Social Issue

[+Debeque Doc]

I have a slight problem that I would like opinions on. A local cacher family (Gooftroop4) met with me the other day. A really nice family and active cacher. I am battling cancer and have just been able to get out to cache again since November of last year. Goof troop4 wanted to put out a cache in my honor and I asked that it be named Survivors Cache in memory of persons who survived Cancer and those who who lost the battle. The description was rejected because"CANCER IS A SOCIAL ISSUE". If we can have travel bugs for diabetes, why should we exempt cancer.

Please give me your feelings on this.Feel free to e mail me your feelings at Debeque Doc through the geocaching site.

[+Renegade Knight]

Everthing is a social issue. Some are hotter issues than others. I'm not aware of a guideline that limits cache names to non social issues or that lay out what a social issue is to begin with so we can avoid naming caches after them.

[+rdaines]

Since when did cancer become a social disease? It is a medical problem the same as diabetes and high blood pressure and if one medical conditions get recognized then why not others. I see nothing wrong with medical related caches.

[+StarBrand]

Are you certain is was rejected JUST for the title? Or was there some remarks in the description that made it a bit more of a social commentary? Just curious.....

 

If it is just the title - I can't understnad the problem.

[+Debeque Doc]

Are you certain is was rejected JUST for the title? Or was there some remarks in the description that made it a bit more of a social commentary? Just curious.....

 

If it is just the title - I can't understnad the problem.

--This message was sent through http://www.geocaching.com --

 

Hello, it's We just wanted to let you know the cache listing is taking a bit longer to get published than we thought. The admin said it could not contain anything about cancer because that is considered a social agenda. It should be published today (later) or tomorrow. Talk to you soon.

 

User's Profile:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=7b...95-a191bd2b7b86

This was the Message I recived about this cache.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Forward abuse complaints to: contact@geocaching.com

Edited March 27, 2007 by Debeque Doc

[+StarBrand]

Are you certain is was rejected JUST for the title? Or was there some remarks in the description that made it a bit more of a social commentary? Just curious.....

 

If it is just the title - I can't understnad the problem.

--This message was sent through http://www.geocaching.com --

 

Hello, it's We just wanted to let you know the cache listing is taking a bit longer to get published than we thought. The admin said it could not contain anything about cancer because that is considered a social agenda. It should be published today (later) or tomorrow. Talk to you soon.

 

User's Profile:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=7b...95-a191bd2b7b86

This was the Message I recived about this cache.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Forward abuse complaints to: contact@geocaching.com

That would tend to indicate (to me anyway) that the description must contain some comments about cancer. Beyond the title anyway - The good news is that it also indicates the issue is not a dead one and they are working out a reolution.

[+tozainamboku]

Sounds like "guidelines creep" to me. I remember when the "no agenda guidelines" allowed caches that mentioned cancer or were placed in honor of a cancer survivor or in memory of a victim. What you couldn't do was ask for donation to the American Cancer Society or any other organization or promote your favorite anti-cancer nutritional supplement or cure.

Edited March 27, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+Team GeoBlast]

Are you certain is was rejected JUST for the title? Or was there some remarks in the description that made it a bit more of a social commentary? Just curious.....

 

If it is just the title - I can't understnad the problem.

--This message was sent through http://www.geocaching.com --

 

Hello, it's We just wanted to let you know the cache listing is taking a bit longer to get published than we thought. The admin said it could not contain anything about cancer because that is considered a social agenda. It should be published today (later) or tomorrow. Talk to you soon.

 

User's Profile:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=7b...95-a191bd2b7b86

This was the Message I recived about this cache.

 

------------------------------------------------------------

Forward abuse complaints to: contact@geocaching.com

 

Aren't there like a trillion GC.com sponsored Diabetes TB running around? I don't see the difference.

[+briansnat]

If we can have travel bugs for diabetes, why should we exempt cancer.

 

The rules are different for travel bugs. If you want to create a cancer awareness TB that would be perfectly fine.

 

As the guidelines say, caches shouldn't be a platform for an agenda. It's a good rule, no matter how noble the agenda.

 

Best wishes in your battle with this horrible disease.

[+rdaines]

Since caches bring people to places, specific places, one never really knows if the placer did have an agenda. There are certainly plenty at memorials of one kind or another, aren't those agendas? There are caches honoring dead rock stars, why not caches for victims/survivors of a particular disease?

[+VKsnr]

Seems like they should have outlined the reason for the objection a little more, rather than only saying there was some social agenda problem. What wording? Which part? If the notice about the delay had been a little more informative, then perhaps this thread would not exist, or we could be more definitive in our opinions.

 

I understand why solicitations are off limits, but it does seem strange that you can create a "charitable" agenda TB (e.g. diabetes awareness) and circulate it through the network of caches. The intent is surely not to just make people know that such a thing exists, but to do something about it. The difference? Any ideas?

 

VKsnr

[+StarBrand]

Seems like they should have outlined the reason for the objection a little more, rather than only saying there was some social agenda problem. What wording? Which part? If the notice about the delay had been a little more informative, then perhaps this thread would not exist, or we could be more definitive in our opinions.

 

I understand why solicitations are off limits, but it does seem strange that you can create a "charitable" agenda TB (e.g. diabetes awareness) and circulate it through the network of caches. The intent is surely not to just make people know that such a thing exists, but to do something about it. The difference? Any ideas?

 

VKsnr

I think the quoted text above from the OP is NOT from Groundspeak but rather from the cacher that placed the cache and is a summary of the email from a reviewer.

 

I think.

[+wiseye]

Hey, whats an old Navy man doing in the mountains anyway?

I was Navy and from a Navy Family, I'm in Fl. I had two Cancer surgeries in '06, Glad to hear you are doing better. A cache dedicated to you would have been published. This one will also I'm sure, it's just a matter of wording that can be worked out. Get out when you can and enjoy the hunt! Good Luck!

[+Renegade Knight]

Since caches bring people to places, specific places, one never really knows if the placer did have an agenda. There are certainly plenty at memorials of one kind or another, aren't those agendas? There are caches honoring dead rock stars, why not caches for victims/survivors of a particular disease?

Sometimes I have an agenda. Sometimes it's just a cache.

[+geocatt]

Since caches bring people to places, specific places, one never really knows if the placer did have an agenda. There are certainly plenty at memorials of one kind or another, aren't those agendas? There are caches honoring dead rock stars, why not caches for victims/survivors of a particular disease?

 

Baby Bridges Reborn, in Jacksonville, FL is a small park dedicated to cancer survivors. There's a cache there. The park is beautiful and the cache is very tastefully done.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f9-2ee5a28885d1.

 

Here's a picture of the sculpture, the plaque in front of the sculpture says is a representation of the journey cancer patients go through in their treatment.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?II...mp;LID=24223684

[+johnboy11171]

My sister is a cancer survivor.I think your cache is a great idea.I am glad your doing better and are able to get back geocaching.I hope you have many more finds.

johnboy11171 aka Team Blair

[+Rockhound24]

The diabetes TB is pimped like mad on this website, I guess it all depends on which social issue you back and who you are.

[+clockwise]

I've found quite a lot of war caches that have been dedicated

to the soldiers who went and fought. Now, I'm pretty sure that

war is a social issue... don't see how it's related to cancer, nor

how cancer can be a social issue. Ridiculous.

[+rdaines]

The diabetes TB is pimped like mad on this website, I guess it all depends on which social issue you back and who you are.

 

In some cases type II diabetes is a preventable disease and as someone who didn't pay attention and now has the disease they can "pimp" those TBs all they want.

[+Rockhound24]

 

In some cases type II diabetes is a preventable disease and as someone who didn't pay attention and now has the disease they can "pimp" those TBs all they want.

 

These is nothing wrong with diabetes awareness but to refer to cancer as a social issue is simply irresponsible.

[+angevine]

If we can have travel bugs for diabetes, why should we exempt cancer.

The rules are different for travel bugs. If you want to create a cancer awareness TB that would be perfectly fine.

 

As the guidelines say, caches shouldn't be a platform for an agenda. It's a good rule, no matter how noble the agenda.

 

Best wishes in your battle with this horrible disease.

 

I, too, add my best wishes for your health. It is an issue that's very close to my heart, as my mother died of the disease. And yet I do feel that staying within the guidelines is important -- someone has to make a judgment call, no matter how difficult.

 

I'd applaud your launching a TB, though.

 

-- Jeannette

[+mtn-man]

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#solicit

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.

Travel Bugs are a great way to accomplish this.

Since they travel, they reach a wider audience to boot.

[+ke6n]

Maybe it is how blatant one is about subject matter.

"SRCSP" = Santa Rosa Cancer Survivor's Park

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...e3-3c94bea7309a

 

Of course, this was placed back in 2003 before "Cancer" was deemed a "social issue" by the good folks at geocaching.com, huh? I mean really... As long as the idea behind the cache isn't commercial, why freakin' micro manage every little thing unless there are complaints generated for a particular cache?

 

Yeah, being a type 2 diabetic myself, I really don't give a flyin' rat's posterior about the diabetic crap listed on this site. I do find it rather hypocritical that we can have diabetic crap and that's OK, but cancer is not. Is there some sort of kickback or advertising monies that get returned on the diabetic crap? Maybe that's the deal...

[Clan Riffster]

I think a lot of folks here are confusing TB's with caches. TB's can, and often do, have an agenda. Caches should not. I could probably get away with creating a "Nuke a Gay Whale for Jesus" travel bug, but I would expect a cache by the same name would get the boot faster than Rosie O'Donnell could gnaw through a steel safe full of Ben & Jerry's. Mtn-Man said it best. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity. There is nothing light or fun about cancer. I offer my congratulations to you for beating this dreadful disease, and I admire the cacher who wanted to list a cache in honor of your battle, but I think a cache is the wrong way to send that message.

 

If you are able to keep in contact with your caching buddy, tell them to work with their local reviewer. Have him.her find out exactly what parts of the cache page needs to be changed to make their cache active. A cacher that is willing to work hand in hand with a reviewer can accomplish a great deal.

 

Good luck!

-Sean-

[cachincrazy]

Just wanted to let everyone know that when I submitted the cache for publication, it stated that this cache was being placed in honor of ALL cancer victims and survivors. Of course, it's called Survivor's Cache (GC11P9E). It has been published as of 27Mar06. The name was not the problem. It was the fact that in the description I had put the main reason being the cache was placed FOR all cancer victims and survivors. There is no social/political agenda related with this cache. There are no requests (or wants) for donations to anywhere. There are no petitions or hyped up talk about this matter. It is a cache. That's all. DEDICATED (that's the key word here), to the victims, survivors, family, and friends of cancer related individuals. Thank you.

Edited March 28, 2007 by cachincrazy

[+VKsnr]

Just wanted to let everyone know that when I submitted the cache for publication, it stated that this cache was being placed in honor of ALL cancer victims and survivors. Of course, it's called Survivor's Cache (GC11P9E). It has been published as of 27Mar06. The name was not the problem. It was the fact that in the description I had put the main reason being the cache was placed FOR all cancer victims and survivors. There is no social/political agenda related with this cache. There are no requests (or wants) for donations to anywhere. There are no petitions or hyped up talk about this matter. It is a cache. That's all. DEDICATED (that's the key word here), to the victims, survivors, family, and friends of cancer related individuals. Thank you.

 

Thanks for letting us know what the problem was with the cache description. I had a hard time trying to think what my opinion would be without this info.

 

Now that I know, I am still puzzled. According to the rules:

"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." Placing a cache FOR all cancer victims hardly sounds like a solicitation. Neither does a cache DEDICATED to all cancer victims. I have seen several caches in the Satellite Beach, FL area posted that require searching the Old and New Testaments to solve. That sure looks like a religious agenda to me. A cache placed FOR a certain religion wold not be OK, but a cache DEDICATED to a certain religion would be?

 

I am NOT trying to start flame wars - I am just trying to understand the reasoning. Especially since I see no difference between FOR and DEDICATED. Imagine a cache placed FOR all the victims of terrorism. Not OK, but if it was DEDICATED to all victims of terrorism it is? And why is this not allowed for caches, but for TBs it is? You mean you can have a TB dedicated to <hot-button-isssue> but not a cache? Seems like TBs should be restricted the same way as caches, or caches should be allowed the same freedom of expression as TBs. A mix seems illogical to me. (I lean towards restricting them all).

 

Can someone, especially someone who has been caching a long time, please help illuminate a newbie's understanding of these things?

 

VKsnr

[+D@nim@l]

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."

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Explain the difference between the cache of the OP and this one.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d6-f5402ab0f0d9

 

Guess it just depends on which side of the submit button you're on.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's no real knowing what the cache page looked like before the edits. It looks fine now.

 

I'm sure the use of "social agenda" was just a short cut quote of the listing guideline's " religious, political, charitable or social agendas" - there's no "public health" agenda in that list - so it falls under social.

[+sbell111]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

[+D@nim@l]

Just wanted to let everyone know that when I submitted the cache for publication, it stated that this cache was being placed in honor of ALL cancer victims and survivors. Of course, it's called Survivor's Cache (GC11P9E). It has been published as of 27Mar06. The name was not the problem. It was the fact that in the description I had put the main reason being the cache was placed FOR all cancer victims and survivors. There is no social/political agenda related with this cache. There are no requests (or wants) for donations to anywhere. There are no petitions or hyped up talk about this matter. It is a cache. That's all. DEDICATED (that's the key word here), to the victims, survivors, family, and friends of cancer related individuals. Thank you.

 

Can someone, especially someone who has been caching a long time, please help illuminate a newbie's understanding of these things?

 

VKsnr

 

I haven't been caching as long as some, but this kind of stuff happens when things like geocaching get run like a business.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+D@nim@l]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

[+sbell111]

... I am NOT trying to start flame wars - I am just trying to understand the reasoning. Especially since I see no difference between FOR and DEDICATED. Imagine a cache placed FOR all the victims of terrorism. Not OK, but if it was DEDICATED to all victims of terrorism it is? And why is this not allowed for caches, but for TBs it is? You mean you can have a TB dedicated to <hot-button-isssue> but not a cache? Seems like TBs should be restricted the same way as caches, or caches should be allowed the same freedom of expression as TBs. A mix seems illogical to me. (I lean towards restricting them all). ...

Well, certainly, 'for' is grammatically incorrect. 'Dedicated', however is grammatically correct and doesn't suggest that any donations are requesteed. If you ask me, the reviewers worked with the cache owner to tweak the page the absolutely least bit necessary to get it published.

[+sbell111]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't read this thread through as carefully as I could have, but i don't see any evidence of that.

[+VKsnr]

From the rules:

 

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

And from the diabetes TB campaign (emphasis added):

 

"Participate in Unite for Diabetes geocaching

 

Give a message of support for the United Nations Resolution on diabetes.

 

Unite for Diabetes geocaching is part of the IDF-led Unite for Diabetes campaign and is supported by a grant from Merck & Co., Inc. which operates in many countries as MSD (Merck Sharp & Dohme)."

...

The Unite for Diabetes campaign is calling for the support of cachers through the launch of the Unite for Diabetes challenge, an online competition designed to raise awareness of the impact of diabetes on the lives of children around the globe.

...

What is Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is an entertaining outdoor adventure. It is a treasure hunt that requires people to use a global positioning system (GPS) to search for containers, known as ‘geocaches’, that are hidden around the world by other treasure hunters, or ‘geocachers’. For more information visit the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section of Geocaching.com."

 

Given the above, it certainly makes the denial of a cache dedicated FOR all victims of cancer but an acceptance of a cache DEDICATED to all victims of cancer seem silly.

 

In light of the above quotes, why are caches that "solicit" or have an "agenda" not allowed but TBs are, especially given the intimate tie between them on Groudspeak's own site? Why is it "Unite for Diabetes geocahcing" instead of "Unite for Diabetes travel bugging" ?

 

Again, just looking for any logic behind the rule. Seems like the restrictions should apply to both to prevent any real or perceived bias on the part of reviewers or Geospeak, and to keep this light and fun.

 

VKsnr

[seakayak]

I agree with one of the other replys. Cancer is NOT a SOCIAL issue. And if that is the reason for not allowing the cache.. I totally disagree. I actually think it's a GREAT idea for a cache. Of course it's a little personal for me because my dad is a cancer survivor .

[+Ambrosia]

Maybe the name of this thread should be changed, since it still seems to be confusing people.

[+tozainamboku]

Travel Bugs - you paid $6 to Groundspeak for the bug so they give you a little more latitude over what goes on the Travel Bug page. Also, travel Bug pages don't get reviewed like cache pages. Still, TPTB can lock down a travel bug page if they feel it's over the line. Unite for Diabetes approached Groundspeak with the idea of using the travel bug to promote awareness and got permission from Groundspeak. Groundspeak is a private company and can give permission for anything they like. The guidelines already mention that if you get permission from Groundspeak first, there can be exceptions to the guidelines.

 

Geocaches - caches are submitted for review and there is no fee paid to Groundspeak for placing a cache. Guidelines are applied much more strictly to caches. The guideline make caches that solicit off-limits. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between soliciting (which could include asking people to volunteer or write letter to Congress - not just send money) and promoting awareness of an issue. The guidelines and their interpretation has become broader to make it easier for the reviewer to say no. Certain words are red flags to the reviewers. Cache can still be DEDICATED to survivors of some disease or victims of a terrorist act. The wording must not even give a hint of soliciting for either funds or action. If you can't resolve the wording with your reviewer you could always appeal to Groundspeak.

Edited March 28, 2007 by tozainamboku

[+VKsnr]

Thanks. That makes things a little more clear. I appreciate the perspective.

 

VKsnr

[+briansnat]

In light of the above quotes, why are caches that "solicit" or have an "agenda" not allowed but TBs are, especially given the intimate tie between them on Groudspeak's own site? Why is it "Unite for Diabetes geocahcing" instead of "Unite for Diabetes travel bugging" ?

 

Again, just looking for any logic behind the rule. Seems like the restrictions should apply to both to prevent any real or perceived bias on the part of reviewers or Geospeak, and to keep this light and fun.

 

First off, Groundspeak, as the owners of this website, has the right to support any agenda or commercial agenda that they want. This is why they allowed A.P.E. caches, but we can't can't place caches that solicit or advertize. Its why they worked with Jeep in promoting their travel bugs and why they chose to participate in the Unite for Diabetes TB promotion.

 

As far as the difference between TBs and caches. Caches go through a review process and there are rules in place regarding what is acceptable and what is not. TBs do not go through a review process, hence they are on a much longer leash (though they are not totally without rules. Try to circulate a pro-Nazi TB and see how long it lasts).

 

The no agenda rule for caches makes sense. If there were no rule, everybody and their mother would be trying to place caches promoting a pet agenda. Many agendas are widely considered to be worthwhile. Fighting cancer would be one. Many agendas are controversial. What if some holocaust deniers wanted to place a cache promoting their agenda, or someone who has a racist agenda? While those would be pretty obviously rejected, there are many other agendas that are controversial. A cache promoting Boy Scouting? Many would think it was wonderful, but some would see that as evil as a cache with a racist agenda. Planned Parenthood? Same thing. Even organizations like the Red Cross and Toys for Tots have their detractors.

 

So you then put the reviewers in the position of choosing which agendas are acceptable and which are not. There is sometimes controversy about their decisions regarding their interpretation of the cache guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Do we really want them to be the arbiters of what agendas are worthwhile and which ones aren't?

Edited March 28, 2007 by briansnat

[+hydnsek]

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I'll be the first to admit that I didn't read this thread through as carefully as I could have, but i don't see any evidence of that.

 

I think he's referencing the cache linked in his previous message:

 

Explain the difference between the cache of the OP and this one.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d6-f5402ab0f0d9

 

Guess it just depends on which side of the submit button you're on.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Explain the difference between the cache of the OP and this one.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d6-f5402ab0f0d9

 

Guess it just depends on which side of the submit button you're on.

Not true. I jut archived my 9/11 cache, but only because it kept ketting muggled.

 

This series of caches was initially denied, then debated, then Groundspeak allowed them, with limitations, as memorials.

 

Not the same at all, and certainly no favoritism was granted to Reviewers.

Edited March 28, 2007 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+mtn-man]

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."

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Explain the difference between the cache of the OP and this one.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...d6-f5402ab0f0d9

 

Guess it just depends on which side of the submit button you're on.

No, the whole series was cleared with Groundspeak first. Thanks for attempting to confuse the issue. I am more than happy to help clarify though. It is amazing what asking for permission FIRST can do for you.

[+mtn-man]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I am offended by this and will report this post. I did exactly what the guidelines ask. Maybe if you actually knew the facts before trying to slam people, maybe you would not make youself look like your avatar.

 

Edited March 28, 2007 by mtn-man

[+D@nim@l]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I am offended by this and will report this post. I did exactly what the guidelines ask. Maybe if you actually knew the facts before trying to slam people, it would not make you look like your avatar.

 

One man's agenda is another man's cache and both are very sensitive matters.

[+D@nim@l]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I am offended by this and will report this post. I did exactly what the guidelines ask. Maybe if you actually knew the facts before trying to slam people, maybe you would not make youself look like your avatar.

 

 

Blah, blah, blah.

[+mtn-man]

One man's agenda is another man's cache and both are very sensitive matters.

Which is why permission was sought (and received).

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Typical. When faced with the facts and being unable to repudiate them, just mumble.

 

[+D@nim@l]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I am offended by this and will report this post. I did exactly what the guidelines ask. Maybe if you actually knew the facts before trying to slam people, maybe you would not make youself look like your avatar.

 

 

Sometimes things are not as light and fun as the guidlines would like.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+D@nim@l]

One man's agenda is another man's cache and both are very sensitive matters.

Which is why permission was sought (and received).

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Typical. When faced with the facts and being unable to repudiate them, just mumble.

 

 

You're the one that quoted the guidelines, moderator. And your cache is evidence that guidelines can be bent to suit what ever need is necessary. Those are facts.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+D@nim@l]

This thread got muddled because the OP accidently posted 'social issue' instead of 'agenda'. Clearly the reviewer denied the listing because it pushed an agenda. As much as I support the agenda, since I just lost my brother - the Sneaker - to cancer, the reviewer got it right. This cache apparently violated teh guidelines, so it was denied.

 

BTW, regarding the TB issue, I have two thoughts. First, TBs are not caches. Second, TPTB have the authority to make exceptions to the guidelines. If you believe that a guideline exception is appropriate for your cache, request one from TPTB.

 

Unless of course a reviewer is pushing an agenda, then its ok.

I am offended by this and will report this post. I did exactly what the guidelines ask. Maybe if you actually knew the facts before trying to slam people, maybe you would not make youself look like your avatar.

 

 

The guidelines ask to keep caching a fun and light activity. I would not classify the events of Sept 11 nor cancer to be light and fun. Would you?

[+VKsnr]

 

First off, Groundspeak, as the owners of this website, has the right to support any agenda or commercial agenda that they want. This is why they allowed A.P.E. caches, but we can't can't place caches that solicit or advertize. Its why they worked with Jeep in promoting their travel bugs and why they chose to participate in the Unite for Diabetes TB promotion.

 

As far as the difference between TBs and caches. Caches go through a review process and there are rules in place regarding what is acceptable and what is not. TBs do not go through a review process, hence they are on a much longer leash (though they are not totally without rules. Try to circulate a pro-Nazi TB and see how long it lasts).

 

The no agenda rule for caches makes sense. If there were no rule, everybody and their mother would be trying to place caches promoting a pet agenda. Many agendas are widely considered to be worthwhile. Fighting cancer would be one. Many agendas are controversial. What if some holocaust deniers wanted to place a cache promoting their agenda, or someone who has a racist agenda? While those would be pretty obviously rejected, there are many other agendas that are controversial. A cache promoting Boy Scouting? Many would think it was wonderful, but some would see that as evil as a cache with a racist agenda. Planned Parenthood? Same thing. Even organizations like the Red Cross and Toys for Tots have their detractors.

 

So you then put the reviewers in the position of choosing which agendas are acceptable and which are not. There is sometimes controversy about their decisions regarding their interpretation of the cache guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Do we really want them to be the arbiters of what agendas are worthwhile and which ones aren't?

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

No, I do not want the reviewers to be in the unenviable positon of deciding what agendas are and are not worthwhile. As I have stated before, this rule makes good sense.

 

Certainly there are hotheads for all issues - they even pop up in forums like this in the middle of civil discussion.

 

I can understand that Groundspeak can do what they want since this is their business. And from what I have seen, they have shown sound rational judgement in their support for the diabetes TBs, and solid practical sense in their working with Jeep for those TBs. They will no doubt continue to do so in the future. The rules do state that you can ask for permission fo rwhatever you may have in mind for both TB and cache.

 

Thanks again,

 

VKsnr