It's Trackable, but should it be?

[+Eric K]

Robert, you are correct, it took a little time to work through it all and verbalize what I was really curious about, but the reason I was "stunned" was because GS let the design go through, I was not stunned or surprised by the design itself. It really is how this got through and many others haven't.

 

It's the lack of consistent standards that I have issue with.

 

Rifleman, you need to understand that this is not about "me", I don't need to do anything, and your name is not the issue here, names aren't approved by TPTB. I carry a gun, I have a pocket knife in my backpack, heck sometimes we even take a flask on a cache. Those are all my personal choices and I am not putting any of them in caches because not only would that be not very smart, it's against the rules.

 

As to Woletrap's "anything goes" philosophy, thank you for your stand, as I see it things like a coin(please keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about this coin), can be damaging or hurtful even if they are not "real".

 

I think the issue may have been you only used one coin as an example. Thus it makes it look like a personal attack.

 

Once again I'll say the only people that can answer the question "What are the standards" would be the folks that approve or deny designs.

 

Unless someone posting here is a Groundspeak employee we are all just guessing what the standards or guidelines are.

 

This has just turned into 5 pages of free advertising for a coin at this point.

[+Hula Bum]

It's funny how when people have nothing really to say they just come out with some snarky over the top drawn out thing about mountains or witches.

 

I welcome all to actually post what if ANY standards there should be, otherwise I will assume that those with the above type comments are of the "we should lift all rules and be able to make and track a coin with ANYTHING on it" group.

[+Hula Bum]

I understand that Eric, my question is what people here think the standards Should be.

I wish I and others could post coins that haven't gotten approved, but we can't, so there you go.

Advertising was a side effect, unfortunately, especially being that I haven't actually seen too many really state what they think crosses the line. I've tried to read between the lines but that's dangerous to do.

So, where do you think the line should be drawn?

[+fox-and-the-hound]

It's funny how when people have nothing really to say they just come out with some snarky over the top drawn out thing about mountains or witches.

 

Oh, I had something to say, but since reading between the lines seems to be a chore I spell it out. It's not up to us to decided standards for someone else's creation. If it's okay with Groundspeak that should be enough. It's their game and their rules. We're only here as guests. As for standards, I'm surprised you would defend your icon while using ethnocentrism to judge someone else's ideals of what is "appropriate". Don't get me wrong, I think you're perfectly within your rights to defend the native culture of the island and their ideals (I do, too), but when we (the people of this thread) attack someone else's ideals by our own standards we become very ugly, very quickly. Was it in poor taste? Maybe, maybe not, but I've seen far worse offenders here from my point of view. That's the bottom line right there though. Point of view shouldn't set standards. What offends me should not have to offend you. What offends you should not have to offend me either. If you don't like it, don't buy it, move it or deal with it. Each to their own regardless of our differences.

 

You disagree? That's okay, too. Maybe you'll change my mind over time. Maybe I'll change yours.

[+sTeamTraen]

Once again I'll say the only people that can answer the question "What are the standards" would be the folks that approve or deny designs.

 

Unless someone posting here is a Groundspeak employee we are all just guessing what the standards or guidelines are.

 

Based on an unscientific sample of one (the approval of my own coins), here's my guess at the procedure:

- Coin maker sends artwork to Groundspeak

- A lackey (possibly Bryan) opens the picture

- Lackey studies picture for a few seconds looking for *obvious* overtones of racism, genitalia, etc etc

- Lackey sends cheery e-mail approving design and generates your tracking numbers

 

I don't think it's very much more scientific than that. I doubt if Annie is sent out into the street to do a survey and see how many Seattle residents can spot the hidden meaning in the designs.

 

It's the lack of consistent standards that I have issue with.

 

Does this discussion sound familiar to anyone? Could it be remotely similar to the one which takes place every other day when someone says "well MY cache was turned down by my reviewer and yet THIS cache in another state got published, why can't we have some consistency?"

 

The consistency is at this level: if Groundspeak feels a design is not family-friendly, then it will not be approved. That seems perfectly consistent to me. I have seen no examples of coins being produced that Groundspeak did not consider to be family-friendly. What you seem to be asking for is consistency between your idea of family-friendly and Groundspeak's. That like asking two people to agree that broccoli is or isn't delicious.

[+Eric K]

I understand that Eric, my question is what people here think the standards Should be.

I wish I and others could post coins that haven't gotten approved, but we can't, so there you go.

Advertising was a side effect, unfortunately, especially being that I haven't actually seen too many really state what they think crosses the line. I've tried to read between the lines but that's dangerous to do.

So, where do you think the line should be drawn?

 

Hula:

 

I believe your do have a legitimate question and concerns. In my opinion maybe this thread should be shut down since it has gone so far off topic.

 

Maybe you could start a new thread with that subject.

 

"What standards should there be for geocoins"

 

Just a smiley face to say this a friendly suggestions. A lot of times in e-mails and forums comments can be read in ways they aren't typed if that makes sense.

[+Hula Bum]

Please, don't read it the wrong way, it is most certainly not what I think family friendly is that is in question for me. I am of the camp that I will parent my own child and don't need any company, be it GS, Disney or Playboy to do it for me, nor should I expect them to. Because I started this thread people assume that I want there to be stricter guidelines, I don't. With my line of work there is nothing I haven't seen, and really not much that offends me. That is not it at all, so please don't assume that I am pushing my values because you don't even know what they are.

I have seen one "anything goes", one "it's GS's decision, so whatever they approve", a number of "this crossed the line", thank you.

[+Hula Bum]

I was thinking the same thing this morning, but do you think it would stay any more on topic?

 

I understand that Eric, my question is what people here think the standards Should be.

I wish I and others could post coins that haven't gotten approved, but we can't, so there you go.

Advertising was a side effect, unfortunately, especially being that I haven't actually seen too many really state what they think crosses the line. I've tried to read between the lines but that's dangerous to do.

So, where do you think the line should be drawn?

 

Hula:

 

I believe your do have a legitimate question and concerns. In my opinion maybe this thread should be shut down since it has gone so far off topic.

 

Maybe you could start a new thread with that subject.

 

"What standards should there be for geocoins"

 

Just a smiley face to say this a friendly suggestions. A lot of times in e-mails and forums comments can be read in ways they aren't typed if that makes sense.

[+Hula Bum]

I'm going to attempt to start a new thread and hopefully it can stay on topic, MODS, please close this thread at your convenience. Mahalo.

[+Eric K]

Once again I'll say the only people that can answer the question "What are the standards" would be the folks that approve or deny designs.

 

Unless someone posting here is a Groundspeak employee we are all just guessing what the standards or guidelines are.

 

Based on an unscientific sample of one (the approval of my own coins), here's my guess at the procedure:

- Coin maker sends artwork to Groundspeak

- A lackey (possibly Bryan) opens the picture

- Lackey studies picture for a few seconds looking for *obvious* overtones of racism, genitalia, etc etc

- Lackey sends cheery e-mail approving design and generates your tracking numbers

 

I don't think it's very much more scientific than that. I doubt if Annie is sent out into the street to do a survey and see how many Seattle residents can spot the hidden meaning in the designs.

 

It's the lack of consistent standards that I have issue with.

 

Does this discussion sound familiar to anyone? Could it be remotely similar to the one which takes place every other day when someone says "well MY cache was turned down by my reviewer and yet THIS cache in another state got published, why can't we have some consistency?"

 

The consistency is at this level: if Groundspeak feels a design is not family-friendly, then it will not be approved. That seems perfectly consistent to me. I have seen no examples of coins being produced that Groundspeak did not consider to be family-friendly. What you seem to be asking for is consistency between your idea of family-friendly and Groundspeak's. That like asking two people to agree that broccoli is or isn't delicious.

 

Very well stated. Why we don't know how much time exactly is spent I would imagine it's like you said. Who knows how many possibly hundreds of coins they (or he if it's one person) have to spend time looking at.

 

Plus I would hazzard a guess if it's a vendor they haven't had problems with they probably just give it a really quick glance. Once again, this is just pure speculation.

[+Eric K]

I was thinking the same thing this morning, but do you think it would stay any more on topic?

 

I understand that Eric, my question is what people here think the standards Should be.

I wish I and others could post coins that haven't gotten approved, but we can't, so there you go.

Advertising was a side effect, unfortunately, especially being that I haven't actually seen too many really state what they think crosses the line. I've tried to read between the lines but that's dangerous to do.

So, where do you think the line should be drawn?

 

Hula:

 

I believe your do have a legitimate question and concerns. In my opinion maybe this thread should be shut down since it has gone so far off topic.

 

Maybe you could start a new thread with that subject.

 

"What standards should there be for geocoins"

 

Just a smiley face to say this a friendly suggestions. A lot of times in e-mails and forums comments can be read in ways they aren't typed if that makes sense.

 

I think it would since then it wouldn't be centered around one specific coin.

[+ECplus3]

As has been pointed out more than once, beauty (or smut) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

My wife saw what the uproar was about immediately. Myself, it took quite a bit of prompting for me to see the 'hidden' image in this coin, and I still feel that it is tenuous at best. Then again, I've never been able to see those 3d art images either. There is no issue of NOT seeing it now... I still have to squint just right to see it.

 

As to whether it is offensive or family-friendly is another issue. To many cultures, and to many people, nudity is family-friendly. But I don't think Hustler-style porn would ever be considered family-friendly! JSAM says that that was never the intent, and I take him at his word. Whether the designer wanted to try and get something by JSAM or TPTB or both is another matter.

 

As a Christian, I find pastafarianism and the flying spaghetti monster highly offensive -- both the coins and the use of the name by a moderator on this very forum. The whole faux-religion that has grown up around the FSM is a mockery of Christian beliefs, yet The Power That Be have let that slide too. Would they do the same if someone created a coin mocking Jews? or Arabs?

 

My kids are too young to even go caching with me, let alone understand what some coins may be about. If I find a coin I don't like, I'll just leave it for someone who does.

[+sTeamTraen]

As has been pointed out more than once, beauty (or smut) is in the eye of the beholder.

 

And mockery. In fact it seems to me that the FSM example is quite close to the OP's example.

 

As a Christian, I find pastafarianism and the flying spaghetti monster highly offensive -- both the coins and the use of the name by a moderator on this very forum. The whole faux-religion that has grown up around the FSM is a mockery of Christian beliefs, yet The Power That Be have let that slide too. Would they do the same if someone created a coin mocking Jews? or Arabs?

 

Simply putting your side of an argument doesn't mean that you are being "offensive" to holders of the opposite view. I doubt if an FSM coin saying "Cruelly mocking the Creationist tendency in Christianity and other world religions since 2005" would pass muster at Groundspeak.

 

You can produce a coin saying "Cachers for Jesus" and I don't think that subscribers to other religious views - including those at Groundspeak - would find it "highly offensive". If you were to put "Cachers for Jesus, oh and Mel Gibson was right about the Jews" then things might get a bit more controversial.

 

All of which goes to show that the "no agenda" rules for cache listings (as opposed to trackables) have their place. Personally I'm surprised that there aren't more "agenda" trackables as a percentage of the designs out there.

[+Eartha]

Closed at the OP's request. Please visit this thread, and forget anything you saw here that might influence your discussion over there. The discussion is not to be about one coin in particular in the new thread.