ju66l3r

Simply not true. Athiestic fundamentalists or ardent athiests may shove agenda (no more or less than a catholic or muslim fundamentalist does)..but Atheism itself doesn't have an agenda, it's simply the belief that there isn't a God(s). The problem that I have with the tracts is that they *are* a self-centered attempt to "shove" an agenda at people. They're only purpose is to preach at people (notice I said AT and not TO). And if we're discussing Chick Tracts, in particular, (the most found tract I've seen) then we're really getting into a world of misrepresentation of the other side of the "argument" (aka Straw Man Logical Flaw) and somewhat absurd, bordering on offensive, language. Other people of the same faith don't need the evangelism of a tract to believe what it says. They serve to "witness" non-believers with their message and that's an offensive idea when I'm trying to have fun geocaching and not open a jack-in-the-box of ideology. Who am I to decide that the next person shouldn't have to deal with it? Who are you to decide the next person should? And *again* I state, that if I trade out for it, then it's mine to do with as I please anyways...and I'll throw them away every time.

That was already my point entirely. People don't agree with the agenda that those tracts promote. People don't agree with the agenda that a removal of tracts promotes. If I should have to be satisified by the affrontiveness of finding religious tracts in a cache, then those leaving them should have to be satisfied by the affrontiveness of my removing them as well. The big difference between finding them or removing them is that finding them is an unsolicited proselytizing when I go out geocaching. Removing them doesn't result in anything (other than it not being there to affront the next person)...especially if it's a trade, then it's mine anyways and I can do what I please with it.

I'm not doing it to protect you. This is geocaching and I'm trading their religious tracts with my own. PS - I'm an agnostic/athiest.

You didn't follow the moderator's either. Stay on-topic...use the Private Message system if you need to address me directly.

That's fine, then how do you plan on moderating if I'm charging shipping and handling to give my non-GC.com-trackable coins out for free? What about topics that claim to be trades but are really soliciting buyers via private communications? While you and the rest of the Watering Hole Gang may have *thought* your ability to enforce this new policy was manageable, I just don't expect it to be so if people *want* to sell their non-GC.com-trackable coins here. There is no logistical difference between trading or selling coins and so if you're going to close off one, I think you may quickly find you'll have to close the other. Even in trades, two coins may not be equal in cost. People will adjust trades with money or even say "you know what...nevermind about that one, just give me $5 and my coin is your's". If you thought ever non-GC.com-trackable coin sales post in the future was just going to say: "Hey, come buy my coin!" and you could easily shut down the use of this forum as a place for free marketing, I think you'll end up sadly disappointed.

I'm not the one trying to impose an oppressive set of rules on an otherwise functional forum. It's also clear that there's a control issue here and my guess is that people didn't even think about the "GC.com"-trackable part... In other words, you can't sell your other trackables here either. My guess is there are a few tracking websites about to receive some sort of "do not link" or cease-n-desist letters in their mailboxes any day now. What I don't understand is how you plan on patrolling your own policies. Thus my questions that you didn't answer, just talked around. Maybe you can't answer them, but this was the thread's purpose (to ask the questions...even the tough and complicated ones)...

From FishPOET's logged note on the cache, it seems he was trying to make the point that there's no validation by the e-mails Kerry quoted that the originating author actually was the owner of the property. In other words, what if I sent an e-mail right now saying: "I live at 1315 Mockingbird Lane and I found a geocache on my property called 'Munster Mash!'. Take it off your site before my dogs kill someone trying to find it on my property." When you look it up, it seems legit as the dot for the coordinates is right near a house located at 1315 and so it's archived...meanwhile, it turns out 1313 was hosting the cache on a small path between the two houses that's open to the public and not on 1315's land....AND I don't even live near Mockingbird Lane, I just didn't like the cache/hider. So, his question is...what prevents *anyone* from e-mailing GC.com pretending to be a land owner and getting a geocache archived at will (assuming their story seems reasonable given some sort of phony ID/info they give you)?

You should change your name to NontrackableCoinsFor$6 and post in the geocoin forum....alot. <snicker>

I think you know the answers here. No need to try and find loophoels in the wording as the intent of the guidleines are clear. So I can't set my own shipping and handling costs? You have an upper limit in mind that you want to share with the rest of us? How are you going to have any say over private e-mails with potential traders/buyers? The only way you'd stop my second scenario is to close down even non-trackable trades. Otherwise, I'll offer a trade and then give the option of a sale when dealing directly with a buyer/trader or decline to trade. In other words, you're totally impotent to enforce your new rules. They only serve to drive people to want to pay the extra $1.50 per coin to keep their listing in the mainstream forum...or drive them away and fracture the cottage industry of a cottage industry based on the merger of two obsessive and compulsive hobbies (the "gotta catch-em-all" attitude of geocaching and the "collectability" of coins). You also didn't address my first question on what the difference is to you "on your dime" whether my post mentions $5 or an equivalently priced coin when I have non-trackables.

What's the difference to GC.com if I post the two following topics: "I have 100 new ju66l3r coins (non-trackable) for trade! If you have a non-trackable coin that's in this list of non-trackable coins that I don't have in my collection yet, then I will trade you 1-for-1 with my coins directly by mail." OR "I have 100 new ju66l3r coins (non-trackable) for sale! If you have $5, I will send you 1 of my coins directly by mail. I am also interested in the purchase of your non-trackable coins if they cost about $5 each and they are not in my collection." In other words, if I'm putting money in my pocket from the design and ordering of coins, then I better be lining your pocket too by making them trackable at this website...but if I'm growing my collection from the design and ordering of coins for trade-bait, then we're all good? If I outlay $200 to make a set of 50 non-trackable coins and trade them until I have 50 different non-trackable coins via this site...then what's the difference than if I outlay $200 for a set of 50 non-trackable coins and sell them all for $200 via this site? Oh...I think I see. So, I can use your bandwidth to get the equivalent of $200 in non-trackable coins through trades (if I invest the $200 to make my own coins)...but I can't use your bandwidth "on your dime" to get my $200 back and give a new coin/design to the geocaching/geocoin community. What if I said I would give my non-trackable coins away for free here? All they have to do is send me $9 for shipping and handling per coin. What if I said I have non-trackables for trade, please contact me through my profile for more info...and then offered the contacts a direct sales option? What if the hard work of the moderating staff (unpaid...so it's not like their workload is costing you more to moderate here) is actually doubled by people trying to sneak around your "no non-trackable sales" rule or just being plain ignorant of the fact that it exists before they post?

Are you suggesting that had the reviewers all (or even just UtahAdmin) refuted and raised concern against the new rules to limit the Geocoin Forum to GC.com-trackables only that Groundspeak would have bent to leaving the forum in its previous state? Unless his input would have had any influence on what appears to be the biggest problem that has cause the community to seek other options, then your counter-argument is voided. He wouldn't have directly benefitted the community through his involvement in the discussion, because the benefit (leaving the GC.com-approval/tracking restrictions out of the new rules) never would have been possible and his action of opening a new forum to counteract these changes for the benefit of the community would have been inevitable, regardless of when the forum was opened. If you are busting him for a "breach of trust" based on confidentiality, then it is entirely dependent on when the policy was released and his e-mail was sent out. Once the policy was made public, it would seem he has every right to react as any other geocacher might (even if he had worked to engineer the policy) and there is no confidentiality since the policy is privvy to all at that point. Unless, you are suggesting that any actions that a site volunteer takes must be always made in witness of and reference to the information/decisions that they were at any time privvy to and influential on in the Admin Forum. If their ability to shape policy/decisions means that they are not allowed to act in a manner against those policies in any way, then Lep, I hope your store doesn't sell anything you heard Groundspeak say that it would be a waste of time to market...even if you later come to think it in the interest of the community. If Groundspeak turns its back on something (like personal untracked geocoin sales) and someone else, including a site volunteer, is willing to accomodate it elsewhere, then I don't agree to that reason for termination unless there's a clear coercion from that person to persuade Groundspeak's actions to their own benefit...and as you said, I don't think that is this situation at all. EDIT: clarity

Yes, but Lep, would you be willing to act in a way that would potentially jeopardize your administrative status with Groundspeak if it would be of greater benefit to the community to do so? Do you (and I'm not singling you out) put the community before Groundspeak or the company before the geocachers when it comes to a situation like this one where acting in deference to one prevents your benefitting the other? I think that defines whether the volunteer reviewers are acting in interest of the community, in or out of their role as volunteer reviewer. I believe UtahAdmin acted in the benefit of the community (albeit unfortunate timing it would seem) and the result of that action was to lose their administrative status. I can see that both sides have good reason for their actions. I haven't disagreed with the results; I've only questioned the motivations. It's also a loss (especially for the region(s) UtahAdmin reviewed) that there is too much intertwined between the "Watering Hole" and their cache review duties to keep them as a reviewer (seperate from anything Geocoin-related).

I am trading my non-trackable personal geocoin series. I need your Sacagawea, Susan B Anthony, or Eisenhower coins for my collection. I prize my coins highly and so I'm asking to trade one of my coins for 5 of any mix of the listed coins... *Sorry geocoin-aholics, this post is just a joke aimed at using a loophole I saw in Groundspeak's rules...I don't have any personal geocoins for trade

To you? I guess that's a personal decision. To me? Yes or I wouldn't have asked it. I see a very important distinction between removing someone because they broke trust or removing someone due to actions not related to their role. I am not implying that Groundspeak had no grounds in either instance, but I appreciate knowing how this company (founded on the hard work of not only itself but the rest of the community as well) treats its volunteers. Numerous times, the reviewers have spoken out to remind us all that their work for this company is for the benefit of the community and not directly for Groundspeak. People, myself included, have claimed at times that they serve Groundspeak first and the community second. I don't feel so strongly about that idea as I once had (and I hope it shows). But here we find ourselves amid a situation where a volunteer reviewer (albeit against trust by using admin-level information) actually did something to directly benefit the community and by the same action undermine Groundspeak. If UtahAdmin was terminated solely because they opened the forum too soon, then Groundspeak can still maintain that others in their service are allowed to act in benefit of the community and against their own financial interest and that is not a problem for them (i.e. where they have chosen to more narrowly confine discussion to only those Geocoins that pay them for trackability and a volunteer reviewer hoped to supplant their restrictive rules with an open forum elsewhere for the central point of trade/sales/etc). If instead, UtahAdmin was terminated in part or whole because of their actions undermining Groundspeak's Geocoin Forum policy, then Groundspeak admits that reviewers must act in benefit of Groundspeak or they will be released. It also means that as a reviewer, your *other* activities are being monitored for potential problems against Groundspeak and that those can be grounds for removal. I believe that may be a shock to some volunteer reviewers, but it's only fair that they know what they are being asked to do. Yet, to admit that the sole reason was because the forum was opened based on a breach of trust means that Groundspeak must also admit that it did not properly inform UtahAdmin of its reason to terminate their position (the letter from Bryan made *no* mention of the trust issue, only of a "conflict of interest"). EDIT: clarity

Then your decision has nothing to do with his attempt to leverage Geocoin discussion to a forum with a more open set of rules and out from under Groundspeak's thumb? It had to do solely with the timing of such an event (occuring before the new Geocoin forum rules were established in public)? I just want to be clear here because you also keep saying it was a "conflict of interest" when now you're defining it as a "breach of trust" concerning his use of information privvy to administrator-level access. In other words, if UtahAdmin had seen the public outcry at the new Geocoin Forum policy here, waited until tomorrow, and then created a forum for the open discussion of Geocoin trading/sales, would they still be a cache reviewer because there was no "breach of trust"? Or would they still have their position terminated because they acted in a manner that undermined Groundspeak's attempt to bully Geocoin collectors/sellers/traders into paying GC.com for trackability in order to use the de facto centralized source for all discussion of these activities (the Geocoin Forum on this site)? Thank you for coming here to explain the matter, Roth. I hope the meaningful dialogue can continue.

Ok, after reading the letter sent to UtahAdmin and the discussion in the Geocoin Forum here that led to the letter(s), here's my take: Groundspeak and UtahAdmin do not have a conflict of interest, unless you call the usurption of a discussion forum a conflict of interest, and since they demanded his resignation/removal as a *cache approver*, there is no conflict in that regard. In other words, Groundspeak developed a forum for the discussion of Geocoins (all shapes and sizes) and began a business angle of offering Geocoin tracking for a fee per coin to anyone with a coin being made. Their next move after opening discussion to everyone for trades and sales of Geocoins was to close sales discussion to only those coins that were GC.com trackable. This is their site, their forum, their business, their right to do so. It seems a bit of a bait-n-switch but they were at the minimum allowing a grandfathering of recent topics for nontrackable sales. In order to allow traders/purchasers/sellers to continue discussions in an open manner about all sorts of Geocoins, UtahAdmin opened a forum that had no restrictions on the discussion at his website. Geocoin collectors of all types felt it important that all discussion remain focused to a single boards to help keep the very small cottage industry of Geocoin collecting alive. This forum usurps Groundspeak's ability to control the discussion and pressure people to make their Geocoins GC.com trackable in order to remain on the original point of discussion for these types of sales. It tastes of the same foulness that came from the olden days of these forums when Navicache.com was auto-filtered out because they offered Groundspeak competition in hosting cache information. Regardless of what Groundspeak feels about UtahAdmin's decision to host an open forum for Geocoin discussion, it has nothing at all to do with their ability to review caches for GC.com to host. There is no undue influence on their decision-making on caches simply because they choose to host a forum for the discussion of Geocoins. Does every cache reviewer that is also running their local geocaching association's website suddenly need to mysteriously resign because there is/might be discussion of Geocoins (particularly GC.com trackable ones) on their sites (commercial or not)? Because that is the real essence of this "conflict of interest" and it's a very bullish move, similar to others we've seen before from Groundspeak, to have kicked out a good reviewer simply because they used the internet for what it's good for (the free trade of ideas and discussion, allowing people outlets around aggressive overbearing rules).

I agree, and that's why I advocate for an "event fee" system where the money is paid to the hosting geocacher and his involvement with the commercial venture is between him and the restaurant and not between the attendees and the restaurant. This may sound like a technicality, but it's really bigger than that. A host paying a commercial establishment does not require each attendee to feel any obligation to that establishment. Their decision then only remains as to whether they choose to attend that event and not whether they choose to support that commercial establishment. Whether they then choose to participate in any of the offerings that their fee generated is up to them. This is exactly the dichotomy that keeps the event from being commercialized. If you remove this particular event setting and imagine an event at a local park (free entry and free reservation of a pavilion). Now imagine that the cache page says "you *must* buy your lunch for this picnic at the nearby McDonalds or do not come" vs "a mandatory fee of $5 per person will be collected and McDonalds food will be provided for lunch". It is a vastly different reference frame and an important shift in the paradigm of attendance for the event goers to decide upon. EDIT: clarity

For those out of the loop, this may help some: http://www.utahgeocachers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16814 (I ended up finding some extra time to not be so lazy) I am still a bit lost about the "conflict of interest". Unless UtahAdmin was using their position as cache reviewer to solicit business for their commercial geocoin venture, I don't see the impropriety nor do I see the potential for such that would need to eliminate them as a reviewer. Unfortunately, my guess is that the logic (even if it is well-founded and appropriate at this time) to act as Groundspeak has on this matter will remain shrouded behind the curtains. I'm not bedgrudging their ability to do so, but I do feel that something as directly involving their interaction with the site users should be given an official announcement ("Based on our judgement at this time, due to XYZ, we have requested UtahAdmin to step down...etc...we will be replacing them soon...etc"). I do know that the last time this occurred, a large number of participants chose to leave this site and head for other caching websites like Terracaching and Navicaching.

I'm sorry but that goes against the ideology behind event caches. The entire geocaching community (and primarily the geocaching community) should be able to attend an event without having to determine their level of support behind a specific commercial venture as a requirement for attendance. You can not use Six Flags picnic areas for events because they require a ticket purchase to gain access. By the same logic, you should not be required to purchase a menu item in order to gain access to an event. There are a number of ways this can be avoided and this cache should be modified to use one of those acceptable ways instead.

Just as a gauge, would you be willing to pay an event fee to attend an event at a restaurant (where portions may be used to compensate the restaurant) even if you attend but plan on not ordering anything? I have a feeling that I know the answer, but I wanted to make it clear.

For those defending the event cache as it currently stands, please consider the poor precedence it sets (yes, yes, precedence doesn't matter according to guidelines, yadda yadda yadda). If you can require someone to order food at a restaurant to log an event cache, then what stops the next event from feeling justified in asking you to purchase an item at the gift shop...or require a donation to a specific organization...and so on. Events shouldn't be limited to only those that choose to patron a specific agency, agenda, or proprietor and GC.com shouldn't be hosting a cache/page that requires you to do so and they've turned down and even removed caches that were so worded in the past and promised to do so in the future too. I'm not suggesting anything malevolent about this specific event AT ALL. In fact, I think I went well out of my way to provide a means for using a commerical establishment for the hosting of an event without putting the honus on the attendee to pay the restaurant directly (making it a commercial cache). The difference is that people can attend without having to patronize a restaurant (instead they provide the host cacher with the funds to be able to hold such a meeting...which can include restaurant costs that establish a pre-meal tab with the restaurant). In the end, I think it's appropriate for NoLemon to bring up items like this for discussion. Discussion is not harmful and from it, useful things can come up (like my solution above and others'). I hope this discussion remains focused on how to handle questionable cache descriptions such as this one and in what ways people can work to keep commercial-patronization logging requirements out of the hobby at this site and NOT used as an attack on someone or a labelling for bringing this up for discussion in the first place.

Could someone bring the rest of us up to speed on the facts of this? I see nothing in the regional forum here (and I'll admit that I'm a bit lazy to go hunting for a forum for UT cachers right now). I should find it hard to believe that Groundspeak would remove a volunteer for conflict of interest when they didn't remove one for abuse of position/power and more egregiously faking locationless finds (an abuse of the entire system of trust between finders and hiders). This admin has injected himself into sensitive talks with Park officials and used his title as a reviewer at GC.com as weight (although Groundspeak said that he does not represent them in such matters), playing a tenuous fine line between using their name and not actually representing them as a faction in the matter... It's just that after all of the *many* varied times that he's messed with everything over the years, he's still allowed to be a reviewer. This is why I say that I *should* find it hard to believe that they removed him for a simple conflict of interest...but I don't. So, I'd like to hear the whole story.

This is very easy to solve. If a restaurant is asking for a minimum order, it's not because they want to make their chefs create 80 dishes for your group...it's because they want the money of using their space to house 80 people. They're not a meeting hall, they're a restaurant...and they only survive by getting money for people coming there. Therefore, when a minimum order is requested by the manager/owner when you're setting up the reservation, make the suggestion that you instead pay a flat fee for the usage. If they were going to require everyone at the minimum purchase something off the menu (like the original poster's copied cache info), then pick a price off the menu just below the average (if the avg app is $5 and the average meal is $12, then name a price of around $7-8 per person) and see if they will agree to take the flat rate instead. $7 for 80 people reservation....$560 for the use of the space. At that point, ask that the first $560 of the final bill be covered by that fee and that you will pay anything above that. I have used this procedure with bars and restaurants plenty of times. In fact, if you suggest that you'll place a bar tab of X per person upfront, then most places may throw in a buffet-style serving of three to four of their better entrees and allow your party to serve itself until the allotted food is gone (again, if anything more is needed or wanted, it's purchased ala carte from the menu by the orderer). Once the tab is used up, the party pays for drinks ala carte again. As long as the place is assured a certain amount of money, that's all they want. Then you can either foot the bill up front and collect from attendees as they arrive or ask people who have RSVP'd to paypal/send you the cash for the event...or get fancy and hold your first meeting at a free location and collect from *those* attendees for "meeting costs" and hold this money for the next meeting to pay the restaurant promised tab ahead of time, and then collect at the restaurant for the next time from those attendees.

They would if they were in a more obvious spot: ? Just an idea... EDIT: Also to point out the silliness of claiming _no one_ reads the announcements...in a thread quoting the announcement text as pretext to the question it asked...

Actually, you wouldn't. It's my extensive experience that a photo of the coordinates published in a size manageable by this site's storage space requires a very steady shot for the compression of the image later (using a Garmin Yellow model's display). The best method for that is to take a picture of the GPSr facing skyward (for best lighting) and laying on a steady surface (like a gravestone). It's just that the picture would be so zoomed in as to make the gravestone unrecognizable in most cases. While we are hobbyists and we are cataloging locations as waymarks, I think there's a certain amount of trust in the information that can be made such that a picture of the GPSr in frame with the gravestone being cataloged need not also display the coordinates legibly. But to not include the GPSr doesn't exude that same level of trust in the numbers even coming from having been at the location.