egami

Exactly.

A double standard would be the same approver allowing one and disallowing another similar cache. How can Joe in Sacramento allowing cache A and Bill in New Jersey allowing cache Z be a double standard? I'd have to see examples of this double standard to be able to assert such a claim... And you aren't willing to divulge the caches, so there's not much we can do here.. No, it wouldn't because ultimately this went to GS and GS is allowing the same caches.

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda? My agenda is pointing out their double standard. Your challenge and my response to query on that exact verbage only solidifies my point. How is it a double standard? If you report the cache in question, I'm sure it will meet the same scrutiny that the OP's cache did.. Why don't you try it and see what happens... The real question is, what would be the point of that? It's a double standard to allow and approve other caches on the same, or similar, topic that meet the same criteria. If I disallow my kids to walk in the door with a rated "R" movie in their hands ready to watch because they are too young and yet there is a shelf full of them readily available on a daily basis that have been there for months, maybe years, then that a double standard. They are doing the same thing "you can't do this unless you remove the wording that is used in multiple other approved caches" and yet they have ZERO intent to be consistent. And, that's not the half of it, because as I stated...there are multiple similar caches that are just not on as touchy of subjects, say Soccer facilities for one example I found easily, that are also approved. You're right...one could slip through the cracks, but there isn't one...there are hundreds of similar caches on various topics relatively easily found using basic search functionality.

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda? My agenda is pointing out their double standard. Your challenge and my response to query on that exact verbage only solidifies my point.

And, as far as other caches...just so a search on the text in question, for starters...

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache. Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried. There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

This isn't about their rules or guidelines and them being able to do whatever they want. We all are full aware of the fact that if they wanted they could fully endorse Hitler. The point is the principle behind their perceived double standard. They are taking actions on a cache that are hypocritical when compared to caches of other topics. It isn't about their rights. They have the right to do whatever the please. It's about their integrity and consistency, or lack thereof.

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. PLEASE! Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description... Let me do it another way...see if you like this: Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc... Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it! The problem I have with this is that there are already in existence hundreds of variations of caches like this...yet, they choose this topic to make their point. There is a huge double standard in practice. GS didn't choose this one...it wasn't singled out! SOMEONE reported this cache and the PTB were then required to take action....no double standards, no conspiracy... I didn't say they chose the cache...I said they chose the "topic", and really on that note my point still stands. There is a double standard when you take action against one perceived agenda and yet there are hundreds out there on other topics that remain untouched.

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. PLEASE! Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description... Let me do it another way...see if you like this: Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc... Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it! The problem I have with this is that there are already in existence hundreds of variations of caches like this...yet, they choose this topic to make their point. There is a huge double standard in practice.

That's actually not all that much to carry. Although, we carry lock n lock containers for replacement versus temporary containers. Items I'll carry or have in the truck: - towel, blow dryer - camo tape - gorilla glue, epoxy packets - pocket knife, utility multi-tool - log book, pen/pencil - baggies I know we have a bunch of other little things I am not thinking about.

We don't have an abundance of poisonous snakes here in Iowa. Although, we do have some rattlers. Mostly I've seen Bullheads when out caching or doing similar activities.

This "agenda" thing is the real crux of the issue. It's been blown clear out of proportion from its intended purpose which originally was, as you can see in the guidelines, to hedge against "solicitation". The whole "agenda" portion has been blown out of proportion by a number of people here to be its own new rule to enable "PC police".

Sure there is... reviewers have lives too, and if I want to go hide a cache on a Sunday morning with my kids, why should I have to wait for a reply that might not get to me for a day or two? Technically, couldn't a 'cheater' use the reviewer to find the location just the same? What's the difference? All they'd have to do is say they are placing caches and need some coordinates checked. If someone is going to 'cheat', they are going to find a way regardless if we have this feature or not. It's incorporated as part of the Reviewing process now. You act as if it's putting them out. You don't have to physically place a cache before you submit it. I don't. And, no, you can't cheat through querying the Reviewer on a single coordinate like you could having open access to checking multiple coordinates.

Not really. I am talking about waiting for a reviewer. This step is taken care of for you. You don't need control of it. Yes, it'd be nice to know for certain ahead of time, but there really isn't a need for it.

Well so be it... I'd rather someone who is 'cheating' lose out on a little fun than have to jump through hoops to find out if I can place a cache in a certain location or not. You have to jump through that hoop now though.

It's called the "Reviewer". You can't really do a web-based coordinate search because people would utilize it as a cheating mechanism.

Sorry, but that's a cop out in my opinion. You feel strongly enough to not support the site, but will still use it to your advantage - that's hypocritical at the least. If you really want to make a statement, completley dissociate yourself form the group and don't use the site at all. My guess is that most won't because they love caching too much and the commentary is just chest-pounding. I realize this is getting a bit off topic, so I won't continue to engage in this portion of the discussion. Hypocritical, by definition, is professing a belief that you personally do not follow. Utilizing the assets of an organization, company or individual that you disagree with, free of charge, isn't really hypocritical.

I carry gloves. I don't like to ruin my MANicure.

I thought everybody had seen that movie. Then again, I thought everybody had seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

They will not!

Oh, come on now RK, you know darn good and well it wasn't an idle Tuesday afternoon. That cacher was at one of their "activist" meetings!

I don't know...from the way the report read the person who called it in didn't even get a look at the container. They seemed to react purely based on what they saw the cacher doing. Not that that's a bad suggestion...just that it may not of changed this particular outcome. Yep, I agree, the cacher's movements/behavior is what caught folk's attention. How many of our decon containers have gotten muggled with no bomb squad intervention? It's the cacher's behavior that mostly contributes to this type of reaction/response. Our bomb squad blew up a cache in my neighborhood this past weekend, also based on cacher behavior. I tell new cachers not to act as if they're hiding something. Once you make a decision to find something, do it deliberately; look over your shoulder only after you find the cache; that way, you can go explain your actions to anyone watching you. Lucky for us, our bomb intervention did not make the news. But a sheriff deputy did leave his business card on the pole with a request he/she be called. Wow, that cache was short lived.

My vote is to enforce the rule the way it's currently written which specifically isn't about agendas alone, but rather using cache pages to solicit. I don't think simple mentioning of such things automatically equates to "having an agenda".

I mailed one to my cousin because he is mechanically impaired.

The other area you can run into problems if not careful are like state parks and federal land. USFW (US Fish and Wildlife), for example, has a strict no caching policy. In those places it's a good idea to check with local cachers, local reviewers and local land managers regarding policies.