Jump to content

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


4America
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

One would hope that 9/11 Memorial caches are placed in locations that have some relevance to the people and events involved in the tragedy. Otherwise, they will look like "agendas" and may confuse the next generation cachers - you don't want them to ask, "why is it here?"

I was having a conversation with a buddy the other day. The topic was just how far reaching the actions of 9/11 were. Personally, I don't know of anyone, anywhere who did not feel some personal involvement. For this reason, I think you could place these caches just about anywhere and it would be relevant.

Many cities and towns have plaques and memorials erected to remember 9/11, so I'm hoping the hiders will look for them and place the caches there.

I think this sounds about right.

 

I have helped place two memorial caches for two friends that have died.

 

One of my friends died from complications from heart surgery. We placed the cache where I met him (where we all met him) and where he spent most of his time.

 

My other friend died from drowning. We placed the cache overlooking where she died.

 

It kinda sounds morbid in a way, but these were inspiring, thriving people who have left a hole in my heart and life where they used to be. I think that linking the caches to where they once were is appropriate.

Link to comment

Example:

I'm placing the "Remember Iraq 2003-2006 Cache Series #1" for all of the victims of the Iraqi war. Whether they were Iraqis shot by Americans, Americans shot by Americans, Canadians shot by Americans, Iraqis killed by Iraqis, oh and don't forget Poland...these innocent people have died as a result of invasion of a sovereign nation and we should never forget the thousands who have died because of it.

 

Please help me by submitting your own cache, I want one in every county in the U.S. to get even 1/10th of the way to the total number of lives lost (and still being lost every day) as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

 

My feeling is that there is nothing wrong with memorial caches. As an example, take a look at your post. You remembered everyone shot by Americans, but not one mention of the Americans who were shot. You see why they might even be necessary, or have you forgotten?

There are already caches around that mention the Americans who were shot. That was my entire point of not listing Americans dead in Iraq. There are lots of people who geocache and they will each choose to remember those people/events that they want to remember. As this policy door is opened it could become very grey which are "remembering a day" and which are choosing to remember only days that fit their wants (which when seen from a broader view is creation of an agenda).

 

I agreed with the Groundspeak decision not to place London Bombing and Katrina/Rita memorial caches. I prefer to keep my sentiments and rememberences that are unrelated to geocaching seperate. I don't need geocaches to remind me of these things. In fact sometimes I go geocaching to put those weighty issues aside and clear my head.

 

In agreement with some of budd-rdc's latest comments, there's also a difference between:

 

* "This location is where the first atom bomb landed killing many"

* "We'll always remember all of the people decimated in a blink of the eye when the first atom bomb hit this spot"

* "We'll always remember all of the innocent Japanese who died because of a vicious attack with a weapon of previously unseen power and this geocache says so" (placed in vermont; see the other 49 in this series)

 

While the first one is very neutral, the second begins to get pushy even though it's located at the spot and the final one is as related to the memorialized event as any other geocache could be with the same description page. It only exists to serve as a platform to make a statement.

Link to comment

America was attacked; attacked viciously, ruthlessly, and without provocation. Innocent people were killed in an attack driven by nothing other than hatred for our people, our religious diversity, our freedom, our affluence, and our way of life.

 

The caches in question are AMERICAN.

 

When did it become somehow improper to stand up and be counted as AMERICANS?

 

When the news of 9-11 hit the countries that hate us, their people DANCED IN THE STREETS!

 

Are we not allowed to even REMEMBER and MEMORIALIZE our innocent slaughtered dead?

 

If the Iraquis or Saudis or Afgans or Palestinians or any other country that doesn't share our beliefs in personal freedom and religious diversity wants to place a cache celebrating the unholy infidels righteously killed in the holy gihad, let them place it ON THEIR SOIL. But don't stop us from placing OUR memorial caches on OUR SOIL.

 

It is one of the things we have to accept if we TRULY prize freedom, that there will be people who will do things we dislike intensely and they will do so with the full protection provided under that freedom.

 

But why must the people who TRULY prize freedom, and whose forefathers fought and died to purchase that freedom with their own blood, THEMSELVES be the ones commanded to KEEP SILENT?

 

I am sick and tired and FED up with whiny politically correct complainers and self-righteous protectors of the freedoms of the EVIL doers in our world, who do so by TRAMPLING underfoot the same rights of the GOOD people and the INNOCENT people of our nation.

 

We are AMERICANS. We are a free and diverse people. Let's quit APOLOGIZING for that!

Link to comment
Are we not allowed to even REMEMBER and MEMORIALIZE our innocent slaughtered dead?

 

Sure you are. Do you need a tupperware box for that?

 

Seriously, this isn't about remembering. It's about Groundspeak Inc. and their rules, er, guidelines for international geocaching in a world that holds people of other nationalities than American. What would you think if you, prior to a business trip to Cairo, made a PQ and saw a bunch of "Remember 9-11" caches?

 

There are stupid people in all nations of the world. Why do we need to bring that into our hobby?

Link to comment

.... We are AMERICANS. We are a free and diverse people. Let's quit APOLOGIZING for that!

 

I may not agree with your post, but man is your sig line correct! "You have the right to NOT post. If you give up the right to not post, anything you post can and will be quoted out of context and used against you." Perfect! Can I use it?

 

As far as the post, Groundspeak is an American company run by Americans - aren't they then free to decide what gets listed on their site?

 

Ed

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment
As far as the post, Groundspeak is an American company run by Americans - aren't they then free to decide what gets listed on their site?

 

Sure they are. They can allow IRA, NRA, ETA, AAA, WTO and any other TLA-sponsored caches for all I care, and even if I did care I couldn't do one iota to stop them. What's confusing to me and, apparently, other of their customers is how they apply their guidelines with seeming inconsistency.

 

As an addendum to your "American coy run by Americans", here's a blurb (first paragraph, no less) from the Groundspeak Inc. "About Us" page:

 

Groundspeak, Inc. was started in the year 2000 to manage Geocaching.com, the global headquarters for the sport of geocaching.

 

Emphasis added by me. If you want to run a global operation, you also need to cater to your global customers, not just the Americans. Part of that, to me, at least - and apparently also to Groundspeak until these caches were approved in spite of former decisions to the opposite on similar caches - means keeping caching free of political or other inflammatory content.

Link to comment

.... means keeping caching free of political or other inflammatory content.

 

Exactly! And thus this debate! This whole thing was over my cache coming close to being political speech rather than a memorial.

 

Memorials remember an event, political speech expresses an opinion about it... memorials are acceptable for listings, political speech about it is not, at least that's how I interpret what happened here.

 

If that's correct it's still a fuzzy line but likely as clear as they can make it.

 

Ed

Link to comment

Emphasis added by me. If you want to run a global operation, you also need to cater to your global customers, not just the Americans. Part of that, to me, at least - and apparently also to Groundspeak until these caches were approved in spite of former decisions to the opposite on similar caches - means keeping caching free of political or other inflammatory content.

 

Which is why this series was so careful to make sure the caches were neither political or inflammatory, so the policy consistent.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

.... means keeping caching free of political or other inflammatory content.

 

Exactly! And thus this debate! This whole thing was over my cache coming close to being political speech rather than a memorial.

 

Memorials remember an event, political speech expresses an opinion about it... memorials are acceptable for listings, political speech about it is not, at least that's how I interpret what happened here.

 

If that's correct it's still a fuzzy line but likely as clear as they can make it.

 

Ed

That sounds like a good explanation.

Link to comment

As an addendum to your "American coy run by Americans", here's a blurb (first paragraph, no less) from the Groundspeak Inc. "About Us" page:

 

Groundspeak, Inc. was started in the year 2000 to manage Geocaching.com, the global headquarters for the sport of geocaching.

 

Emphasis added by me. If you want to run a global operation, you also need to cater to your global customers, not just the Americans. Part of that, to me, at least - and apparently also to Groundspeak until these caches were approved in spite of former decisions to the opposite on similar caches - means keeping caching free of political or other inflammatory content.

 

To stay consistant, then we need to adopt a universal language for posted caches. None of us expects that, however neither do any of us really expect caches not to encompass the flavor, culture amd customs of the area in which it is placed.

 

I am fairly certain that without this thread, a chacher in China, Germany, Poland or any other country would even be aware of these caches unless, of course, they were visiting here in which case I again am fairly certain that no offense would be felt.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment

Frankly, I find ju66l3r's comments bring new life to this thread and a position with which I agree. Memorial caches don't fit into the "fun, light and apolitcal" category in my book. Rather, they are dreary, heavy and politically charged. The "deaths of everyone before us" cache doesn't get accolades from the peanut gallery, does it?

 

America was attacked; attacked viciously, ruthlessly, and without provocation. Innocent people were killed in an attack driven by nothing other than hatred for our people, our religious diversity, our freedom, our affluence, and our way of life.

 

The caches in question are AMERICAN.

 

When did it become somehow improper to stand up and be counted as AMERICANS?

 

When the news of 9-11 hit the countries that hate us, their people DANCED IN THE STREETS!

 

Are we not allowed to even REMEMBER and MEMORIALIZE our innocent slaughtered dead?

 

If the Iraquis or Saudis or Afgans or Palestinians or any other country that doesn't share our beliefs in personal freedom and religious diversity wants to place a cache celebrating the unholy infidels righteously killed in the holy gihad, let them place it ON THEIR SOIL. But don't stop us from placing OUR memorial caches on OUR SOIL.

 

It is one of the things we have to accept if we TRULY prize freedom, that there will be people who will do things we dislike intensely and they will do so with the full protection provided under that freedom.

 

But why must the people who TRULY prize freedom, and whose forefathers fought and died to purchase that freedom with their own blood, THEMSELVES be the ones commanded to KEEP SILENT?

 

I am sick and tired and FED up with whiny politically correct complainers and self-righteous protectors of the freedoms of the EVIL doers in our world, who do so by TRAMPLING underfoot the same rights of the GOOD people and the INNOCENT people of our nation.

 

We are AMERICANS. We are a free and diverse people. Let's quit APOLOGIZING for that!

 

Thank you for agreeing that ALL sides of the issue are validly expressed. :laughing:

Link to comment

I placed a cache near our New Hospital here in Durango, and put in the cache "...dedicated to all the Health Professionals of La Plata County who are there for us when we are sick or injured..." and was told that I was pushing a "Social Agenda". Personally, I think Geocaching, and Groundspeak, has gone to far in finding ways to deny caches. My parents have one at a Vietnam War Memorial and another at one dedicated to all the Police Officers killed in the line of duty in their home town.

 

I have a new cache, it was named, "Our Sports True Value", because the nearest business was a True Value hardware store. My cache was NOT on the True Value property, it was on a public right away, next to a city sidewalk. But I had to change the name because I was placing a "Commercial Cache". There are a dozen caches with the name Home Depot, or Sears, or Wal Mart, or McDonalds, or Disneyland, etc... that are all active caches. I find the reviewers, especially from state to state, to be very inconsistant with following Caching Guidelines. I guess the cache called "Best Buy Cache" in California is NOT a "Commercial Cache", but one stating "Our Sport's True Value" is a commercial cache. I can't figure out their logic!

Link to comment
You are right. It is all about Groundspeak and how they want to run their site. They have made a decision. Don't you think they should be able to run their site the way they want to?

 

Not necessarily. Without paying "Premium Members", their site would not even exist, they would have to get some other job. So, as paying members, we should have some input about the product we purchased. It's like me giving McDonald's $20.00 and then having to accept what they give me. Groundspeak can't just say, "it's our way so take it or leave it". As a profitable company, Groundspeak needs to listen to it's customers, and make changes when and if necessary for the paying customers.

Link to comment
You are right. It is all about Groundspeak and how they want to run their site. They have made a decision. Don't you think they should be able to run their site the way they want to?
Not necessarily. Without paying "Premium Members", their site would not even exist, they would have to get some other job. So, as paying members, we should have some input about the product we purchased. It's like me giving McDonald's $20.00 and then having to accept what they give me. Groundspeak can't just say, "it's our way so take it or leave it". As a profitable company, Groundspeak needs to listen to it's customers, and make changes when and if necessary for the paying customers.

Here's a couple of quick thoughts.

 

First, GC.com existed for a few years without PMs. It's better since they have more money to work with, but it was a good site before.

 

Second, let's take a look at your McDonald's analogy. Imagine that I walk into McDonald's and read the menu. I hand the cashier a twenty and order two chili dogs and an order of onion rings. Should I get my food they way I ordered it, even though it's not on the menu? I paid for it, I should get it, right?

Link to comment
Here's a couple of quick thoughts.

 

First, GC.com existed for a few years without PMs. It's better since they have more money to work with, but it was a good site before.

 

Second, let's take a look at your McDonald's analogy. Imagine that I walk into McDonald's and read the menu. I hand the cashier a twenty and order two chili dogs and an order of onion rings. Should I get my food they way I ordered it, even though it's not on the menu? I paid for it, I should get it, right?

 

I figured someone would come back with some sort of lame argument like this. So for those that need a more simple definition, let me give this one.

 

When McDonald's first opened, they did NOT have a Big Mac on the menu. So how did the Big Mac come around? Did someone just one day say, let's make a double patty burger? Did some Leprachan just produce one, one day? Of course not. So where did it come from? WOW, Customers wanted it. McDonald's did research, polls, experimental sites, and now we have the Big Mac.

 

So, how does this compare to GC? Simple. GC first opened, and listed caches. What has GC added, and why? GC added Pocket Queries? Why, because cachers wanted them and were willing to pay for them. Next, Cachers wanted "Route Caches" and GC was able to meet that request, sort of, still a few bugs in it. GC and Groundspeak do a fantastic job, organizing, running and promoting our sport. And, for the most part, they listen to their customers.

 

Now, many cachers are feeling that GC/Groundspeak are becoming a little TOO STRICT with denying new caches. Most of us understand the need for safety, the need to not use GC for advertisement purposes, or for political agendas, or social agendas, and have no argument with any of this. A "Social Agenda" would be something like an "anti abortion" or "pro abortion" cache, or a "anti gun" or a "pro gun" cache, etc..., but hardly anyone would consider a tribute to those killed on 9/11/2006 a "social agenda". A memorial or a tribute is NOT a social agenda (with a few minor exceptions). If a tribute cache were made to astronauts killed on either Shuttle crash, it's not a social agenda, its a memorial.

 

Another example. I have two caches, each with one of my daughters name in it. I tried to get a cache oked with the name, "our sports true value", because a True Value store was nearby. I no more want you to shop at True Value than I want you to date either of my daughters. (shotgun in my hand :( ). To claim it as a "commercial" cache would be like saying my daughters named caches are "escort" caches. It is just too far of an extreme. To me, and I am interested in others opinion, a "commercial" cache would be one where you were required to actually go inside the business. For that matter, put the word "Disney" in a cache search and see how many show up, and some require you to go inside the park, $60.00 or more. Just checked, 47 caches with the word "Disney" in them. 3 with Wal Mart, 11 with Home Depot, 4 with Office Depot, and just for kicks, 26 with "McDonald" in them (not all for the fast food place, but some). So my point here is, where is the consistancy for grading "commercial" caches?

 

Just my personal opinion, I think that GC/Groundspeak could ease up just a little on the cache placement guidelines. If anyone were to still argue, "It's their website", I do agree it is their website. But I also argue that, as paying customers, we should be able to have a voice. The customer may be wrong, or the customer may be right, but in either case, the customer should be able to state what they would like to see. These forum's are a way for us, the customers, to state what we like, what we do not like, and what we would like to see.

 

To finish this little essay, I want to say THANK YOU to Geocaching.com/Groundspeak, for inventing a fantastic sport, and for listening.

Link to comment
Just my personal opinion, I think that GC/Groundspeak could ease up just a little on the cache placement guidelines. If anyone were to still argue, "It's their website", I do agree it is their website. But I also argue that, as paying customers, we should be able to have a voice. The customer may be wrong, or the customer may be right, but in either case, the customer should be able to state what they would like to see. These forum's are a way for us, the customers, to state what we like, what we do not like, and what we would like to see.

I only see a few opinions against these caches, so it sounds like they are listening to their customers.

Link to comment
Here's a couple of quick thoughts.

 

First, GC.com existed for a few years without PMs. It's better since they have more money to work with, but it was a good site before.

 

Second, let's take a look at your McDonald's analogy. Imagine that I walk into McDonald's and read the menu. I hand the cashier a twenty and order two chili dogs and an order of onion rings. Should I get my food they way I ordered it, even though it's not on the menu? I paid for it, I should get it, right?

I figured someone would come back with some sort of lame argument like this. So for those that need a more simple definition, let me give this one.

 

When McDonald's first opened, they did NOT have a Big Mac on the menu. So how did the Big Mac come around? Did someone just one day say, let's make a double patty burger? Did some Leprachan just produce one, one day? Of course not. So where did it come from? WOW, Customers wanted it. McDonald's did research, polls, experimental sites, and now we have the Big Mac....

Perhaps that wasn't the best example.

Link to comment
Perhaps that wasn't the best example.

 

And perhaps it was!!

 

The Big Mac is a type of hamburger, a signature sandwich sold by the McDonald's chain of fast-food restaurants since 1968, made with "two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun."

 

http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/mcd_history_pg1.html

Ray Kroc opened the Des Plaines restaurant in 1955. First day's revenues-$366.12! No longer a functioning restaurant, the Des Plaines building is now a museum containing McDonald's memorabilia and artifacts, including the Multimixer!

 

You see, McDonalds was open for 13 years WITHOUT a Big Mac. Now whether they got the idea from Bob's Big Boy, or some place else, it still all comes down to WHAT THE CUSTOMER WANTS. That is my only point, that the customer should have a voice. Even if, in the end, the customer doesn't get what they would like, it is the right of the customer to say something. If I get bad service in a restaurant, no tip, and possibly a complaint to the manager. If I get good service, a big tip and my compliments to the chef.

 

Over all, I would say I am probably over 90 percent satisfied with GC/Groundspeak, which is excellent. My only complaint is there definition of "commercial cache" and "social agenda cache" is some what unclear and enforced differently state by state.

 

Oh, by the way, if ENOUGH customers asked McDonalds to carry chili dogs and onion rings, and I do mean ENOUGH, they would probably start selling them!

Link to comment
You are right. It is all about Groundspeak and how they want to run their site. They have made a decision. Don't you think they should be able to run their site the way they want to?

 

Not necessarily. Without paying "Premium Members", their site would not even exist, they would have to get some other job. So, as paying members, we should have some input about the product we purchased. It's like me giving McDonald's $20.00 and then having to accept what they give me. Groundspeak can't just say, "it's our way so take it or leave it". As a profitable company, Groundspeak needs to listen to it's customers, and make changes when and if necessary for the paying customers.

And as you have pointed out, Groundspeak do listen to their customers. There have been numerous complaints AGAINST commercial caches in the forums before, and who knows how many e-mail complaints they get that we don't hear about - keep in mind other Premium Members can disagree with you. :blink:

Link to comment

{Rant/}

 

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.

 

And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is political correctness gone way wrong.

 

I disagree with GC's decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

 

It's a sad day that politicall illness er ah correctness means that one need to be told not to commemorate something because it might hurt someone's feelings, resulting in drivel that we would be bound to post up to have our once proud country maligned just to keep the score even.

 

We don't need caches to remember those who died, though I consider it a noble thought. Thanks to everyone for trying.

 

El Diablo, you are welcome, and also, this is not a personal attack, but a sad observation of our sorry state of mind. Who gives a flip if someone is offended? GC.com may be accessible worldwide, but is it the property of the U(seless)N(ations)? Actually, this is one more of a hundred million ways that citizens of this country bow their once proud heads in order to appease.

 

Never forget that fateful September day, and those who willingly and unwillingly sacrificed their lives to wake up the rest of the country that we were really at war. Retired Army here, and my flag waves proudly in front of my house regardless of who it offends.

 

Let that cache alone, and close your eyes if you think it's an agenda.

 

{/Rant}

Edited by Quiggle
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

 

Having several interactions with mtn-man, I would have to ditto the above.

Link to comment

Second, let's take a look at your McDonald's analogy. Imagine that I walk into McDonald's and read the menu. I hand the cashier a twenty and order two chili dogs and an order of onion rings. Should I get my food they way I ordered it, even though it's not on the menu? I paid for it, I should get it, right?

 

So, what if McDonalds listed Big Mac on the menu, but sometimes when you order one you get a hotdog? (this would certainly not be too far fetched if they had hotdogs :blink: )

 

Inmountains point is that GC is inconsistent in their handling of their own "menu". One person submits a cache with a company name on it, which flat out names the store on whose premises it is placed (most likely without their knowledge) and it gets approved. Another uses the name of a business in the title as a "play on words" and is only remotely near a business with that name and it is denied.

 

So, when you order a Big mac, it is anybody's guess what you will get.

 

When you submit a cache, it's anybody's guess if it "meets guidelines".

 

(The McDonald's wrong order analogy would be much better if it didn't really happen all the time) :o

Link to comment

(The McDonald's wrong order analogy would be much better if it didn't really happen all the time) :blink:

 

Or, if it applied here.

 

These caches are not political or even social agendas, they are memorials.

 

Also, unlike McDonalds, I can use this service free of charge with only a few additional (and appreciated) features granted to me if I SUPPORT the system I use.

 

Ok, we'll use the McDonalds thing here. It would be kind of like I can get a hamburger for free but if I want a bun I would have to pay....no...wait...that doesn't work either. Apparently the two are not alike.

 

An easier way of looking at it is look at the thread up and including this post. I truly haven't but I will stick my neck out and say that at least a simple majority support these types of caches. Then take into account that the forums really don't represent the cachers at large since as we sit here typing, they are out finding caches oblivious to this lively discussion.

 

Factor in that, again I am assuming, these caches are found at a rate equal to similar types of hides in the area and it would appear the end "customer" is getting what they ask for. All this done without the benefit of a focus group. Think what we could be saving the fast food industry.

 

If this post seems flippant..well...it is. I have gone from confused as to why anyone would have an issue with this to now being amused that we have all spent such effort on discussing it. I guess it is a break from the normal "micros caused <insert any given evil here>" threads we usually engage in.

Link to comment

Thank you all for the excellent dialogue. The exchange of idea and thoughts are how new ideas develop. I have found the "Geocaching Community" to be one of the most excellent communities in existence.

 

When my mother came down with Breast Cancer last year, the outreach from the Southern California Geocachers just blew me away! See this cache:

GCNKVH

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...18-e9a3ba7a423c

Being retired, my mom belongs to quite a few groups, church, social, special needs folks, and more, and the GC Community just ROCKED in supporting her. The pink "Fight Breast Cancer" ribbon on the cache is not a "social agenda", it's encouragement to beat the cancer. In March of last year, my mom was given THREE months to live, and TODAY, she is CANCER FREE. I give some of the credit to GEOCACHERS, and their love and support for my mother.

 

So, my hats off to ALL Geocachers! We care about each other, we care about the land, we care about LIFE. From what I see, the only AGENDA we have is, LIVE LIFE TO IT'S FULLEST!

 

Again, thank you all for the wonderful dialogue.

Link to comment

the only AGENDA we have is, LIVE LIFE TO IT'S FULLEST!

 

Right On!

 

This is indeed the "agenda" of geocaching. Because we hunt these stupid little boxes, we get out and enjoy life.

 

My grand nephew said one-time, "I like visiting you because you live life to the fullest".

 

Obviously, he doesn't see the overall picture, but his comment was one of the best compliments I think I have ever heard.

 

Everything has and is an agenda.

 

If promoting an "agenda" is against regulations, we need to shut down the listing service and go watch TV.

 

I believe those who died on 9/11 would be very pleased by our "living life to the fullest" by placing and visiting caches in their honour.

Link to comment

Second, let's take a look at your McDonald's analogy. Imagine that I walk into McDonald's and read the menu. I hand the cashier a twenty and order two chili dogs and an order of onion rings. Should I get my food they way I ordered it, even though it's not on the menu? I paid for it, I should get it, right?

 

So, what if McDonalds listed Big Mac on the menu, but sometimes when you order one you get a hotdog? (this would certainly not be too far fetched if they had hotdogs :laughing: )

 

Inmountains point is that GC is inconsistent in their handling of their own "menu". One person submits a cache with a company name on it, which flat out names the store on whose premises it is placed (most likely without their knowledge) and it gets approved. Another uses the name of a business in the title as a "play on words" and is only remotely near a business with that name and it is denied.

 

So, when you order a Big mac, it is anybody's guess what you will get.

 

When you submit a cache, it's anybody's guess if it "meets guidelines".

 

(The McDonald's wrong order analogy would be much better if it didn't really happen all the time) :laughing:

That's because the reviewers are human with as many varying viewpoints as there are in this thread. Placing a cache called "Cache Depot" in front of a certain hardware store with "Depot" in the name might be ok to one person and not to another.

The Home Depot Cache - Direct advertising

The Depot Cache - indirect, but what if it's a train station or bus stop?

The Cache Depot - indirect, same as above

In front of the hardware store cache - hmmm...doesn't mention the name, is that ok?

Near an unnamed business cache - this gets even fuzzier

I wouldn't shop here but come find my cache - is this an agenda now?

 

Pretty obvious that there is no black and white. The reviewers do the best they can at figuring it out, and most cases aren't as clear as these exaggerated examples. If you don't like it, then follow the guidelines and write to the contact address.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment
That's because the reviewers are human with as many varying viewpoints as there are in this thread. Placing a cache called "Cache Depot" in front of a certain hardware store with "Depot" in the name might be ok to one person and not to another.

The Home Depot Cache - Direct advertising

The Depot Cache - indirect, but what if it's a train station or bus stop?

The Cache Depot - indirect, same as above

In front of the hardware store cache - hmmm...doesn't mention the name, is that ok?

Near an unnamed business cache - this gets even fuzzier

I wouldn't shop here but come find my cache - is this an agenda now?

 

Pretty obvious that there is no black and white. The reviewers do the best they can at figuring it out, and most cases aren't as clear as these exaggerated examples. If you don't like it, then follow the guidelines and write to the contact address.

I will not try and step on any toes here, but I do have a few things to say. First off, the statement, "reviewers are only human" is such a "cop out". Saying there is no "black and white" is also a cop out. Leaving the interpretation of the rules and guidelines open to each reviewer would be like Baseball Umpires, Football Referee's and other's in charge of enforcing sports rules allowed to enforce the rules as they see fit. The rules become meaningless as there is no uniform enforcement. Like I tell my children who are starting to drive, 35 miles per hour means 35 MILES PER HOUR, whether you are 16 or 106. BLACK AND WHITE. One police officer can't allow 45 and another 55, etc.... The only "gray" area is that, by law, I believe they can't ticket within 3 mph either way due to speedometer variance's.

 

As pertaining to this scenario, GC.com should have a more clear guideline on what constitutes a "commercial cache". I think it should be as SIMPLE as possible. If a cache is placed INSIDE a place of business, it is a commercial cache, BLACK AND WHITE. The Parking Lot, the field next door, the park across the street, even if the cache uses the business name, is NOT a commercial cache, you don't have to enter the place of business. I saw the cache called THE HOME DEPOT and they actually used The Home Depot Wall Paper for the cache page. That is advertising. Rule: No Cache Wallpaper with a business name on it. Very black and white.

 

Although GC cannot possible think of every scenario, they can get the rules and guidelines a lot CLOSER to black and white than they are now. BEST BUY CACHE is ok, but OUR SPORTS TRUE VALUE is not ok?? Especially when the Best Buy cache is in the business parking lot and the Our Sports cache is in a vacant field! Using that guideline, every cache with the name "TARGET" in it should be archived! It's just beyond ridiculous. I have stopped placing caches because the rule enforcement is so varied. All the cachers in our area love my caches, they are well placed, show interesting area's, have good swag in them, and make caching in our area fun. I even get emails from out of area cachers who enjoy my caches. But what I have had to go through to place my last few caches just takes the whole fun out of placing caches.

Edited by Inmountains
Link to comment

Okay so I went :D when I tryed to read all the posts in this thread......but lets get to point here! I have been assigned to hide the "We'll Never Forget" cache in Tennessee. I won't list it if the reviewers won't publish it. Is the reviewers publishing or not publishing anymore of the "We'll Never Forget" caches? I need to know because if not, I can use the container in another place.

Link to comment

Okay so I went :D when I tryed to read all the posts in this thread......but lets get to point here! I have been assigned to hide the "We'll Never Forget" cache in Tennessee. I won't list it if the reviewers won't publish it. Is the reviewers publishing or not publishing anymore of the "We'll Never Forget" caches? I need to know because if not, I can use the container in another place.

 

Mine was approved well after this all started, so the short answer is yes. However, as with anything else, your mileage may vary so check with your reviewer if you want first.

Link to comment

I will not try and step on any toes here, but I do have a few things to say. First off, the statement, "reviewers are only human" is such a "cop out". Saying there is no "black and white" is also a cop out. Leaving the interpretation of the rules and guidelines open to each reviewer would be like Baseball Umpires, Football Referee's and other's in charge of enforcing sports rules allowed to enforce the rules as they see fit. The rules become meaningless as there is no uniform enforcement. Like I tell my children who are starting to drive, 35 miles per hour means 35 MILES PER HOUR, whether you are 16 or 106. BLACK AND WHITE. One police officer can't allow 45 and another 55, etc.... The only "gray" area is that, by law, I believe they can't ticket within 3 mph either way due to speedometer variance's.

 

The strike zone in baseball is notouriosly fluid from umpire to umpire. In football, late hit, clipping, etc can be very subjective. Basketball seems to have a lot of lattitude when it comes to charging.

 

Not being one, but knowing or being related to several police officers I can tell you that what is "allowed" varies greatly. Some it is anything under 10 over, if there is a problem or complaint in an area, 3 over might get you stopped but rarely ticketed. Seems judgement is used there too.

 

Saying the reviewers are only human is not a "cop out" but in fact a true statement. It is being offered, at least in this thread, to show why there may or may not be a misunderstanding as to why the OP's cache was temporarily pulled.

 

As pertaining to this scenario, GC.com should have a more clear guideline on what constitutes a "commercial cache". I think it should be as SIMPLE as possible. If a cache is placed INSIDE a place of business, it is a commercial cache, BLACK AND WHITE. The Parking Lot, the field next door, the park across the street, even if the cache uses the business name, is NOT a commercial cache, you don't have to enter the place of business. I saw the cache called THE HOME DEPOT and they actually used The Home Depot Wall Paper for the cache page. That is advertising. Rule: No Cache Wallpaper with a business name on it. Very black and white.

 

It's not that black and white as reviewers, from my experience, are trying to go out of their way to get caches placed when possible. Do we not allow the mention of sports teams? If we do, then the mention of some of these businesses, like Home Depot, may be allowed. Possibly "Smokes Smokin'" with a picture of the car.

 

Although GC cannot possible think of every scenario, they can get the rules and guidelines a lot CLOSER to black and white than they are now. BEST BUY CACHE is ok, but OUR SPORTS TRUE VALUE is not ok?? Especially when the Best Buy cache is in the business parking lot and the Our Sports cache is in a vacant field! Using that guideline, every cache with the name "TARGET" in it should be archived! It's just beyond ridiculous. I have stopped placing caches because the rule enforcement is so varied. All the cachers in our area love my caches, they are well placed, show interesting area's, have good swag in them, and make caching in our area fun. I even get emails from out of area cachers who enjoy my caches. But what I have had to go through to place my last few caches just takes the whole fun out of placing caches.

 

I'm sorry you stopped, especially if your caches are so well thought out. I would think working with the reviewer to find out their expectations would better serve everyone. In this case, I think that is exactly what TheAlabamaRambler did and it appears all, including mine, are being allowed barring some unforseen issue with them.

Link to comment

Do we not allow the mention of sports teams?

 

Yes, but sports teams are not commercial, they are governmental taxing authorities. At least the Colts must be. They tried to levy a tax on our (adjacent) county to pay for THEIR stafium! :P

 

Is supporting a sports team an agenda? Or is it just in fun? Notwithstanding the British custom of "soccer riots", generally two teams meet and have a hellacious battle on the playing field, then they and their fans have beers together after the game.

 

I think people today have too nuch fear of rivalry and conflict. We all seem to be afraid to fart anymore for fear someone will be offended or will attack us. Perhaps that is the legacy of 911. If it is, then the enemy has us right where they want us.

 

I really don't understand the "logic" of those who think the terrorist threat will go away if somehow we just avoid "provoking" them. I have news for those people: There isn't anything we did and furthermore there isn't anything we could possibly have done or do in the future that would in any way justify or excuse what they did when they crashed planes into the buildings on 911.

 

We can suck up to them (the terrorist types) and kiss their mules, donkeys, asses and camels from now till doomsday and they will still hate us and figure out ways to kill as many of us as they can. In fact they will (and do) interpret our cowtowing and appeasement as cowardice and weakness- because that is what it IS!

 

We are very unique in this country in that we can have a Catholic church, a Baptist church, a Jewish synagogue, Kingdom Hall, Mosque, saloon, casino and even an abortion clinic all in the same block and we get along quite peacefully (most of the time). In the (rare) instances when whack jobs get out of line and bomb the clinic or burn their neighbour's church, the people involved are prosecuted and treated like the criminals that they are.

 

Each group has their "agenda". In as much as that agenda doesn't involve killing or some other criminal activity, they all have the right to practice and express their agendas.

 

When it comes to caches with agendas, I agree with the bear that it is not unlike and no worse than hyping one's favourite sports team.

 

What is wrong with that?

Link to comment

 

I will not try and step on any toes here, but I do have a few things to say. First off, the statement, "reviewers are only human" is such a "cop out". Saying there is no "black and white" is also a cop out. Leaving the interpretation of the rules and guidelines open to each reviewer would be like Baseball Umpires, Football Referee's and other's in charge of enforcing sports rules allowed to enforce the rules as they see fit. The rules become meaningless as there is no uniform enforcement. .

Just like sports. Did you not watch the Steelers "win" the Super Bowl?

Link to comment

I've managed to stay out of this so far, (part of my new no drama policy), but I do have an observation to make:

 

There is a grey area in the interpretation of the cache placement guidelines, and it's there by design. TPTB at GC.com have demonstrated over the years that they are inclined to define the guidelines as loosely as possible while still accomplishing their aims.

 

I, for one, appreciate this approach. If Jeremy & Co. started implementing all the rules suggested in the forums regarding micros, urban caches, etc., we would soon find our hobby regulated right out of existence.

Link to comment

Ok...Let me get this straight. The topic is that the series was rejected because it promoted an agenda. Yet it was approved by Hydee which negated the argument that the series promoted an agenda...yet the argument still goes on?

 

So are we now trying to argue that Hydee who represents GC.com made a bad decision? Or are we happy that she allowed the series of caches? Someone please enlighten me here. Just what is it everyone is arguing about?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Ok...Let me get this straight. The topic is that the series was rejected because it promoted an agenda. Yet it was approved by Hydee which negated the argument that the series promoted an agenda...yet the argument still goes on?

 

So are we now trying to argue that Hydee who represents GC.com made a bad decision? Or are we happy that she allowed the series of caches? Someone please enlighten me here. Just what is it everyone is arguing about?

 

El Diablo

 

The issue was never with the series, it was with my cache description alone.

 

My choice of words seemed like a political agenda to a certain Reviewer, who ordered it archived.

 

I appealed to Groundspeak and Hydee determined that, while on the edge, my wording was acceptable, and reinstated it.

 

To my knowledge no other cache in this series has been challenged.

 

This thread is more hysteria than fact and has long since run its course as far as deriving anything meaningful from it.

 

Ed

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...