So am I being UNFAIR

[+bladesedge]

Yeah you need to be able to maintain any of your caches as a CO. Or, have someone else closer to it that can check on it for you.

 

Several caches in my area are maintained by relatives of the CO.

 

I believe the same as everyone else - check the physical log.

[vagabond]

Strange, I had a similar problem earlier this month and the cacher had 13 finds also.

I checked the log sheets and he hadn't signed the logs of the 2 caches he had claimed to find. I emailed him and explained the problem, and if he could tell me where he had found the caches I'd let the logs stand, he emailed me back stating that he had driven by and logged them with his phone.

I waited a week and no answer so i deleted the logs.

[4wheelin_fool]

Are you playing by Tournament Rules, or hobby guidelines? They might have logged it accidentally, but I wouldn't get upset about it.

 

After waiting a few days for text to appear, you should have just sent a blank e-mail to the cacher, and then deleted the find. If they asked why, insist that it was actually part of a bug in the system with the newest update which kicks back blank logs, and blame it on Jeremy.

[Clan Riffster]

No deep breaths required. OP did the right thing.

Well, on this, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

1 ) The OP hid a cache they are unwilling or unable to maintain in a timely manner.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

2 ) The OP made a twisted logic leap, assuming that a blank digital log must equal a bogus find.

This has been proven to be patently false, time and time again.

 

3 ) The OP deleted a find without bothering to check to see if it was bogus.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

4 ) The OP came to the forums for advice, then became petulant when given it.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

But, obviously, your mileage varies, so we'll just shake and walk away.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

 

 

1 ) The OP hid a cache they are unwilling or unable to maintain in a timely manner.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

2 ) The OP made a twisted logic leap, assuming that a blank digital log must equal a bogus find.

This has been proven to be patently false, time and time again.

 

3 ) The OP deleted a find without bothering to check to see if it was bogus.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

4 ) The OP came to the forums for advice, then became petulant when given it.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

But, obviously, your mileage varies, so we'll just shake and walk away.

 

We see your unfounded assumptions as a bad thing.

 

1. Cache maintenance not an issue here.

2. No twisted logic leaps here.

3. Finder was given opportunity to clear matter up, declined.

4. Petulance shown here is understandable, given snarky comments made.

 

No mileage, no shaking, no walking required.

[+lil_cav_wings]

I agree with NYPaddleCacher. It's very possible to cache in on country in the morning, and hop the redeye flight to another. That might be a totally genuine log that you deleted without checking. That would upset me too, especially if I was a new cacher in Europe who made a trip to visit family in the states and did a little caching on the side. Between the language barriers and the frustration of having my log deleted by the CO, I'd cut attitude in an email too.

 

It's better to simply take the higher road, and don't do anything until you have the time and money available to go check on your cache. You can even explain that in the email. "Hey, I would normally go check on the cache to determine the validity of a find, but things have been rough lately and I can't leave my ill father. Would you do me a huge favor and just describe the cache as best you can, and I'll let this all slide until I can get the time to check the cache logs? Thanks."

 

It's one flippin' log on your cache... get over it. This isn't trade negotiations with a former Soviet bloc country that you're doing here. Sometimes, things can wait.

[+M 5]

As stated in the guidelines. "if it appears to be bogus". Just like virtuals that are famously couch logged and have NO physical log and are commonly deleted for the different country on the same day scenario. That said, I would(and do) check the log, but the guidelines leave room for that interpretation.

I just had that happen last night, I checked this morning and there are names on the log, but not the GC.com names (i'm sure it was a group). There was another they logged in the same park, and the said cacher also left a blank online log, but this one had 4 different names, but one very close to his screen name. Not sure why he didn't sign the other the same way. Since it annoys me that people leave blank logs, I emailed the cacher in question, and asked if there was a mistake in logging. I'll see how it develops. The cache is hard, and people have broke the container several times, and have now compromised the difficulty by leaving hints in their online logs. I guess at least the blank log didn't give away any hints. So maybe I should be happy?

[+sbell111]

1 ) The OP hid a cache they are unwilling or unable to maintain in a timely manner.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

2 ) The OP made a twisted logic leap, assuming that a blank digital log must equal a bogus find.

This has been proven to be patently false, time and time again.

 

3 ) The OP deleted a find without bothering to check to see if it was bogus.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

4 ) The OP came to the forums for advice, then became petulant when given it.

I see this as a bad thing.

 

But, obviously, your mileage varies, so we'll just shake and walk away.

We see your unfounded assumptions as a bad thing.

 

1. Cache maintenance not an issue here.

2. No twisted logic leaps here.

3. Finder was given opportunity to clear matter up, declined.

4. Petulance shown here is understandable, given snarky comments made.

 

No mileage, no shaking, no walking required.

Given that the log contained no spoilers or potty talk, the guidelines state that it must be allowed if the physical logbook was signed. The guidelines also state that cache owners can establish no requirements beyond signing the logbook. Therefore, the log should not have been deleted without the cache owner first verifying that the physical log was not signed. Requiring a cache finder to respond to a cache owner's email to allow a find to stand in situations where the logbook was signed constitutes an ALR, which is verboten per the guidelines.

 

Didn't we just do this thread?

Edited December 29, 2010 by sbell111

[+kunarion]

It's very possible to cache in on country in the morning, and hop the redeye flight to another. That might be a totally genuine log that you deleted without checking. That would upset me too, especially if I was a new cacher in Europe who made a trip to visit family in the states and did a little caching on the side. Between the language barriers and the frustration of having my log deleted by the CO, I'd cut attitude in an email too.

That's the weird thing about these cachers from Europe who suddenly develop a find in Hooterville, USA, out of the blue (there have been a couple of mentions of instances just like this, on these forums). I mean, if I flew to Amsterdam, then drove to the boondocks and logged a cache there, I'd have photos, and a story to tell. Like "Thanks for the cache. I flew all the way from Hooterville USA to log this one in particular." I just could not leave it at a "TFTC", even from a phone. I'd have to visit the web site and add something.

 

But even if it were just a "TFTC", if the Cache Owner decided to delete my online log because of such imperious urgency that they can't even bother to find a local cacher to go check the log, I'd be more than ticked.

Edited December 29, 2010 by kunarion

[Sandy]

Closing thread. Questioned answered. Discussion digressing.