Jump to content

Webcam Log Deleted 2 1/2 Years Later for Standing In the Wrong Place


Réd

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Simply put, yes, for a log that didn't meet the requirements, the owner has the right either delete it or to let it stand. But arguing that they should let it stand just in good faith - in general - isn't right. I'm sure you understand the more nuanced position the CO is in, because owner responsibility over the listing and log integrity is in play. Even the simplest almost-qualification may be problematic if it's let stand, whereas in some cases a log most people would delete may be entirely harmless if the CO lets stand.  "Good will" is nice, but in the context of serving the community (ie, maintaining the listing), good will applies towards more people than just the one who posts the logs.

So, the CO has the right to delete it or let it stand, but the CO has to weigh the situation and decide one way or another, not purely on "it doesn't really matter so it's better to be nice". It does matter, so being nice to one person could end up being less nice elsewhere.

But all things being equal, kindness is certainly the better choice than legalism.

Dose it really matter?   

If you agree kindness is the better avenue then why not simply promote that?

To me getting a log deleted on a web cam cache because one's not standing in the exact position the cache owner intended is petty. 

That's why I started my post with "What are we doing here?"  If the answer is to be petty than I think we're missing the real concept of geocaching.

Always follow the rules but when your in a position to bend them to help someone else (especially when there your own rules) than by all means why not?      

   

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Dose it really matter?   

If you agree kindness is the better avenue then why not simply promote that?

To me getting a log deleted on a web cam cache because one's not standing in the exact position the cache owner intended is petty. 

That's why I started my post with "What are we doing here?"  If the answer is to be petty than I think we're missing the real concept of geocaching.

Always follow the rules but when your in a position to bend them to help someone else (especially when there your own rules) than by all means why not?      

   

Actually it does.

Because if you want to argue that it doesn't basically you're saying that all structured activity is pointless and if that was the case, we as a species would not value structured activity.

When this thread started I mulled over why the CO might want to be so specific and it occured to me that it's probably a means of trying to make sure that the uploaded photograph IS the cacher submitting the log.

I know, before anybody flags it, that there's no way to 100% guarantee that the person in the webcam image IS actually the cacher posting the log but it occurred to me that ANYBODY could grab an image of ANYBODY at any time on that webcam and upload it to claim the find and yes - before anybody asks - I'm sure there are some who would stoop that low.

If you think that sticking to the framework of the structured activity you've chosen for yourself is petty - don't play. Nothing stopping you making your own structured activity with your own rules so that you can play however you want and if you cheat you'll be the only person who cares.

Always follow the rules but bend then when you're in a position to? How pointless.

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Dose it really matter?   

If you agree kindness is the better avenue then why not simply promote that?

To me getting a log deleted on a web cam cache because one's not standing in the exact position the cache owner intended is petty. 

That's why I started my post with "What are we doing here?"  If the answer is to be petty than I think we're missing the real concept of geocaching.

Always follow the rules but when your in a position to bend them to help someone else (especially when there your own rules) than by all means why not?      

   

The problem, especially with webcam caches, is that when an owner is "not petty" and is a kind-hearted soul, it doesn't take long for that to go from a good faith gesture to the caching community to outright abuse by the caching community.

And that usually happens organically, not because caches want to just to abuse a cache/CO and get away with as much as they can and still get the find. One person does something a little outside the description and the owner lets it slide because they are nice and why make waves? Another cacher sees this and thinks that "it's ok, the owner let that one slide, he'll let this one slide too." If it's a popular webcam cache, this can quickly spiral beyond the owners control and soon they might be looking at dozens of logs that bend the rules "just a little" and more that are outright abuse (selfies taken when the webcam is down, no photo at all, etc).

At what point does the cache owner just start deleting logs or just roll over and go with the good guy mentality? Cache owners are given quite a bit of leeway to police their listings as they see fit but a webcam cache is a different animal. I think "kindness" shouldn't apply to a webcam cache. Either you took a webcam photo as directed in the description or you don't log a find.

It's not petty for a cache owner to delete logs that don't conform to the ALR because allowing people to log the webcam cache without adhering to the ALR can get the cache archived because the owner wasn't maintaining the listing. But, that should be done timely. Waiting years to delete logs is pretty silly.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Actually it does.

Because if you want to argue that it doesn't basically you're saying that all structured activity is pointless and if that was the case, we as a species would not value structured activity.

When this thread started I mulled over why the CO might want to be so specific and it occured to me that it's probably a means of trying to make sure that the uploaded photograph IS the cacher submitting the log.

I know, before anybody flags it, that there's no way to 100% guarantee that the person in the webcam image IS actually the cacher posting the log but it occurred to me that ANYBODY could grab an image of ANYBODY at any time on that webcam and upload it to claim the find and yes - before anybody asks - I'm sure there are some who would stoop that low.

If you think that sticking to the framework of the structured activity you've chosen for yourself is petty - don't play. Nothing stopping you making your own structured activity with your own rules so that you can play however you want and if you cheat you'll be the only person who cares.

Always follow the rules but bend then when you're in a position to? How pointless.

 

I'm arguing for tolerance and common sense.    This all comes down to a smiley and nothing more.   The fact that some see this activity as a competition is the reason why people think it's important.   

This isn't a GS rule or guideline violation.  It's a cache owner deciding to impose his or her will on people who are just trying to enjoy themselves.   If 1 out of 100 try to get away with stealing a smiley so what?   Is it worth alienating the other 99 by deleting there logs?

I see geocaching as a vehicle to get people outside and have fun.  Find counts, streaks and badges are secondary.  

Acts of kindness and tolerance are far from pointless.  Especially when all it takes to do so is a little common sense.   

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

The problem, especially with webcam caches, is that when an owner is "not petty" and is a kind-hearted soul, it doesn't take long for that to go from a good faith gesture to the caching community to outright abuse by the caching community.

And that usually happens organically, not because caches want to just to abuse a cache/CO and get away with as much as they can and still get the find. One person does something a little outside the description and the owner lets it slide because they are nice and why make waves? Another cacher sees this and thinks that "it's ok, the owner let that one slide, he'll let this one slide too." If it's a popular webcam cache, this can quickly spiral beyond the owners control and soon they might be looking at dozens of logs that bend the rules "just a little" and more that are outright abuse (selfies taken when the webcam is down, no photo at all, etc).

At what point does the cache owner just start deleting logs or just roll over and go with the good guy mentality? Cache owners are given quite a bit of leeway to police their listings as they see fit but a webcam cache is a different animal. I think "kindness" shouldn't apply to a webcam cache. Either you took a webcam photo as directed in the description or you don't log a find.

It's not petty for a cache owner to delete logs that don't conform to the ALR because allowing people to log the webcam cache without adhering to the ALR can get the cache archived because the owner wasn't maintaining the listing. But, that should be done timely. Waiting years to delete logs is pretty silly.

I can see how that can happen.   Problem is you don't start deleting 2 1/2 year old logs.   If you see or suspect abuse than start monitoring logs as of today and delete them as you see fit.   The cache owner allowed those logs to stand for what ever reason so In my mind they're responsible for the situation.

Going back and correcting it now isn't the way I'd handle it. .  

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm arguing for tolerance and common sense.

I'm with you 100% - the cacher whose log is deleted because he hasn't met the requirements should display tolerance and common sense.

Sadly the very opposite is all too often true and the poor CO ends up brow-beaten over what is just a game.

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If 1 out of 100 try to get away with stealing a smiley so what?   Is it worth alienating the other 99 by deleting there logs?

Why would you delete the logs of the 99 who hadn't tried to steal a smiley?

And, putting that to one side, if we were talking about 99 logs being deleted as a result of the actions of the one then you'd have a valid concern - but we're not.

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Find counts, streaks and badges are secondary.

Until someone doesn't get their smiley / streak / badge and then you can kiss goodbye to commens sense and the fact it's just a game and watch all hell break loose as the CO is ruthlessly admonished :rolleyes:

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The cache owner allowed those logs to stand for what ever reason so In my mind they're responsible for the situation.

Going back and correcting it now isn't the way I'd handle it. 

The CO took responsibility and presumably wanted to treat everyone equally and so deleted all invalid logs in one go to bring things up to date.

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The CO took responsibility and presumably wanted to treat everyone equally and so deleted all invalid logs in one go to bring things up to date.

 

If that makes them feel better about it than I guess it is what it is.   They probably should have thought about keeping things up to date from the beginning.   Obviously they weren't concerned with invalid logs in the beginning.   I wonder what changed?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
29 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The CO took responsibility and presumably wanted to treat everyone equally and so deleted all invalid logs in one go to bring things up to date.

 

If that makes them feel better about it than I guess it is what it is.   They probably should have thought about keeping things up to date from the beginning.   Obviously they weren't concerned with invalid logs in the beginning.   I wonder what changed?

It's not about making anyone feel better - it's about treating everyone equally and fairly.

What changed - according to the logs on the cache page at least - is that someone else pointed out to the CO that there were invalid logs on the cache and so, it appears, the CO took care of business.

I imagine if the CO had vigilantly policed the logs we'd have another dramatic, attention-grabbing thread here because he'd been too keen - whereas here it seems he's at fault for not being keen enough on vetting the logs.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If it were my webcam I'd stick to my guns and patooey to what people thought - intentionally manipulative shaming thread or no.

 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

It's not about making anyone feel better - it's about treating everyone equally and fairly.

What changed - according to the logs on the cache page at least - is that someone else pointed out to the CO that there were invalid logs on the cache and so, it appears, the CO took care of business.

I imagine if the CO had vigilantly policed the logs we'd have another dramatic, attention-grabbing thread here because he'd been too keen - whereas here it seems he's at fault for not being keen enough on vetting the logs.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If it were my webcam I'd stick to my guns and patooey to what people thought - intentionally manipulative shaming thread or no.

 

It's not a loose/loose situation at all.   Accept the fact that you dropped the ball in the beginning and allow the previous logs to stand.   Starting today delete any logs you think don't meet the requirements.       

I do agree with the notion of sticking to your guns regardless of backlash.  

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's not a loose/loose situation at all.   Accept the fact that you dropped the ball in the beginning and allow the previous logs to stand.   Starting today delete any logs you think don't meet the requirements.       

I do agree with the notion of sticking to your guns regardless of backlash.  

I would agree with you only if the logging requirements have changed over time and those logs were posted in accordance with the logging requirements in effect at the time.

Otherwise my personal view is that the least painful 'fix' is to treat everyone equally.

But again - you're blaming the CO for dropping the ball whereas it's also possible that he was going along with the concensus of opinion which states it's only a game, play how you like, don't be a cache cop man!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If that makes them feel better about it than I guess it is what it is.   They probably should have thought about keeping things up to date from the beginning.   Obviously they weren't concerned with invalid logs in the beginning.   I wonder what changed?

As someone who has visited that cache page a number of times over the years.... It seemed like the CO had something going on from about July of 2015 to March of 2016.  Outside of those 9 months they have been fairly ruthless in policing the webcam and pictures from that spot only.  Not sure why logs from that timeframe stood for two years but my guess is someone recent pointed them out after their log got whacked.

One of the reasons I have visited the cache page is I always kind of respected the CO for actually enforcing the requirements.   There is a webcam in Seattle that can face two directions.   The requirement for that one is the camera needs to face South - the North view is basically the highway and you only be a dot on the overpass 0.25 mile away.  About a third of the logs are the North view.   Lackeys will even log it using the North view.  We specifically booked a hotel near that webcam and ended up walking to it in the rain to get the right direction - so seeing logs saying "that's my car on the highway" is kind of annoying.

 

Edited by schmittfamily
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I would agree with you only if the logging requirements have changed over time and those logs were posted in accordance with the logging requirements in effect at the time.

Otherwise my personal view is that the least painful 'fix' is to treat everyone equally.

But again - you're blaming the CO for dropping the ball whereas it's also possible that he was going along with the concensus of opinion which states it's only a game, play how you like, don't be a cache cop man!

I'm not blaming the CO for dropping the ball.  Everyone makes mistakes.  I'm blaming the CO for accepting those logs, regardless of the reason, then deciding that the lax requirements that were ok 2 1/2 years ago now need to be met with by a litany of log deletions.   

What has changed is the CO attitude toward meeting the requirements of the ALR.   I just don't think a change in personal philosophy justifies deleting previous finds.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

As soon as someone says "It's just a game" in trying to defend an act that is, arguably at best, against an enforcible rule, has overstepped reason. That sentiment goes both ways. If it is "just a game", then you're being just as petty by forcing that rule-bend on someone else.  No, you can ask for leeway, but if the CO enforces what they are supposed to enforce, then it's you who's being petty by calling them out on it.

Also, a CO being 'kind' in letting guidelines slip for the sake of the finder will also eventually gain the attention of HQ and be potentially reprimanded (as we see with some webcams that have no longer been getting maintained, letting anyone log non-webcam-photo finds).

Yes, we can call for reasonable kindness by CO's.  But it's just that, a kindness, a grace, not an essential requirement lest the CO name be denigrated as a petty individual who doesn't care about people.

The status quo is - do what you're supposed and allowed to do, whether as a CO or a finder, and respect the other individual.  Petty and kind are outliers above or below that line. Kindness is not an expectation or an obligation, it's something to be thankful for.

 

In the case of this 2 1/2 year old situation, yes, it would have been kind for the CO to let those old logs stand, I'd support that. But additionally, it would have been kind for the loggers to realize that they did not do what was required, and take the hit of the CO properly deleting the invalid logs.  The CO didn't do anything petty. But finders can be petty by insulting the CO for properly deleting invalid logs.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

As soon as someone says "It's just a game" in trying to defend an act that is, arguably at best, against an enforcible rule, has overstepped reason. That sentiment goes both ways. If it is "just a game", then you're being just as petty by forcing that rule-bend on someone else.  No, you can ask for leeway, but if the CO enforces what they are supposed to enforce, then it's you who's being petty by calling them out on it.

Also, a CO being 'kind' in letting guidelines slip for the sake of the finder will also eventually gain the attention of HQ and be potentially reprimanded (as we see with some webcams that have no longer been getting maintained, letting anyone log non-webcam-photo finds).

Yes, we can call for reasonable kindness by CO's.  But it's just that, a kindness, a grace, not an essential requirement lest the CO name be denigrated as a petty individual who doesn't care about people.

The status quo is - do what you're supposed and allowed to do, whether as a CO or a finder, and respect the other individual.  Petty and kind are outliers above or below that line. Kindness is not an expectation or an obligation, it's something to be thankful for.

 

In the case of this 2 1/2 year old situation, yes, it would have been kind for the CO to let those old logs stand, I'd support that. But additionally, it would have been kind for the loggers to realize that they did not do what was required, and take the hit of the CO properly deleting the invalid logs.  The CO didn't do anything petty. But finders can be petty by insulting the CO for properly deleting invalid logs.

If I were the one who had my log deleted I certainly wouldn't blame the CO if I didn't fulfill the requirements.   If I were actually there I would ask the CO to accept the find and live with their decision. 

There's no doubt the CO has the right to delete any log they think is fraudulent or doesn't meet the posted requirements.   The problem is when logs are being deleted, not because the ALR has changed but because the CO decides to enforce it 2 1/2 years later.   In this case I think you bite the bullet and move forward. 

Dose all this insulting of a CO actually go on?   I've never heard of or experienced something like that in the 8 years I've been caching.    I thought people in the north east were high strung but I guess things are not so bad up here.

 

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There's no doubt the CO has the right to delete any log they think is fraudulent or doesn't meet the posted requirements.   The problem is when logs are being deleted, not because the ALR has changed but because the CO decides to enforce it 2 1/2 years later.   In this case I think you bite the bullet and move forward. 

Dose all this insulting of a CO actually go on?   I've never heard of or experienced something like that in the 8 years I've been caching.    I thought people in the north east were high strung but I guess things are not so bad up here.

We're talking hypotheticals here now. The CO has already made their decision.  And yeah, even though lightly or behind closed doors, saying a CO is petty for deleting logs they have the right-- even responsibility-- to delete is insulting the CO.  EVEN IF it's 2 1/2 years later.  Amount of time is subjective. Where's the line? There is no line - if the CO is allowed to delete logs as far back as even that, then it's still not petty on their part. Even if we may not like it.

It's not petty if the CO does.
But it's gracious if the CO doesn't.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

We're talking hypotheticals here now. The CO has already made their decision.  And yeah, even though lightly or behind closed doors, saying a CO is petty for deleting logs they have the right-- even responsibility-- to delete is insulting the CO.  EVEN IF it's 2 1/2 years later.  Amount of time is subjective. Where's the line? There is no line - if the CO is allowed to delete logs as far back as even that, then it's still not petty on their part. Even if we may not like it.

It's not petty if the CO does.
But it's gracious if the CO doesn't.

In my mind there is a Line.   Today.    The CO trying to make up for years of indifference by deleting logs that were "ok" up to now is petty to me.    Especially if there's evidence that the finders were actually there and were simply not standing in the exact spot.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And there is your problem. Because there isn't a line. As I said, it's subjective. Unenforcible.

I'd appreciate it if we'd keep my problems private.:D

 How can you argue there isn't  a line.   The line was drawn the day the CO had the cache published with the requirements in it.   The CO choose not to enforce those requirements......until now.         

I never said it was enforceable.  Just wish the CO would have chosen another way to handle it.   I'd like to believe that every log deleted was by arm-chair-loggers but I'd bet that's not the case.   

Link to comment

You're drawing a line for what is "nice" and "petty". If you want to think that it's petty for a CO to delete logs they are reasonably allowed to and should do because they are objectively invalid, then, well, I'm gonna say that's petty. Am I wrong to do so? You set your own line, so I'm going to too, so stop being petty.

I'm just going to reiterate what I said above:

-It's not petty if the CO deletes invalid logs, regardless of how long they've been posted.
-It could be considered irresponsible if the CO waits that long to carry out their responsibility as a CO.
-It's gracious if the CO doesn't delete the invalid logs after that long (and also risky in the long run if TPTB consider it shirking responsibility).
-It's petty if the CO is insulted for doing what they're supposed to do, regardless of time passed. They can be criticized for being irresponsible. But petty? As if they shouldn't have deleted them? No

Even if we don't like the result of the situation.  The first error was not the CO - it was the finders who didn't post valid logs.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, schmittfamily said:

As someone who has visited that cache page a number of times over the years.... It seemed like the CO had something going on from about July of 2015 to March of 2016.  Outside of those 9 months they have been fairly ruthless in policing the webcam and pictures from that spot only.  Not sure why logs from that timeframe stood for two years but my guess is someone recent pointed them out after their log got whacked.

One of the reasons I have visited the cache page is I always kind of respected the CO for actually enforcing the requirements  ...   

Thanks for this.  Sick, military service ... so many reasons for just a certain time-frame to not be covered, your post makes perfect sense (to me).  When we see folks who still haven't even logged their caches found in a year, this doesn't seem so bad explained this way.   :)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

To me getting a log deleted on a web cam cache because one's not standing in the exact position the cache owner intended is petty.   

Like some others, when I'm bored I'll look at caches n stuff.  I'd bet I've seen hundreds of pics of "that's us" ...  two tiny, unrecognizable heads among hundreds at a station.  The other 2/3rds even pointed out a couple pics identical in the same cache gallery no less.  Sheesh...  Supposedly different people, different dates.   Google maybe.  An "exact position" at least might say which out of a hundred might be you...

Can't remember which it was, but remembered one had a "phooning" requirement, and thought that was clever (if the camera was a lot closer...).  The odds of random people phooning in front of a camera on the same date should be slim.  Asking to stand at only one location seems (to me)  to cut the cheaters (and maintenance) a bit.  There's a bunch who just want those stats by any means ...   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

You're drawing a line for what is "nice" and "petty". If you want to think that it's petty for a CO to delete logs they are reasonably allowed to and should do because they are objectively invalid, then, well, I'm gonna say that's petty. Am I wrong to do so? You set your own line, so I'm going to too, so stop being petty.

I'm just going to reiterate what I said above:

-It's not petty if the CO deletes invalid logs, regardless of how long they've been posted.
-It could be considered irresponsible if the CO waits that long to carry out their responsibility as a CO.
-It's gracious if the CO doesn't delete the invalid logs after that long (and also risky in the long run if TPTB consider it shirking responsibility).
-It's petty if the CO is insulted for doing what they're supposed to do, regardless of time passed. They can be criticized for being irresponsible. But petty? As if they shouldn't have deleted them? No

even if we don't like the result of the situation.  The first error was not the CO - it was the finders who didn't post valid logs.

So If this were your cache what would you have done?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not blaming the CO for dropping the ball.  Everyone makes mistakes.  I'm blaming the CO for accepting those logs, regardless of the reason, then deciding that the lax requirements that were ok 2 1/2 years ago now need to be met with by a litany of log deletions.   

What has changed is the CO attitude toward meeting the requirements of the ALR.   I just don't think a change in personal philosophy justifies deleting previous finds.  

 

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the CO has 'made a mistake'? Or rather, why do you label the CO's chosen course(s) of action over an extended period of time as a mistake or mistakes?

As far as I can tell from what we know so far there was a short period of time during which the CO didn't monitor the logs as closely as they did either side of that period of time - but we don't know why so we can't conclude that it was a mistake or otherwise. What we could choose to do is approve or disapprove - and you appear to have chosen the latter.

And as I said earlier, the CO's decision to treat everyone equally seems to have been stimulated by someone else bringing to his attention the invalid logs. Perhaps they are to blame too? Or perhaps it's all their fault?

In any case - the deletion of logs which did not meet the logging requirements in effect at the time needs no justification. If anything needs justifying it's the obvious shaming campaign the CO has had to suffer - all in the name of a game.

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So If this were your cache what would you have done?

Don't see how that's relevant. It's not my cache, I've never owned a webcam, likely wouldn't, and if I did I likely wouldn't require such stringent requirements that it would sap my time to review all the photos to such detail in the first place.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Don't see how that's relevant. It's not my cache, I've never owned a webcam, likely wouldn't, and if I did I likely wouldn't require such stringent requirements that it would sap my time to review all the photos to such detail in the first place.

Let's pretend you were the CO of this cache and two weeks after it was published you were in an accident that left you in a coma for 2 1/2 years.   What would you do with all the finds on this cache.  Would you go through each and every one and delete the ones that you decided didn't meat the requirements or would you let the finds stand and start enforcing the requirements today.  

I'm asking based on the information, how you'd you have handled it?  

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Don't see how that's relevant. It's not my cache, I've never owned a webcam, likely wouldn't, and if I did I likely wouldn't require such stringent requirements that it would sap my time to review all the photos to such detail in the first place.

Let's pretend you were the CO of this cache and two weeks after it was published you were in an accident that left you in a coma for 2 1/2 years.   What would you do with all the finds on this cache.  Would you go through each and every one and delete the ones that you decided didn't meat the requirements or would you let the finds stand and start enforcing the requirements today.  

I'm asking based on the information, how you'd you have handled it?  

Do we have to imagine a sad scenario?

Why not something exciting like thebruce0 has been on a space mission for 2 1/2 years, discovering life on Mars perhaps?

Or in a purpose-built habitat in the Mariana Trench trying to evolve into a humanoid life-form that had gills and could survive crushing depths equal to numerous atmospheres?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Do we have to imagine a sad scenario?

Why not something exciting like thebruce0 has been on a space mission for 2 1/2 years, discovering life on Mars perhaps?

Or in a purpose-built habitat in the Mariana Trench trying to evolve into a humanoid life-form that had gills and could survive crushing depths equal to numerous atmospheres?

I'd be up for that.

If at any time I knew I'd not be able to maintain for 2 1/2 years, I'd use due diligence to decide how to handle it before wilfully neglecting the listing.  If I didn't know, then on return I'd likely ask GS for their suggestion/opinion for what to do in the case of 2 1/2 years of unmaintained logs. That's all I find relevant in these theoretical examples

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

How do you arrive at the conclusion that the CO has 'made a mistake'? Or rather, why do you label the CO's chosen course(s) of action over an extended period of time as a mistake or mistakes?

As far as I can tell from what we know so far there was a short period of time during which the CO didn't monitor the logs as closely as they did either side of that period of time - but we don't know why so we can't conclude that it was a mistake or otherwise. What we could choose to do is approve or disapprove - and you appear to have chosen the latter.

And as I said earlier, the CO's decision to treat everyone equally seems to have been stimulated by someone else bringing to his attention the invalid logs. Perhaps they are to blame too? Or perhaps it's all their fault?

In any case - the deletion of logs which did not meet the logging requirements in effect at the time needs no justification. If anything needs justifying it's the obvious shaming campaign the CO has had to suffer - all in the name of a game.

How do you explain the sudden attempt to inforce the requirements?  

Don't you think that some finders are being treated unfairly by having their find deleted after 2 1/2  years of thinking everything was ok?

I agree that no one should be "shamed" over any aspect of geocaching.  Like I said before,  I'd appeal to the CO to let the find stand and live with their decision.  If they decided to delete my log than so be it.  If the opportunity presented itself I'd probably go back and do it again.   The right way this time.   

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

How do you explain the sudden attempt to inforce the requirements?  

Don't you think that some finders are being treated unfairly by having their find deleted after 2 1/2  years of thinking everything was ok?

I agree that no one should be "shamed" over any aspect of geocaching.  Like I said before,  I'd appeal to the CO to let the find stand and live with their decision.  If they decided to delete my log than so be it.  If the opportunity presented itself I'd probably go back and do it again.   The right way this time.   

How many times do I need to point out to you that the cache page seems to indicate that SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CO FLAGGED UP LOGS WHICH DIDN'T MEET THE LOGGING REQUIREMENTS?

No - treating everyone the same is fair to everyone.

Well I'd say this CO has been deliberately shamed into allowing the logs to be reinstated - perhaps the OP would care to comment?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Don't you think that some finders are being treated unfairly by having their find deleted after 2 1/2  years of thinking everything was ok?

Unfairly? They're invalid logs, those finders didn't follow the instructions. They were 'unfair' first.

It's up to the CO decide whether to show grace and let them stand and risk being seen as neglecting responsibility, or do what they should have done for the past 2 1/2 years. It really is that simple.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Dude, that's one hell of an exception. I would trust GS to make a fair judgement. c'mon

I have no idea what exception your referring to.   It's a hypothetical situation which would explain why someone would suddenly decide to start enforcing ALR's and deleting logs. 

I think I know how you'd of handled it.  I was just hoping you'd say it.   

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I have no idea what exception your referring to.   It's a hypothetical situation which would explain why someone would suddenly decide to start enforcing ALR's and deleting logs. 

I think I know how you'd of handled it.  I was just hoping you'd say it.  

Exception. It's an exceptional case. An unexpected coma for 2 1/2 years with no one knowing about the patient being a cache owner with active listings and absolutely nothing being done about them until the person returns from coma, and having to decide what to do with 30 months of invalid webcam logs?  <_<  Not even a fraction of 0.1% of likely events that might occur. Yes, an exceptional theoretical example which I would place in the judgement of Groundspeak.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How many times do I need to point out to you that the cache page seems to indicate that SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CO FLAGGED UP LOGS WHICH DIDN'T MEET THE LOGGING REQUIREMENTS?

No - treating everyone the same is fair to everyone.

Well I'd say this CO has been deliberately shamed into allowing the logs to be reinstated - perhaps the OP would care to comment?

Why would someone be flagging up logs?    Why would someone even care?    If the CO was paying attention they wouldn't need anyone to be flagging up anything.

If I decided to allow a find on a cache and someone pointed out that the find didn't meet some logging requirement I'd tell them to mind their own business.   That's probably what this CO should have done in the first place.   

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would someone be flagging up logs?    Why would someone even care?    If the CO was paying attention they wouldn't need anyone to be flagging up anything.

If I decided to allow a find on a cache and someone pointed out that the find didn't meet some logging requirement I'd tell them to mind their own business.   That's probably what this CO should have done in the first place.   

How should I know why - go and ask them!

YOU are perfectly at liberty to do what YOU want to do - and so is the CO and personally I think he made the right choice in deleting the invalid logs in the first place.

 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If I decided to allow a find on a cache and someone pointed out that the find didn't meet some logging requirement I'd tell them to mind their own business.   That's probably what this CO should have done in the first place.   

That's what you would have done, and that's fine. Calling someone else petty for not doing what you would do, but rather doing what they should do and should have done is just as petty.

12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why is the CO caring about logging requirements now.   Are you telling me that they've received so much pressure to delete logs that after 2 1/2 years they finally broke and gave in?

I don't know, it's a theoretical situation you concocted.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Exception. It's an exceptional case. An unexpected coma for 2 1/2 years with no one knowing about the patient being a cache owner with active listings and absolutely nothing being done about them until the person returns from coma, and having to decide what to do with 30 months of invalid webcam logs?  <_<  Not even a fraction of 0.1% of likely events that might occur. Yes, an exceptional theoretical example which I would place in the judgement of Groundspeak.

I'll ask you the same question.   Why is the CO caring about logging requirements now.   Are you telling me that they've received so much pressure to delete logs that after 2 1/2 years they finally broke and gave in?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would someone be flagging up logs?    Why would someone even care?    If the CO was paying attention they wouldn't need anyone to be flagging up anything.

If I decided to allow a find on a cache and someone pointed out that the find didn't meet some logging requirement I'd tell them to mind their own business.   That's probably what this CO should have done in the first place.   

How should I know why - go and ask them!

YOU are perfectly at liberty to do what YOU want to do - and so is the CO and personally I think he made the right choice in deleting the invalid logs in the first place.

In fact - as you seem to like imaginary scenarios here's one to answer your question.

The CO spots an invalid log and deletes it.

Disgruntled cacher contacts CO about deleted log and points out a list of other, equally invalid logs.

CO agrees that fair is fair and deletes the the other invalid logs also.

Groundswell of shaming on cache page, forums and presumably social media from those who think a smiley they aren't entitled to is grounds for a large-scale attack on the offender.

CO finally gives in and allows those who still think their invalid log should still stand to reinstate same.

The end.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That's what you would have done, and that's fine. Calling someone else petty for not doing what you would do, but rather doing what they should do and should have done is just as petty.

I don't know, it's a theoretical situation you concocted.

With everything that's been said your going to continue to focus word "petty" instead of telling me and the rest who are following this:

What would you have done.

If you'd have done it differently than tell me what and why.  

I think deleting those logs at this point is trivial as well as spiteful and serves no purpose but to alienate those who, in good faith, tried to complete the requirements and for what ever reason failed.   That's how I see it and that's why I wouldn't have done it.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think deleting those logs at this point is trivial as well as spiteful and serves no purpose but to alienate those who, in good faith, tried to complete the requirements and for what ever reason failed.   That's how I see it and that's why I wouldn't have done it.

You and the rest of the shaming crew it seems.

More fuel for the race to the bottom.

Congratulations.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In fact - as you seem to like imaginary scenarios here's one to answer your question.

The CO spots an invalid log and deletes it.

Disgruntled cacher contacts CO about deleted log and points out a list of other, equally invalid logs.

CO agrees that fair is fair and deletes the the other invalid logs also.

Groundswell of shaming on cache page, forums and presumably social media from those who think a smiley they aren't entitled to is grounds for a large-scale attack on the offender.

CO finally gives in and allows those who still think their invalid log should still stand to reinstate same.

The end.

 

First I would have changed the cache page to reflect the fact that starting today all find logs must meet the requirements,  no exceptions.   I'd e-mail the disgruntled cacher  back explaining the requirement and suggest they give it another shot.   My answer to deleting any other logs they've pointed out would be..... I've been in a coma for 2 1/2 years so all finds previous to now will be honored as I was incapable of checking the requirements at the time.

I have a hard time understanding this whole shaming thing.   Do people out in your area actually cave in to this type of thing?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You've seen it happen first hand and still refuse to believe that it happens?

I know it happens I just don't understand why anyone would let it bother them.   Someone trying to "shame" me in regards to geocaching is about as worrisome to me as a cloudy day.     If you truly think you've done the right thing than there's no reason to feel shame.  If the CO feels any sham it's because they realize they may have made the wrong decision.   

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I know it happens I just don't understand why anyone would let it bother them.   Someone trying to "shame" me in regards to geocaching is about as worrisome to me as a cloudy day.     If you truly think you've done the right thing than there's no reason to feel shame.  If the CO feels any sham it's because they realize they may have made the wrong decision.   

Right - glad we've cleared up that it does happen - moving forward...

In this instance I very much hope and also highly doubt that the CO feels any shame whatsoever - because I see nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

I can sympathise with the CO and their suffering of undue pressure - I've been on the end of similar aggravation myself in the past - and probably worse in fact - and it's not nice and I can understand a person deciding that it's just not worth the grief - but then that's what the shaming crew wants of course - which is why, when I know I'm right, I dig my heels in and they can all go whistle ^_^

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Right - glad we've cleared up that it does happen - moving forward...

In this instance I very much hope and also highly doubt that the CO feels any shame whatsoever - because I see nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

I can sympathise with the CO and their suffering of undue pressure - I've been on the end of similar aggravation myself in the past - and probably worse in fact - and it's not nice and I can understand a person deciding that it's just not worth the grief - but then that's what the shaming crew wants of course - which is why, when I know I'm right, I dig my heels in and they can all go whistle ^_^

The fact that this type of thing happens was never in question so there's nothing to clear up.

So in this case the owner decided to delete a bunch of old logs for the sake of what..... posterity?    What ever the cost at least the cache page is clean now.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The fact that this type of thing happens was never in question so there's nothing to clear up.

So in this case the owner decided to delete a bunch of old logs for the sake of what..... posterity?    What ever the cost at least the cache page is clean now.

I'd have expected you to put the shovel down by now but you seem oddly determined to keep on digging.

  • Upvote 1
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...