Jump to content

Is this a "find" or not a find?


AZWheeler
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

You might note that this thread is from the position of the cache owner as to what he should do about online logs when the physical log isn't signed. As such, your advice doesn't really apply. In fact, the 'safe bet' is for the cache owner not to delete these logs as it would likely cause angst in his actual, real-world life.

 

If I recall, the OP asked for "thoughts." As a cache owner, I gave him some. You don't agree, so you reply with recalcitrant remarks and generalizations such as "I would never argue against those cache owners who feel that the logs on their caches must be signed. However, there are those that believe that the same must be true regarding caches owned by other people. I am arguing against those posters."

 

Yet, I've yet to see anyone holding an opposing view to you actually standing on a puritan pulpit and proclaiming anyone is heretic if other cache owners refuse to delete logs. So, hmmmmm. Personally, I've outlined where I draw the line, and then comment that I've personally let online finds without physical cache logs stand, and further reveal that I've yet to delete a log. Yet, in a clear case of a tree find, had I established a cache in a tree and expected the extra effort to sign the log, I would probably request the online find to be changed to a note.

 

Frankly, I could care a less about what others do with their caches. If I sign a physical log, I expect to be able to log a "found it" online. That's about the extent of it.

Link to comment

Very good then...

 

If I don't use my postal code to look up Caches than it's not a find?

If I don't use the GPS to get there then it's not a find??

 

and so on...That's just the basic overview of how the game works. If you use that as rules, then all the Name/Date logsheets are not finds.

 

When have I ever inferred that the getting starting section or the guidelines are "rules?"

 

Like everyone else in this activity, I merely use them as a rule of thumb (or wrist, if you prefer) to determine some consistency in this activity which we call "geocaching."

 

My interpretation is as vailid as yours, and vice versa - and merely sharing "thoughts" as requested on how to apply some of the suggestions for managing caches that are provided on the listing service.

Link to comment

Never, NEVER tweak a dragon's melon!

The challenge is in getting the cache in one's paws or fins (and, of course, signing the log, and replacing the cache.) That does not make it a 'challenge' cache. Otherwise, to exrapolate what you are indicating, all caches should be 1/1, so anyone can get them. It IS a traditional cache. Not a Mystery. Not a Multi. Not a Letterbox Hybrid. And definitely NOT a virtual.

Else, all caches become Virtuals. "I drove nearby at 65 on the Interstate. I think I sort of saw it. So I will log it." Two mile hike? Too much of a 'challenge'? Clever hide? Too much of a 'challenge'?? Have to move a rock? Too much of a 'challenge'???

 

Again, hyperbole to attempt to make my point seem ridiculous...

 

Hiding a cache in a tree, no matter how high, is not clever. It's boring.

Making someone climb said tree to get a cache, not clever, boring bordering on just plain being mean.

 

Denying someone a find, when they clearly FOUND the cache, based on a technicality is, again, just mean and/or rude. It's not friendly behavior. It's bullyish at best.

 

People hide what they like to find. If a cacher creates a physical challenge it's because they enjoy doing them. It's not because they want to be unfriendly. It's bullyish to expect to log a find without completing the challenge or characterizing the CO as being a meanie.

 

If you pass out any more entitlement doses invarably some noob is going to be set up for disappontment and possibly a head butting contest with some alpha male cacher of the local geoherd when their "finds" are deleted. :blink:.

Link to comment

People hide what they like to find. If a cacher creates a physical challenge it's because they enjoy doing them. It's not because they want to be unfriendly. It's bullyish to expect to log a find without completing the challenge or characterizing the CO as being a meanie.

 

If you pass out any more entitlement doses invarably some noob is going to be set up for disappontment and possibly a head butting contest with some alpha male cacher of the local geoherd when their "finds" are deleted. :blink:.

 

I think you are naive.

 

Do you honestly believe that the people who hide NIH caches actually prefer to find NIH caches (for instance).

They are hiding rocks in rock piles to be mean. They do it because it gives them a sick sense of enjoyment to know that they make people dance for their Scooby Snack (proverbially speaking).

Link to comment

People hide what they like to find. If a cacher creates a physical challenge it's because they enjoy doing them. It's not because they want to be unfriendly. It's bullyish to expect to log a find without completing the challenge or characterizing the CO as being a meanie.

 

If you pass out any more entitlement doses invarably some noob is going to be set up for disappontment and possibly a head butting contest with some alpha male cacher of the local geoherd when their "finds" are deleted. :blink:.

 

I think you are naive.

 

Do you honestly believe that the people who hide NIH caches actually prefer to find NIH caches (for instance).

They are hiding rocks in rock piles to be mean. They do it because it gives them a sick sense of enjoyment to know that they make people dance for their Scooby Snack (proverbially speaking).

 

I don't like those hides, but other people do. I know of a few cache pages with 100 watchers and over 100 DNFs because they enjoy the challenge. It may seem sick to those that don't like it, but it is not to those that do.

 

There are physical challenges, mental challenges, and asinine challenges. If you don't like them that is fine. Expecting to cut corners or characterizing the CO as a meanie because they are different is a little rude.

 

It is bad form to expect to log a find without a signature rather than asking first.

Link to comment

I don't like those hides, but other people do. I know of a few cache pages with 100 watchers and over 100 DNFs because they enjoy the challenge. It may seem sick to those that don't like it, but it is not to those that do.

 

There are physical challenges, mental challenges, and asinine challenges. If you don't like them that is fine. Expecting to cut corners or characterizing the CO as a meanie because they are different is a little rude.

 

It is bad form to expect to log a find without a signature rather than asking first.

 

You didn't address my point.

 

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

Hence, the same applies to someone who hides a cache up in a tree. I contend that it's unlikely that the cache owner actually enjoys climbing trees to retrieve caches but, rather, enjoy knowing that they have made someone jump through a proverbial hoop and as evidence they make up excuses (such as "the guidelines say "blah blah blah" just to be able to delete the "find" of someone who refused (for whatever reason) to jump through their hoop.

 

In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find. The ONLY difference is that they don't have to wear a chicken suit in order to sign the logsheet whereas it IS possible to place a cache in a way to force someone to climb a tree to sign a logsheet. Either way, it's a control issue and I, personally, have no love for people with desires to control others for the sake of their own twisted ego.

Link to comment
In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find.

What a wonderfully revealing statement!

 

You also clearly don't understand the difference between making somebody get in their car, drive all the way to the trailhead, hike 3 miles to get to the cache location, and then sign the log before getting credit for a find. We understand that. In your world, the whole formality of actually, you know, finding the cache is superfluous.

 

The good news is that most people are capable of understanding the difference.

 

The bad news is that most of those people don't have what appears to be an infinite appetite for making content-free posts one every single thread.

Link to comment
In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find.

What a wonderfully revealing statement!

 

You also clearly don't understand the difference between making somebody get in their car, drive all the way to the trailhead, hike 3 miles to get to the cache location, and then sign the log before getting credit for a find. We understand that. In your world, the whole formality of actually, you know, finding the cache is superfluous.

 

The good news is that most people are capable of understanding the difference.

 

The bad news is that most of those people don't have what appears to be an infinite appetite for making content-free posts one every single thread.

 

Oh PUUUUHHHHLLLLEEEEEZZZZZZEEEE

 

Let's get real.

I do, completely understand the difference. Here it is for you to understand.

 

A cache exists 3 miles from a trail. You see it on your maps online. You get in the car and drive to the trailhead and prepare for a 3 mile hike. For the sake of argument let's say it's the grandparents taking little Timmy and little Suzy for an afternoon of enjoyable hiking. You know there is a regular sized cache you are looking for.

So, you take the trek to the cache and start looking and all of a sudden little 8 year old Timmy says "Hey, grandpa, is that it up there?" pointing at an ammo can 30 feet up in the tree.

 

Yes, Timmy, that's the cache but now we can't claim it because we can't climb up there.

Awww grandpa, I can reach it...

 

Insert any argument you want but don't try to compare climbing up a tree to hiking. It's not even the same class of activity.

 

Now, if you all would quit trying to skew this into equating the inability to climb trees with armchair logging then we could raise the intelligence in this thread a few points. OR you could just keep going like you are.

 

This has never been about "finding the cache" it's been about the superficial need to actually sign a logsheet that the CO will likely never even read WHEN THE CO MAKES IT A PIA TO SIGN IT (caps added for emphasis, not yelling).

 

NUFF SAID!

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

I don't like those hides, but other people do. I know of a few cache pages with 100 watchers and over 100 DNFs because they enjoy the challenge. It may seem sick to those that don't like it, but it is not to those that do.

 

There are physical challenges, mental challenges, and asinine challenges. If you don't like them that is fine. Expecting to cut corners or characterizing the CO as a meanie because they are different is a little rude.

 

It is bad form to expect to log a find without a signature rather than asking first.

 

You didn't address my point.

 

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

Hence, the same applies to someone who hides a cache up in a tree. I contend that it's unlikely that the cache owner actually enjoys climbing trees to retrieve caches but, rather, enjoy knowing that they have made someone jump through a proverbial hoop and as evidence they make up excuses (such as "the guidelines say "blah blah blah" just to be able to delete the "find" of someone who refused (for whatever reason) to jump through their hoop.

 

In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find. The ONLY difference is that they don't have to wear a chicken suit in order to sign the logsheet whereas it IS possible to place a cache in a way to force someone to climb a tree to sign a logsheet. Either way, it's a control issue and I, personally, have no love for people with desires to control others for the sake of their own twisted ego.

I can't quite wrap my brain around what your saying.

Are you saying that even tho I do like climbing trees and do so frequently the fewer branches the better I might add, that if I hide a cache up a tree that I do not like climbing trees, even if it is my favorite tree?

 

I'm gradually working on a NIH (anyone wanna send me black and gray film canisters?) in a 5 gallon plastic carboy.

Will I get a sick satisfaction out of people dumping them out and checking one at a time? No.

Will I get satisfaction from the knowledge that some people will experience joy because they dumped them all out and there it is hanging a few inches past the neck? Yup.

Do I think that COs who place caches on islands in lakes where it is illegal to swim are mean? No, but the concept you are trying to get across sez you think they don't like boating and are mean.

An avid rock climber places it 100' up a cliff face, he must really hate climbing hugh?

People that place LPCs despise them if they wont let you claim a found it because you couldn't bother to sign the log.

What you are arguing reads exactly as "People should not have to be bothered to sign the log and are entitled to claim the find"

Your accusations towards COs who place hides that are difficult to get to are... whats that word you toss around so willy nilly? Oh yeah, hyperbole. In this case it is a bad thing because it is simply wrong.

There are those who do get some twisted pleasure, but they are few.

There are even more who are simply unimaginative, but they are not sadistic.

I believe that the largest number belongs to those who honestly think they are being innovative (the first time they do it), or honestly like that type of hide.

 

I play geocaching not Waymarking, that is why I don't do virts any more and once I start doing earthcaches I'll only claim enough and place enough to acquire platinum, then I'll delete my finds and only visit earth caches for the scenery. Like I did last year.

Now what is difference between traditional/multi/unknown/letterbox hybrid and Waymarking/verts/earthcaches?

The difference is, I can only be denied a found it if I don't sign the logbook, those others have a myriad of reasons I can be denied.

Mean CO requires me to have a camera, what if received my GPSr as a gift but Im to poor to afford a camera?

Sadistic CO insists I describe the difference between the two layers of rock, what if I'm incapable of seeing the color difference and can only see one layer because of it?

Jerk CO expects me to use the forth tenth or fifteenth word from that plaque hidden in my log, what if I can read numbers but cant count? Yes there are people like that.

You see? Not every cache is for every person, nor should they be.

If they where, the game would be awfully boring for most.

If the right to delete a found it based on an unsigned logbook is taken away, then geocaching.com can be done away with and a hidden container category can be added to Waymarking and I wont be the only person demanding a prorated refund.

Link to comment

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

 

Why would you contend this? How do you even remotely know the likes, dislikes, and motives of others? The few trees which I have climbed have been placed by folks that seemed to have enjoyed tree hides that they logged. My experience in the field is not supported by your contention.

 

What I have learned from this thread is that to fulfill this deep, burning sadism that you attribute to many cache owners, is that I have to hide the cache in a tree and make it invisible to ensure potential finders have to jump through my glorious hoops. :rolleyes:

 

Naivete, sadism, narcissism - doesn't matter, they all stem from the same ego. And ego, my friends, is in no short supply around here. :laughing:

Link to comment

I don't like those hides, but other people do. I know of a few cache pages with 100 watchers and over 100 DNFs because they enjoy the challenge. It may seem sick to those that don't like it, but it is not to those that do.

 

There are physical challenges, mental challenges, and asinine challenges. If you don't like them that is fine. Expecting to cut corners or characterizing the CO as a meanie because they are different is a little rude.

 

It is bad form to expect to log a find without a signature rather than asking first.

 

You didn't address my point.

 

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

Hence, the same applies to someone who hides a cache up in a tree. I contend that it's unlikely that the cache owner actually enjoys climbing trees to retrieve caches but, rather, enjoy knowing that they have made someone jump through a proverbial hoop and as evidence they make up excuses (such as "the guidelines say "blah blah blah" just to be able to delete the "find" of someone who refused (for whatever reason) to jump through their hoop.

 

If you tend to think of worst of people you create the potential to bring out the worst in them (whether or not you are correct in the first place). Climbing trees is an excellent way to find a nice view to scan an area, or to spy on wildlife such as deer. Not everyone has the same mindset as you. Someone who wants to log a find on something without doing what everyone else did is more of the bullly than the cache owner who is trying to be fair to the others who went the extra mile and earned the find.

 

 

In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find. The ONLY difference is that they don't have to wear a chicken suit in order to sign the logsheet whereas it IS possible to place a cache in a way to force someone to climb a tree to sign a logsheet. Either way, it's a control issue and I, personally, have no love for people with desires to control others for the sake of their own twisted ego.

 

You are trying to control the cache owner with passive agressive behaviour by characterizing them in a bad light because they are not giving in to allowing a find without signing the logsheet. Forcing someone to put on a chicken suit after they signed the log, is a bit different than posting that you found something without any evidence for the next finder.

 

Signing the logsheet has always been an integral part of the game. Codeword verification caches were banned awhile ago. The site allows owner discretion over logging practices only because they are trying to be flexible

Link to comment

A cache exists 3 miles from a trail. You see it on your maps online. You get in the car and drive to the trailhead and prepare for a 3 mile hike. For the sake of argument let's say it's the grandparents taking little Timmy and little Suzy for an afternoon of enjoyable hiking. You know there is a regular sized cache you are looking for.

So, you take the trek to the cache and start looking and all of a sudden little 8 year old Timmy says "Hey, grandpa, is that it up there?" pointing at an ammo can 30 feet up in the tree.

 

Yes, Timmy, that's the cache but now we can't claim it because we can't climb up there.

Awww grandpa, I can reach it...

 

 

And this would be the perfect time for grandpa to teach Timmy that whining, begging, and crying will not get him what he wants in life. Timmy needs to learn that honest hard work is important and necessary. (Unless, of course grandpa is on parole for breaking and entering, robbing banks, and shoplifting. Perhaps grandpa missed a good spanking awhile ago) :laughing:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

 

Thats a black and white view of a situation in full color.

 

If I hid a cache 5 feet in a tree and for some reason it ended up being moved 8 feet up and someone couldn't reach it, I would allow a find.

 

If the cache was specifically placed 20 feet up in the tree to present a challenge to those that would enjoy it, then I would not allow a find. (unless I recieved the proper amount of bribe money or a few cases of thin mints, of course) :laughing:

Link to comment

You are making me laugh.

 

I never, once, implied that the right to delete a log should be taken away from the cache owner (even though GS does take that right away occasionally). What I did say is that in this instance I think the CO would be rude (being polite in my language) to disallow the find.

 

It doesn't matter to me if you agree or not. Your arguments are falling on deaf ears at this point. This is my opinion and I stand by it.

 

If you wish to argue further, argue with someone esle. I won't reply. You get the last word.

Link to comment

And this would be the perfect time for grandpa to teach Timmy that whining, begging, and crying will not get him what he wants in life. Timmy needs to learn that honest hard work is important and necessary. (Unless, of course grandpa is on parole for breaking and entering, robbing banks, and shoplifting. Perhaps grandpa missed a good spanking awhile ago) :D

ya know what? I'm just going to let him go off wile I :rolleyes: and :laughing:

 

 

~~~edit to add~~~

amazing.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

You are making me laugh.

 

I never, once, implied that the right to delete a log should be taken away from the cache owner (even though GS does take that right away occasionally). What I did say is that in this instance I think the CO would be rude (being polite in my language) to disallow the find.

 

It doesn't matter to me if you agree or not. Your arguments are falling on deaf ears at this point. This is my opinion and I stand by it.

 

If you wish to argue further, argue with someone esle. I won't reply. You get the last word.

 

Cool. You are entitled to your opinion..

 

Here is a potential n00b log:

 

:laughing: Veruca Salt and Timmy (12 found) We were reading in the forums in the internets and discovered that the guidelines don't say that I have to sign the log. We went to the site and saw that the cache owner was mean enough to hide the ammo box way up in a tree. We are claiming a find because we saw it, and think that if the unfriendly cache owner named Willie Wonka deletes my log they are RUDE!

 

b68ogxm0Iikp4zmgZSImDsYKo1_400.jpg

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

A cache exists 3 miles from a trail. You see it on your maps online. You get in the car and drive to the trailhead and prepare for a 3 mile hike. For the sake of argument let's say it's the grandparents taking little Timmy and little Suzy for an afternoon of enjoyable hiking. You know there is a regular sized cache you are looking for.

So, you take the trek to the cache and start looking and all of a sudden little 8 year old Timmy says "Hey, grandpa, is that it up there?" pointing at an ammo can 30 feet up in the tree.

 

Yes, Timmy, that's the cache but now we can't claim it because we can't climb up there.

Awww grandpa, I can reach it...

 

 

And this would be the perfect time for grandpa to teach Timmy that whining, begging, and crying will not get him what he wants in life. Timmy needs to learn that honest hard work is important and necessary. (Unless, of course grandpa is on parole for breaking and entering, robbing banks, and shoplifting. Perhaps grandpa missed a good spanking awhile ago) :laughing:

 

 

 

In that case grandpa would have taken out his 45 and shot the cache out of the tree. (Remind me to carry my gun to the next cache that might be high up a tree) Signed the log and stolen the Geocoins and TBs. Then he would have tracked down the guy who put it up there upsetting little Timmy and the next cacher would have found a few teeth or fingers in what was left of the cache. Thankfully I'm a nice lady and the worst I will do is leave a few holes in your cache if my aim is off. But I'm a pretty good shot.

Link to comment
For the sake of argument let's say it's the grandparents taking little Timmy and little Suzy for an afternoon of enjoyable hiking. You know there is a regular sized cache you are looking for. So, you take the trek to the cache and start looking and all of a sudden little 8 year old Timmy says "Hey, grandpa, is that it up there?" pointing at an ammo can 30 feet up in the tree. Yes, Timmy, that's the cache but now we can't claim it because we can't climb up there.

Awww grandpa, I can reach it...

Awww... What a cute visual! I'm tearing up just thinking about poor little Timmy and little Suzy...

I think I'm gonna need a hankie...

 

Now that I've cleansed myself spiritually with your heart rending tale, allow me to address the issues:

 

You claim that folks who hide caches up in trees, (or other styles requiring more effort than might be readily apparent on the cache page), do so not because they enjoy climbing, but rather, because they are mean, right? Sorry, but you are rather mistaken. When I hid a cache 30' up a palm tree, my goal was to share my love of vertical climbing with others, not to be mean. When I hid a series of caches in the nastiest swamp I've ever seen, (so thick as to require 4 hours to cover 1.5 miles), my goal was to share my love of swamps with others, not to be mean. Just because someone presents a challenge at ground zero does not mean they are antisocial. Your stereotypes are showing.

 

Of course, my perception may have been skewed due to the fact that I didn't have such an "interesting" childhood as yours...

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

As I have noticed that a lot of the folks against this particular cache are fond of quoting the guidelines, I refer you to the guidelines.

 

It's not a find if you don't sign the log.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

Edited by Freekacher
Link to comment
You might note that this thread is from the position of the cache owner as to what he should do about online logs when the physical log isn't signed. As such, your advice doesn't really apply. In fact, the 'safe bet' is for the cache owner not to delete these logs as it would likely cause angst in his actual, real-world life.

If I recall, the OP asked for "thoughts." As a cache owner, I gave him some.
Since he simply asked for our thoughts and those thoughts need not be related to his specific issue, I would like to share this one:

 

Lexus drivers seem to be more likely to be driving in their own worlds rather than paying any attention to other drivers on the roads.

You don't agree, so you reply with recalcitrant remarks and generalizations such as "I would never argue against those cache owners who feel that the logs on their caches must be signed. However, there are those that believe that the same must be true regarding caches owned by other people. I am arguing against those posters."
I don't agree with what? Your position that cache finders should sign the log or risk deletion?

 

I agree completely with that position, it's just not helpful to the OP's situation.

 

Regarding the post of mine that you quoted above, I was specifically stating my position in order to correct a misunderstanding that Vater_Araignee and I had. It turns out that we were in agreement.

Link to comment

 

Regarding the post of mine that you quoted above, I was specifically stating my position in order to correct a misunderstanding that Vater_Araignee and I had. It turns out that we were in agreement.

 

The irony thick through this thread is that it turns out that most of us were in agreement.

 

Well, except for that scaly sarcastic chap, but that's a different matter altogether. :laughing:

Link to comment
I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.
I contend that both kinds of hiders exist.

 

As I have noticed that a lot of the folks against this particular cache are fond of quoting the guidelines, I refer you to the guidelines.

 

It's not a find if you don't sign the log.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

Good grief. The thread is not so long that you could have missed when that specific guideline was discussed. Heck, that discussion was a huge chunk of the thread. Here's the takeaway:

 

That guideline forbids cache owners from deleting online 'finds' when the physical log was not signed. In the event of the physical log not being signed, it makes no requirement of the cache owner. If the physical log is not signed, the cache owner decides whether a find was made.

Link to comment

This thread has wandered far from the OP's question:

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

If the physical log was not signed, you, as the cache owner, can choose to accept the log as a find or delete it. However, you should understand that deleting logs can cause angst for you in the real world.

Link to comment

I don't agree with what? Your position that cache finders should sign the log or risk deletion?

 

I agree completely with that position, it's just not helpful to the OP's situation.

 

Ugh.

 

1) The find as described in the first post OP's decision. That has not been debated (at least by me).

 

2) OP asked for thoughts on a find. Clearly, if the log is signed, then clearly there is a find. If log is not signed, then back to #1 above since the find may be questionable.

 

3) OP is justified if he/she/it decides not to allow a "find." Despite allegations of "mean," "sadistic," "lacking compassion," "does not like those with disabilities," and "trying to destroy the fun of others," since log is not signed, it is quite justified for a deletion as a "found it."

 

In this way, I think it may be somewhat helpful. If you think not so much, so be it.

Link to comment

This thread has wandered far from the OP's question:

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

If the physical log was not signed, you, as the cache owner, can choose to accept the log as a find or delete it. However, you should understand that deleting logs can cause angst for you in the real world.

 

Or worse yet, angst on the forums! Spooky stuff indeed.

Link to comment
...Despite allegations of "mean," "sadistic," "lacking compassion," "does not like those with disabilities," and "trying to destroy the fun of others,"...

You forgot "Hates Chilruns". We all know that geocaching .com hates chilruns. :laughing:

 

All my caches that are on the ground...? That's right. I hate tall people. I want them to bend over and sign the log. MWA HAHA (mine is an evil laugh.)

Link to comment

I have to say there seem to be a lot of "evil" cache Owners insisting I "jump through hoops" by not hiding their cache within reaching distance of my computer keyboard. At work or at home! I have an abundance of electrical supplies a short distance from my desk at my shop that would make an excellent hide!!

 

And there is a cache within 150 feet of my computer desk at home, but the "evil" Owner "insists" I get up, go outside, and even have to open a gate :huh: to get to it!!

 

I'm sure there are a number of CO's that would be happy to accomodate my request if it wasn't for those "pesky" Guidelines preventing them from hiding more than one in either location! :D

 

To make mockery of another thread I would like to pronounce the distinguished award for World Record of "greatest number of posts that made me laugh" is hereby bestowed on Clan Riffster!! Wave your flag high buddy!!!!! :laughing:

 

You forgot "Hates Chilruns". We all know that geocaching .com hates chilruns. :rolleyes:

 

I think the OP is going to have to decide for himself. And were I him, I would keep that decision to myself!

edit-typo

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

...snip....

Can you describe specific details about the container and tell me where it was specifically. That to me means that you FOUND the cache. The inability to sign the log to me is independent of "finding" the cache.

...snip

 

Sure...I found a broken tree branch that's a few feet long and I routed a slot in one side of it. A bison tube fits snuggly into the slot. I wedged the branch across a couple of the tree branches about 12 feet up in a tree with the bison tube slot facing skyward. If you look carefully from the ground you can spot that the branch looks abnormal (not connected to the tree). You then make the easy tree climb up to grab the bison.

 

...snip...

I'm new I'm learning the rules. I read the guidelines. Someone else wants to decide that they know better and rate their cache the way they want to and I can't do it once I get there. Or I risk my neck doing it because I'm the type who can't resist a challenge. If you warned me so I could have brought the proper tools or at least a safety rope or decided in advance if I was prepared to do so, than my neck is on me. If you fudged the description a bit and I attempt the climb and fall, then it's on you.

...snip

 

Huh :laughing: ....so if you go somewhere and don't get notification of all hazards in the area that you choose to place yourself in, then someone else is responsible?

 

Say you go to a state park to do a hike. You get on the trail and see a steep climb. YOU decide to try to hike it, but fall and break an ankle. The blame is on the park adminstrators?

 

...snip...

 

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

Hence, the same applies to someone who hides a cache up in a tree. I contend that it's unlikely that the cache owner actually enjoys climbing trees to retrieve caches but, rather, enjoy knowing that they have made someone jump through a proverbial hoop and as evidence they make up excuses (such as "the guidelines say "blah blah blah" just to be able to delete the "find" of someone who refused (for whatever reason) to jump through their hoop.

...snip...

 

You are COMPLETELY wrong in this case. I have loved climbing trees all my life. I've only run across a few tree caches that required climbing. Enjoyed each of them and wish there were more.

 

I placed this cache (as I do most) as an example of what I would like to find. I've only been doing this about a year, but thought it was somewhat interesting and something beyond just hanging a bison in a tree.

 

Once spotted, someone comfortable with climbing an "easy climbing" tree could have their fingers on this cache in 10-15 seconds. Having been up it before, I could probably be there in ~5 seconds. This is not what I would call "jumping through hoops". I'm certainly not saying everyone has the ability, by any means.

 

And this would be the perfect time for grandpa to teach Timmy that whining, begging, and crying will not get him what he wants in life. Timmy needs to learn that honest hard work is important and necessary. (Unless, of course grandpa is on parole for breaking and entering, robbing banks, and shoplifting. Perhaps grandpa missed a good spanking awhile ago) :rolleyes:

 

:D:huh:;)

Link to comment
This thread has wandered far from the OP's question:

I have a cache in a tree and got this "find" log today:

 

I could see this cache, but it was too high for me to get to it safely, as I was alone and didn't want to fall and break a bone. So, I could not sign the log. Nice hide, though.

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks.

If the physical log was not signed, you, as the cache owner, can choose to accept the log as a find or delete it. However, you should understand that deleting logs can cause angst for you in the real world.

Not to mention that angst in the real world that you will experience when word gets around that you are logging finds for caches that you didn't sign the log on.
Link to comment

As I have noticed that a lot of the folks against this particular cache are fond of quoting the guidelines, I refer you to the guidelines.

 

It's not a find if you don't sign the log.

 

Logging of All Physical Caches

 

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

Would a Groundspeak lackey please post to let us know if this was really the intent of the guideline?

 

I was told that the the statement in big letters above was put in the guidelines only to cachers know they could now log caches that had additional logging requirements as Found log once they had signed the physical logbook. Cache owners could no longer delete Found logs because someone did not perform the additional requirement.

 

As the guidelines are now written a cache owner may still delete a Found log if the physical log is not signed. I believe there are other cases where a cache owner many delete a physical log that are not spelled out in the guidelines.

 

The statement does not imply the following:

 

If the physical log is not signed, you may not log a Found log online. (Denying the Antecedent)

and

In order to log a Find online, the physical log must have been signed (Affirming the Consequent)

 

There is no requirement on the cache owner to delete an online find log just because the physical log is not signed.

 

The guideline does not define what constitutes a find. The definition of a find as signed log is something the puritans have made up. What it does do is allow a cache owner to determine which Found logs are bogus. A cache owner with a cache in a tree can determine that the log must be signed and that simply spotting the cache high up in the tree does not constitute a find. However another cache owner may feel that spotting the cache in the tree is enough to claim a find. It is up to the owner to determine this.

 

Bittsen's argument seems to be "Why be mean? If a cacher believes that spotting the cache is the tree is sufficient to claim a find let them claim the find."

 

I wouldn't go so far as bittsen in this case, but my argument has always been that getting hung up on the signing of the log to define when the online Found log can be used is counter to the spirit of the game. Most people realize that there are sometimes when signing the log is impossible (forgot a pen, logbook to wet, cache is frozen in ice, etc.) Most cache owners allow a find log to stand in these case unless they feel the finder is really posting a bogus log (i.e. they never actually even looked for the cache).

Link to comment

snip

I wouldn't go so far as bittsen in this case, but 1) my argument has always been that getting hung up on the signing of the log to define when the online Found log can be used is counter to the spirit of the game. 2)Most people realize that there are sometimes when signing the log is impossible (forgot a pen, logbook to wet, cache is frozen in ice, etc.)3) Most cache owners allow a find log to stand in these case unless they feel the finder is really posting a bogus log (i.e. they never actually even looked for the cache).

 

 

1) This is your opinion and it is obviously not shared by everyone.

 

2) I agree with this statement, and I think most cache owners would also.

 

3) By removing this wording would you deny the Cache Owner this right and ability? If not please explain why. I would also ask for a clearer definition of "bogus log". As it stands many CO's interpret this as an "online log, without the corresponding cache log signature".

 

I am simply asking, not trying to argue. I am trying to understand what you are attempting to accomplish by your protests of the wording .

Link to comment

Hiding a cache in a tree isn't clever at all.

 

I agree with Bittsen. Tree-climbing caches are not clever. Sometimes I feel sorry for the tree - e.g. spindly branches in a cedar that can easily get damaged by 200 pound people.

 

The one near me says it's for children, the fact that you have to climb the tree is hidden in the hints. The cache is about 8 feet up the cedar tree. I doubt a determined adult who made the trip out to the cache, is going to shrug and walk away instead of climbing the thinnish branches to get that cache.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

There is no requirement on the cache owner to delete an online find log just because the physical log is not signed.

What it does do is allow a cache owner to determine which Found logs are bogus.
Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

Link to comment

I contend you are naive thinking that cache owners place the type of cache that THEY like to find. I contend that people who hide NIH caches don't really enjoy searching for them but, instead, are sadistic, taking joy in knowing that they are causing others to jump through their proverbial hoops.

 

Hence, the same applies to someone who hides a cache up in a tree. I contend that it's unlikely that the cache owner actually enjoys climbing trees to retrieve caches but, rather, enjoy knowing that they have made someone jump through a proverbial hoop and as evidence they make up excuses (such as "the guidelines say "blah blah blah" just to be able to delete the "find" of someone who refused (for whatever reason) to jump through their hoop.

 

In all honesty, I don't see much difference between requiring someone to take a picture of themselves in a chicken suit and requiring someone to climb a tree in order to log a find. The ONLY difference is that they don't have to wear a chicken suit in order to sign the logsheet whereas it IS possible to place a cache in a way to force someone to climb a tree to sign a logsheet. Either way, it's a control issue and I, personally, have no love for people with desires to control others for the sake of their own twisted ego.

I do enjoy climbing trees, climbing rock faces, crossing streams and other physical challenges so that is what I try to hide. I had a "Climbin' and Findin'" series that required some light rock climbing to retrieve the cache. I thoroughly enjoyed the cachers logs talking about how they were challenged when retrieving the cache. That is the type of log I leave when I find caches like this. And most times when I hide a challenging cache I end up going to the cache location at least 3 times before I list it (once to scope the location, and at least twice more to place the container and take several readings on the GPSr so to get accurate coordinates) so if I didn't enjoy it I sure wouldn't waste my time. And the last thing on my mind is waiting for a log stating they didn't retrieve the cache and then salivating over the chance to delete the log. It happens so rarely (because MOST cachers in my neck of the woods follow the rules) that it really isn't an issue.

 

And to insure I am never confused with the sadistic CO's who want people to jump through hoops to claim the smilie, I wear this outfit when placing my caches:

 

23601.jpg

Link to comment

I am simply asking, not trying to argue. I am trying to understand what you are attempting to accomplish by your protests of the wording .

I used to like to debate with you Neece, but your parsing of sentences and bolding of phrase is getting a little tiring.

 

What I am protesting is the interpretation that some people are trying to give to the guidelines that isn't there. You may have found a few post of mine where I've suggested that Grounspeak could change the wording to make it clearer. I don't have any real objection to the current guidelines. They don't require a signature to log a find; they do allow a cache owner to delete a found log. Cache owners are not required to delete found logs if a cache cacher didn't sign the the physical log; but they can do it if they so choose. Fortunately, the vast majority of cache owners are not stickler for signed logs and allow most reasonable find logs to stand. My guess is that this thread has gone on this long because a cache with a physical or mental challenge to retrieve or open is a bit more controversial. In this case, there are more people, myself among them, who feel that is is reasonable to require the finder to retrieve and open the cache to log the find, and at that point it is not to big a jump to ask for a signature to confirm this. Still, I would allow a cache owner like bittsen to allow a find if he wanted.

 

There is no requirement on the cache owner to delete an online find log just because the physical log is not signed.

What it does do is allow a cache owner to determine which Found logs are bogus.
Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

1. There is no requirement to delete an online log just because the physical log is not signed.

2. There is no (general) requirement to sign the physical log in order to log the cache found online. However the way the ALR guidelines were written, a cache owner could make this a requirement and not be in violation of the ALR guideline. The signature in the log is meant a way to determine which logs are not bogus - not which logs are bogus as I wrote. However, I was also trying to concede the point that if cache owner wanted to verify that someone climbed the tree to retrieved the cache and then passed the log book to someone else on ground (or just signed it on their behalf), they could require a signature in the logboook as a condition for letting a Find log stand.

3. There is a guideline requiring cache owners to do quality control of post to their cache page including deleting logs that appear to be bogus. It is up to the cache owner to determine what is bogus. My hope is that cache owners would let reasonable find logs stand and not automatically delete logs because there was not a signature in the log book.

 

Summary

 

Cache owners have the ability to delete Found It logs. Some cache owners are deleting cache logs because they believe that unless you have signed the log you have not found the cache. There is no place written in the guidelines that says this, but when the ALR guidelines were written they allowed caches owners to continue to do this, even while forbiding them from deleting logs for certain other reason. Some puritans look at the the fact that this was left as an option for the cache owner as proof that TPTB intend for Found logs to be deleted when the physical is not signed. In my opinion, this is not why TPTB left the option here. I believe TPTB do want geocachers to sign the physical logbook when they find the cache. This way they can explain the easy steps of geocaching without going into gory details of what happens if you can't sign or if you don't want to climb a tree, etc. They leave it up to cache owners and finder to work out these issues themselves on a cache by cache basis. Second, they want to allow the physical log to be used to arbitrate disagreements. If a cacher's signature is in the log it is assumed they found the cache. If the cacher's signature is not in the log and the cache owner says the online log appears bogus, the owner can delete the log. The use of the signature this way is not perfect, but it works most of the time.

Link to comment

~snip~

Still, I would allow a cache owner like bittsen to allow a find if he wanted.

 

WHOA!!! LOW BLOW.

 

What makes you think I would even ASK to log it? AND.... Have you met me? You made a pretty interesting assumption there regarding my gender.

I've referred to bittsen as she in other posts. I was in a masculine mood today :laughing:. However you read this wrong. I didn't say I would let bittsen log a find, I said that I would allow (really meaning I wouldn't object) if bittsen allowed a cacher who didn't sign the log to log a find on one of bittsen's caches.

Link to comment

Toz you "used to like to debate" with me when you thought your pointless unsubstantiated drivel of your opinion about what actually transpired, and what "they" meant by the changes, was making any headway.

 

Unfortunatly it is not.

 

Continue to post your verbose history of Geocaching "as you see it" and I will continue to inform the person you are directing it at that they are free to interpret the rules, or choose to believe they actually are rules, and play like they want.

 

Ironic it seems our positions have reversed. You used to champion "play the way you get the most enjoyment from" while claiming I was "trying to force everyone to play the way I read the rules"

 

Now I am championing "play the way you choose" while you are trying to force everyone to "not play by the way I read the rules, because I am wrong".

 

The funniest part was you saying "but your parsing of sentences and bolding of phrase is getting a little tiring." Guess it never occured to you that others might find your posts tiring!! :laughing:

Now that is seems your position is being challenged, you no longer want to debate it.Ok. I can understand that. (please note, to satisfy your sensitive nature I did not parse or bold, just quoted you)

Link to comment

1. There is no requirement to delete an online log just because the physical log is not signed.

2. There is no (general) requirement to sign the physical log in order to log the cache found online. However the way the ALR guidelines were written, a cache owner could make this a requirement and not be in violation of the ALR guideline. The signature in the log is meant a way to determine which logs are not bogus - not which logs are bogus as I wrote. However, I was also trying to concede the point that if cache owner wanted to verify that someone climbed the tree to retrieved the cache and then passed the log book to someone else on ground (or just signed it on their behalf), they could require a signature in the logboook as a condition for letting a Find log stand.

3. There is a guideline requiring cache owners to do quality control of post to their cache page including deleting logs that appear to be bogus. It is up to the cache owner to determine what is bogus. My hope is that cache owners would let reasonable find logs stand and not automatically delete logs because there was not a signature in the log book.

 

Summary

 

Cache owners have the ability to delete Found It logs. Some cache owners are deleting cache logs because they believe that unless you have signed the log you have not found the cache. There is no place written in the guidelines that says this, but when the ALR guidelines were written they allowed caches owners to continue to do this, even while forbiding them from deleting logs for certain other reason. Some puritans look at the the fact that this was left as an option for the cache owner as proof that TPTB intend for Found logs to be deleted when the physical is not signed. In my opinion, this is not why TPTB left the option here. I believe TPTB do want geocachers to sign the physical logbook when they find the cache. This way they can explain the easy steps of geocaching without going into gory details of what happens if you can't sign or if you don't want to climb a tree, etc. They leave it up to cache owners and finder to work out these issues themselves on a cache by cache basis. Second, they want to allow the physical log to be used to arbitrate disagreements. If a cacher's signature is in the log it is assumed they found the cache. If the cacher's signature is not in the log and the cache owner says the online log appears bogus, the owner can delete the log. The use of the signature this way is not perfect, but it works most of the time.

I completely agree with the above. My post was to highlight a slight flaw in your previous post's logic which you cleared up in the line: "The signature in the log is meant a way to determine which logs are not bogus - not which logs are bogus as I wrote." It also sounded like you were saying that the "power" to delete logs came from the ALR guidelines and not the cache maintenance section. Again, you've cleared that up as well.

 

So expanding on what you just wrote, the finder has to prove they found the cache to the owner. A signed log guarantees this because it proves that they or someone in their group:

 

1) Arrived at GZ

2) Saw the cache

3) Touched the cache

4) Opened the cache container

5) Signed the log

 

If they didn't do number 5 then they must have stopped somewhere on 1 to 4. The ALR guidelines only guarantee that all CO's will accept number 5 as a non bogus log. The trick is how far up the list does the CO consider good enough for a find for that particular cache. Some COs consider 1 or 2 good enough while others think it's 3 or 4, especially if it's the reason the cache was placed where it is.

 

The issue of one person signing for everyone or retrieving the cache for the others is something different. The gray area is when someone's name is in the log but they admit to the CO that they didn't put it there. Is that a bogus find or does the ALR guideline "Name in log book" win out? Personally I don't care as long as the group had fun finding my cache and at least one of them got into the cache.

Link to comment

For some folks it would.

 

I have two very different, (and seemingly incompatible), standards I utilize with regards to signing logbooks:

1 ) I will not claim a find on any cache where my name is not in the logbook. Ain't happening.

2 ) I will not delete a find from my own caches simply because there is no matching name in the logbook.

 

This apparent contradiction comes from my belief that different folks have different definitions regarding what "Found It" means, and my definition is no more, or less, valid than someone else's definition. If BillyBobNosePicker goes for my cache hidden 90' down a muck filled culvert bristling with venomous snakes, and decides that looking in the culvert and seeing the ammo can hanging by its chain constitutes "finding" it, I am unwilling to argue the point. I will not try and impose my personal standards on others. :anicute:

 

These word-by-word dissections remind me that you could just as well ask this question another way... are you a literalist who sees the world in absolutes of white or black, or do you see the world as flexible in ever-changing shades of gray?

 

The literal will require a signed cache log, the flexible will say that finding the cache is enough. It's less about the guidelines than the personalities.

 

I read this WHOLE thread. I seriously didn't feel like tracking down those IE6 bugs this afternoon at work. The two quotes above are my fav of the topic, and I mostly agree with Bittsen's original view (ducks the onslaught of hard objects).

 

Normally I wouldn't bother to post after a thread had gone so far down the rabbit hole, but I'm feeling saucy today.

 

I believe the original goal of geocaching was having an excuse to use your newly accurate GPS gadget. Not to make people jump through crazy hoops or take crazy risks in the pursuit of some sort of smiley-based scoring system. Having said that I totally understand the evolution. People had to start getting creative in their cache placements to ensure that they didn't disappear and led to a whole other dimension of the game. It just was never the original point and I want uppity COs to remember that. (Although don't get me wrong, I love the evolution and the challenge, personally.)

 

I would also ask the OP the same questions others have asked: why did you hide where/how you hid it? If you want folks to have to climb a tree (or SCUBA dive or venture into a radioactive ruin) then I think that's great. I also think that if you are going to make people do something other than walking/hiking and some amount of pawing around, then you need to say that on the cache page.

 

I would be darned disappointed if I hiked for 3 miles just to find out that then I had to climb a tree, because I'm a cube-jockey and there is no way I'd be able to climb a tree. I wouldn't be pissed because the CO had placed a cache in a tree. I'd be pissed that in choosing caches to do for the day, I chose to center our day around a cache that is a 3 mile hike and was denied because the CO didn't say there would be "vertical scaling" involved. I won't try for a cache that I know darned well that I can't do and then whine about it, but if I make a day out of finding your cache and then find out you played fast and loose with the details, I'm not going to have nice things to say on your cache page.

 

Disclaimer: I did not go and look up the OP's cache. I have no idea if it's a 3 mile hike or 500 ft from another cache to be found on the ground.

 

I point that out because it makes a difference. If you are vague about the details about climbing a tree in a park when I can just shrug and go on to the next, then I won't bat an eye. If you already made me go 3 miles tho....

 

Is this making sense? I'm trying to say that you have to view your cache in the larger picture.

 

To circle back around tho:

  • I personally wouldn't claim a find where I didn't sign the log.
  • I wouldn't delete a similar log on my (one and only) cache.
  • I would have no ethical issue with, if caching in a group, one person shimming up the tree and bringing the log down for us to sign. When I "team cache" we all end up playing a role in the find one way or another, so I think it counts.
  • I don't climb trees, but I may come back with a ladder.
  • I wouldn't claim a DNF if I didn't choose to climb. I found it, after all. I probably wouldn't register anything on the cache page, honestly.

Link to comment

Toz you "used to like to debate" with me when you thought your pointless unsubstantiated drivel of your opinion about what actually transpired, and what "they" meant by the changes, was making any headway.

 

Unfortunatly it is not.

 

Continue to post your verbose history of Geocaching "as you see it" and I will continue to inform the person you are directing it at that they are free to interpret the rules, or choose to believe they actually are rules, and play like they want.

I wil admit I was getting a little frustrated at not making headway. Of course I would like people to understand basic logic. The statement "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed" does not imply that Geocaches cannot be logged as Found if the physical log has not been signed. The guidelines do require physical caches to have a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit. This, along with other statements asking cachers to write something in the log book, indicates an intent that signing the log is part of the experience of finding a cache. Some people are going to insist this is an integral part that if left out means you haven't found the cache. There is not likely much I can say to convince them otherwise; that TPTB have decided to keep silent one way or the other about this doesn't help.

Ironic it seems our positions have reversed. You used to champion "play the way you get the most enjoyment from" while claiming I was "trying to force everyone to play the way I read the rules"

 

Now I am championing "play the way you choose" while you are trying to force everyone to "not play by the way I read the rules, because I am wrong".

If you do not want to log a find because you weren't able to sign the physical log, you are not forced to. There is no way to force someone to log a found log online.

 

I have not said that cache owners are not able to delete logs. The guidelines tell cache owners to not delete the cache seeker's log based solely on optional tasks. You can probably delete a found log where the cache seeker had signed the physical log if you could show it wasn't deleted soley because of failure to do an optional task. Logs which are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not within stated requirements are supposed to be deleted by cache owners. I've expressed an opinion - since the guidelines don't require a signed log in order to post a find, cache owners should not delete found logs solely because the cache finder failed to sign the log. The way the guidelines are written, a cache owner who wants to can delete someone's found log if they did not sign the physical log. Until TPTB change the guidelines to restrict a cache owner's ability to either delete or not delete Found logs base on the signature state of the physical log, nobody is telling any one what to do. If they change the guidelines to tell owners what they can't do or what they must do, I will be happy to point out that they have taken away some of the freedom in playing the game. If there is a rational need for such a guideline change, I might accept it. (It took me a while to understand the rationale of the ALR change but I came to accept it).

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...