Jump to content

Political Agenda


sweetlife
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

We posted some caches that we hid last weekend and had the Yellow ribbon for supporting our troops on the page, I received a note from my reviewer saying that it had to be removed before they could be active. So I removed them.

 

Here is a copy of the note i sent back to my reviewer:

 

-- Copy of email sent to Wis Kid --

Wis Kid,

 

I went thru all the Wisconsin Spirit Quest Caches that I posted last night, all the yellow ribbons are removed,

 

I don't agree with Groundspeak, but they are the PTB. I'm not Republican or Democrat, I also don't believe in what we are currently fighting for overseas. But, they are US servicemen and they are dieing for our country. Weather the political agenda is right or wrong they still need our support. Sorry to vent on you,

 

But all is fixed

 

Barry of sweetilife

 

NOW TODAY I SEE THAT GEOSWAG IS SELLING THESE COINS!

 

vote_dem_rep.jpgvote_m_p.jpgvote_o_b.jpg

 

Isn't this a political agenda?????????

 

TPTB aproved this they sold the Tracking numbers for them

 

I think it is more of a financial agenda more than a political one

 

If i pay GC.com for each ribbon maybe they would be ok with it.

 

Barry of sweetlife

Link to comment

We posted some caches that we hid last weekend and had the Yellow ribbon for supporting our troops on the page, I received a note from my reviewer saying that it had to be removed before they could be active. So I removed them.

 

 

The cache page cannot promote an agenda. The swag in a cache can.

 

I'd put some yellow ribbons IN those caches.

 

Edited because I did not mean to quote your entire post.

Edited by markandsandy
Link to comment

Those are trackable coins, so GS had to approve them

 

Really? HAD TO? That can't be right. Maybe I'll come out with some "Groundspeak Sucks" geocoins, tracking at Geocaching.com. Or some "Beat Your Wife Today!" Geocoins. I'm sure TPTB do get to draw the line somewhere.

Edited by mvigor
Link to comment

Those are trackable coins, so GS had to approve them

 

Really? HAD TO? That can't be right. Maybe I'll come out with some "Groundspeak Sucks" geocoins, tracking at Geocaching.com. Or some "Beat Your Wife Today!" Geocoins. I'm sure TPTB do get to draw the line somewhere.

 

Yes, really. GS approves ALL trackable coins for content and appropriateness. They do this because they are selling the tracking codes to the person and so must have say what goes and what doesn't.

 

Now, a non-trackable coin....well, they don't even get to know about those if you don't want them to!

Link to comment

There is no rule against TBs and geocoins promoting an agenda. There is a rule against cache pages doing it.

So a cache page cannot promote an agenda but a TB/geocoin page can? Or do TPTB make the political TB/Geocoin owner eliminate any political references on the TB/Geocoin page?

We all know the answer to that. Seems tho like someone didn't think it thru entirely.

Link to comment
There is no rule against TBs and geocoins promoting an agenda. There is a rule against cache pages doing it.

 

Is this not the pot calling the kettle black????

 

Good for the goose is good for the Gander????

 

All comes down to the all mighty dollar$$$$$$

 

And you expected otherwise? :(

Link to comment

I don't understand why this is a complicated issue for people to understand. It's pretty clear in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines (which apply to caches not to goecoins).

 

Caches that Solicit

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted.

Link to comment
If i pay GC.com for each ribbon maybe they would be ok with it.

 

Possibly - did you offer? or did you just suppose that they'd publish your agenda for free?

 

TBs and coins generate revenue; each tracking code comes with a price tag. There are rules for them, but they are different rules then those for the free cache listings.

Link to comment

I don't understand why this is a complicated issue for people to understand. It's pretty clear in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines (which apply to caches not to goecoins).

 

Caches that Solicit

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted.

Exactly! I rolled my eyes when I first encountered this thread, for this really should not be a hard thing for people to understand, and, stranger, the OP seems to believe that Groundspeak, which is a private business (which, by the way, happens to offer free service to many of its users/members, namely the unpaid members, which I happen to believe is misguided and overly generous), does NOT have the right to set rules and guidelines about cache listings. Very odd!

Link to comment

I don't understand why this is a complicated issue for people to understand. It's pretty clear in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines (which apply to caches not to goecoins).

 

Caches that Solicit

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted.

Exactly! I rolled my eyes when I first encountered this thread, for this really should not be a hard thing for people to understand, and, stranger, the OP seems to believe that Groundspeak, which is a private business (which, by the way, happens to offer free service to many of its users/members, namely the unpaid members, which I happen to believe is misguided and overly generous), does NOT have the right to set rules and guidelines about cache listings. Very odd!

 

Vinny, I'm not so sure the OP doesn't believe that GS has the right to place restrictions and rules on their website, I just see them as trying to do something they thought was good. They were asked to remove the content (which they did even though they didn't agree), and then saw where the trackable coins were coming out and it seemed two-faced to them.

 

As was said, money talks. When I saw these coins come out, my thought was that these were over the line, but it's not my call. People are free to do this as GS allows, but a political agenda seems like something we should keep out of this game. People from all around the world play this game, some people might not want these coins visiting their caches. I also felt this way about the religious coins as they might offend some as well.

 

It's GS's game, but we all have to deal with the game pieces....

Link to comment

I don't understand why this is a complicated issue for people to understand. It's pretty clear in the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines (which apply to caches not to goecoins).

 

Caches that Solicit

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted.

 

It's simple.

 

Groundspeak has rules that one must follow to have caches listed on their site and one rule says that there shall be no agenda.

 

What's so hard to understand? It's their site and their rules.

I think both of these pretty well sum it up...

 

I had a "commercial" cache shot down...I reworked it a bit and got it posted. I honestly didn't think I was being commercial...but the reviewer felt it was in respect to the guidelines and I respect that. You made the changes you needed to make in order to get the cache published. My advice is to go out and find a couple caches and move on...

.

.

.

It may be tought to do...but accept the fact that trackables are treated differently then caches...

Link to comment
The troops are apolitical. They do what they are told to do and they live or die regardless of who they voted for. Supporting them is not a political agenda.

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

This is my point. Supporting the US Soldiers is not a agenda. Its like supporting your teamsters Union, or your local football team. I live in Wisconsin and Hate football, but I don't hold it against the Packer Players themselves, Its not their fault, its just their job.

 

Barry

 

will be gone for the weekend, so to the moderators, if this post gets out of hand just close it

Link to comment
The troops are apolitical. They do what they are told to do and they live or die regardless of who they voted for. Supporting them is not a political agenda.

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

This is my point. Supporting the US Soldiers is not a agenda. Its like supporting your teamsters Union, or your local football team. I live in Wisconsin and Hate football, but I don't hold it against the Packer Players themselves, Its not their fault, its just their job.

 

 

You're wrong. Just ask pacifists, the owners of companies that don't want unions, or the other football teams. Supporting any of these groups is an agenda.

 

We long ago said that cache listings were off limits for *any* agenda without first getting permission from Groundspeak. It has been long understood that signature items and items in caches don't follow that same rule (though many do find it distasteful to leave religious tracts or other agendas into their caches). As a result we allow flexibility with cache items inside caches because a ) we can't "control" that anyway and B ) it is hard enough to make the cache containers as agenda-less as possible.

 

Since there is a big distinction between the container and the object within the cache container we think that it is not a pot/kettle issue. The solution, already provided earlier in the thread, is to drop a real ribbon in a cache and not to put it or any other agenda on the cache page. If someone is offended by the agenda they can trade it out of the cache.

 

(edit: my b became a smiley)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
The troops are apolitical. They do what they are told to do and they live or die regardless of who they voted for. Supporting them is not a political agenda.

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

This is my point. Supporting the US Soldiers is not a agenda. Its like supporting your teamsters Union, or your local football team. I live in Wisconsin and Hate football, but I don't hold it against the Packer Players themselves, Its not their fault, its just their job.

 

 

You're wrong. Just ask pacifists, the owners of companies that don't want unions, or the other football teams. Supporting any of these groups is an agenda.

 

We long ago said that cache listings were off limits for *any* agenda without first getting permission from Groundspeak. It has been long understood that signature items and items in caches don't follow that same rule (though many do find it distasteful to leave religious tracts or other agendas into their caches). As a result we allow flexibility with cache items inside caches because a ) we can't "control" that anyway and B ) it is hard enough to make the cache containers as agenda-less as possible.

 

Since there is a big distinction between the container and the object within the cache container we think that it is not a pot/kettle issue. The solution, already provided earlier in the thread, is to drop a real ribbon in a cache and not to put it or any other agenda on the cache page. If someone is offended by the agenda they can trade it out of the cache.

 

(edit: my b became a smiley)

Much better then what I was trying to write!!!

 

--My original post, shortened up--

By Definition: Agenda- 1) List of things to do: a formal list of things to be done in a specific order, especially a list of things to be discussed at a meeting. 2) Matters needing attention: the various matters that somebody needs to deal with at a specific time. 3) Personal motivation: an underlying personal viewpoint or bias

 

Edit: Ok...weird Time-out issue...

 

The rest of my post: The 3rd part of the definition is the one that is needed...any sort of personal reason as to why you support/don't support something illustrates an agenda. Sure, sweetlife and others, may have a point about not wanting certain things in their caches that promote certain agendas...but if you don't want them in you caches, you can always swap them out...heck, you can even swap out that stuff from caches you don't own (right or not...it can be done). It is no different then what Groundspeak is asking about pages listed on the site...however, if you want something specific, they do have a process in place for valid exceptions...(valid exceptions will not be defined by me...since it is not my site :lol:)

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment
The troops are apolitical. They do what they are told to do and they live or die regardless of who they voted for. Supporting them is not a political agenda.

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

This is my point. Supporting the US Soldiers is not a agenda. Its like supporting your teamsters Union, or your local football team. I live in Wisconsin and Hate football, but I don't hold it against the Packer Players themselves, Its not their fault, its just their job.

 

 

You're wrong. Just ask pacifists, the owners of companies that don't want unions, or the other football teams. Supporting any of these groups is an agenda.

 

We long ago said that cache listings were off limits for *any* agenda without first getting permission from Groundspeak. It has been long understood that signature items and items in caches don't follow that same rule (though many do find it distasteful to leave religious tracts or other agendas into their caches). As a result we allow flexibility with cache items inside caches because a ) we can't "control" that anyway and B ) it is hard enough to make the cache containers as agenda-less as possible.

 

Since there is a big distinction between the container and the object within the cache container we think that it is not a pot/kettle issue. The solution, already provided earlier in the thread, is to drop a real ribbon in a cache and not to put it or any other agenda on the cache page. If someone is offended by the agenda they can trade it out of the cache.

 

(edit: my b became a smiley)

 

Right, but selling tracking codes to a coin which is religious or political is accepted, coins which you then must approve or deny. You sell them the codes which are then placed on coins approved by you (you here isn't meaning "you" Jeremy, it's generic), giving the appearance that you'd condone political, religious and other agendas as long as there's a profit in it (not that I'm against a profit mind you). It does look pot/kettle since it seems you do approve of these agendas as long as it's a coin and not a cache.

 

Now, over in the coin forums there's a discussion going about who will win the election and already (only 10 or so posts in) we have two heated and distasteful (IMHO) comments about our candidates...as was said there, we tend to come here to get away from politics. I'm understanding it that this conversation is allowed because a coin was made and they are discussing the coin, but I see little conversation about the coins???

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand the guidelines and follow them, I'm just pointing out how it appears to me.

 

And Archer Dragon, I'm not complaining about stuff getting into my cache, I'm merely pointing out how it appears to me.

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment
Right, but selling tracking codes to a coin which is religious or political is accepted, coins which you then must approve or deny. You sell them the codes which are then placed on coins approved by you (you here isn't meaning "you" Jeremy, it's generic), giving the appearance that you'd condone political, religious and other agendas as long as there's a profit in it (not that I'm against a profit mind you). It does look pot/kettle since it seems you do approve of these agendas as long as it's a coin and not a cache.

He explained that already. Reread the "We long ago said..." paragraph.

 

Now, over in the coin forums there's a discussion going about who will win the election and already (only 10 or so posts in) we have two heated and distasteful (IMHO) comments about our candidates...as was said there, we tend to come here to get away from politics. I'm understanding it that this conversation is allowed because a coin was made and they are discussing the coin, but I see little conversation about the coins???

As a moderator, I can't possibly read every post or thread here. If you think the post(s) violate the forum guidelines, then report it to draw it to the attention of the moderators. Don't assume it's okay just because a mod hasn't stepped in to address it.

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment

Those are trackable coins, so GS had to approve them

 

Really? HAD TO? That can't be right. Maybe I'll come out with some "Groundspeak Sucks" geocoins, tracking at Geocaching.com. Or some "Beat Your Wife Today!" Geocoins. I'm sure TPTB do get to draw the line somewhere.

 

Yes, really. GS approves ALL trackable coins for content and appropriateness. They do this because they are selling the tracking codes to the person and so must have say what goes and what doesn't.

 

Now, a non-trackable coin....well, they don't even get to know about those if you don't want them to!

 

Roddy I COMPLETELY mistook your original statement.

 

I put the emphasis on the HAD TO in the sentence, meaning "Groundspeak was forced to approve them, even if against their will". I didn't realize you meant they were in a position of holding approving authority.

Link to comment
Groundspeak did not approve Team360s "Illegal Alien Geocoin."

Yup! That's the one I was thinking of. I saw a picture of one here in the forums, but I think the pic was yanked for "being in bad taste". One thing that remains unclear to me regarding this particular coin: Was it disallowed at the time of inception, or was it created, then nuked when people complained?

Link to comment

Sweetlife - welcome to geocaching. I truly feel your pain but dont waste your time. BTDT I went the rounds a yr ago with a support our troops logo & lost. It was the logo from MAGC (Military Association of GeoCachers) which has contributed alot to the sport as well as brought alot of people, mostly military, into the full circle of geocaching but that made no difference. It was determined that it was an agenda too & so got the boot.

We here at MAGC finally let it go..............but still no logo. Guess they couldnt figure how to profit from it. SAD!

Link to comment

And Archer Dragon, I'm not complaining about stuff getting into my cache, I'm merely pointing out how it appears to me.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound as if I thought people were complaining...I was trying to use the example to draw a comparision of how cachers and Groundspeak deal with agendas (of course, each on their own terms).

 

I understand the frustrations on the side of sweetlife and others that have ahd similar experiences...but I can also understand the situation from the view of Groundspeak as well...it is just a very sensitive area...what to allow and what not to allow...

Link to comment
Groundspeak did not approve Team360s "Illegal Alien Geocoin."

Yup! That's the one I was thinking of. I saw a picture of one here in the forums, but I think the pic was yanked for "being in bad taste". One thing that remains unclear to me regarding this particular coin: Was it disallowed at the time of inception, or was it created, then nuked when people complained?

 

I think they were brought up in the forums, the race card was thrown, and then Groundspeak decided to step up and deny them. The clincher was the quote on the coins "Trash in Cache out." Which many took as referring to illegals as trash. I spoke to Team360 at GW6 and he told me the trash was a reference to all the trash and environmental damage illegal do when they enter the US.

Edited by Kit Fox
Link to comment

I completely agree that no political agenda should be pushed through caches. I can see how supporting the troops is an agenda (I would argue it's in the gray area). And the point was well made that you can put as many yellow ribbons in the cache as you would like, as anyone can put anything they want in a cache. I tend to remove political junk I find in caches, as I regard it as trash, and trade for something much cooler. Those are the rules of the game, anyone can put anything in (providing it will fit in the container without violating any physical laws) AND they can take anything out--albeit etiquette guidelines do exist, e.g. trading.

 

What I would like to see, however, is some standarization from the GS volunteers. How could this be approved, but not a cache which I understand and assume, does not even have a political slant in it's name but just a yellow "support our troops" ribbon in the description?? The referenced cache, IMHO, definitely pushes an agenda. If you cannot honor soliders, how can one publish "honor[ing]" a political party's national convention???

 

The referenced cache is located by my alma matter, and while I was doing some caches during my last business trip back, I just skipped it. I debated challenging it's legitity, but after this thread, I just dropped it. Which I would do if I ran into a political geocoin, I would just leave it and not have anything further to do with it (I also believe you shouldn't steal other people's trackable items, another topic).

Edited by ronocnikral
Link to comment
There is no rule against TBs and geocoins promoting an agenda. There is a rule against cache pages doing it.

 

Is this not the pot calling the kettle black????

 

Good for the goose is good for the Gander????

 

All comes down to the all mighty dollar$$$$$$

Where's the problem? Pay the $$$$$ and they'll let you have your agenda.

Link to comment

Sweetlife - welcome to geocaching. I truly feel your pain but dont waste your time. BTDT I went the rounds a yr ago with a support our troops logo & lost. It was the logo from MAGC (Military Association of GeoCachers) which has contributed alot to the sport as well as brought alot of people, mostly military, into the full circle of geocaching but that made no difference. It was determined that it was an agenda too & so got the boot.

We here at MAGC finally let it go..............but still no logo. Guess they couldnt figure how to profit from it. SAD!

If GS was really all about profit then there would be no free memberships and there would be a charge for cache listings. :lol:

Link to comment

On a related, but non related topic- The GC forums. Are they supposed to be non political? I was going to email GS about this last night. There seems to be a lot of political threads in the Off Topic section. I know I dont have to read them, especially as how it doesnt affect me directly who wins the upcoming presidential election, but it just seems strange to me that for an organisation that seems to be neutral in its political stance it is allowing political debate on its forums.

 

We have a general rule over here. NEVER talk about religion or politics at a get together- it causes too many dramas.

Link to comment

I was interested in responses to the cache linked to in ronockniral's post. I support the "no agenda for caches" position taken by TPTB and this cache clearly seems to violate that standard as it states that it honors the convention of a political party. While it does seem unreasonable to attempt to place a burden of "standardization" on the moderators, this one really does seem to be a clear-cut case of an agenda cache that should not be allowed.

 

The off-topic forums, on the other hand, are a great place to allow expressions of opinion. As already noted, the content of the thread is usually obvious from the title and easy to avoid if you aren't interested.

 

Bean of Team Succotash

Link to comment

There is no rule against TBs and geocoins promoting an agenda. There is a rule against cache pages doing it.

 

The troops are apolitical. They do what they are told to do and they live or die regardless of who they voted for. Supporting them is not a political agenda.

 

 

THANK YOU!

 

This is my point. Supporting the US Soldiers is not a agenda. Its like supporting your teamsters Union, or your local football team. I live in Wisconsin and Hate football, but I don't hold it against the Packer Players themselves, Its not their fault, its just their job.

 

 

You're wrong. Just ask pacifists, the owners of companies that don't want unions, or the other football teams. Supporting any of these groups is an agenda.

 

We long ago said that cache listings were off limits for *any* agenda without first getting permission from Groundspeak. It has been long understood that signature items and items in caches don't follow that same rule (though many do find it distasteful to leave religious tracts or other agendas into their caches). As a result we allow flexibility with cache items inside caches because a ) we can't "control" that anyway and B ) it is hard enough to make the cache containers as agenda-less as possible.

 

Since there is a big distinction between the container and the object within the cache container we think that it is not a pot/kettle issue. The solution, already provided earlier in the thread, is to drop a real ribbon in a cache and not to put it or any other agenda on the cache page. If someone is offended by the agenda they can trade it out of the cache.

 

(edit: my b became a smiley)

 

I am asking any pacifists what their thoughts are. My understanding is that they do support the troops. They don't support wars or the military. I agree with not allowing political agendas or corporate agendas but a yellow ribbon. :lol:

Link to comment

Sweetlife - welcome to geocaching. I truly feel your pain but dont waste your time. BTDT I went the rounds a yr ago with a support our troops logo & lost. It was the logo from MAGC (Military Association of GeoCachers) which has contributed alot to the sport as well as brought alot of people, mostly military, into the full circle of geocaching but that made no difference. It was determined that it was an agenda too & so got the boot.

We here at MAGC finally let it go..............but still no logo. Guess they couldnt figure how to profit from it. SAD!

If GS was really all about profit then there would be no free memberships and there would be a charge for cache listings. :lol:

 

Not necessarily. I think the "free, but with enhanced features for premium members" model is all over the internet. As long as there's plenty of revenue coming in from other sources.

Link to comment
Right, but selling tracking codes to a coin which is religious or political is accepted, coins which you then must approve or deny. You sell them the codes which are then placed on coins approved by you (you here isn't meaning "you" Jeremy, it's generic), giving the appearance that you'd condone political, religious and other agendas as long as there's a profit in it (not that I'm against a profit mind you). It does look pot/kettle since it seems you do approve of these agendas as long as it's a coin and not a cache.

He explained that already. Reread the "We long ago said..." paragraph.

 

Now, over in the coin forums there's a discussion going about who will win the election and already (only 10 or so posts in) we have two heated and distasteful (IMHO) comments about our candidates...as was said there, we tend to come here to get away from politics. I'm understanding it that this conversation is allowed because a coin was made and they are discussing the coin, but I see little conversation about the coins???

As a moderator, I can't possibly read every post or thread here. If you think the post(s) violate the forum guidelines, then report it to draw it to the attention of the moderators. Don't assume it's okay just because a mod hasn't stepped in to address it.

 

I understood what Jeremy posted, I understand why. What I don't understand is why GS draws their line in the sand on caches yet allow agendas on coins which THEY approve. We all know (well, anyone who has been around the coin forums at least) that Groundspeak has to approve any coin with a TRACKING NUMBER. All coins wanting to be trackable MUST be submitted to GS for their approval before the tracking codes are handed out.

 

It's fine that they don't have any control over TBs and non-trackable items, but when they approve of a coin, it appears they endorse whatever agenda that coin might have. See, they don't want hurt feelings when it comes to caching (people might be turned off and then not return), but the coins part is OK because they can just hide behind the "we don't control what is put in the caches" phrase even when they do actually have control over what trackable coins are made.

 

Look, I'm not saying we should allow agendas in caches, that would be bad in too many ways. I don't mind and don't care one way or the other personally, just making a point! When the OP posted that coin, I knew right away what the OP was saying and understood their frustrations (when that coin sales email came to my inbox, my first thought was "now I have to be bombarded with politics in the forums too??"). Because, when a coin is made, the vendor or owners are enttled to post a sales thread (which they did), and then we have to deal with the comments (which we did). The political sense still remains as the coin is obviously a political statement (albeit balanced as they did offer up both parties).

 

I didn't report the other thread because I believe the majority has spoken and the inappropriate comments ceased just like I figured they would as we tend to act a bit more responsible than some of the other forums sections where those few posts would have bitterly derailed the entire thread until a mod was needed IMHO. :lol:

 

Not wanting to cause problems so I'll just end my comments here! B)

Edited by Rockin Roddy
Link to comment

I wasn't asking what to do if I felt a cache violated the guidelines, rather I was making a comparison. The pot/kettle analogy using the "yellow ribbon" scenario and political geocoins was apparently unfounded. I brought evidence of a definitely (at least in my mind) applibable pot/kettle scenario.

 

Answer these questions after looking at the DNC mile high view cache:

  • Does the cache mention anything that can be construed as an agenda??
  • Does the cache support or "push" that agenda??

Yes is the answer to both questions. It "pushes" the agenda because of the word "honor."

 

Now, look at the Temple square cache (which I did yesterday) and answer the same questions as you did for DNC mile high view. Temple square definitely mentions a topic that can be construed as being an agenda, but it in no way pushes that agenda--it merely shares the area with those who do the cache.

 

Obviously the 2 caches have some major differences--as one is a historic place and the other is in "honor" of an event. Are both in violation of the agenda rule?? Are the agenda guidelines handrails opposed to handcuffs for GC volunteers?? Again, my argument for standardization. Obviously, the best way to standardize is to have one person do it, but that is unreasonable, so perhaps some clarification (I think it is pretty clear, but obviously a reviewer in CO would disagree with me).

 

Some food for thought.

Link to comment

On a related, but non related topic- The GC forums. Are they supposed to be non political? I was going to email GS about this last night. There seems to be a lot of political threads in the Off Topic section. I know I dont have to read them, especially as how it doesnt affect me directly who wins the upcoming presidential election, but it just seems strange to me that for an organisation that seems to be neutral in its political stance it is allowing political debate on its forums.

 

We have a general rule over here. NEVER talk about religion or politics at a get together- it causes too many dramas.

 

Off Topic

The well-hidden but often-referenced off topic forum. By popular demand, this is a place for you to talk about everything under the sun that isn't geocaching (within reason). Obey the posting guidelines and no one will get hurt.

Link to comment

So, the OP had to change their page because it supposedly supported an agenda.

 

Yet, if I go to the search page and enter Support Our Troops in the keyword field, I get 16 caches that have that in the title.

 

So why the double standard??

 

Click Here to see the list.

Interesting how all those caches were published prior to mid-2007. I wonder why that is. :)

Link to comment

So, the OP had to change their page because it supposedly supported an agenda.

 

Yet, if I go to the search page and enter Support Our Troops in the keyword field, I get 16 caches that have that in the title.

 

So why the double standard??

 

Click Here to see the list.

Interesting how all those caches were published prior to mid-2007. I wonder why that is. :)

I guess you're implying that the "no agenda" guideline was added then. Well, look a little closer, cause 2 of em were published this year. One even within the last 6 weeks.

 

So again I ask....why the double standard??

Link to comment

The "no agenda" guideline for caches has been around for years. But last year, Groundspeak clarified to the volunteer cache reviewers that the "Support Our Troops" phrase constituted an agenda. (This is borne out by the sign I pass each week on the way to church: "Support Our Troops: End the War!")

 

If a full investigation of a handful of caches were launched, perhaps we would discover that either (1) not every reviewer got the memo, or (2) a cache owner made changes to their listing after publication. Neither makes for a "double standard."

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...