Corfman Clan has built into the site a mechanism for marking cachers as either Standard (default), Private, and Excluded. The ongoing assumption has been that changing status to anything besides Standard would be at the request of the cacher effected, and that disputed logs are a matter between the Cache Owner and the "Finder". Here we have an example where a cacher could be excluded from the LonelyCache database without his consent because of the concentrated "damage" done.
dreamcacher102 (PR76X5Y) has 101 finds in two days of caching. Day one, he (assuming a he) logged a cache in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Day two, he found 52 caches in the northwest corner of Utah (all in Box Elder County / Bonneville Region). Two finds have since been deleted, leaving him 101 finds, 55 of which ought to be within the current LCP service area (1 each in UT, AZ, CO, NM, NV for day one, plus 50 remaining in day 2), all of them traditionals. As of writing, 52 finds have been incorporated into LCP stats.
At 1,122 points, at an average of 21.6 Pts/hide, so far dreamcacher102 is ranked:
- #57 LCP-wide single month growth
- #931 LCP-wide BC leaderboard
- #449 Utah BC / #379 Traditional BC
- #26 Box Elder Best All Around Points (#24 Traditional)
- #12 Box Elder BC (34.2% of total) / #10 Traditional BC (45.1% of total). It is startling to me to see this cacher ranked among many high-profile cachers, his "peers", on these two leaderboards.
- #111 Bonneville Best All Around (#99 Traditional)
- #54 Bonneville BC (#49 Traditional)
Since at one instant in time, a LonelyCache point score is a zero-sum game among the finders, the 1122 Pts allotted to him were taken from legitimate finders of those caches. There was also an unknown (but could be calculated) number of points taken from the hiders. The future value of those caches is also reduced because their point values will grow more slowly.
I would recommend that dreamcacher102 be reclassified as an Excluded cacher for this site. I recognize, however, that I am not impartial on this matter. My score is not directly affected because I have not found any of the caches he claims to have had, but this is my home county and my standing on the local leaderboards has been reduced.
This is a good opportunity for a philosophical discussion. Also, this could prove to be an interesting experiment to determine whether marking a cacher Excluded is correctly handled by the LCP database.
and thank you! 
dunno how I missed it... 
wo is all i can say about this. so after reading this discussion i decided to look the account up and while doing so i found something unbeleivable! 
