Jump to content

Should I delete the FTF?


e-bird67

Recommended Posts

A new cache of mine was published last weekend. Someone logged FTF online within a few hours. Since the cache is near my office, I walked by it that afternoon and saw that it had been slightly moved from where I first placed it. I moved it back and went home. The next morning another cacher logged it online, but also e-mailed me to tell me that the FTF never physically signed the log.

 

Now I am facing a dilemma. If this were not a FTF issue, I might not make a big issue out of it, but if someone doesn't sign the physical log, technically they can't claim the find, right? The FTF said he was jogging when he found it, so perhaps he did not have a pen, but then, isn't it his duty to go find one, or to at least notate on his log why he did not physically sign the log? The confusing thing is that it did appear that he did grab the cache and then put it back in a slightly different place, so why then wouldn't he sign it?

 

I am not sure what to do. Should I delete his log and let the person who actually signed the log claim FTF? I did contact the one who didn't sign the log and ask why he not sign the log, but he has not responded. I am inclined to delete the log, but I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

Link to comment

If he dont respond to your email I would say you could delete it. I have deleted some logs on a couple of caches of mine when I couldn't find a signature and the cacher wouldn't answer emails.

 

A new cache of mine was published last weekend. Someone logged FTF online within a few hours. Since the cache is near my office, I walked by it that afternoon and saw that it had been slightly moved from where I first placed it. I moved it back and went home. The next morning another cacher logged it online, but also e-mailed me to tell me that the FTF never physically signed the log.

 

Now I am facing a dilemma. If this were not a FTF issue, I might not make a big issue out of it, but if someone doesn't sign the physical log, technically they can't claim the find, right? The FTF said he was jogging when he found it, so perhaps he did not have a pen, but then, isn't it his duty to go find one, or to at least notate on his log why he did not physically sign the log? The confusing thing is that it did appear that he did grab the cache and then put it back in a slightly different place, so why then wouldn't he sign it?

 

I am not sure what to do. Should I delete his log and let the person who actually signed the log claim FTF? I did contact the one who didn't sign the log and ask why he not sign the log, but he has not responded. I am inclined to delete the log, but I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

Link to comment

To claim a find you should sign the log book. If you have contacted them and they have failed to respond I would delete.

 

 

I claimed an FTF a year or so back (being first to sign the log book) when i went to log the cache some 12 hours later someone else had already claimed an FTF. I dropped them a line just in case they had signed the back of the book, they never did reply but then deleted their log without replying. Maybe trying to claim it to stop others going out for it.

Link to comment
...but if someone doesn't sign the physical log, technically they can't claim the find, right?

Everything else will be entirely up to you, but I did want to address this point. While the guidelines mention words to the effect of, once a person signs the log they can log it online, there are some in these forums who will argue that the reverse isn't necessarily true. Personally, I won't log any cache unless my moniker graces the log, however there are supposedly many legitimate reasons why a person could not sign a log. If you accept that a person locating the cache, opening it, closing it and returning it constitutes a find, then you should not delete the find log. Being FTF is irrelevant to this issue. If you accept that what this guy did was a find, then he was first. Period. If you do not accept that as a find, then act accordingly. Don't make your decision based on timing. Ask yourself what your response would have been had this occurred several months from now, with several dozen finds already logged. Treat this log the same way.

Link to comment

Any time that we haven't been able to sign a log, we always tell the cache owner in some way; either through email, or in an online log. If he couldn't sign it, he should have told you. And he hasn't gotten back to you.

 

I say delete the log, and if he does get ahold of you then, maybe you can give him another chance to find, sign and log the cache.

Link to comment

I claimed an FTF a year or so back (being first to sign the log book) when i went to log the cache some 12 hours later someone else had already claimed an FTF. I dropped them a line just in case they had signed the back of the book, they never did reply but then deleted their log without replying. Maybe trying to claim it to stop others going out for it.

 

i have that one happen from time to time since i don't own a phone to log from the field and it is sometimes a few hours before i get settled at the computer to log a find... i've had a few sweep in and spackle their log with smilies about how happy they were to be FTL.

 

every now and then it catches an unsuspecting CO off guard and they mark it their page that the "FTL" was the "FTF"... i suppose if ever they get the logbook and read the first page, there'll be some 'splaining to do.

 

i don't know that i'd bother to correct anyone on the FTF for the OP. if the person who was second is that much a hound that his wittle heart is breaking over the issue, give him the FTF... then offer to drive all your next 10 hides by his house so he can sign the logs first.

 

:)

Link to comment

I claimed an FTF a year or so back (being first to sign the log book) when i went to log the cache some 12 hours later someone else had already claimed an FTF. I dropped them a line just in case they had signed the back of the book, they never did reply but then deleted their log without replying. Maybe trying to claim it to stop others going out for it.

 

i have that one happen from time to time since i don't own a phone to log from the field and it is sometimes a few hours before i get settled at the computer to log a find... i've had a few sweep in and spackle their log with smilies about how happy they were to be FTL.

 

every now and then it catches an unsuspecting CO off guard and they mark it their page that the "FTL" was the "FTF"... i suppose if ever they get the logbook and read the first page, there'll be some 'splaining to do.

 

i don't know that i'd bother to correct anyone on the FTF for the OP. if the person who was second is that much a hound that his wittle heart is breaking over the issue, give him the FTF... then offer to drive all your next 10 hides by his house so he can sign the logs first.

 

:)

Link to comment

A new cache of mine was published last weekend. Someone logged FTF online within a few hours. Since the cache is near my office, I walked by it that afternoon and saw that it had been slightly moved from where I first placed it. I moved it back and went home. The next morning another cacher logged it online, but also e-mailed me to tell me that the FTF never physically signed the log.

 

Now I am facing a dilemma. If this were not a FTF issue, I might not make a big issue out of it, but if someone doesn't sign the physical log, technically they can't claim the find, right? The FTF said he was jogging when he found it, so perhaps he did not have a pen, but then, isn't it his duty to go find one, or to at least notate on his log why he did not physically sign the log? The confusing thing is that it did appear that he did grab the cache and then put it back in a slightly different place, so why then wouldn't he sign it?

 

I am not sure what to do. Should I delete his log and let the person who actually signed the log claim FTF? I did contact the one who didn't sign the log and ask why he not sign the log, but he has not responded. I am inclined to delete the log, but I just want to make sure I'm doing the right thing.

 

You're making a big deal out of the fact that this is an FTF, it doesn't matter and should not weigh into the decision.

 

Not in log = delete.

Link to comment

I would say that if you had a type of log where someone could scratch in their name to claim the find it would be ok. I know on my cache I had forgot to add a pen, and someone had to do that. I was able to read it, and they mentioned in their online log. I have no problem with that at all. It really is up to you on how you feel about it. Do you feel that it is important to have the actual log signed in pen, pencil, or sharpie?

Link to comment

While there are some heretics (who seem to have a reading disability) who claim that "It's only a game, and you can do whatever you will", most people accept that signing the log is a prerequisite to logging te find on-line. (At least, those who can read. The others will argue that the sky is yellow, and sun is black, because they enjoy arguing.) That being said: the vaildity of a logged find is between the cache owner and the logger. If the CO accepts the reason offered by the 'finder', that is his/her prerogative. If the CO chooses to delete the log because there is no signature (and I would check the log, page by page to make sure, in this case), that is his/her prerogtive as well. That deletion should hold up on appeal to GS. And, despite the fact that FTF is not recongized by GS, I would be more insistant in an FTF case. Here, your conscience is your guide. Either choice is acceptable.

Yes. I have deleted logs saying "I didn't bother signing the log" .

Link to comment

While there are some heretics (who seem to have a reading disability) who claim that "It's only a game, and you can do whatever you will", most people accept that signing the log is a prerequisite to logging te find on-line. (At least, those who can read. The others will argue that the sky is yellow, and sun is black, because they enjoy arguing.) That being said: the vaildity of a logged find is between the cache owner and the logger. If the CO accepts the reason offered by the 'finder', that is his/her prerogative. If the CO chooses to delete the log because there is no signature (and I would check the log, page by page to make sure, in this case), that is his/her prerogtive as well. That deletion should hold up on appeal to GS. And, despite the fact that FTF is not recongized by GS, I would be more insistant in an FTF case. Here, your conscience is your guide. Either choice is acceptable.

Yes. I have deleted logs saying "I didn't bother signing the log" .

:)

 

(Though I will add that some people define "FTF" as first to sign the log. Since there is no official definition of FTF, this definition seems as valid as any other. However, I do know that you can log found online whether or not you signed the log. I also know that cache owners can delete logs that appear bogus. So it may surprise the marine mammal (since he doesn't seem to read my posts), that I agree a cache owner can delete an online find if the person who posted isn't able to provide adequate proof that they did find the cache).

Link to comment
If it was not to far I would go check the log for myself...

That's what I was thinking. Maybe the FTF signed the back of the log thinking it was the front, and the following finders signed the front and didn't see the signature?

 

It would seem odd that someone would claim a false find on a brand new cache knowing that it's going to get found a lot at first and people could question it.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

While there are some heretics (who seem to have a reading disability) who claim that "It's only a game, and you can do whatever you will", most people accept that signing the log is a prerequisite to logging te find on-line. (At least, those who can read. The others will argue that the sky is yellow, and sun is black, because they enjoy arguing.)

The above contradicts everything here:

That being said: the vaildity of a logged find is between the cache owner and the logger. If the CO accepts the reason offered by the 'finder', that is his/her prerogative. If the CO chooses to delete the log because there is no signature (and I would check the log, page by page to make sure, in this case), that is his/her prerogtive as well. That deletion should hold up on appeal to GS. And, despite the fact that FTF is not recongized by GS, I would be more insistant in an FTF case. Here, your conscience is your guide. Either choice is acceptable.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with the second part.

 

I agree with Scubasonic: check the log yourself first before doing anything.

Link to comment

I am new to this , I am confused by some terminology , FTF is first to find , is FTL first to log ? I personnely don't care about first to find. I am only interested in who signed the log. So I would suggest the gold standard is first to log , rather than first to find. First to find without registering on the log is like making a hole in one when the golf course is empty. Sure it feels great , but it is hard to share with the world. First to log should be the goal here.

Link to comment

If it was not to far I would go check the log for myself if his name was not there I would delete the online log.

 

Scubasonic

 

Absolutely. I would not do anything based simply on the word of the second cacher. If I was inclined to delete the log, I would first check the logsheet personally. The first cacher may have signed the log, then the second cacher could have opened it up and looked at the backside, seen no signature and jumped to conclusions.

 

One day, I had a cache pop up directly on my route to work, about five minutes before I normally left for work. I loaded the coordinates and off I went, arriving about five minutes later. I found a totally black sheet and signed it. Since I had to work, I couldn't log it until about nine hours later. When I got home and went to log it, I was surprised to see that another local cacher had logged that he couldn't believe he was FTF, three hours after it was published. Sure enough, he was looking at the wrong side of the sheet and didn't see my signature.

Link to comment
So I would suggest the gold standard is first to log , rather than first to find.

First to log refers to the first person to hop on a computer, submitting an online log. Often, this is not the first person to sign the logbook. I don't have a smart phone, so if I get an FTF, I wait till my day is done, and I'm sitting at my computer at home, sipping a glass of tea before going on line. Often there are several hours between when I find a cache and when I log it.

Link to comment

The only time I have had this problem was when someone logged online that they were FTF.

The next day a well respected local cacher logged online saying "odd how the log book was blank" when he found it. Keep in mind this cacher has many, many finds and hides and would know enough to check out the entire log book.

I emailed him and asked if he had indeed checked the entire book. He said yes.

 

I decided to take his word for it and not go check the log book for myself.

Instead I emailed the person who logged the FTF and asked him if he had signed the log book and if not, why not?

 

His reply was "I was on a numbers run and didn't have time".

 

So yah. I deleted his log.

 

I also checked my other caches to see if he had logged any of them also. He hadn't. Otherwise I would have checked the physical log books to see if he had signed them.

Link to comment

If it was not to far I would go check the log for myself if his name was not there I would delete the online log.

 

Scubasonic

 

Absolutely. I would not do anything based simply on the word of the second cacher. If I was inclined to delete the log, I would first check the logsheet personally. The first cacher may have signed the log, then the second cacher could have opened it up and looked at the backside, seen no signature and jumped to conclusions.

 

One day, I had a cache pop up directly on my route to work, about five minutes before I normally left for work. I loaded the coordinates and off I went, arriving about five minutes later. I found a totally black sheet and signed it. Since I had to work, I couldn't log it until about nine hours later. When I got home and went to log it, I was surprised to see that another local cacher had logged that he couldn't believe he was FTF, three hours after it was published. Sure enough, he was looking at the wrong side of the sheet and didn't see my signature.

I thought Don would tell the other story. Some friends of our put out a series of cache on a path along a ridge. Some newbie claimed FTF on one cache that was close to the main fire road where the path started. The same day, someone else got FTF on all the other caches on the ridge and in his log mentioned he didn't find the newbie's name in the log. So the cache owner deleted the online log. A few days later, both Don and I went down the path (separately), we each noted the the newbie's name was in the log of cache he had claimed to find. We think the cacher who got FTF on the other caches was just in such a hurry that he didn't see the other name in the log. Needless to say, the cache owner had to write the person whose log was deleted and invite them to log the FTF again.

Link to comment

Maybe I am a stickler for rules but under the CACHE LISTING REQUIREMENTS / GUIDELINES subset LOGGING of ALL PHYSICAL CACHES it says, "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Please note that it say "the physical log has been signed."

 

Bottom line is, if you don't or can't sign the log, don't enter it as found.

Link to comment

Maybe I am a stickler for rules but under the CACHE LISTING REQUIREMENTS / GUIDELINES subset LOGGING of ALL PHYSICAL CACHES it says, "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Please note that it say "the physical log has been signed."

 

Bottom line is, if you don't or can't sign the log, don't enter it as found.

let B = Geocache can be logged online as Found

let A = The physical log has been signed.

 

The guideline is equivalent to: If A then B.

You are claiming: Not A therefore not B.

 

This is called denying the antecedent.

and is faulty logic.

 

However there is an out as far as you are concerned

let C = When pigs fly.

 

Then the statement

C, if not A then not B

would be true.

 

It has been demonstrated many times that people who are unable to sign the log can and often do log a find online and that cache owners most often will not delete the log. What you can point out is that cache owners are allowed to delete logs that appear to be bogus. If a cache owner thinks your log is bogus and you can't prove otherwise (for example by pointing to your signature in the physical log), the online Found log may be deleted. The guideline that you quoted above was added solely to prevent cache owners from placing additional requirements on when you can log a find online.

Link to comment

If it was not to far I would go check the log for myself if his name was not there I would delete the online log.

 

Scubasonic

 

Absolutely. I would not do anything based simply on the word of the second cacher. If I was inclined to delete the log, I would first check the logsheet personally. The first cacher may have signed the log, then the second cacher could have opened it up and looked at the backside, seen no signature and jumped to conclusions.

It could go the other way, too, for that matter. It could be Cacher B got there first but Cacher A missed B's signature, thought he was FTF, and logged online first.

Link to comment

If I were in this situation I would check the physical log as quickly as possible and then delete the FTF from the first guy if there was no signature.

 

As there is some sort of issue here checking the physical log would be my number one priority as I would want to see what state it is in straight away and make sure it only has signatures from person 2 onwards. If you leave it then you risk the FTF guy returning, signing on the back with the letters FTF and having no way to actually solve this dispute. It's unlikely they would, but then you would often say it's unlikely they would log an FTF without it being signed.

 

I would then take a look at the person who was claiming FTF. How many caches do they have under their belt, how many FTFs do they have; are there any issues in the logs of their previous FTFs. Likewise with the second person who found the cache.

 

This jogger who was FTF was aware enough to know that there was a new cache in his area, aware enough to then go and look for it on his jog, and aware enough to sign as an FTF - however he didn't have anything to record this with? I find that odd. Jogging may not mean you carry a pen or a phone with you, but a nearby twig to scratch a corner, or a muddy thumbprint would be adequate - and the fact he knew it was a new release there to be found is unacceptable not to then prove they did find it. The fact here is that there is no proof that this person found the cache other than their log stating they found it first. Without the proof I would happily delete their log.

 

Also, you don't know that it was this person who moved the cache, it could have been a curious badger taking a good sniff at it.

Link to comment

let B = Geocache can be logged online as Found

let A = The physical log has been signed.

 

The guideline is equivalent to: If A then B.

You are claiming: Not A therefore not B.

 

This is called denying the antecedent.

and is faulty logic.

 

However there is an out as far as you are concerned

let C = When pigs fly.

 

Then the statement

C, if not A then not B

would be true.

That is not a "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy as the guideline is not making a logical argument. Denying the Antecedent fallacy logical arguments are of the If/Then variety. The invalid argument goes "If A, then B...If no A then No B". An example from Wikipedia:

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being. Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

 

The statement in the guideline is not logical argument, it's a statement of a precondition: Once A occurs , then B can occur. The line again:

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

The premise in this discussion is that an individual posted a log online without signing the physical log. Question was essentially "Should the online log be deleted because the physical log was not signed." Seems to me that is a perfectly acceptable measure to take based on the guidelines.

 

Do some CO's play it differently? Yep, and they are allowed to do so.

 

However, this is not an example of a Denying the antecedent fallacy.

Link to comment

Do some CO's play it differently? Yep, and they are allowed to do so.

And that is why many of us say it is not required. If it were required by the site, then COs would NOT be allowed to do so.

 

It is the one and only requirement the site will allow the CO to enforce. It is not a blanket requirement for all caches because not all COs will enforce it.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I personally would not pay any attention to the complaining log nor would I go out of my way to verify the other signature. If someone with well over 10,000 finds wants to complain about someone with over 1,000 finds they can go for it and make themselves look silly in the process. As long as they don't try to make my cache page into a forum or flame war I would just ignore it and it will quickly fade away.

Link to comment

let B = Geocache can be logged online as Found

let A = The physical log has been signed.

 

The guideline is equivalent to: If A then B.

You are claiming: Not A therefore not B.

 

This is called denying the antecedent.

and is faulty logic.

 

However there is an out as far as you are concerned

let C = When pigs fly.

 

Then the statement

C, if not A then not B

would be true.

That is not a "Denying the Antecedent" fallacy as the guideline is not making a logical argument. Denying the Antecedent fallacy logical arguments are of the If/Then variety. The invalid argument goes "If A, then B...If no A then No B". An example from Wikipedia:

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being. Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

 

The statement in the guideline is not logical argument, it's a statement of a precondition: Once A occurs , then B can occur. The line again:

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

The premise in this discussion is that an individual posted a log online without signing the physical log. Question was essentially "Should the online log be deleted because the physical log was not signed." Seems to me that is a perfectly acceptable measure to take based on the guidelines.

 

Do some CO's play it differently? Yep, and they are allowed to do so.

 

However, this is not an example of a Denying the antecedent fallacy.

:)

The guideline makes a statement which does not place a precondition on logging a find online. Rather it makes a statement indicating that there can be no other preconditions to logging a find online once the physical log has been signed. So while one could imply that a cache owner has the right to make signing the log a precondition, implying that a cache owner must make signing the physical log a precondition for allowing an online find is denying the antecedent.

 

However my belief, based on comments from Grounspeak lackeys and a reviewer who help draft that guideline, is that the intent of the statement was only to prevent cache owners from enforcing other preconditions. I believe that cache owners should accept online logs so long as they do not appear bogus. I will agree however that the guidelines, as written, allow a cache owner to be a jerk and delete legitimate finds because someone didn't sign the log. The guidelines makes a signed log sufficient proof that you found the cache (resulting in allowing such abuses as getting your buddy to sign your name so you can log a find), they do not make signing the physical log a necessary condition for logging a find online.

Link to comment

Maybe I am a stickler for rules but under the CACHE LISTING REQUIREMENTS / GUIDELINES subset LOGGING of ALL PHYSICAL CACHES it says, "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed."

 

Please note that it say "the physical log has been signed."

 

Bottom line is, if you don't or can't sign the log, don't enter it as found.

let B = Geocache can be logged online as Found

let A = The physical log has been signed.

 

The guideline is equivalent to: If A then B.

You are claiming: Not A therefore not B.

 

This is called denying the antecedent.

and is faulty logic.

 

However there is an out as far as you are concerned

let C = When pigs fly.

 

Then the statement

C, if not A then not B

would be true.

 

It has been demonstrated many times that people who are unable to sign the log can and often do log a find online and that cache owners most often will not delete the log. What you can point out is that cache owners are allowed to delete logs that appear to be bogus. If a cache owner thinks your log is bogus and you can't prove otherwise (for example by pointing to your signature in the physical log), the online Found log may be deleted. The guideline that you quoted above was added solely to prevent cache owners from placing additional requirements on when you can log a find online.

 

No, there is no out as far as I am concerned. I can't think of a single reason that someone would be unable to sign the physical log. There are no excuses for no pen or pencil, or log full.

 

If you log a find on one of my caches and don't sign the physical log, it will be deleted. Sign the physical log and log the find and all is good.

Link to comment

No, there is no out as far as I am concerned. I can't think of a single reason that someone would be unable to sign the physical log. There are no excuses for no pen or pencil, or log full.

 

If you log a find on one of my caches and don't sign the physical log, it will be deleted. Sign the physical log and log the find and all is good.

And that's fine, if that's where you want to draw the line for finds logged on your caches.

 

Other cache owners allow more flexibility in this regard, and that's fine too.

Link to comment

No, there is no out as far as I am concerned. I can't think of a single reason that someone would be unable to sign the physical log. There are no excuses for no pen or pencil, or log full.

The cache is full of water and the logbook has disintegrated, so I empty it, clean it out, and send you a photo. You'd deny that? Maybe you expect all cachers to carry extra log books. But suppose I already used my spare log book for the day on a previous soaked cache?

 

If you log a find on one of my caches and don't sign the physical log, it will be deleted. Sign the physical log and log the find and all is good.

And Groundspeak will probably not stop you from doing so. Maybe even in the situation I described above. But that's still just the requirement for your caches. It says nothing about anyone else's.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

It's interesting that so many are so eager to delete someone's online log.

 

I just checked. I have 5142 logs on my caches. I have deleted 1 in total, (German cacher obviously entered wrong GC#)

 

If this were my cache, I'd email the guy claiming the FTF and ask him remove it from his log. If he didn't, that would be the end of it. If who was FTF on my cache was really important to me, (not), I'd edit my cache description to out the guy and give credit to the other.

 

I have one cache that has five Found logs from a single cacher. This cacher has a total of five finds. It seems that he hikes this trail once a year and only finds my cache. It's no big deal to me. I'd feel like Scrooge if I deleted four of his logs.

Link to comment

 

No, there is no out as far as I am concerned. I can't think of a single reason that someone would be unable to sign the physical log. There are no excuses for no pen or pencil, or log full.

 

If you log a find on one of my caches and don't sign the physical log, it will be deleted. Sign the physical log and log the find and all is good.

 

you can't be serious lmao

a full log is not an excuse? wth am i supposed to sign?

or you expect me to come back and log a DNF and a NM reporting the log in your cache is full, wait for you to replace it and go back out and sign it?

 

but sure i can sign over someone else's signature and make you figure out where i signed, or that is not acceptable either?

 

and no pen is no excuse? hmm you must be the perfect cacher, never been out there with no pen

so what if i don't have a pen but i post a picture of the log, you going to delete my log?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

So, I heard back from the jogger. He realized he didn't have a pen with him and tried to etch something onto the paper log with a stick, said that didn't seem to help, and said that if I wanted to delete his log, he'd understand. The second to find and the first to log online wasn't really adamant that I remove the jogger's online log, and the jogger wasn't adamant that I keep it. Neither party is being unreasonable here. The jogger told me something about the cache that he would not have known had he not seen it. So, I'm still at an impasse.

 

It appears that people interpret the rules, policies, guidelines (I guess I need to know which applies) in different ways. It sounds as if, ultimately, it's up to the individual cache owner as to how he or she wishes to enforce the rules, but, technically, it appears that it is expected that someone will physically log all caches he or she logs online.

 

I guess I am going to have to ponder this a little more. I think I'm actually more worried about it than either of them are.

Link to comment

It's your cache and you ultimately have the determination of how you want to run your cache with situations like this. No one else really has any input on what you ultimately do as long as it is within the guidelines.

 

I'm not sure what the impasse is either. If neither party cares and you feel you have satisfactory answer about him visiting it seems the situation has resolved itself.

Link to comment

Why are you at an impasse? Dude found the cache, tried to sign the log and gave your proof that he really found it. Just leave it there since nobody really cares.

 

You people think too much.

 

Yeah, I probably do. :) I'm a neurotic newbie- isn't that obvious?

 

I think I'll just leave things the way they are. Neither one of them really cares.

 

And now, I'm going to walk over to the fridge and enjoy some good German Hefeweisen.

Link to comment

Sometimes there is a legitimate reason for not signing a log. I could not sign several because they were so wet I could not get them out of the container. I found the cache so I logged online that I found the cache and explained to the CO why I could not sign the log. In the case of a FTF I would check the log in the cache, and if it's not signed and no explanation for not signing I would delete it.

Link to comment

No, there is no out as far as I am concerned. I can't think of a single reason that someone would be unable to sign the physical log. There are no excuses for no pen or pencil, or log full.

 

There are plenty of such reasons. Usually related to the condition of the cache itself.

 

I logged a cache once when I was physically unable to open the container which contained the log.

 

It was a wonderful little puzzle cache, where the container was essentially a 4 inch hex nut, welded to a metal plate, with the end of a bolt screwed into it, all of which was magnetically attached to - i think - a radio tower, so the container appeared to be one of the bots holding the tower to the base.

 

Sadly the summer heat had caused the different types of metal to expand at different rates, and i just couldn't get it unscrewed.

 

It's up to the owner of course, but I'd have a hard time telling someone they couldn't log my cache under those kind of circumstances.

Link to comment
...but if someone doesn't sign the physical log, technically they can't claim the find, right?

Everything else will be entirely up to you, but I did want to address this point. While the guidelines mention words to the effect of, once a person signs the log they can log it online, there are some in these forums who will argue that the reverse isn't necessarily true. Personally, I won't log any cache unless my moniker graces the log, however there are supposedly many legitimate reasons why a person could not sign a log. If you accept that a person locating the cache, opening it, closing it and returning it constitutes a find, then you should not delete the find log. Being FTF is irrelevant to this issue. If you accept that what this guy did was a find, then he was first. Period. If you do not accept that as a find, then act accordingly. Don't make your decision based on timing. Ask yourself what your response would have been had this occurred several months from now, with several dozen finds already logged. Treat this log the same way.

 

Well then, how does the guy not signing the log know he was first? Perhaps, three other joggers came by and found it first but also didn't sign the log.

 

No sig, no find, especially if you're claiming FTF rights.

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...