Jump to content

Claiming a FTF


Clongo_Rongo
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I was wondering what the community thoughts are on claiming a FTF on a cache, but did not view the log sheet - could it be possible the log has been signed. 

but how do you know without viewing it ?

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Viewing the logsheet would seem to be an integral part of signing it. I guess you can sign it with your eyes closed, but I'm not sure why that would matter, or how FTF works into it. I personally wouldn't claim a FTF if I hadn't signed the logsheet.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

When the other 2/3rds was a FTF monster, she sent me out in a snow storm (she was caring for a relative)  to get one in another state no less.

Half way there, and get a call from her that it was found by a kid that not only rode a bike, but was many miles away.

Turned out he fibbed.   Can't figure what the thought wasit's not like you can fake that with the next finder...

The CO, curious too, showed up to see me sign the log.    That was a weird one...    :)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Viewing the logsheet would seem to be an integral part of signing it. I guess you can sign it with your eyes closed, but I'm not sure why that would matter, or how FTF works into it. I personally wouldn't claim a FTF if I hadn't signed the logsheet.

The only thing I can think of is a group that is playing huckle-buckle-beanstalk style. The first person to spot the cache and announce it to the group would be credited with FTF, but might not be the person to retrieve and replace the container. When I geocache with a group, often the last person in the group to spot the container is the one to retrieve it. And always, the person to retrieve the container is the one to replace it.

 

There have been caches that I have found with a group where I found the cache, but never actually touched the container. Someone else retrieved and replaced the container, and someone signed my name on the log for me while I was doing something else (writing a field note, leaving a personal signature token, bringing up the next cache on my device, whatever). I suppose in extreme cases, I might not actually see the log, even though I did see the container before it was retrieved. But it seems unlikely that that would happen on an unfound cache, or that I would bother mentioning it in my online log.

Link to comment

If I were to claim FTF, I'd be putting my name at the top of the sheet/book, and I'd assume that's where anyone else wanting to claim it would go. Maybe the question was about whether you view/check over the entire log sheet to see if a signature was placed anywhere else from someone planning to claim FTF. That's an awkward one.

A couple of situations:

1. I wasn't the first to sign, another signature was on the sheet - that person claims FTF, contrary to me being the signature at the top of the sheet.

2. I was the first to sign, someone else claims FTF having signed elsewhere on the sheet; I haven't checked so there's no evidence the signature wasn't there when I found it.

It just gets hazy and messed up trying to determine who actually was FTF when people start lying about being the first.

 

But then, is there a chance two people claim FTF to their knowledge and neither are lying?  Perhaps, but only if both people don't check to make sure there's no other signature. If both are honest, then at least one of them will see that theirs was the first signature, or the 2nd.

So in most cases, one person is dishonest; but if both people are honest and neither checked the sheet, then it's possible to half a legitimately unknown FTF (as it pertains to first signature in the sheet).

 

 

That's why I'll always check the whole logsheet or logbook. Some people don't care about order and just sign anywhere.

Sometimes there are beta tester signature elsewhere on the logsheet (though they typically don't calim FTF and wait until the first find or two before logging themselves)

Link to comment

Are you talking about a situation where someone claimed FTF and didn't sign the log but submitted another proof of find (like a photo log), and therefore couldn't be sure that they were FTF as they didn't examine the log sheet?

If so it sounds like you just want to re-hash your thread about deleting photo logs again, perhaps because you didn't get the response you'd hoped for last time?

 

If not, please explain your point more clearly, and whether this is a real world example or just a hypothetical one.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But then, is there a chance two people claim FTF to their knowledge and neither are lying?  Perhaps, but only if both people don't check to make sure there's no other signature. If both are honest, then at least one of them will see that theirs was the first signature, or the 2nd.

So in most cases, one person is dishonest; but if both people are honest and neither checked the sheet, then it's possible to half a legitimately unknown FTF (as it pertains to first signature in the sheet).

 

This reminds me of a nearby cache a couple of years ago where it wasn't at all clear which side of the logbook was meant to be the front. I signed what I thought was the front, 2TF signed what she thought was the front then bumped into me in the carpark as I was about to leave, only she thought I was just arriving. Luckily we know each other pretty well and it was all resolved amicably, and on the next local cache to be published I held back to make sure she got FTF on it.

Link to comment

 

2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Are you talking about a situation where someone claimed FTF and didn't sign the log but submitted another proof of find (like a photo log), and therefore couldn't be sure that they were FTF as they didn't examine the log sheet?

If so it sounds like you just want to re-hash your thread about deleting photo logs again, perhaps because you didn't get the response you'd hoped for last time?

 

Nail on head...

 

13 hours ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I was wondering what the community thoughts are on claiming a FTF on a cache, but did not view the log sheet -


YAWN... same old  petty vendetta.

Not your cache = not your business.

 

Build a bridge and get over it.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

How does he really know hes FTF though if he didn't unrol the logbook due to not having tweezers. ?

 

Simple.  You take your pen and stick the point into the tiny tube, marking a dot on the edge of the tight roll of paper.  Then you log online saying "signed with dot in blue ink on end of rolled log."

 

If your online log is first you can be pretty sure you're the FTF, but wait a while, and if no one else claims FTF that day, you can amend your online log to note your FTF achievement.

 

After my first few FTFs, I have photographed my signed entry on every one of my more recent FTFs, and I post the photo in the online log entry.  Never had an issue.  Now i see other locals following that practice also.

 

So yes it is possible to legitimately claim FTF without seeing the (entire) log sheet.

 

And make it a point to have a Swiss Army knife with tweezers!

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment
7 hours ago, The A-Team said:

You seem to know all about a specific case that triggered the OP, so can we safely assume that this is just another dispute between UK cachers?

 

Maybe, but specific cases are there for discussion and learning of the correct procedures by the rest of the worldwide community!

Link to comment
On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 3:59 AM, barefootjeff said:

This reminds me of a nearby cache a couple of years ago where it wasn't at all clear which side of the logbook was meant to be the front. I signed what I thought was the front, 2TF signed what she thought was the front ...

 

This causes a bit o confusion sometimes when two would claim FTF, even though most have that FTF space on top already printed out for that sig/date.

Others simply aren't unraveling it enough to see it.    :)

Many we see today still sign their name on the top of that roll, when the log  does start on the other end. 

 - In a rush maybe.

 

I and another were confused some, how we skipped each other on a trail once.  FTF on pretty-much every other one. 

I just went by terrain, and skipped by the ones  they were working up to in order.    :D

Link to comment
On 10/20/2018 at 5:52 AM, wmpastor said:

 

Maybe, but specific cases are there for discussion and learning of the correct procedures by the rest of the worldwide community!

 

How do we determine *correct procedures*  in a game which we all play our own way.. within the guidelines?

For example, to keep on topic with FTF's.. in my area if a cacher arrives at GZ after a cache has been found but the cache and/or logbook are still in the hands of the person who FOUND it.. the FTF will offer to share the FTF and I've not known many (if any) who reject the offer and log a 2TF.. but if we are playing to the letter of the law (a law which doesn't exist coz we only have guidelines and they don't give guidance on FTF's) the cacher who arrived 2nd shouldn't claim a Joint FTF because they weren't even there when the cache was found.

How about group caching at events?  In my area we have monthly events which have caches published mid event and a group of cachers dash out to find them.   Sometimes it's a large group and those at the front sign the logbook with a team name and ALL in attendance deem it a Joint FTF, despite some of them never having seen the cache, let alone the log book!


 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, LFC4eva said:

For example, to keep on topic with FTF's.. in my area if a cacher arrives at GZ after a cache has been found but the cache and/or logbook are still in the hands of the person who FOUND it.. the FTF will offer to share the FTF and I've not known many (if any) who reject the offer and log a 2TF.. but if we are playing to the letter of the law (a law which doesn't exist coz we only have guidelines and they don't give guidance on FTF's) the cacher who arrived 2nd shouldn't claim a Joint FTF because they weren't even there when the cache was found.

 

An interesting example, because in a situation like that, where I arrived to find the FTF already signing the log, I wouldn't dream of claiming a joint FTF as it had already been found by the time I got there. Only if I arrive while the other person is still searching would I consider it and, assuming the other person spotted it before I did, would only claim joint FTF with their consent - usually I'll just wait until they've logged their find and if they say something like "found jointly with BFJ" I'll say something similar, otherwise I'll just describe how things panned out at GZ. But we're a pretty laid-back community here and no-one takes the FTF race too seriously.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
On 10/19/2018 at 11:47 PM, The A-Team said:
On 10/19/2018 at 9:50 PM, The Magna Defender said:

How does he really know hes FTF though if he didn't unrol the logbook due to not having tweezers. ?

You seem to know all about a specific case that triggered the OP, so can we safely assume that this is just another dispute between UK cachers?

It's too bad there isn't a UK-only forum where all of the regional infighting could take place without poisoning the rest of the forums.

 

Oh, wait...there is.  Maybe in addition to the pub quiz thread, there can be a new thread there just for back biting and vitriol.

  • Helpful 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 2
×
×
  • Create New...