Jump to content

What should I do about this?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

So I placed a cache out. It was a 4 Lt lg mouthed cranberry jug with 15+ Kinder Egg shells inside, One contained the log book, so you must shake the jug to find the log book. Easy enough you would think.

 

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

I emailed her and asked if she had look in all the eggs? and that she had ruined my cache by adding a extra log book. She responded by saying "Ruined your cache? It was stupid to begin with"

 

I placed a note for the next finder to remove the extra bag and note pad when they find the original log in a egg.

 

I am 4 hours away from this cache so won't be able to fix the problem for a month or so.

 

I guess I am just venting, but what would you do if this happened to you?

Link to comment

So I placed a cache out. It was a 4 Lt lg mouthed cranberry jug with 15+ Kinder Egg shells inside, One contained the log book, so you must shake the jug to find the log book. Easy enough you would think.

 

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

I emailed her and asked if she had look in all the eggs? and that she had ruined my cache by adding a extra log book. She responded by saying "Ruined your cache? It was stupid to begin with"

 

I placed a note for the next finder to remove the extra bag and note pad when they find the original log in a egg.

 

I am 4 hours away from this cache so won't be able to fix the problem for a month or so.

 

I guess I am just venting, but what would you do if this happened to you?

I would delet her log. I have deleted logs by stupid cachers in the past, it pisses them off but I don't care. that is about the only way to deal with idiots.

Edited by JohnnyVegas
Link to comment

So I placed a cache out. It was a 4 Lt lg mouthed cranberry jug with 15+ Kinder Egg shells inside, One contained the log book, so you must shake the jug to find the log book. Easy enough you would think.

 

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

I emailed her and asked if she had look in all the eggs? and that she had ruined my cache by adding a extra log book. She responded by saying "Ruined your cache? It was stupid to begin with"

 

I placed a note for the next finder to remove the extra bag and note pad when they find the original log in a egg.

 

I am 4 hours away from this cache so won't be able to fix the problem for a month or so.

 

I guess I am just venting, but what would you do if this happened to you?

I would de3let her log,

 

Once you've had a chance to check the correct log book and not found their signature in it...

Then delete the log!

 

:laughing:

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

2. I fear you are going to regret putting this so far away, as this situation could easily happen again, and you may find this takes a lot of maintenance. Don't be surprised if someone drops a micro cache in place with a note saying they "Easy find! Found where the cache should be, but just found a logless jug full of eggs, so left a replacement!" (If they are even this honest.)

 

Anyway, you may find people don't play along well with this. Hope that isn't the case though.

 

Best of luck though.

Link to comment

Having read the listing, I'd let it go. Seems it was an honest mistake.

 

The biggest problem is the ever increasing expectation that seekers do maintenance for owners AND the ever increasing strive for numbers AND the odd reluctance of seekers to post DNFs.

 

Instead of encryptically telling people that the logbook is in the eggs, you might want to specify in the listing itself that the logbook DOES exist. Not everyone is going to know they need to open every single egg to find the logbook.

 

As a side note, she hasn't ruined your cache. If you had placed it a little closer to home, it would be nothing more than a mild annoyance.

Link to comment

Okay, I was upset when I first read her log. I think it was the fact that the cacher didn't even try to find the log. Common sense says that it is a new listing. Hmm there must be a log somewhere. Call me crazy.

 

My In-law live 1 min away and I was planning on getting them to check on it when needed. As I am normally over there 4 times a year they could watch it the if needed.

 

Thanks for the advice fellow cachers.

Link to comment

Okay, I was upset when I first read her log. I think it was the fact that the cacher didn't even try to find the log. Common sense says that it is a new listing. Hmm there must be a log somewhere. Call me crazy.

 

I'm not going to call you crazy, but I will point out that crazier things have happened than forgetting to put a logbook in a cache when you hide it.

Link to comment

A technique I've seen work well for this type of cache is to include a prominent note in the cache description that to log a find, the seeker must find and sign the yellow log sheet (or whatever non-white color log sheet you use). Then include a prominent note inside (or on) the cache itself, restating the same thing.

 

This does a couple things. First, it lets seekers know that finding the log sheet is part of the challenge. Second, it reduces the number of "replacement" logs, because most people carry white paper and you've made it clear that the log must use a certain color of paper.

Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

Not reading the cache page does not excuse you from finding the right log. (assuming the cache page mentions it.)

 

I get tired of people trying to excuse all kinds of things because some people do not read the cache page. If you don't read it you take a chance of missing something about the cache.

 

If it doesn't bother you that you don't read it, that's fine, but don't expect the CO to bend over for your lapse.

Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

Not reading the cache page does not excuse you from finding the right log. (assuming the cache page mentions it.)

 

I get tired of people trying to excuse all kinds of things because some people do not read the cache page. If you don't read it you take a chance of missing something about the cache.

 

If it doesn't bother you that you don't read it, that's fine, but don't expect the CO to bend over for your lapse.

 

Reading or not reading the listing is irrelevant in this case since the information did not exist on the listing to begin with.

Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

Not reading the cache page does not excuse you from finding the right log. (assuming the cache page mentions it.)

 

I'm not arguing that it is, fwiw.

 

I get tired of people trying to excuse all kinds of things because some people do not read the cache page. If you don't read it you take a chance of missing something about the cache.

 

I always read the cache page descriptions. However, the reality is that many people do not. Maybe they think it is cheating. Maybe they think it makes the game more challenging. Maybe they are going too fast. Who knows? I know I watched my wife do this over the weekend - I took her caching with me for the first time in years, and she DID NOT want to know what was on the cache page. This really surprised me. I still read them anyway, I just didn't tell her.

 

If it doesn't bother you that you don't read it, that's fine, but don't expect the CO to bend over for your lapse.

 

Well, the point here is to have fun, right? Whether or not I agree with it or even understand it, I think that if you ignore realities about how people play and what they expect, you should not be surprised for this to be not very much fun sometimes. Again, I'm not trying to justify any of this or rationalize it or anything like that. Just saying what the reality seems to be. If you want to frustrate yourself or others, then by all means ignore this. That just doesn't seem fun to me.

 

I guess I'm of the opinion that it isn't much fun, or a very successful cache idea, if people can honestly, but mistakenly log it incorrectly and have their logs deleted. (This is totally different than people who are dishonest, and knowingly cheat or bypass some type of challenging cache to log a find that they didn't really make.)

 

Perhaps in this case the cache should've been marked as a "?" mystery cache, so people who aren't willing to think, at least a little, would simply skip it?

Link to comment
What would you do if this happened to you?

Good question. The greatest thing about this game is it is open to everybody. The worst thing about this game is it is open to everybody. Speaking generally about such hides; Given an extra large container chock full of smaller ones, (eggs, film cans, etc), with no visible log, anyone with an IQ greater than a turnip would know that the task at hand was to check each smaller container.

 

What we don't know is if those who just plop in a log are in a hurry, are lazy, or if they are like me, dumber than a bag of hammers. What we do know is, as demonstrated numerous times in these forums, the good folks at Groundspeak would recognize that "find" as legitimate. If you delete it, and your deletion was challenged, I'd bet that Groundspeak would restore the log.

 

My advice?

 

This:

I'd let it go.

Plus this:

My In-law live 1 min away and I was planning on getting them to check on it.

 

Trying to control the actions of others, in this game, is akin to herding cats, and will only lead to a lot of aggravation for you.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

Not reading the cache page does not excuse you from finding the right log. (assuming the cache page mentions it.)

 

I'm not arguing that it is, fwiw.

 

I get tired of people trying to excuse all kinds of things because some people do not read the cache page. If you don't read it you take a chance of missing something about the cache.

 

I always read the cache page descriptions. However, the reality is that many people do not. Maybe they think it is cheating. Maybe they think it makes the game more challenging. Maybe they are going too fast. Who knows? I know I watched my wife do this over the weekend - I took her caching with me for the first time in years, and she DID NOT want to know what was on the cache page. This really surprised me. I still read them anyway, I just didn't tell her.

 

If it doesn't bother you that you don't read it, that's fine, but don't expect the CO to bend over for your lapse.

 

Well, the point here is to have fun, right? Whether or not I agree with it or even understand it, I think that if you ignore realities about how people play and what they expect, you should not be surprised for this to be not very much fun sometimes. Again, I'm not trying to justify any of this or rationalize it or anything like that. Just saying what the reality seems to be. If you want to frustrate yourself or others, then by all means ignore this. That just doesn't seem fun to me.

 

I guess I'm of the opinion that it isn't much fun, or a very successful cache idea, if people can honestly, but mistakenly log it incorrectly and have their logs deleted. (This is totally different than people who are dishonest, and knowingly cheat or bypass some type of challenging cache to log a find that they didn't really make.)

 

Perhaps in this case the cache should've been marked as a "?" mystery cache, so people who aren't willing to think, at least a little, would simply skip it?

 

Let me make it perfectly clear. I do not care if you read the cache page or not. My point is if you do not read it, do not complain if you have a problem with it.

 

The cache page may/should contain information that will help safeguard the cache and those that seek it. It may also contain information the property manager requested in order to give permission to place the cache.

 

Whether it is a warning about danger, or just information that will help keep the cache going a long time. If you don't care about that go ahead and skip the cache page, just don't complain when something goes wrong.

Link to comment

So I placed a cache out. It was a 4 Lt lg mouthed cranberry jug with 15+ Kinder Egg shells inside, One contained the log book, so you must shake the jug to find the log book. Easy enough you would think.

 

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

I emailed her and asked if she had look in all the eggs? and that she had ruined my cache by adding a extra log book. She responded by saying "Ruined your cache? It was stupid to begin with"

 

If that's a direct, verbatim quote from the other cacher, I would let things go. There's already enough angst involved here.

 

She wrote a nice log, so I would just quietly remove my logbook and use hers instead, preserving the FTF log.

 

And then just move on. Let it go. Rise above it. Learn from the experience, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

I definitely would NOT remove the online log at this point in time. Too late for that, what with the email correspondence that has taken place. Why make enemies over a game?

Link to comment

I found a cache that wasn't exactly like this but required some more thinking at ground zero to find the actual log. Long story short the cache hider stated on the page that the actual log must be signed and that was it. At ground zero the numerous dummy containers had notes in them that you hadn't found the log yet. Had those notes not existed I may have put a replacement book in the first obvious container that I saw at ground zero and never thought about it again.

 

I would also suggest if you are going to insist on hiding caches that you can only maintain a few times a year you might want to consider hiding caches that do not require much if any babysitting. This cache will inevitably need a lot of baby sitting especially if you are going to be concerned that the "right" log is signed.

Link to comment

I found a cache that wasn't exactly like this but required some more thinking at ground zero to find the actual log. Long story short the cache hider stated on the page that the actual log must be signed and that was it. At ground zero the numerous dummy containers had notes in them that you hadn't found the log yet. Had those notes not existed I may have put a replacement book in the first obvious container that I saw at ground zero and never thought about it again.

 

I would also suggest if you are going to insist on hiding caches that you can only maintain a few times a year you might want to consider hiding caches that do not require much if any babysitting. This cache will inevitably need a lot of baby sitting especially if you are going to be concerned that the "right" log is signed.

 

Every "Egg" had written in side it "Not the Log Book"

Just for clarification. Makes me wonder if she found the Twoonie $2, FTF prize hidden in one of them :blink:

Link to comment

1. How was the finder supposed to know about the log in the egg? It may seem obvious, but perhaps it wasn't to them. Maybe they didn't read the cache page.

 

 

that is not an excuse to say the "cache was stupid"

 

you find a bucket full of film cans and no logbook, what do you think that implies?

 

we went to a cache that was comprised of two buckets, one empty one full of sand....you had to find the log in the sand, turns out there is one film can in it that doesn't contain a log

there is a log somewhere in those buckets tho...but one has to use some gray matter to figure it out not just assume the log is missing

 

So I placed a cache out. It was a 4 Lt lg mouthed cranberry jug with 15+ Kinder Egg shells inside, One contained the log book, so you must shake the jug to find the log book. Easy enough you would think.

 

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

I emailed her and asked if she had look in all the eggs? and that she had ruined my cache by adding a extra log book. She responded by saying "Ruined your cache? It was stupid to begin with"

 

If that's a direct, verbatim quote from the other cacher, I would let things go. There's already enough angst involved here.

 

She wrote a nice log, so I would just quietly remove my logbook and use hers instead, preserving the FTF log.

 

And then just move on. Let it go. Rise above it. Learn from the experience, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

I definitely would NOT remove the online log at this point in time. Too late for that, what with the email correspondence that has taken place. Why make enemies over a game?

 

you have no idea how i dislike that kind of advice lmao

 

so at the end of the day the one in the wrong "wins" and goes on thinking that no matter what they do or say the world will bend over backwards to accommodate them

 

heck no, i am a firm believer that people in the wrong need a lesson to learn from the experience not the other way around

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Every "Egg" had written in side it "Not the Log Book"

Just for clarification. Makes me wonder if she found the Twoonie $2, FTF prize hidden in one of them :blink:

 

In that she should have been able to figure it out.

 

Maybe she just doesn't care for this kind of cache and knows you can't enforce ALRs.

 

But she did leave you a nice, above average log. ;)

 

I would have just passed it up if I didn't like it though.

Link to comment

Let me make it perfectly clear. I do not care if you read the cache page or not. My point is if you do not read it, do not complain if you have a problem with it.

 

Right, that isn't what happened in this case, the finder didn't complain - the hider did. The information wasn't on the cache page in the first place for them to read, anyway. The finder apparently didn't understand what they were supposed to do. (Perhaps they didn't try very hard, or at all.)

 

Being annoyed with people because they didn't "get" your cache just seems like a waste of time - if they don't like it or it doesn't work out as you'd hoped, take the feedback and fix your cache. It is always disappointing when a creative idea doesn't work out the way you'd hoped, and I can completely understand why the OP would be unhappy. I am sure it was a disappointing outcome. (BTW, other than some initial disappointment, which is understandable, the OP seems like they are being a good sport about this - don't want to imply anything else!)

 

I think it is a lot to expect for someone to have the box in their hands, not find a log sheet, and not log it as a find. You may disagree with that - and that's fine. My point is that if your goal is to have fun, and this type of thing is going to annoy you, then you aren't doing this right, because this type of mistake seems liable to happen...

 

If, on the other hand, you think it's fun to delete people's logs, then by all means go for it and design something where that is a common outcome. I don't think others will especially enjoy this, though. I also wouldn't recommend doing this on something where it takes you 8 hours of round-trip travel to verify that you can delete the log, because in that case, the joke is kinda on you... :( (I don't think this was the OP's intent at all, I imagine he thought this would be a fun and amusing little twist to his cache, and that was the extent of it.)

 

Even if "you must find and sign the log - there really is a log" had been on the cache page, you'd have to expect that some people could make an honest mistake. Would you be well within your rights to delete the logs in that case? Absolutely. If that happened frequently, do you think that would actually be much fun for anyone involved?

 

I still say marking this as a puzzle cache might've been more appropriate - you kind of expect surprises and deception on one of those... (It is simply a very, very easy puzzle.)

Link to comment

 

heck no, i am a firm believer that people in the wrong need a lesson to learn from the experience not the other way around

 

Because proving a lesson about right and wrong over an ambiguous situation in an internet treasure hunting game is super-duper fun! Am I right?

 

no, because I have the right through the guidelines to delete such bogus logs

 

and i don't care if its real life, online or in space...are you saying that online fraud should go unpunished?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

Having read the listing, I'd let it go. Seems it was an honest mistake.

 

The biggest problem is the ever increasing expectation that seekers do maintenance for owners AND the ever increasing strive for numbers AND the odd reluctance of seekers to post DNFs.

 

Instead of encryptically telling people that the logbook is in the eggs, you might want to specify in the listing itself that the logbook DOES exist. Not everyone is going to know they need to open every single egg to find the logbook.

 

As a side note, she hasn't ruined your cache. If you had placed it a little closer to home, it would be nothing more than a mild annoyance.

 

I think this is the correct answer. One shouldn't have to read a hint to find out where the logbook is. I've never even heard of that. Log deletions lead to nothing but angst. I mean I had a guy once who met exactly 0 of the 2 requirements to log one of my earthcaches, and he still went bonkers over the deletion. Let it go.

Link to comment

I hear a lot of Let it Go.

 

Believe me. I am not losing Sleep over this or really worried about it.

 

I just think with a NEW cache put out there would be a common sense aspect that says "HMM where is the log book?"

Not "Lets just put a new one in because I am to tired to look for it"

 

I like reading all your opinions. Thank

 

And I won't be deleting her post. Water off a ducks back...

Edited by Arnold Six Clan
Link to comment

 

and i don't care if its real life, online or in space...are you saying that online fraud should go unpunished?

 

No, I very explicitly differentiated between a probable honest mistake in an ambiguous situation and someone who just lies about what they've done, earlier in the thread. If people lie about finding a cache those logs should be deleted, fun or not.

 

I fail to see how the failure of the finder to read the hider's mind and infer the intention of the cache constitutes "online fraud". Can you explain that to me?

 

Finder maintenance on caches is what makes this such an ambiguous situation. Did the finder knowingly take a short cut, or did they honestly think they were helping out a cache owner, and next finder? We'll never know their intent. We can endlessly speculate on that, but we don't know.

Link to comment

I hear a lot of Let it Go.

 

Believe me. I am not losing Sleep over this or really worried about it.

 

I just think with a NEW cache put out there would be a common sense aspect that says "HMM where is the log book?"

Not "Lets just put a new one in because I am to tired to look for it"

 

I like reading all your opinions. Thank

 

And I won't be deleting her post. Water off a ducks back...

 

Some people just assume that the hider forgot to put a log book in the cache.

 

Seeing 15 Kindereggs should have made one wonder "why are these all in here?", but you never know with some folks. Maybe they were in a rush to get that find logged, or whatever.

 

Some folks dislike posting a DNF so much that they will throw down a whole new container just so they can claim a "find".

 

I've had an experienced cacher tell me that my cache was not a multicache because they couldn't find the first stage, the hint was wrong, etc. :rolleyes:

 

In the grand scheme of things, at least this person signed a log. Maybe not the one that they were "supposed" to sign, but at least it's something.

 

Maybe the next set of finders will "get it" and you'll get logs with funny stories about rooting through all the containers, etc.

Link to comment

 

and i don't care if its real life, online or in space...are you saying that online fraud should go unpunished?

 

No, I very explicitly differentiated between a probable honest mistake in an ambiguous situation and someone who just lies about what they've done, earlier in the thread. If people lie about finding a cache those logs should be deleted, fun or not.

 

I fail to see how the failure of the finder to read the hider's mind and infer the intention of the cache constitutes "online fraud". Can you explain that to me?

 

 

 

not reading the cache page is no honest mistake, its choice...you make that choice you choose to leave with the consequences

 

not being able to clue in as to what the cache is all about is not an honest mistake, you don't need to read the CO's mind, is just what it is call it what you wish, the same reason some people can't solve difficulty 5 mystery caches hence no smilie for them

 

i bet you any money the finder never bothered to even open the eggs

sounds to me like a FTF hound only, that even if you had the most awesome hide in the whole world they wouldn't care

 

maybe my example was a bit harsh but was done for emphasis...

 

i know it is a game, but...if the finder was nice about it instead of saying the cache is stupid perhaps would have inspired the CO to be forgiving and allow the find

 

see now why i believe in "punishment"?

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

And I won't be deleting her post. Water off a ducks back...

 

I think you are doing the right thing and are being a big person here. :)

 

A BIG +1.

 

There is nothing to be gained by deleting their log other than propagating hard feelings.

 

You are taking the high road. A good way to start the new year.

 

.

Link to comment

 

heck no, i am a firm believer that people in the wrong need a lesson to learn from the experience not the other way around

 

Because proving a lesson about right and wrong over an ambiguous situation in an internet treasure hunting game is super-duper fun! Am I right?

I'm sensing something like this going on in the t4e household. :lol:

ea30bb10-15dc-44a5-b80c-615ac542185e.jpg

 

I have the right through the guidelines to delete such bogus logs

That's true. If someone had posted a bogus log to the cache in question, the OP would be able to delete it, per the guidelines. But since no one posted a bogus log on that cache, discussing irrelevancies such as your right to delete bogus logs is rather pointless. The OP presumably read the guidelines, since they own at least one hide, so I'm sure they are already aware that they can delete bogus logs.

 

The question was, "What to do about someone logging a find in an unconventional manner, ignoring what should have been obvious?". Since the log was not bogus, that aspect never came up.

Link to comment
i know it is a game, but...if the finder was nice about it instead of saying the cache is stupid perhaps would have inspired the CO to be forgiving and allow the find

I'm not sure that computes. You are putting this scenario into an "If" situation. Yet the facts are already established. There is no "If". The finder was not very pleasant in her reply. That has been established. Yet the owner did allow the find.

 

see now why i believe in "punishment"?

No. Not really. I'm not seeing that the finder committed any sins, broke any rules, violated any guidelines, committed any crimes, or did any other act that would warrant "punishment". The finder found a cache, signed a log, (that they supplied, believing that there was not one in the cache), and logged a find online.

 

If punishing those who do no crime is your idea of entertainment, all I can do is feel pity for you. :(

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I had just the same thing happen by a FTF hound who obviously didn't want to look through the micros in the ammo can to find it. I didn't delete the log but put an announcement that she would not be getting FTF honors and could she return the prize. She did but added a rant on the website that was quite nasty. I left it for all to see but she removed it a couple of days later.

 

I would be willing to bet that the majority of finders will not look through the eggs to find the log or (as I found out on a maintenance trip) will mark the one that has it.

 

For the best solution see my signature.

Link to comment

The FTF cacher went and instead of finding the log added her own piece of paper and bag claiming she "couldn't" find the log.

 

Given that the FTF'er had difficulty with your cache concept, I'd chalk it up to a design flaw. I would let the log stand and chalk it up to experience.

 

Edit to add:

 

Next person to find this please check all eggs for book if there please get rid of the baggie with extra log book. Thanks.

 

I don't think that adding an Additional Logging Requirement post Publication is such a great idea either.

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment

You are deliberately hiding the fact that an on-site egg hunt will be required to find the log once the cache itself is located. I assume your motivation for the lack of disclosure is to treat finders to a kind of surprise when they find the cache and realize there is a bit more work to be done after they have the cache in their hands.

 

I don't have a problem with that. In fact, it sounds kind of fun to me.

 

But if I was to place such a cache, and if I was going for the surprise element you seem to be, I would have left very specific and obvious instructions on, or in, the cache itself regarding the need to hunt through the eggs to find the one that contains the log. I would never have left a subtle reference for the post-find log hunt in the hint. With the exception of puzzle caches, I don't care for hints whose purpose is anything other than helping a cache seeker locate the cache container itself once in the vicinity of the cache.

Link to comment

For the number of times we've seen cachers publish listings and forget to put the entire *cache* out in the field, or forgot to check the coordinates to make sure it's even in the right area, I would not be surprised at all to find a new cache where the owner forgot to put in the logbook.

 

Also, take into account that many times the plastic eggs of that type are used for swag and I'm not surprised someone figured they were trade items and not logbook containers.

 

Factor in the fact that the cache page isn't totally clear either and there ya go.

 

In the end I think you did the right thing.

Link to comment

At first, I was going to say delete the lg. But after due consideration...

Requiring a signature is not an ALR.

Requiring finding the proper log sheet inside the container should probably, these days, be an 'unknown' cache with proper warning. "The log book is there. You may have to search to find it." I found a similar cache, with 15 micros inside. Most people signed the papers that said "Wrong. Try again." The CO let them stand.

Though it might work best as a multi, where one of the egg shells contains the coordinates for the final.

Link to comment

 

and i don't care if its real life, online or in space...are you saying that online fraud should go unpunished?

 

No, I very explicitly differentiated between a probable honest mistake in an ambiguous situation and someone who just lies about what they've done, earlier in the thread. If people lie about finding a cache those logs should be deleted, fun or not.

 

I fail to see how the failure of the finder to read the hider's mind and infer the intention of the cache constitutes "online fraud". Can you explain that to me?

 

 

 

not reading the cache page is no honest mistake, its choice...you make that choice you choose to leave with the consequences

 

not being able to clue in as to what the cache is all about is not an honest mistake, you don't need to read the CO's mind, is just what it is call it what you wish, the same reason some people can't solve difficulty 5 mystery caches hence no smilie for them

 

i bet you any money the finder never bothered to even open the eggs

sounds to me like a FTF hound only, that even if you had the most awesome hide in the whole world they wouldn't care

 

maybe my example was a bit harsh but was done for emphasis...

 

i know it is a game, but...if the finder was nice about it instead of saying the cache is stupid perhaps would have inspired the CO to be forgiving and allow the find

 

see now why i believe in "punishment"?

 

The finder was pretty darn nice about it.

 

I found this today with no log to sing my visit, so I added a log inside a plastic baggie and signed it as FTF (I assume I have the FTF since no one else logged as such). Anyway Happy Birthday to Tanya and Happy New Year to you and your family. SL TFTH

 

The finder only got snippy when accused of ruining the cache.

 

It looked like an honest mistake.

 

It also appears the OP has taken the high road and deleted his own log off the listing page and is not planning to delete the find log.

 

I'd say overall it's a good outcome.

 

* Edited for clarification

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

I hear a lot of Let it Go.

 

Believe me. I am not losing Sleep over this or really worried about it.

 

I just think with a NEW cache put out there would be a common sense aspect that says "HMM where is the log book?"

Not "Lets just put a new one in because I am to tired to look for it"

 

I like reading all your opinions. Thank

 

And I won't be deleting her post. Water off a ducks back...

 

I mentioned the fact that sometimes COs forget to put the logbook in a new cache. I know this because I have been guilty. :rolleyes:

 

Looks like you're handling it the right way.

 

Kudos!

Link to comment
i know it is a game, but...if the finder was nice about it instead of saying the cache is stupid perhaps would have inspired the CO to be forgiving and allow the find

I'm not sure that computes. You are putting this scenario into an "If" situation. Yet the facts are already established. There is no "If". The finder was not very pleasant in her reply. That has been established. Yet the owner did allow the find.

 

see now why i believe in "punishment"?

No. Not really. I'm not seeing that the finder committed any sins, broke any rules, violated any guidelines, committed any crimes, or did any other act that would warrant "punishment". The finder found a cache, signed a log, (that they supplied, believing that there was not one in the cache), and logged a find online.

 

If punishing those who do no crime is your idea of entertainment, all I can do is feel pity for you. :(

 

i think you better go back and read what i said before misinterpreting my words, wth did i say its entertainment? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...