Sileny Jizda

What cache is it? I'd love to add it to my list of "to do's" when I head back to Texas to visit the folks. It's people like that I respond, "Sure, I'll call the cops right now for you. What's you address?" "Tonight" is relative in Texas. If memory serves me it most likely wasn't even dark out yet.

You'll need to read the log for a TB that was in there. It's got some of what they said. Maura's Flower Power

Actually yes. Regardless of the information they were given they were intent on saying something illegal was associated with it as well. First said they thought it was a bomb, TOOK it INSIDE their office. Then they said it had evidence of drug activity. Not too bright. We mark all of our containers. The hides are a different issue. We like to use what is there for blending. It's a shade bit more than bushes and rocks too. What happen? Your cache get busted by the Keystone Cops? Not one of ours but one in our area and one of the first that we found. Despite the container being chock full of wooden nickels from the place itself and having properly identifying notes they still tried to slap the cuffs on it. The correspondence with them on the cache page and through email was less than professional as well. GC6B1B

Actually yes. Regardless of the information they were given they were intent on saying something illegal was associated with it as well. First said they thought it was a bomb, TOOK it INSIDE their office. Then they said it had evidence of drug activity. Not too bright. We mark all of our containers. The hides are a different issue. We like to use what is there for blending. It's a shade bit more than bushes and rocks too.

If you used that in every case in these forums there would be a lot less topics to read. The countless micro/lame/etc threads that are created every week would be an automatic lock.

Just found that the other day in Second Life. Looks interesting when we're not looking for the real thing.

Given the double speak, broad definitions, lack of consistency, and wagon circling going on in this thread I'm more apt to side on that of the original poster. It's rather easy to see, as posted in this thread, what agendas would elicit or promote illegal activities. It's only as difficult as you make it and apparently, TPTB are choosing to make things difficult in an effort to keep the broad definitions that are obviously the issues many cachers run into and would like clear cut answers on. Because someone gives resistance does not automatically place them in the wrong. If that were the case there would be an awful lot of innocent people in jails these days. Good thing to know you were not around during the founding of this county with those viewpoints. We'd all be speaking British.

No, you are not. You are making the choice to not change the listing. Groundspeak is making the choice to archive the listing. If the individual felt to archive the listing they would have done so themselves. Groundspeak pushed the button, not the individual. Then again, I'm not one that deals in double talk and find it a tool of those that don't have the brass to back up their own choice to enforce a broad rule or guideline for the sake of not upsetting the masses. In addition, I don't make it a point to try and be politically correct either as I've said before.

Looks like I have an answer to one of my questions. Groundspeak uses double talk to throw the 'user chose to archive' in their post. At least they could have the brass to take responsibility to say 'we archived this cache due to terms and guidelines violations. Then again that would be asking too much since we can't get a set definition on exactly what is or isn't an agenda.

I think the policy and and guidelines are clear at this point. You pay Groundspeak enough money and they'll look the other way and ignore their own rules. Yeap, that about sums it up. Money talks and road apples well, you get the idea. That being the case I wonder what it would cost to allow SOS Support Our Soldiers Cache types since CITO has it's own category and is an obvious agenda. I know there are enough people here that would be glad to donate for the cause. We would.

If the thread offends you so much why do you continue to read it? If it violated guidelines they would close it. Otherwise it's discussion is no different than the other countless threads that have gone 10 pages long or longer.

I just know what I've been told by several individuals and have had no reason to doubt them. Also, more than one person has the same impression in regards to placing caches and being able to keep their active caches as well if an issue was found with one that had been placed and later complained about. I don't think it's that far of a stretch either considering the comments made here basically telling people if they don't like it to pound sand. Take it as you will. I've had dealings only with Keystone and I've found him to be fair but firm in all of our dealings. I've only one cache that I still, to this day, have no real understanding over why it had to be changed to be deemed acceptable to him. The reasoning wasn't consistent either. I won't go into details over it because this is neither the time nor place and I made the needed changes in order to have it published. As a result of that one cache, though, I've erred on the side of making cache descriptions as plain as possible lest I should offend anyone. Does that make it right? Nope not by a long shot. I personally don't agree with letting 0.5% of the population dictate how the majority should think, speak, feel, or do. In this instance it's clearly the majority that didn't have an issue with the cache the original poster had published by a reviewer that deemed it acceptable to begin with after slight alteration. Using the OP's instance as precedent then virtually every cache would be archived because there was a reason/agenda the placement was made to begin with. Either change the rules or be more specific as to what cannot be published. Being vague does nothing but cause more frustration.

Seems more like 'dealt with' than resolved in my opinion. As long as other agenda based caches exist and the rules have been altered to allow them or they have been removed then there has been no true resolution.

My issue with this situation is that the broad terms used to paint the 'guidelines' as they are presently. What is so difficult about saying No XYZ, it's done many places. The facts are if they enforced 'agenda' to the letter there would be no caches anywhere. Cachers place lamp post micros because they like the restaurant or store alot of the time. There is an agenda. They place them in parks to draw attention to the park. There is an agenda, some you even have to pay to gain entry. I think it comes down to the money aspect of the issue because of the exceptions made at the end of the day. Otherwise, the descriptions would only include "Tupperware container containing; XYZ" not exactly a lot of interest in that now is there but hey it's all in the interest of keeping things 'light and fun'. Funny because out of the caches we've found to date I've yet to be converted to any religion, had an overwhelming desire to become an enviromentalist or enlist in any military foreign or domestic. It was most likely done out of frustration of dealing with Groundspeak or a fear that all of what she had placed would be archived. You'd be surprised how many times I've heard that from other people when it comes to theirs caches and situations. While it or may not be the case is is a thought and belief that people have.

But don't people who use Adblock "hate Freedom"? Nope, I just hate advertisements.

Those are Google ads. They respond to text in the topic. Write to Google. Or become a Premium Member and never see the Google ads. Or you could download Firefox and use Adblock.

What about changing the rules? After all it was just said above that discussion in here is what brings on change. Or is that just a farce as well? I do have to give you credit, nice way to put the old expression "sit down, shut up, we'll do as we please if you don't like it there's the door." However, that's the exact reasoning that causes this same issue to come up time and time again.

Which directly contradicts what you tried to imply in your previous response and shows that money is the ultimate deciding factor in what can be overlooked and allowed. You assume more than you should. The search function works well in this forum and having spoken to other cachers that have been such much longer that have seen and spoken on the same issues only further backs up what I've seen here in the past few days and what I have seen myself in the time that we have been caching. A person doesn't have to have been 'here' for years and hold a high post or find count to know what has been going on when they can read it in black and white and hear previous cachers experiences. Rules can be changed and altered just as easy as guidelines. The legal system is an excellent example where they can be hard set guidelines and rules for direction that can be changed and altered when demands warrant the changes. What it appears is that ambiguity is embraced because of the freedom of "if we just don't like it we don't have to say why" is easier to dole out. I don't see the difficulty of say what we can or cannot say or write in a description other than GS is trying to avoid some sort of legal action. If that's not the case perhaps you can give a better reason of why they can't tell us specifics other than 'they own it it's their decision' or 'because we don't like rules.' Because if those are the only things you can come up with the guidelines as they are referred to are more likened to rules than actual guidelines themselves.

Money based gain. I would seriously doubt that. I've known the people at GC.com for a long time now, and I feel confident that it was a noble cause on their part. El Diablo When you look at the exceptions that are made to the rules in regards to commercialism and agenda's they gained financially in one form or another for those exceptions. A matter of do what we say and not what we do comes to mind. Then again Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Hamilton, and Grant have a great way of making people change their minds when they speak loudly enough. Without consistency you have dissent. Exactly what is happening now. With ambiguity you have questions. Precisely what has been occurring for some time. People want to see the restrictions in writing and I don't see that as all that unreasonable.

Money based gain.

It still seems to me that exceptions are made when it comes down to money. Give enough green enough rules can be overlooked. I wouldn't expect a mass archival though as it would only draw more attention to something that appears will eventually be swept under the rug. I would like to see the hard set group of phrases we are not allowed to use. To allow for such ambiguity only leaves the doors and windows open to, "because I don't like it" mentality.

They didn't make any money off the cache, it's description, or it's location so in this case it appears so. I suggest they have pre-written, approved, politically correct cache descriptions for us to choose from when typing our pages out. Makes it easier on us and the non paid reviewers.

Interesting. I'm curious about the reasoning behind the request by the owner. In this thread they seemed as if they wanted to keep it. As anyone knows though a log can be written to say anything regardless of the real thoughts. I'm smelling something here and it resembles road apples. Makes me wonder if any of the other 1000's of 'agenda' caches will be archived as well. (Edited to add.) From what I can glean from everything in this thread Groundspeak is okay with agenda based Travel Bugs and Geocoins. I can only deduct from that logical line of thinking that as long as they are making money off an agenda based item it is more than acceptable it's encouraged. With the exception of the Aryan brotherhood, the KKK, or the Black Panthers or any other controversial group. Only then they'll use the "we don't like it you can't make it" company line. With a geocache they don't make any money whether it's published or not so your 'agenda' isn't approved for use. It comes down to the almighty dollar making something otherwise unacceptable completely allowable. CITO, well it's okay because they have merchandise they sell in support of it. Thus it's permissible due to the money aspect of things. I believe the expression is money talks and well, road apples rot.

After reading this one and thinking it over I can only say the likelihood of any of the groups mentioned actually placing a cache would be nill. If this cache gets the ax then I see a whole bunch getting the ax as well. If not appearances would be called into question. If I had a quarter for every time I found one of our caches tossed or not replaced as it should be I'd have unlimited gas money to geocache as I saw fit. From what I've observed it usually is a result of numbers runners. A pity they can't slow down and enjoy the game. Then again, the wife and i do caching to relax.

Then you're back to what was mentioned before. What is the politically correct form of a cache description. As for myself, I'm not politically correct by any imagination. I have a sense of humor. At times it can be twisted. While I don't go out of my way to be politically correct I don't go out of my way and step on toes either. Some folks hide caches their way I hide them my way. A few of mine can be seen from over 350' while your driving. You want to know something? Their kid friendly and kids love them. That's what they are there for. You want to hike in the woods we have one of those as well and it's not kid friendly. We don't hide all one type or style. Someone has a problem with them that's their issue. Frankly, if someone gave me that kind of attitude and claimed the smiley I'd be tempted to delete it. They think it's a waste of time to begin with why log it and claim a find? Talk about a walking, talking, breathing, contradiction. After all it isn't about the numbers right?