Jump to content

We'll Never Forget #1 - Rejected because it supports an agenda ?


4America
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

"Location: Alabama, United States

honeychile retracted We'll Never Forget 9/11 #11 (Not Published) (Traditional Cache) at 9/12/2006

 

Log Date: 9/12/2006

I have just been advised that this cache and the entire series supports an agenda and is not permitted. I'm very sorry for the confusion. To appeal this decision, please write to appeals@Groundspeak.com.

 

honeychile Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer"

 

What? I have sent an email to the appeals account, if you support this cause, please send one also!

 

appeals@Groundspeak.com

 

4America

Edited by 4America
Link to comment

Being patriotic is supporting an agenda? :laughing:

 

So I suppose that the Heroes of Flight 93 cache is an "agenda" cache and will need to be shut down as well. And about every other cache posted in the other "We'll Never Forget #1" thread.... and wasn't there a mod that wanted to put one out too?

 

Leave it to Groundspeak..... :huh:

Link to comment

A simple keyword search for "9/11" returned 22 active caches remembering the events of 9/11. A number of the series are already published.

 

I see no reason for these caches to be pulled.

 

Patriotic returned 39...

 

Memorial returned 892...

 

Wonder if they are all going to get rejected also?

Link to comment

That means you need to ask permission. Look at the guidelines. Groundspeak is the one that says yes or no. Not the reviewer. It wasn't archived just unlisted. write and ask permission. But its not your cache so maybe the owner should? Mass email wont matter what will work is the cache owner writing and asking for permission.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

 

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning."

Link to comment

I will be happy to abide by any decision that Groundspeak makes. It is just a geocache. It could be called "The Silver Comet Run For Cache" for all I care. I am a patriotic person and did not see an agenda. I am far from perfect and I am big enough to admit a mistake if I made one. Geez, it isn't the end of America if a cache is a problem. I would hope we are bigger than that.

 

Rather than getting all mad and upset, perhaps we should wait until Groundspeak has some time to respond to the appeals note sent? I don't see a big deal in waiting 24 hours or so to see what they have to say. I would bet most of them are at home enjoying the evening right now.

Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

 

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning."

 

Reviewers are people that have independent thoughts. They also abide by the guidelines that GC sets. Reviewers are a part of our community. They are everyday cachers just like you and me.

 

The reviewer you are talking about is mtn-man, There is no house cleaning to be done there. He's impeachable in everything he does. You can't find a finer cacher or reviewer.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

 

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning."

 

Reviewers are people that have independent thoughts. They also abide by the guidelines that GC sets. Reviewers are a part of our community. They are everyday cachers just like you and me.

 

The reviewer you are talking about is mtn-man, There is no house cleaning to be done there. He's impeachable in everything he does. You can't find a finer cacher or reviewer.

 

El Diablo

 

I wasn't talking about housecleaning reviewers. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

There are many caches that deal with "agendas". That's what I was talking about. If they're going to have silly rules, then they'd better enforce them across the board.

Link to comment

I will be happy to abide by any decision that Groundspeak makes. It is just a geocache. It could be called "The Silver Comet Run For Cache" for all I care. I am a patriotic person and did not see an agenda. I am far from perfect and I am big enough to admit a mistake if I made one. Geez, it isn't the end of America if a cache is a problem. I would hope we are bigger than that.

 

Rather than getting all mad and upset, perhaps we should wait until Groundspeak has some time to respond to the appeals note sent? I don't see a big deal in waiting 24 hours or so to see what they have to say. I would bet most of them are at home enjoying the evening right now.

 

My appologies. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but a point to be made that Groundspeak has no firm "Agenda" policy and it seems to be randomly implemented.

 

You are correct on waiting for a firm response from Groundspeak.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

 

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning."

 

Reviewers are people that have independent thoughts. They also abide by the guidelines that GC sets. Reviewers are a part of our community. They are everyday cachers just like you and me.

 

The reviewer you are talking about is mtn-man, There is no house cleaning to be done there. He's impeachable in everything he does. You can't find a finer cacher or reviewer.

 

El Diablo

 

I wasn't talking about housecleaning reviewers. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

There are many caches that deal with "agendas". That's what I was talking about. If they're going to have silly rules, then they'd better enforce them across the board.

 

I'm glad to hear that. What you consider silly actually has some thought behind it. Like mtn-man said...lets give them time to review the caches in question before we jump to conclusions like I did in the above post.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
The reviewer you are talking about is mtn-man, There is no house cleaning to be done there. He's impeachable in everything he does. You can't find a finer cacher or reviewer.

:laughing:

 

I appreciate your kind words. It is the way you handle things that make you what you are. And I am not all that. I'm just a guy and a geocacher and love to play with my techno-toys like any of us here. I am no better than any other volunteer on this site. We have a heck of a group and it is an honor to work with these folks on a daily basis.

Link to comment

Looks like is was a case of misinformation. This was just posted on the cache page by the reviewer.

 

"Please forgive me. I misunderstood and misspoke earlier regarding the series. However, I am unable to publish this cache because it appears to support an agenda and must be approved by Groundspeak."

 

It really pays to not overreact too quickly. This was much ado about nothing.

Link to comment

My cache, GCY95G We'll Never Forget 9/11 #11, was shut down with the following note.

Please forgive me. I misunderstood and misspoke earlier regarding the series. However, I am unable to publish this cache because it appears to support an agenda and must be approved by Groundspeak.

 

With regret,

 

honeychile (honeychile@gmail.com)

Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer

 

Interesting that my Reviewer and Mtn-Man, two very respected members of the Reviewer community, were reversed... was it the series that offended someone or a particular listing?

 

If it was a single listing, we interested in the series shouldn't be shut down. If it's the series, a simple edit to remove "#11" from my listing's name should make it an acceptable stand-alone cache.

 

The text of my listing reads:

 

We'll Never Forget 9/11

 

It's burned into our psyche. Men, women, children. Innocence attacked.

 

Disastrous. Disgusting.

 

Yet out of that arose a new patriotism, a new appreciation for who we are and what we have.

 

Heroes. Men and women just doing what they do. We've developed a new appreciation for the heroes among us... those who serve and protect, whose names you'll never know until disaster befalls them while they look out for us.

 

This cache is dedicated to that renewal of faith, hope and patriotism arising from the events of that day.

 

I can't see how expressing appreciation for the renewed feeling of unity among us, appreciation for the heroes among us, is in any way pushing an agenda.

 

My page promotes nothing, links to nothing, makes no political statement.

 

This cache was listed and then de-listed.

 

Even if others of the series might somehow be unnacceptable my wording is different and should be considered on it's own merit.

 

Please reconsider this decision.

 

Ed

 

EDIT: CC appeals@Groundspeak.com

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

So, who's gonna start the "Mtn-Man gets impeached" thread? :laughing:

(sorry...had to say it)

 

Back on topic: Something we as local cachers need to recognize is that Geocaching is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. based hobby. 9/11 had a significant impact on just about everybody in this great country of ours, but promoting memorials to that awful tragedy would certainly constitute an agenda by any reasonable definition. While I happen to support that particular agenda, I can understand why Groundspeak might want to remain neutral. The world is our playground. As the soon to be impeached one said, after all is said and done, it's just a cache. Let's go find it! :huh:

Link to comment
Back on topic: Something we as local cachers need to recognize is that Geocaching is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. based hobby. 9/11 had a significant impact on just about everybody in this great country of ours, but promoting memorials to that awful tragedy would certainly constitute an agenda by any reasonable definition.

 

This is the crux of the matter. Consider the following theoretical caches. Clearly some people would be very much in favor of one of them and very much against the other.

  • I Support the War in Iraq Cache
  • I Support the Anti-War Movement Cache

The real issue is, and the issue our founding fathers considered important enough to delay starting the USA until the constitution was ammended, should the government be in the business of deciding which private matter (in that case, religion) is right.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

could be restated in this case as

 

Groundspeak shall approve no cache respecting an agenda

 

Now this may make them look silly at times (like with the Katrina caches) but it gets them out of the business of deciding which causes to support. And as a global business which enjoys a monopoly position they really do need to take stand. If they permit certain agendas, well, they are going to have to permit other agendas and agendas that might not nearly be as popular. Do you really want to see a group sue Groundspeak so that they can have their "I Support Racism" cache? I certainly don't.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Back on topic: Something we as local cachers need to recognize is that Geocaching is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. based hobby. 9/11 had a significant impact on just about everybody in this great country of ours, but promoting memorials to that awful tragedy would certainly constitute an agenda by any reasonable definition. While I happen to support that particular agenda, I can understand why Groundspeak might want to remain neutral.

 

From Wikipedia:

The political agenda is a set of issues and policies laid out by either the executive or cabinet in government which tries to dictate existing and near-future political news and debate. The political agenda while shaped by government can be influenced by grass-roots support from party activists at events such as a party conference and can even be shaped by non governmental activist groups which have a political aim. Non-governmental organisations such as Make Poverty History and environmental groups such as Green Peace have been able to shape the political agenda at international conferences. [1]

 

Increasingly the mass media can have an effect in shaping the political agenda through its news coverage of news stories. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver was able to shape the political agenda by running a series of programmes which criticised the quality of school dinners in the United Kingdom. This led to government action by education secretary Ruth Kelly to improve the quality of meals which would not have occurred if it was not for such prominent and vocal criticism. [2]

 

A political party can be described as “shaping the political agenda” or “setting the political agenda” if its promotion of certain issues gains prominent news coverage, for example at election time a political party wants to promote is polices and gain prominent news coverage in order to increase its support.

 

Under that definition I can't see how my listing, reviewed independantly, pushes any agenda.

 

As far as:

after all is said and done, it's just a cache. Let's go find it
, that's what I would say to Groundspeak! It's just a cache, no different than any other. Allow folks to go find it!

 

As Mtn-Man pointed out, not allowing a cache, even a series, is no big deal.

 

My issue here is that it looks like a knee-jerk reaction - someone complained about a listing or the series and they all got de-listed instead of being independantly reviewed. If that is in fact the case then it points to a greater problem.

 

The fact that 'Agenda' has never been adequately defined and even the Reviewers don't clearly understand it is a problem as well.

 

This has come up before; I hope Groundspeak will take the time this time to define 'agenda' to avoid such issues in the future.

 

Ed

Link to comment
Back on topic: Something we as local cachers need to recognize is that Geocaching is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. based hobby. 9/11 had a significant impact on just about everybody in this great country of ours, but promoting memorials to that awful tragedy would certainly constitute an agenda by any reasonable definition. While I happen to support that particular agenda, I can understand why Groundspeak might want to remain neutral.

 

From Wikipedia:

The political agenda is a set of issues and policies laid out by either the executive or cabinet in government which tries to dictate existing and near-future political news and debate. The political agenda while shaped by government can be influenced by grass-roots support from party activists at events such as a party conference and can even be shaped by non governmental activist groups which have a political aim. Non-governmental organisations such as Make Poverty History and environmental groups such as Green Peace have been able to shape the political agenda at international conferences. [1]

 

Increasingly the mass media can have an effect in shaping the political agenda through its news coverage of news stories. Celebrity chef Jamie Oliver was able to shape the political agenda by running a series of programmes which criticised the quality of school dinners in the United Kingdom. This led to government action by education secretary Ruth Kelly to improve the quality of meals which would not have occurred if it was not for such prominent and vocal criticism. [2]

 

A political party can be described as “shaping the political agenda” or “setting the political agenda” if its promotion of certain issues gains prominent news coverage, for example at election time a political party wants to promote is polices and gain prominent news coverage in order to increase its support.

 

Under that definition I can't see how my listing, reviewed independantly, pushes any agenda.

 

As far as:

after all is said and done, it's just a cache. Let's go find it
, that's what I would say to Groundspeak! It's just a cache, no different than any other. Allow folks to go find it!

 

As Mtn-Man pointed out, not allowing a cache, even a series, is no big deal.

 

My issue here is that it looks like a knee-jerk reaction - someone complained about a listing or the series and they all got de-listed instead of being independantly reviewed. If that is in fact the case then it points to a greater problem.

 

The fact that 'Agenda' has never been adequately defined and even the Reviewers don't clearly understand it is a problem as well.

 

This has come up before; I hope Groundspeak will take the time this time to define 'agenda' to avoid such issues in the future.

 

Ed

 

Before you get carried away with the knee jerk. #11 was the ONLY one the was dealt with. #1 was NEVER archived or touched in anyway. The OP was over reacting to the action on your cache. So relax. and Let Groundspeak open up and deal with your issue. Yours is the ONLY one that was affected. The reviewer corrected herself on the Misinformation she was given regarding the series. It is ONLY your cache. Had the reviewer wanted to it would have been archived. instead your cache was unlisted to allow you to get permission from Groundspeak. Since they are the ones that The guidelines say should be consulted before the cache is listed. Your reviewer was nice enough to unlist it. Other reviewers would have archived it and still told you to get permission. You contacted Groundspeak, You did write appeals@geocaching.com like the reviewer asked didn't you? Now wait and see what they say.

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't start the thread and didn't notice that the OP was talking about only my listing. I thought it was about the series.

 

That, to me makes it very interesting - what's different about my listing?

 

As far as your warning:

Before you get carried away with the knee jerk. #11 was the ONLY one the was dealt with.

I don't think I am carried away with anything! Please don't pick words to take issue with, take the whole in context.

 

What i said was

My issue here is that it looks like a knee-jerk reaction - someone complained about a listing or the series and they all got de-listed instead of being independantly reviewed. If that is in fact the case then it points to a greater problem.

I thought it was the whole series, and said IF that were the case...

 

Anyhoo, my Reviewer and I are on good terms, her email to me was thankful and appreciative, she is well aware that my issue is not with her or any Reviewer, and I have submitted the issue to Groundspeak for further review.

 

Ed

Link to comment

 

Before you get carried away with the knee jerk. #11 was the ONLY one the was dealt with. #1 was NEVER archived or touched in anyway. The OP was over reacting to the action on your cache. So relax. and Let Groundspeak open up and deal with your issue. Yours is the ONLY one that was affected. The reviewer corrected herself on the Misinformation she was given regarding the series. It is ONLY your cache. Had the reviewer wanted to it would have been archived. instead your cache was unlisted to allow you to get permission from Groundspeak. Since they are the ones that The guidelines say should be consulted before the cache is listed. Your reviewer was nice enough to unlist it. Other reviewers would have archived it and still told you to get permission. You contacted Groundspeak, You did write appeals@geocaching.com like the reviewer asked didn't you? Now wait and see what they say.

 

Update:

 

It appears that the cache owner needs to request the appeal, and my case for an appeal was closed.

 

I receieved this from "Appeals."

 

--start

"I'm glad you have an interest in this cache. However it is the cache owner we need to be dealing with not you. I am sure that you will hear about the outcome when a decision is made. Until then you will have to wait and see.

 

Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns.

 

Thanks,

 

Michael

Groundspeak - The Language of Location"

--end

 

For the record, I sent the inital appeal in because I received a notice from the reviewer that it was not approved.

 

4America

Edited by 4America
Link to comment

I am a little confused....

 

I thought it was stated that the only reason it was pulled was lack of permission?

or

Is it both lack of permission and the reviewer realized it fell into that "agenda" part of the guidelines?

 

In my experience, with the exception of one instance, it's easier to say you're sorry than to get a response from Groundspeak. :laughing:

 

I'll save judgement in this case because we don't know all the facts.

 

I doubt that Groundspeak as an entity is sitting there with its arms folded saying, "You didn't say, Mother may I? So no cache for you bad cacher." It would be apalling to have to jump through that extra hoop and for what?

 

The problem has to be with the text of the cache, or a link, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that's the case.

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

Nearly every cache supports an agenda in some way. If I place a cache near an overlook, my agenda is to get people out there to enjoy the view. My agenda for most of my cache placements is to introduce people to special areas and hopefully gain an appreciation for them.

 

The question is, when does an agenda cross the line and become unacceptable per the guidelines? If I place a cache called "Choose Life" and include links to pro-life orgainzations that is an obvious violation. I think most people would agree with that.

 

Memorial caches also promote an agenda, but they are regularly published. These are caches placed in memory of a certain person, sometimes a geocacher, sometimes not. Many "agenda promoting" caches are published every day.

 

The difference between which "agendas" are published and which ones aren't often comes down to how the agenda is presented on the cache page. If the bulk of the text is related to the agenda and especially if there are links to outside websites that support the agenda, that would be an obvious no-go. But if the agenda is mentioned briefly and in passing, then it might pass muster.

 

Looking at these published We'll Never Forget caches, there is some difference in the way they are presented on the individual pages. Some pages appear to be agenda heavy and some are much more subtle.

 

Whether or not a cache is considered an agenda is a fine line and that line is not a distinct one. I think most reviewers go by the Potter Stewart standard in that they "know it when they see it" - but being individuals they are not going to all see things the same way.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Back on topic: Something we as local cachers need to recognize is that Geocaching is a global phenomenon, not just a U.S. based hobby. 9/11 had a significant impact on just about everybody in this great country of ours, but promoting memorials to that awful tragedy would certainly constitute an agenda by any reasonable definition.

 

This is the crux of the matter. Consider the following theoretical caches. Clearly some people would be very much in favor of one of them and very much against the other.

  • I Support the War in Iraq Cache
  • I Support the Anti-War Movement Cache

The real issue is, and the issue our founding fathers considered important enough to delay starting the USA until the constitution was ammended, should the government be in the business of deciding which private matter (in that case, religion) is right.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

 

could be restated in this case as

 

Groundspeak shall approve no cache respecting an agenda

 

Now this may make them look silly at times (like with the Katrina caches) but it gets them out of the business of deciding which causes to support. And as a global business which enjoys a monopoly position they really do need to take stand. If they permit certain agendas, well, they are going to have to permit other agendas and agendas that might not nearly be as popular. Do you really want to see a group sue Groundspeak so that they can have their "I Support Racism" cache? I certainly don't.

 

Paul

I think the fine-line difference for me is that these caches don't *support* anything. They just ask you to remember the day. To me, there is no agenda in remembering the day and the events. If you wanted to kill Americans that day, then you will remember it as a happy day. If you don't want to pick sides, then you can remember that it isn't your fight. I remember it as a sad day myself. There are no calls to ask anyone to go do anything to anybody, nor is there any supports shown for anyone or any side. There are no links to charity donations. There are no calls to support anything, just to remember. That is the fine line I see. You can remember the day in any way you wish and you can see the day for whatever you want.

 

Still, if they feel it should not be worded in that way, then I am fine with that. My recommendation is to hold off listing further caches at this time. I have one in MS on hold right now until I get direction. As I said, for mine personally, I am a bigger person than just one cache listing. I can easily change the description to make a generic "here is a piece of tupperware with goodies and a logbook" geocache.

 

Whoops, that would make it commercial wouldn't it. :laughing::huh:

Link to comment

I think the fine-line difference for me is that these caches don't *support* anything. They just ask you to remember the day. To me, there is no agenda in remembering the day and the events. If you wanted to kill Americans that day, then you will remember it as a happy day. If you don't want to pick sides, then you can remember that it isn't your fight. I remember it as a sad day myself. There are no calls to ask anyone to go do anything to anybody, nor is there any supports shown for anyone or any side. There are no links to charity donations. There are no calls to support anything, just to remember. That is the fine line I see. You can remember the day in any way you wish and you can see the day for whatever you want.

 

Still, if they feel it should not be worded in that way, then I am fine with that. My recommendation is to hold off listing further caches at this time. I have one in MS on hold right now until I get direction. As I said, for mine personally, I am a bigger person than just one cache listing. I can easily change the description to make a generic "here is a piece of tupperware with goodies and a logbook" geocache.

 

Whoops, that would make it commercial wouldn't it. :laughing::P

 

But here's a copy of the original Text: (sorry i'm not yet caught up on the whole quote thingy, so I'll do it the old fashioned way):

"We'll Never Forget 9/11

 

It's burned into our psyche. Men, women, children. Innocence attacked.

 

Disastrous. Disgusting.

 

Yet out of that arose a new patriotism, a new appreciation for who we are and what we have.

 

Heroes. Men and women just doing what they do. We've developed a new appreciation for the heroes among us... those who serve and protect, whose names you'll never know until disaster befalls them while they look out for us.

 

This cache is dedicated to that renewal of faith, hope and patriotism arising from the events of that day."

 

Everything up to "Disgusting" is an agenda. "innocence" "Disasterous" "disgusting" are clearly worded to have an impact on how you feel about that event. Happy, indifferent, sad, or whatver. I personally agree, but there are others who may not. Perhaps if it was worded a bit differently:

 

"It was a time that changed the United States forever. An attack from out of the blue that took so many lives...."

 

Nothing but the truth there. No agenda. Take it for what you will. Basically, lay off the adjectives and you're ok. :huh:

 

Ok....let the flaming begin..... :huh:

Link to comment

It is very sad when the modators and the reviewers are not on the same page. I do not see how this series supports an agenda. It is optional if you put a cache out and it is optional if you look for the cache. I just seen different posts on how the rules are read by different modators. The only thing the OP wanted was a good series of 9/11 caches. The bottom line of the WE'LL NEVER FORGET 9/11 is that is happened and it could happen again. I live in the brother of the fire service. I am a third generation firefighter and very proud. Their has been alot of history of lost lives that has been forgotten. Form the start of history to now. Before 9/11 the fire service and terrorism was not talked about or was behind the scenes. My vote is to keep the series going. I have asked to put one in Indiana and started a Bookmark list for the service. My words and opinions. Thank you for your time. :laughing:

Link to comment

I think the fine-line difference for me is that these caches don't *support* anything. They just ask you to remember the day. To me, there is no agenda in remembering the day and the events. If you wanted to kill Americans that day, then you will remember it as a happy day. If you don't want to pick sides, then you can remember that it isn't your fight. I remember it as a sad day myself. There are no calls to ask anyone to go do anything to anybody, nor is there any supports shown for anyone or any side. There are no links to charity donations. There are no calls to support anything, just to remember. That is the fine line I see. You can remember the day in any way you wish and you can see the day for whatever you want.

 

Still, if they feel it should not be worded in that way, then I am fine with that. My recommendation is to hold off listing further caches at this time. I have one in MS on hold right now until I get direction. As I said, for mine personally, I am a bigger person than just one cache listing. I can easily change the description to make a generic "here is a piece of tupperware with goodies and a logbook" geocache.

 

Whoops, that would make it commercial wouldn't it. :laughing::P

 

But here's a copy of the original Text: (sorry i'm not yet caught up on the whole quote thingy, so I'll do it the old fashioned way):

"We'll Never Forget 9/11

 

It's burned into our psyche. Men, women, children. Innocence attacked.

 

Disastrous. Disgusting.

 

Yet out of that arose a new patriotism, a new appreciation for who we are and what we have.

 

Heroes. Men and women just doing what they do. We've developed a new appreciation for the heroes among us... those who serve and protect, whose names you'll never know until disaster befalls them while they look out for us.

 

This cache is dedicated to that renewal of faith, hope and patriotism arising from the events of that day."

 

Everything up to "Disgusting" is an agenda. "innocence" "Disasterous" "disgusting" are clearly worded to have an impact on how you feel about that event. Happy, indifferent, sad, or whatver. I personally agree, but there are others who may not. Perhaps if it was worded a bit differently:

 

"It was a time that changed the United States forever. An attack from out of the blue that took so many lives...."

 

Nothing but the truth there. No agenda. Take it for what you will. Basically, lay off the adjectives and you're ok. :huh:

 

Ok....let the flaming begin..... :huh:

 

No flame here. I think you nailed it. I saw the same thing.

Link to comment

I'm not going to quote the last post for brevity, but I tend to agree with mgbmusic and snoogans too. I don't think my personal write up goes over the line, nor the original cache by 4America. I think TAR's write up, both the original and the revised versions, are a tad over the line. It tends to "incite" for lack of a better word. Just my personal opinion.

Link to comment
It is very sad when the modators and the reviewers are not on the same page.

Just a clarification, but forum moderators are not the same thing as cache reviewers. There are those of us who serve both roles, but there are others that serve as one or the other. Don't get the two confused.

I'm not going to quote the last post for brevity, but I tend to agree with mgbmusic and snoogans too. I don't think my personal write up goes over the line, nor the original cache by 4America. I think TAR's write up, both the original and the revised versions, are a tad over the line. It tends to "incite" for lack of a better word. Just my personal opinion.

Agreed. With a re-write it would probably be fine, but best to run it up the flagpole just to be sure.

Link to comment
We recieved the same message from our publisher, that I am not sure if this cache carries an agenda or not. I don't think yours does, but I am waiting for a clarification. Mine might have to be archived or modified too.

 

????????????????????

 

What is the world is going on here?

With any large series such as this, you run the risk of an issue being raised and a blanket policy (albeit temporary) being applied to them all. At some point the kinks will be worked out and the caches likely listed. I'd suggest patience, and as mtn-man said, remember, it's only a game. We do it for fun, not to get worked up. "Don't sweat the small stuff" as it may be.

Link to comment

I understand that reviewers are reviewers and moderators are moderators. Some are both. My point is this. After reading the rules, no one is on the same page. Some reviewers are approving and some are not. Were we stand everyone has different opinions and that is what is causing this approving and not approving system. 4America come up with your cache page you want everyone to use and send it to the gods for approval. It is to bad some like 4America who has a great idea has to go through this, when there are caches out there that really does not meet the rules. 4American you have my support. Also for everyone one thing to remember. Show your support for everyone that was killed that day, I say killed not died, because they were. They were mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, children, firefighters, police officers, military, stoke brokers, I can go on and on. Do not look at the profession, look at the people as all. My words and opinions. Thank you ;)

Link to comment
My point is this. After reading the rules, no one is on the same page. Some reviewers are approving and some are not. Were we stand everyone has different opinions and that is what is causing this approving and not approving system.

Two identical caches can be submitted with two completely different write-ups and one can be listed while the other isn't. Without each cache being written the same way, there is a chance some will not be listed while others get through easily. Just because one is listed, doesn't mean they all should. Notice the bolded text at the top of the guidelines:

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit.

Link to comment

Quiggle B) I understand ;)

 

In the past two posts that is why I ask 4America to come up with a set cache page for all to follow. SixDogTeam did that with the ISQ series. The ISQ series is over well over 500 caches and several states now. :)

 

I would like this series to fly and go. It is good why for the sport to show support. ;)

 

I would also like to say the moderators and reviewers are awesome and do a great job. B)

Link to comment
My point is this. After reading the rules, no one is on the same page. Some reviewers are approving and some are not. Were we stand everyone has different opinions and that is what is causing this approving and not approving system.

 

They are guidelines and as such, are subject to interpretation. Heck, the Constitution of the United States is pretty cut and dried, yet many judges interpret it in different ways and how often do you ever see a unanimous Supreme Court ruling on an issue? These people are experts with years of experience and education, yet they read the same passage and come to totally different conclusions.

 

If the experts can't get that right, how do you expect a bunch of amatures to be on the same page interpreting the guidelines.

Link to comment

We do support an agenda. We love our country and we despise what the terriorist did. We want to remember those who died, but GC has taken a stance not to allow agendas no matter for what cause. If they allowed agendas, then they would also have to allow (in therory) the terriorist's point of view that America sucks.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo

 

I can understand most causes, buisnesses etc not being allowed. I don't understand why placing a cache in honor of 9/11 is considered an inappropriate agenda. There is no way you can compare a love for one's country in which the cache is placed with the terrorists that changed all of our lives on 9/11. Would a cache at the Eiffel Tower be stopped, or near Buckingham Palace or Red Square? If that is the case then they need to pull all the virtuals at memorials too. Heck, just placing a cache and listing it here is moving an agenda...that of Groundspeak's. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. They allow Jeeps. Why, because they pay Groundspeak big bucks to do it. But it violates their policy. If this is going to become a habit with them, I'll pull my membership. I love geocaching but I love my country more!!!!!!! I am sick and tired of PC getting into everything.

Link to comment
... I don't understand why placing a cache in honor of 9/11 is considered an inappropriate agenda. ...

The caches in question put out the message that terrorism is a horrible concept. This can serve to hurt the feelings of those terrorists who also are geocachers.

 

Wait a minute. ;) That's probably not it.

Link to comment

After looking at the listing GCY95G I will be relisting the cache. The reviewer was following the direction of what members at Groundspeak had asked her to do. Sometimes we need to look back at those decisions and decide if they were correct. In this case I believe the reviewer had made the correct decision when listing the cache.

 

In this series of caches they are placed in memory of an event. Some commentary on some of the cache listings could lead them to be interpreted as having an agenda yet I do not feel that was the purpose.

Link to comment

After looking at the listing GCY95G I will be relisting the cache. The reviewer was following the direction of what members at Groundspeak had asked her to do. Sometimes we need to look back at those decisions and decide if they were correct. In this case I believe the reviewer had made the correct decision when listing the cache.

 

In this series of caches they are placed in memory of an event. Some commentary on some of the cache listings could lead them to be interpreted as having an agenda yet I do not feel that was the purpose.

 

Sorry that this has gotten so crazy.. I was just trying to do a good thing... I have a whole slew of emails and forum messages I am working on, so if you sent me something, please be patient!

 

Thanks Hydee for approving the cache / plan. I am woking on a cache posting that could be used for all of the caches, but who do I send it to for approval?

 

My inital concern was that I didn't want to boilerplate the cache, just a couple of elements, but let the cache posterhave some freedom. Guess that wasn't such a good idea.

 

Thanks to EVERYONE that has (and hopefully will continue) assisted in the "Well Never Forget 9/11" geocaches, especially the underpaid forum moderators and cache approvers!

 

4America

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...