Dragoon

That was my question, several times. Nobody at GSpeak wants to touch it with a ten foot pole apparently.. Scenario: A cacher with a caching that contains a copywritten word, ie Tupperware, finds my cache, is my cache (unless I delete his find) in violation of the copyright/business/company name guideline? I ask, because the guidelines are unclear, and unless explicitly stated in a place other then an email, or a forum, the guidelines are effectively worthless if they're not adhered to 100% of the time.

Oh they made it so non-premium members can get premium caches now ? regular members can, and were always able, to log PM caches however, i will be generous and say that 1% of all caches are PM's...if that is your only criteria for saying that geocaching is not free, you have no argument chances are that if nobody paid for PM, this site may not exist in the form that it does now, or maybe not at all so i think its kind of lame for the regular members to complain for the little perks we get as PM's You've taken the point I was making and went down an unintended tangent with it, an argument could be made that the click-through ads could be considered payment to Groundspeak for Geocaching.com, but I'll not argue the minutia The point I was making, and has been stated here a few times by other people, is that Geocaching.com is owned by Groundspeak, a company, and the decision to not permit business names is a marketing decision. That is not to say its a bad decision, or a good decision, or that we have any say in it. It's a marketing decision, that has real world effects. Calling them Guidelines is just semantics, they're rules. Loosely followed.. but rules. I just think there should be a formal definition to those rules/guidelines to know where the line is. Saying "we'll play it by ear".. is well, not practicle. If I, being a jerk, were to just pick a random cache and state "I don't like this cache/cacher, lets find a way to disable it", I could theoretically find something in most listings that would allow me to do just that. "Oh, they said Tupperware", "Oh they said the name of X product", "Oh they said the name of X company.". If something gets by the reviewer, the precedent has now been set that these caches will be disabled if the person complains hard enough.. I'm all for removing the names of businesses 100% from the cache listing.. if that's the rule. Using the guideline procedure would work well if we could live by it, but we're humans, and humans will find a way to complain about _anything_. What I'd suggest is a global clarification of the guidelines, and a stronger adherence to them. Also, I'd suggest that any existing caches would be permitted to remain as is, in a legacy/grandfathered in status. Inconsistencies in policy and in allowed game play in different regions doesn't generate good feelings for anybody. Yes, I know, volunteers, etc. I'm glad people volunteer their time to be reviewers, I wouldn't have the patience for it, and I don't envy them at all. Seriously, wow, good job. My point is, volunteers or not, guidelines should be more firm vs 'do what you feel is right, and we'll see what we can do!'.

Oh they made it so non-premium members can get premium caches now ?

At the end of the day, Groundspeak is a business, and they have ads on their site. Their marketing team obviously wouldn't like it if we placed a reference to a competing brand on a cache listing. If we said "use your official groupndspeak IPhone App", Do you really think it would get rejected because you said Iphone... but if you said use your GARMIN gps to find it... I can see it getting rejected, as that it would provide free advertising to a company not affiliated with Groundspeak. We can dress the guideline up as much as we want it, it's a marketing based decision. I mean, Jeremy himself has flipfloped on decisions when revenue was at stake. Think premium member only caches, money talks. And this entire thing is a marketing decision. If we're a group of carefree people living and geocaching then yeah, guidelines instead of rules are awesome! But, this is a business, and businesses need rules, not guidelines.

Simply answered? Yes. I'm on the leadership team for a Local Geocaching group and, despite being the most easy going person you'll ever meet, I'll argue for a legitimate cause/reason until they kick me out

I'm not blaming the reviewers at all, I agree with the call they had to make. You get the previously mentioned "idiot", who pushes the reviewers and "guidelines"/rules around to get what they want. Without clearer guidelines, it, or something like it, will happen again.. and again.. add nausea (that's not a typo, it actually adds nausea).

Now that this has turned into a quote war, its in the realm of trolls vs. something that can be taken seriously as a request for a clarification of the Rules.

Call them Rules, Guidelines, Testaments, A code, whatever you wish, they are the "insert word here" that geocaching reviewers approve caches by, and no matter who does them, they should follow the same process. To do other, creates a lot of forum traffic of people asking them to abide by their own "guidelines". Each reviewer having their own set is silly, disorganized, and really unprofessional.

... resists urge to say "I'm not sure if it was missed or just conveniently disregarded" ...

Yes, you're right. They have lots of dusty books with lots of legal speak, the lexicon of which is above the full comprehension of the many users that enjoy this game. We aren't, however, talking about any legalities, but rather an arbitrary line in the sand that says "Here is how far you're allowed to go with the Corporate trade/brand marks. Go any further and you'll be asked to remove it". In the real world, where the population base is about as wide as it gets, we currently have well-defined rules, defined by those same ladies and gents who read all those law books you mentioned above, and yet we still have people finding loopholes, causing mischief, breaking laws and continuing to get away with it. Just like everyday life, the "rules" of this game aren't black and white, and I'm quite certain nobody wants that in this game. Enjoy the grey. For every shade of grey, there's another way to enjoy this game. And yes, there will always be loopholes and things that are missed. So your solution would be to go 'well, just hope you get a Reviewer that doesn't mind?'. Thats the other end of the spectrum. I'm not suggesting we draft a 500 page legislation to determine if we can use a business name in our cache listing. I'm suggesting that rather then a flat statement, that is incredibly broad "you cant use a business name", that it have a delimiter added to it to make it more precise. Currently as the rule sits, you are not permitted to have the name in there at all, in any way shape or form. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "You cannot have the name of a business inserted unless it is used in a descriptive or navigational sense", IE, "We're going to be at Red Lobster" would be OK, "Eat at Red Lobster" would NOT be OK. By the current rule-set, the phrases "I suggest Parking at the walmart on X street, as that the trail you're about to hike is circular" or "The cache is hidden in a Tupperware container" are both violations of the Groundspeak TOS. To add clarity to the rule-set, you need to have clearer rules. Otherwise the single rule "Do nothing bad" would simply cover everything. Adding clarity is not a bad thing, its GOOD. Incorporate your Lessons Learned into the new rule-set, make them clearer, and verse all Reviewers on them. That way, if there is any question as to 'can I do this?' all reviewers will be on the same page. At the end of the day, volunteer based position or one of the Paid Employees, Groundspeak is a company, and that company has employees not playing off the same rulebook. The easiest way to address this is to remove some of the fuzzy interpretation and rely on firmly set, and easily readable concise rules.

There is a very good reason why lawyers have so many books. In Law you need to be explicit to the nth degree. Any loopholes you leave, will be exploited. The same thing goes for Geocaching. We have hundreds of thousands of Geocachers, with the rules being over a decade old, they need to evolve and be clarified to allow them to be fair. When there were just a few hundred of us, it was easy to manage, but as the game, and Groundspeak grows, the ability to have a 'general rule' goes the way of the dinosaur. With a population base as wide as what we have, we need clear, precise rules to follow. A unique Interpretation, when you deal with this many varied users, inst a reasonable expectation. There need to be cleared guidelines, this would lower everybody's blood pressure. Quoting a "blanket" or "general" rule, is pointless.

I don't have a problem with CacheDrone or any other reviewer, I just really think that application of a consistent set of well defined rules will help. Currently they are too open to interpretation, or if followed to the letter, too restrictive. Basically, The rules need to be clarified, and expanded upon to allow everybody to be happy. Precision is key, and right now, due to whatever reason, there is doubt and confusion, which can be fixed by precise, and concise rules that are explicit in their design.

I'm not kidding, these are valid arguable points. They're dumb, but that's the point. Where do we stop? Without clarification of a rule-set, a blanket rule as it is now, is ineffective.

We don't want them relaxed. As it is now, the rules are imprecise, and are open to interpretation. Rules should be clear and concise, and these, are not. If given a rule that states 'you cannot use yellow text in your cache listing', its a precise rule, its dumb, but its precise. If the rule says "you can use most colors in your listing", its imprecise and requires updating. Nobody is attacking the reviewers, but the process they are required to follow is flawed and allows for way too much interpretation.

Then my question still stands. Since Cities, Parks, States, and Provinces are all at some level a business, and have copyrights on their names, the same as any retail business. Shouldn't this rule at its core, block the ability to name any Corporate Entity? Also, Tupperware is a business, am I now disallowed to reference that? The rule is vague, but taken in its current format, no reference to a business at all, is allowed.. period. Allowing it once for identification is your interpretation of the rules. While I appreciate that, its not the rule. The rule says 0 reference to the business. Instead of blocking all reference to a business because of an existing rule that can be interpreted in a dozen different ways, why not add a delimiter to that rule to make it more precise. It all comes down to interpretation of the rules, by the person hiding the cache and the person reviewing it.

I'm a quiet guy. I stick to the background and keep my head down, but this is ridiculous. The intent of the rule is obviously for physical geocaches, not Events. To read into it deeper then that is silly. You're baring the people hosting an event from listing where the event is? Seriously? It's being used as a descriptor, not a advertising plug. No copyright lawyer on the planet, even a US one, would try to sue you for that. Also, since all major cities are incorporated, and run as a business, does this mean I'm not allowed to mention the city in the listing? Since all major parks are also commercial entities, and as such, businesses, does this mean I'm not allowed to mention the park name in my listing? Fair is fair, and commercial is commercial! Does this mean, that since tupperware IS a BRAND NAME, unaffiliated with Groundspeak, that I cannot say that my cache is in a TupperWare container? Also, what if I make my username HondaCivic am I allowed to log caches? as that my name will now appear as a plug to Honda. Does this apply to all businesses or just the ones Groundspeak has partnered with? I don't see you having a problem if I call my Cache "lets take my JEEP to go pick up my EXPEDIA tickets" Seriously? How deep you wanna go with this? This is dumb, the names of businesses are being used fairly as descriptors, NOT for promotional reasons, this falls under fair-use from a copyright perspective.

One of our members suggested doing up caches like this to get around issues http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC22EYF

Another case in the same area as Zor, we've had our members get events rejected for evening events, because somebody was having a Breakfast the same day, near the location.

Treasures in NB: Reversing Falls - Saint John, NB Tidal Bore - Moncton, NB Fundy National Park - Alma, NB Mount Carleton - Northern NB Treasures in NS Joggins Fossil Cliffs Peggy's Cove Cape Breton Trail Treasures in PEI Anne of Green Gables The Confederation Bridge Treasures in NFLD Gros Morne The East Coast Trail (The Spout! {salt water geyser}) Lance Aux Meadows Bonavista (Columbus's landing spot) As for Caches... The Joggins Fossil Earth Cache http://coord.info/GCN186

That's why I love potluck events so much, removes the whole "giving the person money" stigma, also why I love spring/summer events where you don't need to rent a space

*bump*

We dont have a lot of Newfoundland cachers on our site yet, but being a newf myself I cant help but invite you to the party http://www.maritime-geocaching.com/ My personal fav cache is in Harbor Grace, called Amelia's Obstacle http://coord.info/GC13E0

As a special treat for our members, we've designed an awesome new shirt! Check out the design!

*bump* Its this weekend! woo! for more details: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ff-494203652072

Hmm, well we're the Maritime Geocaching Association, and we cover the Maritime & Atlantic Provinces in Canada, but People from around Maine are more then welcome to come play too!