Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

I don't even know where to start....

 

In short, count me with the groups that support our tropps, but don't want to see agendas of any type in this game.

 

I cache for fun, not to have to get in the middle of stuff like this. If you think there is no agenda, go back and read one of the OP's posts from the second page (I'll quote it later) where she says that she supports WINNING the war, not stopping the war.

 

Kudos to BrianSnat for stating things so clearly for those of us who agree with him.

 

And to those of you screaming that you'll withdraw your membership? Please......If you're really going to take a stand, stop using this site altogether if you don't agree with the way it's run. By not paying for it, you may somehow make yourself feel better, but you're not really taking a stand are you. You're still here using the site.

 

I agree it's not about being PC; it's about keeping anything emotional out of caching. Look at the responses to this thread and you'll see that the majority of them are very heated and emotional.

Link to comment

I can't really add anything that hasn't been said already. The wording in that cache doesn't offend me in the least, but it's not about that. Basically, as has been said, it's a private website. If the powers that be say that something violates one of their guidelines, then it violates one of their guidelines.

Link to comment

If the mention of thanking a veteran gets this much angst, imagine mine when I saw THIS SITE with a link to Geocaching.com on their main page.

That is one very strange site, if only due to its level of hostility and vehemence. I am not even sure what its agenda is, other than perhaps being against religious fundamentalism. I wondered about the sanity of the site operator for a bit, until I did some sleuthing work, whereupon I discovered that the site owner/operator lives in Utah, which is admittedly the home to all kinds of extreme religious fundamentalism, and at that point I understood that perhaps the site owner has simply "lost it" due to having to put up with to much religious fundamentalism in their home state!

 

Personally, while I am not at all religious, I happen to believe in God and have a very strong and deep inner spiritual practice which fuels and guides my whole life, and I also strongly believe in freedom of speech and in "live and let live". Thus, the website linked above does not bother me at all and I am happy that they are exercising their freedom of speech. On a somewhat related note, one of our GC reviewers/moderators makes no secret of the fact that he does not believe in God nor in religion, and he even offers links on his home page to a website that clearly and unequivocally states that God does not exist. I have been aware of this fact for a long time, and it has never bothered me in the least; it simply means that I believe that God exists, while he does not; no big deal at all. However, at a geo event over a year ago, wouldn't you know it, but an out-of-state cacher who is a bit of a drama queen approached me and related to me in hushed and breathless tones what I have just iterated above (and what I had known for years), and asked me if I agreed with him that this was "scandalous" and "unbecoming" behavior for a GC reviewer. I recall that I looked at him (that is, at the drama queen) with amazement and said something to the effect that it did not bother me at all, and rather, I found it ridiculous that he was getting all worked up about it, and suggested that he "get a life".

Link to comment

I don't even know where to start....

 

In short, count me with the groups that support our tropps, but don't want to see agendas of any type in this game.

 

I cache for fun, not to have to get in the middle of stuff like this. If you think there is no agenda, go back and read one of the OP's posts from the second page (I'll quote it later) where she says that she supports WINNING the war, not stopping the war.

 

Kudos to BrianSnat for stating things so clearly for those of us who agree with him.

 

And to those of you screaming that you'll withdraw your membership? Please......If you're really going to take a stand, stop using this site altogether if you don't agree with the way it's run. By not paying for it, you may somehow make yourself feel better, but you're not really taking a stand are you. You're still here using the site.

 

I agree it's not about being PC; it's about keeping anything emotional out of caching. Look at the responses to this thread and you'll see that the majority of them are very heated and emotional.

Very clear and insightful post! Thank you! I agree particularly very strongly with your point wherein you state:

And to those of you screaming that you'll withdraw your membership? Please......If you're really going to take a stand, stop using this site altogether if you don't agree with the way it's run. By not paying for it, you may somehow make yourself feel better, but you're not really taking a stand are you. You're still here using the site.

Thanks again! As I have stated before, I have little patience with drama queens, and this thread has been a drama queen festival! In fact, I am irritated enough at the antics of the drama queens that I must go sip a mugful of radioactive water from my Revigator water dispenser in order to soothe my poor jangled nerves!

Link to comment

I'm baffled. How can someone say that mentioning an organization is an "agenda." If that is the true case, then the representatives of Ground Speak have no idea what the word agenda means.

 

If the OP is being held accountable for the political platform of an organization she mentions, then there are a LOT more caches that need to be taken down. A cache is not allowed to mention any business, organization, or group because EVERY business, organization, or group has some agenda. Even if the agenda promotes sitting around on their fat arses, its still an agenda.

 

So, if anyone has a cache that mentions a park service - remove it.

If anyone has a cache that explains the land owner it is placed on - remove it

If anyone has a cache that mentions the city it is located - remove it

If anyone has a cache that is on business ground and you mention the business name - remove it

 

If what keystone says is correct, ground speak is holding the cache owners responsible for actions taken by another group. I cannot give facts about a local cemetary a cache is in because the city, which owns the cemetary, has an agenda of some form.

 

It seems someone needs to link the folks over at GS.com to dictionary.com and let them know what an agenda is. CITO is an agenda.

 

Without getting ridiculous and saying caching is an agenda or requesting people to find multiples is an agenda - lets look at what IS really an agenda. I did a quick search for the word "awareness" and found cache's splashed with pink breast cancer awareness ribbons (visual suggestion of an agenda), cache's with banners to support hiking events for leukemia awareness, and a page with the following text:

Before going to the cache, please visit the DHMO website for additional information here: www.dhmo.org

 

These cache's are clearly requesting action. They are not just saying "this cache is in honor of my (insert relative's name) who is suffering/died from/survived (insert deadly illness)" - they are ASKING for action of some kind. Considering all reviewers were told not to post any cache related to "support our troops" - even the request of awareness and support is wrong.

 

Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even tho the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

 

I think its abhorant that this cache is being singled out (and yes, it is easily perceived this way considering the number of blatent agenda caches one can find). Thanking someone or a group of people and stating facts is not an agenda. You cannot read into a person's intent but only see what is in black and white. Read what is there, understand what an agenda is, judge ONLY what is put before you, and realize that the OPs original text is not an agenda.

Edited by Carbon_n_kids
Link to comment

... 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?...

 

Blob theory is why.

The blob grows devouring all things in it's path. Just as has the defintion of commercial and agenda's. In time no new caches could be approved since all would have an agenda of some kind due to a broadening view of what an agenda is. All new caches would be listed on agendamarking.

Link to comment
And to those of you screaming that you'll withdraw your membership? Please......If you're really going to take a stand, stop using this site altogether if you don't agree with the way it's run. By not paying for it, you may somehow make yourself feel better, but you're not really taking a stand are you. You're still here using the site.

 

I love how you make this group out to be irrational.

 

I have every right to make a decision on if I continue to use GS.com after I see resolution of this problem. Anyone does, including you. I am seriously reconsidering GS.com's platform and whether it is one I wish to support or not. Because - you see, people are identified by the groups they belong to. If your best friend is a bully, then you will be perceived as a bully.

 

So yes - I will feel better if I disassociate myself with platforms and agendas I do not agree with. Until then - I also have every right to use the site until I see what resolution comes about from the problem.

Link to comment
Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even those the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

 

I think its abhorant that this cache is being singled out...

 

The cache is not being singled out. Numerous similar caches have had to be re-written in order to be published.

 

That there are previous similar caches that have been published is irrelevant. The directive from TPTB that Keystone mentions may well have come after they were published.

Link to comment
Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even those the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

 

I think its abhorant that this cache is being singled out...

 

The cache is not being singled out. Numerous similar caches have had to be re-written in order to be published.

 

That there are previous similar caches that have been published is irrelevant. The directive from TPTB that Keystone mentions may well have come after they were published.

 

Even if his request came after the publication, there are only 16. It would not be hard to do a search to find them... which with any "decree" such as this, going back and undoing what was done should be part of the change to remove "support our troop" caches. This would relieve reviewers of having used their opinion (agreed upon there); however, it does not defeat the purpose of having caches with "no agendas", suggested or real.

 

As for being singled out - this cache was ALREADY published after the OP worked with the reviewer on the wording. I believe the original wording is on page 2 or something and stated something about winning the war. The OP did change the text originally and it got published. Now, per someone's request, the cache is being reviewed again and will possibly be archived by the reviewer if the wording does not change AGAIN.

Edited by Carbon_n_kids
Link to comment

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

 

Just to clarify. The issue was created by this site making a request for a cache owner to change the wording of their cache description on an already listed cache. This site created the issue. The owner asked "why the heck should I change my wording". It's their cache and this site is in the business of listing other peoples caches. Not listing their own caches. Over time I've watched this site impose an ever broader set of rules, regs and restrictions and I've watched the list of what’s acceptable shrink. In 2002 this question would never have come up. This site would have never questioned the caches wording. There is no reason (blob theory and my marketing theory not withstanding) to question it now that would make sense to a cache owner.

 

When all is said and done cache owners need a bright line test for the nebulous concepts of agenda and commercial. The line needs to be fixed. As things are it's a moving and fuzzy target. Bottom line, it's artifically complex. The owner doesn't understand it. The reviewer didn't understand it (they escalated the question). Most of the forum members don't under stand it.

Link to comment
Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even those the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

 

I think its abhorant that this cache is being singled out...

 

The cache is not being singled out. Numerous similar caches have had to be re-written in order to be published.

 

That there are previous similar caches that have been published is irrelevant. The directive from TPTB that Keystone mentions may well have come after they were published.

 

Then why, if it has already been published, is it being attacked? It met the requirements when published, so it is grandfathered, by the rules we have seen so many times.

Link to comment
All new caches would be listed on agendamarking
:o:D

 

There would be no smiley's so no one would go there. However it would give the forum Mods somewhere else to point people to when they tell them to pound sand.

 

The best part of this whole thing is that despite the numerous examples of very similar caches, caches that have other agendas, proper definition of agendas, etc, etc - no one from GS is commenting except the forum mods who will always tow the company line and defer to TBTP.

 

:o

Edited by MorganCoke
Link to comment

I like to hike in the woods.

 

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

 

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. :o

 

:DGCYNG6

 

LOLCANO!

Edited by TeamTaqleberry
Link to comment
And to those of you screaming that you'll withdraw your membership? Please......If you're really going to take a stand, stop using this site altogether if you don't agree with the way it's run. By not paying for it, you may somehow make yourself feel better, but you're not really taking a stand are you. You're still here using the site.

 

I love how you make this group out to be irrational.

 

I have every right to make a decision on if I continue to use GS.com after I see resolution of this problem. Anyone does, including you. I am seriously reconsidering GS.com's platform and whether it is one I wish to support or not. Because - you see, people are identified by the groups they belong to. If your best friend is a bully, then you will be perceived as a bully.

 

So yes - I will feel better if I disassociate myself with platforms and agendas I do not agree with. Until then - I also have every right to use the site until I see what resolution comes about from the problem.

 

Easy, I never called anybody irrational. Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

Yes, you have every right to associate yourself with any group, or disassociate yourself from any group based on any criteria that you like. That is everybody's choice and I won't question your choice to do so.

 

My point was that if you choose to pull your membership, or not pay based on the grounds that you don't like what's going on here, then you shouldn't be using the site at all once your mind is made up. I think it's hypocritical to not pay for the site, but continue to use it for free and claim that you are making a statement by doing so.

 

(Note that I use the word "you" here in a general way, not directed at you personally)

Link to comment

Nope - I disagree - they're gaining a benefit from the site while not supporting their operations in a financial way. I can disagree with a group, use their resources to my benefit, and not support them in a financial way, and that is definitely making a statement - they get less $$$ to do the things I disagree with, or do them in the way that I disagree with.

Link to comment

Wow....what a mess. It has taken me a few hours to read through all of these posts and I cannot add anything that hasn't already been said. The only thing I can add is my opinion (not a personal agenda).

 

For one, I have been in the Army for 17 and a half years and I love what I do. I do not ask others to enlist in the Army and to take up arms beside me to defend this great country of ours. I simply tell everyone my story and let it be. One thing I absolutely despise is seeing military members get spit on and cussed out for what we do for this country every day of our lives. The only thing I can say about this is to SUPPORT THE TROOPS....you don't have to support the war and the decisions of the politicians and generals who make the decisions we have to carry out! We do what we are told and although we may have our own opinions about what we do, we do what needs to be done to get the mission done. PERIOD.

 

I belong to a military group of geocachers who are my family and have grown closer to every single one of them through geocaching. I met the founder of the Military Association of Geocachers online and we never met until I made a trip to his area. After a few hours of geocaching, I ate dinner with his family and then we swapped stories about the military and our caching adventures. Our bond was instant due to the comraderie of our jobs and the hobby we love. It has nothing to do with agenda, but sharing common experiences and learning about each other and other hobbies we may express to one another.

 

I tend to enjoy reading cache pages that teach me about something I would not have known otherwise. Whether they be for Fireman, Police, churches, War Veterans, mothers against drunk driving, or any other so called agenda they purportedly pursue. The discussions on this thread are hogwash and meaningless.

 

Get out of the house and enjoy some caches! Quit worrying about the small stuff and have some fun. I for one am going to be heading over to Camp Victory, Iraq tomorrow to attend an event for a Soldier leaving the theater. I will enjoy my day off after working 6-14 hour days for the last 2 months and will continue to do so for the next 4 months.

 

Geocaching in Iraq is a nice way to get out and enjoy a slice of home and thanks to roughly 85 cachers who donated to an event I am co-hosting in a few weeks, will spend an afternoon raffling off nearly 200 coins to Combat Cachers!!!

 

I say get this over with and quit being so darn thin-skinned....at least you aren't dodging bullets, ducking into bunkers, and avoiding road-side bombs while you are out caching. Quit taking political correctness to the extreme and learn from the cache pages of others instead of crying about an agenda that is not there.

 

God bless every single one of you who support the troops who give you all the right to argue about meanial things and the right to have a choice in what you believe in.

 

Combat Cachin' with awesome MAGC members in Baghdad, Iraq......I wouldn't think of anything else I would rather do on my day off. 2 months down, 4 to go!

 

V/R,

 

Dan

Team_DDNight

Camp Cropper, Iraq

Link to comment

I'm baffled. How can someone say that mentioning an organization is an "agenda." If that is the true case, then the representatives of Ground Speak have no idea what the word agenda means.

 

If the OP is being held accountable for the political platform of an organization she mentions, then there are a LOT more caches that need to be taken down. A cache is not allowed to mention any business, organization, or group because EVERY business, organization, or group has some agenda. Even if the agenda promotes sitting around on their fat arses, its still an agenda.

 

So, if anyone has a cache that mentions a park service - remove it.

If anyone has a cache that explains the land owner it is placed on - remove it

If anyone has a cache that mentions the city it is located - remove it

If anyone has a cache that is on business ground and you mention the business name - remove it

 

If what keystone says is correct, ground speak is holding the cache owners responsible for actions taken by another group. I cannot give facts about a local cemetary a cache is in because the city, which owns the cemetary, has an agenda of some form.

 

It seems someone needs to link the folks over at GS.com to dictionary.com and let them know what an agenda is. CITO is an agenda.

 

Without getting ridiculous and saying caching is an agenda or requesting people to find multiples is an agenda - lets look at what IS really an agenda. I did a quick search for the word "awareness" and found cache's splashed with pink breast cancer awareness ribbons (visual suggestion of an agenda), cache's with banners to support hiking events for leukemia awareness, and a page with the following text:

Before going to the cache, please visit the DHMO website for additional information here: www.dhmo.org

 

These cache's are clearly requesting action. They are not just saying "this cache is in honor of my (insert relative's name) who is suffering/died from/survived (insert deadly illness)" - they are ASKING for action of some kind. Considering all reviewers were told not to post any cache related to "support our troops" - even the request of awareness and support is wrong.

 

Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even tho the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

 

I think its abhorant that this cache is being singled out (and yes, it is easily perceived this way considering the number of blatent agenda caches one can find). Thanking someone or a group of people and stating facts is not an agenda. You cannot read into a person's intent but only see what is in black and white. Read what is there, understand what an agenda is, judge ONLY what is put before you, and realize that the OPs original text is not an agenda.

YOU SAID IT ALL

I have to go so I can get to post office to mail some things for an AGENDA and some of my AGENDA coins to cachers. I need time to absorb all this crap. Will be back see whats going on. Opinons there like mouth's everyone got one. USA 45

Link to comment

Just to add another 2 cents. It doesn't appear that the "Agenda" in the cache in question is any more or less of an agenda that the other 1000+ caches supporting troops, breast cancer awareness, diabetes, or whatever else. The fact that it was already reviewed and published just makes it that much more allowed.

 

I just found a "Go Army" cache here the other day, should I call a reviewer and have it archived for having an Agenda? I think the reviewer here would laugh at me.

 

As he should.

 

This is much ado about nothing - except they want to remove the cache for no reason and are willing to selectively enforce rules to do so. Well within their RIGHTS, but maybe not best for the geocaching community as a whole.

Link to comment
no one from GS is commenting except the forum mods who will always tow the company line and defer to TBTP.

 

That is completely false. When I disagree with the TPTB I am not afraid to say so and I have. When I'm not performing my moderator duties in the Getting Started forum I'm speaking for myself and nobody else. I resent the suggestion that someone is behind me pulling my strings because it simply is not so.

Link to comment

Nope - I disagree - they're gaining a benefit from the site while not supporting their operations in a financial way. I can disagree with a group, use their resources to my benefit, and not support them in a financial way, and that is definitely making a statement - they get less $$$ to do the things I disagree with, or do them in the way that I disagree with.

 

Sorry, but that's a cop out in my opinion. You feel strongly enough to not support the site, but will still use it to your advantage - that's hypocritical at the least. If you really want to make a statement, completley dissociate yourself form the group and don't use the site at all. My guess is that most won't because they love caching too much and the commentary is just chest-pounding.

 

I realize this is getting a bit off topic, so I won't continue to engage in this portion of the discussion.

Link to comment

I love how you make this group out to be irrational.

 

Easy, I never called anybody irrational. Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

had I actually said you "called this group irrational" this would be a valid point. I said, I love how you make this group out to be irrational.... ie my perception of your post is that your tone made these people sound irrational.

Link to comment

Nope - I disagree - they're gaining a benefit from the site while not supporting their operations in a financial way. I can disagree with a group, use their resources to my benefit, and not support them in a financial way, and that is definitely making a statement - they get less $$$ to do the things I disagree with, or do them in the way that I disagree with.

 

Sorry, but that's a cop out in my opinion. You feel strongly enough to not support the site, but will still use it to your advantage - that's hypocritical at the least. If you really want to make a statement, completley dissociate yourself form the group and don't use the site at all. My guess is that most won't because they love caching too much and the commentary is just chest-pounding.

 

I realize this is getting a bit off topic, so I won't continue to engage in this portion of the discussion.

 

Hypocritical, by definition, is professing a belief that you personally do not follow. Utilizing the assets of an organization, company or individual that you disagree with, free of charge, isn't really hypocritical.

Link to comment

I stopped reading when I laughed soooo hard I shot Capt'n Crunch all over my monitor (that was when I read the post about "I gotta sit back and relax...I feel like quitting caching"....too funny)...but has anyone given thought that this is a result of the new guidelines which recently went into effect?? The only reason this cache has been "singled out" is because it was reported.

 

No conspiracy, no slant toward any one person....just someone made a report about a cache which is NOW against guidelines.

 

I agree with Kealia, if you feel so strongly about this that you'd not support them, using their services seems hypocritical!! Almost like going to a party at someone's house you dislike...just for the free food!

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I just saw where the cache in question was archived. I DO not belief their was any agenda in that cache page. Just a parent proud of what her children are doing.

 

Now Keystone said it was "support our troops" that is casing the problem.

 

A search for support out troops find 16 caches. With support our troops in the name. Last one published in Aug of 2007.

 

A search for support the troops finds 4 caches with the last one published in Jan 2008.

 

These are active caches and not archived.

 

This cache was singled out. IMHO.

 

If you are going to enforce something it HAS to be 100% across the board NOT just 1 cache. It has to affect all 100% of the caches.

 

I expect all caches with "support our troops" or "support the troops" to be archived as they are an agenda, and this one was archived for the this problem.

 

I find this to be very deplorable on this site. What s going on in Iraq and etc I will not comment on. But for the people over their they need our support.

 

Some of my families history in the military.

 

My oldest uncle was in the Army in WWII. He had many Silver Stars, Bronze Stars and many other medals. He was nominated for the Medal of Honer by General Omar Bradley for June 6th 1944. My uncle was shot in the foot by a German snipper while trying to help a wounded German army man.

 

My other uncle was in the Koren War. He went to collage on the veterans bill.

 

My brother was in Desert Storm via USMC.

 

My other brother is in the USAF right now and over their right now.

 

I may or may not agree with what the government is doing but I do support the troops over their.

 

Well that is my 2 cents worth anyhow.

 

Paul - KF4OOX

Link to comment

Nope - I disagree - they're gaining a benefit from the site while not supporting their operations in a financial way. I can disagree with a group, use their resources to my benefit, and not support them in a financial way, and that is definitely making a statement - they get less $$$ to do the things I disagree with, or do them in the way that I disagree with.

 

Sorry, but that's a cop out in my opinion. You feel strongly enough to not support the site, but will still use it to your advantage - that's hypocritical at the least. If you really want to make a statement, completley dissociate yourself form the group and don't use the site at all. My guess is that most won't because they love caching too much and the commentary is just chest-pounding.

 

I realize this is getting a bit off topic, so I won't continue to engage in this portion of the discussion.

HOw is this any different that those cachers who haven't yet bought a PM? Should they all quit? Should the site become pay-to-play?

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.

 

I disagree. I think it has everything to do with political correctness. Once again the majority must yield to the minority so we don't hurt feelings.

 

I'm an American. I support our troops. I believe in God. Both of those statements are taboo because of political correctness. Something is going very very wrong in this country.

God bless our troops.

 

El Diablo

 

I agree with this...BUT, not everyone here IS an American...ya know?? Would you like the American hating countries or the devil worship types to be able to make statements on their cache pages too?? I wouldn't!

Link to comment
April 4 by Michael (0 found)

Archived, by request of the owner.

[view this log on a separate page]

 

Interesting. I'm curious about the reasoning behind the request by the owner. In this thread they seemed as if they wanted to keep it. As anyone knows though a log can be written to say anything regardless of the real thoughts. I'm smelling something here and it resembles road apples. Makes me wonder if any of the other 1000's of 'agenda' caches will be archived as well.

 

(Edited to add.)

 

From what I can glean from everything in this thread Groundspeak is okay with agenda based Travel Bugs and Geocoins. I can only deduct from that logical line of thinking that as long as they are making money off an agenda based item it is more than acceptable it's encouraged. With the exception of the Aryan brotherhood, the KKK, or the Black Panthers or any other controversial group. Only then they'll use the "we don't like it you can't make it" company line. With a geocache they don't make any money whether it's published or not so your 'agenda' isn't approved for use. It comes down to the almighty dollar making something otherwise unacceptable completely allowable. CITO, well it's okay because they have merchandise they sell in support of it. Thus it's permissible due to the money aspect of things.

 

I believe the expression is money talks and well, road apples rot.

Edited by Sileny Jizda
Link to comment

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?

There is that slippery slope fallacy again. You define it by using your judgment.

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.

You are keeping it light and fun by offending the maximum number of people?
Link to comment

Ok. I just stumbled across this thread and read through the first 3 pages so far. I dont get it. I usually dont respond to these types of threads but couldnt help it on this one.

 

The wording:

 

" 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."

 

I would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future....thanking our servicemen and women. Nothing wrong with that.

 

God's speed to you! means hurry home. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Thank-you for our FREEDOM!....If there is something wrong with that then our Declaration Of Independence is nothing more than an agenda.

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 is nothing more than a history of the organization where the cache is hidden. I would like to see more caches with a bit of history or a reason to bring me someplace besides looking up another skirt :o

 

And if all of this is because a space wasnt between her feelings and the history, come on.

Edited by Mike and Mitya
Link to comment

So lets archive a cache that was liked by everyone but one person (who doesn't like ones they can see when they drive by) and by one other person (who disagrees with "support our troops").

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

Guess I shouldn't go out caching anytime soon - my PQ's are out of date - caches are going to be archived every time that someone disagrees with something about them. I can hear them dropping like flies.

 

Might as well scrap the whole thing.

 

WOW!!!

 

just..

 

WOW!!!

 

Some people have to grow up. It's a game. Let people play the way they want. Stop making this into a corporate thing... it's a game. You don't have a game without the players. You don't have a website without patrons. It appears the majority of people on this discussion supported the idea of the cache. Listen to your users ... instead of just doing whatever you want.

 

Most businesses which follow the model of "you don't like it, go somewhere else" eventually fail. This is a bad path to start down... or rather, continue down, since it has been done on many issues (Virtuals, locationless, this one, etc...).

 

Listen to the people who use your site...PLEASE - before the game is irreparably damaged.

 

And if this gets me suspended from posting because I disagree with what the company is doing in this case, so be it - this is a travesty, and someone has to stand up and point that out. Not that I agree or disagree with the specific agenda (if there even is one, which there really isn't), but because archiving a cache because of this specific complaint is just ludicrous.

Edited by FireRef
Link to comment

They didn't make any money off the cache, it's description, or it's location so in this case it appears so. I suggest they have pre-written, approved, politically correct cache descriptions for us to choose from when typing our pages out. Makes it easier on us and the non paid reviewers.

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!!

Falcon Loader - thanks for letting me be part for the MAGC family. I'm with you in that we should really re-think this agenda issue. I've lost count on the number of MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) caches I've come across. Not that I'm against them but, they are an agenda. What about all of the ones who honor someone who have past due to cancer and spell out some cancer most of us can't pronounce. They are honoring someone but, at the same time it is a personal agenda by spreading the word of the cancer that took their loved one. Let's do away with this policy all together.

 

 

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

TEAM HALL-JTSJT - one of our forward MAGC family members and all of our brothers and sisters fighting abroad and caching along the way. Keep up the good work.

 

This whole thread is an April Fool's deal right? :o

 

If all caches were held to the standard that this one apparently has been, then Thousands of others would have to be archived... :o

 

SixDogTeam - this is no joke this issue has been going on for quite some time. This isn't the first time it has been brought up.

Link to comment

The cache is not being singled out. Numerous similar caches have had to be re-written in order to be published.

Briansnat, thank you but it sure appears that it is indeed being singled out. Especially since there is another "support our troops" cache that was active 1jan08.

 

Reading the page, it makes no mention of support or troops. I guess the vanilla police have already gotten there and purged all the bad words.

 

Caches are going to be rather dull reading from here on out.

:o

Link to comment

<snip>

How is this any different that those cachers who haven't yet bought a PM? Should they all quit? Should the site become pay-to-play?

No. People that haven't decided that a PM is worth the money have no obligation to pay to pay. Now if they decide that GS is a bunch of hate mongers, etc. and disagree with their beliefs but continue to use the site anyway? Yeah, I think it reeks of hipocracy. I won't support the site, but I'll use it to my personal benefit? Seems like shaky characteristics to me. Yoy may disagree.

 

So lets archive a cache that was liked by everyone but one person (who doesn't like ones they can see when they drive by) and by one other person (who disagrees with "support our troops").

 

Makes perfect sense.

 

Guess I shouldn't go out caching anytime soon - my PQ's are out of date - caches are going to be archived every time that someone disagrees with something about them. I can hear them dropping like flies.

 

Might as well scrap the whole thing.

 

WOW!!!

 

just..

 

WOW!!!

 

Some people have to grow up. It's a game. Let people play the way they want. Stop making this into a corporate thing... it's a game. You don't have a game without the players. You don't have a website without patrons. It appears the majority of people on this discussion supported the idea of the cache. Listen to your users ... instead of just doing whatever you want.

 

Most businesses which follow the model of "you don't like it, go somewhere else" eventually fail. This is a bad path to start down... or rather, continue down, since it has been done on many issues (Virtuals, locationless, this one, etc...).

 

Listen to the people who use your site...PLEASE - before the game is irreparably damaged.

 

And if this gets me suspended from posting because I disagree with what the company is doing in this case, so be it - this is a travesty, and someone has to stand up and point that out. Not that I agree or disagree with the specific agenda (if there even is one, which there really isn't), but because archiving a cache because of this specific complaint is just ludicrous.

 

How about a new argument? And stop trying to be a martyr. You know as good as anybody that you don't lose posting rights by disagreeing with GS - you lose them by breaking the rules. There are a lot of people that don't agree with the way they do things (myself included on some topics) and nobody seems to get suspended for it. Let it go.

 

You keep warning about the "umtimate demise of geocaching unless Groundspeak radical changes things ASAP" (my words, summarizing your posts in multiple threads). I don't see the panic or mass exodus.

 

As for the main topic. It's interesting that the owner decided to archive it.

 

My GUESS is that they got tired of fighting for what they wanted, or decided to pack up their things and quit.

 

I'd be interested to hear from them on this.

Edited by kealia
Link to comment

I have a great idea. Why not have everyone supporting this cache go out a place a cache thanking our past and present veterans. Besides honoring their service it will send a message to our PC reviewers. Me, I will be placing a Ultimate Sacrifice Dog Tag Geocoin dedication to PFC Sam (Samantha) Huff, Military Police Corps, KIA, Iraq.

Edited by WeeWillie
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.

 

This is definitely a good sentiment regarding this issue. BTW - in the corporate american world, where large organizations, businesses, etc. are overly PC, there is ONE "agenda" that still remains - honoring or supporting the troops. If corporate america is not afraid of it (and they are afraid of any stance on an issue), then why Groundspeak?

 

I recognize that TPTB have every right to set 'the bar' where they want in regards to what is an 'agenda' and what is not, and I will not question that right. I am just saddened to see where they believe that bar should be... not what I would have expected from this community.

 

Maybe Groundspeak should revisit this portion of the guidlines. Since retracting this listing SHOULD lead to the removal of a huge amount of listings - not good for Geocaching.

 

One person expressing their feelings on a subject is NOT AN AGENDA!!!!! :D:laughing::D:)

Link to comment

I have a great idea. Why not have everyone supporting this cache go out a place a cache thanking our past and present veterans. Besides honoring their service it will send a message to our PC reviewers. Me, I will be placing a Ultimate Sacrifice Dog Tag Geocoin dedication to PFC Sam (Samantha) Huff, Military Police Corps, KIA, Iraq.

They would just not get published. I think GS has spoken by archiving the OPs cache.

Link to comment

The cache is not being singled out. Numerous similar caches have had to be re-written in order to be published.

Briansnat, thank you but it sure appears that it is indeed being singled out. Especially since there is another "support our troops" cache that was active 1jan08.

 

 

Reviewers are supposedly human (and make mistakes) like the rest of us. :) If only one reviewer handled all of the caches then it could appear that the cache was singled out, but it doesnt look that way to me.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Ok - so now we have been told that "Support our Troops" is 100% classified as a forbidden agenda item in listing pages.

 

I suspect I already know the answer but I will ask anyway.

 

Any chance at all of seeing a the list of pre-determined forbidden terms/phrases?? I know it will change and I know it will not be complete and I know it won't set any precedence but it would be nice to see.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

Ok - so now we have been told that "Support our Troops" is 100% classified as a forbidden agenda item in listing pages.

 

I suspect I already know the answer but I will ask anyway.

 

Any chance at all of seeing a the list of pre-determined forbidden terms/phrases?? I know it will change and I know it will not be complete and I know it won't set any precedence but it would be nice to see.

 

But, then the question is will someone query the whole database and try to contact each cache owner out there to get their caches to be "PC"?

Link to comment

I have a great idea. Why not have everyone supporting this cache go out a place a cache thanking our past and present veterans. Besides honoring their service it will send a message to our PC reviewers. Me, I will be placing a Ultimate Sacrifice Dog Tag Geocoin dedication to PFC Sam (Samantha) Huff, Military Police Corps, KIA, Iraq.

 

Don't you understand that its the folks that scream, "Hey, Bob 2000 miles away placed the same type of cache, therefore mine should be allowed".... They are the ones that have caused this so called PC problem. Its the folks that yell and scream everytime something doesn't go their way. Put the blame where it belongs.

Link to comment

It seems someone needs to link the folks over at GS.com to dictionary.com and let them know what an agenda is. CITO is an agenda.

That's correct. CITO is the official agenda that is endorsed by Groundspeak. Other exceptions to the "no solicitations/agenda" guideline are granted on a case-by-case basis, but this is the only official one.

 

Which, keystone - There are 16 caches with "Support our Troops" specifically in the title. When you say reviewers do not allow their personal opinions to sway what gets published or not.... are you sure about that? Seems that even tho the reviewers were told not to do it, some of them chose their opinion over GS restrictions and published them anyway.....

None of those 16 caches are in my review territory (Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia). The reviewer here is someone I handpicked and trained to help with the cache reviews in this area. He acted consistent with how I handle the same issue, which is how Groundspeak has asked us to handle them. I've turned down/asked the owners to modify far more than 16 caches on similar grounds. I can't speak for others as I'm only responsible for my own territory. Exceptions can be granted, cache pages can be changed after publication, older caches can be grandfathered, OR a reviewer may have missed a particular memo. I don't lose sleep over it.

 

The best part of this whole thing is that despite the numerous examples of very similar caches, caches that have other agendas, proper definition of agendas, etc, etc - no one from GS is commenting except the forum mods who will always tow the company line and defer to TBTP.

There's no need for Groundspeak to comment because the agenda issue is well-settled. Groundspeak relies on its volunteer forum moderators to help the community by communicating and explaining the listing guidelines when brought up for discussion in the forums. If it helps, however, I'll quote from the lodestone post on this particular point, which comes from Rothstafari (one of the three founding partners of Groundspeak):

 

First, we do not want to have to admit/deny caches based upon our perceived merits of the specific agenda, position, organization or charitable cause. Most opinions vary when it comes to issues like these and we have no interest in hosting the battleground or becoming an arbiter.

 

Second, this web site is about geocaching and we do not wish to see it converted to a platform for issues, whether good, bad or otherwise.

This position has not changed.

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