GeeOCachers

I wanted to thank the cacher Bunnyseek for his generous nature! He realized he lost my coin somehow, and contacted me to tell me. But he didn't stop there! He then offered to buy me a replacement coin of my choice and get it back on its way. Amazing!! This was a very special coin to me and my family as we are planning to visit it no matter where it lands. It was sent out after the birth of my first son and has been on the road for 5 years since the day he was born. Bunnyseek is truly the type of person that represents the best of the best cachers out there. Thank you Bunnyseek! Original Coin New Coin

Odd, I didn't start this topic, yet strangely I feel as though I am being told to simmer down for standing up to what I feel is an inconsistency in the application of the guidelines by reviewers. Dr. House, your minimization of my query is at best a deflection to serve the purpose of your post. I think that the topic is quite important to all and has been brought up before, since consistency can go a long way to ensuring this game is fair and therefore fun for all. If the topic was originally started by me and was strictly about the inconsistency, I think it might have had a different and perhaps more valuable outcome. However, due to my appeal to Groundspeak, I feel that they have understood my issue and have at least acknowledged that it is a problem and have stated they are working on solutions with all the reviewers. In my mind that is a win. I made a point a long while ago to stay away from these forums because I know they eventually degrade into name calling and petty arguments. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

I host one event a year. I'm certainly not insane. I would appreciate an ask from someone before they copy my entire cache event page, as I am sure you would if it happened to you.

Indeed, I have sent him an email.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0ade9b35-58e3-4d9f-911c-0f4e55f1cb1a WTF? There must be some rule against stealing an entire page worth of information for a cache event without asking the original creator for permission first?

I guess I have a different definition of compromise. Mine is where both parties involved give up something in return for moving forward. Yours is one party does what the other says. There are two things I have learned from this experience: 1. Compromise has different a different definition for some people than it does for others. I am sure that when asked to define it in a group of 100 people, likely there would be at least 2 different definitions, if not many more than that. 2. Some people just aren't inclined to let things go.

I hate beating dead horses, truly, but the enabling of the cache was implied, not requested. My only request was that the line remain. Groundspeak's only request was that the line be removed. Archiving was a conditioned response to my lack of adherence to Groundspeak's request. When it became obvious that Groundspeak was unwilling to allow me to keep the line, I made a modified request. Again, that was denied. I modified the line AFTER Groundspeak allowed me to do so by Unarchiving. Unarchiving was a requirement to allow me to make the change. I solely enabled the listing. Therefore Groundspeak did not compromise or make any changes on their end. The only reason I continued on was because of the note above from Nicole. Horse = Dead Stop beating it.

Actually what was even more important as I stated many times, is that the continued application of the guidelines be consistent. I feel that Groundspeak has addressed this enough that I will obey and change the line. Not a compromise in my books, but at least an acknowledgement of the issue.

With great reluctance, I will shortly be removing the supposed offending text from the cache page. Although I don't agree with the original interpretation of the guidelines by the reviewer, nor do I agree with the "compromise" as it has been given to me, I must move on. In order to do that I needed to have some reassurance. The compromise in this case was that Cachedrone unarchived "the cache despite his reluctance" and I am to remove the offending text. Unarchiving to me seems to be a step in the process, not part of a compromise. To me, a compromise would be something like my porposal, simply that I could leave the text in this year and remove it from subsequent events. However, that isn't the case here. I will move on though. The reassurance I received is that Nicole stated "We are also working with CacheDrone and the other 200+ reviewers to take a step further and work towards being more consistent". By stating this to me and my relaying it to others, we can hope to achieve consistency in the near future when publishing events. We can also hold them to account should such an occasion rise again. I hope that Groundspeak, CacheDrone and others will take note of the failure to provide consistent application of the guidelines throughout this "game" and truly work toward repairing the damage it has caused to many of the "players". This has been a long standing issue that needs resolution. In the end, the event will take place which is good news. Just for the record, any additional toys collected will be donated to charity I think I can say that here, right?

I've reproposed an actual compromise. Just waiting for a final response from that.

Go find boxes of crap in the woods then. Why bother posting if you have nothing of value to add?

I've made a further request as I don't feel there is any compromise. Doing what they say isn't a compromise in my books. I'll wait for a response to that request before doing anything.

I'll not enable it until I have my response to Groundspeak about the "compromise" resolved.

I agree 100% . I, being the CO, am not discussing the children missing out. I am arguing that the general rule being applied to my cache isn't a valid application. Indeed, the line has no bearing on if the children get presents. Having the event and giving the left overs to charity is exactly what I would like to do. I see no reason to leave the line out though.

I agree. I don't know why this is such a big deal. Delete the text and make an announcement at the event. OR, take your ball and go home, which is the option I see the CO has chosen. And that's disappointing because no children will benefit from this now, and I don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewer. You can blame me, that is fine. I prefer to stand up for what I believe in, rather than bow to pressure. I have done nothing wrong.

By the way, this was the ruling I was presented with yet the rule states this It does not say that "no aspect of a listing can support charity". My cache is not soliciting. It is not posted for any charitable agenda and is certainly a "light and enjoyable family-friendly" event. I would suggest that the rules state that the listing can mention what I do with any leftover items, including donating them, as long as I am not soliciting. The majority of the event has nothing to do with this and can therefore not possibly be perceived as being posted for any charitable agenda.

This is not the first time this has happened. We all remember the link to the menu fiasco. It is very important for me to stand up for things I believe in. If it causes me to lose something I have had for many years, then so be it. It is more important that I stand up until I can't stand anymore, rather than just roll over and give up. Other than the reviewer believing they are correct, I have yet to see any actual reasoning behind the decision. So I have escalated it to the next level. I will be donating the left over gifts to charity whether they like it or not. I will not raffle them as the reviewer suggested. It is not his place to tell me what to do with the gifts. I see no reason to remove the text as it does not violate the rules provided. Sadly, I may not be the only one unhappy with the results.

Thanks for your input. I have escalated it to above the reviewer. If they wish to concur with their volunteer, then I can clearly state that I disagree with the rules and I will figure something out. However, I have some hope left in humanity that others will see what a farce the application of the rules in this case are and will overturn the so called ruling.

I am pursuing it with Groundspeak now. @thebruce0 - that is why some have resorted to simply putting a time on the cache event page and nothing else. I suspect though even the time could be construed as having an agenda.

but would you agree that the cache itself is not posted for any charitable agenda? Does it solicit? Within the cache it merely states what I would do with the excess. By the definition provided by Groundspeak itself, I am not breaking any rules. The reviewer in this case has decided to take it upon himself to bend the definitions to suit his needs.

I'd be willing to remove the word "local" since it might construe an agenda to provide to a charity within a specified radius. Suppose I could remove the word "after " as well since that precludes any charities who might be only open during the specific event time and date, therefore providing an agenda. "Extra" could also be removed since my agenda there might be to be specific on which gifts should be given.

The part you forgot to mention RCA777 is where it was quite clearly indicated that the cache was not breaking any of the specified rules. I never said it was for a good cause. I merely stated excess would be donated to a charity. This does not indicate an agenda. An agenda would be if people were donated specifically towards the charity. They are not. They are giving toys to the children attending the event. After that I merely stated what would happen to the rest. Stating fact is against the rules now?

So, part one is done Cachedrone. Follow through on the second request as well please. Delete me or have your supervisor contact me. I will also go through the appeals process, but since I have requested directly for your supervisor to contact me, I would expect the customer service rules to apply here and that you would not block that request.

Hilarious. Maybe a better wording will be "any extra toys will be blown up in a dumpster in front of 20 screaming kids on their birthdays." Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity. Or maybe it is just this one reveiwer. Course, previous actions by this reviewer would set precedent in their books. As I mentioned in my latest, please ensure your supervisor contacts me.

I know I sent the email, so I went back and checked.. yep, I did.. just to the wrong email address. Oh well. Next year. to ashland@gmail.com date Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 9:12 AM subject 2011 Holiday Mission DOH!