+J Grouchy Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Ran across a virtual at Stone Mountain park this weekend where my email to the CO came back undelivered with a message about "permanent failure" and it made me think...how many virtuals out there will live on in pertetuity, never monitored by a CO and basically coasting along unburdened by any real ownership? I made "note" of it in my log, but since the landmark it was created for still exists and likely will for decades to come, I saw no need to make a real issue out of it. It does, however, seem like COs of virtuals are basically not really responsible for anything at all as long as people are willing to log it for the smilie. It also made me think of this thread, where the CO is still actively monitoring and making noise about changing the requirement to counter the possibility of "cheating" on his virtual...is it fair to those responsible COs to allow virtuals that have essentially been "set free"? I personally have no desire to rise to the level of "busybody-ship" by trying to get these caches disabled or archived; but aside from GZ being completely changed, is there any reason why you, as a cacher, might do so for a virtual cache? Does it matter to you whether a virtual even HAS a CO...or at least one that cares any more? Quote 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.