Jump to content

Owner Maintenance = NO Owner Maintenance


Recommended Posts

CO has over 36,500 finds and 986 hides.

 

Logbook reported wet 12 months previous.

 

Owner MaintenanceOwner Maintenance

25/08/2018

Looking at the logs it was signed in March with no complaints, the last finder noted it was wet but didn't say they couldn't sign it and they didn't feel the need to log a needs maintenance. We've just had a really hot summer so it may well be dry again now so I feel it is inappropriate to armchair log a NM four months since the last physical visit. If you want to go and actually check the status of the logbook for me feel free and then log another NM and likewise I will try and check it soon. If the next physical finder feels a NM is appropriate they are welcome to log one.

Link to comment

Actual evidence:

 

Log reported as wet may 2017

Log reported as signable march 2018

Log reported as wet again June 2018

 

Today Armchair NM logged by thread poster without visiting GZ and acting on out of date second hand information in an attempt to cause defamation of character to a popular cache owner who sets quality caches and regularly performs maintenance.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Please refer back to my evidence.

 

Logbook reported as wet.

Then logbook reported as dry and signable

Then logbook reported as wet.

 

The second comment regarding the logbook being signable nullifies your "no maintenance for a year" comment.

 

You are making this person out to be a poor cache owner. Why should a cache owner rush out due to potentially false information.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

The second comment regarding the logbook being signable nullifies your "no maintenance for a year" comment.

 

No - it clearly doesn't because the fact remains that the CO hasn't maintained the cache in over a year, since May 2017 in fact when someone was forced to sign a tatty piece of newspaper because the log wasn't fit to sign.

 

If it were my cache I'd go and maintain it and THEN post and Owner Maintenance log - as would most people I expect - wouldn't you?

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The logbook was reported as dry in march.

 

Therefore the logbook and the newspaper will have been signable.

 

The thing that seems to offend you most is the fact the CO logged OM without visiting GZ. How do you know he hasn't been to GZ?

 

On the other side of the coin, if you are having an issue with a CO virtually logging an OM, then how is this different from you logging a NM or NA without visiting GZ?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

The logbook was reported as dry in march.

 

Therefore the logbook and the newspaper will have been signable.

 

The thing that seems to offend you most is the fact the CO logged OM without visiting GZ. How do you know he hasn't been to GZ?

 

On the other side of the coin, if you are having an issue with a CO virtually logging an OM, then how is this different from you logging a NM or NA without visiting GZ?

 

This is where your evidence lets you down. The log was not in fact reported as dry in March. The finder says they signed it - not what state it was in.

 

And then it's reported as SOAKED in May - just before the CO's first request for community maintenance - which I'd quite forgotten until the CO posted the same request - word for word - yesterday - on the original date! I'd quite forotten about the cache until then but once I realised that the CO had remembered it had been need of maintenance for over a year and still had no intention of maintaining it himself I thought a NM was in order.

 

Anyway - we've had a FOUND IT = DIDN'T FIND IT thread here for a long time so I thought it would be fun to start an OWNER MAINTENANCE = NO OWNER MAINTENANCE thread.

 

So if we're done here I'm prefectly happy to leave the facts to speak for themselves.

Link to comment

Weren't you told by the reviewer to only log a NM or NA when you've actually been to the cache yourself ?

 

You also didn't answer my previous question.

 

How do you know the cache owner hasn't visited GZ in 12 months? Do you have a camera set up at each of his 986 cache hides?

 

If so could I borrow some as someone keeps nicking my caches ?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, The Magna Defender said:

You also didn't answer my previous question.

 

Because I'm not interested.

 

There's a cache there that's needed maintenance for over 12 months and continues to do so - despite the owner logging an Owner Maintenance.

 

That's the subject of the thread ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Weren't you told by the reviewer to only log a NM or NA when you've actually been to the cache yourself ?

 

You also didn't answer my previous question.

 

How do you know the cache owner hasn't visited GZ in 12 months? Do you have a camera set up at each of his 986 cache hides?

 

If so could I borrow some as someone keeps nicking my caches ?

 

i think when armchair logging is done, the reviewer knows who are the main cheaters,hopefully  may not act straight away, i bet they roll the eyes, here we go again 

Link to comment

Sounds like the cache has a weatherproofing problem that needs resolved. Wish the initial NMs would be enforced. Think about it if a new cacher went to a slimy moldy wet soggy mess would they want to continue caching? Some yes but others nope. NMs need to be addressed by the CO

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...