Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Réd

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

133 posts in this topic

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's comments like   "glad we've cleared up that it does happen" that make me pick up the shovel in the first place.  

That's likely to keep happening if you keep ignoring the facts, asking the same questions over and over again and trying to win the argument with weird fantasy scenarios.

1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So in this case the owner decided to delete a bunch of old logs for the sake of what..... posterity?

Well, the guidelines to tell cache owners to "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

Better late than never.

1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, the guidelines to tell cache owners to "Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

Better late than never.

I guess so.

0

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's likely to keep happening if you keep ignoring the facts, asking the same questions over and over again and trying to win the argument with weird fantasy scenarios.

Sometimes you have to invent a weird fantasy scenario just to get someone to answer a simple question.

0

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Sometimes you have to invent a weird fantasy scenario just to get someone to answer a simple question.

Only if you really desperately want a useless answer to an irrelevant question with no basis in reality.

Apart from anything else it ruins an otherwise perfectly useful thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Only if you really desperately want a useless answer to an irrelevant question with no basis in reality.

Apart from anything else it ruins an otherwise perfectly useful thread.

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

0

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

Spiralling pointlessly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

By the way where have you been?   I haven't seen you on the forums lately.

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

By the way where have you been?   I haven't seen you on the forums lately.

Me?

I got a timeout and for a while after there was nothing going on here that interested me.

Why do you ask?

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Me?

I got a timeout and for a while after there was nothing going on here that interested me.

Why do you ask?

I missed you. :D   Since you were gone others have had to take up the slack on telling me what an idiot I am.    It's hard work you know.  

0

Share this post


Link to post

This topic just went "hot".   That didn't happened very much when you were gone.  It's kind of like a soap opera.  It's pointless but entertaining.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I missed you. :D   Since you were gone others have had to take up the slack on telling me what an idiot I am.    It's hard work you know.  

I don't think you're an idiot.

In fact you'd be surprised how many of your upvotes came from me.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't think you're an idiot.

In fact you'd be surprised how many of your upvotes came from me.

 

I've thrown a few your way as well.   Some times it takes two hard headed people with different opinions to get to the truth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

because I see nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I've thrown a few your way as well.   Some times it takes two hard headed people with different opinions to get to the truth.

Couldn't have put it better myself :)

1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm hesitating on giving MartyBartfast an up vote.   I know it's anonymous but I fear it may spark things up again.    And things were going so nicely.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Absolutely.

But from what I've read here, the CO has been generally vigilant in deleting logs that don't meet the stated requirements. There was a period of a few months where invalid logs were not being deleted, then the CO resumed maintaining the cache as required by the guidelines. Apparently, one or more invalid logs escaped the CO's attention, and then 2.5 years after one of those logs was posted, it was finally brought to the CO's attention and deleted, and we got this brouhaha.

Have I missed anything?

So, what should an otherwise diligent CO do upon discovering that an invalid log has slipped by, and that it has been months (or even years) since the log was posted?

Edited by niraD
clarity
0

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

If we were talking about a physical cache left to rot I'd almost certainly agree - but we aren't.

As far as I know this cache was in working order the entire time and didn't waste the time/effort of any legitimate loggers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, niraD said:

Absolutely.

But from what I've read here, the CO has been generally vigilant in deleting logs that don't meet the stated requirements. There was a period of a few months where invalid logs were not being deleted, then the CO resumed maintaining the cache as required by the guidelines. Apparently, one or more invalid logs escaped the CO's attention, and then 2.5 years after one of those logs was posted, it was finally brought to the CO's attention and deleted, and we got this brouhaha.

Have I missed anything?

So, what should an otherwise diligent CO do upon discovering that an invalid log has slipped by, and that it has been months (or even years) since the log was posted?

Are you kidding me? Vigilant, diligent,,,c'mom. This thread wouldn't have been started if the CO had been either of these. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Are you kidding me? Vigilant, diligent,,,c'mom. This thread wouldn't have been started if the CO had been either of these. 

You reckon?

I reckon the OP, notable by their absence now, would have stirred up this hornet's nest at any point in time.

0

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Perhaps not maintaining their cache listing properly for ~2.5 years?

If they'd done that properly in the first place, in a reasonable timeframe (weeks rather than months, certainly not years) for every unacceptable log then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I don't believe I'd do differently, if one "reminded" me that I erred ( probably maybe caught in a fib themselves and messaged just me in spite).

A helpful post was made HERE, by one who has paid attention to that one particular cache for some time.  Before and after that around nine-month timeframe, they stated that the CO maintained his cache "ruthlessly", I believe was the word.

Lets just say I'm heading to wherever for cancer treatment.  I come back nine months or so later, feeling like carp (been there...), and the last thing I'm thinking about right now is whether someone was sneaky enough to fib on one of my geocaches.  "Ruthless" in my corrections for fibbers earlier, I now think just like dealing with children, since I was gone, they got over this time.  I don't need the drama right now.  I now continue with my "ruthless" corrections on fibbers from this time forward as I've always done.

One fibber caught recently whined, screamed and cried reminded me in an email, "but...but...what about them !..." .   Like dealing with most children, if I don't take charge of this immediately. life will be miserable again.  I realize a lesson now must be made though really I erred as well,  I remove the fibbers names from when I was sick.  Now they're upset.   The end.   :)

2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You reckon?

I reckon the OP, notable by their absence now, would have stirred up this hornet's nest at any point in time.

Firstly the OP had their log reinstated so no need for them to carry on the discussion, not everybody want's to spend their life on the forums arguing the toss over every little nuance.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure if someone came on here with :-

Quote

My webcam find from last week has been deleted because it doesn't meet the requirements on the webcam page, what do you think?

Then there would be a resounding response of :-

Quote

It's your own fault, move on.

and it wouldn't have turned into the "hornet's nest" this thread has become.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A helpful post was made HERE, by one who has paid attention to that one particular cache for some time.  Before and after that around nine-month timeframe, they stated that the CO maintained his cache "ruthlessly", I believe was the word.

Lets just say I'm heading to wherever for cancer treatment.  I come back nine months or so later, feeling like carp (been there...), ...

From what I can see the CO was logging caches  in the second half of 2015, and the start of 2016 (the 9 month period mentioned in the post you linked to) so can't have been that bad... but I do accept that sometimes life gets in the way.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Firstly the OP had their log reinstated so no need for them to carry on the discussion, not everybody want's to spend their life on the forums arguing the toss over every little nuance.

 

Well why would they? They got what they wanted - the oh so important smiley so there was no need for them to come back after tossing their grenade in here which is a shame really as it would be nice for them to see just how much support the CO has.

Arguing nuances? I don't think we're taking part in the same thread.

1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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:
...
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.

Petty, spiteful? It's hard to present an objective argument when using heated words that denigrate.  The CO showed absolutely no spite against the finders who did not do what was required to log the find - for whatever reason.  If a finder had asked "Hey can you let me keep the find?" to which he replied "No because I don't like you" that would be spiteful.

Like I said, the CO could be considered irresponsible for shirking his responsibilities for 2.5 years, but not petty, nor spiteful. So yes, I'm focusing on those words because those are the words you continue to attempt to label such a CO in this situation.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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.

That's great for you. Whatever you can do to make it better for everyone, great, showing grace and kindness above what you are required to do - perhaps even despite what you are required to do and taking on risk of consequence from tptb - is honourable. Not doing that is not petty.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So in this case the owner decided to delete a bunch of old logs for the sake of what..... posterity?

For the sake of responsibility.  Doesn't matter if it follows irresponsibility.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I was only asking what someone else would do in that situation.   I wanted to know if the position they were taking is how they would handle the situation if they were in the spotlight.   A simple "yes that's exactly what I would have done" would have surfaced.   Dancing around the question leaves me to wonder if they believe what they're saying.

You were asking me what I would do in a ridiculously extreme extraordinary circumstance that attempts to narrow me into a corner for an answer that serves no purpose to the points I'm making regarding what is petty and what is proper.  There was no dancing, there was only discerning relevant discussion.  I answered other points later related to less-specific scenarios, which if you really want you could infer an answer for any scenario you want to concoct.

 

23 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.

No, "good faith attempts" for any cache type aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't think you're an idiot.

In fact you'd be surprised how many of your upvotes came from me.

I've thrown a few your way as well.   Some times it takes two hard headed people with different opinions to get to the truth.

Likewise me for both of you. It's amazing how variant people's opinions can be on the forum; polar opposites one day and complete synchronicity on another.

Edited by thebruce0
1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Arguing nuances? I don't think we're taking part in the same thread.

Oh the irony !

0

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Oh the irony !

Oh the sweet suffering!

0

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
16 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Oh the irony !

Oh the sweet suffering!

Oh the tasty turmoil!

0

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. Follow the instructions on the cache page. Sometimes the cache owner will require you to pose in a specific location or in a specific way."

It seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

2

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, niraD said:

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. Follow the instructions on the cache page. Sometimes the cache owner will require you to pose in a specific location or in a specific way."

It seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

Good catch sir!

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Petty, spiteful? It's hard to present an objective argument when using heated words that denigrate.  The CO showed absolutely no spite against the finders who did not do what was required to log the find - for whatever reason.  If a finder had asked "Hey can you let me keep the find?" to which he replied "No because I don't like you" that would be spiteful.

Like I said, the CO could be considered irresponsible for shirking his responsibilities for 2.5 years, but not petty, nor spiteful. So yes, I'm focusing on those words because those are the words you continue to attempt to label such a CO in this situation.

 

That's great for you. Whatever you can do to make it better for everyone, great, showing grace and kindness above what you are required to do - perhaps even despite what you are required to do and taking on risk of consequence from tptb - is honourable. Not doing that is not petty.

 

For the sake of responsibility.  Doesn't matter if it follow irresponsibility.

 

You were asking me what I would do in a ridiculously extreme extraordinary circumstance that attempts to narrow me into a corner for an answer that serves no purpose to the points I'm making regarding what is petty and what is proper.  There was no dancing, there was only discerning relevant discussion.  I answered other points later related to less-specific scenarios, which if you really want yo ucould infer an answer for any scenario you want to concoct.

 

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.  No, "good faith attempts" for any cache types aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

 

Likewise me for both of you. It's amazing how variant people's opinions can be on the forum; polar opposites one day and complete synchronicity on another.

I asked you what you'd do if it we're your cache.   Your response didn't answer the question.  The hypothetical scenario was an attempt to give you a reason why you were unable to respond to the situation at the time.  This was an attempt to put you in a position to deny any lack of attention to your cache when these logs were being posted.  I hoped that this would allow you to answer the question honestly.     If you would have deleted the logs as well that's fine.  If that's what you believe and that's what you'd do than I'm good with that.   Just wanted to know where you stood on the subject.        

0

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

38 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

I spotted the cache, but I didn't want to climb the 6 feet in the tree just to sign the little piece of paper. I found the cache, I made a good faith attempt to find it, I should be able to log it found.

No, "good faith attempts" for any cache type aren't the requirement for the relevant Find log. Each type has a required task to fulfill to give your log the right to remain in place (disallow the owner to delete it for being a "false find").  Webcams, like Virtuals and Earthcaches allow(ed, at least) the CO to require completing a specific task in order to 'qualify' and log it found online. It may be overly stringent and annoyingly precise to require standing a very specific way for a picture, but that is the required instruction, and the CO therefore has the right to delete logs that don't follow instruction.

Seeing the cache and not climbing to retrieve it is not good faith.  Retrieving the cache and getting a pile of wet pulp that can't be unrolled and my pen can't mark on is good faith.

26 minutes ago, niraD said:
41 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

 

The guidelines say:

"Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate."

To me, "false" means armchair logs, those that were not actually therer and in good faith trying to get the webcam.  "Inappropriate" means those that have bad language in them, or are spam.

So if the cacher, in good faith, was at the site and nabbed a picture with themselves on the webcam, I would consider that to be a good log, and let it stand.

I have attempted to do webcams, and then went home to log and see that I might not have had exactly the right background or something, but I would still consider it a good faith effort.  Similarly I have done earthcaches and misunderstood the question, gathered the wrong data, or come to the wrong conclusion.  The point for me on both is that you were at the location, you observed the concept that was presented, and you made a good faith attempt at the picture, measurements, or answers.

The words "Delete logs" link to a supporting document that starts with "Cache owners may delete geocache logs if they [...] fail to meet the logging guidelines for their cache type." Following the links to the Webcam Caches page yields this juicy tidbit:

"3. Follow the instructions on the cache page. Sometimes the cache owner will require you to pose in a specific location or in a specific way."

It seems the CO is allowed to "require you to pose in a specific location" for a webcam cache.

Fair point.  So if the instructions were not followed, the CO can delete a log.  Hopefully in a timely manner.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5