Jump to content

What should I do about this?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

delete the log. stupid cachers who ruin other caches don't deserve an FTF (or a log at all).

 

Calling people you don't know insulting names is one approach.

 

The much better approach, from which we can all learn:

 

I also sent her a apology for jumping on her about ruining my cache. A good reminder to us all

Don't send emails after midnight when your tired and cranky.

 

:anicute:

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?

By inferring that someone who participates in a lawful hobby, for fun, and obeys the rules of the game, should be punished. The attitude of "Punish The Innocent" requires a certain mindset. Without delving into descriptive phrases which could be viewed as insults, that's about as detailed as I can get.

 

Can you share with us what exactly occurred in this particular scenario that led to you referencing punishment, and espousing your fervent belief for it? Cuz' frankly, I'm not seeing it. I am a big proponent of seeing the world through the eyes of others, but in this case, I can honestly admit, I got nuthin'. Hopefully you will help me to understand your thought process.

 

Oops! Edit to add a couple smug, rolling eyes emoticons...

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edited by Clan Riffster
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.

I know someone else who had one called 1%

The cache had 100 35mm in it and only one had a log sheet. The CO kept finding logsheets in many of the containers. But in this case no one said anything so he couldn't delete logs.

The cache is now archived. Not because of this problem, only that he was running out of 35mm containers.

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?

By inferring that someone who participates in a lawful hobby, for fun, and obeys the rules of the game, should be punished. The attitude of "Punish The Innocent" requires a certain mindset. Without delving into descriptive phrases which could be viewed as insults, that's about as detailed as I can get.

 

Can you share with us what exactly occurred in this particular scenario that led to you referencing punishment, and espousing your fervent belief for it? Cuz' frankly, I'm not seeing it. I am a big proponent of seeing the world through the eyes of others, but in this case, I can honestly admit, I got nuthin'. Hopefully you will help me to understand your thought process.

 

Oops! Edit to add a couple smug, rolling eyes emoticons...

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

unfortunately i can't teach you how to comprehend what you read over a forum post, the "punish online fraud" was a parallel to your own post and not referenced to this situation

 

and FYI we went to a cache that had the log hidden in a pen that was in the container

any log that mentioned the log was missing and that they added one was promptly deleted

Edited by t4e
Link to comment

and FYI we went to a cache that had the log hidden in a pen that was in the container

any log that mentioned the log was missing and that they added one was promptly deleted

 

Questions about this:

1. Was the difficulty / need to search after finding the container disclosed in any manner? Or did you need to make a big inference / mind-read?

2. Did most people who found the cache seem to enjoy it, or is it one of "those?"

3. Did the additional twist add interest and fun, and was the cache "worth it?" Or was it merely difficult for the sake of being difficult?

4. Did you enjoy finding it yourself? Did it take you more than one attempt?

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.

I know someone else who had one called 1%

The cache had 100 35mm in it and only one had a log sheet. The CO kept finding logsheets in many of the containers. But in this case no one said anything so he couldn't delete logs.

The cache is now archived. Not because of this problem, only that he was running out of 35mm containers.

Like this one? Click! :ph34r: :ph34r: Yes, I found the log.

Link to comment

Can you share with us what exactly occurred in this particular scenario that led to you referencing punishment, and espousing your fervent belief for it? Cuz' frankly, I'm not seeing it. I am a big proponent of seeing the world through the eyes of others,

I think this is a matter of different perspectives. Here is my guess about what t4e is thinking.

 

There was a cache with a lot of little containers inside, most being empty and one having the cache's log. Someone comes along and finds it, and opens it in order to sign in. Upon finding all the little containers, she thinks to herself: "This is a stupid waste of time. I am not going to bother trying to find the cache's proper log. I know that is bending the rules, but my time is more important than following rules." So, she put her own log in, and says she found it.

 

Well, she broke the rules, so some kind of punishment is appropriate. Therefore, delete her log. Hopefully she will understand that it is necessary to follow the rules in the future.

 

The other perspective:

 

Maybe she did not understand what the rules are, and she would have followed the rules if she had, therefore she is ignorant and not in need of any punishment, simply a bit of education.

 

Or:

 

The punishment should fit the crime. She did not really hurt anybody by this, so just tell her what she did was wrong, and then forgive and forget so we can remain friendly.

 

As they say: Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

Link to comment
the "punish online fraud" was a parallel to your own post and not referenced to this situation

 

A parallel... OK... <_<

Having poor reading comprehension skills, I had to go back and see what post you were referring to. Prior to you equating someone posting an entirely truthful "Found It" log with online fraud worthy of punishment, I only had one post in this thread. I'll quote it in its entirety for you:

 

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.

 

That's it. That's all there was. :unsure:

Nothing in there so much as hinted about online fraud, or punishment. At least nothing that I, with my poor reading comprehenson, could see. That is why I am hoping you will help a brother out. Can you tell me how your demontrating support for punishment, for an offense that did not occur, parallels my post?

Thanx! :)

 

and FYI we went to a cache that had the log hidden in a pen that was in the container

any log that mentioned the log was missing and that they added one was promptly deleted

 

OK. That's awesome. Irrelevent, but still awesome. I went to a cache where you had to wear a silly hat and take a photo. Any log without the requisite photo was promptly deleted. I also went to a (traditional) cache where your log had to be in excess of 500 characters, and you had to answer specific questions regarding weather, geography and critters. Any log less than 500 characters, or failing to answer those questions, was promptly deleted.

 

Both of these caches were still active after the ALR guideline went into effect. I imagine they were eventually challenged by someone whose log was deleted, but I didn't really care so I never asked the owners. I thought both ALRs were fun, and I was happy to comply. Come to think about it, if memory serves, I've only had one log deleted, and that was because it was too long. :lol: That log was 1 "Found It" combined with 5 "Notes". The owner deleted the notes but left the smiley.

 

I think this is a matter of different perspectives. Here is my guess about what t4e is thinking.

 

There was a cache with a lot of little containers inside, most being empty and one having the cache's log. Someone comes along and finds it, and opens it in order to sign in. Upon finding all the little containers, she thinks to herself: "This is a stupid waste of time. I am not going to bother trying to find the cache's proper log. I know that is bending the rules, but my time is more important than following rules." So, she put her own log in, and says she found it.

 

Well, she broke the rules, so some kind of punishment is appropriate. Therefore, delete her log. Hopefully she will understand that it is necessary to follow the rules in the future.

 

The other perspective:

 

Maybe she did not understand what the rules are, and she would have followed the rules if she had, therefore she is ignorant and not in need of any punishment, simply a bit of education.

 

Or:

 

The punishment should fit the crime. She did not really hurt anybody by this, so just tell her what she did was wrong, and then forgive and forget so we can remain friendly.

 

As they say: Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks.

 

You may be right. Where I'm having a problem is the notion that there may have been "rules" governing her specific behavior. I know we have the "guidelines", and slightly below those we have the "commonly accepted practices". Those things which, if not done, are generally frowned upon. From a strictly semantic standpoint, we could substitute the word "rules" for the word "guidelines", but even then, I would still be confused. In the case referrenced by the OP, the FTF did not break any rules, or any guidelines. I would go one step further and say, since replacing missing logs seems to be OK with the masses, she didn't even violate any of the commonly accepted practices.

 

To put it bluntly, she did no wrong.

 

Why would punishment even be discussed? :unsure:

Link to comment

Where I'm having a problem is the notion that there may have been "rules" governing her specific behavior.

I know it is just a fun game and all, but the rule/guideline/advice/suggestion is that the cache's log should be signed. By adding a second log, she did not do this. Adding a new log is only okay if the original log is missing, or too full, or too damaged. Therefore, she is a lawbreaker and must be hung by her thumbs.

 

Or not. Either way is fine.

 

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

Link to comment
Original text cut...

 

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

 

Based on the folks opinions so far can I log your cache as a find? :laughing:

From what I read so far I dont have to sign the physical logbook and I can always claim ignorance that there was a logbook there to be signed because you didnt put a disclaimer on your cache description. B)

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.

 

And it sounds like a pain in the butt to me. Which is not to say there's anything wrong with someone who thinks it sounds kind of fun, just that not everyone thinks that way.

 

If I were to find such a cache, with no indication in the cache description of what would be involved in signing the log, I'd probably re-hide the container and post a DNF: "Wasn't in the mood to find log." Not, you understand, that I eschew anything that's not a park-and-grab or anything of that sort. Far from it. I like puzzle caches, multicaches, caches that require long hikes to get to. But searching through dozens of plastic eggs or film canisters or whatever just isn't something I regard as fun.

 

You'll get finders like Cache Test Dummies, and finders (or DNFers) like me. Some of the latter may be less than well-behaved about the "surprise". Expect that.

 

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.

 

+1. Heck, +3.

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...