+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Anyone know what the new guidelines are ? Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 No... You'll have to give a bit more detail... Any clue in the Reviewer's Archive log? MrsB Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) There were archived by the user not a reviewer, Lucilla. It turns out it is a personal guideline that the setter has applied . If he has to replace the container more than twice he is archiving them, which is a shame as his hides are very innovative edited for the grammar police, I was tempted to add a spelling mistake but was concerned that I may cause offence to error free posters Edited February 17, 2012 by Matrix Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 There were archived by the user Lucilla it turns out it is a personal guideline that the setter has applied . If he has to replace the container more than twice he is archiving them, which is a shame as his hides are very innovative That username doesn't seem to exist. Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) There were archived by the user Lucilla it turns out it is a personal guideline that the setter has applied . If he has to replace the container more than twice he is archiving them, which is a shame as his hides are very innovative That username doesn't seem to exist. Perhaps it would have been clearer if Matrix had written: "Lucilla, they were archivced by the user...." Edited February 17, 2012 by MartyBartfast Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) I'm Spartacus Lucilla. (MrsB) Edited February 17, 2012 by The Blorenges Link to comment
+Munkeh Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I'm Spartacus Lucilla. (MrsB) no I'm Lucilla Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ohhhhh, I see. Those danged commas. Troublemakers, they are. Link to comment
+Lovejoy and Tinker Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) snip Edited February 17, 2012 by Lovejoy and Tinker Link to comment
+Planet Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 You mean I justed wasted 5 minutes for a comma? Glad I gave up looking, lol. Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Ohhhhh, I see. Those danged commas. Troublemakers, they are. I am sorry you were unaware that I was replying to Lucilla and not naming the cacher concerned , I promise to PM you and tell you the back story and my reason for posting next time. p.s read my signature it is aimed at people like you . Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It always helps to read the humour in posts. Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 p.s read my signature it is aimed at people like you . You don't know me at all, so you can't possibly know what I'm like. No need to take offence at gentle humour. Seems like you are the one taking things too seriously. Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) p.s read my signature it is aimed at people like you . You don't know me at all, so you can't possibly know what I'm like. No need to take offence at gentle humour. Seems like you are the one taking things too seriously. And you don't seem to be aware of something called sarcasm, it is a relatively new phenomenon Edited February 17, 2012 by Matrix Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 p.s read my signature it is aimed at people like you . You don't know me at all, so you can't possibly know what I'm like. No need to take offence at gentle humour. Seems like you are the one taking things too seriously. Why did you feel the need to post twice about one post ? Do you see what I did there ? Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Can a mod please lock this so I can crawl back under my rock ? Link to comment
+Simply Paul Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Or to take the thread in a new, but related, direction, I saw this the other day - I thought ALR's (Additional Logging Requirements) were ok on caches, so long as they weren't intended to exclude people for silly reasons and the cache was listed as a puzzle/unknown and not as a trad... Has that ru- guideline been changed recently? Edited to add, as the cache was set with the ALR back in 2008, wouldn't it be usual to regard it as Grandfathered even if the guideline had changed? It's not wildly different from Pretty in Pink for example. Edited February 17, 2012 by Simply Paul Link to comment
+Matrix Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 Thats a bit like a series of "puzzle" caches in the Swindon area that can only be logged if you have the requisite number of finds on certain cache types , I found all the caches as part of a team that had the necessary qualifications but I did not . Also it looks like the powers to be are on the case according to a note from the cache owner Link to comment
+castagnari Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Can a mod please lock this so I can crawl back under my rock ? thead closed at OPs request (and rock lifted) Link to comment
Recommended Posts