Dr. House

Hello, Newman. I perceive it to be commercial since it mentions the name of a business on a cache listing. That business stands to gain dollars above and beyond the meager $5 FTF prize included within since nothing costs exactly $5 there and the inference you're giving to the FTF group is "Eat here (mostly) on my dollar". Again, nothing is lost on the cache listing if you were to omit the mention of the business. Folks still realize that they're vying for $5 somewhere, and your choice of restaurant is moot.

I love you. Just sayin'

Heeeyyyyy... now you're getting somewhere

To recap: I'm no Reviewer, but I'm pretty sure that you'll have a much harder time trying to force something through given the above statements. But hey, give it a go.

I think you've got that backwards. People shouldn't be required to have a good reason for mentioning something or saying something. Instead, the hosting website should have a good reason not to allow them to mention it. Quite frankly, "just because we say so" doesn't sound like a very good reason to many of us. Now on the other hand, something being promotional or commercial would be a very good reason, but you're gonna have a hard time explaining to people how saying "there's a McDonald's gift card in there" is promotional (while a cache with "Jeeps rule!" as name is not, for example). Kinda like trying to explain how a big boulder sitting next to the road is supposed to be a geocache. Yeah, they say it is, but that doesn't make it any more true. So... that's a "No, I can't provide a specific reason" right?

the main issue is "inconsistency" in the interpretation and enforcement of the guidelines saying that there is a coupon for a certain store does not constitute advertising that business... ... in your opinion. Since you're using the someone else's site and resources, though, there are certain points where flexibility of the Reviewers will govern and overrule your opinion. Submit a listing, and should it need re-work based on commercial aspects, it'll get kicked back to you to adjust. Or, if the VRs feel the content is OK, it'll get listed. That's as clear-cut an answer as you're likely to get. And that oughta be enough, truthfully. I think it's awesome that you feel this strongly about something very miniscule in the grand scheme. My view has been that folks were fighting a losing battle in a "Nothing Fight" from the start, but people tend to latch on to the notion that they're entitled to certain things on the pretense that "Other people have it" or "I used to have it", and that's just simply a case of misplaced entitlement. I would suggest that if you really want to bring about change, you may wish to start focusing your efforts on citing specific examples of how and why the mentioning of a business or product is imperative to a listing in any way. Nobody has done that yet, and thus, the guideline has no impetus to change to assuage the entitled.

For the most part, Keith, I agree. We, as individuals, when explaining the game to muggles, use verbiage like you mention. It's simpler to do so in public, and allows folks to more easily understand our awesome game. Once a muggle becomes a cacher, and looks to list on this service, they'll be asked to do so in a manner that isn't commercial. The example you've given is well enough stated by writing "The cache is a small plastic sandwich sized food storage container" and place a note on the listing to the effect of "When originally placed, this cache contained various items such as bandages and tissues". Though tissues may suffice, the term bandages does not correctly describe a band aid. This is the kind of problem that trying to generalize with knowing exactly what you are saying can lead to misunderstandings. Someone in need of a bandage may read the listing, know they are FTF, head to the cache and only find a pack of band aids. Band aids are not going to cut it if they are looking for a bandage. For those who want to know the difference, a bandage is used to hold a dressing in place. A band aid is sticky bandage with a dressing in the middle. I understand the point you're trying to make. My honest preference and suggestion would be to omit the mention of the items contained within to avoid having this exact sort of an unfortunate situation occur, but I realize that folks have kids who like the knick-knacks inside of it.

Such as?

I agree with the bolded statement above 100%. I know caches that have been placed without a description, but only picture puzzles, and yet people still managed to work their way to co-ordinates and find the container. Additionally, event caches have worked quite fine with just the co-ordinates and a time to meet. With specific co-ordinates to your container, it makes zero sense to mention a business. To suggest that a cache owner needs to mention a trademark or brandname to help a person equipped with a GPS and specific co-ordinates find a container anywhere in the world is a different game altogether. Letterboxing has been enjoyed for years giving landmarks instead of co-ordinates to help a person find the stash.

Who is his partner? Just want to be clear who you are talking about. Agreed. I should have said "dfx" rather than partner. I just couldn't remember the name at the time I posted it.

For the most part, Keith, I agree. We, as individuals, when explaining the game to muggles, use verbiage like you mention. It's simpler to do so in public, and allows folks to more easily understand our awesome game. Once a muggle becomes a cacher, and looks to list on this service, they'll be asked to do so in a manner that isn't commercial. The example you've given is well enough stated by writing "The cache is a small plastic sandwich sized food storage container" and place a note on the listing to the effect of "When originally placed, this cache contained various items such as bandages and tissues".

CacheDrone has written 4 or 5 times in this thread to reiterate the stance of the VRs. You'll note that in each instance, the answer has pretty much been the exact same, though perhaps not as precise and detailed as you'd like. I would suggest, as CacheDrone has also already suggested in his most recent post, that should you submit a listing that doesn't work within the guidelines, you will be asked to change it to something that does fit. It really doesn't have to be any more difficult than that. Am I the chosen spokesman for the VRs? Clearly that's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is no. I speak only for myself as a individual. I, clearly, have no issue vouching for the VRs and will continue to do so since it seems to me that it's easier for some people to think they can steal their shoes rather than walk a mile in them. Since the 5 Ontario Reviewers are a team, and constantly converse amongst each other likely more than the average cacher realizes, it seems logical that there is no reason why only 1 of them speaks for the group. It seems sorta silly to have all 5 make the same statement, but I'm sure they could. I think you or your partner once asked in these forums something to the effect of "Why would a reviewer choose to remain anonymous?". I submit that perhaps another reason why they stay in the closet is so that they may give their own personal opinions via their personal GC account rather than those charged to them to uphold by TPTB with their reviewer account. Who said anything about making a blank statement? It just doesn’t make sense that this guideline was in place all this time, at least for the last two years, and was not a problem and now all of a sudden it is I think this is one of those things that's only truly a problem should you choose to let it be a problem for you. It wasn't originally a problem for the VRs either, since they published the listings in question as you see them, until an individual or group chose to make it an issue and point out a perceived unfairness. Now, because fairness was demanded, we have stricter re-enforcement of the guidelines moving forward. It may seem silly, but that's what you're looking at going forward. The ire is misplaced when it is solely focused on the VRs.

no, i don't get the idea.... lets see what that might be...air conditioned room, alcoholic drink, non-alcoholic drink, ice cream, ice pack...or perhaps is something "cool" in the sense that is an admired aesthetic of attitude, behavior, comportment, appearance and style? I take it to mean that they're gonna sit back with a nice cool beer and chill out. How anyone else takes it is largely immaterial to me since that's how the story works best in my head. It's unfortunate that you don't get the idea because an imagination is a powerful, good thing. Can I ask how you found as many caches as you have now without knowing what exact type of container you were looking for? We work around this every single day. Nobody says "the cache is a 35mm Kodak film canister", they say "the cache is a 35mm film canister". People, however, do say "the cache is a small Lock&Lock Tupperware container" which I think is unnecessary and could be effectively conveyed by saying "the cache is a small plastic leftovers container". Nobody cares who made the ammo box or who used it, they care where it is and what the co-ords are to get there. Do you know that they weren't directed to appeals and this was the result as handed down by appeals? I wonder if you can ask this all you want and you simply aren't entitled to the answer, and thus, won't ever get one. The reviewers aren't washing their hands of this aspect of the guideline, they just aren't going to be cornered into making a blank statement about all aspects of the guideline to appease those who demand it. Instead, they're going to judge your listing (and your listing alone) based on the current guidelines as they continue to work toward getting your listing published.

I wonder if they aren't saying anything because the answers you seek have already been given by the folks posting to this forum? Perhaps it's also because there's nothing to discuss.

Then you thought wrong. Which is why I asked again for a legitimate argument. From anyone. I had a legitimate argument, but apparently it's getting tossed aside or dismissed without any reasons why. Almost seems like a child is in charge.. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument amounted to "I think a Toy Story themed cache, where everyone must trade Toy Story themed toys, would be cool because without a theme, nobody else would think it was interesting." A couple things... Firstly, Toy Story is cool. How do I know? Cuz it's someone else's intellectual property that earns money hand over fist through all kinds of other people who make toys and games, etc. The premise of "Cool" however, is not a valid reason for allowing commercial content in a listing. I'd argue that your series would be monumentally more interesting if you created your own set of characters and your own storyline and stopped using someone else's ideas. Secondly, you couldn't require anyone to only trade "Toy Story" themed toys in your cache. You could certainly request that they do, but not demand. And since you couldn't demand that anyone follow the "Toy Story" theme, you might as well come up with a new idea for a series. Thirdly, the notion that every cache requires a theme is kinda silly. Look around. Most require absolutely no theme whatsoever, and yet, people find them.

Then you thought wrong. Which is why I asked again for a legitimate argument. From anyone.

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 a fairly even-keeled dude, too, but I have to admit that arguing for something that is unnecessary seems... well, unnecessary. Makes for good TV, though! We're perhaps 60 posts in to a thread barking about a few caches that got disabled due to commercial content as a result of some whistle blowing, and while that's unfortunate, not one person has presented a legitimate argument as to why a cacher might require any business name of any sort in the description/title of their physical cache placement. (I give leeway for events, but even those are possibly not necessary) I'm not looking to incite a riot, and I'm certainly not advocating the gathering of lists to submit to VRs, but my personal stance is that there's absolutely no need for any commercial names (Store chains, park names, city names, plastic container brand names, etc.) in any listing, in any form.

I think the answer to your bolded question is a mix of your first line and last line of text. Don't be that "idiot" who'd rather cause grief for others rather than seek a judgment via the Appeals channel when stuff doesn't go your way. You'd be wasting your time by submitting a list, and more importantly, their time too.

Thankfully, it still is.

Heeeeeyyyyyy... you're trying to use my words to virtually slap me around, aren't you?? I did see your suggestion about the well-known seafood restaurant, but I took that to be with regard to event listings, as opposed to physical placements, which is my fault. Other than an argument along the lines of "I've always been able to say the restaurant name before", is there a reason that you couldn't avoid the use of the name altogether under the current guidelines and still get your point across? I think most folks in this forum would agree that you got unjustly wrapped up in this mess, but I just don't see why it matters so much? Why is it imperative to you to have the name of a business in the listing text? I wonder if you would still have raised a fuss looking for change if your listing hadn't been affected?

What you incessantly want to call (or be called) "Rules" are simply not. Let's work on the notion that they are simply "Guidelines" which are capable of being bent and open to interpretation, whether they remain as is or change going forward. Hopefully we can at least find common ground on this point. Nope. I'm suggesting that you work with the reviewer when it comes to guidelines that are subject to change whether it fits your dogma or not. I'm not sure if it was missed or just conveniently disregarded, but the only reason your event listing was affected was due to some petulant child cacher squawking about the perceived unfairness you received. If that hadn't happened, your listing along with dozens of other ones, go unaffected and you have zero issue with guidelines. Fact is, your reviewer didn't mind, it was one of your peers that sought retribution for something they couldn't have. Speaking of which, I wonder what you would like to see the guidelines say? Maybe if you provided exactly what you'd like the verbiage to state, we could have something tangible to discuss in this thread.

If it doesnt conform then why was it approved then? If we are going to be fussy about details then it has to go all the way. The listing was published on July 15th and then disabled on July 16th. Strangely, the OP of this thread occurred on July 16th also. I'm no Dr. Emmett Brown and I certainly didn't invent the Flux Capacitor, but since time is linear and constantly moves forward, I think this got published before some selfish cacher decided to have a temper tantrum over their listing getting kicked back to them. Once that occurred, the VR felt it necessary to re-enforce the existing guideline. And it doesn't have to be so draconian as to have to go "all the way". Quite frankly, you don't want it to. Imagine having to ask for, obtain and provide explicit permission in the form of a landowner phone call to Groundspeak for every single placement you've ever put out. I'm sure you realize this would be absurd. It was just to give a perspective of what owners are going thru with this particular individual. There never has been so much trouble getting caches published since he/she came around. One has to ask the question, which reviewer has no clue of what they are doing, the previous one that had no issues publishing caches or this one that refuses caches because of details. They both can't be right now can they? I see its just not the folks in the Maritime provinces that are having issues with the reviewer but the Ontario folks as well. I think its only fair to show both sides on the coin. The owners are not the bad guys in this story. I recognize that regional differences in style of play exist, and on top of that, regional applications of guidelines may also exist. This is because they're simply guidelines, which are things always open to interpretation, as opposed to hard-fast rules which are incapable of being bent. With that said, I actually suggest that "Yes", the VRs both/all can be right. It's an imperfect science that they're tasked with adjudicating, but if you work with them, as opposed to this sort of open forum witch hunting, you'll likely find that the process is as smooth as it always has been. When we have someone sitting on a chair deciding for us what is appropriate when I/we have all the work preparing, scouting, making materials, making arrangements, going to locations, placing caches just to get it refused for silly things then yes I think we have the right to 'kick the dogs' and rightfully so. Your perception of what you're entitled to do or have while using some other person or entity's website and resources is amusing. I submit that you're entitled to nothing but what you are permitted to have through the tools you're given. Who's the person sitting in the chair deciding what is appropriate? From where I sit and from what I've read in this forum, it sounds like it's you. I'm certain you don't appreciate getting kicked around for your best paid efforts let alone those which you volunteer in your spare time for free, so why work against the VRs? In large part, they aren't flat-out denying your listing or immediately referring you to appeals, but rather are asking you, based on the guidelines, to come up with a different way to word your listing so that it may be published on the site. Heck, I bet they even go so far as to suggest wording to get your listing published. Honestly, pointing fault is unnecessary. Neither side is wrong, but both need to move forward positively.

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. Speaking of loopholes and the reduction of blood pressure, I suggest donuts. They, too, are a mix of flour, sugar and eggs, and after having one or two, you'll feel right as rain.

The assumption that the listing now conforms simply because it has been enabled by the cache owner would be silly. It might also be silly (might I be so bold as to say) to pop into a forum topic started by the VR who disabled it in the first place to sprout off about a particular listing (a link to which you've so kindly provided to make it easier to find) that got wrapped up in this issue in some sort of passive aggressive attack on... the VRs?? If your intention was to bring further scrutiny on this listing, well, congrats. It seems like a rather foolish way to let sleeping dogs lie, but I guess it's just easier to kick the dogs rather than throw them a bone.

Oh dear. That could detonate a few caching organizations in place.... But yeah that sure sounds commercial or at minimum an "agenda". (AKA "come join our group" agenda) I hate to answer a question with another question, but is there any reason that either one of the above examples (Facebook or, as an example, OGA) is required to be a part of the cache listing text of a physical placement? In other words: Is there not another way to get your point across in the description of your cache? Folks, I recognize that you're looking for clarification to a guideline that's recently been re-enforced, but I think if a person absolutely felt it imperative to include social networking sites as part of their cache listing, that person may wish to reconsider the execution of their cache LOL. At the end of the day, I have a funny feeling that the solution to all this discussion might be something close to "If you think it might be commercial, or have any doubt as to whether it may be commercial, try using different verbiage".