unacceptable cache description

[+sbell111]

... Would it be OK for the reviewer responsible for reviewing in Iran to post a cache supporting Al Qaeda but not OK in the US?

al Qaeda - Sunni

Iran - Shiite

 

I doubt that the reviewer would make the blunder that you are suggesting.

 

Not to get off track, but if you don't think Al Qaeda's agenda has a good deal of support among a large segment of Iranians, then you're living with your head under a rock.

Or someone has been drinking kool-aid.

[+USA 45]

... Would it be OK for the reviewer responsible for reviewing in Iran to post a cache supporting Al Qaeda but not OK in the US?

al Qaeda - Sunni

Iran - Shiite

 

I doubt that the reviewer would make the blunder that you are suggesting.

 

Not to get off track, but if you don't think Al Qaeda's agenda has a good deal of support among a large segment of Iranians, then you're living with your head under a rock.

Do they cache? only caches I see in Iraq are all done by the AMERICAN SERVICE MEN & WOMEN there. I really think Al Qaeda , Iranians feel thay have better things to do and would not waste their time geocaching, And this cache is here in the USA

Edited April 7, 2008 by USA 45

[+Rockin Roddy]

... Would it be OK for the reviewer responsible for reviewing in Iran to post a cache supporting Al Qaeda but not OK in the US?

al Qaeda - Sunni

Iran - Shiite

 

I doubt that the reviewer would make the blunder that you are suggesting.

 

Not to get off track, but if you don't think Al Qaeda's agenda has a good deal of support among a large segment of Iranians, then you're living with your head under a rock.

Do they cache? only caches I see in Iraq are all done by the AMERICAN SERVICE MEN & WOMEN there. I really think Al Qaeda , Iranians feel thay have better things to do and would not waste their time geocaching, And this cache is here in the USA

 

I doubt one would have to look overseas to find an Iranian or Iraqi...or a Geramn or a....

[+FireRef]

Now you are placing an agenda in the OP's mouth. Simply because someone refuses to do something doesn't mean anything, and you don't have the right to read into that. Just as the site and reviewers shouldn't have the right to read into this cache an agenda they are "perceiving" to be there, but isn't.

 

I've got a right to read whatever I want into this as does Groundspeak. Who are you to tell me what I have a right to do and not to do?

 

I apologise - you have every right to think whatever you want. But to indicate that the person had an agenda, when they stated they didn't, is the same as telling me that since you think I believe something, I must believe it. You're welcome to your belief. You're not welcome to state, when the OP stated otherwise, that the OP must have meant something different from what they said because YOU interpret it that way.

 

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

Edited April 7, 2008 by FireRef

[+Rockin Roddy]

Now you are placing an agenda in the OP's mouth. Simply because someone refuses to do something doesn't mean anything, and you don't have the right to read into that. Just as the site and reviewers shouldn't have the right to read into this cache an agenda they are "perceiving" to be there, but isn't.

 

I've got a right to read whatever I want into this as does Groundspeak. Who are you to tell me what I have a right to do and not to do?

 

I apologise - you have every right to think whatever you want. But to indicate that the person had an agenda, when they stated they didn't, is the same as telling me that since you think I believe something, I must believe it. You're welcome to your belief. You're not welcome to state, when the OP stated otherwise, that the OP must have meant something different from what they said because YOU interpret it that way.

 

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

 

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Now you are placing an agenda in the OP's mouth. Simply because someone refuses to do something doesn't mean anything, and you don't have the right to read into that. Just as the site and reviewers shouldn't have the right to read into this cache an agenda they are "perceiving" to be there, but isn't.

 

I've got a right to read whatever I want into this as does Groundspeak. Who are you to tell me what I have a right to do and not to do?

 

I apologise - you have every right to think whatever you want. But to indicate that the person had an agenda, when they stated they didn't, is the same as telling me that since you think I believe something, I must believe it. You're welcome to your belief. You're not welcome to state, when the OP stated otherwise, that the OP must have meant something different from what they said because YOU interpret it that way.

 

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

 

I don't think it takes a whole lot of reading to determine that the OP is pushing for an organization on the cache page. Whether or not that organization is good or bad is not an issue. Pushing an organization on a cache page is an agenda. That seems very clear to me.

[+tozainamboku]

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

Sorry. But TPTB have only said that the cache page is perceived to have an agenda. They indicated what part of the cache description lead them to have that perception. The cache owner saying that she doesn't have an agenda does not remove that fact that one can perceive an agenda from what was written. The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do.

[+FireRef]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

[+FireRef]

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

Sorry. But TPTB have only said that the cache page is perceived to have an agenda. They indicated what part of the cache description lead them to have that perception. The cache owner saying that she doesn't have an agenda does not remove that fact that one can perceive an agenda from what was written. The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do.

 

Well, we can't assume either. And again, you can't perceive an agenda just because you think one is there. That is unfair to the person who you are reading that agenda into.

 

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

[+ReadyOrNot]

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

Sorry. But TPTB have only said that the cache page is perceived to have an agenda. They indicated what part of the cache description lead them to have that perception. The cache owner saying that she doesn't have an agenda does not remove that fact that one can perceive an agenda from what was written. The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do.

 

Well, we can't assume either. And again, you can't perceive an agenda just because you think one is there. That is unfair to the person who you are reading that agenda into.

 

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

 

Again, here's the part asked to be removed... What does this have to do with her sons service? The part about her son was allowed to stay on the cache page. This is all about the American Legion and information promoting the organization. I don't think there is anything wrong with the information, but it is a promotion of the organization nonetheless.

 

I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. God's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM! The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

 

PLEASE!

 

Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description...

 

Let me do it another way...see if you like this:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Again, here's the part asked to be removed... What does this have to do with her sons service? The part about her son was allowed to stay on the cache page. This is all about the American Legion and information promoting the organization. I don't think there is anything wrong with the information, but it is a promotion of the organization nonetheless.

 

I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. God's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM! The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

 

Asking what it has to do with her sons service is the wrong question. The right question if you are truly interested in understanding why it's there is "why did the owner choose to put that on the cache page"? It's there, she hada reason. Undersand the reason and you can make a better suggestion about both the cache and this sites rules.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Rockin Roddy]

And that is exactly what TPTB is doing - reading into a cache page statement something that they think is there, and saying because they think it is, it must be, and therefore violates guidelines.

Sorry. But TPTB have only said that the cache page is perceived to have an agenda. They indicated what part of the cache description lead them to have that perception. The cache owner saying that she doesn't have an agenda does not remove that fact that one can perceive an agenda from what was written. The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do.

 

Well, we can't assume either. And again, you can't perceive an agenda just because you think one is there. That is unfair to the person who you are reading that agenda into.

 

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

 

Wow, I hope the OP is older than a two year old...and has enough sense to not just throw tantrums at will like a two year old....sheesh! Because the OP is unwilling to make the REQUIRED changes, she chose to archive...if the honor of her children were so important, why not make the change and HONOR THE CHILDREN??? MUST the American Legion be named and given background for JUST to honor her children??

[+egami]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

 

PLEASE!

 

Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description...

 

Let me do it another way...see if you like this:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it!

 

The problem I have with this is that there are already in existence hundreds of variations of caches like this...yet, they choose this topic to make their point.

 

There is a huge double standard in practice.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The fact the the cache owner refuses to change the description either means she does have an agenda, or as ReadyOrNot pointed out, she doesn't like being told what to do.

Or it means she has both artistic integrety and a vested interest in her cache. We ask owners to stand up for their caches and take care of them. When they do you can reasonably expect them to not like others mucking with them espeically if it's to remove part of their own write up that they think is fine. I'm honestly puzzled why people are suprised at this.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

... Would it be OK for the reviewer responsible for reviewing in Iran to post a cache supporting Al Qaeda but not OK in the US?

al Qaeda - Sunni

Iran - Shiite

 

I doubt that the reviewer would make the blunder that you are suggesting.

 

Not to get off track, but if you don't think Al Qaeda's agenda has a good deal of support among a large segment of Iranians, then you're living with your head under a rock.

Or someone has been drinking kool-aid.

 

Perhaps you have. That would be a good excuse.

[Clan Riffster]

If I remember correctly, it was something like, "We will WIN the war" or something along those lines. It wasn't that much that needed to be changed and the intent and honor would still have remained a part of the cache.

What you're missing is that there was nothing even closely resembling "We will win the war", or "Support our Troops" in the published version of the cache. Statements to that effect were in her initial write up, and the local reviewer asked that it be changed. She made the necessary changes, and her cache was published once it met the guidelines.

 

Let's not rewrite history here.

 

Because she had an agenda.

Could you share with the rest of us, just what, exactly, her agenda was? Quite frankly, I don't see it. Apparently, many other folks in here can't see it either. Since you seem so adamant that there is an agenda present, you shouldn't have any difficulty telling us what the agenda is. Or were you just parroting the company line?

 

Those of us on the "Their ain't no agenda here" side of the fence have offered a line by line analysis of everything typed in the published version of the cache page. Not a single line of that page meets the necessary criteria to be considered an agenda by anybody who can read a dictionary. Yet, you continue to espouse the belief that there is one.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a recent political brue-hahaa. One side came up with a slogan claiming someone on the other side lied. We'll call him Fred. It was a great soundbite, but utterly lacking in reality. "Fred Lied. People Died" There are oodles of cars running around with that on their bumper. The side that invented the slogan proved an incredibly valuable point: If you say something long enough and loud enough, it won't matter that the facts don't support what you're saying. It magically becomes true when enough people say it.

 

Is that what's happening here? Are you thinking that if you just keep saying, "There's an agenda!" that it will magically come true?

 

Please support your claim be telling us what the agenda is.

 

(No, copy/pasting the cache page doesn't tell us anything. We've read it already)

 

Even as a member of the org in question, I see the part she was asked to remove as promotional.

Thank you for your view, and your service. As a member of the listed organization, in your opinion, had she left out the name of the particular organization, would it still be promotional? A few pages back, someone made just such a suggestion, and I can't recall how it was received.

 

If, for instance, it had read:

The organization located near the cache was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Would you still see an agenda?

 

I value your view because you are a member.

[+Rockin Roddy]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

 

PLEASE!

 

Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description...

 

Let me do it another way...see if you like this:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it!

 

The problem I have with this is that there are already in existence hundreds of variations of caches like this...yet, they choose this topic to make their point.

 

There is a huge double standard in practice.

 

GS didn't choose this one...it wasn't singled out! SOMEONE reported this cache and the PTB were then required to take action....no double standards, no conspiracy...

[+ReadyOrNot]

...Again, here's the part asked to be removed... What does this have to do with her sons service? The part about her son was allowed to stay on the cache page. This is all about the American Legion and information promoting the organization. I don't think there is anything wrong with the information, but it is a promotion of the organization nonetheless.

 

I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. God's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM! The American Legion was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 American Legion Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

 

Asking what it has to do with her sons service is the wrong question. The right question if you are truly interested in understanding why it's there is "why did the owner choose to put that on the cache page"? It's there, she hada reason. Undersand the reason and you can make a better suggestion about both the cache and this sites rules.

 

I understand why its there. I understand why she did it. I understand, I understand, I understand... I happen to agree with why she did it and the reasons behind it. No argument there. But if I stand up for her right to put an agenda on the cache page, then I guarantee that someone will come along that I disagree with and then I'm stuck because I stood behind this situation...

 

When someone comes along with the "Planet is melting" agenda, I can firmly argue my stance that it should not be allowed.

[+Rockin Roddy]

If I remember correctly, it was something like, "We will WIN the war" or something along those lines. It wasn't that much that needed to be changed and the intent and honor would still have remained a part of the cache.

What you're missing is that there was nothing even closely resembling "We will win the war", or "Support our Troops" in the published version of the cache. Statements to that effect were in her initial write up, and the local reviewer asked that it be changed. She made the necessary changes, and her cache was published once it met the guidelines.

 

Let's not rewrite history here.

 

Because she had an agenda.

Could you share with the rest of us, just what, exactly, her agenda was? Quite frankly, I don't see it. Apparently, many other folks in here can't see it either. Since you seem so adamant that there is an agenda present, you shouldn't have any difficulty telling us what the agenda is. Or were you just parroting the company line?

Those of us on the "Their ain't no agenda here" side of the fence have offered a line by line analysis of everything typed in the published version of the cache page. Not a single line of that page meets the necessary criteria to be considered an agenda by anybody who can read a dictionary. Yet, you continue to espouse the belief that there is one.

 

This whole thing reminds me of a recent political brue-hahaa. One side came up with a slogan claiming someone on the other side lied. We'll call him Fred. It was a great soundbite, but utterly lacking in reality. "Fred Lied. People Died" There are oodles of cars running around with that on their bumper. The side that invented the slogan proved an incredibly valuable point: If you say something long enough and loud enough, it won't matter that the facts don't support what you're saying. It magically becomes true when enough people say it.

 

Is that what's happening here? Are you thinking that if you just keep saying, "There's an agenda!" that it will magically come true?

 

Please support your claim be telling us what the agenda is.

 

(No, copy/pasting the cache page doesn't tell us anything. We've read it already)

 

Even as a member of the org in question, I see the part she was asked to remove as promotional.

Thank you for your view, and your service. As a member of the listed organization, in your opinion, had she left out the name of the particular organization, would it still be promotional? A few pages back, someone made just such a suggestion, and I can't recall how it was received.

 

If, for instance, it had read:

The organization located near the cache was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Would you still see an agenda?

 

I value your view because you are a member.

 

OHOHOH...I know the answer...pick me!! It's promoting an organization!!! THAT'S IT!! YES, the agenda is the promotion of the org!! I hope this helps the many of you who can't figure this out...it's been said MANY times!!

[+egami]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

 

PLEASE!

 

Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description...

 

Let me do it another way...see if you like this:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it!

 

The problem I have with this is that there are already in existence hundreds of variations of caches like this...yet, they choose this topic to make their point.

 

There is a huge double standard in practice.

 

GS didn't choose this one...it wasn't singled out! SOMEONE reported this cache and the PTB were then required to take action....no double standards, no conspiracy...

 

I didn't say they chose the cache...I said they chose the "topic", and really on that note my point still stands.

 

There is a double standard when you take action against one perceived agenda and yet there are hundreds out there on other topics that remain untouched.

[+KoosKoos]

OHOHOH...I know the answer...pick me!! It's promoting an organization!!! THAT'S IT!! YES, the agenda is the promotion of the org!! I hope this helps the many of you who can't figure this out...it's been said MANY times!!

 

For some of us, the question is whether a factual statement of an organization's history is a promotion of said organization under the solicitation section of the guidelines. Her text didn't say "this organization does wonderful work and we should support it".

 

If listing a history of an organization is soliciting, then I think the "example" in the guidelines needs to be rewritten to be more clear. There are plenty of caches out there that mention organizations, awareness of diseases, etc. that should all be retracted or edited as this one was.

[+Renegade Knight]

...GS didn't choose this one...it wasn't singled out! SOMEONE reported this cache and the PTB were then required to take action....no double standards, no conspiracy...

 

Lets run with that thought. What agenda was served when this cache was singled out by the person reporting it and GS chose to take a second look at an already listed cache?

[+FireRef]

Yup

 

But that is why they have that thing about not setting precidents. We wouldn't want them throwing out hundreds of caches and getting thousands of cachers up in arms over the issue. So pick and choose which ones to complain about, deal with those however you want to, and only deal with (or ignore) a dozen or two people complaining that the decision was unfair, biased, etc.

 

There was nothing in that writeup that promoted the American Legion. It simply explained the purpose behind the organization and a little about its organization. This is true in thousands of published caches... now, if you start picking on this, how can you (TPTB), in good conscience, leave those caches out there, published the way they are, promoting their horrendous agendas that will cause the downfall of geocaching and the world around us. (yes, that started getting sarcastic near the end) Back to serious - you need to go and hunt down these caches, get the owners to change the wording, or archive them post haste. Otherwise, that is completely unfair to the current cache owner, and is a violation of the guidelines.

 

Or, if you state that grandfathered stuff is ok, bring back the locationless caches... they should have been grandfathered (ON THIS SITE... don't point me to Waymarking) as much as the caches in violation of current guidelines.

 

You can't have it both ways. Oh wait, you can... you just make a lot of people mad with double standards and do nothing for your credibility.

[O-Mega]

The OP DID have an agenda...whether intentionally or otherwise, the message she was putting across WAS an agenda (promotion of an org)!

 

So giving a history of an organization in 2-3 sentences is promoting that organization? Giving a description of the area a cache is in is promoting that area? Giving a description of the chemical my chem-caches are named after are promoting that chemical? Giving a description of a historical marker is promoting that marker, or that historical event or person?

 

Guess we had better go to "Cache here." and leave it as that for every cache out there. Otherwise, every cache is promoting something. Every cache has an agenda. And therefore, every cache is in violation of the guidelines and should be archived.

 

Minimalist, yes. But without clear guidelines, I think that is far preferable to having random people randomly complaining, and random caches randomly archived based on 1-2 people's interpretation of a very unclear rule.

 

PLEASE!

 

Let's see...the cache owner PLACED the cache AT the org, names the org more than once (NOT ALLOWED under new guidelines...once maybe, but twice...nope), gives background of the org, suggests everyone there should honor the troops, and even admitted to having "Support Our Troops" on the original cache description...

 

Let me do it another way...see if you like this:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we LOVE McD's. I think everyone who stops here should take a moment and honor the Filet o' Fish, it's a great sandwich that's been around since the start of McDonalds in the year xxxx. McDonald's was first started in xxxxx where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Do you see any agendas here?? Now just insert the org in question and there you have it!

 

Did I miss something here? I don't recall the PUBLISHED cache asking anyone to do anything! Now about your Micky D's cache how about:

 

Cache is placed at McDonald's in Hudson, we would like to thank the management of McDonalds for allowing us to place this cache on their property. This McDonald's was first started in 1970ish (old otherwise why mention it) where xxxxx grew up and longed for a quick and easy meal etc etc...

 

Now that may be misconstrued as an agenda to solicit business for McDs but I have seen some of the original McDs and would appreciate someone placing a cache there. Who knows for sure, but this may pass

[+Flatouts]

Agenda....Agenda...Agenda (think The Brady Bunch here lol)

 

An Agenda or Not an Agenda? (Isn't that the question to which there hasn't been a defined answer to yet?)

 

So what's on "YOUR" Agenda today? (Oh my...now there's one that could be perceived wrong, misinterpreted...etc)

 

Got Agenda?

 

The aforementioned verbiage are sample's for use on T-shirt's to pay tribute to this thread. (<agenda or not an agenda? or just simply a statement?) Hmmm......

 

I agenda we move on from this discussion as the horse has long since died.

 

As for the OP and the Powers that Be who make up the rules...this really is between you both. It' doesn't matter if I think it is or isn't an agenda. I'm not saying either way...cause it's not about me and what I perceive it to be.

[+mtn-man]

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

Sure, why not.

 

FireRef, why are you being so obstinate?

 

I know why actually. Any chance you get to bash Groundspeak, you jump on it. I won't try to convince you further, and those taking your bait should let it go too.

[+Renegade Knight]

...OHOHOH...I know the answer...pick me!! It's promoting an organization!!! THAT'S IT!! YES, the agenda is the promotion of the org!! I hope this helps the many of you who can't figure this out...it's been said MANY times!!

 

I can see how the history can be taken askew and be called an agenda. However I'm hard pressed to find a requested action on her part. She's not soliciting and doesn't ask me to do anything at all that would advance an underlying idealogical plan. No agenda visible.

 

Of course I've seen action (questioned by some reviewers who apparently don't do this themselves) where cache pages that link to caching organizations that have a paypal link to defray site expences are being tagged as soliciting and the links are being requested to be removed. So I guess merely mentioning an organization can now be called an agenda even if it's not soliciting, or furthing the underlying plans for world domination.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

....I understand why its there. I understand why she did it. I understand, I understand, I understand... I happen to agree with why she did it and the reasons behind it. No argument there. But if I stand up for her right to put an agenda on the cache page, then I guarantee that someone will come along that I disagree with and then I'm stuck because I stood behind this situation...

 

You would rather suck the joy out of the caches you do like then let one you would not like get through? You are defending a gray caching world where all the flavor an owner can add to the activity is sifted and strained like baby food, giving you about as much semblance to the real thing.

 

It's also exactly backwards from "I disagree with everthing you are saying you commie rat, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

[+sbell111]

... Would it be OK for the reviewer responsible for reviewing in Iran to post a cache supporting Al Qaeda but not OK in the US?

al Qaeda - Sunni

Iran - Shiite

 

I doubt that the reviewer would make the blunder that you are suggesting.

 

Not to get off track, but if you don't think Al Qaeda's agenda has a good deal of support among a large segment of Iranians, then you're living with your head under a rock.

Or someone has been drinking kool-aid.

 

Perhaps you have. That would be a good excuse.

Of course you believe that.

[+FireRef]

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

Sure, why not.

 

FireRef, why are you being so obstinate?

 

I know why actually. Any chance you get to bash Groundspeak, you jump on it. I won't try to convince you further, and those taking your bait should let it go too.

 

Not true. They run a good website. It is easy to use. Some of the rules they define for a game that they didn't even start, as it develops, I disagree with. Obviously a lot of people disagree with the interpretation of this one, or it wouldn't have lasted this long.

[+sbell111]

Ask a 2 year old why he is being obstinant - just because he refuses to do something, doesn't mean there is anything there other than a refusal to do something. There might be a reason otherwise, but you can't assume that and place that assumption on the person.

Sure, why not.

 

FireRef, why are you being so obstinate?

 

I know why actually. Any chance you get to bash Groundspeak, you jump on it. I won't try to convince you further, and those taking your bait should let it go too.

 

Not true. They run a good website. It is easy to use. Some of the rules they define for a game that they didn't even start, as it develops, I disagree with. Obviously a lot of people disagree with the interpretation of this one, or it wouldn't have lasted this long.

THe thing is, they are defining rules for their website, not the game. Why is it not OK for them to do so?

[+ReadyOrNot]

....I understand why its there. I understand why she did it. I understand, I understand, I understand... I happen to agree with why she did it and the reasons behind it. No argument there. But if I stand up for her right to put an agenda on the cache page, then I guarantee that someone will come along that I disagree with and then I'm stuck because I stood behind this situation...

 

You would rather suck the joy out of the caches you do like then let one you would not like get through? You are defending a gray caching world where all the flavor an owner can add to the activity is sifted and strained like baby food, giving you about as much semblance to the real thing.

 

It's also exactly backwards from "I disagree with everthing you are saying you commie rat, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it".

 

I find caching to be the complete opposite. I don't geocache so I can look at the cool cache pages. There are caches all over the place with agenda's and caches placed at organizations of all flavors. Groundspeak doesn't prevent you from placing a cache at an organization or near memorials, etc. This is simply about the cache page. I'd rather the cache itself be the tribute, not the cache page. The cache page should primarily be about the cache. A little note saying, "This is a tribute to my son" would have been allowed and should be allowed, but crossing the line into an advertisement for the organization seems to go too far.

 

The word "Agenda" is being thrown around here. I don't think a cache with an agenda is the problem. A cache promoting an organization is the problem. Everything and everyone has an agenda, so I think that word has confused this debate a bit.

Edited April 7, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+Renegade Knight]

...THe thing is, they are defining rules for their website, not the game. Why is it not OK for them to do so?

It is ok for them to do so. Still, is there any location better suited to voice our opinion on a policy that impacts us all than here in these forums?

[+FireRef]

THe thing is, they are defining rules for their website, not the game. Why is it not OK for them to do so?

 

That's the thing - they're not defining a rule. They're not defining a guideline, even. They're posting a guideline which says, in effect, "We can not accept whatever we don't feel like accepting, and we wrote this to be unclear so we can decide whatever we want from cache to cache, and never have to be consistent from cache to cache."

 

The rule is completely undefined - and they like it that way, because it means they can say whatever they want. Problem is, people have a problem with this. Obviously, I'm not the only one (although I am relatively vocal about it).

[+Renegade Knight]

...I'd rather the cache itself be the tribute, not the cache page. ...

 

The cache and it's listing are related. A cache with no listing is litter. Some hunt blind and enjoy that, but for most the cache page is part of the background for the cache. It sets the stage.

 

I've never seen a good story teller who spoke in a monotone and who could not set the stage and create an atmospher for the story. I know what you are saying, but for me the cache page adds to the cache itself.

[+ReadyOrNot]

...I'd rather the cache itself be the tribute, not the cache page. ...

 

The cache and it's listing are related. A cache with no listing is litter. Some hunt blind and enjoy that, but for most the cache page is part of the background for the cache. It sets the stage.

 

I've never seen a good story teller who spoke in a monotone and who could not set the stage and create an atmospher for the story. I know what you are saying, but for me the cache page adds to the cache itself.

 

I agree with you completely. Cache pages show pictures and history, etc. I think caching would be hurt if those were not allowed. But there's a line that seems to have been drawn in the sand and it seems to relate to when an organization is involved. I can't speak for Groundspeak, but that is how I read the guidelines.

[+egami]

This isn't about their rules or guidelines and them being able to do whatever they want. We all are full aware of the fact that if they wanted they could fully endorse Hitler.

 

The point is the principle behind their perceived double standard. They are taking actions on a cache that are hypocritical when compared to caches of other topics.

 

It isn't about their rights. They have the right to do whatever the please. It's about their integrity and consistency, or lack thereof.

[+ReadyOrNot]

This is starting to go round and round... Let's see some examples and evaluate the differences. What are the caches that you perceive have a similar agenda? I'm just curious, because this keeps coming up but no examples have been given.

[+egami]

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache.

 

Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried.

 

There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache.

 

Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried.

 

There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

 

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda?

[+egami]

And, as far as other caches...just so a search on the text in question, for starters...

[+Totem Clan]

 

Even as a member of the org in question, I see the part she was asked to remove as promotional.

Thank you for your view, and your service. As a member of the listed organization, in your opinion, had she left out the name of the particular organization, would it still be promotional? A few pages back, someone made just such a suggestion, and I can't recall how it was received.

 

If, for instance, it had read:

The organization located near the cache was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 Posts worldwide. These Posts are organized into 55 Departments -- one each for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, France, Mexico, and the Philippines.

Would you still see an agenda?

 

I value your view because you are a member.

To a certain extent, yes, but also no. I hate to use the word agenda in this case because I don't think she, the OP, was intending to push organization on anyone. Therefore I don't think she had a intended agenda when placing the cache. However I can see how this is a promotion for the organization. Maybe not a strong one, but in some ways yes it is a promotion.

Personally I like the cache as it was and see nothing wrong with on the surface, but this a case of 'If we allow one, we must allow them all.' The example of the McDonald's cache is a perfect example. The only thing that would be different is the organizations name.

 

Geocaching and personal or political feelings should not mix. As unoffensive as this may seem, it could be taken as political.

 

That doesn't mean I don't like the cache, but I do see TPTB's point.

[+egami]

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache.

 

Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried.

 

There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

 

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda?

 

My agenda is pointing out their double standard. Your challenge and my response to query on that exact verbage only solidifies my point.

[O-Mega]

This is starting to go round and round... Let's see some examples and evaluate the differences. What are the caches that you perceive have a similar agenda? I'm just curious, because this keeps coming up but no examples have been given.

 

There have been plenty of examples already given, but I suggest we refrain from doing a hit list here. We would not want to cause another cache to be reevaluated.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache.

 

Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried.

 

There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

 

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda?

 

My agenda is pointing out their double standard. Your challenge and my response to query on that exact verbage only solidifies my point.

 

How is it a double standard? If you report the cache in question, I'm sure it will meet the same scrutiny that the OP's cache did.. Why don't you try it and see what happens... The real question is, what would be the point of that?

[+egami]

I am not going to offer up caches in tattle-tale fashion, but I know of one right of hand that is a cache listed by a user with zero finds and one hide with reference in the cache to the group sponsoring the cache.

 

Which, actually, is in DIRECT violation of the REAL purpose behind the "solicitation" guideline which is where the verbage for "agenda" is buried.

 

There is no "agenda" guideline, specifically. It seems pretty clear that the solicitation is what they originally were trying to hedge against and now the "agenda" line has been pulled out into a whole "PC police" rule all on its own.

 

Is it possible that the cache got "through the cracks"? If it did, it means that both caches violate the guidelines. Just because one of them got through the cracks is not a justification to violate the guidelines, is it? I'm sure they just deal with them when they come up. If it bothers you so much, go report all the caches that you have been complaining about. Or do you have a different agenda?

 

My agenda is pointing out their double standard. Your challenge and my response to query on that exact verbage only solidifies my point.

 

How is it a double standard? If you report the cache in question, I'm sure it will meet the same scrutiny that the OP's cache did.. Why don't you try it and see what happens... The real question is, what would be the point of that?

 

It's a double standard to allow and approve other caches on the same, or similar, topic that meet the same criteria.

 

If I disallow my kids to walk in the door with a rated "R" movie in their hands ready to watch because they are too young and yet there is a shelf full of them readily available on a daily basis that have been there for months, maybe years, then that a double standard.

 

They are doing the same thing "you can't do this unless you remove the wording that is used in multiple other approved caches" and yet they have ZERO intent to be consistent.

 

And, that's not the half of it, because as I stated...there are multiple similar caches that are just not on as touchy of subjects, say Soccer facilities for one example I found easily, that are also approved.

 

You're right...one could slip through the cracks, but there isn't one...there are hundreds of similar caches on various topics relatively easily found using basic search functionality.

Edited April 7, 2008 by egami

[+ReadyOrNot]

And, that's not the half of it, because as I stated...there are multiple similar caches that are just not on as touchy of subjects, say Soccer facilities for one example I found easily, that are also approved.

 

A double standard would be the same approver allowing one and disallowing another similar cache. How can Joe in Sacramento allowing cache A and Bill in New Jersey allowing cache Z be a double standard? I'd have to see examples of this double standard to be able to assert such a claim... And you aren't willing to divulge the caches, so there's not much we can do here..

 

AND -- Is it a double standard if Billy Bob submits a cache and it gets denied, so he comes to the forums and complains.... Versus .... Mary Joe contacts Groundspeak, gets permission and places the cache with a smile.. Same agenda, two different approaches.. Is that a double standard, or is that just life?

Edited April 7, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+egami]

And, that's not the half of it, because as I stated...there are multiple similar caches that are just not on as touchy of subjects, say Soccer facilities for one example I found easily, that are also approved.

 

A double standard would be the same approver allowing one and disallowing another similar cache. How can Joe in Sacramento allowing cache A and Bill in New Jersey allowing cache Z be a double standard? I'd have to see examples of this double standard to be able to assert such a claim... And you aren't willing to divulge the caches, so there's not much we can do here..

 

No, it wouldn't because ultimately this went to GS and GS is allowing the same caches.

[+Sileny Jizda]

Looks like I have an answer to one of my questions. Groundspeak uses double talk to throw the 'user chose to archive' in their post. At least they could have the brass to take responsibility to say 'we archived this cache due to terms and guidelines violations. Then again that would be asking too much since we can't get a set definition on exactly what is or isn't an agenda.