Lord & Lady Boogie

Sadly this website has been shut down due to the persistent campaign by a delusional man and his band of dippy followers.

Don't worry the local reviewer knows him/her very well and there will be no problems . Clearly it's not what you know it's who you know

Of course. Provided the cache/log is replaced and the owner maintains the cache page (maintains the coordinates and removes needs maintenance attributes etc), the cache is maintained. Can I ask, how many caches have you seen where a third party has replaced the container/log and should these be archive for non-maintenance? I would hope not as the objective is to have a collection of findable caches not a collection of archived cache pages. Andy Red Duster Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk Geocaching.com Knowledge Books I certainly do assist owners by replacing log books, adding swaps, drying out wet caches etc etc, but have never replaced a cache that I did not find, I have found multiple containers in the same location on a number of occasions where visitors have not found the original and simply left another one, surely only the CO should be putting new containers out. Strangely always more micros in the location, never seen two ammo cans in the same place, yet? My other concern with the message is a new cacher seeing it on these cache pages will think thats how caches are supposed to be, ie they will now go and hide a load and put a note on the page saying all visitors should maintain them. Slightly off topic but to highlight this: Living on the edge of the Peak District with its drystone walls I do find caches in walls after extracting them I put them somewhere closeby that is less damaging, I then email the CO and let them know. The standard answer is that they put the cache in the wall as they had found others in walls and assumed it was acceptable. People will always replicate what they have seen, if someone reads or sees something that they think is acceptable they simply go and repeat it. Monkey see Monkey do.

Oh just get over yourself and do as you're told. LMAO

Asylum

I bin fishn in Walsall, got a whale, threw it back cos it dint ave any spokes in it.

Not just minutes lost, there is also loss of property or more importantly life . For something this important I think Groundspeak should take the lead, not everybody has joined the GAGB so many idiots would be unaware of any guidelines created by them.

It's nice to see so many balanced and objective views being expressed! Where is Clarkson when you need him? While I don't agree with community maintenance only I see nothing wrong with providing a challenge matched to a certain demographics needs. A fourteen mile trek for film pots is not my idea of a good days caching but I would enjoy the walk . Each to their own I say but I would like to reiterate I do not like the idea of community maintenance as the only option. If the CO is not going to maintain their caches or put them for adoption they should be archived and a volunteer CITO retrieval event should be organised to remove the geo-litter. IMO Flame away

And also take some form of reflective clothing in case you have to walk along a road with no verges in the dark.

Vote Lord Boogie!

Some of you may know the GAGB election process is in full swing. A chairman has been elected and now nominations for the committee have begun. You can find more information here.

Allow me to wager the price of a pint of the beer of your choice, that Groundspeak's legal department will differ with you on that one. As I mentioned earlier, that paragraph was added specifically to try and prevent people from creating websites full of Mystery cache spoiler info. If you create a site full of spoiler info, you risk having your access to Groundspeak's site and forums suspended. (The specific extension to YouTube videos as opposed to searchable coordinate information is, I trust we can agree, not to the crucial issue.) Now, maybe a lawyer skilled in looking for loopholes might, just, be able to argue that 4(m) should be preceded by wording like "notwithstanding the preamble to this section", or moved to a different section entirely. But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers. The principal premise of this thread seems to be that the uploader is some kind of martyr who is being done some terrible wrong simply because he posted a video clip which upset nobody but Groundspeak. That doesn't appear to be the case. Nick, Groundspeak's legal department have now set about clarifying that this section meant what I thought it did. The price of a pint of my local draught Welbeck Brewery ale varies quite a bit, but to be generous I've taken the lowest price I've paid this Autumn. £2. Lovely stuff, so if you're in this neck of the woods at any point I'd love to take you up on that generous offer. If you're feeling really generous I'll accept a stein of Kronenbourg in one of your excellent Strasbourgeois establishments next time I'm across there! Kind regards from Sherwood Forest... In the absense of a "like" button

Not a public one

You really think Groundspeak care two hoots about losing $30??? I doubt that very much. They must do or they'd give it back

I still don't think GC are within their rights to ban Sven, even if the CO(s) have asked for them to be removed. The fact remains that the TOU do not cover external sites, maybe they should and maybe the rules should be made a little clearer and the definition of a spoiler agreed. It may also be of interest to know just when the other CO's complained. That's not to say I think Sven is right (morally)to refuse the CO's requests but obviously Sven puts a great deal of effort into the vblog and for him it is a very personal thing. Just removing a few videos is no big deal surely, but don't forget the request from GC was to remove ALL of them. It must be realised by now that was unreasonable. The only reason GS are citing a break in the TOU is so they don't have to give him his money back. Now is the time to compromise BOTH of you!

I quite agree, but would still welcome a response from Groundspeak as to what a their definition of a spoiler is

A great question. Personally I treat it as a hobby but as you point out it could be defined as a sport when certain factors are involved. Where it breaks down as a sport is the fact there are no clear winners/losers or a defined start and end point. That could be changed by introducing geocaching trials. Like sheepdog trials where there is a defined course and objectives that are observed/marshalled in a controlled way (can I copyright that?? ). Some such objectives would naturally involve speed and agility depending on the terrain. But that's for another topic . As all things it's a matter of perspective!

Where's the Iceberg?

I think that this would depend whether you consider what was posted as a spoiler. I belive that they are not, but a definition of a spoiler would probably be of help in making this decision. Yep we are going in circles! The vids are not "spoilers" in my interpretation. The CO who complained GAVE permission before he complained (ask GS and Sven to confirm the timeline on that). Oh wait Svens banned and GS can't comment because it would be remiss of them, hey ho! Pedantic yes, pointless no. David and Goliath spring to mind, a difference of opinion and a line in the sand(y) . I would love to stop posting but on this but I can not leave it when I think a injustice has taken place, a friend has taken a stand for the sake of what's right.

Well, again, technically they do have that right, they've reserved that in the TOS, afaik. But it would be a dumb move, and bad for PR as a bullying tactic, but it's in their rights... which, again, is why I do think there's more to this story, on whatever side it may lie... But they haven't reserved that in the TOS. Yes they have. http://www.geocachin...termsofuse.aspx Bolding mine. In essence, they can and may ban anyone, at any time, for any or no reason at all, spoilers posted or not. No question they can do it, no doubt they would dress it up in the how they do but ask should they do it? Please all of us, when we are not reading these excellent threads, take some time to read TOU's T&C's EULA's and other such legalease. Then gasp at the amount of services/products that can be taken away with no reason! Then seek legal advice on if they are actually enforceable, especially when monies "a sale" has taken place. When it comes to it the ONLY place such terms can be tested is in a court. So lets get back to the question in hand, What is a spoiler? How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

I agree with you, there is an element of guilty by association going on here. Groundspeak would do well to remember under what circumstances Sven came to their attention. And how it has subsequently been "reported" to them. There is a thread on another board where Sven has detailed all the contact trails, warts and all according to him, predictably no one would confirm if he is indeed leaving anything out. But that is going off topic, so going back on topic: I feel that unless there is some clarification others will fall foul of the big stick. Despite Groundspeak encouraging Vlogging I for one am now reluctant to openly identify any of mine.

What is sad about this whole issue is there may be faults on both sides, only one is able to wield a big stick. As suggested it appears that if you question you run the risk of being punished. It would also seem that if you have enough friendly ears within Groundspeak you can make trouble for somebody else. But we can take heart that Groundspeak are able to answer the age old question "Does size really matter?" clearly 377,000 seems to tip the balance!

Amazon have a new line of Kindles out. One called "Fire" has a modified version of Android. Launch in the UK TBC, I think they are out state side.

It depends how you want to play the game. I don't log a find more than once (on purpose anyway)but would put a note as said before. If you want to log a find twice that's up to you, can't see any sense in it unless it's moved a long way, even then I might just add a note.

Sometimes, for example if it's a sneaky or camoflaged container then you don't want to publicise the size in case it gives too much away. Maybe they should also be allowed to omit the difficulty rating to ensure that we don't know it's hard to find? If stating the size gives it away then it isn't very sneaky or very well camoflaged IMO and the hider needs to try harder if they want to make it difficult! The point being that sometimes the "hunt" is made harder if you do not add a size. The finder may assume a certain size and thus mislead themselves. It's a little like leaving out a hint, it's one less clue to narrow it down.