unacceptable cache description

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

HaHa, I was looking for some Caches to grab on a day trip, and stumbled on this...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?id=518610

 

Oh, and if there's that, then there MUST be this too...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...46-52ed0305f229

Edited April 7, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+XopherN71]

Edited April 7, 2008 by XopherN71

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

OK, and the thing that bugs me, is that the Cache was already approver and running. You say to ask permission for something unusual, but that process was already done. I would be really ticked if they make a new rule about agendas on TBs and then tell me to change mine or they will be locked. From what I can tell, most of us are just asking for a clear definition of the rules.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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

 

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

 

WoW!

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

I would just chop it down and tell it it's a log!

[Harold14370]

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.

 

Isn't this the opposite of what Briansnat said? I thought the rules were hard and fast. If the OP's cache description was approved, then you are on the slippery slope where you would have to approve Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches. Now, all of a sudden, it's flexible?

[+SeventhSon]

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

 

And what if 2 days before the event a cacher complained and the event was pulled?

 

When we submit a cache for review, that is "us" asking "them" for permission. The cache that started this went thru that process, and was given permisson, for months. We don't have the option to ask Rothstafari directly, we have our local reviewers, and I'm guessing most of us don't expect our local reviewer to backpedal after such a long time.

[+Quiggle]

When we submit a cache for review, that is "us" asking "them" for permission. The cache that started this went thru that process, and was given permisson, for months. We don't have the option to ask Rothstafari directly, we have our local reviewers, and I'm guessing most of us don't expect our local reviewer to backpedal after such a long time.

Actually, it's not "you" asking "them" for permission, it's you asking a reviewer to list the cache. The guidelines state how to ask permission (which includes Rothstafari if needed) in advance. Groundspeak makes the ultimate decision in those special cases, not the reviewer. Sometimes reviewers make mistakes, please keep that in mind.

Edited April 7, 2008 by Quiggle

[+Rockin Roddy]

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

 

And what if 2 days before the event a cacher complained and the event was pulled?

 

When we submit a cache for review, that is "us" asking "them" for permission. The cache that started this went thru that process, and was given permisson, for months. We don't have the option to ask Rothstafari directly, we have our local reviewers, and I'm guessing most of us don't expect our local reviewer to backpedal after such a long time.

 

Have you been paying attention?? Who do you think the reviewers refer to when they need help?? You do realize the reviewers give you a person to contact if you want to take it another step...right?? It's NOT just you against the reviewer!

 

ooops, Quiggle beat me to it!!

Edited April 7, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+SeventhSon]

I consider my reviewer as part of "them". He is connected to the site. If I have a cache that's "on the edge" I would start with my reviewer, not at the top. And if it was listed, there would be no need for me to go higher.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I consider my reviewer as part of "them". He is connected to the site. If I have a cache that's "on the edge" I would start with my reviewer, not at the top. And if it was listed, there would be no need for me to go higher.

 

Right...and I'd imagine that, since this was a reviewer submitting his idea for an event, he didn't want to have someone claiming he OK'd it because he could! Sounds like it was handled appropriately!

 

Seemed your comment was a gripe that you only had your reviewer to turn to....if not, what DID it mean??

 

Guidelines change all the time ANYWHERE!! The speed limit changed in front of my house...slower of course! Since I was driving before the change, should I just drive the old speed (it should be grandfathered in that I was driving before the chenge...right??)... The guidelines changed...it happens...roll with the changes or get off the bus!

 

Just for the record...I consider our reviewers as FRIENDS!! I know one of them and have met the other a few times! I also consider Rothstafari as a FRIEND, even though we've only met once! I'd be proud to call Jeremy or any others FRIENDS as I'm sure they are ALL great people!! There is no "them" in my book! It's not "us" against "them"...is it??

[+baloo&bd]

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

 

You state this like it is a bad thing. As has been pointed out to you in the multiple other threads where you have rallied against "the man", no one is living like Gene Simmons off the money made here and you are most certainly free to go elsewhere or start your own website and start making the "big bucks". I for one, use more than my $30 in server, which is what I feel I am supporting, so the customer type attitude eludes me.

 

Keystone and "TPTB": I understand, and for the most part agree with, the need to keep agendas off web pages. I do however think that the cache that started this thread is without agenda and feel that if the reviewers or GS saw it differently they should have offered suggestions on changes. Or at the very least, pointed out specifically where the issue was since it was not as clear cut as others.

 

It is a moot point now since the OP/cache owner chose to voluntarily archive the cache however the majority of us simply hope you will take this thread and the points made under consideration when this comes up in the future. Most of us prefer some flexibility in guidelines, otherwise to cover each and every instance we would have volumes to read through.

[+Rockin Roddy]

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

 

You state this like it is a bad thing. As has been pointed out to you in the multiple other threads where you have rallied against "the man", no one is living like Gene Simmons off the money made here and you are most certainly free to go elsewhere or start your own website and start making the "big bucks". I for one, use more than my $30 in server, which is what I feel I am supporting, so the customer type attitude eludes me.

 

Keystone and "TPTB": I understand, and for the most part agree with, the need to keep agendas off web pages. I do however think that the cache that started this thread is without agenda and feel that if the reviewers or GS saw it differently they should have offered suggestions on changes. Or at the very least, pointed out specifically where the issue was since it was not as clear cut as others.

 

It is a moot point now since the OP/cache owner chose to voluntarily archive the cache however the majority of us simply hope you will take this thread and the points made under consideration when this comes up in the future. Most of us prefer some flexibility in guidelines, otherwise to cover each and every instance we would have volumes to read through.

He did! They did!! The whole comment needing changed was printed right there for ALL to see...

[+baloo&bd]

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

 

You state this like it is a bad thing. As has been pointed out to you in the multiple other threads where you have rallied against "the man", no one is living like Gene Simmons off the money made here and you are most certainly free to go elsewhere or start your own website and start making the "big bucks". I for one, use more than my $30 in server, which is what I feel I am supporting, so the customer type attitude eludes me.

 

Keystone and "TPTB": I understand, and for the most part agree with, the need to keep agendas off web pages. I do however think that the cache that started this thread is without agenda and feel that if the reviewers or GS saw it differently they should have offered suggestions on changes. Or at the very least, pointed out specifically where the issue was since it was not as clear cut as others.

 

It is a moot point now since the OP/cache owner chose to voluntarily archive the cache however the majority of us simply hope you will take this thread and the points made under consideration when this comes up in the future. Most of us prefer some flexibility in guidelines, otherwise to cover each and every instance we would have volumes to read through.

He did! They did!! The whole comment needing changed was printed right there for ALL to see...

 

No, they hadn't. I am talking about the reviewer notes or the emails that were exchanged.

 

If that had happened earlier in the process, possibly this would not have made it to the forums.

[+FireRef]

I, on the other hand, would prefer to have one of two options:

 

1) Clearly defined, consistently enforced rules.

2) No real rules.

 

You can't play a game without rules. This is correct. However, you can't play a game when the rules constantly change, and sometimes are enforced and sometimes are not, without ruffling feathers.

 

How would a game of basketball be if I decided every now and then not to count a basket because I decided to change the rules at random? How would it work if several people made the exact same move, and some got called for a violation, and some didn't? How well would the game flow if I ignored extremely hard, dangerous fouls because I felt that the game was better with them, even though the rules don't allow it?

 

How can I coach the players, if I can't tell them what they can and can't do, since the rules keep changing, and sometimes (within a game) things are called, and sometimes they aren't?

 

It makes it very difficult.

 

All we want is consistency. The ability to make exceptions all the time, and no responsibility to see that those exceptions are consistenly made and enforced, makes for a very poorly administered game.

 

I'm not saying this isn't a good website, a good game, good people doing a good job. I'm saying there are some serious flaws in the theory that 'we can make exceptions any time we want, and don't have to be consistent in what we do'. It makes a lot of people upset. Some more than others.

 

And I'm not looking for anyone to make money. I'm looking for a quality website (which we have) with consistenly enforced rules (which we don't). Money seems to have a big influence on the decisions which are made. At the referee level for sports, this would be a serious problem.

Edited April 7, 2008 by FireRef

[+Rockin Roddy]

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

 

You state this like it is a bad thing. As has been pointed out to you in the multiple other threads where you have rallied against "the man", no one is living like Gene Simmons off the money made here and you are most certainly free to go elsewhere or start your own website and start making the "big bucks". I for one, use more than my $30 in server, which is what I feel I am supporting, so the customer type attitude eludes me.

 

Keystone and "TPTB": I understand, and for the most part agree with, the need to keep agendas off web pages. I do however think that the cache that started this thread is without agenda and feel that if the reviewers or GS saw it differently they should have offered suggestions on changes. Or at the very least, pointed out specifically where the issue was since it was not as clear cut as others.

 

It is a moot point now since the OP/cache owner chose to voluntarily archive the cache however the majority of us simply hope you will take this thread and the points made under consideration when this comes up in the future. Most of us prefer some flexibility in guidelines, otherwise to cover each and every instance we would have volumes to read through.

He did! They did!! The whole comment needing changed was printed right there for ALL to see...

 

No, they hadn't. I am talking about the reviewer notes or the emails that were exchanged.

 

If that had happened earlier in the process, possibly this would not have made it to the forums.

 

It sure looks to me like the OP states clearly she was asked to change the wording to remove the organization in question and all it's history. Since that MUST have been before this topic was brought up, I'd have to assume this was done either in emails or reviewer notes...but I'm not certain of this.

 

If my assumption is correct, this was done VERY early in the process...

[Seedpicker]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

 

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

 

I will post again.. asap

[+sbell111]

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.

Isn't this the opposite of what Briansnat said? I thought the rules were hard and fast. If the OP's cache description was approved, then you are on the slippery slope where you would have to approve Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches. Now, all of a sudden, it's flexible?

Brian is a moderator in the 'Getting Started' area. He is not a reviewer, to my knowledge. He has made it clear that when he posts to an area of the forum other than 'Getting Started', he is merely giving his personal opinion. This was an example of his opinion of how it should be differing from how it actually is.

[+sbell111]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

As I understand your post, they told you that the listing could not remain active unless the description was changed. You wouldn't change the listing, nor would you allow them to change the listing. The only remaining option was archival. Therefore, it seams to me that you chose archival over changing the description.

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

I was on your side right up to this post.

 

How did TPTB 'take one of your children' from you?

I will post again.. asap

I look forward to it. Edited April 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+FireRef]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

 

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

 

I will post again.. asap

 

Good to hear - I'm glad you didn't choose to archive it. Keep fighting - maybe someone somewhere will wise up about what consititutes an agenda and what kind of caches SHOULD be allowed.

[+Too Tall John]

Right...and I'd imagine that, since this was a reviewer submitting his idea for an event, he didn't want to have someone claiming he OK'd it because he could!

For the record, he didn't approve his own cache.

Just for the record...I consider our reviewers as FRIENDS!! I know one of them and have met the other a few times! I also consider Rothstafari as a FRIEND, even though we've only met once! I'd be proud to call Jeremy or any others FRIENDS as I'm sure they are ALL great people!! There is no "them" in my book! It's not "us" against "them"...is it??

I would tend to agree with this. As friends, the idea that mtn-man needs to "sleep on it" before approaching the review of a cache makes me concerned that the guidelines he needs to follow are too undefined, especially in areas, like this one, that are obviously "hot-button" topics.

When we get these tough ones, I know I sometimes "sleep on it" and think about the cache and how to approach it.

I don't think that the game, in general, needs more guidelines, but for recurring issues such as this a solid RULE to follow would clear up some headaches for all involved, and give mtn-man a good night's sleep. Edited April 7, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+Rockin Roddy]

Right...and I'd imagine that, since this was a reviewer submitting his idea for an event, he didn't want to have someone claiming he OK'd it because he could!

For the record, he didn't approve his own cache.

Just for the record...I consider our reviewers as FRIENDS!! I know one of them and have met the other a few times! I also consider Rothstafari as a FRIEND, even though we've only met once! I'd be proud to call Jeremy or any others FRIENDS as I'm sure they are ALL great people!! There is no "them" in my book! It's not "us" against "them"...is it??

I would tend to agree with this. As friends, the idea that mtn-man needs to "sleep on it" before approaching the review of a cache makes me concerned that the guidelines he needs to follow are too undefined, especially in areas, like this one, that are obviously "hot-button" topics.

When we get these tough ones, I know I sometimes "sleep on it" and think about the cache and how to approach it.

I don't think that the game, in general, needs more guidelines, but for recurring issues such as this a solid RULE to follow would clear up some headaches for all involved, and give mtn-man a good night's sleep.

 

I like the fact that all issues are heard on a case by case basis, mean's there's flexibility and the PTB are happy to try to work out something with you to get your cache approved! Mtn-Man's "sleeping on it" mean's there's a human on the other side trying to figure out how best to approach each individual case...and try to make ALL sides happy (which is known to be nearly impossible)!

 

I might add the OP WAS given a way to fix her cache. Seem's both sides were working on a way to get this cache up and running...but one didn't want to make the required changes. Her choice!

Edited April 7, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+USA 45]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

As I understand your post, they told you that the listing could not remain active unless the description was changed. You wouldn't change the listing, nor would you allow them to change the listing. The only remaining option was archival. Therefore, it seams to me that you chose archival over changing the description.

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

I was on your side right up to this post.

 

How did TPTB 'take one of your children' from you?

I will post again.. asap

I look forward to it.

Have something taken away from you that you thought was a number 1 priorty and This cache was to seedpicker. ( Her baby) She had all good intentions to honor her children. Not to start a war. Thinking your doing good and end up getting hurt , crushed and dismantled. Thats not a good feeling. Believe me I know. But I won't go in to that as I know, no good would come out of it. I hope seedpicker continutes to Honor her Children ,I know I do , and thank them for serving our country and giving us the right to be able to post and geocache. USA 45

[+Rockin Roddy]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

As I understand your post, they told you that the listing could not remain active unless the description was changed. You wouldn't change the listing, nor would you allow them to change the listing. The only remaining option was archival. Therefore, it seams to me that you chose archival over changing the description.

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

I was on your side right up to this post.

 

How did TPTB 'take one of your children' from you?

I will post again.. asap

I look forward to it.

Have something taken away from you that you thought was a number 1 priorty and This cache was to seedpicker. ( Her baby) She had all good intentions to honor her children. Not to start a war. Thinking your doing good and end up getting hurt , crushed and dismantled. Thats not a good feeling. Believe me I know. But I won't go in to that as I know, no good would come out of it. I hope seedpicker continutes to Honor her Children ,I know I do , and thank them for serving our country and giving us the right to be able to post and geocache. USA 45

 

Honor her children? She wanted to draw peoples' attention to the org in question. Had it been merely to honor her children, she'd have changed the wording to get the honorary cache up and running (IMHO) No one told her (that I recall) that she couldn't pay tribute to her children...did they??

[+baloo&bd]

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

 

Agreed, the word "voluntarily" was probably not as accurate as it could be. I apologize. However, you did make a choice to not modify and thus, archive it. The options at that point may not have been acceptable, but were options. I personally wish you would have made it a vanilla description, even disabling it, while you continued to work out the details.

 

As stated, I do not believe your cache had an agenda. Rather than enter into an angst filled exchange as suggested by another, most of us hope you will continue to work with GC to either get them to see your perspective and agree with you (subsequently, most of us) or come up with a compromise that works for both of you. For whatever reason, the reviewer did not feel they had the leeway on this one that they applied on others. Asking for the specifics why from those involved also seems valid.

 

With a few exceptions, you will be able to point to this thread to show examples of some well thought out arguments. My suggestion would be to find out if this thread is enough to start the appeals process and, if not, how to go about it. From my experience and what I have seen on these forums, usually something can be worked out, very often leaning more toward the cacher original intent than thought possible. Stck with the facts, remove the emotion, and you may be surprised.

 

Good luck.

[+USA 45]

Ok, I was outta town all weekend. Im sorry i wasnt able to remark what took place via phone w/ gc.... I also must get to work..So quickly...

 

i must strongly say I DIDNOT Freely CHOOSE to archive my cache, i waz forced to by GC for not agreeing to remove my wording, GC could not convince me it was a social agenda to say thankyou! I would not agree to allow them to edit my page, while i was on the road heading outta town.. I will remark furthur when i have a moment to reply better.

As I understand your post, they told you that the listing could not remain active unless the description was changed. You wouldn't change the listing, nor would you allow them to change the listing. The only remaining option was archival. Therefore, it seams to me that you chose archival over changing the description.

Geocache took one of my children from me, by taking my cache. I will not sit by and do nothing.. Not when it was unjustly done..

I was on your side right up to this post.

 

How did TPTB 'take one of your children' from you?

I will post again.. asap

I look forward to it.

Have something taken away from you that you thought was a number 1 priorty and This cache was to seedpicker. ( Her baby) She had all good intentions to honor her children. Not to start a war. Thinking your doing good and end up getting hurt , crushed and dismantled. Thats not a good feeling. Believe me I know. But I won't go in to that as I know, no good would come out of it. I hope seedpicker continutes to Honor her Children ,I know I do , and thank them for serving our country and giving us the right to be able to post and geocache. USA 45

 

Honor her children? She wanted to draw peoples' attention to the org in question. Had it been merely to honor her children, she'd have changed the wording to get the honorary cache up and running (IMHO) No one told her (that I recall) that she couldn't pay tribute to her children...did they??

 

It's who you consider THEY yes some one did in here, Thats when I said I would Honor anyone I wanted , but it was not Groundspeak.

Also the passage about the AL was a cut and clip off of one of their history pages and thats just what it was history of the AL. I could see if she said come join great org. or something on that line. but she didn't

It all boils down to do as we say not as we do.

[+mtn-man]

Seventh Son, see my comment regarding a hockey ref saying a goal is a goal, but then having it reviewed by the league office in Toronto. It happens in hockey all the time. They watch every game live and stop the game to run the instant reply all the time.

 

Thanks Quiggle and Rockin Roddy for answering W.S.Robert and Seventh Son's question.

I can even add a bit more and answer the following quote too...

 

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.

 

Isn't this the opposite of what Briansnat said? I thought the rules were hard and fast. If the OP's cache description was approved, then you are on the slippery slope where you would have to approve Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches. Now, all of a sudden, it's flexible?

If folks would just read the guidelines, most of the answers in the topic would already be answered before you ask them.

Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site.

I'm not sure which quote of briansnat's you are talking about, but they are specifically not called *rules*. They are specifically called *guidelines*. That is done intentionally to allow flexibility.

 

If I hear "rule" again, I am going to throw up. The word "rule" appears once in the guidelines.

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

Notice that it is used only in a way to show once again that it is a "rule of thumb", which means flexibility. The next sentence even says that it "is just a guideline". You are not going to get a hard and fast rule. Flexibility is there intentionally. I would think that would make the complainers happy!

[+ReadyOrNot]

Honor her children? She wanted to draw peoples' attention to the org in question. Had it been merely to honor her children, she'd have changed the wording to get the honorary cache up and running (IMHO) No one told her (that I recall) that she couldn't pay tribute to her children...did they??

 

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. I agree that the refusal to remove the "Agenda" portion of the cache clearly indicates what the person's real agenda was. Especially considering that the part to be removed had nothing to do with honoring her son.

 

*edit* We will win the war btw In regards to my American Honor cache... If someone asks me to remove the wording, I'll do it. But that has not happened and probably won't, since its "Not pushing an agenda"...

Edited April 7, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+briansnat]

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

 

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

 

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

 

I looked at their links page and see a link to the Utah Geocachers website. That isn't geocaching.com.

 

It may be an agenda but it has nothing to do with geocaching.com because the agenda isn't posted on this website. Totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

[+mtn-man]

Right...and I'd imagine that, since this was a reviewer submitting his idea for an event, he didn't want to have someone claiming he OK'd it because he could!

For the record, he didn't approve his own cache.

Good eye. I actually very rarely list my own caches. I want someone else to check for typos and such.

 

I like the flexibility of the game. It is like events, for example. They had very tight guidelines at one point. Now they are more flexible -- flash mob events, whirlyball, etc. The game is growing. Flexibility encourages growth.

[+Totem Clan]

This was the orginal text in question.

 

Sibling Soldiers II This is a easy dash and cache located at Meadville's American Legion 111. Both of my children are currently serving in the U.S. Army and this is a tribute to them, their bravery and sevice to our country. 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.

 

This was the part she was asked to remove.

 

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.

 

Which would leave this tribute.

 

Sibling Soldiers II This is a easy dash and cache located at Meadville's American Legion 111. Both of my children are currently serving in the U.S. Army and this is a tribute to them, their bravery and sevice to our country.

 

That sounds like a fine tribute to me. How would that change take away anything about her children?

[+baloo&bd]

This was the part she was asked to remove.

 

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.

 

Which would leave this tribute.

 

Sibling Soldiers II This is a easy dash and cache located at Meadville's American Legion 111. Both of my children are currently serving in the U.S. Army and this is a tribute to them, their bravery and sevice to our country.

 

That sounds like a fine tribute to me. How would that change take away anything about her children?

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

[+egami]

This "agenda" thing is the real crux of the issue. It's been blown clear out of proportion from its intended purpose which originally was, as you can see in the guidelines, to hedge against "solicitation".

 

The whole "agenda" portion has been blown out of proportion by a number of people here to be its own new rule to enable "PC police".

[+apetro]

as i have been following this thread my feelings have not changed much. i really doubt another opinion will change anyones mind either. the reason i am posting is because it would be nice to see some rules, not just guidelines. that way everyone's caches would be treated the same during the review process. i just took a sampling of a couple cahes that reviewers have made and briansnat has 232 caches, the cache page is about the cache itself with a little history of the area sometimes, he has done a great job and his caches are what geocaching is all about (at least to me).

 

i think what is fair for one should be fair for all and Groundspeak really needs to look into this, make a decision and let us know. how could the OP's cache be in need of rewording and this one is okay? i am not picking on this person or this cache, it just stands out to me. i really think Groundspeak needs to make a clear decision on what is okay and what is not and there be a firm line for all. all the current caches can be grandfathered so it would be pretty easy. maybe TPTB are perfectly happy with the way things are, and they surely have a better business mind then i do. but as a customer and for future customers, clearing this topic up would be awesome.

[+Totem Clan]

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

That's fine, but point was that the OP claims that TPTB wouldn't let her honor her children when clearly they would. All argument about agenda aside, I was just wondering why, if her original intent was to honor her children, she would let it be pulled it if it still honored her children?

[Harold14370]

I'm not sure which quote of briansnat's you are talking about, but they are specifically not called *rules*. They are specifically called *guidelines*. That is done intentionally to allow flexibility.

I am referring to the one that said you cannot allow any agendas or you would have to allow Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches. Scroll back a few pages. It's there.

If I hear "rule" again, I am going to throw up. The word "rule" appears once in the guidelines.

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

Notice that it is used only in a way to show once again that it is a "rule of thumb", which means flexibility. The next sentence even says that it "is just a guideline". You are not going to get a hard and fast rule. Flexibility is there intentionally. I would think that would make the complainers happy!

Why wasn't that flexibility used for the OP's cache then? It could have saved all this uproar.

[+KoosKoos]

This was the part she was asked to remove.

 

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.

 

Which would leave this tribute.

 

Sibling Soldiers II This is a easy dash and cache located at Meadville's American Legion 111. Both of my children are currently serving in the U.S. Army and this is a tribute to them, their bravery and sevice to our country.

 

That sounds like a fine tribute to me. How would that change take away anything about her children?

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

 

I'd really like some explanation on which part is the "agenda" too.

 

Is it the thank you to those who have served our country?

- in which case, how do we have all those other tribute caches placed asking people to take a moment to reflect on someone who gave their life in service?

 

Is it the background on the American legion?

- in which case, how can any organization be listed on a cache page? park systems, boy scouts, schools, etc.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

That's fine, but point was that the OP claims that TPTB wouldn't let her honor her children when clearly they would. All argument about agenda aside, I was just wondering why, if her original intent was to honor her children, she would let it be pulled it if it still honored her children?

 

Sometimes you have the frame the question to get people in the right mind.

I'm not sure who paid for The Wall but what if that artist was told. "The concept is fine but we think the wall should be pink to offset the stark death connotations of The Wall. How would that take away from The Wall. The people would all still be honored. Yet it would not be the same as the artists vision.

 

Her Muse guided her to make that cache. When an outsider, even one in power messes around with things that people are vested in they risk a larger reaction than what they think they are addressing. That said, if the outsider understands the person and their muse, then they can make a suggestion that makes sence and solves the 'problem' they are having with it. Most cachers feel the cache is fine. This site is the source of the 'problem'. While they don't have to understand the cacher and their cache, it would serve them better if they did since they are the ones making an imposition. What if they did understand and could actually find a better way to honor the things she's trying to honor that just happens to fit the revised intrepretation of agenda?

Edited April 7, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+ReadyOrNot]

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

That's fine, but point was that the OP claims that TPTB wouldn't let her honor her children when clearly they would. All argument about agenda aside, I was just wondering why, if her original intent was to honor her children, she would let it be pulled it if it still honored her children?

 

Because she had an agenda... I think that's the whole point of this thread... Either that, or she doesn't like being told what to do.. I've seen people fight tooth and nail over something ridiculous for the simple fact that someone told them they couldn't do something. (to be completely honest, I have a tendency to be that way)

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Isn't this the opposite of what Briansnat said? I thought the rules were hard and fast. If the OP's cache description was approved, then you are on the slippery slope where you would have to approve Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches. Now, all of a sudden, it's flexible?

 

Talk about missing my point. My point was where do we draw the line who decides? Do we take a poll and if 51 percent of all geocachers support an agenda then we can publish it? Or a 2/3 majority perhaps? Or do we let each reviewer decide? If so, what if some reviewers draw the line in different places? Perhaps a few might think a cache supporting Aryan Nations is perfectly fine.

 

Some agendas are widely supported, some have mixed support and some are quite unpopular. Some people also forget that geocaching is an international game and Geocaching.com serves an international community. An agenda with wide support in the US might not be as popular in say, Germany or Syria.

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?

[+mtn-man]

Why wasn't that flexibility used for the OP's cache then? It could have saved all this uproar.

Simple. "Flexibility" does not mean "we will say yes every time". They decided to say no. That very simply explains the Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches question to boot. They have decided to say no. That is their right to do so as the owner of the listing service. Simple.

Edited April 7, 2008 by mtn-man

[+Rockin Roddy]

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

That's fine, but point was that the OP claims that TPTB wouldn't let her honor her children when clearly they would. All argument about agenda aside, I was just wondering why, if her original intent was to honor her children, she would let it be pulled it if it still honored her children?

 

Sometimes you have the frame the question to get people in the right mind.

I'm not sure who paid for The Wall but what if that artist was told. "The concept is fine but we think the wall should be pink to offset the stark death connotations of The Wall. How would that take away from The Wall. The people would all still be honored. Yet it would not be the same as the artists vision.

 

Her Muse guided her to make that cache. When an outsider, even one in power messes around with things that people are vested in they risk a larger reaction than what they think they are addressing. That said, if the outsider understands the person and their muse, then they can make a suggestion that makes sence and solves the 'problem' they are having with it. Most cachers feel the cache is fine. This site is the source of the 'problem'. While they don't have to understand the cacher and their cache, it would serve them better if they did since they are the ones making an imposition. What if they did understand and could actually find a better way to honor the things she's trying to honor that just happens to fit the revised intrepretation of agenda?

 

I think it's a jump to say most cachers feel this is fine...did you do a survey?

I know I don't feel it's fine as I can see an obvious agenda...which is to promote org in question.

[+Totem Clan]

 

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

That's fine, but point was that the OP claims that TPTB wouldn't let her honor her children when clearly they would. All argument about agenda aside, I was just wondering why, if her original intent was to honor her children, she would let it be pulled it if it still honored her children?

 

Sometimes you have the frame the question to get people in the right mind.

I'm not sure who paid for The Wall but what if that artist was told. "The concept is fine but we think the wall should be pink to offset the stark death connotations of The Wall. How would that take away from The Wall. The people would all still be honored. Yet it would not be the same as the artists vision.

 

Her Muse guided her to make that cache. When an outsider, even one in power messes around with things that people are vested in they risk a larger reaction than what they think they are addressing. That said, if the outsider understands the person and their muse, then they can make a suggestion that makes sence and solves the 'problem' they are having with it. Most cachers feel the cache is fine. This site is the source of the 'problem'. While they don't have to understand the cacher and their cache, it would serve them better if they did since they are the ones making an imposition. What if they did understand and could actually find a better way to honor the things she's trying to honor that just happens to fit the revised intrepretation of agenda?

 

I think it's a jump to say most cachers feel this is fine...did you do a survey?

I know I don't feel it's fine as I can see an obvious agenda...which is to promote org in question.

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

Edited April 7, 2008 by Totem Clan

[+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.

Edited April 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+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.

[+FireRef]

Why wasn't that flexibility used for the OP's cache then? It could have saved all this uproar.

Simple. "Flexibility" does not mean "we will say yes every time". They decided to say no. That very simply explains the Al Qaeda and Aryan Nation caches question to boot. They have decided to say no. That is their right to do so as the owner of the listing service. Simple.

 

Obviously not that simple, or people would have moved on from this topic a while back.

 

Obviously, people have an issue with the owner of this site interpreting the game in his/their own way, causing problems for people who choose to use this listing service and can't get things listed which do not appear (to most) to violate the guidelines because of these random-seeming interpretations.

 

Obviously, if this was as simple and clearly defined as you say, the issue would be dead. It is not.

 

(And please avoid the "if you don't like it, move to another site" argument. That was addressed several pages back - good site, some reasonably serious issues/problems with it, but overall, good site. Just bad judgement on some things, methinks... as do many others.)

[+tozainamboku]

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

The guideline specifically mentions "caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas ". You can continue to use a Clintonesque parsing of the OPs woriding to show that she never asks anyone to do anything to support the troops or join the American Legion, however by putting all this in one big paragraph it adds up to what can be perceived to be an agenda. Maybe we can take the OP at her word that she is "not supporting any agenda, or even suggesting anyone joins the legion", but when there is no attempt to make any changes and instead she calls the decision by Groundspeak "crap", one wonders.

[+FireRef]

Yes, that would have been a fine tribute however, can you explain the agenda in the paragraph that was asked to be removed? Other than possibly the mention of God, which has become a common salutation, I see pride and historical information. I am not trying to be contrary, just want to understand.

The guideline specifically mentions "caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas ". You can continue to use a Clintonesque parsing of the OPs woriding to show that she never asks anyone to do anything to support the troops or join the American Legion, however by putting all this in one big paragraph it adds up to what can be perceived to be an agenda. Maybe we can take the OP at her word that she is "not supporting any agenda, or even suggesting anyone joins the legion", but when there is no attempt to make any changes and instead she calls the decision by Groundspeak "crap", one wonders.

 

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.

 

Most people have agreed, if you read back through 12 pages of this, that there is no agenda on that page. Some disagreed. Apparently, the only one who matters is TPTB, but obviously if a large number of people don't have a problem with it, something's wrong with this interpretation.

 

A perception of something does not mean it is there. Don't read into things - it gets you into a lot of trouble. Take things at face value. No agenda was intended (by the OP's original statement), and none is there. Perceiving an agenda can be done for any cache anywhere, and for anything anyone does at any time in any place. Guess we better shut the site down - it has an agenda - making $$$ and keeping geocachers happy. Well, at least the first.

[+TeamGumbo]

...when there is no attempt to make any changes and instead she calls the decision by Groundspeak "crap", one wonders.

 

*strokes chin thoughtfully*

 

Indeed.

[+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?

[+Rockin Roddy]

...when there is no attempt to make any changes and instead she calls the decision by Groundspeak "crap", one wonders.

 

*strokes chin thoughtfully*

 

Indeed.

 

Also agreed!

 

But surely, we must be the minority since I keep seeing others boast that "most" see this otherwise.