[Commander Bob]

@Thraxman wrote:

… Using the phone-a-friend feature is hardly any more shady than caching in a group with one or more members who have already found a cache. Indeed, just about any time a group hunts a cache, only one person truly “finds” the cache. The others in the group are on a free ride once it is found…

Two words….Finder’s Tree!

~CB

[Commander Bob]

@marc_54140 wrote:

OK, I’ll jump on my soap box!

1, 2, and 3 are currently not listed as ‘rules’. (They have been in the past, but not currently…) Therefore ……

But if they were, why pick on #3. What about 1 and 2? Hmmm! Can’t do that with a micro………….?!

After a cache has been muggled, destroyed, soaked, or removed….. where is that precious piece of paper to prove anyone has actually been to the cache?

Does it REALLY matter? I do not believe so. Cache on!

I don’t know what rulebook you’ve been reading, but it’s always been common knowledge (not to mention common sense) that the logbook is in place to record your name as proof of your find….PERIOD!! End of discussion! Not open to debate.

What about 1 and 2 you ask? Can’t do that with a micro?
1. Take something from the cache…Every cache I do I take away that same feeling I got with my very first find, that sense of accomplishment, the feeling of solving a secret hiding place, and the memory of where it took me, how I got there, and who was with me. I guess that’s why I keep on searching, to build upon those memories.
2. Leave something in the cache…technically leaving your name in the logbook would qualify. The rest of us with functioning brain cells would agree it’s “IF” you take something “THEN” you leave something.

Most cache owners are proud of their caches, and do regular maintenance on them. I include taking photos of my logbooks if I’m not replacing any that are full. Yes, I’ve lost my share of caches to muggles, critters, or mother nature, but by checking the logbooks periodically, I lessen the amount of info that has been lost. I know many cachers who treasure their cache journals, especially the more difficult or memorable ones. Those always have the best stories written in them.

Your second post was derailing this thread to somewhere…I’m not sure where…but I don’t care to go there.

I don’t know if that final post was directed at me personally, but I do take offense with it. If having a difference of opinion is the same old recycled discussion, whats the point in having a discussion? Perhaps your view of playing the game differs from mine, that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is the misinformation that may be spread through ignorance.

To all new cachers reading this: Sign the logbook! It shows the cache owner that you found the cache. They, as cache owners, have the ability to delete a find for a reason. They are responsible for verifying each find, and owe it to every cacher who ever found it.

Kudos to Ray for catching the logging abuse in the first place!

[Commander Bob]

I was hoping for a more human translation. I had already done the online translation. (thanks anyway Losty)

Gotta love those government inspection department receivers! 😆
~CB

[Commander Bob]

@hogrod wrote:

We only sign the logbook sometimes, and keep track of our finds with our online logs. Most of the time I see what I can swap & if I had some cool experience I write it in my online log.
Logbooks get wet, lost, stolen, moldy & are not permanent, our online logs are.

@marc_54140 wrote:

…Like Hogrod, I generally do not sign the paper log. But since I have cached alot in a group setting, others have been forging it for me!!!

Have I been away that long? While I’m as trusting as the next guy, isn’t the whole point of requiring every cache contain a logbook just for this very purpose? It verifies you actually were physically at the cache and found it! Don’t go responding with a million examples of various caches that have exceptions, I understand there are “some” caches that don’t have that requirement, but they always have some way to verify your find. Come on people, is it that hard to sign a logbook? I can remember many stories of cachers who found a cache (usually after much effort and great distances) only to realize they had forgotten a pen, and the cache didn’t contain one. I’ve personally seen logbooks with entries written in mud, burnt sticks, and even in one mosquito infested area, written in blood. Signing the logbook is as basic as it gets. Find the cache…sign the log!
~CB

[Commander Bob]

We couldn’t agree more. One of our favorite memories from caching after the campout was Cana Island. Did you happen to get there?
~CB

[Commander Bob]

@bnb wrote:

@Commander Bob wrote:

@zuma wrote:

Those who would suggest that some BOD members are “not on the trails” are both ill-informed and foolish.

A simple check of a person’s profile may “inform” you otherwise. Making a statement like this without checking the facts could be considered foolish.

A geocaching.com profile is not proof of a person’s geocaching activity. If not all cache finds are logged, and not all cache hides are part of geocaching.com, they would not appear in the profile.

I suppose you can make an exception to anything if you stretch far enough. I’ll admit not every cacher logs their finds, or searches for geocaching.com caches, but do you really believe this to be the case? Let’s face it, there are some board members who are simply inactive when it comes to caching. While it’s not a requirement of board members to be active cachers, it certainly is a good way to keep up with the pulse of caching, the trends, the new and different ideas that are being put out there.

To post this response, with seemingly far fetched excuses, seems to be yet another example of the BOD’s fear of criticism.

~CB

[Commander Bob]

@zuma wrote:

But since others here post there opinions freely appear no better informed than myself, I guess I should feel free to post my opinion as well.

Posting your opinion is exactly what I’m standing up for here…however I may have an issue with your view of others being less informed.

@zuma wrote:

Those who would suggest that some BOD members are “not on the trails” are both ill-informed and foolish.

A simple check of a person’s profile may “inform” you otherwise. Making a statement like this without checking the facts could be considered foolish.

@zuma wrote:

..the work on the new web page, the De Lorme challenge calculator,…

Neither of these are the work of our BOD.

@zuma wrote:

I cannot let the personal attacks against individual BOD members go unchallenged.

What personal attacks?

@zuma wrote:

When rabble rousing is not a good thing is when it is done without a purpose to improve things. It is much easier to criticize others than it is to do something positive yourself. Iif you want to improve the world, ya gotta do more than just bitch and whine about other people,…

The original issue came about because there was a call to allow members a voice in certain WGA decisions…which some board members were quick to deny. It was actually an attempt at something positive, and asking to become involved. Is this just bitching and whining?

@zuma wrote:

I am quite surprised that anyone would actually have a legitimate gripe about the hard work that our volunteer BOD members do.

Board members are no different that any other elected officials, and should be held accountable for their actions, (or lack of). Having a difference of opinion with a BOD member shouldn’t be considered treason, although there are many here who feel it is trampling upon hallowed ground.

That being said, I’d like to point out that there are some board members who are doing a great job, and I’ve told them so. Do I always agree with every position and every decision…of course not. But unless someone voices a different view, how will they know?

@zuma wrote:

Plus, I found a case of beer at a cache this morning…

I gotta go caching with you. 😉

~CB

zuma[/quote]

[Commander Bob]

@Mama Fishcacher wrote:

@CB&MB wrote:

in May we saw it on a coin…we already believed it to be true, but have recently taken it on as our Team Motto: “The only numbers that matter are the number of friends you make!” The rest just doesn’t count!
MB

I really like that quote! 🙂

~MF

Feel free to steal it and use it as you see fit. We did! 😆

~CB

[Commander Bob]

@Cheesehead Dave wrote:

“Someone” called “someone else” “Chicken****” in “the thread in question”, so I wouldn’t quite say it was 100% personal attack free.

I don’t think that was in response to a call for censorship, it was merely a request to take a well-warranted discussion out of a thread for which it was off-topic, and start a new thread so it could be discussed properly.

Perhaps it is semantics…calling an idea or a suggestion CS and calling a person CS, in my opinion, are two different things. But as long as were discussing this particular post, I’ll offer my outlook on it. Going back through the thread there are at least a dozen other posts that are just as off topic, yet you only called out one person. We’ve seen topics bounce from one end of the spectrum to the other quite frequently here in the WGA forums, and it usually never bothers anyone. I understand you frequent the GC.com forums quite regularly (or have in the past) where the need for moderators is warranted, but I’d like to think here on our own more personal, more informal, message boards, such actions are not necessary. Perhaps asking the discussion to be started in another thread was taken the wrong way, since it’s rarely enforced around here. And perhaps you singled out one specific person because she allows herself to become an easy target. Either way, I personally found the request to be out of character, and wrongfully directed. I believe the call to not allow our message boards to become like GC.com can go both ways. For the most part, we self regulate ourselves fairly well, and rarely find the need to call in the authorities. Perhaps that is exactly what you were trying to do, and I’d agree with your point that the discussion was moving off topic, but I just as strongly disagree with you singling out one specific person. Your post would of had the same meaning without the quote, and without making one person feel they were to blame. Strange that there are still posts being made off topic right now, yet you don’t feel the need to police the thread anymore. I guess it’s a question of motives.

~CB

[Commander Bob]

First of all, my reply wasn’t directed at you THD, so please don’t think I was referring to you, as I was not. There may of been an accusatory tone to the posts, and they may or may not of been justified. That is another matter all together. However, certain BOD members certainly didn’t go out of their way to suggest otherwise. If “jabs” are being taken at the board, it would seem to me the issue should be addressed, and not swept under the rug. Your intent to “settle the conversation down” is exactly the point I’m trying to make here. And exactly what was your desired effect?
I believe jeremy’s quote from another thread said it best.

And sometimes it is best to publicly address the Board (by posting something in the public WGA forums). Stirring up a hornet’s nest sometimes can cause the Board to jump into action… in some cases without this public prodding they’d be inclined to sit on their hands.

A little “jabbing” at the Board members is hardly name calling or becoming the GC.com message boards.

~CB

[Commander Bob]

Of course personal attacks have no place in this or any other debate, we all agree there. I never mentioned name calling or personal attacks for a reason, there simply wasn’t any. Go back and re-read the thread in question (we all know which one) and quote me an instance of name calling. Yet I can quote the cries for censorship. Do not defend your actions with false claims.
~CB

[Commander Bob]

@Jeremy wrote:

But the number of Board members you know is really unimportant. Do you know all or 435 US Representatives or all 99 WI State Assembly members? Probably not… most people don’t know their own representatives.

Of course I don’t know all of them…why would I? But I do know the ones who represent me. Wirch and Kirkman in the State Legislature, Ryan, Feingold, and Kohl in the US congress.

Why is the number of Board members you know unimportant? Don’t they all have an equal vote on the board?

The rest is just babble…. 😉

Oh, and for the record…I got all 9.

~CB

[Commander Bob]

@marc_54140 wrote:

I’d like to revive that discussion with something a little more substantial – a geocoin, produced and sold by the WGA.

While I understand there are many WGA members who collect and trade goecoins, I’m not fully convinced this would be the proper reason/incentive for having a premium membership. I suppose the word substantial has different meanings to different folks. Personally, I think the premium member status should be a title that would be earned and not bought. Volunteering time at WGA event, participation in CITO events, or some type of activity that is beneficial to the geo-community at large. Then the premium title would hold a much more respected position other than a bought one.

I have to agree with Ken & PCFrog that there needs to be a plan for what the funds are going to be used for. Perhaps a new poll question…”What should the WGA spend it’s money on?”

I was saddened to see the pancake breakfast before the picnic idea shot down due to lack of human resources. With only 2 WGA events a year, it would of been nice to utilize the griddle. Another disappointment was seeing the water supply run out. Perhaps some of these funds could be used for for supplies for the events, instead of counting on donations.

The bench donation project is another great idea. I think separate fund raising events for something like this would work well for two reasons. First, it provides the opportunity for those who are interested, to donate to a specific item, with the added benefit of showing the WGA’s willingness to give back to our parks and forests. Secondly, it could be held in the local areas where the donated bench would be placed. Persons in Green Bay for example, wouldn’t be donating for a bench placed in Milwaukee.

Another idea would be a discounted price for State Park stickers. I’m not sure how this could be implemented, but it is certainly a cost most of us spend willingly anyway. It would be a good way of showing the DNR the positive impact Geocaching has on it’s revenue base.

Let’s hear from more of you….what would you like to see the WGA spend money on?

~Commander Bob

[Commander Bob]

Does anybody else find it interesting that Fu discovered the answer in less than 3 minutes? (Why do I notice these things?)
~CB

[Commander Bob]

[Author]

Posts