Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
DylanT6951

Vandalizing logs

Recommended Posts

A local cacher has made a point to vandalize our cache logs by not following a request of writing on the log sequentially. They make it a point to write anywhere and over multiple lines sometimes so large they take up the whole strip page.

 

What are your thoughts.

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post

Why are you requesting finders sign sequentially? All they are to do per the GS Guidelines is sign the log.

 

I think they see your request as petty, and that is the reason they are signing as they do. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, DylanT6951 said:

A local cacher has made a point to vandalize our cache logs by not following a request of writing on the log sequentially. They make it a point to write anywhere and over multiple lines sometimes so large they take up the whole strip page.

 

What are your thoughts.

 

Thanks

 

Ignore it. They are allowed to.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe they are responding to your 'keep off the grass' sign.... 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DylanT6951 said:

A local cacher has made a point to vandalize our cache logs by not following a request of writing on the log sequentially. They make it a point to write anywhere and over multiple lines sometimes so large they take up the whole strip page.

What are your thoughts.

 

Well, you asked...  :)

 Guess (if true) multiple sigs and taking up the whole strip might be leading to destroying or damaging,  though I feel "vandalizing" is reaching...

Are they "taking the whole strip page" on both sides ?

Sounds (to me) someone took a request of writing in the log sequentially as a bit much.

IIRC, you're also the person who said in a thread that you'd delete logs if folks logged found after you disabled a cache.

We have seen similar behavior when people get a little too anal about a hobby, and maybe the locals are attempting to show how silly that is.

Sure, they may be a jerk.  Consider the source, talk about 'em here, and  then forgetaboutit. 

Have you had caches taken/stolen yet ?  If this bugs the heck outta you, this might be a good time to have a sponsor.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Look at it this way. The next finder to sign the log will see a possibly bigger jerk. Don't supply ammunition to the 'enemy'.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

What I think you are observing, is what is called Psychological Reactance.  In short, your are perceived by this individual as a threat to their free choice.  Chances are, fighting this type of behavior, only reinforces their resolve to resist.  You're pretty much left with two choices when you encounter this:

 

1. Walk away.

2. Give the individual the perception that you have returned their freedom of choice.

 

Interesting video on the subject:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUw6BbGlAnM#action=share

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, DylanT6951 said:

What are your thoughts.

Why are you asking us? Talk to them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

It sounds like something that will only wind you up if you let it. Yes, people are petty and annoying at times but life goes on.

 

As others have said, it sounds like this person is protesting against the wording in your cache descriptions. Is it absolutely essential that finders log in perfect order? Most will sign the first available space under the last log anyway.

 

Would it harm anything to remove the instruction that is causing offense before the vandalism potentially escalates? 

 

If it is essential to log in order, maybe you could reword it a little better or explain why the order is needed.

 

If it was me, I would edit the descriptions, shake my head and forget about the whole episode. I would not be getting into a battle if wills with an anonymous person who knows where my caches are.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, South_Stander said:

Would it harm anything to remove the instruction that is causing offense before the vandalism potentially escalates? 

 

Yep.  We've been playing a while, and noticed that most people do know enough to sign under the last...    :)

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yep.  We've been playing a while, and noticed that most people do know enough to sign under the last...    :)

 

Normally I sign under the last name, but if spaces have been left open,  I sign in any open space.  In an actual log book where everyone has signed on the fronts of the pages, leaving all the backs blank, I'll sign on the back of a page.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, NanCycle said:

Normally I sign under the last name, but if spaces have been left open,  I sign in any open space.  In an actual log book where everyone has signed on the fronts of the pages, leaving all the backs blank, I'll sign on the back of a page.  

 

Sure,  us too ... simply saying that "under the last" is the norm in most areas requiring a signature.    :)

Few of our log books are signed on the backs of pages. 

At just a sig on a line we get today, we figured the other 2/3rds (half my age) will be retired before we see a "log full" note.  :D

 

Share this post


Link to post

I sign wherever there is room, so someone writing their name in enormous letters doesn't bother me.  (People will just squeeze their names in the empty spaces!)  Sometimes, if the log is tightly rolled and I don't wish to unroll it and re-roll it, I will sign at the loose edge.  Other times, if the log is full, I will sign over the lightest signature there.  I know it's more orderly to sign in sequence, but think of it this way:  The log is a history of the cache.  The way people sign it (too big, out of sequence, along the edge, with initials, without a date, as one group, with stamps or stickers instead of pen) is an insight to who is finding it.  I would suggest you just enjoy the different people who come in contact with your cache, and not worry so much about the rules you have set up.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

 

Normally I sign under the last name, but if spaces have been left open,  I sign in any open space.  In an actual log book where everyone has signed on the fronts of the pages, leaving all the backs blank, I'll sign on the back of a page.  

 I do the same. It seems wasteful to use only one side of the WITR paper/book.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, South_Stander said:

As others have said, it sounds like this person is protesting against the wording in your cache descriptions.

I hadn't realized that the OP included this in cache descriptions. That could be considered an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR), and I've known people who would make a point of not complying with ALRs just to prove that they are not enforceable.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, South_Stander said:

As others have said, it sounds like this person is protesting against the wording in your cache descriptions.

I see no reason to conjecture. The person signing the log that way can tell the CO what they're thinking, so a dialog seems the way to go.

 

1 hour ago, Ageleni said:

Sometimes, if the log is tightly rolled and I don't wish to unroll it and re-roll it, I will sign at the loose edge.

So you're the one! 🙂 I hate it when people are lazy and sign the back so I'm the one that has to unroll it all. It seems harder to roll them back up when both sides are signed.

 

22 minutes ago, niraD said:

I hadn't realized that the OP included this in cache descriptions. That could be considered an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR), and I've known people who would make a point of not complying with ALRs just to prove that they are not enforceable.

Yeah, that's kinda sad. I always comply with trivial ALRs because why the heck not? It seems petty to stomp on someone's fun idea just to underscore that it can't be enforced. Having said that, this isn't a fun ALR, it's just someone that's worried about something that's not important and not always possible. But that's no excuse for someone else to be obnoxious about how they sign the log.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm with some of the others here. I fully expect that this person is just pushing back against the apparent micro-managing in the cache description.

Quote

Please replace as found and log in sequentially.

 

It really isn't necessary to have this in the description. These are things that cachers already know to do, so explicitly restating it in the description could be seen as talking down to the reader. It could elicit reactions like "well duh, of course I'll log sequentially. Just 'cuz he said that, I'm gonna sign on another page and put the container back in a different place".

 

Of course, it could be that this person is just a jerk, or they could be someone new that just doesn't understand what they're doing, and that the above statement had nothing to do with it. Regardless, it would still be a good idea to remove the above statement from the descriptions to avoid potential problems like we've described in the future.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don’t see any issue with it. I found the cache and signed the log. After being deleted 9 times in a week a reviewer posted a note and my log was left

72F58818-EC16-4D1E-A24F-8F5A9D222A45.jpeg

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, LewisClan77 said:

I don’t see any issue with it. I found the cache and signed the log. After being deleted 9 times in a week a reviewer posted a note and my log was left

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post

OP, you asked for thoughts:

 

Delete the "Log in sequentially." Most people are going to do that anyway. Sure there are a few who won't, but there are others who would normally log sequentially, but will do something different just because you have basically told them it annoys you. You're better off just ignoring the few.

 

Enable your cache so people can find it and this drama can get buried by new logs. The most recent log says it's in good shape and well hidden, so let people enjoy your cache.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/14/2019 at 3:45 PM, K13 said:

I think they see your request as petty, and that is the reason they are signing as they do. 

 

The request is nitpicky. The response is petty and immature.

 

Most people will usually sign sequentially without being told. I will usually sign the next line and use one line on a logsheet. On logbooks I will often sign before the last finder because past finders have left blank or half empty pages. If it's starting to rain or the mosquitos start attacking me at GZ then I'm likely going to unroll the logsheet as little as necessary to sign it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have a feeling this whole episode gives some indication of why ALRs were done away with.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, LewisClan77 said:

I don’t see any issue with it. I found the cache and signed the log. After being deleted 9 times in a week a reviewer posted a note and my log was left

 

 

If I were to come across that log I would think "what an .... " (it starts with  A  and ends with E. You may fill in the missing 5 letters yourself). Just think if that's the way you want people to log your caches?

 

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, on4bam said:

If I were to come across that log I would think "what an .... " (it starts with  A  and ends with E. You may fill in the missing 5 letters yourself). Just think if that's the way you want people to log your caches?

 

I may have thought the same thing, but then we got the other side of the story thanks to LewisClan77 and we can see that it's the same cache that triggered this discussion.

 

DylanT6951: Please try to play nice with your fellow cachers. There's no need to micro-manage the way in which other cachers find your caches. Also, definitely don't waste the time of reviewers. Asking for the reviewer to go out of their way to publish your cache on a specific date and then immediately disabling it "waiting for better day to activate" is very disrespectful. The reviewers are volunteers that freely offer their time to make this game happen. Don't abuse their kindness.

 

Also, in case you haven't been monitoring your email, your cache will be archived tomorrow if you don't enable it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

In the words of a certain @SwineFlew, "Some people don't need to be CO". This OP seems to be one of them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LewisClan77 said:

I don’t see any issue with it. I found the cache and signed the log. After being deleted 9 times in a week a reviewer posted a note and my log was left

72F58818-EC16-4D1E-A24F-8F5A9D222A45.jpeg

 

Why exactly did you sign the log like that? I'm guessing with the added "Ha Ha Ha" it was purely provocation?

 

It does seem a little childish to me.

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, colleda said:

The next finder to sign the log will see a possibly bigger jerk,

Edited to add: Along with a heap of forum users.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Also, in case you haven't been monitoring your email, your cache will be archived tomorrow if you don't enable it.

Actually, I have it scheduled for Archive in about a week, or 30 days from the Note that I posted.  And yes, I have reminded the OP on 2 or 3 occasions since, as they continue to submit new Listings for Publication.  I've also informed them that I will no longer honor any timed Publications from them if they are going to waste my time in this manner.

 

Not condoning the other Users response to the request to save space on the logsheet (and I see it quite a bit), but deleting logs generally crosses the line between polite request and an ALR in my view.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

 

Also, in case you haven't been monitoring your email, your cache will be archived tomorrow if you don't enable it.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Actually, I have it scheduled for Archive in about a week, or 30 days from the Note that I posted.  And yes, I have reminded the OP on 2 or 3 occasions since, as they continue to submit new Listings for Publication.  I've also informed them that I will no longer honor any timed Publications from them if they are going to waste my time in this manner.

 

Hmm, some of you may think the OP's philosophy is nitpicky and grossly exaggerates a nonexistent injustice (I agree) but public humiliation is far worse. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/14/2019 at 3:36 PM, DylanT6951 said:

What are your thoughts.

 

My very first thought?  "Dadgum, I'm glad I don't cache around there!"

 

It would seem that the Reviewer and cachers expended time/energy to publish/hunt&log this cache.

If you don't want people to log your cache, you need to do the same:  Get off your duff and remove the cache and log - and post a note that you have done so.  Any log after that would be a throw-down; therefore, subject to deletion.  Fully eligible to be logged if Published and original container/log are in place.

 

Big signatures that take up space are annoying to me as a cacher (not a CO), simply because I might have to find a non-sequential space to sign when it gets full.  I take a  photo in such instances, just in case the CO can't find my sig.  As a CO, replacing a full log sheet is not on my list of maintenance annoyances; it's a given I'm going to have to do it - and I use RITR logbooks/strips, not inkjet printed on copier paper.

Edited by VAVAPAM
when
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

A little bit of backstory. The OP has threatened me in the past with deletion of a log for a cache that I found. It went missing after I found it and he was gonna delete it based on the log not being present. I described the container and hide to him and he still tried to delete me. After that he became very hostile towards me. He hid a cache called Prissy schmuck #1 (gc5k9b5) I was the FTF and this was the first one I signed like this on purpose. See my FTF log. A while later I was contacted by GS about him tattling on me. That resulted in me being told that it is NOT against the guidelines to sign BIG AND SIDEWAYS AND IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE. He didn’t like that and deleted quite a few of my subsequent logs which I had reinstated. I now go out of my way to find his caches and log on BIG AND SIDEWAYS AND IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE. 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, K13 said:

In the words of a certain @SwineFlew, "Some people don't need to be CO". This OP seems to be one of them.

Yep... being a CO isn't for everyone. My opinion of being a CO is like being a parents dealing with 13 year old... you just learn to roll with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Holy moly! I just realized that this incident mentioned by LewisClan77 occurred 4 1/2 YEARS ago!!!

Edited by Max and 99
  • Surprised 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, LewisClan77 said:

 I now go out of my way to find his caches and log on BIG AND SIDEWAYS AND IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE. 

 

As would any 5-year old. :rolleyes: And yet, only one of both really is a kid.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

Seems like two bored kids, bothering each other in the sand box.

None of the two parties have anything from this silly behaviuor beside wasting time and negative emotions.

If you are really interested to restore fredom, be smarter, be stronger, and burry that dang gauntlet. Let it burried and log propperly (not just according to guidelines but also to comon sense and unwritten etiquette).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, LewisClan77 said:

A little bit of backstory.

 

A little bit of context.

 

The CO is a teenager.

 

You are an adult (presumably in your 40s, if 77 is a reference to your birth year) with children.

 

Maybe consider taking the high road instead of picking a fight with a minor over a game.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, LewisClan77 said:

He hid a cache called Prissy schmuck #1 (gc5k9b5)

 

I'm kind of surprised a cache would get published with that name, unless the CO changed it after publication. 

 

Then again, I recently came across a cache for which the entire title was just a poop emoji.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, hzoi said:

You are an adult (presumably in your 40s, if 77 is a reference to your birth year) with children.

 

Saddest sentence in this thread. I assumed we were looking at an adolescent here, not a fully grown adult.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, hzoi said:

The CO is a teenager.

 

 

I wondered about the OP's age.

Thanks for digging deeper. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

A little bit of context.

 

The CO is a teenager.

 

You are an adult (presumably in your 40s, if 77 is a reference to your birth year) with children.

 

Maybe consider taking the high road instead of picking a fight with a minor over a game.

I almost mentioned that, but figured it was known from the other thread. It puts things into perspective.

Edit: From the previous thread and profile, I'm guessing college-age now.

Edited by Max and 99

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, LewisClan77 said:

A little bit of backstory. The OP has threatened me in the past with deletion of a log for a cache that I found. It went missing after I found it and he was gonna delete it based on the log not being present. I described the container and hide to him and he still tried to delete me. After that he became very hostile towards me. He hid a cache called Prissy schmuck #1 (gc5k9b5) I was the FTF and this was the first one I signed like this on purpose. See my FTF log. A while later I was contacted by GS about him tattling on me. That resulted in me being told that it is NOT against the guidelines to sign BIG AND SIDEWAYS AND IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE. He didn’t like that and deleted quite a few of my subsequent logs which I had reinstated. I now go out of my way to find his caches and log on BIG AND SIDEWAYS AND IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE. 

Why would you go to so much effort just to make sure the relation gets much, much worse. Isn't it already bad enough? Sheesh. If you can't laugh at him, at least try to laugh at yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

From the Prissy Schmuck #1 cache page

Quote

As always, sign the log sequentially not just anywhere. If you can't, you must have a mental defect.

 

I'll bet that wasn't on the cache page when it was submitted for review.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, K13 said:

From the Prissy Schmuck #1 cache page

 

I'll bet that wasn't on the cache page when it was submitted for review.

Or the title? A deliberate attack on another geocacher.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Nomex said:

Actually, I have it scheduled for Archive in about a week, or 30 days from the Note that I posted.

Whoops, for some reason I did the math based on the publication date. My bad.

 

Anyway, now that more information has come out, it does seem like there isn't anyone involved in this interaction that could be considered "in the right". Both have intentionally antagonized the other, and neither have chosen to be the bigger man after several years. Like VAVAPAM said, "I'm glad I don't cache around there!"

 

:drama:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, K13 said:

From the Prissy Schmuck #1 cache page

"As always, sign the log sequentially not just anywhere. If you can't, you must have a mental defect."

 

I'll bet that wasn't on the cache page when it was submitted for review.

 

Yeah...  Kinda surprised it's still there, really. 

Most we see with wording like this have an opportunity to correct it or get their accounts locked, and/or a couple locals claim DNF because it's been pitched by someone equally ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...