Reporting nonconforming caches

[Kirbert]

I was reading through the new guidelines and noticed that geocaches with a religious agenda are not acceptable. I applaud this; I've been pitching Bibles and other claptrap in the trash as I cache for some time. It is a shame that not only placers but finders as well seek to use geocaching as a means to spread their destructive dogma to young, impressionable children -- and don't seem to feel the slightest bit of remorse about doing so.

 

I wanted to know whether geocachers are expected to report caches they find that violate these guidelines -- and if so, how?

 

There is one cache in particular that comes to mind: GCRFY9. I was the second to find back in December 2005. The cache listing said nothing except that finders were welcome to take a "packet" without leaving anything in trade. When I found the cache, it turned out that the packets were little packages full of religious horse manure. It was a fairly large cache and it was full of them.

 

I posted a log to the effect that parents might not want to expose their children to such objectionable materials -- again, following the placer's example, not mentioning what the materials were. The owner of the cache wrote me a rather heated e-mail wanting to know why I would write such a thing about his cache. I replied that if he thought spreading his hogwash was such a wonderful thing, why didn't he tell people up front in the cache listing what they could expect? Well, he apparently took that to heart because the listing now makes it clear that the entire objective of the cache is to spread religious drivel.

 

-- Kirbert

[+Cache Heads]

A quick search for "religious" or "religion" will turn up many threads on this subject (of course, a lot of them were locked after they spiraled into chaos )

 

IMO, the cache you point out is in clear violation of the guidelines. The best way to report it is by logging an SBA ("Needs Archived") log on the cache page and stating that the cache promotes a religious agenda and should be archived. The local reviewer will get your log and act accordingly (at least, they should....)

[+prntr1]

Wow,

Why don't you let us know how you really feel about religion, or is it just one religion in particular?

 

I don't like to see religious literature in caches myself, but I am not going to use sayings like "horse manure" "claptrap" "destructive dogma" and "hogwash".

It has been my experience that people that can't express their opinion without becoming derogatory usually have a low IQ.

 

Edited for spelling

Edited March 2, 2007 by prntr1

[+tozainamboku]

It's a bit subtle, but you need to realize that the "no agenda" rule applies to the cache page and not to the swag in the cache. Geocaching.com can only enforce the rule as to what it will allow to put on it's web site. For the most part it can't control what is put into caches. There are a few items that are clearly illegal or where land managers have indicated that they would ban caches if they contain them (knives, explosives, food, pornography, etc.) In these cases Geocaching.com will disable a cache if this is reported and will archive the cache if the owner doesn't do maintenance to remove the objectionable material. For the most part religious tracts and similar items do not fall into the category of items that should get a cache archive. Some geocachers that object to these items will simply remove them on there own - often replacing them with real swag. One thing to remember is that no one is forced to take a religious tract from a cache.

[+ReadyOrNot]

It is a shame that not only placers but finders as well seek to use geocaching as a means to spread their destructive dogma to young, impressionable children -- and don't seem to feel the slightest bit of remorse about doing so.

 

Are you for real? Please refrain from calling my faith "Destructive Dogma". You have a valid point regarding ANY cache with an agenda, not just religious in nature. Your post was nothing more than attack against an entire group of people and I personally don't appreciate it.

[+ePeterso2]

It's a bit subtle, but you need to realize that the "no agenda" rule applies to the cache page and not to the swag in the cache. Geocaching.com can only enforce the rule as to what it will allow to put on it's web site.

But what goes onto its web site can be influenced by what's in the cache. Here's the quote from the guidelines:

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

Was that material in the cache when it was placed? If so, I would suspect that the cache placer did have an agenda and the cache should probably be archived. If the material was placed by someone other than the hider, then maybe that material just needs to be removed. But that's just my newbie opinion ...

 

-eP

[+ReadyOrNot]

Completely ignoring the posters complete hate and disgust of an entire religion, I will pull the one reasonable concept out of his post and expand on it:

 

Some quick easy way of reporting guidelines violations would be an interesting topic to throw around. The problem with emailing the owner about violations is it tends to be taken extremely personally. It might be better to flag the cache to a reviewer and let the reviewer handle the communications with the cache owner. The angst level would be much lower and everyone could cache in peace and harmony.

[+ePeterso2]

Isn't that what "Needs Archived" is for?

[+ReadyOrNot]

Isn't that what "Needs Archived" is for?

 

Doesn't everyone see who posted the Needs Archived log? I'm talking about a more anonymous option. That would create even more angst. I would probably report more non-conforming caches if it were an anonymous note to the reviewer to follow-up. Many non-conforming caches are cachers that I get along with and respect. I'm sure many cache problems go unreported because we as a group are such kind and respectful people.

[+mtn-man]

It is a shame that not only placers but finders as well seek to use geocaching as a means to spread their destructive dogma to young, impressionable children -- and don't seem to feel the slightest bit of remorse about doing so.

 

Are you for real? Please refrain from calling my faith "Destructive Dogma". You have a valid point regarding ANY cache with an agenda, not just religious in nature. Your post was nothing more than attack against an entire group of people and I personally don't appreciate it.

I would agree that your original post should have been worded better. Please keep that in mind in the future.

 

There is a simple solution for you as a cache finder. If you see something you object to, trade something you think is proper and remove the objectionable item. In essence, trade up. I have removed knives and matches from caches and always add something cache friendly in return. Then, email the contact address when you get home and let them sort it out from there.

[+ePeterso2]

Hmmm ... I don't like the idea of anonymity. I think communities like this work better with more openness and transparency. If we're not willing to stand behind our comments, we shouldn't make them.

 

I haven't been in a situation like this, but if I was I'd submit a "Needs Archived" log entry with a reference to the specific portion of the cache reporting guidelines that it violates. The cache owner acknowledged reading those guidelines and promising to abide by them at the time he/she reported the cache. Plus, if the cache is archived as a result, it can always be reinstated by the reviewers once the violation has been resolved. No politics, no drama ... just a matter of meeting the agreed-upon guidelines.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Hmmm ... I don't like the idea of anonymity. I think communities like this work better with more openness and transparency. If we're not willing to stand behind our comments, we shouldn't make them.

 

I haven't been in a situation like this, but if I was I'd submit a "Needs Archived" log entry with a reference to the specific portion of the cache reporting guidelines that it violates. The cache owner acknowledged reading those guidelines and promising to abide by them at the time he/she reported the cache. Plus, if the cache is archived as a result, it can always be reinstated by the reviewers once the violation has been resolved. No politics, no drama ... just a matter of meeting the agreed-upon guidelines.

 

I agree in spirit. But we've all seen caches that are placed by well-established cachers that don't get reported. I agree that in a perfect world, we should all be transparent, but we aren't in a perfect world. People get their feelers hurt and take things personally that shouldn't be.

[+baloo&bd]

Wow,

Why don't you let us know how you really feel about religion, or is it just one religion in particular?

 

I don't like to see religious literature in caches myself, but I am not going to use sayings like "horse manure" "claptrap" "destructive dogma" and "hogwash".

It has been my experience that people that can't express their opinion without becoming derogatory usually have a low IQ.

 

The OP was nothing more than a childish rant. It was not a question, just pushing an agenda. Judging from the OP website, not to really be taken seriously, more of a troll.

 

I am sorry, but if it offends you either 1. Don't take or look at it or 2. Trade it up and out. These pamphlets are for the most part benign and harmless.

 

I think the guidelines do assume a certain amount of common sense.

[+PAWSitraction]

Hmmm ... I don't like the idea of anonymity. I think communities like this work better with more openness and transparency. If we're not willing to stand behind our comments, we shouldn't make them.

 

I haven't been in a situation like this, but if I was I'd submit a "Needs Archived" log entry with a reference to the specific portion of the cache reporting guidelines that it violates. The cache owner acknowledged reading those guidelines and promising to abide by them at the time he/she reported the cache. Plus, if the cache is archived as a result, it can always be reinstated by the reviewers once the violation has been resolved. No politics, no drama ... just a matter of meeting the agreed-upon guidelines.

 

I agree in spirit. But we've all seen caches that are placed by well-established cachers that don't get reported. I agree that in a perfect world, we should all be transparent, but we aren't in a perfect world. People get their feelers hurt and take things personally that shouldn't be.

And, also, some cachers may have perfectly good motives for reporting a cache, but don't want to take the chance that they or their caches will be targeted by either the owner of the cache they reported or his buddies (or just random other people who've decided that "ReporterCacher is My New Target"). It happens, and it happens more than we'd like to think. I agree, that transparency would be better, but I also understand how people can be targeted, and why they'd like to remain anonymous.

[Kirbert]

...Why don't you let us know how you really feel about religion, or is it just one religion in particular?

 

No, it's all of them. It's not the particular teachings of one religion vs. another that's the problem, it's the entire concept of indoctrinating the ignorant to disavow their own common sense in favor of blind faith in the corrupt.

 

I don't like to see religious literature in caches myself, but I am not going to use sayings like "horse manure" "claptrap" "destructive dogma" and "hogwash".

It has been my experience that people that can't express their opinion without becoming derogatory usually have a low IQ.

 

Those of us who understand just how destructive religion is have been too polite for too long. Many of us have considered religion unimportant or inconsequential or perhaps even a positive influence on people too ignorant to think for themselves, and have kept mum about "differing outlooks". But it's high time to give up such notions and recognize religion for what it is: the greatest threat mankind faces today.

 

For my own personal new year's resolution this year, I resolved to quit being passive when others started proudly spewing their nonsense and intimating that anyone that didn't agree with them was to be pitied or despised. No religious zealot has *ever* been the slightest bit polite or respectful about my beliefs, I don't see why I should be expected to continue to be respectful about theirs.

 

-- Kirbert

[Kirbert]

Are you for real? Please refrain from calling my faith "Destructive Dogma".

 

"Faith", as the term is commonly used today, *is* destructive dogma. I've just about given up on adults that are indoctrinated, but we need to find a way to prevent children from being similarly indoctrinated so future generations have a possibility of a better world.

 

-- Kirbert

[Kirbert]

Was that material in the cache when it was placed? If so, I would suspect that the cache placer did have an agenda and the cache should probably be archived. If the material was placed by someone other than the hider, then maybe that material just needs to be removed. But that's just my newbie opinion ...

 

-eP

 

It was clearly there when placed, as I was the second finder and the listing itself mentioned that I was welcome to take one of the packets. There were perhaps a dozen packets in there, and it appears this guy is keeping it stocked to this day. I'm sure he thinks he's doing good for the world and will continue as long as he is able. If you take them all, he'll just think he managed to distribute a LOT of pamphlets and be all the more inspired to keep stocking it!

 

Personally, I have less objection to the way the cache is listed now, since it is apparent from the listing what's in there and you can avoid it if you choose. When I found it, there was no indication that the cache was full of bible-thumping literature -- which I find *far* more offensive than pornography.

 

It's also clear from the revised guidelines that older caches are grandfathered in, so if this cache was placed in 2005 and there were no guidelines to avoid bible-thumping agendas at the time, perhaps there are no valid grounds to delist this cache.

 

It's all too bad, because this cache is actually in a pretty nice place. Not a lame micro under a lamppost skirt, it's actually in a remote little park that would make a great visit if it weren't for the ulterior motives of the cache placement.

 

-- Kirbert

[+prntr1]

...Why don't you let us know how you really feel about religion, or is it just one religion in particular?

 

No, it's all of them. It's not the particular teachings of one religion vs. another that's the problem, it's the entire concept of indoctrinating the ignorant to disavow their own common sense in favor of blind faith in the corrupt.

 

I don't like to see religious literature in caches myself, but I am not going to use sayings like "horse manure" "claptrap" "destructive dogma" and "hogwash".

It has been my experience that people that can't express their opinion without becoming derogatory usually have a low IQ.

 

Those of us who understand just how destructive religion is have been too polite for too long. Many of us have considered religion unimportant or inconsequential or perhaps even a positive influence on people too ignorant to think for themselves, and have kept mum about "differing outlooks". But it's high time to give up such notions and recognize religion for what it is: the greatest threat mankind faces today.

 

For my own personal new year's resolution this year, I resolved to quit being passive when others started proudly spewing their nonsense and intimating that anyone that didn't agree with them was to be pitied or despised. No religious zealot has *ever* been the slightest bit polite or respectful about my beliefs, I don't see why I should be expected to continue to be respectful about theirs.

 

-- Kirbert

 

Well, that sounds reasonable.

Are you an agnostic, an atheist, an infidel or just a plain old skeptic. It is certainly possible to discuss any or all of these with out being a *religous zealot* or rude.

You get more with teaspoon of honey than a gallon of vinegar, keep that in mind while you practice your Personal New Year's Resolution, and good luck with it.

[Kirbert]

Isn't that what "Needs Archived" is for?

 

If I found that cache *today*, I probably would enter a "needs archived" log -- thanks to the responses on this thread. At the time (December 2005) I don't think I had ever heard of a "needs archived" log -- not sure they existed yet, I think they may be a more recent development -- and I also wasn't aware of a guideline prohibiting a religious agenda. I see the guideline now, but don't know whether it's always been there and I just didn't notice it or whether it's new.

 

I'm not sure it would be appropriate for me to post a "needs archived" log more than a year after finding the box! Although it's clear the box hasn't changed significantly in the meantime.

 

BTW, the couple of times I've used the "needs archived" feature -- due to the caches being on clearly posted private property -- the biggest result has been the placer getting all bent up about it. One was very irate, said I should have entered a conventional found or DNF log mentioning that it's on private property. I don't know if a reviewer has ever done *anything*. On one of them, the owner ended up making some changes, which was good and caused me to delete my "needs archived" log.

 

-- Kirbert

[Kirbert]

Doesn't everyone see who posted the Needs Archived log? I'm talking about a more anonymous option. That would create even more angst. I would probably report more non-conforming caches if it were an anonymous note to the reviewer to follow-up.

 

Good point. Still, the cache owner should be allowed to respond to the report prior to the cache being delisted. He might not need to know who actually filed the report, but he should know what the complaint was and be allowed to make his case regarding whether it was valid or just a difference of opinion or maybe even another cacher with a vendetta.

 

-- Kirbert

[Kirbert]

There is a simple solution for you as a cache finder. If you see something you object to, trade something you think is proper and remove the objectionable item. In essence, trade up. I have removed knives and matches from caches and always add something cache friendly in return.

 

I do this all the time. In fact, it's surprising how many pocket knives I've collected, I don't really want them for anything, but some of them are too nice to throw away.

 

But this sort of policy really only works when dealing with geocachers that are dropping off inappropriate stuff. In the case of the cache in question -- and I presume the point of the placement guideline -- the problem is a cache OWNER who intends to keep the cache stocked permanently. Remove the offensive stuff, he'll just install more.

 

In this case, each packet was in a baggie. I was thinking of taking them all, discarding the contents in the *nearest* trash barrel (being sure to tear them up first), and then entering in the log that I took a bunch of baggies and left something in trade. But I wasn't as rude then as I am now.

 

-- Kirbert

[+ePeterso2]

The other alternative is to just email the reviewer. On a number of occasions, I've contacted my local reviewer directly without posting a log entry.

 

I can understand someone getting upset at having a Needs Archive logged on his/her cache, but if someone doesn't play by the rules and that individual's response to being told he or she isn't playing by the rules is to get angry and defensive, then that person probably shouldn't be playing this game.

 

My experiences with the local reviewers have been nothing but positive and constructive, even when I don't get my way.

[Kirbert]

These pamphlets are for the most part benign and harmless.

 

We are in the midst of a quagmire in Iraq because too many people think religions are benign and harmless.

 

-- Kirbert

[+ReadyOrNot]

These pamphlets are for the most part benign and harmless.

 

We are in the midst of a quagmire in Iraq because too many people think religions are benign and harmless.

 

-- Kirbert

 

* Editted *

 

*** Please Lord give me the strength to not get suspended today ***

Edited March 2, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[Kirbert]

Are you an agnostic, an atheist, an infidel or just a plain old skeptic.

 

I'm an atheologist.

 

It is certainly possible to discuss any or all of these with out being a *religous zealot* or rude.

 

In theory, yes, but many generations of experience seem to indicate otherwise. Politely pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies and dangers of indoctrination has led us from the Spanish Inquisition to today's terrorism with barely any headway toward ridding the world of superstitious nonsense. The *only* possible path to an end to the senseless violence is a universal disavowal of theism, and the only way that can possibly happen is if those who cling to these outdated notions are scorned and ridiculed rather than admired and emulated.

 

This is not an appropriate venue, though. I'm gonna quit on that, respond only to the discussion about what to do about caches that violate guidelines from now on.

 

-- Kirbert

[+ReadyOrNot]

This is not an appropriate venue, though. I'm gonna quit on that, respond only to the discussion about what to do about caches that violate guidelines from now on.

 

That we can agree on. Thanks!

 

By the way, the cache page displays this note: As a Christian, I do agree that this seems to go against guidelines. I would suggest having a reviewer contact the cache owner and have them change the wording on the cache page.

 

NOTE:

Please take a packet of the FREE (no need to leave anything in it's place) materials in the ziplock bags as well as any of the other trinkets listed above, or added. Please note that the packet of materials contain gospel tracts, which some folks have deemed objectionable. If you are offended by such materials, don't take any of the free packets in the ziplock bags. If you want to know where you stand with God, by all means read the "Are You Good Enough to Get To Heaven?" tract. It will give you the truth (according to the Bible) of where each one of us stands in God's eyes, and what we can do about it.

Edited March 2, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+prntr1]

These pamphlets are for the most part benign and harmless.

 

We are in the midst of a quagmire in Iraq because too many people think religions are benign and harmless.

 

-- Kirbert

 

I agree 100%, in fact I agree with a lot of your original post, your presentation was just way off. Zealots on both sides of the argument are the problem, not the religion itself, in my opinion.

[+baloo&bd]

We are in the midst of a quagmire in Iraq because too many people think religions are benign and harmless.

 

-- Kirbert

 

Please understand, I never said religions are benign or harmless, I said the pamplets were. You are also confusing faith with religion, which is what I think is offending those in the thread.

 

I agree, it's the lunatic fringe, much like your rantings here, that create the problems that lead to angst among individuals and governments alike.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Any usefulness that this thread had is gone. I'll go start a new thread on the topic.

 

Here's the new thread

Edited March 2, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

* Edited *

 

*** Please Lord give me the strength to not get suspended today ***

Don't sweat it ReadyOrNot. There are tons of disrespectful people like that out there. Condemning any religion because of the activities of some extremists is ignorant. By the way, non-belief is a belief. So this dude is preaching as well.

[Kirbert]

By the way, the cache page displays this note: As a Christian, I do agree that this seems to go against guidelines. I would suggest having a reviewer contact the cache owner and have them change the wording on the cache page.

 

NOTE:

Please take a packet of the FREE (no need to leave anything in it's place) materials in the ziplock bags as well as any of the other trinkets listed above, or added. Please note that the packet of materials contain gospel tracts, which some folks have deemed objectionable. If you are offended by such materials, don't take any of the free packets in the ziplock bags. If you want to know where you stand with God, by all means read the "Are You Good Enough to Get To Heaven?" tract. It will give you the truth (according to the Bible) of where each one of us stands in God's eyes, and what we can do about it.

 

OK, let's say he removes that entire note from the cache listing but continues to stock packets of religious literature in the cache itself. Would that be better? Because IMHO it would be worse.

 

-- Kirbert

[Aushiker]

Was that material in the cache when it was placed? If so, I would suspect that the cache placer did have an agenda and the cache should probably be archived.

 

The owner's response as reported would seem to suggest they put the material in the cache.

 

Andrew

[+Deliveryguy428]

You found material you did not like in a cache we got that, just do as Mtn Man suggested, remove it, and move on.

 

Enough cache police pop up everyday so lets all move on

[+Haffy]

I can't seem to understand what the problem is here. Why can't you just put TNLNSL and call it good?

[+TotemLake]

The opinion like the OP gives me a headache. They are so righteous in their own thinking they don't even see the zealotry in their own actions and they do it in the name of protecting the innocent.

 

Hypocracy I say.

[+TrailGators]

The opinion like the OP gives me a headache. They are so righteous in their own thinking they don't even see the zealotry in their own actions and they do it in the name of protecting the innocent.

 

Hypocracy I say.

Floyd's quote under your avatar applies to this very well....

[Keystone]

I'm closing this thread, per my post earlier today in the other thread. No sense having two threads open on the same subject, and the other one is very constructive.