Jump to content

Dealing With Cache Owners


Recommended Posts

to compare to regular caches, if someone found a much easier way to one of my caches, and turned a 5/5 hide into a 1/1, as long as they signed the log, it's a find.  Just because they didn't find it exactly the way I intended, doesn't mean that it's not a find just the same.

That's true, but it's a false analogy to a locationless that has specific requirements.

Good point, and I should have better qualified that, I suppose. The point I was trying to make was that in the OPs case, they have met the requirements, but "barely", which in my mind was similar to the analogy I made. But I don't understand what's in my mind half the time. :o

Link to comment
OK, We've narrowed this down, it's not 'owners' or 'they'.

 

I have the pitchforks. Who has the torches and where should the villagers meet? Taco Bell or Wendy's? Should we wait for an event approval?

 

;)

This thread is just too funny. :o

 

I have my own opinions about the cache owner, but I won't share them here. I'm enjoying everyone else's comments too much! :P

Link to comment
After a week of debate and clarification he finally conceeded that the object would fit the criteria.  Then he deleted the log because he didn't like the way it was written.

Yow! This sounds like a human being with a problem, if'n you ask me. Of course, nobody asked me, but never walk away from the opportunity to make fun of somebody with a problem. Especially if it's a "pull the wings off of flies for fun" kind of problem.

Link to comment
Please, the suspense is killing me ... someone please e-mail me... who is this good-natured cache owner?

Easy enough to figure out, Tonto -- find the post that "almost" said the name, then search the first poster's locationless logs for that partial name!

Uh, yeah ... I knew that. Uh, I was just checking to see if anyone else figured it out ... ;)

Link to comment

I believe I know the cache owner bring referred to and I have logged 6 of his locationless caches. I was asked to provide more information on one cache because my log entry was (I admit) a little too terse. I was somewhat surprised at the request for more info but didn't consider it unreasonable and, not wanting to make a mountain out of an Ant-hill ;) , edited my log to include proof so that it met the cache requirements. It was accepted with no problems.

Link to comment
to compare to regular caches, if someone found a much easier way to one of my caches, and turned a 5/5 hide into a 1/1, as long as they signed the log, it's a find.  Just because they didn't find it exactly the way I intended, doesn't mean that it's not a find just the same.

That's true, but it's a false analogy to a locationless that has specific requirements.

same with me, I have a cache named OFFROADING, someone did find it without taking the OFFROADING route, but for me a find is a find, they are the ones loosing out on the fun or cheating themself, and If I realy didn't want anyone founding it that way I should have done a multicache out of it and make it impossible to find without taking the intended route.

 

and another one of my cache is a night cache made with reflective tape that you are supposed to see at night last found was found during the day,.....it is still a found....doesn't have the same effect/fun while doing it....but it is THEIR loss not mine.

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...