Social Issue

[+Ambrosia]

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?

As others have said in this thread, Groundspeak owns this website. They have the right to do whatever they like. These caches asked permission and it was granted. If one of those caches is owned by a Reviewer (although others are not), it doesn't prove that there is a double standard. Reivewers have a right to a private caching life. If you feel that the caches aren't light and fun enough for you, email Groundspeak and complain.

[+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?

As others have said in this thread, Groundspeak owns this website. They have the right to do whatever they like. These caches asked permission and it was granted. If one of those caches is owned by a Reviewer (although others are not), it doesn't prove that there is a double standard. Reivewers have a right to a private caching life. If you feel that the caches aren't light and fun enough for you, email Groundspeak and complain.

 

Groudspeak may own the website, but they don't own geocaching. Which side would surive if the other side quit. What ever happened to the broken records that get played around here "If you don't like them don't hunt them" or "hit the ignore button"? If enough excpetions get made there will be no guidelines necessary. Thanks for being my better judgement.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Thanks for being my better judgement.

Well, you are making it look like SOMEBODY needs to be!

[+Ambrosia]

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?

As others have said in this thread, Groundspeak owns this website. They have the right to do whatever they like. These caches asked permission and it was granted. If one of those caches is owned by a Reviewer (although others are not), it doesn't prove that there is a double standard. Reivewers have a right to a private caching life. If you feel that the caches aren't light and fun enough for you, email Groundspeak and complain.

 

Groudspeak may own the website, but they don't own geocaching. Which side would surive if the other side quit. What ever happened to the broken records that get played around here "If you don't like them don't hunt them" or "hit the ignore button"? If enough excpetions get made there will be no guidelines necessary. Thanks for being my better judgement.

[+Team Dubbin]

Would you people PLEASE learn how to use the quotes...

[+wimseyguy]

Oh no! Please don't quit. We need your sound voice of reason in the forums, and who will protect us from those awful vile micros too?

 

BTW if this does turn into a geocide, I only give it a 4.3 for lack of clarity.

Edited March 28, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+D@nim@l]

Oh no! Please don't quit. We need your sound voice of reason in the forums, and who will protect us from those awful vile micros too?

 

I wasn't talking about me quitting. It is the cachers and the caches they place that are more important than the website.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[+Ambrosia]

Would you people PLEASE learn how to use the quotes...

I skimmed through the thread, and didn't see any problems with quotes, so I'm a bit confused by this statement. Maybe I missed something.

[+D@nim@l]

Oh no! Please don't quit. We need your sound voice of reason in the forums, and who will protect us from those awful vile micros too?

 

BTW if this does turn into a geocide, I only give it a 4.3 for lack of clarity.

 

Geocide is serious forum issue and I resent your agenda to push me into it.

[Clan Riffster]

Blah, blah, blah.

Wouldn't it be easier just to mash your thumb with a hammer?

 

Groudspeak may own the website, but they don't own geocaching.

Uh.... I would say that, in a very real sense, Groundspeak does own Geocaching. If Groundspeak ever decided to pull up stakes, you could still hunt for Terracaches and Navicaches, but Geocaches would become extinct. I assume the vaccuum would be filled by somebody, since the consumer need would still exist. Maybe Yahoocaching or Googlecaching? Perhaps one of the big corperations would purchase the Geocaching database and bring them back? For now, Groundspeak = Geocaching.

[+D@nim@l]

Blah, blah, blah.

Wouldn't it be easier just to mash your thumb with a hammer?

 

Groudspeak may own the website, but they don't own geocaching.

Uh.... I would say that, in a very real sense, Groundspeak does own Geocaching. If Groundspeak ever decided to pull up stakes, you could still hunt for Terracaches and Navicaches, but Geocaches would become extinct. I assume the vaccuum would be filled by somebody, since the consumer need would still exist. Maybe Yahoocaching or Googlecaching? Perhaps one of the big corperations would purchase the Geocaching database and bring them back? For now, Groundspeak = Geocaching.

 

Not in my dictionary. They own a listing service. People own geocaching. You bought it, you hiked it, you hid it, its yours. Agenda or not. Caching or stashing came first, then the corporate machine. They cannot duplicate the creativity and inspiration of the game on their own. They are dependent on the cacher for the content of the game (and the cache), such as those dedicated to cancer survivors or 9/11. Besides, the "original" cache violates several current "guidelines".

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[Clan Riffster]

Not in my dictionary. They own a listing service. People own geocaching. You you bought it, you hiked it, you hid it, its yours.

Oooh Kaay...

Apparently I have the wrong dictionary. Or maybe you are confusing an individual cache with Geocaching? What I bought, hiked out & hid was a cache. I opted to list it at Geocaching dot com, and as such, I can call it a geocache. Had I opted to list it at Terracaching dot org, I would call it a terracache. When you define ownership, you must include a description of "what" is owned. In this case, your claim was that "Geocaching" is owned by the people. While this might make for a wonderful Liberal fantasy, the reality is that Geocaching dot com is not owned by "the people". If it was, we'd both get money every time they turned a profit.

 

Jeremy can shed some light on who, exactly owns Geocaching dot com, if he so chooses. If I had to guess, I'd say it was owned by a corperation, but I haven't done any research to verify my guess.

[+D@nim@l]

Not in my dictionary. They own a listing service. People own geocaching. You you bought it, you hiked it, you hid it, its yours.

Oooh Kaay...

Apparently I have the wrong dictionary. Or maybe you are confusing an individual cache with Geocaching? What I bought, hiked out & hid was a cache. I opted to list it at Geocaching dot com, and as such, I can call it a geocache. Had I opted to list it at Terracaching dot org, I would call it a terracache. When you define ownership, you must include a description of "what" is owned. In this case, your claim was that "Geocaching" is owned by the people. While this might make for a wonderful Liberal fantasy, the reality is that Geocaching dot com is not owned by "the people". If it was, we'd both get money every time they turned a profit.

 

Jeremy can shed some light on who, exactly owns Geocaching dot com, if he so chooses. If I had to guess, I'd say it was owned by a corperation, but I haven't done any research to verify my guess.

 

From the history page "Geocaching, first coined by Matt Stum on the "GPS Stash Hunt" mailing list on May 30, 2000, was the joining of two familiar words. The prefix geo, for Earth, was used to describe the global nature of the activity, but also for its use in familiar topics in gps such as geography." The term geocaching is in the public domain, its not a trademark, its a word. Jermey or whoever registered "geocaching.com" in July 2000.

 

Now you tell me what came first, just make sure you toe the line.

Edited March 28, 2007 by D@nim@l

[Clan Riffster]

Many decades ago, when I received my high school diploma, I shouted "Yahoo" at the top of my lungs. I guess that makes me the owner of Yahoo? Lemme know where I can pick up my check.

[+D@nim@l]

Many decades ago, when I received my high school diploma, I shouted "Yahoo" at the top of my lungs. I guess that makes me the owner of Yahoo? Lemme know where I can pick up my check.

 

I guess they didn't teach you to register the URL first.

 

Next.

[+Ambrosia]

*sigh*

 

Please, stop.

[+CYBret]

Since when did the ownership of Geocaching become a social issue?

 

Since we're already this far off topic I'm going to lock this one down. "Thank you" to those who kept it on topic....or tried to.

 

Bret