Jump to content

Deleted logs


Recommended Posts

Really like to hear back from baad daata on this one, if she's not too busy turning the cache page into a forum.

I would think they will keep caching the way they want to. If they feel they have done enough to earn their smilie they will log it as a find and take the odd deleted find as an occupational hazard, argue the toss on the cache page (and in this case the forum ) and will soon move on undeterred.

Link to comment

If a reviewer or lackey gets wind of that the webcam does not work and folks are posting pictures instead the webcam might well join the ranks of the ghosts.

 

Which is what happened to Avebury Inner Eye webcam about 18 months ago. (Archiving log)

 

... which was fair enough, tbh.

And there was the Vegas one that was archived back in January because the cam had been down for almost a year and a half.

...and people were logging it with photos. The flagrant photo-taking at this disabled webcam in Vegas led to the tightening of webcam rules mentioned in post 9.

Link to comment

Our local webcam cache was archived, because the CO had taken another job, and the cam was not functioning. So she allowed people to log it with a camera picture. As soon as the reviewers got word of that, the cache was archived.

 

I'm with the CO on this one.

-The logger could have easily read that there were 4 other cams

-The CO is protecting his historic cache

 

Why can't people who are arguing for "allow it because he traveled so far..." understand that?

Link to comment

If a reviewer or lackey gets wind of that the webcam does not work and folks are posting pictures instead the webcam might well join the ranks of the ghosts.

 

Which is what happened to Avebury Inner Eye webcam about 18 months ago. (Archiving log)

 

... which was fair enough, tbh.

And there was the Vegas one that was archived back in January because the cam had been down for almost a year and a half.

This webcam.I was THERE but didnt log it because the cam was down. I should get a smiley because I was following the guideline!

 

Believe it or NOT. The OP is logged that webcam. Link to log but no pic.

Link to comment

it is actually a COOL web cam cache, I love to get into that house,

and see if I can get a picture of my self on their webcams,

that will be soo cool !!!

anything less is a fail, task is NOT compleeted,

loosers stop crying :-)

it is the same bread of loosers who say they found a cache

and log it as found when they did not sign the log book,

READ the RULES !! and stop waste our time..

Link to comment

Really like to hear back from baad daata on this one, if she's not too busy turning the cache page into a forum.

I would think they will keep caching the way they want to. If they feel they have done enough to earn their smilie they will log it as a find and take the odd deleted find as an occupational hazard, argue the toss on the cache page (and in this case the forum ) and will soon move on undeterred.

 

My post is in context to this thread. It does not matter how much effort you make, if you do not meet the requirements of a find, it is not a find.

 

Is that better?

Edited by MisterEFQ
Link to comment

Really like to hear back from baad daata on this one, if she's not too busy turning the cache page into a forum.

I would think they will keep caching the way they want to. If they feel they have done enough to earn their smilie they will log it as a find and take the odd deleted find as an occupational hazard, argue the toss on the cache page (and in this case the forum ) and will soon move on undeterred.

 

My post is in context to this thread. It does not matter how much effort you make, if you do not meet the requirements of a find, it is not a find.

 

Is that better?

Yep. Totally agree and I think the OP knows this aswell but will continue to log as they see fit.

They have made the effort to be there so will try and claim a find. Some CO's will accept this (and may suffer the consequences) some won't.

 

However, shouldn't GS archive all Webcam caches where the CO has no control over the availability and maintenance of the Webcam. It could be unavailable for ages and would be just like a traditional cache where there is no log at various differing times of the week and the CO has no control over providing a new one!

Link to comment

I don't think the OP knows this. Its been shown a few times where he ignored the requirements at a few caches. Virts and webcams. Also all of his notes on the cache page are now deleted. And by his notes he feels the effort he took is reason enough go get a smiley. He was there, he drove 30-40 miles, etc.

 

No I don't think those should be archived at all. Webcam caches are a different breed.

 

We tried to log one once. But the camera was down that day so we looked for a different cache. That's just how those caches go.

Link to comment

 

Some CO's are power tripn' jerks

 

No doubt about it, some of us are. :anibad:

Even more of us simply want the 'finder' to log the cache within the framework outlined on the cache page to have it be considered a valid find.

 

Expecting to skate by due to 'circumstances' really isn't the way to gain the sympathy of the CO.

Link to comment

Some CO's are power tripn' jerks

That comment was uncalled for.

 

No it wasn't - some Co's ARE power tripn' jerks. I know because I dealt with one recently.

That may be true but you dont have to say it.

That's the problem with being a nice CO. You allow the rules to be bent with logging requirements. Next, it becomes common and cachers expect to log any way they want on other caches and feel entitled to it. This CO just doesnt want the cache archived, so they have disallowed bogus webcam logs. Someone gets mad because they have posted several bogus logs on other caches, and now they feel entitled to post one on this cache, and posts a NA if they can't.

 

It's a library which relies on public funding and apparently geocachers are the only ones that use the webcam. Perhaps some local cachers could offer to fix it? How much could the actual camera cost, $20-30??

Link to comment

Why are there webcams INSIDE the library? I find that kind of creepy.

 

From the cache page:

 

This library has a haunting history. You can read about it on their website.

Inside this library there are several webcams. These webcams are used to help spot paranormal activity.

Creepy was a good word for it! :lol:

 

As soon as I saw the first post I knew what Library he was talking about. I see the Grey Lady is still making appearances.

 

As for the topic yeah if you don't follow the rules its a DNF. but if the CO has had others that were allowed, then it sounds like he missed a few that should have been deleted.

Link to comment

Really like to hear back from baad daata on this one, if she's not too busy turning the cache page into a forum.

 

LOL. You don't get 32600 finds by hanging out in the forums...

 

I've never met her personally, but have exchanged a few emails over the years. I have found about 20 of her caches in Utah and Eastern Nevada. Good caches in good locations. She seems okay to me, but she did offer me the opportunity to change a DNF to a find because she verified that the cache was missing, I was in the right place and I had driven about 500 miles to get there. I declined, but I think that it explains the thinking that lies behind this entire controversy. Each day I read about 20 times in the forum, "play the game that you want to", or some variation there of. This is fine until you hear of someone doing something so absurd that it insults your sensibilities. I felt that way the first time I discovered that people in certain areas were logging single events up to a 100 times to account for temporary caches that were all placed 50' apart. Surprisingly, there are certain areas and certain groups that are more than happy to have you log their caches simply because you tried to find them, missing or not.

 

That is all fine and dandy until you run into a cache owner that doesn't want to play the game the way you play it. When he backs it up with the guidelines, you need to let it go. I have no idea why she choose to push this and can't imagine what makes this cache so special that she needs to go to these lengths, just to prove herself wrong. It's one out of 32600.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera) and a few that have logged a find with photo's taken from their own camera's & none of them was deleted. This Web Cam cache in question is local to us and the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time. Proof you was there would be good enough to us to log the find.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera) and a few that have logged a find with photo's taken from their own camera's & none of them was deleted. This Web Cam cache in question is local to us and the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time. Proof you was there would be good enough to us to log the find.

 

The problem is that the guidelines were changed about a month ago and other web cam caches have been archived because the COs still allowed bogus logs. The guidelines are now very specific. You have to post a picture taken by the web cam, not your own.

 

I all of the cameras are down 95% of the time, then the OP may have been justified for posting a NA. Perhaps the locals should take the suggestion above, kick in few bucks and fix them so that you don't lose your precious web cam cache.

Link to comment

Some CO's are power tripn' jerks

That comment was uncalled for.

 

No it wasn't - some Co's ARE power tripn' jerks. I know because I dealt with one recently.

 

Yeah, and some cars are black. You can try, but there is no way that anyone is going to believe that you were talking in general terms.

Link to comment

Proof you were means nothing. It's a webcam cache, not a virtual cache. Webcam stands for web + camera.

 

You can't legitimately log an earthcache by proving you were there, or log a traditional that is 50 feet up a tree by taking a picture of yourself at the bottom of the tree with the cache above your head.

 

Seems pretty simple.

Link to comment

This is a very similar issued faced with the Waymarking web cam category. If the camera is down, and you can't get a pic, then you do NOT get to claim a visit. Period.

 

We drove an hour away once to eat a restaurant with the main purpose to get our pic on the webcam. I had a friend back home working on the computer to get a screen shot of us there, but the camera was not live and there was nothing we could do about it. We'll just have to try again the next time we are out that way, because the visit requirements are very explicit: you must get a photo of yourself in the webcam's view.

 

It's a bummer, but if you didn't meet the requirement, don't post a "found it" log.

Link to comment

the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time.

No they're not. The issue seems to be that the links on the cache page are slightly outdated. But with a little research they are easy to find. And if I had planned on going here I would have found these easily. (Note the other link on the cache page takes you to another site with an additional 2 working cams)

 

http://www.courierpress.com/libraryghost/cams/childrensroom/

 

http://www.courierpress.com/libraryghost/cams/basementroom/

 

Here's the research room: http://www.courierpress.com/libraryghost/cams/researchroom/

Link to comment

Really like to hear back from baad daata on this one, if she's not too busy turning the cache page into a forum.

I would think they will keep caching the way they want to. If they feel they have done enough to earn their smilie they will log it as a find and take the odd deleted find as an occupational hazard, argue the toss on the cache page (and in this case the forum ) and will soon move on undeterred.

 

^^^^^ This is the correct answer!! Yes, I'll bet the rare log deletion is an "occupational hazard" for someone with 32,000 finds, who occasionally does something cheesy on their travels. :laughing: This CO is pretty hardcore, and I do sympathize with Baad Data, but the rules are the rules, for those who want to be a stickler about them.

 

I must be going softcore, as opposed to hardcore. I owned a webcam cache for about 5 years, before it disappeared off the face of the earth. I would allow their own camera shots if the webcam was down. And even for the last month of it's life, before it's inevitable archival, I allowed it. Then again, I was always an active cache owner, and on top of the situation. Not like people just decided their own pic was good enough without asking.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera) and a few that have logged a find with photo's taken from their own camera's & none of them was deleted. This Web Cam cache in question is local to us and the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time. Proof you was there would be good enough to us to log the find.

 

The problem is that the guidelines were changed about a month ago and other web cam caches have been archived because the COs still allowed bogus logs. The guidelines are now very specific. You have to post a picture taken by the web cam, not your own.

 

I all of the cameras are down 95% of the time, then the OP may have been justified for posting a NA. Perhaps the locals should take the suggestion above, kick in few bucks and fix them so that you don't lose your precious web cam cache.

 

In my mind, it wouldn't matter if the webcams were down 95% of the time. The CO could state in the cache description that it might be tough to complete this cache since there are times when the cams are down. For me, it would add to the challenge of actually doing the cache the way it is supposed to be done and add to my liking it even more if i happened to hit it when the cam(s) were working. Of course, the CO might want to add a star to the overall difficulty on it.

Link to comment

In my mind, it wouldn't matter if the webcams were down 95% of the time. The CO could state in the cache description that it might be tough to complete this cache since there are times when the cams are down. For me, it would add to the challenge of actually doing the cache the way it is supposed to be done and add to my liking it even more if i happened to hit it when the cam(s) were working. Of course, the CO might want to add a star to the overall difficulty on it.

The owner has given the cache a 4-star difficulty rating partly for that very reason.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera) and a few that have logged a find with photo's taken from their own camera's & none of them was deleted. This Web Cam cache in question is local to us and the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time. Proof you was there would be good enough to us to log the find.

 

The problem is that the guidelines were changed about a month ago and other web cam caches have been archived because the COs still allowed bogus logs. The guidelines are now very specific. You have to post a picture taken by the web cam, not your own.

 

I all of the cameras are down 95% of the time, then the OP may have been justified for posting a NA. Perhaps the locals should take the suggestion above, kick in few bucks and fix them so that you don't lose your precious web cam cache.

 

In my mind, it wouldn't matter if the webcams were down 95% of the time. The CO could state in the cache description that it might be tough to complete this cache since there are times when the cams are down. For me, it would add to the challenge of actually doing the cache the way it is supposed to be done and add to my liking it even more if i happened to hit it when the cam(s) were working. Of course, the CO might want to add a star to the overall difficulty on it.

that may be right, but, cameras are to be working most of the time. GS might archive the webcam cache.

 

This is a double end sword here. Gotta play the middle ground here.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera)

 

I went through the list and found only one log without a picture that wasn't included in somebody else's picture. It was back in 2009 and logged with a group of other people on the same day.

 

But, here's the thing. The rules are the rules now. And just because that log was missed (and it that cacher might be included in the other's photo) doesn't mean that you don't have to follow the rules as they are today.

 

C'mon. This person has set a precedence of her own to not follow the rules when it ones to webcams (and possible virts). Like others have mentioned, it really makes you think about what other things they are doing to have that many finds...

Link to comment

This is a very similar issued faced with the Waymarking web cam category. If the camera is down, and you can't get a pic, then you do NOT get to claim a visit. Period.

 

We drove an hour away once to eat a restaurant with the main purpose to get our pic on the webcam. I had a friend back home working on the computer to get a screen shot of us there, but the camera was not live and there was nothing we could do about it. We'll just have to try again the next time we are out that way, because the visit requirements are very explicit: you must get a photo of yourself in the webcam's view.

 

It's a bummer, but if you didn't meet the requirement, don't post a "found it" log.

That's too bad. I didn't realize that the webcam waymark category had changed the rules for visits last year. Jeremy had originally said that people didn't need pictures of themselves from the webcam. The point of the category was to find webcams, not to necessarily get your picture from them.

 

I for one am not going to enforce that visit requirement on the webcam waymarks that I own. I think that defeats the purpose of Waymarking. <_<

Link to comment

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=256522

04 August 2010 - 03:34 PM

I just became aware that you only need one paid membership to query, search and find and LOG any cache. Why do folks waste their money on a second.....or third membership in order to fully participate in the game? You can do it all for one participant's $30. Sounds good to me. I am going to start a co-op.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=252858

Posted 21 June 2010 - 01:39 PM

I haven't read all of the posts but I must say that rarely read a cache description before I hunt. I cache alone most of the time so I have no one to read while I drive. If I have a problem I go back and read the info. I also must admit that I put important info in my cache descriptions occassionally and am very annoyed when someone "ignores" instructions or cautions that I include in the descriptions on my caches. I can't win on this one because I am guilty on both ends. I am OCD and I can't help myself. Therapy hasn't worked but I haven't been incarcerated yet.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=250844

Posted 04 June 2010 - 11:41 AM

I agree with your point about needless NM logs but "newbies" are gonna do all sorts of things that make the seasoned players shake heads. I try to write them a helpful note explaining the consequences of the NM logs and make suggestions as to how they might handle the situation next time. Sometimes it is well accepted and sometimes it is not.

 

I have started to post NM logs on 1/1 caches that contain a hint like "none needed" or "too easy for a hint" when I have to log a dnf because I can't find it. I figure a 1.0 difficulty that doesn't need a hint must be missing. I have annoyed a few folks but it just makes sense to me.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Post a Needs Archived. That will show that CO to mess with you.

Been away from this thread for a few days and realize that I failed to post a :rolleyes: to my initial post. My apologies to anyone who was confused by the intent of my post.

No webcam pic, no find. Quityercarpin and move on with it.

 

Hope that clears up my intent. :bad:

Link to comment

This is a very similar issued faced with the Waymarking web cam category. If the camera is down, and you can't get a pic, then you do NOT get to claim a visit. Period.

 

We drove an hour away once to eat a restaurant with the main purpose to get our pic on the webcam. I had a friend back home working on the computer to get a screen shot of us there, but the camera was not live and there was nothing we could do about it. We'll just have to try again the next time we are out that way, because the visit requirements are very explicit: you must get a photo of yourself in the webcam's view.

 

It's a bummer, but if you didn't meet the requirement, don't post a "found it" log.

That's too bad. I didn't realize that the webcam waymark category had changed the rules for visits last year. Jeremy had originally said that people didn't need pictures of themselves from the webcam. The point of the category was to find webcams, not to necessarily get your picture from them.

 

I for one am not going to enforce that visit requirement on the webcam waymarks that I own. I think that defeats the purpose of Waymarking. <_<

 

Whoa. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Waymerking has a purpose? Just kidding, I said a few posts up I allowed "own camera" finds on a webcam I owned on Geocaching.com.

 

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=250844

Posted 04 June 2010 - 11:41 AM

I agree with your point about needless NM logs but "newbies" are gonna do all sorts of things that make the seasoned players shake heads. I try to write them a helpful note explaining the consequences of the NM logs and make suggestions as to how they might handle the situation next time. Sometimes it is well accepted and sometimes it is not.

 

I have started to post NM logs on 1/1 caches that contain a hint like "none needed" or "too easy for a hint" when I have to log a dnf because I can't find it. I figure a 1.0 difficulty that doesn't need a hint must be missing. I have annoyed a few folks but it just makes sense to me.

 

 

B.

 

Totally off topic, but Baad Data needs to know that all "none needed" or "too easy for hints" hints are posted by totally clueless people who can't read the basic instructions of "if you don't have a hint, leave it blank". :ph34r:

Link to comment

... shouldn't GS archive all Webcam caches where the CO has no control over the availability and maintenance of the Webcam.

 

No way, how is that different to saying that traditional caches should be archived if the CO has no control over access to the cache? What if the local authority closed a park, rerouted a road, moved a footpath?

 

Go down that route and we'd have very few caches of any kind.

Link to comment

This is a very similar issued faced with the Waymarking web cam category. If the camera is down, and you can't get a pic, then you do NOT get to claim a visit. Period.

 

We drove an hour away once to eat a restaurant with the main purpose to get our pic on the webcam. I had a friend back home working on the computer to get a screen shot of us there, but the camera was not live and there was nothing we could do about it. We'll just have to try again the next time we are out that way, because the visit requirements are very explicit: you must get a photo of yourself in the webcam's view.

 

It's a bummer, but if you didn't meet the requirement, don't post a "found it" log.

That's too bad. I didn't realize that the webcam waymark category had changed the rules for visits last year. Jeremy had originally said that people didn't need pictures of themselves from the webcam. The point of the category was to find webcams, not to necessarily get your picture from them.

 

I for one am not going to enforce that visit requirement on the webcam waymarks that I own. I think that defeats the purpose of Waymarking. <_<

 

Whoa. Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Whoa. Waymerking has a purpose? Just kidding, I said a few posts up I allowed "own camera" finds on a webcam I owned on Geocaching.com.

 

:anitongue::P

Link to comment

Glad I read this thread. I only remember logging one of these and I snapped a picture. I think the description said the camera was down alot and suggested taking a picture. This thread made me realize that the web cam is the unique feature of this cache type. Wonder what the reason was for not allowing more? I can't imagine anyone investing in a power web cam trail. If I ever encounter another one, I will be dilligent to find as intended.

Link to comment

... shouldn't GS archive all Webcam caches where the CO has no control over the availability and maintenance of the Webcam.

 

No way, how is that different to saying that traditional caches should be archived if the CO has no control over access to the cache? What if the local authority closed a park, rerouted a road, moved a footpath?

 

Go down that route and we'd have very few caches of any kind.

 

It isn't any different, that was my point.

If a CO was unable to maintain a traditional cache because a park was closed/a Right of way was changed etc then tha cache would, at least, need some maintenance. With these webcam caches the CO just sits there saying tough luck and deleting visitors logs. I also make the following observations;

 

- Who knows if half of those people on the pictures are the actual cachers.

 

- I could ask my Aunt Dorothy to walk past and hold her TV remote control in the air and nobody would know if I logged it from 5000 miles away!

 

- half of them you cant even tell if it is a real GPS.

 

- I checked my local webcam cache and people are saying 'mines the car just crossing the picture in the background' etc etc.

 

I have no problem with these WebCam caches but it just seems they are riddled with contradictions and I am surprised that GS haven't archived them.

Link to comment

If some of you would go to the listing of this cache in question here & go down the list of cachers that have logged a find on this. You will see there are many that have logged the find without a photo (From Cam or Personal Camera) and a few that have logged a find with photo's taken from their own camera's & none of them was deleted. This Web Cam cache in question is local to us and the Cam's are down 95%+ of the time. Proof you was there would be good enough to us to log the find.

 

The problem is that the guidelines were changed about a month ago and other web cam caches have been archived because the COs still allowed bogus logs. The guidelines are now very specific. You have to post a picture taken by the web cam, not your own.

 

If all of the cameras are down 95% of the time, then the OP may have been justified for posting a NA. Perhaps the locals should take the suggestion above, kick in few bucks and fix them so that you don't lose your precious web cam cache.

 

In my mind, it wouldn't matter if the webcams were down 95% of the time. The CO could state in the cache description that it might be tough to complete this cache since there are times when the cams are down. For me, it would add to the challenge of actually doing the cache the way it is supposed to be done and add to my liking it even more if i happened to hit it when the cam(s) were working. Of course, the CO might want to add a star to the overall difficulty on it.

 

I wasn't suggesting that the cache should be archived, only that the NA log may have been justified. I have no idea if Groundspeak has any criteria on such things, but it does beg the question, how available should any cache be? Could I place a cache that was only available one day out of each year? There is a local historical site that is only open four hours a month. Would placing a cache there be acceptable?

 

I was also addressing the fact that the CO apparently used to allow alternate logging. With the new guidelines, he can't risk getting his cache archived by continuing to do so. The post I replied to was asking him to go back over the years and delete all of those alternate logs. I don't think that this would be fair to the cachers that he had previously allowed to log his cache.

Link to comment
I was also addressing the fact that the CO apparently used to allow alternate logging. With the new guidelines, he can't risk getting his cache archived by continuing to do so. The post I replied to was asking him to go back over the years and delete all of those alternate logs. I don't think that this would be fair to the cachers that he had previously allowed to log his cache.

 

Yeah, it's not the CO's fault that groundspeek has forced webcam CO's to become militant. Used to be that CO's could accept whatever evidence they felt was valid, but groundspeek has decided to be a little more than just a listing service and started telling it's members what they could and could not do with their old grandfathered caches. I know some see it as groundspeek just ensuring quality control, but I see it as groundspeek trying to get rid of older cache types they don't really care to see listed. Why not just archive them and be done with it. Since when did groundspeek concern themselves with quality control? If they're going to start trying to up the quality of caches or concern themselves with cheating and what not, why not start with the myriad of atrocious micros littering the landscape?

Link to comment
I was also addressing the fact that the CO apparently used to allow alternate logging. With the new guidelines, he can't risk getting his cache archived by continuing to do so. The post I replied to was asking him to go back over the years and delete all of those alternate logs. I don't think that this would be fair to the cachers that he had previously allowed to log his cache.

 

Yeah, it's not the CO's fault that groundspeek has forced webcam CO's to become militant. Used to be that CO's could accept whatever evidence they felt was valid, but groundspeek has decided to be a little more than just a listing service and started telling it's members what they could and could not do with their old grandfathered caches. I know some see it as groundspeek just ensuring quality control, but I see it as groundspeek trying to get rid of older cache types they don't really care to see listed. Why not just archive them and be done with it. Since when did groundspeek concern themselves with quality control? If they're going to start trying to up the quality of caches or concern themselves with cheating and what not, why not start with the myriad of atrocious micros littering the landscape?

 

When they started archiving Virtual Caches because of armchair logs. I remember when Miss Jenn posted to the forum to announce that guideline change. It was worth a couple of hundreds of posts. They kind of snuck this one through with a big glob of guideline changes. I read it and immediately thought of the cache in Vegas.

Link to comment

There are 6 (six) webcams to choose from. The OP *clearly* mentions that one of them was working, because he mentioned the pumpkins.

 

This is a library.

 

Go to one of the many free computers, look this cache up, and figure it out.

 

I dont car how long this guy drove for this webcam. I've hiked up mountains only to dnf. That the game folks! And there are only so many rules, how hard is it to follow them??

 

This team has 32,000+ finds. Thirty-two THOUSAND. He really needs to be told to fire up a computer and look it up???

 

He got caught fake logging this find (and most of his webcam cache finds, btw). He tried to get away with playing the game his way, and got caught by one of the few conscientious COs .

 

Kudos to the webcam owner!!

 

Something I find funny in all of this is that the OP has not said anything since starting the thread. I have to wonder if they thought nobody would look any deeper? I guess they don't read the forum much either...

Link to comment

 

Something I find funny in all of this is that the OP has not said anything since starting the thread. I have to wonder if they thought nobody would look any deeper? I guess they don't read the forum much either...

 

I expect they came on here expecting to find sympathy to their plight and intended to use that to bolster their argument for having the deleted find reinstated - looks like they misjudged the mood of the mob !

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...
×
×
  • Create New...