Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

As did I several times - for stating my opinion. They said it was for violating the guidelines, but what it came down to was it was me being censured for disagreeing with the company line.

No, moderators take action for violations of the forum guidelines, not the nature of the opinion expressed. You have made several posts in this thread which "disagree with the company line," yet you are still allowed to post. This proves the fallacy of your statement. You are still posting because (thus far) your posts do not violate the forum guidelines. Others have, as noted above.

 

The forum guidelines at issue here are the "respect" guideline -- which applies to Groundspeak and its volunteers, as well as all community members -- and the "no personal attacks" guideline.

 

Could it be then that the reviewer for your area has a political or personal agenda? Or someone close to him/her? There is no problem with your description. Refer the reviewer to this thread where so many others also express my viewpoint, might even gather some responses together on a notepad document and send it to the reviewer. Be ready to bounce this up the ladder, don't back down.

I am going to give you the benefit of a doubt, and assume you haven't read the entire thread, including my prior posts. This is a reviewer who is following the instructions given to him by Groundspeak. Do NOT accuse him of having a personal agenda. Questioning his motives or patriotism is disrespectful.

 

And, to recap, the cache owner has already discussed their cache with Groundspeak, and chose to have the cache archived rather than edit the text as requested by Groundspeak. There is no further appeal in regards to this individual cache.

 

Interesting note... your statement that I have violated (in the past) the respect guideline... here's the line from the guidelines...

 

"You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity. "

 

Almost everything anyone posts is objectionable to someone somewhere. The fact that this cache was archived is objectionable to a lot of people, as per the discussion in this thread. Somehow, I doubt the reviewers/moderators are going to be disciplined for making a decision which was objectionable to the people who feel this way, especially those that have posted in this thread.

 

Moderators are given the ability to censure people for what they believe to be violations of this specific guideline, as well as any others. Since this guideline is written so broadly, as soon as they object to a specific thread or comment, etc, they can effect action. The way this is written, all you have to do is say something that is objectionable to anyone on this message board, including GS.com employees, volunteers, and users such as myself, and you can get in trouble for it, no matter how innocuous. I don't like the decision that was made in this case about this cache. I don't agree with the broadness of the anti-agenda guidelines. And I don't agree that "Like it or go elsewhere" is a good solution at this time.

 

To move on to a more productive discussion: Would the following caches be approved:

 

1) A parent simply doing a cache to honor their son/daughter who is actively serving or was killed in the military? (which does not support continuing, winning, or ending the military action they are involved in)

 

2) A friend honoring a friend serving in the military? (same exception as above)

 

3) A cache honoring firefighters? EMS Personnel? Police?

Link to comment

My god, this thread is still alive?

 

Haven't all points been made yet in every conceivable fashion/angle/perspective/mindset?

 

I think all I see now is people re-expressing views and making personal comments toward other members.

 

Really, is it worth it?

 

It's up to Groundspeak what happens, I'm sure they gave this delightful and informative thread a lot of consideration when making their decision.

Link to comment

Interesting note... your statement that I have violated (in the past) the respect guideline... here's the line from the guidelines...

 

"You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity. "

Small correction. The lines you quote are from the Terms Of Use, not the forum rules.

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

In part:

Some things to keep in mind when posting:

 

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Foul Language and obscene images will not be tolerated. This site is family friendly, and all posts and posters must respect the integrity of the site.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Words to live by.

Link to comment

If the thread offends you so much why do you continue to read it? If it violated guidelines they would close it. Otherwise it's discussion is no different than the other countless threads that have gone 10 pages long or longer.

 

Because I keep hoping for a conclusion <_<

 

It doesn't offend me in the least, just amazes me really...

 

:unsure:

Link to comment
Instead of stating things manner-of-factly...you decided to get personal. Why? Because they did?

Actually, it is "matter-of-fact".

 

I did not get personal. I simple demonstrated that the best agenda to have is one where you support them with something real that they can touch. I've been given an "at-a-boy" from someone who has actually been there. That means more to me than anything you can say bad about me personally, like:

Has the illusion of power gone to your head?
The unprofessionalism you have shown in this thread is astounding.
Link to comment
I'm sorry, but if you really want to show support for the troops, putting one line on a geocache page isn't a whole lot of support.
You want to support the troops? Do it by clicking the link below and acting and not by typing four words on a cache page description.
While you may indeed be the law (moderator) on this board, you are not the "support the troops" police.....are you? Has the illusion of power gone to your head?
Can you go spray paint "support our troops" on someone's house? Nope.
Yeah, that's against the law, you see. There I killed your straw man for you. That was easy...but that's the point...a straw man isn't a real argument....you didn't seriously think that's what the poster meant, right? Sounds like something a kid might say to "win" and argument.

 

The unprofessionalism you have shown in this thread is astounding. You said this topic was an embarrassment, then you went on to comment over...and over....and over. Apparently participating in the embarrassment. Instead of stating things manner-of-factly...you decided to get personal. Why? Because they did?

 

Keystone on the other hand....class act. And he kicks butt when it's needed....but always a class act.

 

All moderators are not created equal. <_<

I've stayed out of this thread until now because I really didn't have anything to say that hadn't been said better than I could have said it. But when you start slamming Mtn-man you've gone too far.

 

He's a great guy, and has done more FOR the game of geocaching than you and I put together ever will. He's also every bit as classy as Keystone, and for you to say these things about him show just how little you know about him. I promise if you did, you could never have posted that.

 

Don't make me contact the GGA about this. They'll come in here and it'll become a Praise Mtn-man Thread faster than a German can log a fake Found It on a virtual cache in California. They'll do it, I've seen them do it, and it's not pretty.

Link to comment
What the heck does any of this have to do with Geocaching? Put something in the woods (regular sized please) and make it hard to find... I always thought cache pages were suppose to be related to finding said somethings in the woods (regular sized please)..

Isn't this a direct quote from one of your cache pages, American Honor, GCNR2Q?

"I have seen the face of terror, I have felt the stinging cold of fear. I have lived the times most would say are best forgotten. But at least I can say I am proud of what I was -- a Soldier." -- Author unknown.

 

While enjoying this hunt, please take a moment to reflect on the dedication and sacrifice of members of the armed forces.

This statement, "Please take a moment" is a blatant call for action, which, as we've seen in many a dictionary, is an agenda. Will you be archiving this one any time soon? How does seeing the face of terror and reflecting on dedication have to do with geocaching?

 

Seems a little two sided to me...

 

Apples and oranges. I'm not supporting any specific organizations or taking any specific sides or stating any agendas. And about 90% of the cache page is about finding the cache... You are more than welcome to report the cache though and I'd be happy to change the wording if they request it, because the cache is not about what's on the cache page. It's not a micro on the side of the road. Did you bother reading any of the logs? The cache and the location are the tribute, not a bunch of garbage on an internet webpage.

 

No agenda there..

 

<EDIT> Here's a log from the cache.. Notice the kids are holding an ammo can, not a micro <_< After reading the log, do you get the impression that its the cache page or the cache/location thats the tribute? Link to log

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment

Keystone on the other hand....class act. And he kicks butt when it's needed....but always a class act.

 

All moderators are not created equal. <_<

Just letting you know that I sent out the geocoin before the post office closed today.

 

Is that all it takes to score a volunteer geocoin? I'm in. :unsure:

 

I'm still sticking with my bizarre assertion that if the cache was on American Legion property, and gave the history of The Legion, than it had an agenda. That is, under the current extremely strict interpretation of the guidelines.

 

As far as "support our troops" being an agenda, only the most extreme elements in American society don't profess to support the troops. I really think it's going overboard considering that an agenda.

Link to comment

As far as "support our troops" being an agenda, only the most extreme elements in American society don't profess to support the troops. I really think it's going overboard considering that an agenda.

 

Just because most everyone believe in it, doesn't mean it's not an "agenda". If TPTB want to get absolutely strict about it, then yes, any tribute to anyone is promoting that person or organization.

 

I believe it was tozainamboku (lots of pages to check) who mentioned the pendulum swinging too far. I want geocaching to stay light and fun and support the idea to not solicit for anything on the pages.

 

In the original cache description mentioning winning the war, I think that goes too far and can divide a lot of people. Putting a factual account of the Legion's history and children serving our country, while technically an "agenda", doesn't seem like it's harming geocaching any.

 

I'd hate to see a solid RULE of absolutely nothing in any cache description mentioning history of a location because of the organization associated with it. Any time we bring seekers to a place, we have an agenda.

 

For some, the agenda is "here's a quick smiley". For others, the agenda is "here's a cool spot I wanted you to see". And for others, the agenda is "here's a place dear to me because of the location, the organization involved, or it reminds me of someone/something I want you to know about".

Link to comment

Keystone on the other hand....class act. And he kicks butt when it's needed....but always a class act.

 

All moderators are not created equal. <_<

Just letting you know that I sent out the geocoin before the post office closed today.

 

Is that all it takes to score a volunteer geocoin? I'm in. :unsure:

 

I'm still sticking with my bizarre assertion that if the cache was on American Legion property, and gave the history of The Legion, than it had an agenda. That is, under the current extremely strict interpretation of the guidelines.

 

As far as "support our troops" being an agenda, only the most extreme elements in American society don't profess to support the troops. I really think it's going overboard considering that an agenda.

 

I'm guessing ANY agenda is off limits no matter how good, bad or otherwise! It's definitely an agenda, just because it's backed by the majority doesn't make it any less of an agenda! Unless GS want's to open themselves to trouble, banning all agendas seems the likely and reasonable fix!

Link to comment
Apples and oranges.

Actually, it's apples & apples. Your cache page promotes an agenda. You seem to indicate in your responses to this thread that caches should not promote an agenda. In the cache page from the OP, all she did was offer thanx. In your's, you actually call for action.

 

Do you remember the textbook definition of agenda? It involved a call for action. Kinda like your cache page.

 

I'm not supporting any specific organizations or taking any specific sides or stating any agendas. And about 90% of the cache page is about finding the cache... You are more than welcome to report the cache though and I'd be happy to change the wording if they request it, because the cache is not about what's on the cache page. It's not a micro on the side of the road. Did you bother reading any of the logs? The cache and the location are the tribute, not a bunch of garbage on an internet webpage.

 

No agenda there..

 

<EDIT> Here's a log from the cache.. Notice the kids are holding an ammo can, not a micro :unsure: After reading the log, do you get the impression that its the cache page or the cache/location thats the tribute? Link to log

Gosh. I guess the OP isn't the only one who gets their feelings hurt when someone calls their cache into question. <_<

 

In this particular case, the OP's cache has clearly been demonstrated as not having an agenda, while your cache, (the one from the guy who says cache pages should say nothing that doesn't lead to finding the cache), fits the textbook example of agenda perfectly.

 

Why would I bother with the logs? As you demonstrated earlier, it's not about the logs. It's about the cache page spewing an agenda, and including more data than is necessary for someone to find the cache. It doesn't matter if folks love it, (as they seem to overwhelmingly love the OP's cache), what matters is someone, (you), stated that cache pages should not contain superfluous information. Any text or graphics that doesn't directly lead to finding the cache is a bad thing, according to you. To top of the irony meter, you say this in a thread about cache pages with agendas. And you own a cache page with a clearly stated agenda.

 

BTW, you mentioned twice that it was not a micro. What difference does the size make?

 

Your cache page has an agenda.

 

Have you fixed it yet?

Link to comment
I'm guessing ANY agenda is off limits no matter how good, bad or otherwise! It's definitely an agenda, just because it's backed by the majority doesn't make it any less of an agenda! Unless GS want's to open themselves to trouble, banning all agendas seems the likely and reasonable fix!
KoosKoos said it best (at least on this page):
For some, the agenda is "here's a quick smiley". For others, the agenda is "here's a cool spot I wanted you to see". And for others, the agenda is "here's a place dear to me because of the location, the organization involved, or it reminds me of someone/something I want you to know about".
ANY cache has an agenda.

 

Rather than ban all agendas, a more concrete definition of what is allowable needs to be formulated. If it is already in existence, it needs to be shared with the general community. Not making it available to all cachers generates frustration for people who are trying to figure out how to get their cache listed, not to mention more work for reviewers who have to clarify such things for us.

 

Imagine if the only posted guideline were "A geocache is a box with a logbook in it." How many attempts would it have taken to hide your first cache?

Link to comment
I'm guessing ANY agenda is off limits no matter how good, bad or otherwise! It's definitely an agenda, just because it's backed by the majority doesn't make it any less of an agenda! Unless GS want's to open themselves to trouble, banning all agendas seems the likely and reasonable fix!
KoosKoos said it best (at least on this page):
For some, the agenda is "here's a quick smiley". For others, the agenda is "here's a cool spot I wanted you to see". And for others, the agenda is "here's a place dear to me because of the location, the organization involved, or it reminds me of someone/something I want you to know about".
ANY cache has an agenda.

 

Rather than ban all agendas, a more concrete definition of what is allowable needs to be formulated. If it is already in existence, it needs to be shared with the general community. Not making it available to all cachers generates frustration for people who are trying to figure out how to get their cache listed, not to mention more work for reviewers who have to clarify such things for us.

 

Imagine if the only posted guideline were "A geocache is a box with a logbook in it." How many attempts would it have taken to hide your first cache?

I don't understand this at all...what are you saying?

 

Leave agendas? Would you like to see someone advertising their business on a cache page? Would you like to have someone's religious beliefs on a cache page? What if EVERY agenda WAS allowed? Pretty soon ALL caches would be simple advertisements for whatever someone wants to sell, make others aware of etc. Since this is already done in the NEWSPAPERS, on TV and almost everywhere else (buses, taxis billboards etc), wouldn't it be GREAT if we could SIMPLY go caching w/o being bombarded with the agendas??

 

Would you like to see someone's religious rhetoric on a cache page? What if you're an athiest? Would you like to see the Iranian army advertising last week's military accomplishments or cheering on their "army"...letting in agenda would open this up to EVERYTHING and ANYTHING!

 

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

And you might want to look up agenda....asking people to come out and enjoy a sunset from a nice viewpoint isn't necessarily an agenda...asking them to stand atop of the Palm's Casino tower to view the sunset IS!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
I'm guessing ANY agenda is off limits no matter how good, bad or otherwise! It's definitely an agenda, just because it's backed by the majority doesn't make it any less of an agenda! Unless GS want's to open themselves to trouble, banning all agendas seems the likely and reasonable fix!
KoosKoos said it best (at least on this page):
For some, the agenda is "here's a quick smiley". For others, the agenda is "here's a cool spot I wanted you to see". And for others, the agenda is "here's a place dear to me because of the location, the organization involved, or it reminds me of someone/something I want you to know about".
ANY cache has an agenda.

 

Rather than ban all agendas, a more concrete definition of what is allowable needs to be formulated. If it is already in existence, it needs to be shared with the general community. Not making it available to all cachers generates frustration for people who are trying to figure out how to get their cache listed, not to mention more work for reviewers who have to clarify such things for us.

 

Imagine if the only posted guideline were "A geocache is a box with a logbook in it." How many attempts would it have taken to hide your first cache?

I don't understand this at all...what are you saying?

 

Leave agendas? Would you like to see someone advertising their business on a cache page? Would you like to have someone's religious beliefs on a cache page? What if EVERY agenda WAS allowed? Pretty soon ALL caches would be simple advertisements for whatever someone wants to sell, make others aware of etc. Since this is already done in the NEWSPAPERS, on TV and almost everywhere else (buses, taxis billboards etc), wouldn't it be GREAT if we could SIMPLY go caching w/o being bombarded with the agendas??

 

Would you like to see someone's religious rhetoric on a cache page? What if you're an athiest? Would you like to see the Iranian army advertising last week's military accomplishments or cheering on their "army"...letting in agenda would open this up to EVERYTHING and ANYTHING!

 

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

And you might want to look up agenda....asking people to come out and enjoy a sunset from a nice viewpoint isn't necessarily an agenda...asking them to stand atop of the Palm's Casino tower to view the sunset IS!

 

There are caches out there that might offend certain people. But This is a game and a fun sport. You can go put in certain words and come up with ones that are religious , EXAMPLE : Just type in Jesus there were more yesterday, but after this tread took off like it did there are only 36 I guess the others were an agenda COME TO JESUS is a nice one. GC11VYM I guess this could offend some one if they were athiest. SO I know now that this could go on forever. Just the words could be offender's in the titles. So what do you do. report all that offends you. This would be craze, we would not have very many if that happened. Who ever the Cache Police are please stop doing this . All it is doing is dividing the members. And closing some very good caches. USA 45

Link to comment

I've placed nearly 100 caches myself, and not once did I ever think about placing one that has an agenda (as loosely as we might define it here.) Well, you might call my "Old Glory" cache as having an agenda, but it's really just a theme.

 

I fail to understand why many people feel that they have to tie their cache to something unrelated to geocaching. Geocaching has nothing to do with saying thanks to the troops, or curing breast cancer, or praising one's personal savior.

 

Me - I just like to hike in the woods and find boxes full of crap with my dog. I'd be happy if all cache descriptions just said "A box in the woods - go find it."

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone gets it.

Link to comment
I'm guessing ANY agenda is off limits no matter how good, bad or otherwise! It's definitely an agenda, just because it's backed by the majority doesn't make it any less of an agenda! Unless GS want's to open themselves to trouble, banning all agendas seems the likely and reasonable fix!
KoosKoos said it best (at least on this page):
For some, the agenda is "here's a quick smiley". For others, the agenda is "here's a cool spot I wanted you to see". And for others, the agenda is "here's a place dear to me because of the location, the organization involved, or it reminds me of someone/something I want you to know about".
ANY cache has an agenda.

 

Rather than ban all agendas, a more concrete definition of what is allowable needs to be formulated. If it is already in existence, it needs to be shared with the general community. Not making it available to all cachers generates frustration for people who are trying to figure out how to get their cache listed, not to mention more work for reviewers who have to clarify such things for us.

 

Imagine if the only posted guideline were "A geocache is a box with a logbook in it." How many attempts would it have taken to hide your first cache?

I don't understand this at all...what are you saying?

 

Leave agendas? Would you like to see someone advertising their business on a cache page? Would you like to have someone's religious beliefs on a cache page? What if EVERY agenda WAS allowed? Pretty soon ALL caches would be simple advertisements for whatever someone wants to sell, make others aware of etc. Since this is already done in the NEWSPAPERS, on TV and almost everywhere else (buses, taxis billboards etc), wouldn't it be GREAT if we could SIMPLY go caching w/o being bombarded with the agendas??

 

Would you like to see someone's religious rhetoric on a cache page? What if you're an athiest? Would you like to see the Iranian army advertising last week's military accomplishments or cheering on their "army"...letting in agenda would open this up to EVERYTHING and ANYTHING!

 

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

And you might want to look up agenda....asking people to come out and enjoy a sunset from a nice viewpoint isn't necessarily an agenda...asking them to stand atop of the Palm's Casino tower to view the sunset IS!

 

There are caches out there that might offend certain people. But This is a game and a fun sport. You can go put in certain words and come up with ones that are religious , EXAMPLE : Just type in Jesus there were more yesterday, but after this tread took off like it did there are only 36 I guess the others were an agenda COME TO JESUS is a nice one. GC11VYM I guess this could offend some one if they were athiest. SO I know now that this could go on forever. Just the words could be offender's in the titles. So what do you do. report all that offends you. This would be craze, we would not have very many if that happened. Who ever the Cache Police are please stop doing this . All it is doing is dividing the members. And closing some very good caches. USA 45

 

Yes, a fun and light GAME...one which should be free of agendas of any kind! I vote to KEEP it fun for everyone!!

 

I agree with you, whoever it was that reported that cache started more than they probably expected...and it's a slippery slope! This isn't GS's fault, they are the ones trying to keep this fun for all!! It's not just agandas either...commercialization has been nipped as well! Try publishing an event these days w/o being able to give hotel info for out-of-towners, try to mention a restaurant more than just to say the location of the event...nope, not even allowed to mantion the food is good! But, it's the way things are, adapt and move on or give up and make your own site...only choices I see!!

 

My suggestion is simple....follow the guidelines and no problem!! If you've been asked to change something, do it and carry on (or throw a hissy and quit as some have so loudly claimed they will do)!! I did with my event page and have NO problem making the info page...it's a better expression of my thoughts and most anything can be put there!!

Link to comment

Its not that the passage is offensive. It's not political correctness run amok. It's just that the reviewer felt that the cache was promoting an agenda. That isn't allowed, no matter how worthy the agenda is. Of course there is nothing wrong at all with supporting our fighting men and women in this country, but a cache listing is not the place to do it.

 

The thing is that if you allow one worthy agenda, the next person comes along with his worthy agenda. Then you get into a debate as to what is worthy. I know most Americans support our men and women in uniform, but there are some who don't. What if they want equal time and try to publish a cache that is critical of the troops?

 

I agree with the listing guidelines. Let's keep this a light and fun game and keep all agendas out of it. If you want to declare your support for the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, a sign on your lawn, donate money to a charity that cares for the families of our fallen heroes. Whatever. There are many ways to demonstrate your support outside of a geocache listing.

 

Not a getting started issue so moving to the general forum

i

 

ARE YOU LIVING UNDER A ROCK!!! OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS, SONS, DAUGHTERS,FATHERS,MOTHERS AND MORE ARE DYING FOR OUR FREEDOM. DID YOU HEAR THAT? DYING FOR OUR FREEDOM!! WE SHOULD BE YELLING SUPPORT FROM THE ROOFTOPS. YOU AND THIS REVIEWER ARE A LOT ALIKE, YOUR LIVING IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ONE REASON AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WERE BORN HERE. IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS THEN CATCH A FLIGHT TO EUROPE!

 

GO TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

No I am not living under a rock. I haven't been to a rooftop to scream my support for our troops yet, but I have supported them in ways that go far beyond slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of my car. In fact I'm willing to bet that I've done more regarding actively supporting them than many, if not most of the people posting in this thread. Supporting the troops is more than sticking a sign on your law or hiding a tupperware box in a park.

 

I really shouldn't have to defend my support of the troops here however, because it's a non issue. The issue is whether or not geocaching should remain a light, fun sport or if it should become a platform for various agendas. I prefer the former. I'll save my personal agendas for the appropriate time and place and that extends to my support of our troops and their mission. And good people have died for my right to express that opinion, so no, I'm not going to Europe or anywhere else.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

So ALL caches have an agenda? OK then. :D

 

So all Earth Caches are an attempt by the tree-hugging liberal left to force us all to live green?

 

All caches at of near war memorials and bases are an attempt by the war-mongering right to force us all to join up? :unsure:

 

<_<

 

So what is the agenda of a nano on the back of a yield sign in front of a flower bed in the middle of a round-a-about, with the cache description "A little cache for a little park."? :D

Link to comment
I don't understand this at all...what are you saying?

 

Leave agendas? Would you like to see someone advertising their business on a cache page? Would you like to have someone's religious beliefs on a cache page? What if EVERY agenda WAS allowed?

I am advocating a clear set of guidelines as to what is to be considered an agenda. See the post you are responding to:
Rather than ban all agendas, a more concrete definition of what is allowable needs to be formulated.
It is clear that not everyone is on th same page as to what an agenda is, as this thread has made painfully obvious. Which brings me to:
And you might want to look up agenda....asking people to come out and enjoy a sunset from a nice viewpoint isn't necessarily an agenda...asking them to stand atop of the Palm's Casino tower to view the sunset IS!
According to Microsoft Encarta:
a·gen·da [ ə jéndə ]

 

noun (plural a·gen·das)

 

Definition:

  1. list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting
  2. matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time
  3. personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

Asking people to come out and enjoy a sunset from a nice viewpoint? Why would you do such a thing? What is your personal motivation? Whatever your reason, it is an agenda.
Me - I just like to hike in the woods and find boxes full of crap with my dog. I'd be happy if all cache descriptions just said "A box in the woods - go find it."
Ding! Ding! Ding! Someone gets it.
ChileHead's personal motivation, or agenda, is to "hike in the woods and find boxes full of crap with (his) dog."

 

If I place a cache at a pretty spot, my motivation, or agenda, is to bring you to that spot.

 

If I put a film can in a lamppost at Wally World... well, I feel no motivation to do so. Maybe I'll have to start doing more of those... <_<

Link to comment

As far as supporting the troops goes, I suppose I'm slacker because I haven't shouted it from the rooftops or even put a yellow ribbon on my car?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well this slacker gave 26 years loyal service to the U.S Army. I have seen combat on five continents. I have shed my blood and watched my friends die. How's that for support.

 

I applaud anyone who show any for of support for the troops or protests the war or the military as longs as the respect the rights of the others. After all that's why I killed my fellow man and why I bled, so they could do just that. If you label others just because they don't agree with you or do as much as you think they should then you are part of the problem and not the solution.

 

But that's not what this should be about. This is about Geocaching. It should be fun and should not push any view. So why don't we set our political views aside and stick the topic at hand.

Link to comment
My suggestion is simple....follow the guidelines and no problem!! If you've been asked to change something, do it and carry on...
I agree.

 

100%.

 

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

Well, I'm far from the brightest bulb....but I understand. Maybe it really isn't so hard if you just try?? I have a feeling more people here understand more than they're letting on....

 

ooops....grammar

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

QUOTE

a·gen·da [ ə jéndə ]

 

noun (plural a·gen·das)

 

Definition:

 

*list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

 

*matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time

 

*personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

 

So then GS needs to define what "agenda(s)" specifically they are prohibiting, because;

 

* Going out and finding something with a GPS is an agenda

* Any "Multi-Cache/puzzle-cache" is an agenda

* And yes again, CITO is an agenda

* Caches that can only be done during park hours or daytime only would have agendas

* Members only caches- someone needs to buy a membership to get the details of it.

* Event caches, coin swaps, etc...

* An opinion that a scenic landscape "...Has a wonderfull view..." or that the scenic view is the reason for cache being placed at the location

* "kid" themed caches

etc....etc....etc......

 

Also remember; anti-something is as much of an agenda as pro-something.

Using moderator or reviewer status to OVER-scrutinize a casual word in an entire page is completely unprofessional and stinks of bias. And before anyone goes off... please notice "over-" is in CAPS! to emphasize an excces of srutiny of a word, but the same zeal for correction and grammar is non-existant (as stated above by another...there v thier, where v were, etc...)

 

And now back to the start.......... Has the actual infraction of the OP been sited yet? and/or explained by the reviewer who caused the issue? Not just a c&p of the text and a GS guideline, and everyone's interpretation of the rules, but HOW IT WAS A VIOLATION??? as seen by the REVIEWER.

 

Or just establish what agendas are OK and what are not....and post the "Official List"

Link to comment

QUOTE

a·gen·da [ ə jéndə ]

 

noun (plural a·gen·das)

 

Definition:

 

*list of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting

 

*matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time

 

*personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

 

So then GS needs to define what "agenda(s)" specifically they are prohibiting, because;

 

* Going out and finding something with a GPS is an agenda

* Any "Multi-Cache/puzzle-cache" is an agenda

* And yes again, CITO is an agenda

* Caches that can only be done during park hours or daytime only would have agendas

* Members only caches- someone needs to buy a membership to get the details of it.

* Event caches, coin swaps, etc...

* An opinion that a scenic landscape "...Has a wonderfull view..." or that the scenic view is the reason for cache being placed at the location

* "kid" themed caches

etc....etc....etc......

 

Also remember; anti-something is as much of an agenda as pro-something.

Using moderator or reviewer status to OVER-scrutinize a casual word in an entire page is completely unprofessional and stinks of bias. And before anyone goes off... please notice "over-" is in CAPS! to emphasize an excces of srutiny of a word, but the same zeal for correction and grammar is non-existant (as stated above by another...there v thier, where v were, etc...)

 

And now back to the start.......... Has the actual infraction of the OP been sited yet? and/or explained by the reviewer who caused the issue? Not just a c&p of the text and a GS guideline, and everyone's interpretation of the rules, but HOW IT WAS A VIOLATION??? as seen by the REVIEWER.

 

Or just establish what agendas are OK and what are not....and post the "Official List"

 

You might want to go back and READ the thread again, many of your questions will be answered from that!

Link to comment

As far as supporting the troops goes, I suppose I'm slacker because I haven't shouted it from the rooftops or even put a yellow ribbon on my car?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well this slacker gave 26 years loyal service to the U.S Army. I have seen combat on five continents. I have shed my blood and watched my friends die. How's that for support.

 

I applaud anyone who show any for of support for the troops or protests the war or the military as longs as the respect the rights of the others. After all that's why I killed my fellow man and why I bled, so they could do just that. If you label others just because they don't agree with you or do as much as you think they should then you are part of the problem and not the solution.

 

But that's not what this should be about. This is about Geocaching. It should be fun and should not push any view. So why don't we set our political views aside and stick the topic at hand.

 

One of the most rational posts to this thread yet.

 

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.

Link to comment

Anyone remember the Tsunami Charity Virtual that got promptly shut down?

 

As my contribution to this thread, i'm going to post links to a few agenda caches:

 

Chemical Reaction

 

Somebody seems to have forgotten their high school chemistry if they are arguing that this one pushes an agenda. Before you start arguing that this is an agenda cache, try actually looking up what dihydrous monoxide is (actually, if used correctly, it's supposed to be Dihydrogen Monoxide).

Link to comment
My suggestion is simple....follow the guidelines and no problem!! If you've been asked to change something, do it and carry on...
I agree.

 

100%.

 

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

 

Perhaps the clause needs to be changed to

For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Agendas related to geocaching or to CITO are permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda not related to geocaching.

 

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". They dig around and find examples that make no sense to support their view. A cache called Support the Troops that had a theme of trading toy soldiers or one called Come to Jesus that was hidden in or near a statue of the baby Jesus are not agendas. These are humorous titles in light of what the cacher is going to find. Taking a catch phrase that may be used to promote an agenda out of context does not make it an agenda. Even ReadyOrNot's cache at a war memorial. Perhaps with the current guidelines asking those who find his cache to "please take a moment to reflect on the dedication and sacrifice of members of the armed forces" would be an agenda. That cache was published in 2005 so it may be an example that guidelines have changed. Other than that one sentence and perhaps the quote above it, the rest of the page is about finding the cache. As ReadyOrNot has pointed out, if the reviewers were ask him to remove that section he would, and his cache would still be there for people to find - and not just that but the people who do visit will see the memorial and will still take a moment to reflect whether or not the cache page asks them to.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

Incorrect - many people put a lot of work into their cache pages, as with anything they write, and changing a word here or there can often seriously change what was intended by the writer, agenda or not, maybe in the way it sounds, etc.

 

You can't assume there is a hidden agenda just because Groundspeak assumes there always is one.

Link to comment
My suggestion is simple....follow the guidelines and no problem!! If you've been asked to change something, do it and carry on...
I agree.

 

100%.

 

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

 

Perhaps the clause needs to be changed to

For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Agendas related to geocaching or to CITO are permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda not related to geocaching.

 

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". They dig around and find examples that make no sense to support their view. A cache called Support the Troops that had a theme of trading toy soldiers or one called Come to Jesus that was hidden in or near a statue of the baby Jesus are not agendas. These are humorous titles in light of what the cacher is going to find. Taking a catch phrase that may be used to promote an agenda out of context does not make it an agenda. Even ReadyOrNot's cache at a war memorial. Perhaps with the current guidelines asking those who find his cache to "please take a moment to reflect on the dedication and sacrifice of members of the armed forces" would be an agenda. That cache was published in 2005 so it may be an example that guidelines have changed. Other than that one sentence and perhaps the quote above it, the rest of the page is about finding the cache. As ReadyOrNot has pointed out, if the reviewers were ask him to remove that section he would, and his cache would still be there for people to find - and not just that but the people who do visit will see the memorial and will still take a moment to reflect whether or not the cache page asks them to.

 

I like the re-wording...for those who need it spelled out, this should work!! ;)

Link to comment

The OP's cache listing is yet another victim of Corporate America. Proof is that every "moderator" and "volunteer" points to the "rules and regulations" when citing their reasons as to why the cache was removed. Unfortunately we all have to deal with it. I doubt the cache will be relisted. If it is relisted, then great.

 

If I were the OP, I would do what is necessary to get the cache relisted. I would then contact several newspapers and free speech advocates to see if I could make any headway there. But, that takes a lot of effort on the OP's part.

Link to comment

The OP's cache listing is yet another victim of Corporate America. Proof is that every "moderator" and "volunteer" points to the "rules and regulations" when citing their reasons as to why the cache was removed. Unfortunately we all have to deal with it. I doubt the cache will be relisted. If it is relisted, then great.

 

If I were the OP, I would do what is necessary to get the cache relisted. I would then contact several newspapers and free speech advocates to see if I could make any headway there. But, that takes a lot of effort on the OP's part.

Is Geocaching now a Corporation instead of a sport?

 

That would be like taking the USGA to newspapers because their rules say you can't pick your ball up out of the rough and place it in the fairway. ;)

 

There are ways to settle this listing issue within Geocaching. If that's not good enough, then quit playing. Don't forget who provides the service to begin with.

Link to comment

If I were the OP, I would do what is necessary to get the cache relisted. I would then contact several newspapers and free speech advocates to see if I could make any headway there. But, that takes a lot of effort on the OP's part.

You are overlooking two facts that I've pointed out previously in this thread:

 

1. Faced with a choice between modifying the cache and archiving it, the owner chose to archive the listing rather than deleting the specific language requested. Re-listing the cache with the language intact is not an option, as all avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

 

2. Free speech rights, as embodied in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are applicable only to governmental action. Groundspeak is not part of the government.

Link to comment

Hey man, this is America.

Yeah. At least it was the last time I checked. That's why you are free to leave any group that you don't like. Nobody was forced into caching but all cachers agreed to follow the guidelines. All I'm saying is, if you don't like it, follow the procedures given withing the guidelines or quit caching. That's all you can do.

Link to comment

2. Free speech rights, as embodied in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are applicable only to governmental action. Groundspeak is not part of the government.

 

So, wait a second. You are saying that Free Speech does not apply to your COMPANY? AH, so, you're proving my point that you are a corporation. Hence, it's not all about "having fun". Instead, it's about the rules and regulations of the CORPORATION.

 

I have not problem with that. Just make sure you make that better well know. This whole effort to say that geocaching has few rules or regulations is just false. It's time to come to terms and admit that there are MANY rules and regulations associated with geocaching.

Edited by quadcity007
Link to comment

2. Free speech rights, as embodied in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, are applicable only to governmental action. Groundspeak is not part of the government.

 

So, wait a second. You are saying that Free Speech does not apply to your COMPANY? AH, so, you're proving my point that you are a corporation. Hence, it's not all about "having fun". Instead, it's about the rules and regulations of the CORPORATION.

 

I have not problem with that. Just make sure you make that better well know. This whole effort to say that geocaching has few rules or regulations is just false. It's time to come to terms and admit that there are MANY rules and regulations associated with geocaching.

First of all, when did the sport become a corporation?

 

Secondly, you agreed to ALL those didn't you?

If you don't like them, quit playing.

Link to comment

First of all, when did the sport become a corporation?

 

Secondly, you agreed to ALL those didn't you?

If you don't like them, quit playing.

 

The sport became a corporation a long time ago. And, I do enjoy playing by those rules. What I find hilarious is that this thread exists. Let's face it. A cache was archived because it did not adhere to the rules.

 

Time for everyone in this forum to realize that the "rules" of geocaching are significant and will continue to grow and tighten up as time goes on.

Link to comment

First of all, when did the sport become a corporation?

 

Secondly, you agreed to ALL those didn't you?

If you don't like them, quit playing.

 

The sport became a corporation a long time ago. And, I do enjoy playing by those rules. What I find hilarious is that this thread exists. Let's face it. A cache was archived because it did not adhere to the rules.

 

Time for everyone in this forum to realize that the "rules" of geocaching are significant and will continue to grow and tighten up as time goes on.

And yet the sport keeps growing and growing and becoming more and more accepted and even encouraged by groups like The Girls and Boys Club, 4-H, Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts and countless other heretic groups that are strangling our freedoms and crushing our spirits. Strange, huh?!? ;)

Link to comment

 

The sport became a corporation a long time ago. And, I do enjoy playing by those rules. What I find hilarious is that this thread exists. Let's face it. A cache was archived because it did not adhere to the rules.

 

Time for everyone in this forum to realize that the "rules" of geocaching are significant and will continue to grow and tighten up as time goes on.

I'm having a hard time with someone who's been caching a month telling me what it was like here a long time ago. ;)

Geocaching.com is a company. Geocaching is a sport/game/whatever. There is a huge difference between the two.

Link to comment
It's time to come to terms and admit that there are MANY rules and regulations associated with geocaching.

Rules, no. Guidelines, yes. Groundspeak can be flexible. Read the entire topic.

 

Regulations? In most cases, any regulations that exist against the sport/game/whatever have come about from poor decisions by cache hiders. Do you blame Groundspeak for that?

 

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. Regulations regarding geocaching have not come from Groundspeak. They come from National or State or local governments. Groundspeak did not ban caches in NPS areas for example. The NPS did.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

First of all, when did the sport become a corporation?

 

Secondly, you agreed to ALL those didn't you?

If you don't like them, quit playing.

 

The sport became a corporation a long time ago. And, I do enjoy playing by those rules. What I find hilarious is that this thread exists. Let's face it. A cache was archived because it did not adhere to the rules.

 

Time for everyone in this forum to realize that the "rules" of geocaching are significant and will continue to grow and tighten up as time goes on.

 

Let's try to remember that this is a FUN, FAMILY-ORIENTED activity. You might want to realize the REASON guidelines are needed? People (like the ones who'd sue McD's for their coffee being "hot") like to sue....for almost ANY reason! So EVERYONE has to cover their behinds...small mom & pop's, big business, not-for-profits etc...the "sue 'em if I don't like 'em" mentaility has shaped the world today.

 

Now...didn't you say something about gathering the lawyers and such??

Link to comment

Let's try to remember that this is a FUN, FAMILY-ORIENTED activity. You might want to realize the REASON guidelines are needed? People (like the ones who'd sue McD's for their coffee being "hot") like to sue....for almost ANY reason! So EVERYONE has to cover their behinds...small mom & pop's, big business, not-for-profits etc...the "sue 'em if I don't like 'em" mentaility has shaped the world today.

 

Now...didn't you say something about gathering the lawyers and such??

 

lawyers? It's NEWSPAPERS. Big difference.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...