Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Are we still on topic "Fraudulent Performed maintenance logs"?

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why state you make no claim one way or the other in regards to your reviewers reasonableness when you clearly do?.  

I wasn't aware that I had - what did I miss?

[justintim1999]

15 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So stop wasting energy on unnecessary tasks.

I am speaking from experience with regard to the local reviewer's reaction to my NA log.

Links have been posted in this thread which demonstrate that this reviewer's reaction is not necessarily consistent with those of other reviewers.

Where's the confusion?

Why state you make no claim one way or the other in regards to your reviewers reasonableness when you clearly do?.  

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 I've never experienced 1/10 of the issues you've presented here in these forums.  I think your problems are unique to you and your reviewer and doesn't represent the vast majority of typical cacher/reviewer relationships.    

Oh.

[justintim1999]

15 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Why not?

I'd class that as a service to others if their perception isn't grounded in reality.

 I've never experienced 1/10 of the issues you've presented here in these forums.  I think your problems are unique to you and your reviewer and doesn't represent the vast majority of typical cacher/reviewer relationships.    

[justintim1999]

18 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I made no claim one way or the other as to the reviewer's reasonableness or lack thereof.

You then go on to describe this particular reviewer's inconsistency's as they relate to the decision making process of other reviewers and to GS's cache quality initiative.   You also question the reviewers lack of using history in their decision making process.

If their actions are reasonable than why go on to question them?   If they are not,  why not state that as your opinion?  

 

[+Team Microdot]

39 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I made no claim one way or the other as to the reviewer's reasonableness or lack thereof.

You then go on to describe this particular reviewer's inconsistency's as they relate to the decision making process of other reviewers and to GS's cache quality initiative.   You also question the reviewers lack of using history in their decision making process.

If their actions are reasonable than why go on to question them?   If they are not,  why not state that as your opinion?  

You're flogging a dead horse here - but let my attempt to clarify.

I did not find the reviewer's actions unreasonable and at the same time I did not find them agreeable.

I'm not about to state something as my opinion when it isn't, no matter how desperate you are for that to happen.

[justintim1999]

20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You're flogging a dead horse here - but let my attempt to clarify.

I did not find the reviewer's actions unreasonable and at the same time I did not find them agreeable.

I'm not about to state something as my opinion when it isn't, no matter how desperate you are for that to happen.

There's no desperation on my end whatsoever.   Just wanted to know where you stood.   I think I understand your situation better now.

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There's no desperation on my end whatsoever.   Just wanted to know where you stood. 

Oh, I see. It looked very much like you were trying to funnel the discussion in a particular direction to suit an agenda. My mistake. I apologise.

 

[+hal-an-tow]

17 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So stop wasting energy on unnecessary tasks.

I am speaking from experience with regard to the local reviewer's reaction to my NA log.

Links have been posted in this thread which demonstrate that this reviewer's reaction is not necessarily consistent with those of other reviewers.

Where's the confusion?

I think I'm the only one to have posted links, so I assume this must refer to me. I'd contest the assertion that they "demonstrate that this reviewer's reaction is not necessarily consistent with those of other reviewers", as there is the alternative possibility that they may demonstrate that this cacher's action is not necessarily consistent with those of other posters .

So I thought I'd have a look and see how many NA logs I've posted , and how many were 'armchair logs'.  In 7 years of caching I've posted a total of 23 NA logs. 15 of those were the result of visits. Of the 8 which were not, the reasons I explained in the log were as follows :

Two had been disabled by a newbie setter whose disable log wording showed they had actually meant to archive them.

One was a bonus cache where the feeder caches had already long gone.

The remaining 5 had been MIA for over a year, or had been disabled by the reviewer ages ago but apparently slipped through the archive net.

Of the 8, 3 were archived by the owner, the rest by 3 different reviewers. I've noticed that the current cache tidy up campaign seems to have got the reviewers working beyond their usual areas ...

Each of my (sparingly used, as you can see from their numbers) armchair NA's had the reasons clearly and dispassionately explained.

Reviewers are only human ( and that's as close to a forum in-joke as you will be getting from me ) , I've met quite a few of them.  I'd imagine that if I started to place armchair NA logs more frequently than my 1 per 10 month average , if they began to be a really regular thing, then 'the boy who cried wolf' might well be the response, especially as the volunteer reviewing team are spending so much time already being pro-active using the cache health score .

Maybe you could post a similar audit of all your NA logs for comparison?

[+Team Microdot]

20 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

if they began to be a really regular thing, then 'the boy who cried wolf'

The boy who cried wolf was lying.

[+hzoi]

6 hours ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

Are we still on topic "Fraudulent Performed maintenance logs"?

Is that what this thread was originally about?  Wow.  But for the page title, one can hardly tell anymore.

Edited March 16, 2018 by hzoi

[justintim1999]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Oh, I see. It looked very much like you were trying to funnel the discussion in a particular direction to suit an agenda. My mistake. I apologise.

 

No.  I was just confused on whether or not you were claiming ownership of your statements regarding those situations and how that particular reviewer handled them?   

You know,  when we go off topic like this we should both agree to take the discussion to another thread.  I always intend to stay on topic but I just can't seem to do it.  

[justintim1999]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Is that what this thread was originally about?  Wow.  But for the page title, one can hardly tell anymore.

Guilty as charged.   Believe me it's not my intention to do so.   I need to try harder.  

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Is that what this thread was originally about?  Wow.  But for the page title, one can hardly tell anymore.

Guilty as charged.   Believe me it's not my intention to do so.   I need to try harder.  

 

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You know,  when we go off topic like this we should both agree to take the discussion to another thread.  I always intend to stay on topic but I just can't seem to do it.  

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

[justintim1999]

1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

I think I'm the only one to have posted links, so I assume this must refer to me. I'd contest the assertion that they "demonstrate that this reviewer's reaction is not necessarily consistent with those of other reviewers", as there is the alternative possibility that they may demonstrate that this cacher's action is not necessarily consistent with those of other posters .

So I thought I'd have a look and see how many NA logs I've posted , and how many were 'armchair logs'.  In 7 years of caching I've posted a total of 23 NA logs. 15 of those were the result of visits. Of the 8 which were not, the reasons I explained in the log were as follows :

Two had been disabled by a newbie setter whose disable log wording showed they had actually meant to archive them.

One was a bonus cache where the feeder caches had already long gone.

The remaining 5 had been MIA for over a year, or had been disabled by the reviewer ages ago but apparently slipped through the archive net.

Of the 8, 3 were archived by the owner, the rest by 3 different reviewers. I've noticed that the current cache tidy up campaign seems to have got the reviewers working beyond their usual areas ...

Each of my (sparingly used, as you can see from their numbers) armchair NA's had the reasons clearly and dispassionately explained.

Reviewers are only human ( and that's as close to a forum in-joke as you will be getting from me ) , I've met quite a few of them.  I'd imagine that if I started to place armchair NA logs more frequently than my 1 per 10 month average , if they began to be a really regular thing, then 'the boy who cried wolf' might well be the response, especially as the volunteer reviewing team are spending so much time already being pro-active using the cache health score .

Maybe you could post a similar audit of all your NA logs for comparison?

I don't see "the boy who cried would" as something  a reviewer would be thinking no matter how many NA's you posted as long as they were justified.   If I were a reviewer and your NA logs helped me identify caches that should be archived,  I'd be grateful.   After all aren't we all (Cachers and reviewers) ultimately working toward the same goal?  

[+hzoi]

19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where someone felt it was socially acceptable to freely monopolize any given conversation without others walking away. 

I think the only examples I can think of that weren't internet message boards involved someone with sufficient rank to compel the continued presence of the subordinates in the room.  But you're not in my chain of command, so I'm going to go hit another thread.  Have a swell day.

[justintim1999]

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

Just trying to be respectful to the people on this forums who don't find our endless banter entertaining.

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, hzoi said:

21 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where someone felt it was socially acceptable to freely monopolize any given conversation without others walking away. 

I think the only examples I can think of that weren't internet message boards involved someone with sufficient rank to compel the continued presence of the subordinates in the room.  But you're not in my chain of command, so I'm going to go hit another thread.  Have a swell day.

I just realised how what I wrote could be read two different ways.

I wasn't suggesting you leave the room.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

45 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

On Usenet those were called moderated forums (sort of like this one). 

42 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where someone felt it was socially acceptable to freely monopolize any given conversation without others walking away. 

Although this forum is moderated I don't recall ever seeing a moderator jump in when two or more posters were monopolizing a thread unless it started to veer off topic, and there isn't anything short of closing the thread, that would prevent anyone else from interrupting the conversation.  

[justintim1999]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

On Usenet those were called moderated forums (sort of like this one). 

Although this forum is moderated I don't recall ever seeing a moderator jump in when two or more posters were monopolizing a thread unless it started to veer off topic, and there isn't anything short of closing the thread, that would prevent anyone else from interrupting the conversation.  

I appreciate this moderators patience.   I'm pretty sure after my first post I've veered, dramatically.    I don't know what more I can add the original question other than fraudulent OML's have probably been around since the beginning and it's in our best interest to try to deter owners from using them.   The CHS is only going to accelerate the use of them by people who are predisposed to do so anyway.

Edited March 16, 2018 by justintim1999
additional thought.

[+niraD]

The flip side of fraudulent OM logs would be situations where the owner actually did perform maintenance, but doesn't want to post an OM log because that would clear the NM attribute.

Back in the Good Old Days®, if there were two reported problems and the CO fixed only one, then it was possible to post an OM log for the first problem, then a NM log to restore the NM attribute as a reminder that the problem still needs to be addressed. Now, the owner is no longer allowed to post a NM log, so the first log has to be a Note rather than an OM log.

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where I was engaged in or witness to a discussion that had developed organically and someone on the sidelines felt compelled to halt the discussion such that participants felt that they should stop talking and go into another room

I'm trying to remember a time in my life where someone felt it was socially acceptable to freely monopolize any given conversation without others walking away. 

I think the only examples I can think of that weren't internet message boards involved someone with sufficient rank to compel the continued presence of the subordinates in the room.  But you're not in my chain of command, so I'm going to go hit another thread.  Have a swell day.

I just realised how what I wrote could be read two different ways.

I wasn't suggesting you leave the room.

I didn't read your post as being directed at me, much less an invitation for me to leave.  My statement that I was hitting another thread was my own choice of exit.

That said, here I am again.  But I've other things to do to close out before the weekend, so here I go again.

[justintim1999]

18 minutes ago, niraD said:

The flip side of fraudulent OM logs would be situations where the owner actually did perform maintenance, but doesn't want to post an OM log because that would clear the NM attribute.

Back in the Good Old Days®, if there were two reported problems and the CO fixed only one, then it was possible to post an OM log for the first problem, then a NM log to restore the NM attribute as a reminder that the problem still needs to be addressed. Now, the owner is no longer allowed to post a NM log, so the first log has to be a Note rather than an OM log.

I guess there are situations where you would make a visit and only fix one of the problems.  Now it sounds like you should post a note explaining what you did fix on the first visit and post the OML when the cache was completely back up and running.

How long has it been since an owner hasn't been able to post a NM on their own cache?

[+L0ne.R]

36 minutes ago, niraD said:

The flip side of fraudulent OM logs would be situations where the owner actually did perform maintenance, but doesn't want to post an OM log because that would clear the NM attribute.

I'm not picturing a situation like this. Can you give us an example?

[+cerberus1]

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I guess there are situations where you would make a visit and only fix one of the problems.  Now it sounds like you should post a note explaining what you did fix on the first visit and post the OML when the cache was completely back up and running.

How long has it been since an owner hasn't been able to post a NM on their own cache?

Logging Rule Changes

[+niraD]

21 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I'm not picturing a situation like this. Can you give us an example?

Let's say a finder posts a NM log saying that the cache's attachment mechanism is broken, that the cache was found on the ground instead of where it was supposed to be, and that the cache's camouflage was ruined on the side that was facing the ground. I might be able to replace the attachment mechanism and put the cache back where it belongs, but replacing the camouflage might be a bigger job that I can't do yet.

Yes, I performed maintenance and re-enabled the cache, but I still have maintenance to do, and I'd like to leave the NM attribute on as a reminder. I see no reason to disable the cache though, since the cache works just fine as is. It's "back up and running", but I'd like to leave the NM attribute as a reminder that there is still a longer-term issue that I need to address eventually.

[+L0ne.R]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

Let's say a finder posts a NM log saying that the cache's attachment mechanism is broken, that the cache was found on the ground instead of where it was supposed to be, and that the cache's camouflage was ruined on the side that was facing the ground. I might be able to replace the attachment mechanism and put the cache back where it belongs, but replacing the camouflage might be a bigger job that I can't do yet.

Yes, I performed maintenance and re-enabled the cache, but I still have maintenance to do, and I'd like to leave the NM attribute on as a reminder. I see no reason to disable the cache though, since the cache works just fine as is. It's "back up and running", but I'd like to leave the NM attribute as a reminder that there is still a longer-term issue that I need to address eventually.

 

As a finder I filter out caches with NMs (red wrenches). In this case, the cache is viable and in reasonably good shape. An NM attribute would be a deterrent. But c'est la vie.

It is interesting to see how you (and maybe others) want to use NMs as an owner reminder tool.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 3:40 PM, The A-Team said:

It's certainly likely that what you say is occurring in some cases, but I suspect there's a simpler and less nefarious cause for the increased misuse of the OM log.

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Edit to add: Maybe this is good evidence for changing the default to "Write Note"?

Actually, in my opinion, there shouldn't be a 'default'.

You should have to pick a log type each and every time because of the consequences of using the default.

But of course, that sits poorly with current on-line sensibilities.

[+niraD]

26 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It is interesting to see how you (and maybe others) want to use NMs as an owner reminder tool.

Yeah, there were some interesting discussions back when Groundspeak took away the ability of owners to post NM logs. Some argued that the CO should just disable the cache instead. Some used NM as a middle-ground between 100% okay and disabled.

Hmm... Is the idea of different people using the existing log types differently on-topic here?

[justintim1999]

58 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Logging Rule Changes

CHS?

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Logging Rule Changes

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

CHS?

 Core Logging Structure

 

[justintim1999]

43 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

As a finder I filter out caches with NMs (red wrenches). In this case, the cache is viable and in reasonably good shape. An NM attribute would be a deterrent. But c'est la vie.

It is interesting to see how you (and maybe others) want to use NMs as an owner reminder tool.

It's interesting to see how people use all the different logs.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

On 16/03/2018 at 1:29 PM, Team Microdot said:

The boy who cried wolf was lying.

I would be interested to know what your ratio of NA/NM on visited caches versus the ones you arm chair log.

I think your 'local reviewer' may be getting too many requests and just feels that you should visit the caches.

This use of putting NA/NM on not visited could be seen as 'caching police' tactic, the more you do the less interested the 'local reviewer' may be.

But targeting non-active CO's seems to me as nothing better to do, lots of people feel that helping out a CO is correct and helpful.

I would replace the wet log rather than put a NA on it,

it's my personal opinion that as a community we should support COs in maintaining caches, active or not.

Especially if they cannot be replaced with a new cache publication due to new restrictions in place.

I currently own 365 caches, so I'm happy when someone replaces a wet log for me. 

[+K13]

If a cache owner is inactive, they are beyond help. NA rather that prop up their listing is the preferred action. Let there be room for a new cache by an active owner.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I currently own 365 caches, so I'm happy when someone replaces a wet log for me. 

Okay, I only own 31 active caches, but if any of them had a wet log I'd want to know why it's happening and fix the leaky container. Replacing wet logs in leaky containers only results in more wet logs.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Okay, I only own 31 active caches, but if any of them had a wet log I'd want to know why it's happening and fix the leaky container. Replacing wet logs in leaky containers only results in more wet logs.

I remember the days when I only had 31 caches, I would check a DNF the same Day or next, but experience now tells me it is not leaky containers, it the environment they are placed in, you have to consider that part of the year they can be under snow or frozen for weeks,

if you read some of my found logs, they state that it was raining or snowing when found, so the paper logs are bound to get touched by the weather, then been replaced back in to  airtight containers just keeps the moisture inside, no matter what you do the logs will be effected, with that a spring maintenance walk is a yearly requirement.

currently I have 22480 finds in 1140 total days on my caches with 2216 fav points

so when out caches perhaps a bit of consideration to why the log is wet or damp would reduce the need for a NM

[+Team Microdot]

22 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I would be interested to know what your ratio of NA/NM on visited caches versus the ones you arm chair log.

I think your 'local reviewer' may be getting too many requests and just feels that you should visit the caches.

This use of putting NA/NM on not visited could be seen as 'caching police' tactic, the more you do the less interested the 'local reviewer' may be.

But targeting non-active CO's seems to me as nothing better to do, lots of people feel that helping out a CO is correct and helpful.

I would replace the wet log rather than put a NA on it,

it's my personal opinion that as a community we should support COs in maintaining caches, active or not.

Especially if they cannot be replaced with a new cache publication due to new restrictions in place.

I currently own 365 caches, so I'm happy when someone replaces a wet log for me. 

Well that's easy enough - arm chair log will be virtually nil - which renders your second point moot.

As has already been pointed out - an inactive CO is past help - they are already out of the game by their actions have demonstrated that they are no longer interested in any caches left out there that they previously took responsibility for.

I think it's unhelpful to try to impose your view as being correct - individual responses should be appropriate to individual circumstances,

 

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I remember the days when I only had 31 caches, I would check a DNF the same Day or next, but experience now tells me it is not leaky containers, it the environment they are placed in, you have to consider that part of the year they can be under snow or frozen for weeks,

if you read some of my found logs, they state that it was raining or snowing when found, so the paper logs are bound to get touched by the weather, then been replaced back in to  airtight containers just keeps the moisture inside, no matter what you do the logs will be effected, with that a spring maintenance walk is a yearly requirement.

currently I have 22480 finds in 1140 total days on my caches with 2216 fav points

so when out caches perhaps a bit of consideration to why the log is wet or damp would reduce the need for a NM

It's true that containers deteriorate over time and will become more susceptible to the effects of weather as they age and more likely to leak - but that doesn't mean that the weather is to blame for all ills. Some containers are simply better than others. Some hides are more weather-proof than others.

I found a number of your caches before you adopted them - some very creative and unique caches there which had already amassed a large number of FP's.

Considering why the log is wet or damp doesn't change the facts and doesn't remove the need for maintenance.

 

[+Clongo_Rongo]

37 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Well that's easy enough - arm chair log will be virtually nil - which renders your second point moot.

 

so by this post - 'arm chair log will be virtually nil' - so you have admitted that you have - and thats why the 'local reviewer' knows what you do. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by CHEZRASCALS

[+Team Microdot]

12 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

so by this post - 'arm chair log will be virtually nil' - so you have admitted that you have - and thats why the 'local reviewer' knows what you do it 

Wow - wasn't aware I was on trial here

Ouch - you got me - bang to rights

Yes - I have logged NA on a couple of caches that I haven't recently visited - but only because it was painfully obvious that they were abandoned junk for an extended period of time.

Sue me.

I have news for you - there are plenty of people who log NA on caches which they haven't recently visited.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yes - I have logged NA on a couple of caches that I haven't recently visited - but only because it was painfully obvious that they were abandoned junk for an extended period of time.

this is  'Caching Policing' - you might think you are serving the public, but many think it is not correct.

 

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yes - I have logged NA on a couple of caches that I haven't recently visited - but only because it was painfully obvious that they were abandoned junk for an extended period of time.

this is  'Caching Policing' - you might think you are serving the public, but many think it is not correct.

Can you show us where in the official guidelines it states that logging NA on a cache which absolutely deserves it is 'Caching Policing'?

[+LFC4eva]

27 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

this is  'Caching Policing' - you might think you are serving the public, but many think it is not correct.

 

 

 

It is comments like this which stop responsible cachers from posting NM or NA logs at all.

If a CO has left the game and has abandoned all his caches, they eventually go missing or become nothing more than geolitter.  What is the point of community maintenance in those circumstances?  The CO wasn't interested in maintaining his own cache, so he's not going to maintain the throwdown either.. so while it may have a short stay of execution, it won't be long before that container is junk too.

When an abandoned cache has a long string of DNF's it's time to get rid and free up the location for someone who is interested in placing and maintaining a cache. 

I don't believe there are MANY who think it is better to continue to waste a cachers time looking for something which isn't there and/or something which is a soggy mess rather than alerting the reviewer that there is a problem with the cache.

A reviewer doesn't action a NA immediately.  He requests the CO checks on his cache and if that isn't done in a timely manner the cache is archived.
 

Edited March 18, 2018 by LFC4eva
duplicate sentence

[+L0ne.R]

29 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

this is  'Caching Policing' - you might think you are serving the public, but many think it is not correct.

 

 

 

Yes he is serving the community.

Including those of us who sometimes get to spend precious 1000s of dollars and do a little traveling. Especially in a place like England, a mecca for a lot of travellers who may get the chance to visit once in a lifetime.   

When we only have a few days (maybe a few hours or minutes) at a location it's great to have a decent chance of finding a cache that is actually there, and in reasonably good shape, with an active owner we can thank for the added fun they added to our vacation memories.

Not something like this, with an owner who's long gone. A cache that has festered for months sometimes years, with no one willing to post the desperately needed NA:

[+arisoft]

18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Can you show us where in the official guidelines it states that logging NA on a cache which absolutely deserves it is 'Caching Policing'?

In the court they call this as hearsay when you report "facts" you have not been witnessing yourself.

[+L0ne.R]

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In the court they call this as hearsay when you report "facts" you have not been witnessing yourself.

The facts are listed in the logs and sometimes in the photo gallery. Unless all those people reporting a broken cache are delusional or lying. 

[+Team Microdot]

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Can you show us where in the official guidelines it states that logging NA on a cache which absolutely deserves it is 'Caching Policing'?

In the court they call this as hearsay when you report "facts" you have not been witnessing yourself.

Do they really?

So good then that we're not in a court of law here and we're just talking about playing a game which involves finding plastic boxes in the woods.

When the previous logs confirm time and again that the container is broken and the piles of paper that people are leaving are constantly turning to pulp, when the CO has been out of the game for several years and you know that to be a fact - I'd say there's sufficient evidence there that the CO isn't going to fix that cache and I'll tell you now that if I've logged on NA on that basis I sleep very soundly in my bed.

[+Clongo_Rongo]

50 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Can you show us where in the official guidelines it states that logging NA on a cache which absolutely deserves it is 'Caching Policing'?

i don't need to know the guidelines - i accept the 'local Reviewer' as he understands what is going on

[+Team Microdot]

20 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

i don't need to know the guidelines - i accept the 'local Reviewer' as he understands what is going on

Wrong.

We all need to know the guidelines - especially the local reviewer so that he can enforce them and help those who don't understand them or haven't read them.

Your made-up rules / descriptions / labels for people and their behaviours have zero value.