t4e

maybe it is an option for you but not one that the CO seems to want to take, and i fully agree with their decision For greater certainty, can you clarify that, because of the line in question, you support not having the event, at the expense of the cachers kids who otherwise would have had a fun event and gift? Is that what you are saying? thebruce got it right and if you want to play the "poor kids missing out" card can tell that to Groundspeak i fully support the CO's decision to stand by his beliefs and if it was me i would have done exactly what he did, in fact i just said that as soon as i saw his enable log i'm sure the event will go on whether there is an active listing or not, the kids will have fun and the charity will get the excess, the area has a very close knit and strong community of geocachers I'm sure the charities could use a few hard workers now that i agree with 100% can use the Happy Festivus!!!!!

maybe it is an option for you but not one that the CO seems to want to take, and i fully agree with their decision plus its not the point...the cache listing is not against the current guidelines, unless they were changed since yesterday not at all...to my knowledge the decisions from appeals is for the cache in question, you can't have a raincheck..plus, a cache approved by appeals doesn't mean similar caches will be published that is another sore point...the reviewers want nothing to do with such listings, ever, so they wash their hands of them and deny because apparently they broke some guideline that sounds like it might fit the situation, even though they fully know its not the case if the CO gives in and makes the changes they ask for all is fine, if not they are directed to appeals and the process is repeated for the next cacher NAME!

I am pretty sure I have a good understanding of what it was. I agree with the slippery slope. you obviously don't, since you are not even bothering to tell me what does GeeOCachers's post have to do with mine you are just assuming and twisting my actions to suit your own thinking EDIT actually don't even bother....you are taking this thread off topic, i'm surprised no authority figure has showed up to point it out yet, and i would like for the discussion to continue on the original subject it was started

I think that demonstrates is pretty well. LMAO that is your argument for name calling? and what is the GeeOCachers quote doing in there? my reply was directed at thebruce, but you conveniently removed his reply and added GeeOCachers's one, which makes no sense whatsoever since they are the CO and i think its pretty clear that i agree with their opinion you as well as CD have seriously taken it out of context, please take a hard look at the whole post, in the context that picture is posted it implies one thing....that I AM the cache nazi and i say to thebruce that he gets no cache for his silly post of a pop con eating frog jeeeez i wish people would just use their power of analytical thinking before jumping to conclusions

again you're twisting things...please show me where the name calling took place...just because people want to discuss something it is automatically branded as "name calling" and "this kind of behavior" there is quite a difference between arguing with someone and discussing differences of opinion, and in an attempt to keep the forums polite the moderators like to jump to conclusions too soon, but so do some users over and over again i get the feeling that we are treated like kids, and if you dare to have an opinion that doesn't line up with the "corporate" view you're in violation of a forum rule, whether it applies to the situation or not has been said before, the forum is a means of discussion, so when something is brought up on here is not necessarily to obtain some resolution if the purpose of the forums is different perhaps only posts about bugs, suggestions and problems should be allowed...until than is a tool for discussion the word "charity" changes your perception? Please go ahead and do a search for caches with "charity" in the title........its a word, its not a specific charity...and as the event is worded right now it is not against the guidelines by any stretch of the imagination...perhaps Groundspeak wishes to change the wording in the guidelines, than you have a point NO, when you have the same Guidelines for the past 5 years there is no excuse for not applying them consistently this is over and over the same issue, same guidelines for the past 5 years but all of a sudden someone decides to put a different spin on the wording in them and apply them differently...that is what is being discussed here right, that is very smart way of dealing with things... put the blame on the person pointing out a listing(s) that are grossly against the guidelines, make them feel bad for defending themselves...just what i thought its the right way to fix problems how about the reviewers line up and interpret the guidelines the same everywhere? i do have quite an extensive collection of listings, from around the world, that range anywhere from the plain wording as this listing in question has, to as far as naming the charity for this year and specifically asking people to bring donations once the events took place and are archived i will post those links for everyone's enjoyment btw: the list is not a bookmark on my account

took the examiner office to determine it was rubber?

Hmm. I'd attend that event, just for the pyrotechnics. Everyone loves fireworks, particularly Mythbusters style fireworks. Anyone got an old cement truck? best show don't try this at home...ever

Are you suggesting others in this forum don't have integrity? why does any comment have to suggest something else than what it says? why can't it just be taken as it is without being twisted into something completely different?...please just stop this nonsense of thinking that everything has a double meaning...its quite annoying i don't beat around the bush suggesting things, if i wanted to make such a statement i would have said so...so the answer is NO

so what is your opinion on an event that for the past two years has picked a specific charity and is expressly asking people to bring items for the said charity? If it really upsets you that much, report it, get it archived. I am sure there will be a few people that will like to thank you for your effort. It may not be a very polite experience I suspect. There are a few events that I could have had archived in the past, but decided it was not worth the hassle. perhaps you need to read the rest of my posts...particularly post#28 you might get to hear about the forum rules and being respectful to the members that is no excuse for being inconsistent and bending and twisting the guidelines based on how the wind blows "take your toys and go home"...that is a great attitude sucks for those that have the integrity to stand by what they believe in instead of asking "how high" when asked to jump to me, what just happened today adds one more black eye to what is supposed to be a fun activity...a very, very sad state of affairs

its going to feel weird the first time you get a dent on it but soon you realize that is proof as to how tough it is i dropped mine face down on the concrete floor just days after i got it

so what is your opinion on an event that for the past two years has picked a specific charity and is expressly asking people to bring items for the said charity?

please, can the reviewers just take things at their face value and stop trying to read between the lines and put words ointo the horse's mouth? the guidelines are very clear, they do not need twisting you've taken the line out of context, put it back amongst the rest of the text and its nothing more than just a comment but you seem to have a lot of insight, can you please tell me why there are events published that specifically say what charity they are supporting this year?

ooh no, i would never do that, i have my own integrity to live up to....i was going to paste the exact wording from one, but i realized that would aid in finding them yeap, looks like that is what we are being encouraged to do.. be dishonest

that is no excuse, is just applying the guidelines at random and being inconsistent there are scores and scores of event caches for Christmas, and they are easy to google for, that talk about donating stuff to charity, some going as far as naming the charity

there was nothing to learn, my reply was directed strictly to thebruce perhaps there is something to learn, now we can't even be fumy in this forums, and the guidelines are interpreted based on who you are, some get a slap on the wrist and the rest get banned it is quite disheartening to see how things can get taken out of context and misinterpreted My point was more to point out that such comments are not in line with the terms of use for the forums, whether directed at me or other people in the forums. But this recent post seemed to warrant a reminder that the stove is still hot. Be as funny as you like as long as it remains within the guidelines of forum use set out by Groundspeak. and my point is that there is nothing offensive in my reply, it is a parody on the Seinfeld for crying out loud...neither was the one that i got banned for... i don't understand why the moderators feel the need to misinterpret things when the user himself was not offended and got the joke but anyways i think you've started an off topic discussion here, which is against the forum rules, so i will extract myself from further replies to this subject back on topic: the whole purpose of this thread is to obtain a logical explanation for misinterpreting the guidelines

you are missing the point of this whole discussion...here it is in short current event listing: come out for a fun day of regifting, bring something to give to each other and if any toys are left they will be donated to local charity as opposed to an agenda: this event is to collect toys for needy children a to support [insert name] Charity etc...and blabering about charities and how a lot of kids have no food and clothes and toys it is just a word.....nothing in the guidelines says you can't use the word "charity" as a matter of fact...the listing doesn't even mention a specific name of the charity "Solicitation and Commercial Content Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted." nowhere does the listing have any tones of being posted solely for charitable agenda

there was nothing to learn, my reply was directed strictly to thebruce perhaps there is something to learn, now we can't even be fumy in this forums, and the guidelines are interpreted based on who you are, some get a slap on the wrist and the rest get banned it is quite disheartening to see how things can get taken out of context and misinterpreted

what exactly are you talking about?...i replied to the popcorn eating thebruce, if you can't see the funny part in it that's too bad, i guess the two Seinfeld lovers will appreciate it why do i need to win points with the reviewers anyway? i thought we are all equal and FREE to have an opinion

forget GSAK, unless you have time to take some extensive training into using that program run your PQ's to include caches your found and you will have smilies on the map however the point of PQ's is to have fresh stuff on it, i.e. unfound caches, you don't want to waste the space with caches you already found you see all your finds at home on the map

if its been enforced for years the "precedence" rule has no place at all either its been enforced all along or its something new and precedence can't be used, can't be both, otherwise its really random...how the wind blows and there is really no consistency

enforced for years? really?...why the exact same wording was allowed last year in the identical listing? the cache listing has no agenda at all and does not promote anything, it just plain and simple declares, as a matter of fact, that excess items will go to charity

please someone enlighten me and show me where in the guidelines does it say you can't mention donating something to a charity what hidden guideline is this part of now?

why does one have to assume that just because there is a cache in that area the geocachers caused the damage?

Meh. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is 20 miles long and has a virtual and an Earthcache on it, 14 miles from the mainland. "meh" because Confederation Bridge is in Canada and you would need a passport to get here? The last time my wife and I went to PEI we took the ferry from Nova Scotia. I was amazed at how inexpensive it was for me, the little lady and our car to be transported across. In fact, it was free...that's right, no charge, zero, nada. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention...you can't get off the island unless you pay, lol. we took the bridge when we were there in february Meh. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel is 20 miles long and has a virtual and an Earthcache on it, 14 miles from the mainland. "meh" because Confederation Bridge is in Canada and you would need a passport to get here? It was just comment on the length of the bridge. I not only have a passport but I had to send it in the passport agency about a year ago to get extra pages added to it because I had filled it up with stamps and visas. I'd actually like to visit PEI some time. I've been to Nova Scotia (briefly) and spent four days in Newfoundland, but haven't been to PEI. you should make your way over there, its beautiful...just avoid going in the winter, Nova Scotia was fine but New Brunswick and PEI had snow banks way above our heads lol we had no snowshoes so we did a lot of all-fours crawling to avoid sinking in the snow up to our waist in places New Brunswick PEI, just where we got off the bridge