Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

There are many caches out there that support an agenda. Just recently I read about one that required you to go in a establishment and dine, to be able to get the correct coordinates to find the cache. To me that is one that has more of an agenda than saying "I am proud of my kids" and then give history about the American Leigon. I would let the cache stand.

Did you also see where Groundspeak retracted that cache because it violated the commercialism section of the listing guidelines? Once the issue came to their attention, appropriate action was taken. I am speculating that this is what happened here, under the solicitation/agenda guideline. Here, however, the issue is easily fixed by modifying the text of the cache page. Apart from that, it's a traditional cache... go there, find it, sign the log.

 

Why wouldn't it be grandfathered?

Link to comment

Before I began reading these forums I never really thought about the word agenda. At this point I wish I never would have seen the word. In my mind the people with the agendas are the ones trying to abolish what they perceive as being agendas.

 

agenda at Dictionary.com: 1657, from L., lit. "things to be done," from neut. pl. of agendum, gerundive of agere (see act). Originally theological (opposed to matters of belief), sense of "items of business to be done at a meeting" first attested 1882.

 

If getting something done that is good is an agenda, than more power to it!! Every time the geocaching community gets involved in doing something good, the activity becomes something that is [[FAR]] more meaningful than a game or a sport. I myself am glad to be part of an organization that stands for ideals that make life better. If supporting our men and women in the military is a good thing, then count me in. If trying to find a cure for the diabetes that my daughter has is a good thing, then count me in. If giving people a reason to get out of doors is a good thing, then count me in. If encouraging people to love their neighbors is a good thing, no matter what their agenda....then count me in.

 

What is good is a matter of opinion. If people disagree about what is good, great. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

-it

Link to comment

As a forum moderator and site owner myself I'm actually surprised this information is allowed to be left public.

 

Email is intended to be confidential information and blatantly posting that information on a public forum without consent is just inconsiderate.

 

That said, I don't see anything 'wrong' with the cache description either but that is for the reviewer to decide, not us.

 

Do what you must, but please keep the private details between those directly involved unless you have their permission to make it public.

 

Just my thoughts on this.

Email should not be considered any different than a letter on paper, or a phone message, where the receiving party can show/play to other people to demonstrate "look what that person SAID to me"

Link to comment

I wish more people would (dispassionately) read Keystone's replies, all of which are spot-on, consistent, and reasonable.

 

FTR, I have no problem with the cache as originally listed. Their rules, though.

 

Also FTR, I am a non-religious 8-year USAF veteran with no desire to join either the AL or the VFW (although I'm eligible for both).

Link to comment
This should be handled via communication with TPTB. Email the contact@ address and ask if some middle ground can be found.
I can't agree with that completely. These discussions do not need to be kept in the closet. Other Cachers need to know what will and will not be accepted, and if the discussion is handled only through the Hider and the Reviewer/Groundspeak then no one else will ever know what the limits are, thus allowing Groundspeak/Reviewers/Moderators to quietly promote their OWN AGENDAS by keeping the discussions out of the public eye.
I'm not sure, but I believe that the official process is:
  1. Reviewer
  2. TPTB
  3. Forums

I'm not sure on the official process either, but all three are now involved, so I guess it's all good.

 

I feel that since the cache was already published and then seems to have become a problem, the request to change it after the fact should have come directly from Groundspeak and bypassed the Reviewer at that stage.

I don't know about that. If a cache was published and later found to be a clear violation of the rules, the local reviewer would likely be the one to archive it.

 

BTW, according to the guidelines, I was wrong. The process is:

  • reviewer
  • ask reviewer to ask other reviewers
  • forum
  • appeals

Sorry, I had to step away or I wouldn't have found any caches today...

 

I would venture to say that since there is such a lively discussion here, then I don't think the Cache is in "clear violation of the rules" If it were clear , then we would all be able to see the violation.

Link to comment

It's a cache, change some text and move on. :laughing:

 

(That asbestos suit is coming in handy today.)

To simply do that means that I have to play the game EXACTLY as some other person tells me to. That's not the spirit of the game.

 

Maybe GC.com should provide a list of pre-written Cache pages that are approved for cut and paste? Maybe I should submit the location and the reviewer should write the Cache description?

Link to comment

Shew... just got back from work, took a bit to read thru the thread.. so here is my response. As far as the placement of my cache it was tucked under the corner of the building, not visible without walking up to it... so if it was left on the ramp, it was done by a previous cacher by mistake... the placement of my cache is not what is being questioned. Its that issue that my cache is being re-reveiwed due to a complaint.

 

I have but one complaint as refrenced above. Which i tried to respond to politely. I started this forum subject as a means of direction to resolve this issue. I am not crying out with rage, or intent to cause anyone involved any harm or hate.. or gather a posse against anyone, or even look for sympathy.

 

I am tring to get an explaination regarding the circumstances this derived. I do feel i am being selected out when there is so many caches of this type with this wording.. ive paid good money to GS to be a premium member and if i am to continue supporting them, I need to know it is an unbias organization with its guidelines, not selective without just cause.

 

I emailed the reveiwer and attatched the link to this forum this morning.

I called Ground speak via phone, talked with someone, left my number and email this morning

I emailed Ground speak and requested they read this thread.

 

Thus far i have not heard back from anyone..regarding the fate of my Sibling Soldiers, (reviewer sent me a link to Groundspeak)

 

I guess i am waiting to be shut down or responded to with some kind of explaination. I not going to make changes to my page at this time.. an follow the appeals route or furthur.

 

I will reply when i have any news.

 

Many thanks to those who took time to respond.

Link to comment

The last time I checked, Groundspeak was not part of the government. The First Amendment's free speech guarantee only applies to laws passed by the government. As a private company, Groundspeak can decide what content it will allow on its cache pages or in its discussion forums. One of the applicable guidelines is to keep forum posts family-friendly.

 

Let's stay on topic, folks. Thank you.

 

This is true. Groundspeak is a private company and is free to set their own rules (within reason). However I am a customer. If I don't like those rules, I may just decide not to be a customer any longer.

 

I'm usually pretty laid back on these issues, but this one has gotten my blood boiling. I need to sit back and relax for a bit, but at this moment, I am very close to giving up geocaching over this matter. Geocaching has been a big part of my life for the past five years, so I don't take this lightly!

Edited by Right Wing Wacko
Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

I don't blame you. I'm also watching this thread closely to see what happens because it could very well affect my membership as well.

Good idea!! Too bad they already suckered me in.

Link to comment

The last time I checked, Groundspeak was not part of the government. The First Amendment's free speech guarantee only applies to laws passed by the government. As a private company, Groundspeak can decide what content it will allow on its cache pages or in its discussion forums. One of the applicable guidelines is to keep forum posts family-friendly.

 

Let's stay on topic, folks. Thank you.

 

This is true. Groundspeak is a private company and is free to set their own rules (within reason). However I am a customer. If I don't like those rules, I may just decide not to be a customer any longer.

 

I'm usually pretty laid back on these issues, but this one has gotten my blood boiling. I need to sit back and relax for a bit, but at this moment, I am very close to giving up geocaching over this matter. Geocaching has been a big part of my life for the past five years, so I don't take this lightly!

I have to agree with you on that. This is not the first similar problem that I have noticed (mostly arising from a for profit business relying heavily on Volunteers to do their dirty work)

 

What exactly do the paid employees at Groundspeak do anyway. It appears to me that they create and maintain the site(good work guys, the site is easy to use and runs great), sell ads, and sell TBs and other swag. Most of the activity that keeps the game going is either automated, or performed by volunteer reviewers and moderators.

Link to comment
Here, however, the issue is easily fixed by modifying the text of the cache page.

 

But really, the cache would have the same "agenda" even if it had different wording.

 

That's why I find this whole episode a tad silly.

 

I see Keystone's POV....but truth be told....even if you thought the rule was silly, you probably really couldn't say it. Just as a professor, I can't tell my students how silly/wrong another perfessor within my department is....even if I think it.

 

Although I always appreciate Keystone's POV because it seems he's the only one who will talk with us, give use the insider's angle, and straighten us out!!

Link to comment
... First I logged the cache honestly. I stand behind every word I wrote. You want the bitter truth? The cache was discusssed by several of us and concluded to be easily in our top 10 lamest caches. An ammo can sitting under the corner of a bar where you actually sit on the steps to the bar to retrieve it and sign it. You can do a check on the cache by travelling down the road at 35 MPH and see the can. It is lazy and uninspiring. The worst part about it is the fact this is on the list of caches to promote the trails and area of the county. It does nothing of the sorts. I logged it as nicely as I could. I left the area, to which I dorove to to find these caches promoting the area, and left with major disappointment. I know the AGT can't personally go out and check every one of these caches and have to rely on people hiding them in a manner that promotes the area, but this one was horrible.

 

The owner took it upon herself to email me with her attitude. I thought this was rather strange ...

You logged the cache with attitude and then were surprised that you got attitude back.

 

Huh.

 

Isn't that like those drivers who cut you off, then giive you the finger because you had the gall to blow your horn?

Link to comment
Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

After reading this one and thinking it over I can only say the likelihood of any of the groups mentioned actually placing a cache would be nill. If this cache gets the ax then I see a whole bunch getting the ax as well. If not appearances would be called into question.

 

As far as the placement of my cache it was tucked under the corner of the building, not visible without walking up to it... so if it was left on the ramp, it was done by a previous cacher by mistake...

 

If I had a quarter for every time I found one of our caches tossed or not replaced as it should be I'd have unlimited gas money to geocache as I saw fit. From what I've observed it usually is a result of numbers runners. A pity they can't slow down and enjoy the game. Then again, the wife and i do caching to relax.

Link to comment

The last time I checked, Groundspeak was not part of the government. The First Amendment's free speech guarantee only applies to laws passed by the government. As a private company, Groundspeak can decide what content it will allow on its cache pages or in its discussion forums. One of the applicable guidelines is to keep forum posts family-friendly.

 

Let's stay on topic, folks. Thank you.

 

I agree with you. The point I tried to make is the relation of the cache description and the editing of my previous post. That's all.

Link to comment

The only thing that troubles me are the suggestions that the reviewer is pursuing his own personal agenda in regards to this cache. That is not the case, and I thank those few posters who noted this. The reviewers are under very clear instructions not to publish "Support our Troops" caches -- even the mere mention of those words is enough to flag a cache and hold it until it's fixed. <snip>

 

I understand what you're saying here, but there's a difference between what you're describing and the OP's cache, unless I'm very far off my mark (which I might be. Happens often).

 

The difference is that "Support Our Troops" is a call to action. Hence, an agenda.

 

The OP makes a personal statement, personally thanking veterans and servicemembers. No call to action; hence, no agenda.

 

I can, however, understand that there is a very blurry line between making a statement and promoting something, which could be said to be advertising, or at the very least the promotion of a political, social, or economic issue beyond the scope of "tupperware in the woods". I don't think that the OP did that. There's some information about the history of the American Legion (and if this is in the vicinity of an American Legion post, I don't think that's inappropriate) and a statement thanking servicemembers /in general/ (not "I think the war in Iraq is terrific / terrible and I want to thank / feel pity for anyone involved in it!"). There's no specific reference to a social, political, or religious issue in there. That I can see, at least.

Link to comment

Sorry but the inclusion of your name seems to be relevant to the discussion here. Though you may be innocent of the accusation, it is rather suspect that it happened after the nasty response to the OP's email. And as for the OP wanting to explain her reason for placing the cache and try to sway your bleak, and quite rude may I add, opinion in your log, it is human nature to do so as you well know. I noticed that someone left a rather disheartening comment on one of YOUR caches and that you too took the time to write the cacher. Though I am not sure what your email exchange was like, I am sure it was much more polite than the one between you and the OP.

 

v/r

O-Mega

Actually my name is not relevant at all. What transpired between the cache owner and myself has nothing to do with her cache and the reviewers and whether or not they see an agenda. Personally I don't, but that is neither here nor there. It's for them to say, not me. The cache owner is pissed and decided wrongly, that since I didn't llike the cache I must be the one behind trying to get it removed. I don't have time to worry about a cache 2 hours away from me that I will never see again. I told the owner she needed to upgrade the cache and put some effort into it, and I still think this way. I could care less about her page. that's not what made it lame to me. This entire thread and debate could have been done without my name, my emails, my log, or the personal attacks on me. All this did was spice her story up and give a face to blame.

 

You are correct that I emailed someone who left a negative log on my cache. I emailed them and appoligized for the cache not being up to their likings. I explained how I haven't had time to replace the exact container since the original had been stolen and simply had a replacement out there and explained what the original was like. I felt bad their experience wasn't what was intended. Obviously the cache is much better with the original container since it was voted as the best of the year in this area. I want my caches to be the best they can be. That is a hider's duty. Lame caches inspire other lame caches. I also want honest logs on my caches since that is the only way to get feedback.

 

There are ways to be honest and give feedback without being rude. I wouldn't say anything in a cache log, email, or forum post that I wouldn't say face to face to another person.

 

I agree that if you are not the one who asked for the Cache to be re-reviewed, then your correspondance has no place in this discussion, but you must be able to see how (with no other information from the Reviewer or Groundspeak) the OP could draw those conclusions. It looks as if the conclusions drawn as to your involvement are incorrect.

Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

And all this time, I thought you just liked to drive through parking lots. :laughing:

 

OK, no one has directly responded to me, but that's understandable, considering the insane amount of responses. This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here. :rolleyes:

 

:DGCYNG6

HEY!? Why didn't that show up in my searches when I spent a week running loads out of the Apple Valley DC? Dang It!
Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

No, you guys are the ones taking the fun out of it when you get too heavy handed with the censorship. If you can't see the difference between this cache and one promoting Al Quaeda or Aryan Nations, then I think you have lost your perspective.

Link to comment
Then take it to the next level.

 

Is that the Slippery Slope I see?

 

Oh Yes, the next thing you know, there will be caches dedicated to Osama Bin Laden himself!!! Maybe a micro to Hitler (Godwin)....meh.....that reasoning seems a little off.

 

Are you supporting nuclear weapons????

 

 

Or thunderstorms?

 

As long as you don't create a cache that shoves it down our throats, you'll be fine. But if they find out you have an A-G-E-N-D-A Signal will come get you with his (her) GPS mind bullets :D:DB):D:):laughing::P:rolleyes::D:D . Unless you change a word here or there...

 

Plus, I'll just tell on you.

Edited by PhxChem
Link to comment

Come on Groundspeak!

 

Geocachig show be about creating something fun for people of all ages, size, and color. There has always been a part of the caching process that is innovative and requires some personal reflection. Just because someone wants to post a cache with a certain description or theme does not mean that Groundspeak has to have the same ideas.

 

Each cache so be able to speak for it self. If some one does not want to support the troops, or support that cache... then don't go looking for it.

 

Oh yea, if you are going to remove the personal identity from geocaching then you might as well remove all of the geocoins because we all know that there are coins out there that represent an idea or an organization and we would hate for some one to be an individual in the world.

 

 

Just my 2

 

Thanks

Derrick Perrin

Let's Go Caching, A video podcast about GEOCACHING

Edited by deeperrin
Link to comment

I just spent the last hour and a half reading this thread. Wowie.

 

Short and sweet:

OP vs Rude Commenter:

Commenter could have refrained from using 'lame' and 'lazy' to describe the cache and the owner. OP could have easily used more discretion in replying.

But that's not the matter here anyway.

 

OP vs Groundspeak:

I think a simple re-wording and moving of sentences would solve the problem here. Yes, she wanted to thank her kids for doing what they were doing. Bravo. But the fact of the matter is that we are all customers (of sorts) of Groundspeak and they have rules/guidelines to follow, and we as community members have to abide by them. This isn't Battledome after all, where you can do anything you want and get away with it!

 

My conclusion:

Get over log comments with short emails or ignorance, and rework the wording to the log page.

 

And sing Kum-ba-ya around the campfire when we're all done! :laughing:

Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

No, you guys are the ones taking the fun out of it when you get too heavy handed with the censorship. If you can't see the difference between this cache and one promoting Al Quaeda or Aryan Nations, then I think you have lost your perspective.

 

As a reviewer I am asked to exercise my judgment many times a day when I review a cache. There have been many times when a cacher has disagreed with my judgment but we have always worked it out in the end.

 

The agenda issue is one of the most contentious. What I may see as an agenda probably doesn't seem that way to the cacher whose cache I just archived or sent to appeals. Even though I work for Groundspeak and have to review caches according to the guidelines, I sometimes disagree with them myself.

 

There is a big difference between this cache and one promoting an organization mentioned above only to someone who feels offended by the thought, actions, morals, whatever, of that other organization. (yes I'm talking generalities here) If I were a supporter of the Ayran Nations mentioned above and I wanted to put out a cache with a statement thanking the local chapter for torching a barn down the road how many people do you think would be offended?? I'm willing to bet almost everyone would be. Would that statement of thanks be an agenda of sorts?? Once again I'm betting that almost everyone would think so.

 

But hey, someone wanted to put out a cache thanking our troops, why can't I put out one thanking the group that torched the barn down the road?? Equal rights eh? Or does it become a double standard depending on what offends you??

 

And that is one big reason why something as innocent meaning as the cache in question can be construed as an agenda and the owner asked to rewrite it. As a member of the military for over 20 years I can appreciate the sentiment expressed. However I can think of much better ways that I would prefer to see it expressed than on a cache page. My caching has no correlation to my time in the military and I keep it that way. I would prefer that Groundspeak do it also.

 

Yeah I use my own judgment a lot when I review caches. But you know something? The cachers I deal with on a regular basis respect my judgment even if they dont' agree with it all the time. They see this sport for what it is supposed to be, fun, friendly, non-partisan.

Link to comment

But hey, someone wanted to put out a cache thanking our troops, why can't I put out one thanking the group that torched the barn down the road?? Equal rights eh? Or does it become a double standard depending on what offends you??

 

Bad choice! Torching a barn is against the law, thanking someone for doing their time in the military is not breaking the law.

 

John

Link to comment

Wow, what do you know, this kind of problem comes back up again...

 

As the founder of the Military Association of GeoCachers, I've tried to express to GeoCaching.com before that saying that an individual cacher having a support the troops banner or statement isn't an agenda, it is a personal opinion but got the same deal. It is "thier site" so they set the rules. Of course, all in all, WE PAY THE BILLS for them.

 

Maybe it is time they "allow agendas" and give folks the right to decide if we wish to do a cache or not.

 

Would I do a cache that was called "Support your local (insert hate group here)" no I wouldn't. But it would then be my choice. Technically, every CITO cache could be considered an agenda (cleaner planet and promotion of enviornmentalism)

 

Hey Ground Speak, Let us decide!!

Link to comment

How about that 'Let's go outside and find some caches' idea I had earlier? :o

 

I guess being a noobie it kind of sucks to read all the negativity, but I guess it happens with everything people have a passion about.

 

:o

I wish I could go "outside and find some caches", but unfortunately, the closest cache hide to me that I haven't found is over 45 miles away on a road that is lined with roadside bombs wanting to do harm to all military personnel either American, Coalition, or Iraqi that travel on that road. I guess I will just have to continue to have my wife and kids find cache hides for me and share the stories. Granted, I did get about 10 days to do some "combat caching" in the Victory Base Complex area, but then I'm back at my "normal" camp with the other 19 Americans I'm stationed with.

 

I personally want to thank everyone that has participated in the discussion of this thread. This means that I'm doing my job of allowing the Bill of Rights to continue to thrive within the United States. I would like every on the GS Forums to enjoy the freedoms they have to either geocache, spend time on the computer, go to work, or any number of activities that allow you to spend time with your family and loved ones, as I remain vigilent in my duties. Granted today is Friday and I get to take the afternoon off before working for the next 6 days.

 

**Added: Again, thanks to everyone that has participated in this discussion as it has given me something to do on a Friday afternoon.

 

De Oppresso Liber,

 

Jerry from TEAM HALL-JTSJT

currently stationed at Camp Tarlavsky, An Najaf, Iraq

Edited by TEAM HALL-JTSJT
Link to comment

To TEAM HALL-JTSJT and the other veterens on the board, thank you for your service from me and most likely the vast majority of cachers reading this thread.

 

I seriously think that AGT, geocaching, and probably anything worth thinking about, are all agendas. Overall I think Groundspeak does a good job of achieving the difficult balance between keeping the most people happy and trying not to offend individuals. I'm going to find some caches this weekend and not worry about it.

Link to comment

I don't see an agenda in the OPs cache and think it should be left active.

 

Yes, this is Groundspeak's site and they have a right to allow/disallow what they want. That means that just because they allow something as benign as this cache does NOT also mean they would then have to allow some of the extreme examples that others keep using. They can draw the line whereever they want.

 

Where they draw that line and what they choose to allow/disallow speaks volumes about the company's character. I am very disappointed with the stand Groundspeak seems to have taken on this particular cache.

Link to comment

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

It seems this is all about political correctness. "We" cannot determine which things are worthy anymore, so nothing can be supported for fear of someone being offended.

 

The fact that this cache is even up for reveiw when we have caches titled "Support our troops" smacks of hypocracy. If this cache is politically incorrect (has an agenda), then certainly those are as well. This cache has been running since November 2, 2007 without a complaint and has been found 153 times. But suddenly one person whines and it has to be changed because it might offened?

 

Briansnat, I do want to thank you for at least coming forward as a "voice of TPTB". I find your views understandable and reasonable. But if I apply that same logic to nearly any other cache, I think I could find an agenda by your definition. If we pulled all caches that made us aware of something then caches would be a lot less plentiful.

 

@SixDogTeam, I you beat me to the punch. I could not have summed it up better myself.

Edited by Airhead-kb
Link to comment

I'll be watching this thread to see how it plays out before I decide to become a premium member. I wouldn't want to support a site where political correctness has run amok.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

 

Then what happens when when one person's idea of a worthy cause is at odds with others? Someone used the example of Planned Parenthood previously. Some people think it's a wonderful organization, while others see it as a tool of the Devil. The Boy Scouts. How could anybody have a problem with the Boy Scouts? But a lot of people do. What about caches promoting Greenpeace or the NRA? Bound to have some controversy there. Maybe even people canceling their memberships because the site would allow a cache promoting one or the other.

 

Then take it to the next level. What about a cache promoting Aryan Nations, Communist Workers Party or even Al-Qaeda? Well most people will say they'd be a no-brainer, of course they shouldn't be published, but these organizations have their ardent supporters too.

 

So what we will have are reviewers who are in the position of having to decide which agendas are "worthy" and which ones aren't. There is sometimes enough controversy over their decisions regarding the guidelines, which is their supposed area of expertise. Imagine the firestorm when a reviewer turns down the pet agenda of sizable portion of geocachers.

 

Nah, it's good the way it is. Let's keep geocaching light and fun and if you want to support the troops, put a bumper sticker on your car, fly your flag, or work to ensure that pro-surrender politicians are not re-elected.

No, you guys are the ones taking the fun out of it when you get too heavy handed with the censorship. If you can't see the difference between this cache and one promoting Al Quaeda or Aryan Nations, then I think you have lost your perspective.

 

You're making my point. If we deny a cache promoting Ayran Nations that is also a form of censorship. Where do we draw the line and who decides where? Should only popular agendas be allowed and if so how do we define popular?

Link to comment
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! !" is clearly, in my opinion an agenda.

I'm not so sure I agree with your sentiment. Thanking someone and wishing them well, doesn't quite fit the description of "Agenda" that I have rattling around in my head. If they were to proclaim that everyone should join the military, or folks should support the Foreign Legion, then yes, that would qualify as an agenda in my book.

 

It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with keeping political anything out of the sport. If you didn't have the no agenda rule there would be caches all over the place espousing this worthy cause or that one.

Many words of wisdom, (as usual), from briansnat. I am an ardent advocate of the "No Agenda" rule. I do not want to read cache pages supporting this or that, regardless of whether I happen to agree with whatever's being promoted.

 

However, I don't think that's the case here. Thanking someone is not an agenda. It's just a thank you.

Historical trivia is also not an agenda. They are just a list of facts.

 

This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion.

I don't read it that way. Pointing out relevant facts about a particular organization isn't necessarily promoting that organization. If the cache page attempted to get you to join, or support it financially, then sure, it'd be promoting it, but just handing out data is neither positive nor negative.

 

But when a cache is BROUGHT to their attention, they have to deal with it within the guidelines they are given.

Very true, and nobly stated. The reviewers receive a complaint, they have to take action. In this particular case, the appropriate action would be to determine if the cache page actually promoted an agenda, and direct that it be changed, if it did. All within the guidelines, and all hunky dory. The problem started when they decided a cache had an agenda, when in fact, it did not. They still have to take action, and in this case, the action should have been a reply to the person making the complaint worded something to the effect of, "Dear BillyBobCacher, thank you for expressing your concerns regarding this cache. At Groundspeak, we take the issue of agenda based caches very seriously, and we appreciate your efforts. After careful consideration, we've come to the conclusion that thanking someone, and posting historical tidbits about an organization, does not meet our definition of an agenda.

Best regards,

Groundspeak"

 

I am very close to giving up geocaching over this matter.

That's a stance I could never take and keep a straight face. I'd feel like a junky telling a dealer I was gonna quit using unless they dyed my drug of choice a particular color. Yeah, I'm addicted to this place. There ain't no 12 step program for me. What's a guy to do? :o

Link to comment
This thing is on American Legion property, and it promotes the American Legion. What do you think the chances are I could put a cache in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and give the history of Sam Walton and the Wal-Mart chain in the cache description? I'd say I'd have no chance whatsoever of pulling that one off. I really don't see a difference here.

 

Keystone seems to indicate that just having a "support the troops" cache is enough to get it denied.

 

It's possible that the American Legion stuff had nothing to do with it.

 

Either way, at least we have an answer...unacceptable IMO....but it's an answer.

 

I've been caught not reading and interpreting every post in a thread before shooting my mouth off, but I say I can be excused in this particular case. :o If the agenda is the American Legion, I side with the reviewers. If the agenda is "support our troops", I disagree, and say political correctness run amuck.

 

Either way, I believe the perceived selective enforcement by the reviewers not only in this case, but a few others I'm familiar with, sure makes them look bad. :o

Link to comment
It seems this is all about political correctness. "We" cannot determine which things are worthy anymore, so nothing can be supported for fear of someone being offended.

 

Supporting our troops is probably one of the most politically correct and popular stance anybody can take in the US. To say you don't support the troops is political suicide. Nearly every politician in the country loudly proclaims their support for our troops; some while doing everything in their power to thwart their mission.

 

The denying of this cache has offended far more people than publishing it would, so that proves that it's not about political correctness and fear of offending anyone. It's about keeping geocaching light and fun.

Link to comment
It seems this is all about political correctness. "We" cannot determine which things are worthy anymore, so nothing can be supported for fear of someone being offended.

 

Supporting our troops is probably one of the most politically correct and popular stance anybody can take in the US. To say you don't support the troops is political suicide. Nearly every politician in the country loudly proclaims their support for our troops; some while doing everything in their power to thwart their mission.

 

The denying of this cache has offended far more people than publishing it would, so that proves that it's not about political correctness and fear of offending anyone. It's about keeping geocaching light and fun.

Very well put! Thank you for stating this so clearly! In reading this thread, I am amazed at how many folks with a sense of entitlement are trying to turn this issue into something that it is not. This particularly goes for the OP, who also, for some bizarre reason, felt the need to drag a cache page log entry by pghlooking, and the cacher himself, into the fray in an attempt to cast blame for the fact that the reviewer had challenged his cache. While it is certainly true that pghlooking could have chosen to word his log entry about the lameness of the cache a bit more diplomatically (although I see nothing wrong with the way he ultimately chose to phrase his view of the cache hide), that hardly warrants the bizarre leap of logic, sorry, I mean illogic, in attempting to cast blame upon him for the fact that the reviewer later brought up the agenda issue. In fact, I feel that the attempt by the OP to draw pghlooking's find log comments into the fray was nothing short of ugly and unfair, and also rather insane. It always amazes me how many folks manage to take life far too seriously, and who then manage to drag their sense of drama even into the sport of geocaching. The OP, in my point of view, is acting like a drama queen in his/her postings, as are some of the subsequent posters in this thread. Personally, I have little tolerance for the histironics of drama queens; it is tiring.

Link to comment

Huh. I wandered in here looking for help on paperless caching, as I just can't get anything to download to my pda, and ran across this thread.

 

I just recently paid to be a premium member. But now I'm rethinking that.

 

I am so sick to death of 'political correctness'!!! PC is simply a term for the process of degrading moral values, promoting socialism, and otherwise ruining our country. Bah!

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the OP's description of the cache, and I feel it is a terrible insult to require re-wording of the description. I also believe that the 'lame find' poster was rude and out of line. If you don't like the cache, don't look for it!

 

I saw no 'agenda'. And this cache didn't promote the legion any more than all those 'always' caches support WalMart. I don't like WalMart, and I don't shop at WalMart, but I chose to do the caches at WalMart. So what if I wrote in and complained about them being at WalMart. Doesn't make much sense, does it? No. Not liking WalMart, I could have chosen to bypass those caches; I didn't (hey, it's a find!) but it would have been intolerably silly of me to get them and then turn around and complain.

 

And while this site is privately owned, and the owners can set rules, I think it's a terrible shame if they behave like I've seen happen in our public schools. Where a mere mention of God, a statement of "I love America', or 'Support our Troops' is immediately punished while the adminstrators run around practically soiling themselves for fear of the thought police.

 

What are we becoming? Can we no longer be patriotic, God-fearing Americans?

 

And why does political correctness have to rear it's ugly, nasty head in something innocent and fun that I love to do?

 

Man, this is just depressing. And I still don't know how to go paperless.

Link to comment

My big problem with the whole "agenda" argument is that I think it's been blown a bit out of proportion in relation to its original intent:

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Imo, the rule regarding "agenda" should be done so in a manner consistent with the guideline which specifically addresses solicitation.

Link to comment
I am so sick to death of 'political correctness'!!! PC is simply a term for the process of degrading moral values, promoting socialism, and otherwise ruining our country. Bah!

 

The politically correct position would be allowing the cache supporting our troops. It's not about political correctness.

 

I am amazed at how many folks with a sense of entitlement are trying to turn this issue into something that it is not.

 

Rather than a sense of entitlement, I think it's a visceral reaction and one that I totally understand. There are few people who despise political correctness more than I do, and my support for our troops goes far beyond slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of my car.

 

But there is a place for everything. This place is for geocaching.

Edited by briansnat
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 understand the difficulties........ but I think we've stepped off the edge now!!!

 

"He who believes much must give way to he who believes little, and he who believes little must give way to he who believes absolutely nothing." That's what's happening. Put a stop to it. This cache is not asking for funds.

Link to comment

The guidelines allow for caches that don't meet the guidelines to be listed on an exception basis. I don't think that it would destroy the game to establish verbiage (even in private and unofficially) that they would feel comfortable with to allow caches like this one to be listed that still pay tribute to soldiers (or police or firemen).

 

BTW, there is no slippery slope regarding approved cache listings. Exceptions can be made and each cache listing is not a precedent for future caches.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cache owner. But then again this is what is coming to with all the fluff logs people put out there. Logs have gotten to be a joke. Few people tend to be honest anymore because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, and by doing that, the quality of caches digresses. If you don't like my cache, then log it so. I don't care. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I were to email you about it, it would be to find a way to improve it based on feedback, not try to change the feedback to fit what I wanted.

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cacher, also! Anyone can be honest...we are all expected to be. You can also use a little tact. I'm sure that you were taught that in the military. I see your "honesty" as an excuse to be mean-spirited.

 

And to the Groundspeak Lackeys :

 

If your stance about agendas is so strict...why aren't you ACTIVELY archiving the other caches that support veterans because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that are LPCs that take you to a big box store because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that take you to parks because that is an agenda! What you will be left with is a website...Oh, yeah...and CITO. Obviously selective of your enforcement of guidelines. I'll keep my $30...pocket queries aren't that important.

 

Why GC isn't actively going after the other similar caches? Easy - how many people do you think that would upset? A lot more than those that haunt the forums. It's ok to tick off a few of your customers....you just can't do it to all of them. ie the Selective enforcement.

 

How about everyone find a cache with an agenda and report it? Think that will make the 'Groundspeak Lackeys' wake up?

 

Isn't CITO an agenda? GC doesn't seem to have a problem with those - why not? Because it's their agenda. Hypocritical thinking for sure.

Edited by MorganCoke
Link to comment
<snip>

 

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cache owner. But then again this is what is coming to with all the fluff logs people put out there. Logs have gotten to be a joke. Few people tend to be honest anymore because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, and by doing that, the quality of caches digresses. If you don't like my cache, then log it so. I don't care. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. If I were to email you about it, it would be to find a way to improve it based on feedback, not try to change the feedback to fit what I wanted.

You have to take the good with the bad when you are a cacher, also! Anyone can be honest...we are all expected to be. You can also use a little tact. I'm sure that you were taught that in the military. I see your "honesty" as an excuse to be mean-spirited.

 

And to the Groundspeak Lackeys :

 

If your stance about agendas is so strict...why aren't you ACTIVELY archiving the other caches that support veterans because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that are LPCs that take you to a big box store because that is an agenda. ARCHIVE all caches that take you to parks because that is an agenda! What you will be left with is a website...Oh, yeah...and CITO. Obviously selective of your enforcement of guidelines. I'll keep my $30...pocket queries aren't that important.

Why GC isn't actively going after the other similar caches? Easy - how many people do you think that would upset? A lot more than those that haunt the forums. It's ok to tick off a few of your customers....you just can't do it to all of them. ie the Selective enforcement.

 

How about everyone find a cache with an agenda and report it? Think that will make the 'Groundspeak Lackeys' wake up?

How about the OP just work with TPTB to see if she can keep her cache listed and still have it thank her kids.

 

This cache need not be the poster child for all 'Support Our Troops' caches.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

You know what - if there are this many people that disagree with the concept of agenda caches... or the interpretation of it from GS.com... or the reviewers, maybe we should just make these caches go the way of Virtuals.

 

Since the main issue was "the wow factor", and instead of simply dealing with it, they just banned all new virtuals, maybe we should just ban any cache which has any kind of agenda, grandfather those that do, and make a new website "Agendacaching.com", linked off of gs.com's homepage, and put all new agenda based caches, whether supporting our troops or the barn-burning down the road, on that page.

 

That was how GS.com dealt with a relatively similar issue. Why not deal with it this way?

 

And why haven't we heard much from GS.com itself? Seems like this is an irritating enough topic to some, and hot enough because of the number of people talking about it on here, that Jeremy himself might chime in with some kind of explanation which might satisfy some, and irritate others, but be much more definitive than the info we have gotten so far. Simply saying "His business, his rules" is correct, but is not in the best interest of any business to treat their customers with that attitude.

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