Geocaching rules debate please respond

April 6, 2011

Show me where it is spelled out, or even implied anywhere, where you can log online WITHOUT signing the logbook.

You are the one that said something was spelled out. I asked you to point to this and then you flip it and ask me to show where it spells out you can log online without signing the logbook. I never said that was spelled out anywhere, so why are you asking me that? Is it because you cannot find where it is spelled out that you cannot log online without signing the logbook? Care to change your previous statement?

Its copied and pasted from the guidelines too many times in this post already. If you really haven't read the guidelines posted. Just scroll back aways.

Perhaps my reading skills are not what they used to be. Can you please copy and paste it one more time for clarification?

5k · April 6, 2011

At this point I may let the one guys stand as his were before I took it over, the problem with that is then I have to listen to the one that didn't update their PQ and "found" it after it was disabled complain that she thinks it isn't right that the other stand when hers doesn't, which is why I deleted everyone clear back to the last smiley and my didn't find attempt in 2009. Darn'ed if I do darn'ed if I don't.

Deleting finds from over a year ago is not really a good thing to do. Those issues should be addressed when they occur. If the last owner let them stand, let it go. I'm curious how long ago the one with the outdated PQ logged it.

We had a local cacher post a note to his T5 cache that it had come to his attention that someone had replaced his cache over two years ago and since all of the finders after that had not found "his" cache, he was going to delete all of their logs. One of our reviewers quickly archived the cache and locked it.

I just think that deleting logs from months or years past is a refection on you for not performing your duties as a cache owner, one of which is monitoring the logs.

5k · April 6, 2011

When I was in class I always played special attention to the bolded words. Usually were important. The rule is Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.. You shouldn't have to also state the opposite. It is implied. Although it allows armchair lawyers to try and bend the "rules" to their own interests.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

Is not the same statement as:

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" only if the physical log has been signed.

If GS wanted the latter, they would have worded it as such.

April 7, 2011

When I was in class I always played special attention to the bolded words. Usually were important. The rule is Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.. You shouldn't have to also state the opposite. It is implied. Although it allows armchair lawyers to try and bend the "rules" to their own interests.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

Is not the same statement as:

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" only if the physical log has been signed.

If GS wanted the latter, they would have worded it as such.

That's what I said. But M5 claims that GS has spelled it out already. I just can't find it and he won't post it.

20.7k · April 7, 2011

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

April 7, 2011

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Edited April 7, 2011 by M 5

April 7, 2011

I think you're being unreasonable. It should really only be your call if they found it while you were the owner. And if you had a problem with their log, you should have let them know right away!

Geocaching is what you make of it. some people interpret it differently. By deleting the logs, you are doing nothing to help you/your cache and you are only hurting them.

I think that what you did is a pretty low blow and you had no right to do it.

Edited April 8, 2011 by spraginator89

2.1k · April 7, 2011

In short, you're being a douchbag.

That's a pretty offensive word, even misspelled. And a personal attack, to boot.

20.7k · April 7, 2011

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

April 7, 2011

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

They didn't just break them out in the knowledge books. The original change of wording for ALRs was in the Hiding a cache section which was guidelines for the CO. So they could no longer disallow smileys for ALR's. They then put similar verbage, Maybe the same I forget, into the "logging section" which now covered finders as well as CO's. There are many old arguments on here in many many threads before the KB upgrade that the oft quoted section was for hiders, not finders. That is no longer a true statement. And it is plain as day what it means to me.

April 7, 2011

The only thing the guidelines say is that if you sign the physical log you are guaranteed the right to log a find online regardless of any extra requirements someone may want to enforce. It doesn't say you have to log your find online and it doesn't say the owner cannot accept some other proof. But it does mean that if you do not sign the log then you are at the mercy of the cache owner. You should have no expectatin that GC will help you out if you didn't sign the logbook.

20.7k · April 7, 2011

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

They didn't just break them out in the knowledge books. The original change of wording for ALRs was in the Hiding a cache section which was guidelines for the CO. So they could no longer disallow smileys for ALR's. They then put similar verbage, Maybe the same I forget, into the "logging section" which now covered finders as well as CO's. There are many old arguments on here in many many threads before the KB upgrade that the oft quoted section was for hiders, not finders. That is no longer a true statement. And it is plain as day what it means to me.

Here's the thing: TPTB have made it very clear what that bit of the guidelines means. Until they pop in and let us know that it now means something else, your argument holds no water.

5.3k · April 7, 2011

Fizzy's rule: When the ratio of quoted text to new text is greater than 5 to 1, productive discussion is finished.

I really don't understand why people find it so difficult to edit quotes.

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

They didn't just break them out in the knowledge books. The original change of wording for ALRs was in the Hiding a cache section which was guidelines for the CO. So they could no longer disallow smileys for ALR's. They then put similar verbage, Maybe the same I forget, into the "logging section" which now covered finders as well as CO's. There are many old arguments on here in many many threads before the KB upgrade that the oft quoted section was for hiders, not finders. That is no longer a true statement. And it is plain as day what it means to me.

Here's the thing: TPTB have made it very clear what that bit of the guidelines means. Until they pop in and let us know that it now means something else, your argument holds no water.

See the top of the post.

April 7, 2011

do as I say, not as I do I guess

April 7, 2011

do as I say, not as I do I guess

Not sure what you mean by that.

But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand.

If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere.

If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere.

If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger.

20.7k · April 7, 2011

Fizzy's rule: When the ratio of quoted text to new text is greater than 5 to 1, productive discussion is finished.

I really don't understand why people find it so difficult to edit quotes.

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

They didn't just break them out in the knowledge books. The original change of wording for ALRs was in the Hiding a cache section which was guidelines for the CO. So they could no longer disallow smileys for ALR's. They then put similar verbage, Maybe the same I forget, into the "logging section" which now covered finders as well as CO's. There are many old arguments on here in many many threads before the KB upgrade that the oft quoted section was for hiders, not finders. That is no longer a true statement. And it is plain as day what it means to me.

Here's the thing: TPTB have made it very clear what that bit of the guidelines means. Until they pop in and let us know that it now means something else, your argument holds no water.

See the top of the post.

Your 'rule' makes no sense. The reason that people frequently quote an entire sequence of posts is twofold. First, it allows new readers to obtain the entire context of the discussion. Second, it makes it more difficult for someone to twist someone's position. Third, it's easy.

April 7, 2011

do as I say, not as I do I guess

Not sure what you mean by that.

But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand.

If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere.

If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere.

If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger.

clueless

April 7, 2011

After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find because they found some of the contents on the ground (no log just trinkets)

Per the Guidelines, the choice was yours to delete the log or leave it standing.

I would have done as you did. The visitors would have seen that you'd disabled the cache temporarily so had fair warning that the CO wasn't predisposed to accept Found It logs at that time.

As for spoiling a streak. Sheesh, who cares?

7k · April 7, 2011

Your 'rule' makes no sense. The reason that people frequently quote an entire sequence of posts is twofold. First, it allows new readers to obtain the entire context of the discussion. Second, it makes it more difficult for someone to twist someone's position. Third, it's easy.

Fourth, it makes people put you on ignore.

20.7k · April 7, 2011

Your 'rule' makes no sense. The reason that people frequently quote an entire sequence of posts is twofold. First, it allows new readers to obtain the entire context of the discussion. Second, it makes it more difficult for someone to twist someone's position. Third, it's easy.

Fourth, it makes people put you on ignore.

Benefits all around.

5k · April 7, 2011

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

If that's the case, why bring it up at every opportunity, when you know exactly what response you are going to receive?

9.4k · April 7, 2011

After it was reported not there it was logged numerous times as a find because they found some of the contents on the ground (no log just trinkets)

Per the Guidelines, the choice was yours to delete the log or leave it standing.

I would have done as you did. The visitors would have seen that you'd disabled the cache temporarily so had fair warning that the CO wasn't predisposed to accept Found It logs at that time.

As for spoiling a streak. Sheesh, who cares?

The thing is, though, that this guy didn't own the cache when those people found the pieces and logged it. He adopted the cache after that and is on a power trip deleting logs the previous owner allowed.

April 7, 2011

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

If that's the case, why bring it up at every opportunity, when you know exactly what response you are going to receive?

I know several people that just don't get it, but it flushes out more.

April 7, 2011

do as I say, not as I do I guess

Not sure what you mean by that.

But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand.

If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere.

If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere.

If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger.

clueless

So you are saying this is not accurate?

8k · April 7, 2011

I know several people that just don't get it, but it flushes out more.

Yes it's kinda of funny that way. Whenever there is discussion like the one the OP tried to have here "Should I delete logs?" or one with a finder asking "Why was my log deleted?", the consensus response (long before I ever use the "p" word) is that a cache owner may delete a log if the finder did not sign the physical log book but that there are often good reasons for letting it stand. Some people point out that while they personally will not log a find if they haven't signed the logbook, they will not force this requirement on others because they realize this is a silly game and so long as the finder did seem to find something it doesn't make any difference if they use a find log.

Invariably though someone will eventually quote the ALR guideline and claim that it says the you cannot log a find online unless you signed the logbook and that cache owners who allow this are encouraging cheating. This is when the "p" word gets used and GeoGeeBee's rule that Knowschad quotes becomes operative - the probability of subsequent posts containing any useful information approaches zero. Threads devolve into shouting matches over who can read and who is twisting the meaning to fit their side, when in reality the consensus answer to the OP is already clear from earlier posts. :omnomnom:

April 7, 2011

when in reality the consensus answer to the OP is already clear from earlier posts.

The guidelines don't really have anything to do with OP's question. He should leave the log alone because it happened before he adopted the cache, not because of whether or not the log was signed.

April 8, 2011

I know several people that just don't get it, but it flushes out more.

Yes it's kinda of funny that way. Whenever there is discussion like the one the OP tried to have here "Should I delete logs?" or one with a finder asking "Why was my log deleted?", the consensus response (long before I ever use the "p" word) is that a cache owner may delete a log if the finder did not sign the physical log book but that there are often good reasons for letting it stand. Some people point out that while they personally will not log a find if they haven't signed the logbook, they will not force this requirement on others because they realize this is a silly game and so long as the finder did seem to find something it doesn't make any difference if they use a find log.

Invariably though someone will eventually quote the ALR guideline and claim that it says the you cannot log a find online unless you signed the logbook and that cache owners who allow this are encouraging cheating. This is when the "p" word gets used and GeoGeeBee's rule that Knowschad quotes becomes operative - the probability of subsequent posts containing any useful information approaches zero. Threads devolve into shouting matches over who can read and who is twisting the meaning to fit their side, when in reality the consensus answer to the OP is already clear from earlier posts.

It's no longer the ALR guideline for hiders. That is now covered in the paragraph AFTER the logging guidelines

April 8, 2011

It's no longer the ALR guideline for hiders. That is now covered in the paragraph AFTER the logging guidelines

It doesn't really matter where it is placed. It still is not the all inclusive statement you think it is.

19k · April 8, 2011

When I was in class I always played special attention to the bolded words. Usually were important. The rule is Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.. You shouldn't have to also state the opposite. It is implied. Although it allows armchair lawyers to try and bend the "rules" to their own interests.

Which is exactly what you are doing.

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

Is not the same statement as:

Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" only if the physical log has been signed.

If GS wanted the latter, they would have worded it as such.

This is exactly how religions get formed. The Guidelines are the Word of Frog and they clearly say exactly what they mean, no more, and no less. Some go by the letter, some by the spirit, and the two sides can and will never, ever agree. Personally, I'd like a Holy Intervention from the Lily Pad, but as I suggested earlier, I think that would ruin their party.

19k · April 8, 2011

See bottom of post:

Fizzy's rule: When the ratio of quoted text to new text is greater than 5 to 1, productive discussion is finished.

I really don't understand why people find it so difficult to edit quotes.

I have often wondered why TBTP continue to leave this issue vague and have not yet come out with a definitive stand on the matter, but I am now convinced that whenever this issue arises, those at the Pond order donuts or pizza, stop whatever they were working on, and just sit back and watch the debate. I'm sure they have pools going for how long it will take for certain people to state their version of the "facts", for the word "puritan" to be used, etc. etc. I can just imagine the party atmosphere around the office on those days. Why would they settle this matter when they are having so much fun with it?

They don't need to wade into the fray every time the issue is brought up because they covered it completely when they introduced the new verbiage (when ALRs were banned).

That is not true. When ALRs were banned, the verbage was in the "hiding a geocache" section. They made a "logging of physical cache" section and added the current verbage there in the KB update a few months ago. It is the only place that they talk about the online log rules in the KB. It says "once the physical log has been signed" as in "not before". Once the physical log is signed. It doesn't need the "only" in there. Doesn't need it to make sense. There is nowhere that they give you another alternative to log online, only that section. They don't treat them as separate processess, TPTB lump them together in ONE sentence. Where is online logging covered except that sentence. I may have missed it, but I haven't found it.

Just for kicks I looked up the rules to a common game. Tic Tac Toe. Here are the rules:

Tic-tac-toe, also spelled tick tack toe, or noughts and crosses/Xs and Os as it is known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, is a pencil-and-paper game for two players, X and O, who take turns marking the spaces in a 3×3 grid. The X player usually goes first. The player who succeeds in placing three respective marks in a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal row wins the game.

I can just imagine playing that game with several people on here and having them go 2 or 3 times in a row and justifying that action because the rules say "take turns" they don't actually say alternate every other turn. So I'll go twice, then you can go twice. It isn't actually spelled out in the rules. I play Tic Tac Toe, not Tic Tac Toz

I am actually well aware that those that want to read it that way, will not change their minds, and I don't really want to ever agree with a few people on here, because if I agreed with them, we would both be wrong. Plus I'm getting bored with arguing with unarmed opponents.

P.S. I know that is a silly example on the tic tac toe, which makes it more fitting against others ideas in this thread. I just really wanted to call it tic tac toz.

Just because they broke the guideines out into the knowledge books doesn't mean that they changed the meaning of same.

They didn't just break them out in the knowledge books. The original change of wording for ALRs was in the Hiding a cache section which was guidelines for the CO. So they could no longer disallow smileys for ALR's. They then put similar verbage, Maybe the same I forget, into the "logging section" which now covered finders as well as CO's. There are many old arguments on here in many many threads before the KB upgrade that the oft quoted section was for hiders, not finders. That is no longer a true statement. And it is plain as day what it means to me.

Here's the thing: TPTB have made it very clear what that bit of the guidelines means. Until they pop in and let us know that it now means something else, your argument holds no water.

See the top of the post.

I totally agree with you about that!

19k · April 8, 2011

do as I say, not as I do I guess

Not sure what you mean by that.

But I'll try to make this a little easier to understand.

If you delete online find logs because the logger did not sign the physical logbook, Groundspeak will not intefere.

If you allow an online log because the logger forgot his pen but took a picture with his smartphone, Groundspeak will not interfere.

If you delete online find logs even though the logger signed the physical logbook and the logger complains to Groundspeak, they will very likely take action in favor of the logger.

At the risk of playing with fire, may I attempt to intervene here? I really don't think the gap in opinions here is a 5 terrain gap, as it might appear.

I really don't think that anybody here is saying that it is OK to simply go around logging online while not signing the paper log. I do believe that some are defending the right to not sign the paper log in certain circumstances. Those circumstances generally involve things like caches being frozen into the ice, where to free it would risk breaking the container. Right, or wrong, they interpret The Word of Frog to say that the guidelines do not say that you MUST sign the paper log if you are going to sign online.

I suspect that the other side is really saying the same thing, but they are defending against the possibility of armchair loggers that are simply logging online without even attempting to sign the paper log. My guess is that they, too, would agree that there are extenuating circumstances where it is OK to sign online without signing the paper log.

OK... that's enough Kumbaya for me for one night.

April 8, 2011

I suspect that the other side is really saying the same thing, but they are defending against the possibility of armchair loggers that are simply logging online without even attempting to sign the paper log. My guess is that they, too, would agree that there are extenuating circumstances where it is OK to sign online without signing the paper log.

OK... that's enough Kumbaya for me for one night.

The difference is while a lot of us readily accept that signing the physical log is the defacto proof of a find, there are others who hold steadfast that you MUST sign the log and nothing else is acceptable.

19k · April 8, 2011

I suspect that the other side is really saying the same thing, but they are defending against the possibility of armchair loggers that are simply logging online without even attempting to sign the paper log. My guess is that they, too, would agree that there are extenuating circumstances where it is OK to sign online without signing the paper log.

OK... that's enough Kumbaya for me for one night.

The difference is while a lot of us readily accept that signing the physical log is the defacto proof of a find, there are others who hold steadfast that you MUST sign the log and nothing else is acceptable.

I think that you will be proven wrong about that. These discussions do not generally seem to lend themselves to that level of understanding for some reason.

April 8, 2011

I suspect that the other side is really saying the same thing, but they are defending against the possibility of armchair loggers that are simply logging online without even attempting to sign the paper log. My guess is that they, too, would agree that there are extenuating circumstances where it is OK to sign online without signing the paper log.

OK... that's enough Kumbaya for me for one night.

The difference is while a lot of us readily accept that signing the physical log is the defacto proof of a find, there are others who hold steadfast that you MUST sign the log and nothing else is acceptable.

I think that you will be proven wrong about that. These discussions do not generally seem to lend themselves to that level of understanding for some reason.

Ok, it's easily settled.

M5, is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not sign the physical log?

18.9k · April 8, 2011

...

Ok, it's easily settled.

M5, is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not sign the physical log?

I hate to sound all Clinton-ish here but....

Doesn't that depend a little on the definition of "sign"??

I think it is perfectly acceptable to leave a "mark" of some kind on the log(sheet) - if you for some odd reason cannot "sign" your name. Be it a leaf rub, ash, smear of a dandelion or blood. Still shows you opened the cache and were there. Just need to id it to the CO if asked.

If the cacher can tell me about the spot and something they saw in the cache via PM - I'd be ok with that as well.

Photo of cache in hand - thats ok too.

Not much else comes to mind that I would find acceptable but I'm sure there is something.

April 8, 2011

@Starband

But I don't recall you taking the same hard line, black and white stance that M5 has taken.

But you do make a good point. I will revise my question to M5.

Is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical logbook in any way?

5k · April 8, 2011

...

Ok, it's easily settled.

M5, is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not sign the physical log?

I hate to sound all Clinton-ish here but....

Doesn't that depend a little on the definition of "sign"??

I think it is perfectly acceptable to leave a "mark" of some kind on the log(sheet) - if you for some odd reason cannot "sign" your name. Be it a leaf rub, ash, smear of a dandelion or blood. Still shows you opened the cache and were there. Just need to id it to the CO if asked.

If the cacher can tell me about the spot and something they saw in the cache via PM - I'd be ok with that as well.

Photo of cache in hand - thats ok too.

Not much else comes to mind that I would find acceptable but I'm sure there is something.

I would prefer to give the benefit of doubt as opposed to someone leaving mud or bodily fluids in my log book.

19k · April 8, 2011

...

Ok, it's easily settled.

M5, is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not sign the physical log?

I hate to sound all Clinton-ish here but....

Doesn't that depend a little on the definition of "sign"??

I think it is perfectly acceptable to leave a "mark" of some kind on the log(sheet) - if you for some odd reason cannot "sign" your name. Be it a leaf rub, ash, smear of a dandelion or blood. Still shows you opened the cache and were there. Just need to id it to the CO if asked.

If the cacher can tell me about the spot and something they saw in the cache via PM - I'd be ok with that as well.

Photo of cache in hand - thats ok too.

Not much else comes to mind that I would find acceptable but I'm sure there is something.

I think that it should have to be something that can be positively ID'd through a DNA test. Mud, unless created with spit, should be ruled out. A stick... ridiculous! Dandelion? Leaf rub? Snork!!! give me a break! Blood? Absolutely. Nothing else shows that YOU opened the cache... only that the cache was opened.

April 8, 2011

@Starband

But I don't recall you taking the same hard line, black and white stance that M5 has taken.

But you do make a good point. I will revise my question to M5.

Is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical logbook in any way?

It doesn't really matter what I would do or allow. You guys want to argue what the guidelines clearly state.

But for the record I've let cachers log mine without signing, just to avoid a bunch of whining. Not that it was actually right. I've never had a good reason listed on any of mine for not signing. "Forgot pen", "pen in cache didnt work", "saw it, but couldnt' retrieve it" bunch of wimpy excuses. I've found caches that had wet logs, but I've always been able to sign with a gel pen or pencil. Even when soggy. I've found them mowed and stuff everywhere. CITOed and DNFed, although I could have signed a scrap I suppose. I've emailed non-signers and just asked them to edit their logs, but keep the find, (for the reason listed in the little story after this sentence) and they still whined and got indignent. I had a hard cache that had many DNF's (most not posted), lots of inactivity, then one guy writes that he found the cache, but it was damaged. It was slightly, one of the 2 magnets was broken, but it still worked fine. He didnt' reveal that online, only that it was damaged. Next thing you know several people found it, and claimed they couldn't sign it because it was damaged. Totally bogus. DELETE FINDS. Just because the site allows things that are not enforcable, doesn't mean its not against the rules. There have been plenty of bans for abuse of taking advantage of some of the things that can't be stopped beforehand. You could log your own hides 5000 times right now, but is it right? How is that addressed in the guidelines?

April 8, 2011

@Starband

But I don't recall you taking the same hard line, black and white stance that M5 has taken.

But you do make a good point. I will revise my question to M5.

Is there a situation in which it is appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical logbook in any way?

It doesn't really matter what I would do or allow. You guys want to argue what the guidelines clearly state.

But for the record I've let cachers log mine without signing, just to avoid a bunch of whining. Not that it was actually right. I've never had a good reason listed on any of mine for not signing. "Forgot pen", "pen in cache didnt work", "saw it, but couldnt' retrieve it" bunch of wimpy excuses. I've found caches that had wet logs, but I've always been able to sign with a gel pen or pencil. Even when soggy. I've found them mowed and stuff everywhere. CITOed and DNFed, although I could have signed a scrap I suppose. I've emailed non-signers and just asked them to edit their logs, but keep the find, (for the reason listed in the little story after this sentence) and they still whined and got indignent. I had a hard cache that had many DNF's (most not posted), lots of inactivity, then one guy writes that he found the cache, but it was damaged. It was slightly, one of the 2 magnets was broken, but it still worked fine. He didnt' reveal that online, only that it was damaged. Next thing you know several people found it, and claimed they couldn't sign it because it was damaged. Totally bogus. DELETE FINDS. Just because the site allows things that are not enforcable, doesn't mean its not against the rules. There have been plenty of bans for abuse of taking advantage of some of the things that can't be stopped beforehand. You could log your own hides 5000 times right now, but is it right? How is that addressed in the guidelines?

I'm not arguing about what the guidelines clearly state. I'm arguing that the guidelines don't say what you think they say.

For the record, you do not believe there it is ever appropriate to log an online find if you did not alter the physical log in any way. Correct?

I think that answers Knowschad question.

You have simply tolerated a few "whiny babies". I'm actually surprised to know you have gone that far. There are some who wouldn't mind making mortal enemies out of those same "whiny babies" for sake of what they believe the guidelines say.

19k · April 8, 2011

Can't we all Just Get Along?

April 8, 2011

Can't we all Just Get Along?

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier.

7.9k · April 8, 2011

I have found the obvious remains of a cache, and posted a 'find'.

If someone found the obvious remains of one of my caches, I would allow them to post a find...if they felt they deserved it.

19k · April 8, 2011

Can't we all Just Get Along?

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier.

Humor, dude. Humor. I am just trying to lighten things up a bit here. I still say that you guys aren't anywhere near as far apart in your opinions as you seem to think.

April 8, 2011

Can't we all Just Get Along?

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier.

Humor, dude. Humor. I am just trying to lighten things up a bit here. I still say that you guys aren't anywhere near as far apart in your opinions as you seem to think.

Humor, dude. Humor. I'd explain it, but since I was kicked out of the thread I'm not sure how much more I can say.

19k · April 8, 2011

Can't we all Just Get Along?

We're all getting along. Just having some of that civil discourse someone mentioned earlier.

Humor, dude. Humor. I am just trying to lighten things up a bit here. I still say that you guys aren't anywhere near as far apart in your opinions as you seem to think.

Humor, dude. Humor. I'd explain it, but since I was kicked out of the thread I'm not sure how much more I can say.

I'm not sure how much needs to be said. Sounds like minutia to me. I think that both "sides" are saying that the log should be signed, and both sides are saying that there are situations where it can't be but that a find should be allowed. One side is a little more lenient about it, while the other begrudgingly allows the same thing.

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

18.9k · April 8, 2011

.....

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

yup - that is my conclusion as well.

April 8, 2011

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

That is pretty close. The difference is I say the guidelines allow for it and M5 says the guidelines prohibit it but he doesn't want to deal with the whiners.

19k · April 8, 2011

.....

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

yup - that is my conclusion as well.

If I get this settled, is there some sort of Peace Prize that I might win? 'Cause I'm just about ready to go on a hunger strike if I don't see a group hug real soon.

19k · April 8, 2011

The difference, as I see it, is that you say "Sure... no problem!!" where M5 might say "Grrrrrr..... ok."

That is pretty close. The difference is I say the guidelines allow for it and M5 says the guidelines prohibit it but he doesn't want to deal with the whiners.

That was post #148. I'm sure it was worth it, though. We MUST have this settled once and for all. The future of geocaching depends on it.

You know, M5 is basically just saying that cachers need to be responsible for their own DNFs. Forgot your pen? Well, doh! That was stupid, wasn't it? I've forgotten my pen (did it today, actually, and had to walk back to the car for a combined distance of 0.34 miles), and pretty much have to agree with him. There are plenty of caches out there in bison tubes and nanos, and if you don't have a pen with you, you're not going to be able to sign it. You should never expect that a cache is going to have a working pen or pencil in it. I wouldn't probably delete their logs (never have) and neither would M5, but I think you have to agree that for anybody but a rank newbie, its a screw-up on their part to forget a pen.

"Saw it but couldn't reach it"... you guys do not disagree here... I think that I can promise you that. Never heard anyone disagree with that.

Geocaching rules debate please respond

Recommended Posts