to play it any way you like.

 

I would point out, Groundspeak supports the CO's right to delete your online log if the corresponding signature is not on the cache log. (funny they would do that if they don't recognizing signing the cache log is of any significance.)

 

edit to add- I am not going to debate with anyone about this, I just posted my input for the OP on the original topic.

Edited March 1, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+wimseyguy]

I touched a cache, and I liked it.

[+42at42]

 

Not allowed in my version of the game. But then I wouldn't know unless the seeker bragged about it in his log. I suggest if that's what you (the collective you) do, keep it hush. I've only done it, with much guilt and angst, once in my 3500 finds. But the cache was embedded in ice and I had no tools along.

 

I think if removing the container from a block of ice with a rock is going to damage the container, I would leave it where it is and log the find.

 

I would write a note in the 'found' log explainng the reason. I would send a message to the CO to explain. If I was the CO I'd appreciate that I didn't have to go and replace a smashed container. If the CO doesn't feel the same way and deletes the find, so be it. I wouldn't go back with a hammer just to access the log book. This is just common sense (the least used of al senses).

 

On the weekend, I had to DNF's because the rocks covering the cache were frozen solid. I couldn't even get to the container to see it.

[+Snoogans]

I touched a cache, and I liked it.

 

GREAT! Now I can't get that song outta my head!

 

Touche'!!!

[+genegene]

I lodged a "Found It" log on a cache once but was unable to wright in the log book because of the cache being frozen in place and ice almost completely encasing the cache.

 

I didn't want to destroy the cache on the owner, so I e-mailed the CO and explained that I had found it and left my sig card there as proof next to the cache.

 

A few months later I stopped in to properly sign my name and the cache was missing.

 

The cache was then archived so there was no way for me to sign the log book after that.

[+wimseyguy]

I touched a cache, and I liked it.

 

GREAT! Now I can't get that song outta my head!

 

Touche'!!!

 

Nuh-uh-I'm not clicking on your rickroll link.

[+thedeadpirate]

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Silly, N&N. We ain't got no rules around here. All we's got is guidelines.

[knowschad]

I touched a cache, and I liked it.

Yes, but did the cache like you touching it?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I touched a cache, and I liked it.

Yes, but did the cache like you touching it?

That totally evoked the memory of rusty spoons!

[+ChileHead]

The only reason I care is so that I know who to point to at events and make fun of.

[+Castle Mischief]

I touched this cache...

 

... and I'm guessing you had to call the fire department to get your tongue unstuck?

 

Nah. No danger there with PVC. Now if it had been an ammo can...

 

BTW, no finders on that one since I visited.

[+tozainamboku]

Response from the "Puritan". (bolding is mine, words are Groundspeaks)

 

What are the rules in Geocaching? 1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value. 2. Write about your find in the cache logbook. 3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

Where in those rules does it mention when to use a "Found It' log.

 

It is a bit of stretch to assume that because the rules are list 1, 2, 3 that the lower number is a requirement for doing the higher number. If you don't find the cache you can't write about it in the online log. But you can clearly log your experience at www.geocaching.com as a DNF or Write Note.

 

The rules in the FAQ originally came from Dave Ulmer's instructions for finding the first cache

Take some stuff, leave

some stuff! Record it all in the log book. Have Fun!

 

For a long time, the Geocaching.com FAQ said nothing at all about logging your experience on line. When they made the changes, I predicted that the puritans would read more into them than they say, just as is the case with the ALR changes. There is no mention about when you can log a "Found It" log versus another kind of online log, yet some people insist on seeing what isn't there. (I wish I could claim a find because I saw a cache that isn't there).

 

It annoys me a bit that people want to identify geocaching puritanism with conservative vs. liberal political ideologies. It has nothing to do with conservative vs. liberal. It even has nothing to do with rules vs. play the game as you want to. It has a lot to do with people thinking that the find count means something more than just the number of Found It logs someone has posted. They seem to think that if everyone used the strictest possible rule for when to use a "found it" log online that somehow we might be able to compare everyone's find counts and know who is "winning".

 

The winner in geocaching is the person who is having fun. Looking to the find count for something more than what it is doesn't change whether or not someone is having fun. If someone is having fun touching caches instead of signing logs I don't see why anyone needs to get upset about it.

 

That said, there can be an issue with bogus logs - which I define as someone who claims to have found the cache when they didn't find anything - especially if they didn't even look for anything. briansnat has the example of someone who wasted time and money looking for a cache because of a bogus log. Bogus logs should be deleted by cache owners. In some cases, checking the physical log book might help determine if a log is bogus or not.

 

Finally, don't identify yourself as a puritan simply becuase your personal practice is to only log a find if you signed the log. There are many good reasons to sign the log as confirmation to yourself as well as to others that you have found the cache. There may be decoy, or there may be a letterbox or some other container near the cache. The cache owner may have placed the cache so there is some physical challenge to retrieve it and simplying seeing the cache is not really enough to say you've found it. Most geocachers understand signing the log as part of finding the cache.

 

A real puritan is one who jumps to the conclusion that someone who didn't sign the log but still logged a find online is trying to cheat in order to inflate their find count. In fact , most of the time what we see is someone who found the cache and intended to sign the log but was unable to do so for some reason. Sometimes (it has happened to me) they simply forget to sign the log. But often there is an excuse for not signing the log that would seem reasonable to most people. Of course someone who decides that touching a container is enough to claim a find, may not have an excuse that most people would find reasonable. In particular someone hiding a more challenging cache is likely to want to have the person at least make that attempt to sign the log. So I would not call a cache owner who deleted these online logs a puritan.

[+NeecesandNephews]

You can type till your blue in the face. You gave your opinion... I gave mine. Just because you don't want rules doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

I don't know about the grasp of the english language, but I took that quote right from the page. I'm sorry if you see some ambiguity in it.

 

Question; What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Answer; see the post I quoted.

 

They didn't mince words, give a history lesson, or add a lot of confusing verbiage to it.

 

 

You can give a philosophical history lesson if you want, it doesn't change what it says.

 

 

If I understand it, you are still trying to convince me that not only do the ALR "guidelines" (which YOU seem to think included logging in the cache ,and don't apply any more) meant something entirely different than what it says, and you pose as the basis of your debate, that they have changed over time, but now you are trying to tell me that four short concise sentences "mean" something else???

 

Give me a break!!!

 

Not only that , you want to get into semantics over the use of the words "puritan" and "liberal".

 

Why don't you respond to the original post with your answer, (which you did) and let it go???

 

I posted my answer as well. You seem for some reason to think you are the absolute last word of knowledge about Geocaching. I do not share that view!

 

This is the end of my interest in it.

 

I posted "play the game any way you want". I stand by that post.

 

edit to add- I am amazed at your ability to know what everyone else is thinking, why they play the way they do, and the reason they might consider themselves "puritans" You obviously know my motives better than I do. If that is true, then you know exactly what I am thinking of your response right now!!!

Edited March 1, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+NeecesandNephews]

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Silly, N&N. We ain't got no rules around here. All we's got is guidelines.

 

 

I'm sorry Geo!!! What in the world was I thinking??? The word "rules" in the post I quoted surely doesn't mean actual "rules"!!!!!!!!

 

That might be misinterpreted as a FACT!!!!!! We can't have those can we????

 

Silly me...from now on I promise to read the Groundspeak website before I post such nonsense!!!!

 

Forgive me??? Pleasssse??

[+thedeadpirate]

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Silly, N&N. We ain't got no rules around here. All we's got is guidelines.

 

 

I'm sorry Geo!!! What in the world was I thinking??? The word "rules" in the post I quoted surely doesn't mean actual "rules"!!!!!!!!

 

That might be misinterpreted as a FACT!!!!!! We can't have those can we????

 

Silly me...from now on I promise to read the Groundspeak website before I post such nonsense!!!!

 

Forgive me??? Pleasssse??

 

Ok, this time we'll let it pass. Next time I'm gonna have to call you a noob.

 

 

(In case it wasn't abundantly clear, that was an attempt at humor)

[+NeecesandNephews]

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Silly, N&N. We ain't got no rules around here. All we's got is guidelines.

 

 

I'm sorry Geo!!! What in the world was I thinking??? The word "rules" in the post I quoted surely doesn't mean actual "rules"!!!!!!!!

 

That might be misinterpreted as a FACT!!!!!! We can't have those can we????

 

Silly me...from now on I promise to read the Groundspeak website before I post such nonsense!!!!

 

Forgive me??? Pleasssse??

 

Ok, this time we'll let it pass. Next time I'm gonna have to call you a noob.

 

 

(In case it wasn't abundantly clear, that was an attempt at humor)

 

 

 

Well I might be a noob to Geocaching , but I assure you, I have been able to read for forty-some-odd years. But that is a small skill in the bright light of the "Emminent Sage and Guru". Just call me "grasshopper"

[+Castle Mischief]

You can type till your blue in the face. You gave your opinion...

 

Dude, Toz is just very, very verbose. It wasn't aggressive.

[+wimseyguy]

He uses lots of words too.

[+Renegade Knight]

If the the cache owner allows it, it is allowed.

...Signing the cache log is a practice at the very heart of this game. A cacher's signature in the log serves as proof of find and, among other things, keeps the game honest....

 

Both of these are true.

Briansnat points out it's the owners call, and it is.

 

TAR points out the philosopy by which finders should approach the activity. Honor the spirt and intent of this activites roots by signing the log. If for whatever reason you can't, let those be the exceptions.

[+NeecesandNephews]

You can type till your blue in the face. You gave your opinion...

 

Dude, Toz is just very, very verbose. It wasn't aggressive.

 

 

 

Guys I am not in a twist over it!!! Toz and I have had this "exchange of opinions" before.

 

I responded to the original poster. He responded to my post. While it has been much discussed about the lack of "tone" in posting online, the words were clearly condescending. And had nothing to do with the original topic!!! You want to argue with me about my response to someone else, why do it here???

 

 

I posted the quotes from Groundspeak as "information" to the OP. I noted my opinion, and went further to add,"do what you want".

 

All of a sudden my motives and thoughts are the subject of a "verbose" response. I thought the thread was for the OP's question.

 

One of the first tactics of debate is misdirection, and I full appreciate the skill displayed by others here in utilizing it.

 

I didn't write the language in the website. I wasn't here when it was written, or before, and while I appreciate the History lesson, the bottom line is: That is what it says now!! The OP didn't ask about something that happened ten years ago!!!

 

I have my opinion, and am not trying to "force" anyone to play by that opinion!!!!!!!

 

 

 

edit to add from my original post-

You are free, however, to play it any way you like.

Edited March 1, 2010 by NeecesandNephews

[+Moonsouth]

Haha this thread is entertaining, its like a dramatic geocaching soap opera.

[+Moose Mob]

This always falls back to the real question.

 

"Are you having fun?"

 

If the answer is "yes", then there is no problem.

If the answer is "no", then you are doing something wrong.

[+Car54]

Hello. My name is Mrs. Car54 and I am a cache puritan. Behold, I have found a cache whose opening was frozen shut and though I didst touch said cache, I couldn't open it and sign the log, so I.....................

 

Logged a DNF!

 

However, back when we were noobs, at our very first event, we were told that it was the thing to do to log the temporary event caches by posting multiple "found it" logs on the event. By the time I became a puritan and began to frown on such a practice, I didn't want to mess up our milestone caches. Therefore I am both a cache puritan and a cache hypocrite.

 

Mrs. Car54

 

Edited because I am also a member of the Spelling Police.

Edited March 1, 2010 by Car54

[+sbell111]

You can type till your blue in the face. You gave your opinion...

 

Dude, Toz is just very, very verbose. It wasn't aggressive.

 

 

 

Guys I am not in a twist over it!!! Toz and I have had this "exchange of opinions" before.

 

I responded to the original poster. He responded to my post. While it has been much discussed about the lack of "tone" in posting online, the words were clearly condescending. And had nothing to do with the original topic!!! You want to argue with me about my response to someone else, why do it here???

 

 

I posted the quotes from Groundspeak as "information" to the OP. I noted my opinion, and went further to add,"do what you want".

 

All of a sudden my motives and thoughts are the subject of a "verbose" response. I thought the thread was for the OP's question.

 

One of the first tactics of debate is misdirection, and I full appreciate the skill displayed by others here in utilizing it.

 

I didn't write the language in the website. I wasn't here when it was written, or before, and while I appreciate the History lesson, the bottom line is: That is what it says now!! The OP didn't ask about something that happened ten years ago!!!

 

I have my opinion, and am not trying to "force" anyone to play by that opinion!!!!!!!

 

 

 

edit to add from my original post-

You are free, however, to play it any way you like.

You might want to check to see if Bittsen can spare one of his pills.

[+BlueDeuce]

He uses lots of words too.

 

[+NeecesandNephews]

You can type till your blue in the face. You gave your opinion...

 

Dude, Toz is just very, very verbose. It wasn't aggressive.

 

 

 

Guys I am not in a twist over it!!! Toz and I have had this "exchange of opinions" before.

 

I responded to the original poster. He responded to my post. While it has been much discussed about the lack of "tone" in posting online, the words were clearly condescending. And had nothing to do with the original topic!!! You want to argue with me about my response to someone else, why do it here???

 

 

I posted the quotes from Groundspeak as "information" to the OP. I noted my opinion, and went further to add,"do what you want".

 

All of a sudden my motives and thoughts are the subject of a "verbose" response. I thought the thread was for the OP's question.

 

One of the first tactics of debate is misdirection, and I full appreciate the skill displayed by others here in utilizing it.

 

I didn't write the language in the website. I wasn't here when it was written, or before, and while I appreciate the History lesson, the bottom line is: That is what it says now!! The OP didn't ask about something that happened ten years ago!!!

 

I have my opinion, and am not trying to "force" anyone to play by that opinion!!!!!!!

 

 

 

edit to add from my original post-

You are free, however, to play it any way you like.

You might want to check to see if Bittsen can spare one of his pills.

 

 

Don't see the need for the pills, as I am not in the least riled about this. I am just pointing out we both posted different opinions.

 

What I need to borrow from bittsen is his aluminum foil hat, or at least where I can get one. Dont like my thoughts being read!!!!

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm going to have to start charging you the "Rockin Roddy" rate for exclamation points.

 

[+NeecesandNephews]

I'm going to have to start charging you the "Rockin Roddy" rate for exclamation points.

 

 

 

Can you add it to my PM auto-renew, and just include it on my statement?

[+tozainamboku]

I am just pointing out we both posted different opinions.

 

What I need to borrow from bittsen is his aluminum foil hat, or at least where I can get one. Dont like my thoughts being read!!!!

We might have different opinions but I don't think they are diametrically opposed as your posts might make it seem. (I don't want to read your mind, perhaps you don't actually think were are at opposite ends on this).

 

You say that "You are free, however, to play it any way you like" and even seem to accept that a cache owner might allow touching of caches to count on his cache. I have said that a cache owner who felt that touching a cache wasn't sufficient could delete the logs. I have also said that if someone wants to personally log online finds only for caches where they physically sign the log are free to do so. In fact I wouldn't accuse anyone who does this of being a puritan.

 

It may be that what we disagree on is what the "rules" say. I can find nowhere in the rules or guidelines where it says you can't log a find online unless you have signed the log. While there are places on Geocaching.com where instructions indicate that once you find a cache you should sign the log book, you will have a hard time find a place saying don't share your experience unless you signed the log.

 

Perhaps my use of the word puritan tends to been seen by some as trolling. There are many (in America at least) who identify with the Puritans (capital P). They feel the Puritans have been given a bad rap - what with the English Civlil War and the Salem witch trials. They may not like the use of puritan (with a small p) to designate anyone who is excessively concerned with with moral matters, especially other people's.

 

A long time ago I wrote a wordy post sugesting that the rules of geocaching be rewritten to accurately reflect the way the game gets played. In a nod to those who believe in signing the physical log I included comments such as "The purist believe you should sign the physical log before you log a find online". A now banned member, suggested that I use the word "puritan" in place of purist. I thought it was a good term given one common usage of puritan. BTW, the purist didn't like being call purist either. Anyhow I apologize to anyone offended by the use of puritan, I am always careful not to capitalize or confuse it with the Puritans. (I can't read N&N's thoughts so I don't know if he is offended or not).

Edited March 1, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Snoogans]

I am just pointing out we both posted different opinions.

 

What I need to borrow from bittsen is his aluminum foil hat, or at least where I can get one. Dont like my thoughts being read!!!!

We might have different opinions but I don't think there are diametrically opposed as your posts might make it seem. (I don't want to read your mind, perhaps you don't actually think were are at opposite ends on this).

 

 

Translation: These are not the droids you are looking for.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geeeze I crack myself up.

[+bittsen]

The question is always "How does the cacher who is not actually signing the cache log, but instead touhing the container, affecting your personal enjoyment?".

 

If it doesn't, forget it.

If it does, complain about it.

 

 

The cache owner is the only one who can accept a smiley on lesser criteria than the guidelines. The cache owner can not expect more criteria for a smiley than the guidelines.

 

It's pretty simple, really.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I am just pointing out we both posted different opinions.

 

What I need to borrow from bittsen is his aluminum foil hat, or at least where I can get one. Dont like my thoughts being read!!!!

We might have different opinions but I don't think they are diametrically opposed as your posts might make it seem. (I don't want to read your mind, perhaps you don't actually think were are at opposite ends on this).

 

You say that "You are free, however, to play it any way you like" and even seem to accept that a cache owner might allow touching of caches to count on his cache. I have said that a cache owner who felt that touching a cache wasn't sufficient could delete the logs. I have also said that if someone wants to personally log online finds only for caches where they physically sign the log are free to do so. In fact I wouldn't accuse anyone who does this of being a puritan.

 

It may be that what we disagree on is what the "rules" say. I can find nowhere in the rules or guidelines where it says you can't log a find online unless you have signed the log. While there are places on Geocaching.com where instructions indicate that once you find a cache you should sign the log book, you will have a hard time find a place saying don't share your experience unless you signed the log.

 

Perhaps my use of the word puritan tends to been seen by some as trolling. There are many (in America at least) who identify with the Puritans (capital P). They feel the Puritans have been given a bad rap - what with the English Civlil War and the Salem witch trials. They may not like the use of puritan (with a small p) to designate anyone who is excessively concerned with with moral matters, especially other people's.

 

A long time ago I wrote a wordy post sugesting that the rules of geocaching be rewritten to accurately reflect the way the game gets played. In a nod to those who believe in signing the physical log I included comments such as "The purist believe you should sign the physical log before you log a find online". A now banned member, suggested that I use the word "puritan" in place of purist. I thought it was a good term given one common usage of puritan. BTW, the purist didn't like being call purist either. Anyhow I apologize to anyone offended by the use of puritan, I am always careful not to capitalize or confuse it with the Puritans. (I can't read N&N's thoughts so I don't know if he is offended or not).

 

 

Let me clarify it for you then! I am not offended. In fact I am not even worked up about it.

 

Yes I do think the "rules" are clear. However... I do not now, nor did I ever in the past, feel that you "have" to play by the rules. If I choose to, that is my choice. I may be a puritan in a sense, but I am not that anal.

 

 

I have said in previous threads that , in my opinion, there are extenuating circumstances where I believe in the "fairness " sense of the game, CO's could be lenient in their attempts to enforce those "rules"

 

 

I think informing anyone, veteran or noob, that there are really no "rules" per se, is irresponsible, and only contributes to the "negative evolution" of the game many speak of. While I am quick to point out the written text, I am in no way compelling anyone to follow it. I simply point it out, and let their own judgement take it from there.

 

The "game" has evolved, and I can understand the disappointment of those who don't like where it is now, but that does not negate the reality of it. If Groundspeak adopted new rules tomorrow, I would read them, and where applicable, quote them in my response to questions from then on.

 

As far as the OP's question, I feel i gave my opinion, which means absolutely nothing in relation to the outcome of the situation. It is up to that CO to decide whether or not to let the log stand.

 

My response was simply my opinion, coupled with the text I felt applied. I never intended it to become yet another lengthy debate. We are mincing words. I use the text to establish my point, you use the absence of text to establish yours. I think if it is written I can hold it out as such. I don't presume because something isn't mentioned as prohibited, it is accepted.

 

Again if you will notice I am trying to direct the conversation to the topic of the original post instead of the basis for the use of the word "puritan/Puritan". This whole conversation has far exceeded the scope of "on topic". I would rather, if you insist on continuing it, do it somewhere else.

 

 

 

Snoogans???? That was hilarious! I spit coke on my keyboard when I read that!

[+eigengott]

I think we need a new type of log to do away with discussions like this: "discovered cache", meaning you were at the cache location, maybe even seen or touched it but didn't sign the log.

[+simpjkee]

Logging a find for touching the container is a pretty slimy way to cache.

 

If it happened on one cache, fine, whatever. Don't pet the sweaty things.

 

From the OP, the cacher is doing this on cache runs. That's where I'd be ready to delete a find and maybe an e-mail to explain why the find was deleted.

[Clan Riffster]

This always falls back to the real question.

 

"Are you having fun?"

 

If the answer is "yes", then there is no problem.

If the answer is "no", then you are doing something wrong.

This most excellent answer could be applied to most of the questions that come up in these forums.

 

I couldn't open it and sign the log, so I.....................

 

Logged a DNF!

Being somewhat puritan for my own activities, (though hideously liberal for the activities of others as applied to my caches), I would've acted in a similar matter, only mine would've been a note, rather than a DNF.

 

What I need to borrow from bittsen is his aluminum foil hat

Dude! They are Aluminum Foil Deflection Beanies! Get it right!

You can read about the science of the AFDB here.

[+GunnerMac]

So today I found this cache and it was frozen solid into the ground. I even noted in my log online that I didn't physically signed the log. I also sent a note to the cache owner so if he removes my log its no big deal if he doesn't still no big deal. Now there are a few other caches I haven't found in the area so in the spring Ill revisit and sign the log as 1 Mar 10. Is this wrong???