Legochugglers
-
Posts
499 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Legochugglers
-
-
Totally agree with you and if the CO's and Sven had the communication skills in the first place I am sure that GS intervention would not have been necessary.
-
No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.
This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.
Movies are different - you make it, you can't unmake it. It's futile to stress over story spoilers being shared on the internet - once it's out it's out. But yes there are still companies that will do their utmost to 'hush' people they don't like. That's still happening with software piracy, music piracy, and video bootlegging. Yes, it happens all the time.
We're talking about geocaching. If our cache is spoiled, we can archive it. But you better well believe we don't want to, given all the work we put into it, and/or all the hope we have that people will experience the find the way we hope them to experience it.
Groundspeak understands that stuff can't be "stopped" out there.
Totally agree and if the CO's and Sven had the most basic of communication skills they would have sorted this issue out long ago without any need for Groundspeak intervention.
But they also understand the nature of putting work into difficult tasks with the intention that people do what's required to complete them - and the hope that the people who create them have that others will do those necessary tasks.
Groundspeak is not out to silence spoilers. That's ludicrous!
Groundspeak is simply taking the stand that if it sees a player forcefully ruining the work into which a CO has put time and effort, then it will take a step to deter that particular user from doing so again. Will it always be an effective punishment? Who knows. It's not a certainty. But you know what? It's certainly a discouragement to people who want to publicly spoil those COs' work ignorant of their requests otherwise.
I'm a blogger. I share, I discuss, and if someone connects what I share to what I found, so be it. If a CO approaches me and would prefer I remove any photos or videos, I will. And I certainly hope that others would do the same for me, if I care about that cache's puzzle/hide integrity.
Balance. Etiquette. Respect. Fun. All around. How is that so hard to grasp?
I don't think there's really anything left to debate about whether Groundspeak overstepped their authority or not. Only whether the community thinks it was a good move or not. And because that's entirely subjective, it'll be an endless revolving debate... and with that I'm out.
-
No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.
This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.
Movies are different - you make it, you can't unmake it. It's futile to stress over story spoilers being shared on the internet - once it's out it's out. But yes there are still companies that will do their utmost to 'hush' people they don't like. That's still happening with software piracy, music piracy, and video bootlegging. Yes, it happens all the time.
We're talking about geocaching. If our cache is spoiled, we can archive it. But you better well believe we don't want to, given all the work we put into it, and/or all the hope we have that people will experience the find the way we hope them to experience it.
Groundspeak understands that stuff can't be "stopped" out there.
But they also understand the nature of putting work into difficult tasks with the intention that people do what's required to complete them - and the hope that the people who create them have that others will do those necessary tasks.
Groundspeak is not out to silence spoilers. That's ludicrous!
Groundspeak is simply taking the stand that if it sees a player forcefully ruining the work into which a CO has put time and effort, then it will take a step to deter that particular user from doing so again. Will it always be an effective punishment? Who knows. It's not a certainty. But you know what? It's certainly a discouragement to people who want to publicly spoil those COs' work ignorant of their requests otherwise.
I'm a blogger. I share, I discuss, and if someone connects what I share to what I found, so be it. If a CO approaches me and would prefer I remove any photos or videos, I will. And I certainly hope that others would do the same for me, if I care about that cache's puzzle/hide integrity.
Balance. Etiquette. Respect. Fun. All around. How is that so hard to grasp?
I don't think there's really anything left to debate about whether Groundspeak overstepped their authority or not. Only whether the community thinks it was a good move or not. And because that's entirely subjective, it'll be an endless revolving debate... and with that I'm out.
-
Get a grip...there are monumentous challenges in life where people overcome the severest of difficulties, disabilities and trauma and you are losing sleep over the fact that someone has achieved a less difficult way of finding some tupperware in the woods.
-
Sounds like great fun and it is nice to see new ideas being pusued.
It may be an idea to see if you can run your plans past your local reviewer first so they can give some guidance on the format if you are unsure of some of the logistics.
Good luck
-
Our Captain Rex Traveller - 6,250,000 miles.... OOps, sorry... that was a mis-type 625.00 miles but we are just pleased its surviving.
-
Cup-
“Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!
Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.”
Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.
By the ensuing silence, I guess they put the spade back in the shed.
Still never answered the one question of why wouldn't he remove it on initially being asked.
I guess we will never know.
... and conversely, the other question is why did the CO ask for removal, what was their motivation and in what manner did they ask?
I have no confidence that either of the above answers will be particularly postive.
-
Today I managed a really clever thing
We got back to the car and I shut the GPSr down and placed it on the car roof whilst changing footwear etc. I guess you can all see where I'm going with this, but I managed to drive off with it still on the roof. Sadly, it didn't stay there and fell off the roof at about 40 mph and that as they say, is that. So I'm in the market for a replacement. I had a MemoryMap 2800, but am not fixated on another MemoryMap unit, but Ordnance Survey mapping is essential. Any thoughts on what I should, and I guess, shouldn't buy please. ThanksRichard+
I would look for a car with an up turned lip on the roof as this may help. Unfortunately I have had a Mcflurry, a torch, a tent pole and most embarassingly my trousers (dont ask!) that have flown off as I turned on to a main road........ Sorry... you mean which GPS (LOL)
-
What are the odds of finding a TB on your very first cache ever?
Wow. If you had a quid on that you would earn yourself....hmmmmm......£2?
Not that high.
Don't get too excited.
'Huetes out
You will probably find a TB or Geocoin more often than you think but dont let Cacahuetes rude comment belittle your excitement. My children were very excited by finding their first TB/GC and we even showed friends/family and explained where it came from and where it needed to travel to. We took it very seriously and respected the owners wishes and hope other cachers continue with this type of respect.
My boys have a TB out their and it is currently travelling the Netherlands.
-
Cup-“blah blah
1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.
Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.
Next?”
You are obviously trying to miss the point. What Sven said he did and what the facts show he did are two diametrically opposed things. Sven’s own words say that “nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” That is clearly not so. Whether the CO gave permission or not isn’t the point, and I made that clear. The point is what Sven (and you) are saying is not fact, by his own words in those two posts.
Please answer the question, and no double talk, if the video clearly shows the GC code (which Sven also denies multiple times) is it possible for any geocacher to find that cache? That is a rhetorical question, by the way.
Next?
Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.
Agreed, but Sven's statements are still wrong, and that was my point. A cache owner might allow Sven to include the GC code, but this does not change that the GC is included.
The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.
What I am saying is that if I were a local cacher, I would be upset about such videos and would react with archiving my effected caches. It took me 2 minutes to identify the June 8 cache that has been referred to above.
Comparing found it logs and dates of photos is not something I'd call detailed research. That's a simple and basic approach done within a few minutes. So it is simply wrong to claim that Sven's videos are no spoilers. You can discuss about whether spoilers are something bad, but not about the fact that the videos are spoilers.
Cezanne
So what you are saying is, if your cache was featured on a channel championing the best caches in your region and acknowledging how good they were you would immediately archive your caches.If the video showed a finder pulling a box out of a secret door in a tree then I would agree with you but as far as I could see they don't. Comparing found it logs, dates of photos etc is certainly the sort of research I would only do if I was stumped and feeding my natural inclination to find a cache and I would feel quite happy investigating every media source I could to achieve this. Are we cheating when we go on google to find answers to puzzle caches? To then turn round and blame the source of that info seems a bit hypocritical.
-
Cup-“blah blah
1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.
Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.
Next?”
You are obviously trying to miss the point. What Sven said he did and what the facts show he did are two diametrically opposed things. Sven’s own words say that “nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” That is clearly not so. Whether the CO gave permission or not isn’t the point, and I made that clear. The point is what Sven (and you) are saying is not fact, by his own words in those two posts.
Please answer the question, and no double talk, if the video clearly shows the GC code (which Sven also denies multiple times) is it possible for any geocacher to find that cache? That is a rhetorical question, by the way.
Next?
Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.
Agreed, but Sven's statements are still wrong, and that was my point. A cache owner might allow Sven to include the GC code, but this does not change that the GC is included.
The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.
What I am saying is that if I were a local cacher, I would be upset about such videos and would react with archiving my effected caches. It took me 2 minutes to identify the June 8 cache that has been referred to above.
Comparing found it logs and dates of photos is not something I'd call detailed research. That's a simple and basic approach done within a few minutes. So it is simply wrong to claim that Sven's videos are no spoilers. You can discuss about whether spoilers are something bad, but not about the fact that the videos are spoilers.
Cezanne
-
If I have got this right,
Permission was given initially, then revoked. Sven after some wrangling, still refused to remove the cache from the vid. Correct so far ?
One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked?
This is the real part of this I don't understand. And as far as I have read, hasn't been explained. Just about everything else has, most of it now under judicial review.
One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked? And 'because ofthe time taken to film/edit/upload' is no reason for defence. It probably equates to the same time as 'conception/developing/deploying/maintaining'.
Totally agree,... although I am approaching it from the other side ie Why did they ask for it to be removed, what was their motivation and how did they phrase their request?
-
Just an alternative thought? Why should we be limited to 1 favourite point per 10 finds. This was fine when I was doing a lot of 'number chasing' as I was only wishing to favourite about 1 in 10 so the allocation was about right. More recently I have been concentrating on, shall we say, more interesting/challenging caches and so my wish to allocate favourites will go up considerably. We have paid our $30 why cant we just favourite the ones we enjoy every time?
Possibly because if you could favourite every cache you found, any cache that you didn't favourite you might as well be saying straight out that you didn't like. At the moment favourite points should, if you so wish, go only to your top 10% of finds.... so anybody not getting a point could assume they'd just missed out
While this might be fine with some of us, some cache owners might get the hump and take it (rightly) as a negative point.
And if you could favourite every cache you found, favourite points would just end up reflecting PM finds, and as Syndrome so succinctly put it, "When everybody's special, nobody will be"
But I wouldn't favourite every cache I found, it would only be the ones I thought deserved it. So if I did my research correctly over a 6 month period and highlighted 100 caches that looked good and went and found them and really enjoyed 90% of them why shouldnt I favourite 90% of them?. If there was a reason for not liking the 10% and I put a polite note in the log explaining why then I would be content that I was 'saying straight out that I didnt like it'. Thats the whole point isnt it?.
-
As a UK cacher who had exactly the same problem you are better off removing it and finding an alternative route. It is unfair on people searching for the cache if they are going to be constantly confronted by a worried landowner (what ever their reasons). I moved mine straight away and feel all the better for it as you will always be watching your 'in box ' waiting for the next comments if you dont.
-
Cup-“blah blah
1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.
Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.
Next?”
You are obviously trying to miss the point. What Sven said he did and what the facts show he did are two diametrically opposed things. Sven’s own words say that “nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” That is clearly not so. Whether the CO gave permission or not isn’t the point, and I made that clear. The point is what Sven (and you) are saying is not fact, by his own words in those two posts.
Please answer the question, and no double talk, if the video clearly shows the GC code (which Sven also denies multiple times) is it possible for any geocacher to find that cache? That is a rhetorical question, by the way.
Next?
Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.
The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.
-
Just an alternative thought? Why should we be limited to 1 favourite point per 10 finds. This was fine when I was doing a lot of 'number chasing' as I was only wishing to favourite about 1 in 10 so the allocation was about right. More recently I have been concentrating on, shall we say, more interesting/challenging caches and so my wish to allocate favourites will go up considerably. We have paid our $30 why cant we just favourite the ones we enjoy every time?
-
This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.
Take note of the bold here. Interesting word. Inferring there was dialogue between CO and Sven prior to Groundspeak involvement. So why would they get involved? Certainly not because Sven asked, I'm sure. So must be on the CO request. And why would he want GS involved? Only the CO and Sven/Cup can answer that.
I think the timeline of correspondence between all parties involved with the issue is very important. So much can be lost in context without knowing when and who emailed/txt/PM'd etc etc. For example.
A posts vid on Youtube.
B asks his cache removed from vid.
A explains vid is not spoiler.
B still asks for removal
A further explains, meanwhile B asks GS to be involved.
GS request A remove vid or face suspension, A explains not spoiler. Meanwhile B has change of heart tells A
GS, unaware of change of heart by B, suspend A as vid has not changed despite warning.
World collapses and legal discussion ensues.
At the end of the day, their Terms clearly state, they have the last word on suspension of accounts if they deem so fit. And if they deem your not being fair to others playing the game, they will suspend you.
If you have issues with that, don't play the game.
The way I understood matters the position between A & B & GS was sorted out (not necessarily amicably, but sorted out nevertheless). It was when C also complained, and (this assumption needs some clarification)unpleasant e-mails were sent that Sven felt the need not to comply with the CO's wishes, dig his heels in and recieved his ban.
I totally agree with the sentiment of complying with CO's wishes, common courtesy if they politely request that their caches be removed form Svens video site but I am not sure if this is actually what happened. Will we ever know?
-
This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.
Take note of the bold here. Interesting word. Inferring there was dialogue between CO and Sven prior to Groundspeak involvement. So why would they get involved? Certainly not because Sven asked, I'm sure. So must be on the CO request. And why would he want GS involved? Only the CO and Sven/Cup can answer that.
I think the timeline of correspondence between all parties involved with the issue is very important. So much can be lost in context without knowing when and who emailed/txt/PM'd etc etc. For example.
A posts vid on Youtube.
B asks his cache removed from vid.
A explains vid is not spoiler.
B still asks for removal
A further explains, meanwhile B asks GS to be involved.
GS request A remove vid or face suspension, A explains not spoiler. Meanwhile B has change of heart tells A
GS, unaware of change of heart by B, suspend A as vid has not changed despite warning.
World collapses and legal discussion ensues.
At the end of the day, their Terms clearly state, they have the last word on suspension of accounts if they deem so fit. And if they deem your not being fair to others playing the game, they will suspend you.
If you have issues with that, don't play the game.
-
WAT?
I almost fell off my chair when I read the above. What does that mean?
Is it missing an 'H' in the middle or a 'T' at the beginning. The former I hope. (LOL)
-
Suppose someone published (not on gc.com) the final coordinates to a whole load of puzzle- and multi-caches, and she was delighting in advertising (again, not on gc.com) the existence of their spoiler site whilst telling CO's to go to h*** if they complained.
I think we'd all agree that the hypothetical miscreant should have her gc.com account closed, right?
Just wondering where people are drawing the line.
You are absolutely right but missed the point by miles. Svens point has always been that he doesn't give co-ordinates to puzzle caches etc, just interesting, inspirational viewing whilst trying not to spoil the experience.
-
As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.
Well that's not likely to happen as I can't see the CO involved sticking their head above the parapet so that everyone on here can split into factions to either lambast them for making the complaint or defend their choice to do so.
So we have a cache owner who clearly is inventive in his cache creation, and has had 3 of his caches featured, then a fourth, I can understand how he might feel that every inventive cache he creates might end up being posted on the channel and he might be a bit miffed about it. This somewhat answers the point that it's not possible to track down the caches from the videos. for if a local cacher finds one of Fred (the inventive cache owner)'s caches and sees it on the channel, they may quickly come to realise that when looking for another one of Fred's tricky hides it would be worth having a browse of the channel first and see if you recognise the GZ when you get there, and suddenly all his good hides become cache-n-dashes for those in the know.
Sven should have removed the videos when requested, and avoided posting further videos of caches owned by those two cachers, and none of this would have happened.
People said that GS posting their side of the story was never going to happen. But they did!... So why should'nt the CO involved give an account of why they felt they didnt like their caches to be featured on the channel. There is a consensus of opinion that might say that they would be honoured to be featured on a channel that celebrates creative and well constructed geocaches.
-
Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.
This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).
However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).
With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.
This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.
At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.
Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.
Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.
Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.
Give some latitude.
As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.
-
Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.
This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).
However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).
With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.
This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.
At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.
Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.
Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.
Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.
Give some latitude.
-
Sandy has replied on behalf of GS on the petition thread. Interesting reading so I guess the ball is now back in Sven (Cups) court.
Stands back and to reserve judgement.
Youtube geocaching videos
in General geocaching topics
Posted
...and if my IT skills had been better I may have posted this on the first log I pressed send on. so there!