unacceptable cache description

[+Polarbz]

Funny that this is STILL going on.

 

But, for my third cent -

 

Geocaching.com simply advertises the caches and hosts cache pages- you could put them wherever you want and advertise them in another manner if you wanted to. I think there are alternative "find the box in the woods" resources out there. Geocaching.com just has the most listings and the widest following.

 

If you don't like the rules/guidelines/decisions, you CAN go elsewhere without actually quitting altogether.

 

I DO think that the agenda rules/guidelines should be modified to be more clear - but if they aren't, I'm still satisfied with how the game is run in my area.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

You are totally correct, Totem Clan.

 

And as far as bringing a First Amendment claim, NEWSPAPERS of all places would laugh you out the door trying to claim some First Amendment claim against a PRIVATE company.

 

Freedom of speech absolutely does NOT apply here in any way, shape or form. Period. There's absolutely NO freedom of speech guaranteed here (or anywhere else private for that matter) since the Constitution of the United States applies to the government. There is no Constitutional protection when you are dealing with a private company (whether that's your employer, a private club, or Groundspeak). It's hilarious to see people claiming Freedom of Speech. Completely clueless.

 

Use of these forums and the geocaching.com site are not governed by the Constitution but rather by the Terms of Use, Cache Placement Guidelines, Waypoint License Agreement, and Forum Guidelines that we all agreed to in order to voluntarily participate here.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

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

http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.aspx

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

Edited April 6, 2008 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

You are totally correct, Totem Clan.

 

And as far as bringing a First Amendment claim, NEWSPAPERS of all places would laugh you out the door trying to claim some First Amendment claim against a PRIVATE company.

 

Freedom of speech absolutely does NOT apply here in any way, shape or form. Period. There's absolutely NO freedom of speech guaranteed here (or anywhere else private for that matter) since the Constitution of the United States applies to the government. There is no Constitutional protection when you are dealing with a private company (whether that's your employer, a private club, or Groundspeak). It's hilarious to see people claiming Freedom of Speech. Completely clueless.

 

Use of these forums and the geocaching.com site are not governed by the Constitution but rather by the Terms of Use, Cache Placement Guidelines, Waypoint License Agreement, and Forum Guidelines that we all agreed to in order to voluntarily participate here.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

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

http://www.geocaching.com/waypoints/agreement.aspx

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?act=boardrules

MM, you are 100% correct! First, a big thank you to you and Totem Clan and a few other recent posters for injecting some sanity into this bizarre thread, and I am glad to see a few folks repeating these basic facts of life here for the benefit of the whiners with the out-of-control sense of entitlement who are screaming that they are "victims" of persecution. The reality is that these folks are free to place any kind of cache that they wish, and to put anything they wish on their cache listing page, and then they are free to either go list that cache -- if it does not conform with the Groundspeak guidelines (and, from the contents of this bizarre thread, I am sure that it would not conform -- on one of the other cache listing sites, or better, if the other cache listing sites will not publish their cache, they are free to start their own cache listing site where they and their peers may publish anything that they wish! It is really that simple and that easy!

Edited April 6, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[Clan Riffster]

If you object to removing the statement or image then that confirms that there is an agenda behind the sentiment.

Wow. That's rather an amazing twist of logic. Consider this image, taken directly from one of my cache pages:

 

If a reviewer asked me to remove this picture from my cache page, I would object. I am not the brightest crayon in the box, and playing with HTML does not come easy to me. It took quite a bit of effort to get it on there. Since my objection does not carry with it a call for action, how does my objection equal an agenda?

 

The people arguing in favor of not changing the wording in the OP's cache sound a lot like Bill Clinton explaining why he didn't have sex with that woman - "Supporting the troops is not an agenda".

Toz, in this case, I must disagree. Bill Clinton's argument was a derailment of semantics. If the OP's cache had even hinted a "Support Our Troops" theme, I would agree with you. But, as you know, it did not. It was a thank you, an expression of pride and some historical tidbits. There was no call for action. Had she asked others to support our troops, that would definitely be an agenda. Had she asked others to offer thanks to our troops, again, instant agenda. Had she asked others to express their pride in their children, that could be perceived as an agenda. Had she suggested supporting an organization, such as the one she provided a history lesson for, that would be an agenda.

 

But she didn't.

 

You still insist on calling a duck a doberman, ignoring the fact that it is covered in feathers and quacks a lot.

 

ReadyOrNot, just so you know, I have no qualms with your cache page at all. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of stating that cache pages should only contain information pertinent to finding the cache, when one of your own cache pages violates your own suggestion. Personally, I enjoy cache pages that do more than tell me, "I hid a box. Go find it". It's been my experience that cachers as a whole are some of the most entertaining writers to be found, and I love reading cache pages that give me a smile.

 

Let's face it. A cache was archived because it did not adhere to the rules.

That's not technically accurate.

A cache was archived because someone with a dictionary that doesn't adhere to any other dictionary on the planet thought it was pushing an agenda. The fact that it was not pushing any agenda became irrelevant at that point. Kinda like when someone says, "My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts". When TPTB asked that the offensive language be altered or removed to pacify whoever was offended by it, the cache owner decided archiving it was a better option than changing it. Not the choice I would've made, but it was her cache, hosted on GC's server, and it was her choice to compromise or archive it.

 

She chose archiving. Not Groundspeak.

 

This game isn't a corporation at all (and it isn't really a sport either, its a game). You are free to go to other sites to list caches. Have at it. They just are not a good as this one.

An excellent point, Sir.

Thoroughly addicted cachers such as myself may not like some of the guidelines imposed upon us. We may not like how those guidelines are interpreted at times. Yet, these very guidelines are one of the prime things responsible for keeping this game growing. Try and imagine how fast caching would be outlawed everywhere if the site did not post and enforce its own guidelines?

 

Obviously they are doing something right.

 

Back on topic: Just for the record, my argument is not that some agendas should be allowed. Like Briansnat, I want to keep this game light and entertaining, and I really don't want to read a bunch of stuff from other folks regarding who I should support. My argument has been, and will remain, that thanking someone, expressing pride and doling out trivia does not constitute an agenda.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Freedom of speech absolutely does NOT apply here in any way, shape or form. Period. ...

 

Free speech is cultural tradition of the country the cache listing service operates in. Things start with cache listings written by the owners. They naturally exercise their option of free expression in the very act of cache creation. It's in their blood. It's only later that this site takes look at the listing submitted for publication and checks it against the list of censored and prohibited items that this site has chosen to impose on listings they host.

 

If you reverse this to pure censorship it would put this site in the business of creating and listing it's own caches. The various terms and conditions that you link to make it clear that this site is in the business of hosting the copyrighted works of others, not creating it's own content. That's web 2.0 before web 2.0 was cool.

 

While it's true that free speech doesn't apply, there is a fair amount of don't bite the hand that feeds you in the mix.

[Clan Riffster]

the whiners with the out-of-control sense of entitlement who are screaming that they are "victims" of persecution.

Could you point out who the "whiners" are that are "screaming" about being victims?

It's been my experience that yelling on an Internet forum is demonstrated by typing in all caps. Would typing in all caps, in bold text, be screaming? Perhaps. I am not all that Internet savvy.

 

So far, I've only seen one person who responded in this thread in all caps. Were they yelling, or were they one of the "whiners", screaming about victimization?

 

Your use of the plural form of whiner indicates that there are more than one cache owner complaining about being singled out for an inaccurate guidelines violations claim. I'm not seeing that. What I am seeing is one cacher making that claim, and a whole bunch of folks agreeing with her, interspersed with several folks making outlandish claims about calling the media, yanking their membership and the like. Basic silliness that most reasonable folks simply tune out.

 

Plus, calling multiple people "whiners", (or even one person a "whiner") is a violation of the forum guidelines, as it is a direct insult.

 

Perhaps you should follow the company policy when you tow the company line?

 

Just sayin'...

[+Renegade Knight]

This has been argued up and down, left and right. OK, we understand that "agendas" aren't allowed. Could someone please explain what the "agenda" is in this case?

Good question.

 

With a solid answer we can understand we will all learn nothing about what this site thinks an agenday is. Cearly it's not the same as what most cachers who have posted think one is.

[+Renegade Knight]

It really irritates me when people can't tell the difference between your and you're, there and their.

Put that in a cache then let us run a betting pool on if it gets listed or not because of that particular agenda.

[+Renegade Knight]

...you might call my "Old Glory" cache as having an agenda, but it's really just a theme....

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone gets it.

That Themes are not Agendas?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Knowing exactly what the guidelines mean when it comes to agenda is all I'm talking about.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Somebody Gets it.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I look at it this way, if you have something on your cache page and you are asked to remove or change it because of the 'perceived' agenda then do it. If you object to removing the statement or image then that confirms that there is an agenda behind the sentiment.

I look at it this way. If you ask me to change something on my cache page. A work you did not create and I question why you want to change the cache my muse demanded I place, and you can only answer vague that "there is an agenda" it confirms that you have an agenda.

 

A good cache is art. Art speaks with passion. Speaking passionately on anything is an agenda.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is Geocaching now a Corporation instead of a sport? ...

 

In this case yes. Groundspeak Inc. is very much a corporation. The question on the table is in fact corporate policy clashing with an individuals cache listing.

 

As an aside, any listing site who's founders have a brain will be a corporation or perhaps an LLC.

Edited April 6, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+TeamGumbo]

A good cache is art. Art speaks with passion. Speaking passionately on anything is an agenda.

Man, I have a TOTAL peanut agenda on my next cache.

 

[dashmn210]

That guy said that he was dissapointed with the AGT series, yet after he found that one, he found 5 more! What a hippocrate!

[dashmn210]

...Knowing exactly what the guidelines mean when it comes to agenda is all I'm talking about.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Somebody Gets it.

Edited April 7, 2008 by dashmn210

[+mtn-man]

...Is Geocaching now a Corporation instead of a sport? ...

 

In this case yes. Groundspeak Inc. is very much a corporation. The question on the table is in fact corporate policy clashing with an individuals cache listing.

I think Totem Clan was talking about geocaching in general, not geocaching.com. Groundspeak cannot tell Terracachers what to do. I know you know about that.

 

Groundspeak is a company that is a listing service for geocaches enabling those that want to play geocaching an outlet to play the game. There are other listing services. You can compare geocaching to a sport I suppose. There are corporations for some sports, like the NHL. The NHL does not dictate all hockey rules across the globe though. Other rinks vary from NHL rinks, for example. Hockey is not a corporation, but the NHL is. The same goes with geocaching and Groundspeak. The NHL makes rules for its game, but not for all of hockey around the world. The same thing is true with geocaching and Groundspeak. If you want to play hockey in the NHL, you have to abide by the rules they have set for play. Again, the same is true for geocaching and Groundspeak.

[+tozainamboku]

The people arguing in favor of not changing the wording in the OP's cache sound a lot like Bill Clinton explaining why he didn't have sex with that woman - "Supporting the troops is not an agenda".

Toz, in this case, I must disagree. Bill Clinton's argument was a derailment of semantics. If the OP's cache had even hinted a "Support Our Troops" theme, I would agree with you. But, as you know, it did not. It was a thank you, an expression of pride and some historical tidbits. There was no call for action. Had she asked others to support our troops, that would definitely be an agenda. Had she asked others to offer thanks to our troops, again, instant agenda. Had she asked others to express their pride in their children, that could be perceived as an agenda. Had she suggested supporting an organization, such as the one she provided a history lesson for, that would be an agenda.

 

But she didn't.

 

You still insist on calling a duck a doberman, ignoring the fact that it is covered in feathers and quacks a lot.

No I still say it reminds me of Bill Clinton. The Clinton administration was famous for parsing statements to fit their "agenda". Certainly one can parse the OP's cache page and say that she never solicits anything, that there is no call for action. She simply thanks all those who are currently serving or have served in the past. She then starts presenting a set of facts about the history of the American Legion. Sure you could parse this to say there is no agenda. Or you can look at it an assume that if you too want to thank those that served what better way than supporting the American Legion. I gave a similar example of a cache in tribute to a friend or family member that has cancer and then gave some facts about the American Cancer Society.

 

And looking for dictionary definitions of "agenda" that limit it to having a explicit solicitation for action reminds me of another Bill Clinton quote. I guess whether or not you seen the OP's cache as an agenda depends on what agenda is.

 

I agree that TPTB have not made it clear what is acceptable. It seems you can have a tribute to friend or family member or even your pet so long as you don't mention an organization. But what if the friend or family member is in the military. How to word this without mentioning the organzation they belong to? Can you mention the branch of the service? Can you even say what country's military they are serving in. The have be tributes to police and firemen kill in the line of duty. I doubt they are friends or family of the cache hider. Are these tributes allowed? Can I hide a cache and thank my teacher? Can I thank the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers? I would like to know what is acceptable.

[Keystone]

I would like to know what is acceptable.

The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends."

 

Let's take cute little candy chicks as an example. What could possibly be wrong? Here is an acceptable image for a cache page with a "cute little candy chicks" theme:

 

 

But contrast this with a submission that I had to archive on account of the cache not being family-friendly, and because it advocated a social agenda. Here's an image from that cache, called "Peep Show":

 

 

Yes, it's all a question of degree, and the exercise of judgement.

[+TeamGumbo]

I think most folks these days like 'em.....hare-less.

 

*rimshot*

[+Hockeyhick]

Pardon me...but if that image is inappropriate for a cache page, what makes it appropriate for the forum?

[Keystone]

Pardon me...but if that image is inappropriate for a cache page, what makes it appropriate for the forum?

It is fictional; there was no such cache submission. I apologize if I misled anyone. I was trying to illustrate a point that almost any subject can cross the line into agenda territory.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I would like to know what is acceptable.

The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends."

 

Let's take cute little candy chicks as an example. What could possibly be wrong? Here is an acceptable image for a cache page with a "cute little candy chicks" theme:

 

 

But contrast this with a submission that I had to archive on account of the cache not being family-friendly, and because it advocated a social agenda. Here's an image from that cache, called "Peep Show":

 

 

Yes, it's all a question of degree, and the exercise of judgement.

Would you please introduce me to the hottie pink bunny on the pole? She is beyond hot! Whooo! Check out those bunny buns!

[+space_weaseal]

This is so funny...

I did not know geocaching was a political statment and what dif does it make on the dscription.. If you dont like the description of the catch dont hunt for it..

And dont kid yourselfs when you think we have free speack. There are too many plp out there that think free speach is speach that only supports their personal views..

[+FireRef]

I would like to know what is acceptable.

The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends."

 

 

And therein lies the problem. By not being more specific, you (referring to Groundspeak, and by virtue of having to follow the way-too-loosely defined rules, the reviewers) have created a massive problem. Things you approve which are questionable are questioned by people. Things you deny which are not questionable to most people are questioned by people.

 

When you make a standard which says "We'll review it on a case-by-case basis", no one is happy. Neither is anyone when your answer to the question of what is acceptable under a standard is "It depends.".

 

Basically, it means you (GS, reviewers, etc) can make up rules and interpretations as you go, and by saying no one decision has any effect on any other, and no precidents can be set, no one ever knows what is acceptable and what isn't, based on what we see making it through or being rejected.

 

Lets compare geocaching to getting somewhere. There's lots of ways to get somewhere: Drive, bike, walk. Some are more appropriate under some circumstances, others under others. How would people feel if every time they drove somewhere, the rules for driving were completely up to the interpretation of the officer that was pulling them over. "Today, I feel like saying 5mph is the most appropriate speed, even though the sign says '25', so here's your ticket. - Sure, the person in front of you was doing 3x your speed, but they were driving a red car, so I'm letting them go. (or more likely in here, "... but I have my reason for letting them go and not letting you go, and I'm not going to tell you what it is)". How do you feel? Sure, if you don't want to deal with random rule changes and interpretations of those rules, you could walk, or ride your bike. But the best way to get where you are going right now is driving.

 

GC.com has the largest list - not because the most people agree with their rules, but because they have the most popular site. More people use it, so more caches are listed (regardless of how many are denied), and so more caches can be found by people using the site. You could switch to a site which has better defined or looser rules, but then you have less caches to hunt because the majority have succumbed to following poorly defined rules which allow the comapny to basically do whatever it wants whenever it wants. Going elsewhere isn't really much of an option, due to the fact that a large number of people would have to do this before it would be beneficial to all involved (except for GS.com, who gets less revenue from memberships and people clicking on ads). They also have the name which is associated with the game - like Kleenex has the name associated with facial tissues or Xerox with copies. This provides a major advantage, regardless of how bad a box of Kleenex tissues or a Xerox copier is - the name recognition is there.

 

It wouldn't make sense, in the above example, to stop driving. You have to stick with dealing with these unfairly set up, poorly defined, and unfairly administered rules because you really would prefer to drive. But does this mean you just accept them? No - you complain to city hall, file complaints againt the officers acting unfairly, vote new people into office who promise better defined rules and more fair and consistent interpretations of them, etc. Sure, I could ride my bike... but I would rather drive, and see the system fixed, rather than be relegated to my bike just because I'm lazy enough to accept unfair circumstances without a fight.

 

Keystone - your answer to many questions about the rules and guidelines on this site has been "It depends." - How about taking a stand and giving a clear explanation that we all can understand and follow, rather than giving an answer which basically says nothing? Is that too much to ask? From anyone at GS, not just you?

Edited April 7, 2008 by FireRef

[+Hockeyhick]

I see.

 

Personally, I was more surprised (and also as much appalled) that GC.com allows the use of their link on an atheist's web page. (see my previously posted link)

 

So let's cut through all of the muck.

 

I understand about solicitation, but you have to admit that the definition of "agenda" is murky.

 

I think that is TPTB would develop a plainer, more cut-and dried definition, then this wouldn't be a problem.

 

Or...

 

just do away with the whole agenda rule altogether, since it's subjective, anyway.

 

It's a pity that questioning the support of our military could lead to this division.

 

Besides...Geocaching.com wouldn't exist at all if it weren't for all of those satellites, anyway.

[+wyld_bill2003]

After following this fiasco for the last couple days, I have come to these conclusions:

1: Every cache has some kind of agenda: great view, history lesson, great looking lamp post skirt..ect..

2: Not every agenda is allowed by Groundspeak, therefore not every cache listing is approved.

3: It is Groundspeaks interpretation of "agenda" that matters and that interpretation is subject to change at any time.

4: Geocaching is a game and games have rules. If you are going to use geocaching.com to list your caches, you have to play by their rules.

5: Keystone is the coolest moderator/reviewer around.

 

Not trying to ruffle any feathers, this is just my opinion.

 

re: #5 Keystone has reviewed my caches before, and a little hiney-kissing never hurts. Right?

 

Now that there is an agenda.

[+space_weaseal]

You may have to play by there rules but you dont have to pay for the game...

[+FireRef]

You may have to play by there rules but you dont have to pay for the game...

 

Sure you do - my time is valuable, so is my Gas Money scouting out places to place caches that can be denied on a whim, etc. Everything costs something - not necessarily money per-se, but definitely something.

[Keystone]

If your CACHE is hidden in a place that meets the listing guidelines, you don't need to spend gas money going back out to retrieve it. Hide it away from other caches, railroad tracks, dams, military bases, etc. Make sure you've followed any land manager permission policies. Submit your cache.

 

The vast majority of cache submissions sail right through and are published without any back and forth. Most cache descriptions stay focused on the cache site, the surroundings, and geocaching things. There's just that small percentage where the CACHE PAGE description starts talking about a business, a charitable cause, a religious belief, etc., where these guidelines come into play. That has nothing to do with the container, waiting patiently in the corner of the parking lot until its page is published.

 

The normal process for commercial and agenda caches that I follow is to identify the issue and then send the owner to Groundspeak for permission. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it's no. Often it's "make these changes and it's OK." The owner makes the changes and the listing is published a few days later. The cache is still in the same spot, outside the American Legion or the Wal-Mart. With its new page that's free of solicitation content or commercial content, the agenda-less container is now happily being found and logged.

 

If you include unrelated content on your cache page, there is a chance that it will run up against these guidelines, so proceed on that basis.

[+edscott]

I would like to know what is acceptable.

The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends."

 

Let's take cute little candy chicks as an example. What could possibly be wrong? Here is an acceptable image for a cache page with a "cute little candy chicks" theme:

 

 

But contrast this with a submission that I had to archive on account of the cache not being family-friendly, and because it advocated a social agenda. Here's an image from that cache, called "Peep Show":

 

 

Yes, it's all a question of degree, and the exercise of judgement.

 

Advocated? I'll agree to depicted or illustrated, but I see nothing that could be called advocation. Not that it matters to me. I'm only reading this thread for the entertainment value.

[+mtn-man]

Keystone - your answer to many questions about the rules and guidelines on this site has been "It depends." - How about taking a stand and giving a clear explanation that we all can understand and follow, rather than giving an answer which basically says nothing? Is that too much to ask? From anyone at GS, not just you?

They are guidelines. They can be flexible. It is that way on purpose. If you ask Groundspeak for permission to do something out of the ordinary, they might say yes. They might say no. There is no way to give a clear explanation because they *are* guidelines. We are not "giving an answer which basically says nothing". We are saying you should ask for permission before posting any cache that might have an agenda. That is clearly in the guidelines. You just don't like the answer. The answer is "we are not sure until you ask us about a specific issue".

 

You may have to play by there rules but you dont have to pay for the game...

 

Sure you do - my time is valuable, so is my Gas Money scouting out places to place caches that can be denied on a whim, etc. Everything costs something - not necessarily money per-se, but definitely something.

They were talking about paying Groundspeak to play the game. You do not have to do that. What you do with your personal time is your own personal responsibility. And this had nothing at all to do with the *place* the cache was located. It was the agenda in the description. Stick to the topic. Gas money has nothing to do with what you write in a cache description.

[+briansnat]

Personally, I was more surprised (and also as much appalled) that GC.com allows the use of their link on an atheist's web page. (see my previously posted link)

 

First they have little control over someone else putting a link on their page.

 

Second, I looked at that page and didn't see any links to geocaching.com

 

Finally, even if there was, why should it be something that they would be concerned or appalled about?

[+space_weaseal]

You may have to play by there rules but you dont have to pay for the game...

 

Sure you do - my time is valuable, so is my Gas Money scouting out places to place caches that can be denied on a whim, etc. Everything costs something - not necessarily money per-se, but definitely something.

 

WoW!

I bet you would argu with a tree and tell it its not a tree....

[+Hockeyhick]

First...it's called "Cease and Desist"

 

Second, you didn't look at the "links" page

 

Third...it is the truest definition of "agenda" that there is.

[+mtn-man]

WoW!

I bet you would argue with a tree and tell it its not a tree....

Sir, you are a fast learner.

[Clan Riffster]

Keystone and Mtn-Man, before this thread dies a painful death, I would like to offer my thanx to both of you for maintaining a courteous, light and friendly tone throughout the firestorm. You two deserve a raise. There is no way I could maintain your composure under similar circumstances. Kudos, Sirs!

 

You two personify the theory that folks can hold different beliefs, values and opinions, and still be civil.

 

While I don't share your view on what constitutes an agenda, it is a pleasure to correspond with you two on the subject.

 

The bottom line, as I see it, is that Groundspeak can define this issue any way they wish. I know it may sound crass to some, but it is ultimately true that we can play this game by their "rules", or go play somewhere else. I choose to play here, CZ it's the best game in town.

 

(what can I say?... they might be reviewing my caches some day.)

[+tozainamboku]

First...it's called "Cease and Desist"

 

Second, you didn't look at the "links" page

 

Third...it is the truest definition of "agenda" that there is.

Sure is. It looks like this guy has an agenda that atheist should go geocaching. Kinda like getting geocachers to become atheists by posting something on a cache page. I guess its his own web site so if he wants to put something totally unrelated to the main subject of his website he can. It's pretty silly, but it doesn't seem as anything that would make me want to allow anybody to post there agenda on a cache page.

[+TeamGumbo]

Personally, I was more surprised (and also as much appalled) that GC.com allows the use of their link on an atheist's web page.

 

Appalled? Oh dear!

 

*accepts JC as my yadda yadda yadda*

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...The answer to all those who have asked what's acceptable is "it depends."...

 

That's pretty hard to work with. Especially when most of us think a cache is fine only to find that TPTB think otherwise. This very thread being the case in point.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+puppymonster]

Appalled? Oh dear!

 

*accepts JC as my yadda yadda yadda*

 

You accept me as your what?

 

[+FireRef]

If your CACHE is hidden in a place that meets the listing guidelines, you don't need to spend gas money going back out to retrieve it. Hide it away from other caches, railroad tracks, dams, military bases, etc. Make sure you've followed any land manager permission policies. Submit your cache.

 

The vast majority of cache submissions sail right through and are published without any back and forth. Most cache descriptions stay focused on the cache site, the surroundings, and geocaching things. There's just that small percentage where the CACHE PAGE description starts talking about a business, a charitable cause, a religious belief, etc., where these guidelines come into play. That has nothing to do with the container, waiting patiently in the corner of the parking lot until its page is published.

 

The normal process for commercial and agenda caches that I follow is to identify the issue and then send the owner to Groundspeak for permission. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes it's no. Often it's "make these changes and it's OK." The owner makes the changes and the listing is published a few days later. The cache is still in the same spot, outside the American Legion or the Wal-Mart. With its new page that's free of solicitation content or commercial content, the agenda-less container is now happily being found and logged.

 

If you include unrelated content on your cache page, there is a chance that it will run up against these guidelines, so proceed on that basis.

 

Thank you.

 

I still feel the question I asked was not answered. This person talked about a building near which the cache was located, and how it applied to them, their family, and their children. The only agenda (if you want to call it that) was to support their children, and talk a little about the building near which the cache was located.

 

Again, this is going to lead to cache pages which simply state "Cache here." (or "Cache not here" for puzzle caches) Yes, this is a minimalist attitude. But how many people would drive if the speed limit was random, and randomly enforced? You could say most of my caches have an agenda - getting people to think a little more about chemicals and their use/application in everyday life. Is this going to get any new ones to my series denied, because of that? I certainly hope not, but the severely loose interpretation of what an agenda is could certainly come into play here.

 

And to stay with the driving example, how many years have we done Jeep travel bugs? No agenda there... none at all... nope... (getting the mop for the sarcasm puddle forming under this post). I guess whatever agenda makes GS.com and Jeremy money will get approved. They certainly don't have any problem selling TB tracking codes to anyone making coins with agendas... and the difference between this and a cache page is? $$$ is made. I can have as many "Support the US Troops" TB coin pages as I want to pay for.

 

So is that next? No more TB's/Coins with any kind of agenda?

 

(I do agree - you guys have been relatively conservative in dealing with those of us who have a problem with your "employer" (yes, I know you're volunteers - can't think of a more appropriate term) and his interesting policies - on this, I think you as well. I just wish you would see the broader picture, and not continue to support an obviously unclear policy as written.)

[+Renegade Knight]

...Is Geocaching now a Corporation instead of a sport? ...

 

In this case yes. Groundspeak Inc. is very much a corporation. The question on the table is in fact corporate policy clashing with an individuals cache listing.

I think Totem Clan was talking about geocaching in general, not geocaching.com. Groundspeak cannot tell Terracachers what to do. I know you know about that.

 

Groundspeak is a company that is a listing service for geocaches enabling those that want to play geocaching an outlet to play the game. There are other listing services. You can compare geocaching to a sport I suppose. There are corporations for some sports, like the NHL. The NHL does not dictate all hockey rules across the globe though. Other rinks vary from NHL rinks, for example. Hockey is not a corporation, but the NHL is. The same goes with geocaching and Groundspeak. The NHL makes rules for its game, but not for all of hockey around the world. The same thing is true with geocaching and Groundspeak. If you want to play hockey in the NHL, you have to abide by the rules they have set for play. Again, the same is true for geocaching and Groundspeak.

 

I thought I had said that. TPTB is "Corporate Groundspeak" at least when I use it. Volunteers work for TPTB but are really a hybrid between the unincorporated community and Corporate HQ. They don't always agree with HQ but that's the line they toe when they have to toe a line.

 

In this case a cache was OK on one day and not OK the next. Therein is the clash between Corporate Policy and a formerly acceptable cache. Rather like the NHL Corporate office overriding a NHL Sanctioned Ref's call on an NHL player after the game is over and the score posted.

[+mtn-man]

I still feel the question I asked was not answered.

Then you didn't read my post.

 

So is that next? No more TB's/Coins with any kind of agenda?

It has been well established that those are the way to promote your agenda. Let's stick to the topic.

[Keystone]

We covered Groundspeak-sponsored travel bugs and geocoins a few pages back. We covered CITO as an endorsed Groundspeak agenda a few pages back. No need to be repetitious.

 

Groundspeak would like to control which commercial and charitable interests are featured on its web pages. Jeep, Diabetes and CITO are examples of approved exceptions.

 

If someone wants to send out 10,000 Land Rover travel bugs to counter the "Jeep Agenda," go here and have at it. They will be happy to take your money.

 

Cache listing pages don't cost anything. With this comes the requirement that all commercial caches and solicitation caches must be approved by Groundspeak.

[+mtn-man]

In this case a cache was OK on one day and not OK the next. Therein is the clash between Corporate Policy and a formerly acceptable cache. Rather like the NHL Corporate office overriding a NHL Sanctioned Ref's call on an NHL player after the game is over and the score posted.

Yeah, in a way. Difference I guess is that there is no way to win, so the game is constantly going on with no end. I wonder if it is more like the league main office in Toronto taking the goal away after the ref said it went in.

Edited April 7, 2008 by mtn-man

[+Renegade Knight]

...Groundspeak would like to control which commercial and charitable interests are featured on its web pages....

 

It's important to note that this means cache owner listings and not just the web pages directly created by this site. In effect this site has chosen to assert control over cache listing content. That control has come with an 'it depends' interpretation of when it will be asserted.

 

Cache listing pages don't cost anything.

The caches and listing though do have an investment of time and money on the part of the owners who create them. That gives cache owners an inherent and vested interest in their caches . That pride of ownership will come into play when a cache is called into question. Especially on some of the more nebulous guidelines.

[+Sileny Jizda]

I think the policy and and guidelines are clear at this point. You pay Groundspeak enough money and they'll look the other way and ignore their own rules. Yeap, that about sums it up. Money talks and road apples well, you get the idea. That being the case I wonder what it would cost to allow SOS Support Our Soldiers Cache types since CITO has it's own category and is an obvious agenda. I know there are enough people here that would be glad to donate for the cause. We would.

[+Renegade Knight]

In this case a cache was OK on one day and not OK the next. Therein is the clash between Corporate Policy and a formerly acceptable cache. Rather like the NHL Corporate office overriding a NHL Sanctioned Ref's call on an NHL player after the game is over and the score posted.

Yeah, in a way. Difference I guess is that there is no way to win, so the game is constantly going on with no end. I wonder if it is more like the league main office in Toronto taking the goal away after the ref said it went in.

 

Maybe it's like this poem I read somewhere.

 

On being good but not nearly good enough.

 

There was a swimmer named Jack.

Who swam 10 miles out, and 9 back.

 

The thing is, you as a reviewer deal with truckloads of caches. You would care about the big picture and not so much any one cache. We as owners deal with caches we care about one at a time. The perspective is different.

[+Renegade Knight]

...So is that next? No more TB's/Coins with any kind of agenda?...

 

Here's a free one for you.

 

Weld the coin with agenda to the cache for discovery.

 

In the one step too far department, you could even make discovery of the coin part of the logging requirements for the cache.

[+mtn-man]

I would disagree with that RK. Most of that truckload, as Keystone notes, are easy since for most people geocaching is simply about finding their cache. When we get these tough ones, I know I sometimes "sleep on it" and think about the cache and how to approach it.

 

I do understand how tough it is when a cache is archived. I had something similar happen with me on a waymark I listed. I didn't read the category well enough. I got denied. I've have related this point to the reviewers. I disable most caches unless there is no way it is going to fly. I give them a chance to fix it because I know it is their baby. We get the big picture more than you think. After all, we are cachers too.

 

He is an example that I can give on asking for permission from Groundspeak. I had an event that I wanted to list personally. It was a bit on the edge. I presented the idea to Groundspeak saying that a cacher wanted to do it and I wanted to see what they thought about it. Rothstafari thought about it and got back to me after a few days. He said he would allow it since it was a teamwork type thing and would be a great way for geocachers to have some fun. This was right as the guidelines were being loosened up. I was prepared for the denial, but I figured that asking for permission was worth a shot. After he approved of the idea, I told him I was the cacher in question. He got a chuckle out of my approach, but it shows that even I went about it in the right way. The whirlyball event was great and cachers want to do it again.