OzGuff

The intent of the person who edited the original photo of President Obama is not the issue here. The intent of the person who uploaded the "photo" to Geocaching.com is also not the issue here; however many have made their decisions based on the content of the "photo" and/or comments made by that person. [That person may have only wanted to share with others a picture that he thought amusing, and had no idea that it might be considered by some to be controversial.] The issue is whether the "photo" is objectionable and therefore violates Groundspeak's Terms of Use. Which it is -- to some -- so therefore it does. Now it is entirely possible that the section of the TOU that seems most relevant here -- 4.(a) -- needs some work, as a strict interpretation indicates that if a single person finds the "photo" objectionable a violation has occurred. So was the Groundspeak minion's decision to find the "photo" NOT objectionable based on the belief that it wasn't objectionable to anyone -- which based on many of the posts to this thread is demonstrably untrue -- or that the "photo" wasn't objectionable ENOUGH? If the latter then I recommend a re-write of that section of the TOU. My motivation for pursuing this issue has been called into question, and there is no way for me to un-ring that bell. There is no doubt that over the years I have bumped heads with Atrus and Dear Dora. But doesn't the "plan" to indirectly paint Atrus as a closet racist by hoping that others would find the "photo" objectionable and reply to the thread seem a little far-fetched? I suppose I really am the master manipulator I have been branded. How else could I have forced Atrus to respond in such a way that his true feelings on the issue were relatively crystal clear? waypointazoid has had much to say on this matter, and claims to know all involved. I have met him in person once or twice and talked with him for a total of about two minutes. Apparently that is enough for him to "know" me. He claims that Atrus and Dear Dora have been fast-tracked for sainthood -- I may be paraphrasing there -- and I would agree that they have been positive forces within the western NC geocaching community. But the picture waypointazoid paints is not all roses, and if I cared to violate forum etiquette and post some personal emails I have received from him then his positive statements about some western NC geocachers would be called into question. BTW -- waypointazoid made reference to two "fecal" caches of mine, but has produced no evidence that they ever existed. And though he castigates me for claiming to somehow "know" Atrus' intent when uploading the "photo" waypointazoid then goes on (and on) explaining my intentions behind my actions. I am pretty sure that I had nothing to do with Atrus' decision to upload the "photo". I just pointed out the distasteful nature of the "photo". It would be interesting to know if the decision that the "photo" in question was not a violation of the TOU was made by a Groundspeak minion with no input from higher ups, or if the decision was handed down from the top. (Or at least from somewhere closer to the top.) I feel that this issue is slowing grinding to its inevitable end. Reading the posts has been enjoyable and/or illuminating.

According to the Terms of Use you would likely have to make a case that the picture is vulgar and/or obscene. I don't see any of the other possible ways to violate the Terms of Use coming into play here, unless the photo was copyrighted. Hope this was of help...

And in none of the above proffered caricatures were President Obama's lips exaggerated to anywhere near the extent of the "photo" uploaded to the cache page.

Caricatures of President Carter DO tend to exaggerate his lips and teeth, as you so correctly point out, due to their prominence on his face. But this exaggeration is likely not racially-motivated. So tell me this -- what would you say are some of the prominent features on President Obama's face? Most folks would offer his ears and maybe his smile. His lips appear to be in proportion and are not an especially prominent feature on his face. So why would someone produce such a caricature? Caricatures are not inherently racist, but they sure can be depending on the features that are chosen to be exaggerated. Groundspeak HAS spoken, but that doesn't mean that their decision is the correct one. History is full of examples where sizeable chunks of the population held differing views but the status quo was changed after public discussion convinced enough of one side that they were wrong. I understand that this is actually a very tough topic to tackle as it is a cultural morass. This particular "photo" may be a relatively tame example of racial insensitivity, but it wouldn't take much more to really make it incredibly offensive.

HH: This thread is about one particular photo many are finding objectionable and therefore a violation of the Terms of Use. But assuming the photos uploaded to that cache page are included in this discussion, they might be violations and they might not. If a photo was loaded without the permission of the pictured cacher then it would be a violation. If the photo was deemed vulgar or obscene then it would be a violation. (And what is vulgar and/or obscene would likely get a similar range of reactions from the larger geocaching community as the caricature being discussed in this thread.) Photos of people in various states of undress versus a caricature of an African-American based on years and years of hate and ignorance. Are these equivalent situations? I think not.

Boys... Play nice. Any "feud" (or even "fued") between myself and anyone else might be a topic for a separate thread. Stuff happens. To get back on track I really liked a line from Castle Mischief's post a little higher up this page: This pretty much says it all.

Thanks for that quick and easy solution! I tried looking in the Controls section but got nada. This thread can be closed now.

In the last twelve hours something has gone weird with my forum experience. When I click on a thread I get the first post and then a flow chart diagram thing showing the rest of the responses as single lines rather than the entire posts. See a picture below. I am using Windows XP and FireFox 3.5.5. If I use IE7 all seems to be in good working order. Edited to add the picture.

I still have no idea what this line is about. I have a few cache hides so maybe I forgot the caches in question. The only ones that even remotely resemble the above are P.O.O.P. (which referred to the color of the waypoints -- purple, orange, orange, purple -- and which was archived in June 2008), Atypical #09: Moss Turd (the container is a plastic mustard bottle), Big Fat Turd (which is a large brown "dinosaur egg" that used to contain a plush dinosaur; the cache title is reasonably accurate), and a couple of caches in a series titled Side Hill Intermediate Terrain (which are acronymically scatological). None of these caches ever contained any images of feces -- at least no images placed on the cache page by me. Life doesn't occur in a vacuum. Did my experiences with the cacher who uploaded the objectionable image color my reaction to it? Possibly, but I saw the "photo" before I knew who had uploaded it. (And my apologies for using the word "color" in this context.) It has been years since Atrus and I have had a cordial conversation; I can't even remember what precipitated our enmity. (Though I could probably dig out copies of some emails I have received from him that make for very interesting reads.) We will likely never exchange holiday greeting cards. I am definitely fine with that. I'm not sure why waypointazoid got all fired up -- and he didn't mention the brouhaha the two of us had when I pointed out that an SC cache of his was actually located 150 feet inside the NC border -- but he seems to have gotten off track a little. Though he did answer the original question he then veered into the personal. I have thick skin and can take a little name calling. [isn't that another violation of the Terms of Use? ] I'm also not sure why he brought up the cache owner; the two of us have bumped heads over the years but I thought we were actually getting along better over the past few months. Maybe I should have contacted him about the "photo" first. Oh well. Should I contact him to ask how he feels about the photo and/or request that he delete it? The CO and the cacher who uploaded the "photo" are very good friends so I doubt that this will have the desired effect. One of the functions of Groundspeak's forums is to provide a place where folks can ask questions of the larger community. Groundspeak itself directs folks here in situations where a disagreement exists. I have utilized these forums a number of times, and in a few cases the debate has become contentious. When reasonably intelligent people disagree, and they have the ability to eloquently discuss the topic, the result often makes for interesting reading. But sometimes out of this process a better understanding emerges. I have had my opinion changed as a result of forum discussions, and have become good friends with some of my antagonists. But as I have said a number of times in this thread I don't believe that the "photo" is racist per se, but more exemplifies a lack of racial sensitivity. Hopefully this discussion will make some people think just a little longer before making that comment or re-telling that joke or uploading that picture. I apologize for derailing my own thread. I now return you to the discussion in progress...

I need a ruling here: Did waypointazoid's post reach the Godwin's law threshold. If so, looks like I win. It also looks like I will have to round up a few of my close, personal caching friends so that they can add posts supporting my position. Oops -- looks like I don't have to as there have already been many, many folks from around the world agreeing that the "photo" is objectionable. As I said before we don't all have to agree that something IS objectionable for it to BE objectionable. There is nothing wrong with a good caricature; most of them aren't racist, racially insensitive, or stereotypical in nature. Many caricatures of President Bush 43 played up his ineptitude and/or lack of intelligence, they did not denigrate his racial background. There are good caricatures of President Obama that aren't objectionable. What makes this particular "photo" -- copyright held by www.moronface.com [i am serious about this.] -- objectionable are the features the editor chose to exaggerate, especially the lips. To understand why this is objectionable a little historical context might be useful. The following is from the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, Ferris State University: Images like that which was uploaded to GC.com remind of us of a time -- not that long ago -- when one's race was much more important and that race had a dramatic impact on one's station in life. Again from the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia: I never said that the "photo" was racist, nor did I say that the cacher who uploaded it was racist. I said that the "photo" was objectionable and by uploading it the cacher showed a decent amount of racial insensitivity. Folks may think that this thread was started as a personal attack. Fine. (Though it wasn't.) But I saw the photo before I saw who uploaded it. And I wasn't all that surprised to see the name. I don't plan to join waypointazoid's "my friends like me more then your friends like you" playground squabble -- though they do -- and I don't plan on changing who I am, which is a relatively opinionated individual. The good news here is that there are plenty of cachers out there who agree with my opinion on the objectionable nature of the "photo", even if they don't want to be associated with an "agitator". And waypointazoid, please read my posts as I have actually defended the cacher who you refer to as my "ENEMY". Edmund Burke, the philosophical founder of modern conservatism, was thought to have said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." The quote may be a little overboard for this situation -- and was actually mis-attributed to Burke -- but if folks see something that is wrong and they don't act to right it then that wrong may become ingrained, making it harder to erase in the future. A little bit of racial insensitivity is too much racial insensitivity. The "feces" reference eludes me, and I missed the notorious parody shot -- PM me the web address if you have the time.

If you folks would like to discuss TheAlabamaRambler's "issue" with gay ballet dancers I suggest you start a new thread in the Off-Topic Forum. For the rest of us please try to stay on topic -- whether or not the uploaded "photo" was objectionable. Thanks.

Snoogans: Racial stereotyping demeans us all. However, had I seen this TB I likely would have let out a short laugh. (I am also prone to racial insensitivity at times.) Not sure if I would have contacted the TB owner. Possibly so as the TB is more likely to be seen by kids in a cache -- "Mom, why is that lady holding a watermelon?" -- than the uploaded "photo" on the cache page. It is unlikely that I will change anyone's mind about the "photo", but if I make someone think a little longer before saying something or writing something or uploading something, good. BTW, you are still my hero.

[sarcasm Mode On] ChannelFadge and Team_Bucky have finally exposed the truth. The aim of this entire thread was to "out" a closet racist. [sarcasm Mode Off] (BTW, I do not think that Atrus is a closet racist, nor that the "photo" is racist per se. What I think is that the "photo" is objectionable to me -- and apparently many others -- and that by uploading it Atrus showed a lack of racial sensitivity, thus violating the Terms of Use.) However, it is a fair question. Why didn't I just ask the poster and/or the cache owner if they would delete the "photo"? The simple answer is that based on my dealings with these two individuals I was pretty sure that they would answer in the negative. So I went further up the food chain directly to Groundspeak. I accepted Groundspeak's decision but asked if they minded me taking the issue to the forums, not for a reversal but to check the larger community's feelings. My original post in this thread includes the line, "Two reasonably intelligent folks could agree to disagree here." I stand by that statement; those of you who feel that the "photo" is not objectionable are entitled to your views. But your views don't make the "photo" any less objectionable to those who DO see it as objectionable. I am glad that the person responsible for uploading the "photo" to Geocaching.com eventually added his three or four cents. It did make for an interesting read. And to continue my course on racial sensitivity, click here to read an article from CNNPolitics.com titled "Obama as witch doctor: Racist or satirical?".

Here are a few articles that might make for interesting reading. Michael Cavna, The Washington Post, Washington DC, January 28 2009, "Read Obama's Lips: Cartoonists Deal In Bizarre Caricature" Greg Peck, GazetteXtra.com, Janesville WI, October 15 2009, "Complaint on caricature sparks nationwide discussion" The second is especially interesting as it includes the opinions of a number of members of the National Conference of Editorial Writers on a similar Obama caricature. My guess is that uploading the "photo" in question was more politically-motivated than anything, but with undertones of racial insensitivity. And my guess is that some of the responses in this thread were also politically-motivated, and some also with undertones of racial insensitivity. To be clear, I believe one can be racially insensitive without being racist or being a racist. An inadvertent slip of the lip -- pun intended -- could be racially insensitive but not indicative of racism. Is the "photo" funny? To some, unequivocally yes. To some, yes -- but only in the same way that we might laugh or smile at any photo/cartoon containing exaggerated features. To others, no. To still others, hell no. Was it Atrus' intent to provide racist propaganda for the geocaching community to peruse? I think not. Did his actions show a certain degree of racial insensitivity. I think so. A photo/cartoon/joke does NOT have to be universally loathed in order to rise to the level of objectionable. And as a far smarter individual than I has said previously in this thread, "The fact that this lively discourse exists proves that the photo is objectionable." Apropos of nothing, it was President Lincoln who said, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Try to keep on topic folks. Is the picture objectionable or not?

My original post said that I found something "objectionable". The words "racist" and "racism" were never used by me. And the Terms of Use do not use those words either. In order to be consider a violation of the Terms of Use the content must be "...racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity". The content doesn't have to rise to the level of racism in order to violate the Terms of Use. Racial and ethnic insensitivity would also seem to qualify. I have enjoyed reading the opinions of all! And to keep this post on-topic, I do find the "photo" objectionable. It may not be racist per se but it is definitely racially insensitive.

As the guy who started this thread I just want to remind folks of my original request: Thanks!

While making plans for a cache run I came across Funny Faces (GC1ZHPR). The cache owner offered finders a second find if they loaded a funny face self-portrait to the cache page. I checked out the uploaded photos to see how funny they were, and found something that I considered objectionable. (Click the link to see the photo.) I checked with some other local cachers to see how they felt about the photo/caricature, and based on their responses I alerted Groundspeak about a possible violation of the Terms of Use. They responded, My response was, I then asked if they minded me taking the issue to the Groundspeak forum -- not to see if the decision should be overruled but to see if there is a consensus one way or the other. So, how do folks see the photo? Objectionable or not? I am not looking for a discussion of the decision itself, but rather whether the photo violates 4.(a) of Groundspeak's Terms of Use. Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

28 DNFs and 147 finds in 18 hours. Solo caching as I drove through Nashville. Was trying to cache for 24 hours but got bored. Maybe if I hadn't been on my own.

Is the garbage bag for stowing the dead body? ;-)

Click your mouse anywhere on the page. Then hold down the ctrl key and press A. Nudge given. How is this done? And what I mean is how do you set up the text so you have to use this trick to activate it. Thanks In this case it looks like the text was changed from black to white. White text on a white background is sort of hard to decipher...

I don't see this "feature" as much of a benefit, unless the ability to turn it on/off was added. I have many caches on my ignore list and am now unable to see all of the caches in a certain area as they don't show up on maps or lists. If I could turn the ignore the ignored on/off -- great!

I haven't checked it real closely but that is a possibility

Were there complaints about this, or was it never meant to be? I'd find it hard to believe any ignore list users would have complained about this. Yes, I remember reading the complaints. I haven't gone back to look them up, but try last month's Release Notes thread. Edward Yeah it was a little too complete. Last month they made ignored caches ignored everywhere. This made it impossible to look up the cache when you really did want to look it up. So this month they changed it to not ignore them on the hider's find list, and I think also on your found list if you found it. Ignored caches are still ignored everywhere else. When I search for a cache using the "all nearby caches" link I now get a significantly reduced number of caches, including NOT showing the cache from which I clicked the aforementioned link. In one case it showed just two caches on the first page, three on the next, and nine on the third. It only appears to be showing caches I haven't found yet and my own caches. (If I use the "all nearby caches I haven't found yet" link all is well.) If I click on the "Geocaching Maps" map it also fails caches that I KNOW are still active, and shows a weird subset of caches in the area. Using a different caching identity -- my daughter's -- all is well. Any suggestions?

I am one of the cachers in western North Carolina looking for a partner in the San Diego area! As gojoey has said the cache in question is I HAVE A FRIEND IN SAN DIEGO (GC1WD48). I have the coordinates for the second location -- which is hidden somewhere out your way. If interested feel free to email me at ozguff@gmail.com or call me at 828-269-8289. I hear rumors that there is a similar cache placed by Thurmdog that works in the opposite direction -- likely called I HAVE A FRIEND IN WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA (GC1W7RA) -- that I would be more than happy to help out with. (As of this date/time that cache has not yet been published.) Thanks! OzGuff/Graeme