Jump to content

Deleting posts as a CO


brucemoose
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I’m looking for some feedback regarding a cache of mine. It is deliberately deceptive, with a 5L container full of Eclipse tins and nearby, a small systema with the legitimate log book. Athen cache description clearly states that to claim the find you must sign the log. Someone decided that adding a scrap of paper into the decoy would do and others have signed this scrap of paper. As the CO, am I within my rights to delete logs that are not in the logbook?

Link to comment

On face value yes, but was there a clear intent to cheat (or laziness) or was there a mistake in good faith?

 

I've found similar caches. I have assumed all but one of the tins was a decoy, and sure enough after opening enough tins I'd find a log. If I found all tins empty I'd assume the log is missing; a cache full of decoys being itself a decoy is not something that would readily jump to my mind. Were you being too 'clever'? Having multiple decoys in a cache container is not a novel idea, but I've never found one where all the tins were decoys. Is there a clear means for people to realise that the decoys are themselves within a decoy? Another cache I found contained 50 decoy tins - in all but one there was a note saying "No". The real tin had a log book instead.  In that case, if all tins had "No" or "Decoy" written inside then I'd start to suspect something is not quite as it seems.  Actually, all decoys I've found had some indication that I'd not found the true cache or log. So was a mistake made in good faith by the original cacher that put the slip of paper in place?

 

Finding a log and assuming it is the legitimate log is also too easy. I actually found one such cache with paper in two tins - I signed both to be sure, but if I had not looked in all tins (out of curiosity) I'd never have known there was another log. What if the first one I found was not the true log and I'd not been curious? Checking many tins and then finding a slip of paper would lead most people into thinking they had found the log as per your requirement. So again, could a mistake have been made in good faith by following cachers?

 

Link to comment

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it seems as though there was an element of good faith, however the level of difficulty reduces if the tin with paper is easily located, which was not the intent of the cache. While there is not a no, no, no in each tin, the cache description and multiple maintenance logs state that you are looking for a logbook, not a piece of paper, but I am quickly learning that no one reads the page anymore. It’s just a numbers game. Sad that... 

Link to comment

Wow toughie. I found your cache you are talking about. Did you recently add the disclaimer about not placing a replacement log? This is really good!

 

I probably would not punish the folks that found it fair and square after the throw down. You may choose to confront the first signer maybe give them a hard time and ask them not to do this again. This is one of the problems with community maintenance sometime they get it wrong. They may have thought incorrectly they were helping out, I found a cache DNA tube two days ago that had no paper in it so it does happen that they get lost.

 

Now imagine a fairly big container with 100s of DNA tubes in it. The CO had the final coordinate to three different caches in there. I found out after the first visit I need to go back and go through all of them. 

 

I have deleted a log in the past it was not a fun task luckily the guy did not complain and I probably wasted too much time worrying about it.

Link to comment
On 9/27/2018 at 11:11 AM, brucemoose said:

a 5L container full of Eclipse tins

 

A bit late to the party, but if I was the CO of this one, I would tape a laminated note at the bottom of the 5L container with either a cryptic or blatant "this is not the cache location" message. The finder would see that either when they tip out all the eclipse tins, or after opening them all and are about to start putting them back in.

 

On 9/27/2018 at 2:07 PM, Diadem said:

If I found all tins empty I'd assume the log is missing; a cache full of decoys being itself a decoy is not something that would readily jump to my mind.

 

Yes, this is how I would think as well. I forget where I read it, but I recall reading somewhere (not sure if it was about geocaching or writing mystery novels) a quote along the lines of "you're supposed to fight with them, make them work for it, but ultimately lose". So in this case, as a CO we should be considering the spectrum of players from the highly experienced to the novice and try and make it possible for all of them to enjoy the cache.

 

In this specific setup, one option might be to set the hint as "if you don't find the log, it isn't missing - you've got the wrong cache!" or similar.

 

Good idea for a cache though! I only have a handful of finds so far, and none have had a decoy (or they had a decoy and I fell right into it! :D ).

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
On 9/27/2018 at 2:37 PM, Diadem said:

I've found similar caches. I have assumed all but one of the tins was a decoy, and sure enough after opening enough tins I'd find a log. If I found all tins empty I'd assume the log is missing;

You should never presume the log is missing, just because it's not in a decoy. I don't, and start looking elsewhere, as I have found several of these where the log is in none of the decoy containers. One was a ammo tin with wrapping around it to camouflage the container. The log was hidden in the lining of the wrapping. So well it couldn't be felt, as I felt that before I checked the decoys. After then checking the decoys I returned to the wrapping. Another was hidden in the tree above the ammo tin full of decoy containers. Another was in a bison tube hidden on the opposite side of the tree to the container of decoys. In fact I have found this so often I now search around before checking the decoys.

Link to comment
On 9/27/2018 at 11:41 AM, brucemoose said:

I’m looking for some feedback regarding a cache of mine. It is deliberately deceptive, with a 5L container full of Eclipse tins and nearby, a small systema with the legitimate log book. Athen cache description clearly states that to claim the find you must sign the log. Someone decided that adding a scrap of paper into the decoy would do and others have signed this scrap of paper. As the CO, am I within my rights to delete logs that are not in the logbook?

I likely wouldn't delete the logs of those that found the scrap of paper, although that depends on what the scrap of paper looked like. If it's a ratty scrap, it should be obvious it's a throw down. However I would delete the log of the person who did the throw down. I would be annoyed enough that I would likely not even contact them first. Just delete.

Link to comment
On 9/26/2018 at 9:41 PM, brucemoose said:

I’m looking for some feedback regarding a cache of mine. It is deliberately deceptive, with a 5L container full of Eclipse tins and nearby, a small systema with the legitimate log book.

Athen cache description clearly states that to claim the find you must sign the log. Someone decided that adding a scrap of paper into the decoy would do and others have signed this scrap of paper. As the CO, am I within my rights to delete logs that are not in the logbook?

 

Sure.  Though you simply mentioned that all need to sign "the log".   They did that...

If we knew for fact who "someone" was that left a throwdown, their "Found IT" would go bye-bye, but all others would remain.

We've seen the same situation with any throwdown...folks not realizing they're signing anything other than the log.  :)

We've seen many similar, film cans mostly, and eventually people get ticked off, and more than one has a log strip inside.

Most COs of caches like that finally gave up, changing their not-really-funny-anymore cache for a traditional because of maintenance. 

Years ago some would blame that behavior on basic members.  These days most now know better.;)

Link to comment

In Response to the following: I’m looking for some feedback regarding a cache of mine. It is deliberately deceptive, with a 5L container full of Eclipse tins and nearby, a small systema with the legitimate log book. Athen cache description clearly states that to claim the find you must sign the log. Someone decided that adding a scrap of paper into the decoy would do and others have signed this scrap of paper. As the CO, am I within my rights to delete logs that are not in the logbook? I would say "Yes". I would send the person a message first and give them the opportunity to correct the mistake. Then if they do nothing I would delete the log.

 

 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

This has come up with other, similar caches.

 

I believe the "correct" response is to call out the first name on the list because they did the throw down - but the subsequent logs after them are honest mistakes made in good faith. They found what they thought was the log, it had previous signatures so they signed it. From their point of view, they did the right thing even if from your point of view they didn't sign the right log. Unless you specifically state in your cache description that the "right" log has the GC code at the top / on the first page or in some other way gives feedback to the finder that they've found the "right" log.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, DARKSIDEDAN said:

In Response to the following: I’m looking for some feedback regarding a cache of mine. It is deliberately deceptive, with a 5L container full of Eclipse tins and nearby, a small systema with the legitimate log book. Athen cache description clearly states that to claim the find you must sign the log. Someone decided that adding a scrap of paper into the decoy would do and others have signed this scrap of paper. As the CO, am I within my rights to delete logs that are not in the logbook? I would say "Yes". I would send the person a message first and give them the opportunity to correct the mistake. Then if they do nothing I would delete the log.

I concede that you are within your rights as CO to delete the find, and your procedure for doing so it admirable. But, really, your cache is begging for this kind of thing to happen, so I would prefer you do *something* to make sure it doesn't and, consequently, take responsibility for it being *your* fault if it does. For example, I'd suggest that, at least, you do what you're saying, *except* tell them that they didn't find the log and should go back and try again -- I suggest providing them with explicit information about where it really is at this point so if they go back, they surely won't fail -- but also admit to them that you won't delete their log if they want to keep it without going back, and then don't delete it.

 

I want you to feel free to do interesting things like this, and I would delete or amend my log if you'd sent me a message explaining this, but I encourage you to accept as part of the challenge of your unusual cache that some people will want the bogus find even after you've contacted them, and let them have their fun their way at your cache's expense.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Is there anything in the cache description or hint to indicate the possible presense of a decoy. Does the description indicate there is a proper log "book" to be signed? How nearby is the real cache, enough distance to have slightly different coordinates?

However I agree that you are within your rights to delete the finder who left a bit of paper and anyone else who signed it.

I found something similar, an ammo can full fo Kinder Surprise eggs. I went through them all without finding any log but as it was starting to rain I DNF'd it and thought later that I had, infact, found a decoy. Also, there was nothing on or in the can to indicate it was a geocache.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, colleda said:

I found something similar, an ammo can full fo Kinder Surprise eggs. I went through them all without finding any log but as it was starting to rain I DNF'd it and thought later that I had, infact, found a decoy. Also, there was nothing on or in the can to indicate it was a geocache.

 

It was probably an illicit stash for Kinder Surprise addicts.

  • Funny 2
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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...