Jump to content

cachers not following page guidelines


KBLAST

Recommended Posts

I am going to admit up front that this is partly motivated by selfish intentions, but it is also a serious issue.

 

Last night a cache published that said "no night caching, park closes at dark." I am a FTF hound, but I follow the rules, so I waited unt morning. Two people went and got it late last night, and one admitted they were trying to get their first FTF so they tweaked the rules a little.

 

Selfishly, this makes me upset that I followed the rules and someone else got FTF. That's just a silly non-Groundspeak deal, so that's not as important as my other issue.

 

If I get permission to place a cache and the property managers don't want people there after dark, and people go anyway, that's a black eye on geocaching and may require me to pull my cache. This makes me a little angry.

 

The big question is, I've seen caches that say that if you break the law or property rules you can have your log deleted. Is that an ALR, or is it legitimate to delete logs when these things come up? And if someone does the cache again, do we let that log stand? What is the proper thing to do?

Link to comment

I think it is OK to delete the logs IF YOU CAN PROVE THAT THE CACHERS VIOLATED THE LAWS. When they find it again (without violating the laws of course) they can "keep" their logs.

 

But, as I said, it's just MY opinion. :)

 

Two people went and got it late last night, and one admitted they were trying to get their first FTF so they tweaked the rules a little.
Link to comment

"Page guidelines" are basically ALRs. However, some of them are carefully written to ensure that you remain legal/don't cause damage/whatever.

 

The issue here is not that the people broke the page guidelines, but that they broke the law. Sure, trespass in a park at night isn't such a big deal compared to murder, but they still broke the law in order to take part in this game.

 

Personally I would delete a log that says "I broke the law but I got this cache"...

 

But you are also right that FTF is not something to get hung up on. I have never had an FTF, but that doesn't mean that i haven't enjoyed myself finding caches.

 

Z.

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

I vote for this as the best answer.

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

Link to comment
I am going to admit up front that this is partly motivated by selfish intentions, but it is also a serious issue.

 

Last night a cache published that said "no night caching, park closes at dark." I am a FTF hound, but I follow the rules, so I waited unt morning. Two people went and got it late last night, and one admitted they were trying to get their first FTF so they tweaked the rules a little.

 

Selfishly, this makes me upset that I followed the rules and someone else got FTF. That's just a silly non-Groundspeak deal, so that's not as important as my other issue.

 

If I get permission to place a cache and the property managers don't want people there after dark, and people go anyway, that's a black eye on geocaching and may require me to pull my cache. This makes me a little angry.

 

The big question is, I've seen caches that say that if you break the law or property rules you can have your log deleted. Is that an ALR, or is it legitimate to delete logs when these things come up? And if someone does the cache again, do we let that log stand? What is the proper thing to do?

To the OP:

 

Out of curiosity, has the FTF log been deleted from the cache page? I think I know which cache you're referring to. I see follow-up logs that mention the FTF log, but the FTF log itself seems to be missing now.

 

--Larry

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

Link to comment
If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

 

They couldn't anyhow. Trespassing is a misdemeanor for a Peace Officer to make an arrest he has to have reasonable cause to believe it was committed in his presence. Besides even if they read the log how would they know who you are. i would't worry about them reading the logs.

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

I think briansnat is more concerned that the authorities will take away permission to place caches in the parks they manage if the see geocachers are not following park rules.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
I am going to admit up front that this is partly motivated by selfish intentions, but it is also a serious issue.

 

Last night a cache published that said "no night caching, park closes at dark." I am a FTF hound, but I follow the rules, so I waited unt morning. Two people went and got it late last night, and one admitted they were trying to get their first FTF so they tweaked the rules a little.

 

Selfishly, this makes me upset that I followed the rules and someone else got FTF. That's just a silly non-Groundspeak deal, so that's not as important as my other issue.

 

If I get permission to place a cache and the property managers don't want people there after dark, and people go anyway, that's a black eye on geocaching and may require me to pull my cache. This makes me a little angry.

 

The big question is, I've seen caches that say that if you break the law or property rules you can have your log deleted. Is that an ALR, or is it legitimate to delete logs when these things come up? And if someone does the cache again, do we let that log stand? What is the proper thing to do?

To the OP:

 

Out of curiosity, has the FTF log been deleted from the cache page? I think I know which cache you're referring to. I see follow-up logs that mention the FTF log, but the FTF log itself seems to be missing now.

 

--Larry

Larry... Yeah, that's the right cache you're looking at. FTF has not posted yet, just STF saying they missed the FTF.

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

I think briansnat is more concerned that the authorities will take away permission to place caches in the parks they manage if the see geocachers are not following park rules.

If you have to explain that you are probably wasting your time.

Link to comment

I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.

 

It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.

If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.

 

It's more about the perception that we are lawbreakers. We try, through CITO and other methods, to project the image of being good citizens. It only takes one incident mentioned in a log to undermine years of working toward a positive image with a land manager.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it.
That's what I've done. Not for after-hours FTFs, but for other after-hours finds.

 

As a side note, when I've had a cache published in an area with restricted hours, I've asked my reviewer to publish the listing during the hours the cache is available. That helps avoid an after-hours FTF race, but you can't do anything to stop other after-hours searches.

 

As a practical matter, deleting the after-hours FTF log and making the finder go back to your cache before he can get a smiley seems risky. Do you really want to anger someone who has demonstrated (1) that he knows where your cache is, and (2) that he has little respect for laws and others' property? Do you really want to insist that such a person return to your cache site?

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

I am an admitted FTF hound and have done some crazy things for FTFs because I think the race is fun. But I follow the rules when I do it. This isn't a HUGE deal, and I don't want to make this incident the issue. I'm actually mostly concerned about a cache I'm posting in the next week. It will be the first Wherigo in central Ohio if it all works out. But the cache is on a trail that passes by some community backyards. If people go after this hour long cache with flashlights and wandering around near the neighbors when my page clearly says the area is closed, there is a serious possibility my months of hard work will be wiped out the first night it is available.

Link to comment

As a retiree volunteer reviewer with a fair amount of schedule flexibility, I hold cache pages until daytime if they are marked no night caching, not 24/7 or with text indicating daylight hours only. I started that after an incident much like the one described in the OP, except that the park ranger was waiting for the FTF cacher at his car by the locked gate. Busted! :)

 

Many cachers and volunteer reviewers work hard to maintain good relationships with property stewards, so I limit temptation when I can.

 

Please also note that most volunteer reviewers have to juggle reviewing with work and family activities and therefore cannot do what I do. In the end it is the cacher's responsibility to respect the rules.

 

edit: inserted missing word

Edited by gpsfun
Link to comment

Unfortunately, being a volunteer cache reviewer does not pay well enough to permit me to quit my day job. And, the website functions poorly on my computer at the office where I am paid to sit 50 hours per week. So, I often find myself publishing caches in parks and cemeteries late at night, such as the cache that is the subject of this thread.

 

If and when Geocaching.com were to implement a tool that allowed me to say "publish this cache tomorrow morning at 7:00," I would certainly make use of it for caches like this one. Until then I will continue to rely on geocachers being ethical. I have no problem with a cache owner who deletes logs that clearly indicate that the cache was found in violation of applicable laws.

Link to comment
I'm generally against deleting legit found it logs, but if I see mention of someone breaking a law or park rule in their log I will ask him to remove the reference. If he refuses then I will delete it. It's stupid enough to break a rule to find a cache, but bragging about it in your log is even dumber. The authorities do read logs.
If the authorities bust you for trespassing based on a log on a forum then they have WAY to much time on their hands.
It's more about the perception that we are lawbreakers. We try, through CITO and other methods, to project the image of being good citizens. It only takes one incident mentioned in a log to undermine years of working toward a positive image with a land manager.

 

Can I just bump in here to say that briansnat has been looking in my head again for answers?

Link to comment

Unfortunately, being a volunteer cache reviewer does not pay well enough to permit me to quit my day job. And, the website functions poorly on my computer at the office where I am paid to sit 50 hours per week. So, I often find myself publishing caches in parks and cemeteries late at night, such as the cache that is the subject of this thread.

 

If and when Geocaching.com were to implement a tool that allowed me to say "publish this cache tomorrow morning at 7:00," I would certainly make use of it for caches like this one. Until then I will continue to rely on geocachers being ethical. I have no problem with a cache owner who deletes logs that clearly indicate that the cache was found in violation of applicable laws.

 

As the subject of publish time does come up with a fair amount of regularity has GS considered giving you such a tool?

Link to comment

If cache finds can be deleted because someone broke the law to get the cache then we are going to head off to a slippery slope.

 

Speeding to get a FTF... Deleted log.

Went through a yellow light to get to the cache... Deleted log

Stepped onto a property that had a no trespassing sign (and the cache isn't on private property)... Deleted log.

Made too much noise (where a noise ordinance exists) because you finally found a cache after searching for an hour... Deleted log

 

Slippery slope... Deleted log.

 

Regardless of WHY it should be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed. We are NOT police, and certainly not judges. We do NOT get to determine whether or not someone broke a law even if they are stupid enough to brag about it.

 

The rules are, as follows...

Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley...

 

I don't care what briansnat thinks on the issue. Although he is a very respectable individual, in this instance he's wrong.

Link to comment

... I'm actually mostly concerned about a cache I'm posting in the next week. It will be the first Wherigo in central Ohio if it all works out.

Very cool! I haven't had a chance to go for a Wherigo cache yet, simply because there haven't been any hidden anywhere near this area. If at all possible, I'll be one of the first to try out your cache once it gets published. And I'm notorious for following the rules, so no worries about my skulking around people's back yards with a flashlight. Now if we can get certain not-to-be-named FTF hounds to pay attention... :)

 

--Larry

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

Link to comment

I am going to admit up front that this is partly motivated by selfish intentions, but it is also a serious issue.

 

Last night a cache published that said "no night caching, park closes at dark." I am a FTF hound, but I follow the rules, so I waited unt morning. Two people went and got it late last night, and one admitted they were trying to get their first FTF so they tweaked the rules a little.

 

Selfishly, this makes me upset that I followed the rules and someone else got FTF. That's just a silly non-Groundspeak deal, so that's not as important as my other issue.

 

If I get permission to place a cache and the property managers don't want people there after dark, and people go anyway, that's a black eye on geocaching and may require me to pull my cache. This makes me a little angry.

 

The big question is, I've seen caches that say that if you break the law or property rules you can have your log deleted. Is that an ALR, or is it legitimate to delete logs when these things come up? And if someone does the cache again, do we let that log stand? What is the proper thing to do?

 

Whoever signs the log first is the FTF end of story. JMO

 

(coming from a true FTF Hound)

 

Scubasonic

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

WOW, you lost your job??

 

***just kidding.

Link to comment

If cache finds can be deleted because someone broke the law to get the cache then we are going to head off to a slippery slope.

 

Speeding to get a FTF... Deleted log.

Went through a yellow light to get to the cache... Deleted log

Stepped onto a property that had a no trespassing sign (and the cache isn't on private property)... Deleted log.

Made too much noise (where a noise ordinance exists) because you finally found a cache after searching for an hour... Deleted log

 

Slippery slope... Deleted log.

 

Regardless of WHY it should be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed. We are NOT police, and certainly not judges. We do NOT get to determine whether or not someone broke a law even if they are stupid enough to brag about it.

 

The rules are, as follows...

Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley...

 

I don't care what briansnat thinks on the issue. Although he is a very respectable individual, in this instance he's wrong.

Bittsen you make a great point. Maybe I'm not as innocent as I think I am. I guess the best I can really do is hope people are at least trying not to get caught so they won't cause problems.

Link to comment

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

I carefully maneuvered my 32' bobtail donation truck into a small cul-de-sac that had an island in the middle with an oak tree. It was so tight that I couldn't even open my door, so I sent my helper out to grab the donor's two bags of clothes. I knew that there was a cache in the oak, but was still surprised to see it hanging one foot outside of my window. Reached out the window, grabbed it, signed the log and returned it all from the seat of the truck.

 

I guess I could have been fired for caching on company time. :)

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

You have never known such a person, never.

 

You might have known someone who used company resources in a manner that violated company polices and by doing so was grounds for termination.

 

I have seen more than one person make that trip out the door.

Link to comment
I don't care what briansnat thinks on the issue. Although he is a very respectable individual, in this instance he's wrong.
Bittsen you make a great point. Maybe I'm not as innocent as I think I am. I guess the best I can really do is hope people are at least trying not to get caught so they won't cause problems.
We try, through CITO and other methods, to project the image of being good citizens. It only takes one incident mentioned in a log to undermine years of working toward a positive image with a land manager.

 

So (using your broad-brush logic) making a good impressing on land managers is a bad thing? I personally dislike sweeping black-and-white rules. My teenage son tries to get me to make hard and fast rules just so he can find loopholes or use extreme examples to show why the rule is bad.

 

Let me show you an example. You said "Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

Let's say those are the rules. Someone actually asked me once if I could take the APE cache I hid to some big picnic gathering mega event. If I had taken it to the event, people would have been able to find it there, sign the log, log online and get the smiley. Is that fair? No? OK - let's enhance the rule: "Find the cache in its original location, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

But what if someone moves it, or the owner moves it and it's easier to find? "Find the cache in its original location as placed by the owner, sign log, log online, get smiley..."

 

But what if the log book is soaking wet, and the paper crumbles - can't I drop a business card with my signature and date in the cache? "Find the cache in its original location as placed by the owner, sign log as best as you can or give documentation that you were actually at the location with the container in your hand, log online, get smiley..."

 

You see how this happens - and how the guidelines got to be so long?

 

I posted it two days ago:

Wait - You want people to use their brains instead of having a rule set up for them telling them what they should and shouldn't do? The guidelines would be much shorter if everyone did that. Right now, the Listing Guidelines have 5,269 words and 31,609 characters with spaces (discounting the Table of Contents and the "Return to Table of Contents" messages). In trimming out the examples and specifics and making the statements generalities, I got it down to 700 words - just over 4,000 characters with spaces. But some people LIVE to push the envelope or dance on the "acceptable" line. They have to have things spelled out exactly for them.

 

Rather than worrying about a rule that says "If someone breaks the law delete their log" or a rule that says "You cannot delete the log if someone breaks the law", why not leave it up to the individual situation with the cache owner. Personally, I worked long and hard with the management of one of the local forest preserves (think years) and they are now some of the most proactive in cache placement. If someone came along and said "I busted into the forest preserve in the middle of the night to get the cache" - I'd delete the log as an act of good faith with the forest preserve. If someone said they ran a yellow light to get to the cache, so what?

 

I'm a big boy and can decide which logs should be deleted to best work with the land managers. I would hazard a guess that Groundspeak would back up my decision to delete the log that talked of breaking park rules to get a find.

 

And by the way - I've had to, and they did.

Link to comment

If cache finds can be deleted because someone broke the law to get the cache then we are going to head off to a slippery slope.

 

Speeding to get a FTF... Deleted log.

Went through a yellow light to get to the cache... Deleted log

Stepped onto a property that had a no trespassing sign (and the cache isn't on private property)... Deleted log.

Made too much noise (where a noise ordinance exists) because you finally found a cache after searching for an hour... Deleted log

 

Slippery slope... Deleted log.

 

Regardless of WHY it should be allowed, it shouldn't be allowed. We are NOT police, and certainly not judges. We do NOT get to determine whether or not someone broke a law even if they are stupid enough to brag about it.

 

The rules are, as follows...

Find cache, sign log, log online, get smiley...

 

I don't care what briansnat thinks on the issue. Although he is a very respectable individual, in this instance he's wrong.

 

An exception has recently been posted. You are dead wrong.

 

Don't shoot the messenger. :)

 

Thanks.

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

You have never known such a person, never.

 

You might have known someone who used company resources in a manner that violated company polices and by doing so was grounds for termination.

 

I have seen more than one person make that trip out the door.

 

He was fired for misuse of company resources, the company car and his time that the company was paying for.

He was using those resources to geocache.

He was fired for geocaching.

 

Not hard to follow that logic, now is it? Doesn't matter what corporate speak you want to use to describe the situation.

Link to comment

I'm a big boy and can decide which logs should be deleted to best work with the land managers. I would hazard a guess that Groundspeak would back up my decision to delete the log that talked of breaking park rules to get a find.

 

And by the way - I've had to, and they did.

 

Um, most of us aren't moderators and probably wouldn't get the same backup.

 

Having said that, I really don't have a dog in the fight but really dislike the whole policy, being portrayed by members of GS staff, of we can do whatever we want if it's "in the best interest of geocaching" being used as a tool.

 

But, hey, I don't own the game. I just think it's lame practices.

 

ALR's aren't allowed... unless they are in the best interest of geocaching...

Yeah, that sort of sums it up, doesn't it?

Link to comment

He was fired for misuse of company resources, the company car and his time that the company was paying for.

He was using those resources to geocache.

He was fired for geocaching.

 

Not hard to follow that logic, now is it? Doesn't matter what corporate speak you want to use to describe the situation.

 

Any great employee who was caught geocaching on the company dime and fired wasn't really a great employee, were they?

 

Geocaching might have been a contributing factor but probably not the only reason. Maybe their productivity was down (possibly because they were too busy geocaching).

Link to comment

If the cache was published after closing hours of the park and it was logged before it opened that would be good enough to believe that they had trespassed. The froggie has never been one to approve a cache that has a trespassing issue (there are a couple here that the CO said ignore the no trespassing sign, obviously the language was changed after publishing). When a reviewer was notified action was quick and decisive.

 

Given how long you have been caching I am a bit surprised you haven't reached the logical conclusion that the FTF hounds are a bit irrational. I have seen logs where they say called in sick to do it or left work w/o the boss noticing and even more ridiculous actions.

 

I knew a guy that lost his job after 12 years all because he was caching on company time in the company car.

 

Scubasonic

 

You have never known such a person, never.

 

You might have known someone who used company resources in a manner that violated company polices and by doing so was grounds for termination.

 

I have seen more than one person make that trip out the door.

 

He was fired for misuse of company resources, the company car and his time that the company was paying for.

He was using those resources to geocache.

He was fired for geocaching.

 

Not hard to follow that logic, now is it? Doesn't matter what corporate speak you want to use to describe the situation.

 

Well, yes that 'logic' IS in fact impossible to follow.

 

Nice try though. :)

Link to comment
ALR's aren't allowed... unless they are in the best interest of geocaching...

 

Can you give an example of when an ALR has been allowed by the froggie under that claim. If you can't then there is no basis for the statement

 

Enforcing the idea that cachers should not enter an area that is officially closed, is NOT an ALR.

 

Additional Logging Requirements are tasks that must be performed after finding the cache and before logging online. The term has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

Edit to fix the quotes...

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

I knew a guy once who got fired for using a company gas card to purchase gas for his personal vehicle.

 

People said that he got fired for buying gas.

 

They were just as wrong. :);):P:ph34r:

 

That's right. He was fired for buying gas. The details of the crime showed he was using his company card to do it without authorization. He was still buying gas.

 

He was fired for unauthorized use of a company credit card and theft from the company. Whether gas or grass or ... well, the same result. The gas had nothing to do with it.

Link to comment
On the cache page, I'd give props the the FTF who found the cache during approved hours.

 

FTF goes to "blank" who read the rules and obeyed the law while finding this cache.

I wouldn't do that. That's just asking for unnecessary drama.

 

You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

Link to comment
On the cache page, I'd give props the the FTF who found the cache during approved hours.

 

FTF goes to "blank" who read the rules and obeyed the law while finding this cache.

I wouldn't do that. That's just asking for unnecessary drama.

You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

I do, but the cacher who found the cache while breaking the rules may not.

Link to comment
On the cache page, I'd give props the the FTF who found the cache during approved hours.

 

FTF goes to "blank" who read the rules and obeyed the law while finding this cache.

I wouldn't do that. That's just asking for unnecessary drama.

 

You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

 

Just as there is no difference between a car with 10 miles vs a car with 100,000 miles.

Link to comment
On the cache page, I'd give props the the FTF who found the cache during approved hours.

 

FTF goes to "blank" who read the rules and obeyed the law while finding this cache.

I wouldn't do that. That's just asking for unnecessary drama.

 

You do all realize that there is no difference between first to find and twenty-ninth to find, right?

 

Sure there is a difference. FTF get their choice of all the neat and high quality swag like led flashlights, glow sticks, freshly loaded Starbucks cards, and maybe an unactivated geocoin and a dry logbook. Twenty-ninth to find gets their choice of broken McToys, plastic solders, used concert tickets, parking garage receipts, dirty golf balls and a damp logbook. But other than that there is no difference. :)

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...