FireRef

At least - the more the merrier! Besides, maybe more threads will let TPTB know it is an actual issue they should consider fixing

That's the thing - they're not defining a rule. They're not defining a guideline, even. They're posting a guideline which says, in effect, "We can not accept whatever we don't feel like accepting, and we wrote this to be unclear so we can decide whatever we want from cache to cache, and never have to be consistent from cache to cache." The rule is completely undefined - and they like it that way, because it means they can say whatever they want. Problem is, people have a problem with this. Obviously, I'm not the only one (although I am relatively vocal about it).

Sure, why not. FireRef, why are you being so obstinate? I know why actually. Any chance you get to bash Groundspeak, you jump on it. I won't try to convince you further, and those taking your bait should let it go too. Not true. They run a good website. It is easy to use. Some of the rules they define for a game that they didn't even start, as it develops, I disagree with. Obviously a lot of people disagree with the interpretation of this one, or it wouldn't have lasted this long.

Agreed - and interesting, because it supports the theory in another thread that the owner of the cache in question in the other thread didn't do anything wrong and didn't promote the business listed - they just wanted to honor their children - which is why they were so passionate about not changing the wording. I put a lot of work into the caches I do... and would resent changing the wording just because an agenda is perceived that I didn't intend or put in there intentionally.

Yup But that is why they have that thing about not setting precidents. We wouldn't want them throwing out hundreds of caches and getting thousands of cachers up in arms over the issue. So pick and choose which ones to complain about, deal with those however you want to, and only deal with (or ignore) a dozen or two people complaining that the decision was unfair, biased, etc. There was nothing in that writeup that promoted the American Legion. It simply explained the purpose behind the organization and a little about its organization. This is true in thousands of published caches... now, if you start picking on this, how can you (TPTB), in good conscience, leave those caches out there, published the way they are, promoting their horrendous agendas that will cause the downfall of geocaching and the world around us. (yes, that started getting sarcastic near the end) Back to serious - you need to go and hunt down these caches, get the owners to change the wording, or archive them post haste. Otherwise, that is completely unfair to the current cache owner, and is a violation of the guidelines. Or, if you state that grandfathered stuff is ok, bring back the locationless caches... they should have been grandfathered (ON THIS SITE... don't point me to Waymarking) as much as the caches in violation of current guidelines. You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, you can... you just make a lot of people mad with double standards and do nothing for your credibility.

Sorry. But TPTB have only said that the cache page is perceived to have an agenda. They indicated what part of the cache description lead them to have that perception. The cache owner saying that she doesn't have an agenda does not remove that fact that one can perceive an agenda from what was written. The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do. Well, we can't assume either. And again, you can't perceive an agenda just because you think one is there. That is unfair to the person who you are reading that agenda into. Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person? Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived. Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

I've got a right to read whatever I want into this as does Groundspeak. Who are you to tell me what I have a right to do and not to do? I apologise - you have every right to think whatever you want. But to indicate that the person had an agenda, when they stated they didn't, is the same as telling me that since you think I believe something, I must believe it. You're welcome to your belief. You're not welcome to state, when the OP stated otherwise, that the OP must have meant something different from what they said because YOU interpret it that way. And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

The guideline specifically mentions "caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas ". You can continue to use a Clintonesque parsing of the OPs woriding to show that she never asks anyone to do anything to support the troops or join the American Legion, however by putting all this in one big paragraph it adds up to what can be perceived to be an agenda. Maybe we can take the OP at her word that she is "not supporting any agenda, or even suggesting anyone joins the legion", but when there is no attempt to make any changes and instead she calls the decision by Groundspeak "crap", one wonders. Now you are placing an agenda in the OP's mouth. Simply because someone refuses to do something doesn't mean anything, and you don't have the right to read into that. Just as the site and reviewers shouldn't have the right to read into this cache an agenda they are "perceiving" to be there, but isn't. Most people have agreed, if you read back through 12 pages of this, that there is no agenda on that page. Some disagreed. Apparently, the only one who matters is TPTB, but obviously if a large number of people don't have a problem with it, something's wrong with this interpretation. A perception of something does not mean it is there. Don't read into things - it gets you into a lot of trouble. Take things at face value. No agenda was intended (by the OP's original statement), and none is there. Perceiving an agenda can be done for any cache anywhere, and for anything anyone does at any time in any place. Guess we better shut the site down - it has an agenda - making $$$ and keeping geocachers happy. Well, at least the first.

Simple. "Flexibility" does not mean "we will say yes every time". They decided to say no. That very simply explains the Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches question to boot. They have decided to say no. That is their right to do so as the owner of the listing service. Simple. Obviously not that simple, or people would have moved on from this topic a while back. Obviously, people have an issue with the owner of this site interpreting the game in his/their own way, causing problems for people who choose to use this listing service and can't get things listed which do not appear (to most) to violate the guidelines because of these random-seeming interpretations. Obviously, if this was as simple and clearly defined as you say, the issue would be dead. It is not. (And please avoid the "if you don't like it, move to another site" argument. That was addressed several pages back - good site, some reasonably serious issues/problems with it, but overall, good site. Just bad judgement on some things, methinks... as do many others.)

Good to hear - I'm glad you didn't choose to archive it. Keep fighting - maybe someone somewhere will wise up about what consititutes an agenda and what kind of caches SHOULD be allowed.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to have one of two options: 1) Clearly defined, consistently enforced rules. 2) No real rules. You can't play a game without rules. This is correct. However, you can't play a game when the rules constantly change, and sometimes are enforced and sometimes are not, without ruffling feathers. How would a game of basketball be if I decided every now and then not to count a basket because I decided to change the rules at random? How would it work if several people made the exact same move, and some got called for a violation, and some didn't? How well would the game flow if I ignored extremely hard, dangerous fouls because I felt that the game was better with them, even though the rules don't allow it? How can I coach the players, if I can't tell them what they can and can't do, since the rules keep changing, and sometimes (within a game) things are called, and sometimes they aren't? It makes it very difficult. All we want is consistency. The ability to make exceptions all the time, and no responsibility to see that those exceptions are consistenly made and enforced, makes for a very poorly administered game. I'm not saying this isn't a good website, a good game, good people doing a good job. I'm saying there are some serious flaws in the theory that 'we can make exceptions any time we want, and don't have to be consistent in what we do'. It makes a lot of people upset. Some more than others. And I'm not looking for anyone to make money. I'm looking for a quality website (which we have) with consistenly enforced rules (which we don't). Money seems to have a big influence on the decisions which are made. At the referee level for sports, this would be a serious problem.

Thank you. I still feel the question I asked was not answered. This person talked about a building near which the cache was located, and how it applied to them, their family, and their children. The only agenda (if you want to call it that) was to support their children, and talk a little about the building near which the cache was located. Again, this is going to lead to cache pages which simply state "Cache here." (or "Cache not here" for puzzle caches) Yes, this is a minimalist attitude. But how many people would drive if the speed limit was random, and randomly enforced? You could say most of my caches have an agenda - getting people to think a little more about chemicals and their use/application in everyday life. Is this going to get any new ones to my series denied, because of that? I certainly hope not, but the severely loose interpretation of what an agenda is could certainly come into play here. And to stay with the driving example, how many years have we done Jeep travel bugs? No agenda there... none at all... nope... (getting the mop for the sarcasm puddle forming under this post). I guess whatever agenda makes GS.com and Jeremy money will get approved. They certainly don't have any problem selling TB tracking codes to anyone making coins with agendas... and the difference between this and a cache page is? $$$ is made. I can have as many "Support the US Troops" TB coin pages as I want to pay for. So is that next? No more TB's/Coins with any kind of agenda? (I do agree - you guys have been relatively conservative in dealing with those of us who have a problem with your "employer" (yes, I know you're volunteers - can't think of a more appropriate term) and his interesting policies - on this, I think you as well. I just wish you would see the broader picture, and not continue to support an obviously unclear policy as written.)

Sure you do - my time is valuable, so is my Gas Money scouting out places to place caches that can be denied on a whim, etc. Everything costs something - not necessarily money per-se, but definitely something.

The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends." And therein lies the problem. By not being more specific, you (referring to Groundspeak, and by virtue of having to follow the way-too-loosely defined rules, the reviewers) have created a massive problem. Things you approve which are questionable are questioned by people. Things you deny which are not questionable to most people are questioned by people. When you make a standard which says "We'll review it on a case-by-case basis", no one is happy. Neither is anyone when your answer to the question of what is acceptable under a standard is "It depends.". Basically, it means you (GS, reviewers, etc) can make up rules and interpretations as you go, and by saying no one decision has any effect on any other, and no precidents can be set, no one ever knows what is acceptable and what isn't, based on what we see making it through or being rejected. Lets compare geocaching to getting somewhere. There's lots of ways to get somewhere: Drive, bike, walk. Some are more appropriate under some circumstances, others under others. How would people feel if every time they drove somewhere, the rules for driving were completely up to the interpretation of the officer that was pulling them over. "Today, I feel like saying 5mph is the most appropriate speed, even though the sign says '25', so here's your ticket. - Sure, the person in front of you was doing 3x your speed, but they were driving a red car, so I'm letting them go. (or more likely in here, "... but I have my reason for letting them go and not letting you go, and I'm not going to tell you what it is)". How do you feel? Sure, if you don't want to deal with random rule changes and interpretations of those rules, you could walk, or ride your bike. But the best way to get where you are going right now is driving. GC.com has the largest list - not because the most people agree with their rules, but because they have the most popular site. More people use it, so more caches are listed (regardless of how many are denied), and so more caches can be found by people using the site. You could switch to a site which has better defined or looser rules, but then you have less caches to hunt because the majority have succumbed to following poorly defined rules which allow the comapny to basically do whatever it wants whenever it wants. Going elsewhere isn't really much of an option, due to the fact that a large number of people would have to do this before it would be beneficial to all involved (except for GS.com, who gets less revenue from memberships and people clicking on ads). They also have the name which is associated with the game - like Kleenex has the name associated with facial tissues or Xerox with copies. This provides a major advantage, regardless of how bad a box of Kleenex tissues or a Xerox copier is - the name recognition is there. It wouldn't make sense, in the above example, to stop driving. You have to stick with dealing with these unfairly set up, poorly defined, and unfairly administered rules because you really would prefer to drive. But does this mean you just accept them? No - you complain to city hall, file complaints againt the officers acting unfairly, vote new people into office who promise better defined rules and more fair and consistent interpretations of them, etc. Sure, I could ride my bike... but I would rather drive, and see the system fixed, rather than be relegated to my bike just because I'm lazy enough to accept unfair circumstances without a fight. Keystone - your answer to many questions about the rules and guidelines on this site has been "It depends." - How about taking a stand and giving a clear explanation that we all can understand and follow, rather than giving an answer which basically says nothing? Is that too much to ask? From anyone at GS, not just you?

Incorrect - many people put a lot of work into their cache pages, as with anything they write, and changing a word here or there can often seriously change what was intended by the writer, agenda or not, maybe in the way it sounds, etc. You can't assume there is a hidden agenda just because Groundspeak assumes there always is one.

I use GSAK and Cachemate/Cachenav. I'm having trouble, all of a sudden, with cache nav deciding, even when it has a good signal, not to update the display. It works fine if I'm moving, but if I'm stopped, or moving slow (like walking), it doesn't update more than once every 30 seconds to a minute - fine if I'm a decent distance away, but not good if I'm 100 or less feet from the cache. Also, I've had more trouble with my new 755p treo than the 650 I used to have - I still use both, and use two different bluetooth GPSrs - more problems with the 650. I did notice that cachemate is more stable on the 755p than the 650, mainly due to memory issues. I had constant crashed from the 650 when I had cachemate installed and had more than 100 or so caches in it, with very few logs. Anyone have any suggestions?

I thought about something like this back in 1997 when I got a GPS unit, because I thought it would be neat to put something at a specific set of coordinates, give someone my GPS (because no one I knew had one), and have them go see if they could find those coordinates. When I saw geocaching on CSI (the TV show), I went to the website, signed up, and went to try to find my first cache. A friend of mine and I ended up in the dark in the middle of a swamp, and never did find the cache (until I found it like 5 years later!), but in the end, thought it was a really neat idea, very similar to what I had dreamed up. I never thought of putting anything on the internet. And I am still amazed by the number of hides out there that people pass by every day and don't think of. Things like a fake "press to cross" button on a light pole at an intersection - people would NEVER think to look at that - but Geocachers do. I also still like LPC's... even though I've probably found over 100 of them. It's the hidden aspect that amazes me. This one has something special under it, when hundreds around it don't. I like pretty much any kind of cache, except for the missing ones! Or the ones that get pulled or archived for dumb reasons.

Thanks!

I have to agree - geocaching is quite different from discussing geocaching on the forums. Now, if we could just get people to agree on what we can do for a cache... oh wait, that isn't going to happen. So... if we could just get Groundspeak to listen to the people that do the geocaching... oh wait, they say they do... Heh But yes, I do like having a positive thread out there. I just broke 1000 finds today, so that is a positive thing. One of them (around #960 or so) was a cache that was decided to have an agenda, and was archived. Well, at least it served its purpose in my agenda... to get to 1000 sometime soon and get one more smiley at that point!

No, moderators take action for violations of the forum guidelines, not the nature of the opinion expressed. You have made several posts in this thread which "disagree with the company line," yet you are still allowed to post. This proves the fallacy of your statement. You are still posting because (thus far) your posts do not violate the forum guidelines. Others have, as noted above. The forum guidelines at issue here are the "respect" guideline -- which applies to Groundspeak and its volunteers, as well as all community members -- and the "no personal attacks" guideline. I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume you haven't read the entire thread, including my prior posts. This is a reviewer who is following the instructions given to him by Groundspeak. Do NOT accuse him of having a personal agenda. Questioning his motives or patriotism is disrespectful. And, to recap, the cache owner has already discussed their cache with Groundspeak, and chose to have the cache archived rather than edit the text as requested by Groundspeak. There is no further appeal in regards to this individual cache. Interesting note... your statement that I have violated (in the past) the respect guideline... here's the line from the guidelines... "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to: (a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity. " Almost everything anyone posts is objectionable to someone somewhere. The fact that this cache was archived is objectionable to a lot of people, as per the discussion in this thread. Somehow, I doubt the reviewers/moderators are going to be disciplined for making a decision which was objectionable to the people who feel this way, especially those that have posted in this thread. Moderators are given the ability to censure people for what they believe to be violations of this specific guideline, as well as any others. Since this guideline is written so broadly, as soon as they object to a specific thread or comment, etc, they can effect action. The way this is written, all you have to do is say something that is objectionable to anyone on this message board, including GS.com employees, volunteers, and users such as myself, and you can get in trouble for it, no matter how innocuous. I don't like the decision that was made in this case about this cache. I don't agree with the broadness of the anti-agenda guidelines. And I don't agree that "Like it or go elsewhere" is a good solution at this time. To move on to a more productive discussion: Would the following caches be approved: 1) A parent simply doing a cache to honor their son/daughter who is actively serving or was killed in the military? (which does not support continuing, winning, or ending the military action they are involved in) 2) A friend honoring a friend serving in the military? (same exception as above) 3) A cache honoring firefighters? EMS Personnel? Police?

Well, there was a thread about How did you serve? with alot of posts and MAGC has over 400, so I venture to guess the are quite a few more who have not posted there or joined MAGC. Been trying to read up on what has transpired overnight on this topic. I personally know quite a few ex-military cachers like myself. Not all belong to MAGC or post to this forum. It's ashame that we personally can't voice our opinion on something on the cache pages. It's not Groundspeak that's signing off on that opinion. My only problem is that we have seemed to allow agendas to be "grandfathered" in. Some that I personally don't support. That's ok. That's why I wore the uniform and would do it again. Freedom of Speech. Becareful what you post or you might get a 7 day rest from the forums as one of our MAGC members did after posting his opinion. As did I several times - for stating my opinion. They said it was for violating the guidelines, but what it came down to was it was me being censured for disagreeing with the company line. I think, as I've said several times, Jeremy needs to listen a little more to his users, and a little less to his accountant. Support the people who support your site. If the majority feel this is the way it should be done, that is the way it should be done (barring illegal activities, and such...).

... which is what? Getting the company to change a policy that most people disagree with?

In 8 pages, with the exception of the moderator/reviewers, the only two basic responses to the OP's problem were: 1) Keep the cache the way it is (or very minor changes) - the vast majority of posts 2) People who can see the viewepoint of the reviewers, and suggest minor changes. No one has said "Archive the cache". No one has said it is that bad. No one has a serious problem with it except for Reviewers/moderators (who are following the company policy) and ... um, that's it. So... Why isn't the company listening to the people who make this site work? Without the players, there's no game. Shouldn't they listen to the people on the site? This hasn't been addressed (unless it is "We make guidelines and we follow them")...

So you admit/deny the publication of caches based on a perceived agenda, regardless of whether there is one or not? There's one a mile from my house which is called "...Thanks for the Service Cache", on a monument to fallen military people. Guess that one's going soon now too... In response to Kalia, yes, they do suspend people for disagreeing with them - if you read the rules (or guidelines, they seem to change what they call them and how they apply them based on how they want the result of the situation to work out), they don't allow dissent with company policy. This section was quoted to me by a moderator who clearly indicated I was not to make this statement public - so I am not quoting the statement, not identifying the moderator. They did suspend me twice for this. They used the rules as an explanation to me for doing this, but the main purpose of this was because I vehemently disagreed with their stance on an issue. And it was for posting on a topic I started, for one of them, anyway! In school (I am a teacher), having a policy which basically says "Here's what we do, but we will make exceptions as we see fit, and making an exception here doesn't mean we will make one any other place, no matter how similar the circumstances" is a good way to get everyone complaining about how unfair the place is. Basically, writing the rules this way, the people in charge can do whatever they want. If they want the rule to apply, they say "See, we have a rule that says...". If they don't want the rule to apply, for whatever reason, personal or otherwise, they say "Well, we decided to make an exception to the rule...". And if you have the same, or a similar situation, to the one they granted an exception to, and they refuse to do it for you, they say "Granting an exception in one case isn't a precident for granting an exception in any other case, no matter how similar." So... Why even have rules, when you don't have to follow them yourself!?! (or we can call them guidelines, and then... SAME PROBLEM!)