Jump to content

unacceptable cache description


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

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.

I grudgingly agreed with that position during the post-9/11 drama, but it sure would be nice if some middle ground could be found to allow an exception for a few specific caches, such as when a parent places a cache in honor of his/her deployed children.
Link to comment

So you admit/deny the publication of caches based on a perceived agenda, regardless of whether there is one or not? There's one a mile from my house which is called "...Thanks for the Service Cache", on a monument to fallen military people. Guess that one's going soon now too...

 

In response to Kalia, yes, they do suspend people for disagreeing with them - if you read the rules (or guidelines, they seem to change what they call them and how they apply them based on how they want the result of the situation to work out), they don't allow dissent with company policy. This section was quoted to me by a moderator who clearly indicated I was not to make this statement public - so I am not quoting the statement, not identifying the moderator. They did suspend me twice for this. They used the rules as an explanation to me for doing this, but the main purpose of this was because I vehemently disagreed with their stance on an issue. And it was for posting on a topic I started, for one of them, anyway!

 

In school (I am a teacher), having a policy which basically says "Here's what we do, but we will make exceptions as we see fit, and making an exception here doesn't mean we will make one any other place, no matter how similar the circumstances" is a good way to get everyone complaining about how unfair the place is. Basically, writing the rules this way, the people in charge can do whatever they want. If they want the rule to apply, they say "See, we have a rule that says...". If they don't want the rule to apply, for whatever reason, personal or otherwise, they say "Well, we decided to make an exception to the rule...". And if you have the same, or a similar situation, to the one they granted an exception to, and they refuse to do it for you, they say "Granting an exception in one case isn't a precident for granting an exception in any other case, no matter how similar."

 

So...

 

Why even have rules, when you don't have to follow them yourself!?! (or we can call them guidelines, and then... SAME PROBLEM!)

Edited by FireRef
Link to comment

I grudgingly agreed with that position during the post-9/11 drama, but it sure would be nice if some middle ground could be found to allow an exception for a few specific caches, such as when a parent places a cache in honor of his/her deployed children.

There are ways to do this, and I am happy to work with cache owners so that their caches can be published. If a person is being featured for an "agenda" reason (awful disease, military service, volunteer work for a worthy cause, etc.), my advice is to keep the cache page focused solely on the person, not the agenda.

Link to comment

I may as well throw my 2 cents in. I tried to put out a cache in a corner of a cemetery , this section was to horor the veterns of the Spanish American War. The cache was a magnitic container on the bottom of a canon in the center of the grave stones which had a path leading to it. Of course it wasn't approved. A friend tried to put one in a garden she had planted and was on her property, which was to honor the Soldiers who gave there all in Iraq you guessed it, making a statement, no approval. I think the problem is refering to anything to do with the military, honoring them, or any name of any war. To those reviewers, I can only hope that they have to fight another power, but with out any military backup....OK, you can ban me from the foroms now because any I see it you have no respect for the Military, God, or Country. I served in a War and am dam proud of it.....

Link to comment
I see it you have no respect for the Military, God, or Country.

 

Some of the conclusions being drawn here are...unusual.

 

For instance, I doubt I could get a cache listed that had pictures of nekkid wimmins on it, but I wouldn't take that to mean that the various reviewers, TPTB, lackies, etc. *necessarily* dislike pictures of nekkid wimmins...just there are other sites for that.

 

:):D:D

Link to comment

So you admit/deny the publication of caches based on a perceived agenda, regardless of whether there is one or not? There's one a mile from my house which is called "...Thanks for the Service Cache", on a monument to fallen military people. Guess that one's going soon now too...

You guess wrong.

 

I have found that particular soggy log strip inside a rusty tin. I found it on July 4th, no less... a great day for visiting a Veterans Memorial.

 

The cache had seen better days because it was hidden in August 2003 -- long before the currently applicable guidance about "Caches that Solicit." Moreover, apart from the words "Thank you for the Service" in the cache name, the cache page is devoid of any text other than a description of the cache. People used to do that.

Link to comment
I see it you have no respect for the Military, God, or Country.

 

Some of the conclusions being drawn here are...unusual.

 

For instance, I doubt I could get a cache listed that had pictures of nekkid wimmins on it, but I wouldn't take that to mean that the various reviewers, TPTB, lackies, etc. *necessarily* dislike pictures of nekkid wimmins...just there are other sites for that.

 

:):D:D

 

I'm sure some of the reviewers have certain religious beliefs that can at times conflict with certain caches that they approve. Fortunately, the reviewers do not have an agenda except to enforce the guidelines. It's been my experience that when someone places a cache with an "entitlement" attitude, they rarely, if ever, get what they want (thank goodness for that)... Had the cache placer read the guidelines, they could have contacted and explained the situation to Groundspeak and gotten permission ahead of time. I think Groundspeak prefers to work with those that seek permission as opposed to those that expect it.

Link to comment

For instance, I doubt I could get a cache listed that had pictures of nekkid wimmins on it, but I wouldn't take that to mean that the various reviewers, TPTB, lackies, etc. *necessarily* dislike pictures of nekkid wimmins...just there are other sites for that.

Do you know if they need any moderators?

Link to comment

For instance, I doubt I could get a cache listed that had pictures of nekkid wimmins on it, but I wouldn't take that to mean that the various reviewers, TPTB, lackies, etc. *necessarily* dislike pictures of nekkid wimmins...just there are other sites for that.

Do you know if they need any moderators?

 

If they take you as a mod see if you can get me in as a reviewer. There is a case of beer in it for you.

Link to comment

Thanks guys, i need the support.. i really dont see what is wrong with this cache discription either... i really beleive it has more to do w/ a cacher starting trouble... here i thought us "cachers" were wholesome folks.. but now i know any jerk can do this... i probably shouldnt of responded to pghlooking's log, but i have a passion for my cache and my children.... just to fill you in... here are a copy of the coorispondance.... you be the judge..

 

Log left by pghlooking:

 

Third of six caches needed in Crawford County. I am sorry but this is not what I expected when I read about the GeoTrails. Hiding a cache like this is not promoting anything about the Allegheny National Forest Region. This is nothing more than a cache and dash for numbers. A rule of thumb should be if you can see the container driving by at 40 MPH, you should rethink your hide. Signed the log, but left wanting alot more.

I don't see anything wrong with your cache description. And I don't see anything wrong with pghlooking's comments. I don't see anything in his comments indicating that he would object to the cache wording.

 

Your reviewer seems to be out of step with the rest of the reviewers, unless Groundspeak has changed its policies recently.

 

Good luck.

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

 

Personally I think it's marketing. This site sells adds and sponsors like garmin buy in. What if all those cache owners made Magellan tribute caches? Jeeps a sponsor, strangely the first I recall of the stricter line on agendas and commercialism was with a Range Rover fan.

What If? What If? What If?

If your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle!

"What If" is one of the biggest PC cop-outs in the book. It is nothing more than a convenient straw-man argument to excuse those in positions of judgment to avoid making judgment calls.

 

Rather than bang the gavel and say, "guilty" or "not guilty" and be done with it, knowing that either way somebody is going to be upset, one can simply say "if i decide THIS way, EVVVVERRRYBODY will want to do it" therefore I will quote some silly ZERO TOLERANCE" BS BAH! "but everybody will want one" is getting to be as trite as "it's for the chiiiilllldren."

 

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>

All I can say is "WOW!"

Link to comment

Cute sock puppets in this tread.

QUESTION: I take it that if someone does not like your cache due to a few words that offend them they can report you and get it removed regardless if it's in the Title or Discription of the cache ? :)

How sad.

Link to comment
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.

I think there's no agenda. I've reread the post quoting the cache page, as well as the post mentioning that the OP actively supports WINNING the war. For your theory to work, the two would need to be correlated in some fashion.

 

Let's imagine I worship The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, let's imagine I've created a cache indicating my chosen Deity. If my cache page reads, "I worship The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you will to, if you don't want to spend eternity steaming in a colander", that would clearly be an agenda. I.e; A call for action, as defined in three separate dictionaries so far. However, if I created a cache, and somewhere on the cache page I stated, "Thank you Great Flying Spaghetti Monster for all you do", that would not be an agenda, merely a thank you. Kinda like the aforementioned cache.

 

The OP's initial write up crossed the line. The corrected, published version did not. It was not promoting an agenda when it was published, and it is not promoting an agenda now, that it's being threatened with geo-extinction. She expressed pride in her children, which is not an agenda. She offered her thanks, which is not an agenda. And she offered some historical tidbits, which is not an agenda.

 

Repetitively calling a duck a doberman will not magically turn it into one. The same thing works for cache pages. Calling a cache page an agenda doesn't make it one. The only thing that can make it an agenda is for it to fit the definition of an agenda. It does not. In this case, it appears that TPTB have written their own dictionary. Sadly, after threatening this cache, it seems they've put away that dictionary.

 

I disagree with the oft posted sentiment that this cache was not singled out. It was a published cache, similar, but not nearly as agenda based as oodles of other published caches. It became threatened when someone whined about it, boo-hoo'ing about a non existent agenda. Those other published caches have not been threatened. Unless I see some sort of movement by TPTB to threaten all the other, truly agenda driven, published caches that are floating around out there, I have no choice but to perceive Groundspeak's actions as singling out one specific cache from among gobs of others, and treating it differently than those others. What makes the situation so unpalatable for me, is that the one cache they chose to single out for punishment for being agenda based, was not, by definition, an agenda based cache.

 

If they take you as a mod see if you can get me in as a reviewer. There is a case of beer in it for you.

Cheapskate! Keystone, I've got a case of 12 year old Scotch. :)

Link to comment

As a retired Navy Chief I support our troops, and I did my time so that peoples opinions could be voiced. But I also believe in the Reasonable Man Theory: would any reasonable person see this cache as having an agenda? I wouldnt have a problem with any cache voicing their support to an organization that is not unlawful in nature. Im a catholic but wouldnt have a problem finding a cache supporting Budism, or a cache for anothers countries army or fire dept or police dept. Im very surprised that jeremy hasnt made a comment, guess this one could be too hot to handle

Link to comment

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.

I've always suspected that the volunteer reviewers had access to additional clarification of the guidelines from Groundspeak and from their own reviewer forum which the rest of us are not privy to. We have to guess the meaning of the requirements based on what caches have been approved in the pasts or by what gets discussed in forum if Keystone or another reviewer bothers to post any kind of explaination. I for one was unaware that there was a decision to disallow and cache that says support our troops. This is why I thought the problem with the OP cache was the juxtaposition of the thanking those who are serving or have served in the past with the information on the American Legion. Apparently, this was not the case.

 

In previous threads, we were told that is OK to have a cache place in honor or in memory of a friend or family member (or even a pet) who died from some disease. However we were told that we could only give limited information about the disease and couldn't link to websites of orgranizations that raised money to fight the disease. It sound like you can still have a tribute cache like this but its pretty limited now what you can say.

 

So the question is can you place a cache in honor of your children who are serving in the military?

Can you thank your children for serving?

Can you place in in honor of all who are serving?

 

Then comes the question of what can I write about the location where the cache is? It seems that if it is a commercial location you can give the name anymore. It used to be that you could name the cache with some play on words or even the corporate slogan, but now these are being denied. What about a cache at historic location such as a cemetary? Can I describe the monument there to honor the soldiers who died in WWII? Can I give information about the history of my town if I place a cache near city hall? What can I write. I don't have the lodestone.

Link to comment
If they take you as a mod see if you can get me in as a reviewer. There is a case of beer in it for you.

Cheapskate! Keystone, I've got a case of 12 year old Scotch. :)

 

I'd beat that but I just had my investment portfolio go bust. I'd a thought ONE of those tickets woulda won!

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sorry, but that would be just to bland for me. I like my caches with a little spice :) , besides if that cache can be considered an agenda so can just about ANY cache, such as the promotion of breakfast clubs :D

Link to comment

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

 

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

 

This about sums up my 0.02 worth on this subject.

Link to comment

 

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

 

 

Well in that light it makes you wonder why GC.com came out with the diabetes TB, dosen't it?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

My QUESTION was 10 replys back. I see my reviewer is here,how about an answer. Thank you

I took your question as rhetorical. I think I'll keep thinking that.

Excuse me it was not, email the answer if you don't want to answer me here.

Link to comment

It still seems to me that exceptions are made when it comes down to money. Give enough green enough rules can be overlooked. I wouldn't expect a mass archival though as it would only draw more attention to something that appears will eventually be swept under the rug. I would like to see the hard set group of phrases we are not allowed to use. To allow for such ambiguity only leaves the doors and windows open to, "because I don't like it" mentality.

Link to comment

My QUESTION was 10 replys back. I see my reviewer is here,how about an answer. Thank you

I took your question as rhetorical. I think I'll keep thinking that.

Excuse me it was not, email the answer if you don't want to answer me here.

OK, the answer to your question is, "it depends."

 

You're welcome.

Link to comment

 

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

 

 

Well in that light it makes you wonder why GC.com came out with the diabetes TB, dosen't it?

 

El Diablo

 

Yes, from day one. It seems a bit, um, second standard?

But it's their site and their choice in charity.

Link to comment
Well in that light it makes you wonder why GC.com came out with the diabetes TB, dosen't it?

 

El Diablo

 

Money based gain.

 

I would seriously doubt that. I've known the people at GC.com for a long time now, and I feel confident that it was a noble cause on their part.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

My QUESTION was 10 replys back. I see my reviewer is here,how about an answer. Thank you

I took your question as rhetorical. I think I'll keep thinking that.

Excuse me it was not, email the answer if you don't want to answer me here.

OK, the answer to your question is, "it depends."

 

You're welcome.

Thanks Thats all I wanted to know. That makes you think . My next cache ITS IN THE WOODS

Link to comment
Well in that light it makes you wonder why GC.com came out with the diabetes TB, dosen't it?

 

El Diablo

 

Money based gain.

 

I would seriously doubt that. I've known the people at GC.com for a long time now, and I feel confident that it was a noble cause on their part.

 

El Diablo

 

When you look at the exceptions that are made to the rules in regards to commercialism and agenda's they gained financially in one form or another for those exceptions. A matter of do what we say and not what we do comes to mind. Then again Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Hamilton, and Grant have a great way of making people change their minds when they speak loudly enough. Without consistency you have dissent. Exactly what is happening now. With ambiguity you have questions. Precisely what has been occurring for some time. People want to see the restrictions in writing and I don't see that as all that unreasonable.

Link to comment

My QUESTION was 10 replys back. I see my reviewer is here,how about an answer. Thank you

I took your question as rhetorical. I think I'll keep thinking that.

Excuse me it was not, email the answer if you don't want to answer me here.

OK, the answer to your question is, "it depends."

 

You're welcome.

Thanks Thats all I wanted to know. That makes you think . My next cache ITS IN THE WOODS

I'm thinking more along the lines of my next cache being listed elsewhere.

Link to comment

I would like to see a number of Geocachers who are currently or have served in the military. I think it might be a surprising number. I know we would never get a full count since not all members read the forums. It would be interesting to know.

 

Well, there was a thread about How did you serve? with alot of posts and MAGC has over 400, so I venture to guess the are quite a few more who have not posted there or joined MAGC.

Link to comment
Well in that light it makes you wonder why GC.com came out with the diabetes TB, dosen't it?

 

El Diablo

 

Money based gain.

 

I would seriously doubt that. I've known the people at GC.com for a long time now, and I feel confident that it was a noble cause on their part.

 

El Diablo

 

When you look at the exceptions that are made to the rules in regards to commercialism and agenda's they gained financially in one form or another for those exceptions. A matter of do what we say and not what we do comes to mind. Then again Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Hamilton, and Grant have a great way of making people change their minds when they speak loudly enough. Without consistency you have dissent. Exactly what is happening now. With ambiguity you have questions. Precisely what has been occurring for some time. People want to see the restrictions in writing and I don't see that as all that unreasonable.

 

They are a commercial site. They are supposed to gain. I agree with some of the things you are saying, but at the same time you haven't been around long enough to know "what has been going on for some time".

 

GC.com has been open minded enough to issue guidelines, rather than hard fast rules. We can come here and try to persuade them because they are guidelines and not rules. I've seen them change as needed, and I've seen them stand fast on thier decisions over the years. They have a company to run to the best of their abilities.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

I would like to see a number of Geocachers who are currently or have served in the military. I think it might be a surprising number. I know we would never get a full count since not all members read the forums. It would be interesting to know.

Here's a thread.

 

People ought to check out some of the names who have posted there before any further slandering about who hates what.

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

 

 

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

 

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

Link to comment

They are a commercial site. They are supposed to gain. I agree with some of the things you are saying, ...

 

Which directly contradicts what you tried to imply in your previous response and shows that money is the ultimate deciding factor in what can be overlooked and allowed.

 

...but at the same time you haven't been around long enough to know "what has been going on for some time".

 

You assume more than you should. The search function works well in this forum and having spoken to other cachers that have been such much longer that have seen and spoken on the same issues only further backs up what I've seen here in the past few days and what I have seen myself in the time that we have been caching. A person doesn't have to have been 'here' for years and hold a high post or find count to know what has been going on when they can read it in black and white and hear previous cachers experiences.

 

GC.com has been open minded enough to issue guidelines, rather than hard fast rules. We can come here and try to persuade them because they are guidelines and not rules. I've seen them change as needed, and I've seen them stand fast on their decisions over the years. They have a company to run to the best of their abilities.

 

El Diablo

 

Rules can be changed and altered just as easy as guidelines. The legal system is an excellent example where they can be hard set guidelines and rules for direction that can be changed and altered when demands warrant the changes. What it appears is that ambiguity is embraced because of the freedom of "if we just don't like it we don't have to say why" is easier to dole out. I don't see the difficulty of say what we can or cannot say or write in a description other than GS is trying to avoid some sort of legal action. If that's not the case perhaps you can give a better reason of why they can't tell us specifics other than 'they own it it's their decision' or 'because we don't like rules.' Because if those are the only things you can come up with the guidelines as they are referred to are more likened to rules than actual guidelines themselves.

Link to comment

So you admit/deny the publication of caches based on a perceived agenda, regardless of whether there is one or not? There's one a mile from my house which is called "...Thanks for the Service Cache", on a monument to fallen military people. Guess that one's going soon now too...

You guess wrong.

 

I have found that particular soggy log strip inside a rusty tin. I found it on July 4th, no less... a great day for visiting a Veterans Memorial.

 

The cache had seen better days because it was hidden in August 2003 -- long before the currently applicable guidance about "Caches that Solicit." Moreover, apart from the words "Thank you for the Service" in the cache name, the cache page is devoid of any text other than a description of the cache. People used to do that.

I am sorry keystone, but what is going on with the cache in question is a perceived agenda. Again, going by the REAL definition of agenda, the OP did not ask for action from anyone. She thanked her children and people serving in the military and listed facts. The perception of the reviewer (and whoever requested the re-review of an already published cache) is she had some agenda by thanking the troops and giving facts about the American Legion. Thanking and facts are not agendas. There are HUNDREDS of caches listed that DO have agendas plastered all over them.

 

I think it is a matter of more than what you are "over" as far as your jurisdiction because if this cache is not in your area, then really, by your own words you have no real control over it. But I *do* actually think all reviewers and all of Groundspeak are responsible for understanding the word agenda and what a cache with an agenda looks like - not someone judging another person's intent. The cache must be judged on what actually exists on the page, not what someone "perceived" the OP thinking or saying.

 

I think I read right in that this cache has now been archived. ... what a crock.

Link to comment
IF YOU CAN'T SUPPORT OUR COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS THEN CATCH A FLIGHT TO EUROPE!

Slow down, Hoss. Caching is a global phenomenon, not an American one. The issue is not about supporting our, (or any other nation's) troops. Most of the folks here, on both sides of this issue, support their local soldiers. The issue is about a cache that was singled out because of a perceived agenda.

Link to comment

Rules can be changed and altered just as easy as guidelines. The legal system is an excellent example where they can be hard set guidelines and rules for direction that can be changed and altered when demands warrant the changes. What it appears is that ambiguity is embraced because of the freedom of "if we just don't like it we don't have to say why" is easier to dole out. I don't see the difficulty of say what we can or cannot say or write in a description other than GS is trying to avoid some sort of legal action. If that's not the case perhaps you can give a better reason of why they can't tell us specifics other than 'they own it it's their decision' or 'because we don't like rules.' Because if those are the only things you can come up with the guidelines as they are referred to are more likened to rules than actual guidelines themselves.

I don't think it's really so much about avoiding legal action as it is about trying to please everybody. While this is a noble cause, any human being that hasn't fallen off the turnip truck yesterday realises it is an impossibility.

 

Either way they decide is a no-win situation. Therefore the best course of action for the case in point is to simply "drop it." (If we will let them)

 

As far as some getting by and others not, when was the last time anyone got out of a speeding ticket by pointing out that there were other cars going faster than they were?

 

For the future, the more exact the rules, the less controversy over their enforcement. But you will still have whiners that won't accept the decision of the judges.

 

I say, bang the gavel and move on.

 

Let them that leave, leave. Let them that join, join.

 

The game will evolve as it evolves and if that means GC does not remain the dominant listing service, the one that takes over the leadership will have a free education in how to run the geocachiong business by studying the GC experience.

Link to comment

What about changing the rules? After all it was just said above that discussion in here is what brings on change. Or is that just a farce as well?

 

I do have to give you credit, nice way to put the old expression "sit down, shut up, we'll do as we please if you don't like it there's the door." However, that's the exact reasoning that causes this same issue to come up time and time again.

Link to comment

There was NOT an "agenda" by the CO in the cache page, the one with the agenda is/was the reviewer, such as, being "anti-American Legion".

 

"Anti" something is and can be more agenda ridden than anything else. It's like saying something like; "...this park/area the cache is in is in danger of being developed...and some people are trying to save it..." not asking you to support said groups, many caches in a certain area near me (that I hope to hunt for, fall into this, and I am NOT bashing, tattling on, or saying that is the motivation of the caches) are on a historical site and have some very famous caches near there, one of the cachers has even posted on this thread, so this issue could pertain to those caches (coughcoughfederalhillcough) since they state the history of the location(s) the caches are placed on/near. These caches are some of the most famous caches around here and would be a great loss if they were targeted by "reverse-agenda" such as anti-military/ anti-war, anti- whatever agenda a reviewer could have, even though the history of the area is just that...history.

 

By the precident this issue sets, a "dog park cache" could be turned down because the reviewer is pro-PETA. Even one that mentions "pet friendly". Also for all the micro lovers, by hiding a micro at a place of interest, and on the cache page for it, write a well researched explaination of why you thought it would be a place to hide a cache, it could be rejected.

 

the CO just stated history of a well known organization ( that so many see every day, and dont know the history of) and did NOT ask for or pressure anyone reading the page or hunting for the cache to join or send money or the like.

 

LET THE CACHE STAND if anything, the reviewer has the agenda, not the CO. This reviewer might need to be reviewed themselves, and possibly "un-volunteered"

Edited by KidRipley
Link to comment

Wow,

 

For my first forum, i sure started something...

 

When i first put this cache out, I was unsuccessfull in wining the battle to keep the phrase, "Support your troops, and we Will win the war" after several emails from the moderator, he convinced me it had to go and regardless his beliefs or feelings it was simply not allowed..

Removing that phrase I can understand, since that IS an agenda, and some geocachers on this website (there are geocachers from all over the world), might not be in favor of that agenda.

Link to comment

Here is a sample of what might be considered a PC compromise on the wording of the cache description. If you feel comfortable with it, feel free to use it, colors and all.

 

"I Personally would like to thank all those who served before, currently serving and those who will serve in the future. Diety's speed to you! Thank-you for our FREEDOM!

 

This organization (seen here at this cache) was chartered by Congress in 1919 as a patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans organization. A community-service organization which now numbers nearly 3 million members -- men and women -- in nearly 15,000 Organizational 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."

 

John & Shirley

 

Which diety would that be then? isnt God Speed a very old and comon phrase to wish someone a safe journey? I know of no other word that can be put there that in common usage preserves the meaning.

 

How about "Hurry home!" instead of "God Speed"? That way there is mention of a deity.

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