Jump to content

The honor system??


spokexx

Recommended Posts

I'm new to the Geocaching app and site but I've managed to bag 30+ caches in my first month of Premium membership. I love the hunt and find, but I'm curious, does it boil down to being honest if you've actually found the cache or not? Could one just merely sit at their phone for an hour and mark as many caches 'found" if they felt like it? When I go to place my own caches, I for sure want people to log "Found it" only if they actually have. Is it possible to create a cache where the hunter/cacher must take a photo of a QR code or enter a numerical code(posted at the cache) for the cache to be officially found?

Much appreciation, SpokeXX

  • Funny 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Welcome to the game!

To answer your questions...

9 minutes ago, spokexx said:

I love the hunt and find, but I'm curious, does it boil down to being honest if you've actually found the cache or not?

Technically the owner is supposed to check the log to see if all of the online logs match up with the logs in the cache, so you can verify (Most of the time) if they were actually there.

11 minutes ago, spokexx said:

Could one just merely sit at their phone for an hour and mark as many caches 'found" if they felt like it?

Yes, but would that really fun?

12 minutes ago, spokexx said:

Is it possible to create a cache where the hunter/cacher must take a photo of a QR code or enter a numerical code(posted at the cache) for the cache to be officially found?

No, that would be consider a ALR ( https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=823), and is not allowed.

Have fun!

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, spokexx said:

I love the hunt and find, but I'm curious, does it boil down to being honest if you've actually found the cache or not?

Could one just merely sit at their phone for an hour and mark as many caches 'found" if they felt like it?

When I go to place my own caches, I for sure want people to log "Found it" only if they actually have.

Is it possible to create a cache where the hunter/cacher must take a photo of a QR code or enter a numerical code(posted at the cache) for the cache to be officially found?

Yep.

Sure they could,  but when you get a grumpy old fart like me who actually checks logs, if your sigs not in it you get deleted.  ;)

No.  It considered an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement).

 - And if you think you're going to enter it in your cache page after the Reviewer publishes it, someone will tell on you.  :)

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Just now, cerberus1 said:

Sure they could,  but when you get a grumpy old fart like me who actually checks logs, if your sigs not in it you get deleted.  ;)

And in extreme cases, the folks who run the web site have locked abusive accounts and have deleted all their logs.

 

 

1 minute ago, spokexx said:

So if I find that some users haven't signed the paper log but DID click "found it" on the app, can I delete those from the find list?

Yes. And according to the guidelines, part of maintaining the cache page online is deleting logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

 

For reference, see the Help Center article Delete logs.

  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, spokexx said:

OK. Im learning people. Im learning. So if I find that some users haven't signed the paper log but DID click "found it" on the app, I can delete those??

 

We only have a few caches left.  One is a 2/1.5 micro (our first), and I mostly let new folks just learning the hobby slide a bit.

If someone is obviously faking multiple caches, I'll check.  Usually when doing maintenance.

Two more are 5 terrain, and folks work their can off to accomplish them.  Sigs not in the log - Delete.

So it's pretty-much up to you really.  The site does say maintenance includes logs.  :) 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, spokexx said:

OK, good. I don't like cheaters or posers. However, has the idea of digital verification of successful cache finding ever been discussed for the app?

 

Verification of a find is a signature in the cache's log.  Simple.    :)

For virtuals and earthcaches (no log...)  there's information you're required to send to the CO.

 

ETA ... Yes, alternate methods to verify a "Find" have been discussed every so often.  

 

Edited by cerberus1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, spokexx said:

OK, good. I don't like cheaters or posers. However, has the idea of digital verification of successful cache finding ever been discussed for the app?

Keep in mind that not everyone plays the game with Groundspeak's Geocaching app. Some use other apps. Some use handheld GPS devices. Some use map and compass, with no GPS-enabled technology at all.

 

Signatures work for any of those approaches. Your hypothetical "digital verification", not so much.

 

In the early days, Groundspeak experimented with allowing keyword caches. Those haven't been allowed for many years. And "digital verification" is ultimately just another form of keyword cache.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Keep in mind that not everyone plays the game with Groundspeak's Geocaching app. Some use other apps. Some use handheld GPS devices. Some use map and compass, with no GPS-enabled technology at all.

 

Signatures work for any of those approaches. Your hypothetical "digital verification", not so much.

 

In the early days, Groundspeak experimented with allowing keyword caches. Those haven't been allowed for many years. And "digital verification" is ultimately just another form of keyword cache.

Ya know when I saw some of the caches placed around me have been there since early 2000's, I thought "How? The iPhone and apps have only been around since 2007??" And then I realized that back then people were using handhelds and this website. They must have written them down on paper and then headed out. Geez, i'ts SO convenient now. Open the app, zoom out and see what caches are around you. Even the digital compass built into the app is easy.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, spokexx said:

And then I realized that back then people were using handhelds and this website.

 i'ts SO convenient now. Open the app, zoom out and see what caches are around you. Even the digital compass built into the app is easy.

 

Still do.  In my area it's still about 50/50, and we see mostly phone users only when we get closer to cities.  ;)

Since you're a pm you can do pqs or lists and go offline too.  There's still areas north in your own state that have little or iffy service.

You didn't say (or I missed it) what app/phone you're using, but if you haven't yet, it'd be good to learn how.   :)

One park up from me only has service in its parking lot.    I load everything I plan to do in a day to a GPSr.  No service needed. ..

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, spokexx said:

OK. Im learning people. Im learning. So if I find that some users haven't signed the paper log but DID click "found it" on the app, I can delete those??

I like to include a photograph of the log in an Owner Maintenance (OM) log to show it as proof of a missing signature. I then contact the person with the missing signature and ask them to please point out their signature as I can't find it. I did once miss a scribble that was actually the signature. Many will never reply - so after about a week I delete them. Of those who do reply, I often ask for a good description of the log and cache. If they get all vague, they have found so many caches, they can't remember this one, remind them that the rules say they must sign the log and delete their log. I interpret' vagueness' as they didn't find the cache, but won't admit it.  I allow those who can give a good description of the cache and log to stay, but likely suggest they remember to sign the log next time. I try to respond politely.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, spokexx said:

Ya know when I saw some of the caches placed around me have been there since early 2000's, I thought "How? The iPhone and apps have only been around since 2007??" And then I realized that back then people were using handhelds and this website. They must have written them down on paper and then headed out. Geez, i'ts SO convenient now. Open the app, zoom out and see what caches are around you. Even the digital compass built into the app is easy.

I rarely use a phone as I find my GPS much more user friendly. However I found my first 180 caches without a phone or a GPS. My car Tom Tom would take me close and then I used the hint, and checked the ground to see if I could follow other people, and sometimes stood back and thought, 'where would I hide it'. Then I finally bought a GPS.

Even if I used a phone, I would still log on the computer at home, as it's easier to write longer logs. For instance, I found a cache today, but I also picked blackberries while there to take home and bottle, so I wrote about that too.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, spokexx said:

Is it possible to create a cache where the hunter/cacher must take a photo of a QR code or enter a numerical code(posted at the cache) for the cache to be officially found?

 

Trackables have a tracking code that's only supposed to be discoverable by those who have actually sighted the object, but those codes get photographed and shared with great abundance. Faking a signature in the cache's physical logbook is a lot harder. In spite of being a technology nerd, I've nearly always found that the simplest and least technological solution works best.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Trackables have a tracking code that's only supposed to be discoverable by those who have actually sighted the object, but those codes get photographed and shared with great abundance. 

 

This isn't true, and this is the "Getting Started" forums.    :)

In the Help Center , it does say,  "Logging trackables that you have not personally seen is strongly discouraged. It is up to the trackable owner to state if they allow this."

The trackable belongs to the TO.  It's up to them if they'll allow it.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Still do.  In my area it's still about 50/50, and we see mostly phone users only when we get closer to cities.  ;)

Since you're a pm you can do pqs or lists and go offline too.  There's still areas north in your own state that have little or iffy service.

You didn't say (or I missed it) what app/phone you're using, but if you haven't yet, it'd be good to learn how.   :)

One park up from me only has service in its parking lot.    I load everything I plan to do in a day to a GPSr.  No service needed. ..

 

Ive brought along my Garmin Zumo 660 gps on recent hunts. Even though it's primarily a motorcycle gps, I can use it in pedestrian mode. Is it more accurate?? It seems, but it doesnt have a compass built into it.

Link to comment

I admit to finding a couple caches in the beginning without signing the log. I'll have to remember which ones they were. I didnt have a pen with me. In the future if i find a cache and I dont have a pen, is it OK etiquette to take a photo of the cache container or paper log in my hand and attach it to the log in the app?

Much appreciation, folks. This is all good conversation.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, spokexx said:

Ive brought along my Garmin Zumo 660 gps on recent hunts. Even though it's primarily a motorcycle gps, I can use it in pedestrian mode. Is it more accurate?? It seems, but it doesnt have a compass built into it.

 

I still use a Nuvi 660 on mine, the other 2/3rds  uses one of a handful of wrist-mounted GPSrs she's accumulated. I think it's a newer foretrex now.

We haven't used either for finding caches, but heard (never seen) some do. They're used mainly for parking (rarely do roadside hides).

"Accuracy" in civilian-use GPS (so far) is still around ten feet.  That hasn't changed since 2000, but may soon.

Any modern phone with GPS should be just as "accurate" as a handheld.  The big difference (for us) is ruggedness and battery life.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, spokexx said:

In the future if i find a cache and I dont have a pen, is it OK etiquette to take a photo of the cache container or paper log in my hand and attach it to the log in the app?

Much appreciation, folks. This is all good conversation.

 

This is decided by COs.  I believe that most will okay that, unless they find "forgot my pen" is an ongoing pattern.

Best way to teach someone the basics (this is one of the basics for this hobby...) if they aren't learning, is delete a couple.    :)

Link to comment

I had often thought that the intro of a QR or other confirmatory code at the cache would be a good idea, but to be honest, half the hiders now have trouble 1. actually hiding the cache prior to submitting it, 2. making it reasonably weather resistant for more than a month, 3. including a legible log, and 4. actually servicing the cache/log. So I envisage log scraps with no illegible codes, some handwritten scrawl on day 1 that is worsened in short order by water and the crumpling of subsequent finders.... no thanks.....

Link to comment
3 hours ago, spokexx said:

I admit to finding a couple caches in the beginning without signing the log. I'll have to remember which ones they were. I didnt have a pen with me. In the future if i find a cache and I dont have a pen, is it OK etiquette to take a photo of the cache container or paper log in my hand and attach it to the log in the app?

Much appreciation, folks. This is all good conversation.

That's happened to me a couple of times. I will try to find something nearby that will mark a mark of some sort or I will post a Write Note and come back at a later date and sign with a pen/pencil and then log a Found It. Taking a photo to me sounds like an easy out excuse for not carrying a writing implement unless, the log is unsignable i.e. wet, damaged, missing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, colleda said:

That's happened to me a couple of times. I will try to find something nearby that will mark a mark of some sort or I will post a Write Note and come back at a later date and sign with a pen/pencil and then log a Found It. Taking a photo to me sounds like an easy out excuse for not carrying a writing implement unless, the log is unsignable i.e. wet, damaged, missing.

Yes!! Ive come across a few unsignable logs. So here's a scenario I came across. I found the first stage of a multi cache the other day. It had a logbook and coords to the next stage. I signed the book and added the log into the app but then I went home, too cold. I figure ill get the rest of it another time. Now, when I eventually find the final stage, I'm sure there will be a logbook to sign, but will there be something else to log in the app or on this site? I guess it's up to the cache owner? That looks like a twin 2 stroke Suzuki you have there.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, spokexx said:

Yes!! Ive come across a few unsignable logs. So here's a scenario I came across. I found the first stage of a multi cache the other day. It had a logbook and coords to the next stage. I signed the book and added the log into the app but then I went home, too cold. I figure ill get the rest of it another time. Now, when I eventually find the final stage, I'm sure there will be a logbook to sign, but will there be something else to log in the app or on this site? I guess it's up to the cache owner? That looks like a twin 2 stroke Suzuki you have there.

 

Really to log a find on a multi you need to locate the final container and sign its logbook, but surprisingly I can't find anything in the Help Centre that actually says that! The only references to multis that come up are under Hide a Cache and they don't say anything about logging requirements.

 

A few years back there was a cemetery multi near here that had virtual waypoints at gravesites where you had to collect information to work out the coordinates of the penultimate stage, which was a container with a piece of paper that had the coordinates of the final. But people started signing the back of that sheet, thinking it was the final.

 

I suspect in your case an earlier finder might have added that logbook to the waypoint, not realising there was more to do and thinking they were doing the CO a favour by replacing the "missing" logbook. I'm struggling to imagine a CO intentionally putting a logbook in an earlier stage of their multi, but then I'm not very imaginative when it comes to such things.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

"Accuracy" in civilian-use GPS (so far) is still around ten feet.  That hasn't changed since 2000, but may soon.

 

Yeah, and while the device accuracy may improve, its relevance to geocaching won't for finders unless the coordinates everyone uses increases to more than 3 digit precision. Until then, a cache hider may be more likely to record the proper location, but that precision is lost once the cache is published and stored as DDM format with 3 decimal precision.

 

17 hours ago, spokexx said:

I found the first stage of a multi cache the other day. It had a logbook and coords to the next stage. I signed the book and added the log into the app but then I went home, too cold. I figure ill get the rest of it another time. Now, when I eventually find the final stage, I'm sure there will be a logbook to sign, but will there be something else to log in the app or on this site? I guess it's up to the cache owner?

 

Interesting what barefootjeff found. But it's pretty much understood that a multi-cache, despite its name, is actually a multi-stage (or waypoint) cache, and the "final cache" is the geocache proper. Or, another way to think of it is, a "cache" is just a container, and that may or may not be the geocache with the logbook, so a "multi-cache" was named such because each 'stage' was a 'cache' with a form of redirect until you arrived at the final cache.  I think the etymology of the cache type today may confuse some, especially now that those 'cache' stages may also be virtual (answer a question, calculate, solve a puzzle, etc) and not a physical container.

So yeah, if you only signed an earlier stage and not the final, then once you go and complete the entire multi, you can delete your prior find and repost it properly, or just edit the date on the log.

 

The other issue is that your find log right now actually only confirms you found up to that stage in the multi. If there's a problem with a later stage or the final, any other geocachers (CO included) may get the wrong impression that the entire cache is findable and in good condition.  The log history of a cache is for more than just the person who finds it - it describes the state of the cache as at the latest log date for anyone reading it, so accurate logging actually is a pretty important part of the hobby :) 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, colleda said:

As in US developing a pen that works in space v. Russian pencil or was that an urban myth?

 

I, too have heard that story and told it more than once.  I remember as a kid in the 60's seeing the TV commercials for the "Space Pen" that would write upside down or in weightlessness!! Wow!!

 

But, this, from Wikipedia's entry on "Writing in Space":

 

<Quote>

"A common misconception states that, faced with the fact that ball-point pens would not write in zero-gravity, the Fisher Space Pen was devised as the result of millions of dollars of unnecessary spending on NASA's part when the Soviet Union took the simpler and cheaper route of just using pencils. In reality, the space pen was independently developed by Paul C. Fisher, founder of the Fisher Pen Company, with $1 million of his own funds.[1][2][3][4] NASA tested and approved the pen for space use, then purchased 400 pens at $6 per pen.[5] The Soviet Union subsequently also purchased the space pen for its Soyuz spaceflights."

</Quote>

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
On 2/4/2021 at 8:35 PM, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

I, too have heard that story and told it more than once.  I remember as a kid in the 60's seeing the TV commercials for the "Space Pen" that would write upside down or in weightlessness!! Wow!!

 

But, this, from Wikipedia's entry on "Writing in Space":

 

<Quote>

"A common misconception states that, faced with the fact that ball-point pens would not write in zero-gravity, the Fisher Space Pen was devised as the result of millions of dollars of unnecessary spending on NASA's part when the Soviet Union took the simpler and cheaper route of just using pencils. In reality, the space pen was independently developed by Paul C. Fisher, founder of the Fisher Pen Company, with $1 million of his own funds.[1][2][3][4] NASA tested and approved the pen for space use, then purchased 400 pens at $6 per pen.[5] The Soviet Union subsequently also purchased the space pen for its Soyuz spaceflights."

</Quote>

 I have a pen that writes upside down, and apparently also well on wet paper. For some reason I've so far forgotten to bring it along to cache outings. Meh

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
On 2/2/2021 at 6:32 PM, TmdAndGG said:

Technically the owner is supposed to check the log to see if all of the online logs match up with the logs in the cache, so you can verify (Most of the time) if they were actually there.

 

I've recently experienced a situation as a CO that has me feeling confused.  It's kind of the opposite of the scenario in this thread, but similar.  A cacher's signature is on the logsheet(s) (written by someone else, I know by the handwriting, and the timing of when I checked the logs) but I have serious doubts if the cacher was ever there.  I have 2 puzzle caches, with finals on a walking route I do several times a week.  I check to see the cache is in place, and occasionally (after a run of finds, especially) check the logsheets.

 

We had a local event (outdoors, socially distanced, masked, etc, etc) so several of my hides and hubby's were logged.  This included my 2 puzzle caches.  The week after the event, I actually opened the caches and checked the logsheets, and there were the recent finders, plus one more name familiar to me but someone I did NOT see at the event, and the name was written with the same pen, the same handwriting as one I knew WAS at the event.  About a week later, this additional cacher logged my 2 puzzles as a find, dated 2 days after the event.  Did not log an attended for the event, and only logged my 2 puzzles and the event FTF bonus cache, but 2 days after the event.  

 

So was he/she actually at my puzzle finals 2 days following the event?  The NAME is on the logsheet (but it was there BEFORE the date of the online log) but is in someone else's handwriting.  I haven't challenged anything with anyone (the one who signed another's name, or the one claiming the questionable find).  I probably won't, not worth stirring up angst among the local community, but it definitely irks me.  Maybe this should go in the "Irks" thread instead!!

Edited by CAVinoGal
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

I've recently experienced a situation as a CO that has me feeling confused.  It's kind of the opposite of the scenario in this thread, but similar.  A cacher's signature is on the logsheet(s) (written by someone else, I know by the handwriting, and the timing of when I checked the logs) but I have serious doubts if the cacher was ever there.

 

I've been caught up in something a bit like that a few times, only on the other side of the fence so to speak.

 

First there was a puzzle cache which I'd solved but, in spite of visiting GZ three times over the ensuing week, was unable to find the cache. I was then contacted by another local cacher who asked for help with the puzzle in return for helping with the search and I was agreeable to that. While I was still at work, he completed the puzzle then dashed out to GZ, writing my name in the logbook as FTF followed by his, saying he'd wait until I'd logged online before he did as he wanted me to be the FTF for cracking the puzzle. Agh! Luckily it was summer with daylight saving so after work I headed back to GZ and, with the help of a photo he sent me, was able to finally find the cache tucked under a ledge I'd have never dared to climb down to if I didn't know it was there. I crossed out where the other cacher had written my name (which he'd spelt as bear foot jeff) and wrote it in myself along with my usual footprint insignia.

 

The second was on a T4 multi which I attempted with a couple of caching friends. I spotted the first waypoint and worked out the final coordinates, then we headed down the hill to where we discovered the cache was on the other side of a fast-flowing stream. The other two managed to rock-hop across but, with my wonky sense of balance, I was worried I'd tumble on the slippery rock and come to grief so I opted to stay on the near bank and photograph them making the find, which they did, but they wrote my name in the logbook too. I logged a DNF online as I hadn't completed the find, but then the CO contacted me and insisted that I change my log to a find. I told him I wanted to go back when the river was a bit lower and complete it properly myself, which I did five months later, and everyone ended up happy.

 

The third one happened on New Year's Day this year, when I did a 100km drive to do a pair of ALs at a remote but interesting location. The bonus cache for them was a tree hide in a park in the neaby township, and I'd come prepared with my ladder, but being a holiday the park was packed with muggles with one family camped right at the base of the tree. I logged a DNF on it but a few days later got a message from the CO saying he'd written my name in the logbook and I should change my log to a find. Again I declined, saying I'd like to go back at a quieter time but would wait until I was next in the area as I didn't want to drive all that way just for the cache and discover muggles camped under it again. I've yet to do that but, with winter coming on, hope to in the coming weeks when perhaps we get a cold or showery day that will minimise the muggle risk.

 

So yeah, situations like this can be awkward for the CO or just as awkward for the person who's had their name written in the logbook. There are usually at least two sides to every story like this. Perhaps the second cacher did visit the cache two days later but didn't sign the logbook since his mate had already put his name in it, or they consider it a fair teamwork find if one solves the puzzle and the other locates the cache, or any other variation in between. Since you have names in the logbook matching the online logs there's not much you can do anyway, other than stir up a hornet's nest for no good outcome.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

The NAME is on the logsheet (but it was there BEFORE the date of the online log) but is in someone else's handwriting.

Groundspeak states this is not acceptable but I've only seen it under the Help Center for Teamwork Caches. I wish they would make this clear for all cache types. 

 

As a geocacher, you should not sign the name of your teamwork partner in the log of your local cache. You can only claim a find if you visit the cache yourself.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So yeah, situations like this can be awkward for the CO or just as awkward for the person who's had their name written in the logbook. There are usually at least two sides to every story like this. Perhaps the second cacher did visit the cache two days later but didn't sign the logbook since his mate had already put his name in it, or they consider it a fair teamwork find if one solves the puzzle and the other locates the cache, or any other variation in between. Since you have names in the logbook matching the online logs there's not much you can do anyway, other than stir up a hornet's nest for no good outcome.

 

Yes, it is possible the 2nd cacher did visit the actual location on the date of his log.  It's unlikely, looking at his cache finds and locations around those days, but possible.  I'm thinking more the teamwork idea - one worked the puzzles, shared solutions, and one found the caches and signed for both.  The name on the logsheet was a surprise, both because of the cacher himself, and the fact that I could see the name was written by someone else.  Confrontation over it will likely backfire on me, I'm not going there.  But it irks me.

6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Groundspeak states this is not acceptable but I've only seen it under the Help Center for Teamwork Caches. I wish they would make this clear for all cache types. 

 

As a geocacher, you should not sign the name of your teamwork partner in the log of your local cache. You can only claim a find if you visit the cache yourself.

 

I also have a teamwork cache, with the other cache in Utah, so far  as I can tell, everyone who has found mine has followed the rules!  It's not found often - 9 finds since it was placed in September 2018 - but I expected that when I placed it.  But I digress...

 

For now, they show as smilies on his map, and his name is on the logsheet(s).  Whether he was actually there or not.  :::sigh:::

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yep. As the guidelines say, "Caches can be logged online as 'Found' after the geocacher has visited the coordinates and signed the logbook." (Emphasis added.)

 

I had several online Found it logs deleted because I didnt put a date. As the guidelines I visited the coordinates and signed the logbook so my find should count. What about people caching in large groups that sign a "Team Name"? The rules are open to people personal perception of them. 

Edited by DARKSIDEDAN
Link to comment

Typically it comes down "if their name is in the logbook you can't delete their log." But if it comes a very exceptional circumstance and HQ is convinced as the CO is that they were not there, it may be possible to delete the log and not have it disputed (or fail in the dispute). If you're 100% sure, delete the log, but make sure you can prove it, or reasonably convince appeals if the geocacher decides to appeal and have it reinstated.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...