Social Awareness

[+Clothahump]

Social awareness is personal. There is absolutely no reason to bring geocaching into it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The issues that prevent agenda driven caches from being a good idea apply to event caches also. Who gets to decide what agenda is acceptable and what agenda is not? Best to keep the hobby as just a hobby.

Why does anyone need to decide? Events that are interesting will attract those interested, if it's not your cup of tea, don't go!

 

The question of an AlQuida Event was posed by someone earlier as an inflammatory extreme, but why not? I wouldn't go, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be listed.

 

The event listing issue has nothing whatsoever to do with geocaching... in fact events to go geocaching are prohibited!

[+KBI]

I should have made it clear that the companies invested in the development of this infrastructure had diametrically opposed business interests (making a profit) with the rest of the world (getting the job done efficiently and affordably) wanting to adopt and adapt their products.

But that still doesn’t make any sense to me. Those two interests are NOT incompatible. Quite the contrary. Product demand and profit incentive are two powerful economic forces which are absolutely made for each other. It’s a match made in capitalist heaven. They go together like a plug and a socket. Like a ball and a glove. Like pulled pork barbecue and banana pudding.

 

This is not complicated. Either the world had a strong need for something (getting the job done efficiently and affordably, as you put it), or it didn’t.

 

If it did, then there was profit to be made from that strong need, and someone would have been VERY interested in making that profit.

 

If it didn’t, then the government was wasting our tax money providing an obviously unneeded solution.

 

I suspect it’s the former: that the Internet was needed, and would have sprung up eventually as provided by private businesses responding to the demand. Did the government usher the Net in earlier and better than private enterprise would have? Or did the government interfere artificially and clumsily with what would have otherwise been a faster and more efficient experience when provided by the free market? I guess we’ll never know.

[+spektrum2]

The issues that prevent agenda driven caches from being a good idea apply to event caches also. Who gets to decide what agenda is acceptable and what agenda is not? Best to keep the hobby as just a hobby.

 

Yes, can't argue with that either,trying to please all the people all the time.......

 

The only thing that comes to mind is event(agenda) caches be removed after the event is over.The Groundspeak guys are swearing at me right now.......you can't hear that???? I can......

oh my.....! such language!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I suspect it’s the former: that the Internet was needed, and would have sprung up eventually as provided by private businesses responding to the demand. Did the government usher the Net in earlier and better than private enterprise would have? Or did the government interfere artificially and clumsily with what would have otherwise been a faster and more efficient experience when provided by the free market? I guess we’ll never know.

I will mention Linux, the open-source movement and corporate developer's avid desire to defeat it.

 

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

[knowschad]

I'm coming in three pages late and haven't read anything but the OP and can already say, "Agenda!" Well meaning agenda, perhaps, but if you can publish a cache with your well meaning agenda, so can I, and so can anyone. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but let's keep it out of our funtime activities.

[knowschad]

Oh, Good Grief, Charlie Brown... suckered in by a revived ancient post. Sorry for responding.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I'm coming in three pages late and haven't read anything but the OP and can already say, "Agenda!" Well meaning agenda, perhaps, but if you can publish a cache with your well meaning agenda, so can I, and so can anyone. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but let's keep it out of our funtime activities.

Shoula read the thread! This is about event listings, not geocaches.

 

I totally support agenda-free geocaches.

 

Using the powerful tool of event listings to do something good should be another story.

[knowschad]

I'm coming in three pages late and haven't read anything but the OP and can already say, "Agenda!" Well meaning agenda, perhaps, but if you can publish a cache with your well meaning agenda, so can I, and so can anyone. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but let's keep it out of our funtime activities.

Shoula read the thread! This is about event listings, not geocaches.

I totally support agenda-free geocaches.

Using the powerful tool of event listings to do something good should be another story.

Yeah, that's what I get for caching all weekend, and coming in here on Sunday night with a sudden opinion. Sorry.

 

But, that said (and STILL not having even read all of the RECENT posts...) isn't an event cache still a cache, and subject to the same criteria? Sorry if I'm out of line. If so, just ignore me. I'll catch up later.

[+KBI]

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

This discussion is well within the subject of caches with social agendas. Groundspeak just broke at least two of its own guidelines promoting a very social agenda: DARPA using society's tax dollars to throw a birthday party.

 

But I see no need to beat this up any further, as I have already made my two points:

 

(1) Breaking its own rules is something that is well within Groundspeak's privelege; but (2) I don't care to see our tax dollars tossed around this way.

 

I believe you agree with me on the first one, and you have made your opinion clear about the second.

[knowschad]

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

This discussion is well within the subject of caches with social agendas. Groundspeak just broke at least two of its own guidelines promoting a very social agenda: DARPA using society's tax dollars to throw a birthday party.

 

But I see no need to beat this up any further, as I have already made my two points:

 

(1) Breaking its own rules is something that is well within Groundspeak's privelege; but (2) I don't care to see our tax dollars tossed around this way.

 

I believe you agree with me on the first one, and you have made your opinion clear about the second.

Groundspeak was totally using this as a test of the strength of their own social network, and I think they, as well as DARPA, learned some very important lessons from this experiement.

[+KBI]

Groundspeak was totally using this as a test of the strength of their own social network, and I think they, as well as DARPA, learned some very important lessons from this experiement.

Do you suppose we, the taxpayers who provided the prize money, can expect to receive Thank You cards from the MIT team or from the other beneficiaries of this project?

 

I'll be watching my mailbox.

[+Cardinal Red]

Groundspeak was totally using this as a test of the strength of their own social network, and I think they, as well as DARPA, learned some very important lessons from this experiement.

I would instead only say that Groundspeak entered an interesting competition for a monetary prize with the aid of human resources they knew they could rely on.

[RuideAlmeida]

Using the powerful tool of event listings to do something good should be another story.

 

Thank you Rambler!!

[RuideAlmeida]

Its was not my idea to bring up ancient ghosts, ressurecting posts.

 

I just felt glad to see that GS is taking steps on the right direction, talking about being social awareness...

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't see any political, social, or economic agenda in there, any more than if Coca-Cola asks 10,000 people to taste a new beverage and gives $40,000 to a randomly-chosen member of the tasting team.

The difference is that Coca-Cola is a private entity giving away its own private money; DARPA is a public entity giving away MY money.

 

I have no more right to tell Coca-Cola how to spend its own money than Coca-Cola has to tell me how to spend mine. The government, on the other hand, has the power to tax. The government therefore does, to the extent that I am taxed, have the right to tell me how my money is going to be spent.

 

It is an awesome responsibility, one never to be taken lightly. As I said in the other thread:

 

The power to tax is a deadly bludgeon which needs to be taken very, very seriously. Taxes are collected by force. (Anyone who believes otherwise should try saying a polite "no thank you" to the tax man when collection time comes around.) When a government uses its police power to lift cash directly out of the pockets of it citizens, it had better first make dadgum sure it is doing so for a very good, and very

justifiable,

purpose. Anything short of that is morally wrong because it is an abuse of power, and economically wrong because it is counterproductive.

 

Now, having given the $40,000 away, should DARPA care what happens to it? And how can they tell, anyway? Should they say "You can win $40,000, but you must spend it on a Lexus?"

I have made no comment as to how the prize money should be spent by the winners. That’s not what I meant when I said I object to the social agenda. The social agenda I object to is the idea that it’s okay to spend taxpayer money on whatever whim pleases a government agency.

 

I don’t care where the money goes now that it is back in private hands; the damage is already done. My point is that the money should have never been taken from taxpayers in the first place, if this was all it was going to be used for.

 

So, a genuine question: can you tell us if your objection is based on:

- The fact that the winner of the prize was able to give the taxpayers' money to charity if they so chose

- The fact the part of the project budget went on a prize

- The existence of the project

- The existence of DARPA

- The existence of the United States Department of Defense

- The existence of the United States

- Or something else?

Given those choices, I guess my answer to your question would be the second one: The fact the part of the project budget went out as a prize. Possibly numbers three and four as well. You can read the following and decide for yourself where my answer fits:

 

I am not necessarily against government-awarded prizes intended to encourage technological advancement. I think offering incentives to the private sector can be effective, especially when they are done in lieu of the government directly and clumsily trying to legislate technological change itself.

 

My objection was to the way this concept was presented. The announcement I saw gave me the impression that DARPA simply wanted to celebrate the 40th birthday of the Internet, and was offering this contest as a way to make a more splashy commemoration. I don’t care to see the hard-earned tax dollars of my fellow citizens being passed out like candy at a birthday party.

 

If the prize is a part of a greater research project with an important goal, one that is expected to produce real, practical gains in knowledge, then that’s not quite so bad. Maybe you can convince me that that is the case.

 

But that’s still not ideal. I would much rather see these things done only in the private sector where the free market decides what is needed and businesses are free to prioritize solution-finding based on that true need, as opposed to what some government wonk thinks is needed, or worse (and more common), what some politician thinks should be done based on what he thinks will get him re-elected. In other words: If the problem being solved by this particular DARPA project truly merited attention, then someone would have already been willing to pay their own money for the solution, and some enterprising person or entity in the private sector would have risen to the occasion.

 

If nobody was willing to volunteer their own money before DARPA came along with their balloons and tax dollars, then how big a problem could it have been? If nobody was willing to front their own money, then why should I or anyone else have been forced to help pay for it?

 

I think this birthday contest, and the prize money it gave away, represent a serious abuse of the police power of government.

 

 

The real question is:

 

Do you, as a taxpayer, need to be privy to how the Department of Defense conducts investigations?

 

If the government creates an experiment to test how many social network groups are operating in the US, any of which could possibly grow large enough to topple the government in an effort to create mass chaos and the eventual takeover of the United States by a foreign entity causing the infrastructure of the free market system to collapse and to have the US run like a 3rd world country, does the taxpayer really need to be "socially aware" of the actual reason? Do you think it could be possible that the groups that participated in the event are being investigated to see if they could possibly have another agenda in place? You should rest easy that the victor used capitalism as a tool to win, rather than another "socialist" type of entity. If the government used another method to investigate, I'm certain it would have cost plenty more than $40K.

Must the government always be viewed in a pessimistic way? Is there any type of government that can satisfy the wants of the public? or must it be constantly condemned, despite being one of the most sucessful?

 

People who are not thankful for what they have already often lose the very things that they take for granted, making any situation much worse, rather than improving it...

Edited December 7, 2009 by 4wheelin_fool

[Clan Riffster]

<MERRY CHRISTMAS AND GOD BLESS AMERICA - LAND OF THE FREE - HOME OF THE BRAVE>

<WHERE WERE FREE TO EXPRESS OUR RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL VIEWS WITHOUT PERSECUTION>

 

as they say in utah

<LOVE IT - RESPECT IT = OR GET THE HELL OUT>

Unless you're muslim. Ouch

Not quite sure I follow this line of reasoning...

Are you suggesting that Muslims in the United States are not free to express their views?

Are you sure you live in San Diego?

 

Looking at the first line, I see a holiday greeting, and a religous blessing, followed by a national catch phrase.

To the best of my knowledge, Muslims are perfectly free to give holiday greetings, religious blessings and spout off national catch phrases. In fact, I would say they have significantly more freedom to do these types of things then they would in many traditionally Muslim countries.

 

Asalaam 'Alaykum

Jai Bhim

Shana Tova Umetukah

Go in peace

Etc, etc.

[RuideAlmeida]

Asalaam 'Alaykum

Jai Bhim

Shana Tova Umetukah

Go in peace

Etc, etc.

 

I would like to remember that the OP (back in Nov 19th, 2008) never had any religious intentions.

Only the help to children in need... that we accomplished in both years

Edited December 7, 2009 by ruidealmeida

[+Castle Mischief]

Shoula read the thread! This is about event listings, not geocaches.

 

I totally support agenda-free geocaches.

 

I don't think the guidelines differentiate between the two in regards to agendas.

 

(Running off to re-read the guidelines...)

 

Yep. The agenda guideline applies to all cache types and events are called "Event Caches" in the guidelines, so it appears to be so.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+KBI]

I think this birthday contest, and the prize money it gave away, represent a serious abuse of the police power of government.

The real question is:

 

Do you, as a taxpayer, need to be privy to how the Department of Defense conducts investigations?

 

If the government creates an experiment to test how many social network groups are operating in the US, any of which could possibly grow large enough to topple the government in an effort to create mass chaos and the eventual takeover of the United States by a foreign entity causing the infrastructure of the free market system to collapse and to have the US run like a 3rd world country, does the taxpayer really need to be "socially aware" of the actual reason? Do you think it could be possible that the groups that participated in the event are being investigated to see if they could possibly have another agenda in place? You should rest easy that the victor used capitalism as a tool to win, rather than another "socialist" type of entity. If the government used another method to investigate, I'm certain it would have cost plenty more than $40K.

Must the government always be viewed in a pessimistic way? Is there any type of government that can satisfy the wants of the public? or must it be constantly condemned, despite being one of the most sucessful?

 

People who are not thankful for what they have already often lose the very things that they take for granted, making any situation much worse, rather than improving it...

So last weekend's tax money giveaway, the one that only appeared to be an expensive birthday party favor, is really a cleverly-disguised scheme to root out Al Qaida – and I should learn to be more patriotic by shutting up and getting the hell out of the way?

 

Interesting theory. I can’t wait to hear more. Please, do go on.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Shoula read the thread! This is about event listings, not geocaches.

 

I totally support agenda-free geocaches.

 

I don't think the guidelines differentiate between the two in regards to agendas.

 

(Running off to re-read the guidelines...)

 

Yep. The agenda guideline applies to all cache types and events are called "Event Caches" in the guidelines, so it appears to be so.

Of course they do. The question at hand however is if they should remain so written.

 

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

[+Castle Mischief]

Shoula read the thread! This is about event listings, not geocaches.

 

I totally support agenda-free geocaches.

 

I don't think the guidelines differentiate between the two in regards to agendas.

 

(Running off to re-read the guidelines...)

 

Yep. The agenda guideline applies to all cache types and events are called "Event Caches" in the guidelines, so it appears to be so.

Of course they do. The question at hand however is if they should remain so written.

 

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

 

Ah, well in that case I still like it the way it is. I see no reason to let the "no agenda" guideline slide towards a "no agenda- unless it's for events". All the reasons for agenda-free physical caches would seem to be even more appropriate for events in my mind.

[+sbell111]

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

This discussion is well within the subject of caches with social agendas. Groundspeak just broke at least two of its own guidelines promoting a very social agenda: DARPA using society's tax dollars to throw a birthday party.

 

But I see no need to beat this up any further, as I have already made my two points:

 

(1) Breaking its own rules is something that is well within Groundspeak's privelege; but (2) I don't care to see our tax dollars tossed around this way.

 

I believe you agree with me on the first one, and you have made your opinion clear about the second.

1. Did TPTB list a bunch of DARPA-themed caches and I missed it? It was my understanding that they merely set up a new website to attempt to win this DARPA challenge and invited geocachers to help them win. This certainly does not break any guideline. What guidelines do you believe that TPTB broke? (It should be noted that since the guidelines make it clear that caches that do not conform with the guidelines can be listed with prior approval from TPTB, even if they had listed DARPA-related geocaches, then it would not be a violation of the guidelines.)
   
2. We live in a Republic. As such, we elect leaders who make the decisions of government. In a Republic, we don't get a vote on every thing that government does, nor should we. If we don't like their decisions, our option is to vote them out of office. It is possible that you believed that the United States was a (direct) Democracy. This is a common mistake.
   

[+karstic]

Socially aware? Is that like not wearing white after Labor Day?

[+Snoogans]

Will resurrecting this thread near Christmas each year become someone's attempt at social awareness?

 

We always need more traditions in this forum.

 

I'd like to raise the social awareness of Bump a Snoogans Thread Day. Pick any day and respond to a post on as many Snoogans originated threads (there are 600+) as you possibly can. Anyone can start a Snoogans' Thread bump Day at any time and the goal is to make 1 entire page (50 threads) of Snoogans' Threads. The catch is you HAVE to respond to get credit. Just writing "bump" is kinda lame.

 

This concludes the O.T. portion of this post.

 

My on topic opinion of this topic of discussion is if you hadn't gatherd that already and in closing; it's good to be the King....

 

[+KBI]

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

This discussion is well within the subject of caches with social agendas. Groundspeak just broke at least two of its own guidelines promoting a very social agenda: DARPA using society's tax dollars to throw a birthday party.

 

But I see no need to beat this up any further, as I have already made my two points:

 

(1) Breaking its own rules is something that is well within Groundspeak's privilege; but (2) I don't care to see our tax dollars tossed around this way.

 

I believe you agree with me on the first one, and you have made your opinion clear about the second.

Did TPTB list a bunch of DARPA-themed caches and I missed it? It was my understanding that they merely set up a new website to attempt to win this DARPA challenge and invited geocachers to help them win. This certainly does not break any guideline. What guidelines do you believe that TPTB broke? (It should be noted that since the guidelines make it clear that caches that do not conform with the guidelines can be listed with prior approval from TPTB, even if they had listed DARPA-related geocaches, then it would not be a violation of the guidelines.)

If the "no new virtual caches" rule is a guideline, then yes, TPTB broke their own guideline.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...Signal+the+Frog

 

I have already stated my support for this. It is their website. Their use of new virtual caches was not only proper, it was extremely clever. Again, I think most of us agree that Groundspeak acted properly, even admirably.

 

We live in a Republic. As such, we elect leaders who make the decisions of government. In a Republic, we don't get a vote on every thing that government does, nor should we. If we don't like their decisions, our option is to vote them out of office. It is possible that you believed that the United States was a (direct) Democracy. This is a common mistake.

All I have done is express the opinion that my – and your – tax dollars have been spent irresponsibly. You are free to agree, to disagree, or to ignore. Near as I can tell, my posts do not constitute an any attempt on my part to dictate policy to DARPA or to subjugate the federal election process. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

 

And yes, this is one of the many bad marks I will remember in the government scorecard of my mind when I vote.

 

And I must also thank you for your clear description of one of the many reasons why big government, as compared to competition-minded private business, responds so poorly to the concerns and needs of its end user beneficiaries via its inherently slow and ineffective feedback loop. Companies are far more responsive than government agencies. When accountability gets slow-filtered through an unwieldy bureaucracy it becomes non-existent when compared to the anxious and direct response of private businesses who fear immediate loss of revenue. This is yet another crystal clear argument for small-government capitalism over big-government socialism.

[Clan Riffster]

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

Ed, bear in mind, if Groundspeak removes its agenda free guideline with respect to events, that might not be a good thing. How long would it take till someone hosted an annual "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" event? While it's true that potential attendees could vote with their feet, those who find the concept repulsive would see Groundspeak as giving tacit approval to the agenda because they allowed it to be listed. If Groundspeak disallowed such an event, they would need a method in place for judging agendas for political correctness.

 

On a separate note, I do agree with you that events should not count toward your total "cache" finds.

But I take that a step farther, and include virts, earth caches and CITOs.

In my entirely biased view, none of these qualify as a "cache".

[+bflentje]

Oh my, I accidentally read the very first post and nearly lost my lunch laughing.

[John E Cache]

Ammo cans are green.

[RuideAlmeida]

Oh my, I accidentally read the very first post and nearly lost my lunch laughing.

 

It would not be such a surprise if you got him in your belly since then...

[+geodarts]

On a separate note, I do agree with you that events should not count toward your total "cache" finds.

But I take that a step farther, and include virts, earth caches and CITOs.

In my entirely biased view, none of these qualify as a "cache".

 

As long as nobody touches my locationless total. But I want to have an officially recognized event at Groundspeak headquarters to demand that only virtuals, earthcaches, and CITOs count -- or at least that puzzle caches do not count.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

Ed, bear in mind, if Groundspeak removes its agenda free guideline with respect to events, that might not be a good thing. How long would it take till someone hosted an annual "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" event?

 

That would be fine. Few if any would attend and it would be so roundly ridiculed that no one else would try it, end of problem. Much like the AlQuida event question posed earlier in this thread.

 

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

[+sbell111]

Then I must invite you to email TheAlabamaRambler@gmail.com to take this discussion off-line as one or both of us are going to get our hand slapped if we discuss it further in this thread! Thanks.

This discussion is well within the subject of caches with social agendas. Groundspeak just broke at least two of its own guidelines promoting a very social agenda: DARPA using society's tax dollars to throw a birthday party.

 

But I see no need to beat this up any further, as I have already made my two points:

 

(1) Breaking its own rules is something that is well within Groundspeak's privilege; but (2) I don't care to see our tax dollars tossed around this way.

 

I believe you agree with me on the first one, and you have made your opinion clear about the second.

Did TPTB list a bunch of DARPA-themed caches and I missed it? It was my understanding that they merely set up a new website to attempt to win this DARPA challenge and invited geocachers to help them win. This certainly does not break any guideline. What guidelines do you believe that TPTB broke? (It should be noted that since the guidelines make it clear that caches that do not conform with the guidelines can be listed with prior approval from TPTB, even if they had listed DARPA-related geocaches, then it would not be a violation of the guidelines.)

If the "no new virtual caches" rule is a guideline, then yes, TPTB broke their own guideline.

Not really, I covered that possibility in the bolded bit. In the guidelines, it's addressed this way:

Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site.

We live in a Republic. As such, we elect leaders who make the decisions of government. In a Republic, we don't get a vote on every thing that government does, nor should we. If we don't like their decisions, our option is to vote them out of office. It is possible that you believed that the United States was a (direct) Democracy. This is a common mistake.

All I have done is express the opinion that my – and your – tax dollars have been spent irresponsibly. You are free to agree, to disagree, or to ignore. Near as I can tell, my posts do not constitute an any attempt on my part to dictate policy to DARPA or to subjugate the federal election process. If you believe otherwise, please explain.

 

And yes, this is one of the many bad marks I will remember in the government scorecard of my mind when I vote.

 

And I must also thank you for your clear description of one of the many reasons why big government, as compared to competition-minded private business, responds so poorly to the concerns and needs of its end user beneficiaries via its inherently slow and ineffective feedback loop. Companies are far more responsive than government agencies. When accountability gets slow-filtered through an unwieldy bureaucracy it becomes non-existent when compared to the anxious and direct response of private businesses who fear immediate loss of revenue. This is yet another crystal clear argument for small-government capitalism over big-government socialism.

Argh!!!! Government Bad!!!! Grrrr!!!

[+sbell111]

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

Welcome to the Healthcare Reform debate.

[+geodarts]

The agenda issue can get complicated. A friend wanted to publish a cache that contained information on Sudden Oak Death (which is a major problem in my area, where every acre of open space has been affected by it), with information on the policies and guidelines that the land manager had adopted and what precautions cachers can take to help prevent its spread. It was labeled as an agenda -- so he published a watered-down version and left it to me to give some of the "rest of the story" in a log.

 

But the problem with events is that caching takes in a wide range of social perspectives. I saw a booth at a mega-event that seemed to have something to do with immigration, which I thought was interesting until a friend reminded me that not everyone is a former community organizer, tree-hugging progressive from Northern California with hippie roots. Event caches could easily be used to promote certain religions, certain activities (even scouting might be controversial because of its stance on gay rights), or certain politics that add controversy to the game (like a caching event to call awareness to the "myths of global warming").

 

A Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ event might or might not attract a lot of support, but it would be a fascinating news article for a local paper to run on caching.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Erickson

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

Welcome to the Healthcare Reform debate.

No doubt! Ugh! Isn't that a mess?

 

Though if this helps bring to an end Democrat vs Republican Party Platform Politics and ushers in an era where every representative can vote their own consciousness and belief in what their constituents need then I am all for it!

[+Castle Mischief]

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

Ed, bear in mind, if Groundspeak removes its agenda free guideline with respect to events, that might not be a good thing. How long would it take till someone hosted an annual "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" event?

 

That would be fine. Few if any would attend and it would be so roundly ridiculed that no one else would try it, end of problem. Much like the Al Qaeda event question posed earlier in this thread.

 

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

 

Which is all well and good until somebody has an event that isn't exaggerated hyperbole and is supported by enough people that the general populace equates it to Geocaching as a whole. Not all "offensive" agendas are only supported by a minority and what's offensive to me may not bother you at all.

 

Seriously, do you want geocaching events to become picket lines and screaming matches? How soon till somebody schedules an event in direct opposition to another event at the same time/place and an all out brawl erupts?

 

Can you imagine TPTB trying to deal with the flak every time they have to turn down an event because it's too close to the schedule/location of an oppositional event?

 

The events would be perceived as political rallies by the local governments and then you got permits to deal with and yadda yadda yadda...

 

No thanks.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The agenda issue can get interesting. A friend wanted to publish a cache that contained information on Sudden Oak Death (which is a major problem in my area, where every acre of open space has been affected by it), with information on the policies and guidelines that the land manager had adopted and what precautions cachers can take to help prevent its spread. It was labeled as an agenda -- so he published a watered-down version and left it to me to give some of the "rest of the story" in a log.

 

But the problem with events is that caching takes in a wide range of social perspectives. I saw a booth at a mega-event that seemed to have something to do with immigration, which I thought was interesting until a friend reminded me that not everyone is a former community organizer, tree-hugging liberal from Northern California with hippie roots. Event caches could easily be used to promote certain religions, certain activities (even scouting might be controversial because of its stance on gay rights), or certain politics that add controversy to the game (like a caching event to call awareness to the "myths of global warming").

 

A Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ event might or might not attract a lot of support, but it would be an interesting news article.

Sure, as do the regularly published descriptions stating that we hunt 'buried' treasure, or the almost weekly stories about a bomb squad having to deal with a geocache.

 

There are lots of stories out there, they don't seem to have hurt the image of the game all that much.

 

In fact, if it's news stories that help or hurt our game, wouldn't "Geocachers unite for a picnic lunch to raise awareness for the American Red Cross"... the type of event that would be listed FAR more often than "Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ" would be.

 

Does it help our image more to say that we hide from controversy in fear of criticism or that we try to help the world around us?

 

I don't understand not doing something good for the majority because some extreme event may possibly draw an unflattering news article.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

Ed, bear in mind, if Groundspeak removes its agenda free guideline with respect to events, that might not be a good thing. How long would it take till someone hosted an annual "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" event?

 

That would be fine. Few if any would attend and it would be so roundly ridiculed that no one else would try it, end of problem. Much like the Al Qaeda event question posed earlier in this thread.

 

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

 

Which is all well and good until somebody has an event that isn't exaggerated hyperbole and is supported by enough people that the general populace equates it to Geocaching as a whole. Not all "offensive" agendas are only supported by a minority and what's offensive to me may not bother you at all.

 

Seriously, do you want geocaching events to become picket lines and screaming matches? How soon till somebody schedules an event in direct opposition to another event at the same time/place and an all out brawl erupts?

 

Can you imagine TPTB trying to deal with the flak every time they have to turn down an event because it's too close to the schedule/location of an oppositional event?

 

The events would be perceived as political rallies by the local governments and then you got permits to deal with and yadda yadda yadda...

 

No thanks.

Geocaching.com is a cache listing service which also provides a mechanism for announcing non-geocaching (by rule) events.

 

Can you show me where Groundspeak or Geocaching.com attaches their imprimatur and states "We support this event"?

 

Stating that the nature of an event reflects well or poorly on Groundspeak or Geocaching.com is bullhonkery. Like Craigslist or any other listing site they are not stating any opinion by listing any event.

[+geodarts]

Does it help our image more to say that we hide from controversy in fear of criticism or that we try to help the world around us?

 

I don't understand not doing something good for the majority because some extreme event may possibly draw an unflattering news article.

 

I tend to agree with you in theory, and wonder whether a caching event at a Red Cross blood drive would be seen as an agenda. A few years ago, there was a local caching event that just happened to be at a pancake breakfast, held on the side of a mountain requiring a nice hike, which was sponsored by a group that supports conservation and trailwork in the area. From what I understand, it took a lot of work to convince reviewers that the caching event was not an agenda.

 

Yet, as someone who believes that the "personal is political," I find myself on an odd end of this thread. But after working in various organizations where people define consensus as being equivalent to their personal agenda, would I want this particular activity to be equated with any faction or group? Perhaps not.

 

Groundspeak might be a (not so) simple listing service, but things that are defined as part of the game that Groundspeak lists are another matter.

 

I think caching could take a more active role in raising awareness of things that are within the sphere of the game -- a CITO event does this to some extent, but a lot more could be done. And as an individual, there are things that I can do within caching that are consistent with my view of how we can do something good in this world. But things appear to be increasingly polarized as it is. To the extent that caching stands outside that, and can get me talking to people that I might never have met, it is not a bad thing.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Erickson

[+Castle Mischief]

Just because something is does not mean that it ever shall be.

Ed, bear in mind, if Groundspeak removes its agenda free guideline with respect to events, that might not be a good thing. How long would it take till someone hosted an annual "Nuke A Gay Whale For Jesus" event?

 

That would be fine. Few if any would attend and it would be so roundly ridiculed that no one else would try it, end of problem. Much like the Al Qaeda event question posed earlier in this thread.

 

Not doing something good for the majority because an extremist minority might do something offensive makes no sense to me.

 

Which is all well and good until somebody has an event that isn't exaggerated hyperbole and is supported by enough people that the general populace equates it to Geocaching as a whole. Not all "offensive" agendas are only supported by a minority and what's offensive to me may not bother you at all.

 

Seriously, do you want geocaching events to become picket lines and screaming matches? How soon till somebody schedules an event in direct opposition to another event at the same time/place and an all out brawl erupts?

 

Can you imagine TPTB trying to deal with the flak every time they have to turn down an event because it's too close to the schedule/location of an oppositional event?

 

The events would be perceived as political rallies by the local governments and then you got permits to deal with and yadda yadda yadda...

 

No thanks.

Geocaching.com is a cache listing service which also provides a mechanism for announcing non-geocaching (by rule) events.

 

Can you show me where Groundspeak or Geocaching.com attaches their imprimatur and states "We support this event"?

 

Stating that the nature of an event reflects well or poorly on Groundspeak or Geocaching.com is bullhonkery. Like Craigslist or any other listing site they are not stating any opinion by listing any event.

 

Not Groundspeak or Geocaching.com. By "Geocaching as a whole" I generally meant the other cachers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I tend to agree with you in theory, and wonder whether a caching event at a Red Cross blood drive would be seen as an agenda.

Yes, it would. While I was spending 42 days, beginning Day 2, operating emergency communications radios on battery and generator power from a tent in East Point Biloxi MS after Katrina as a Red Cross volunteer I tried to post in request of support of the victim's needs and was told, paraphrased, 'Sorry, as much as we would really like to post that we can't support any agenda, no matter how much we agree with it'.

 

At the time I was furious that this vast communications capability was being denied. I wanted to get the word out about local needs in any way possible and geocaching.com was an excellent tool to do that internationally.

 

I think while The Frog Palace really wanted to help, and did in many ways that we may never know about, their dedication to keeping geocaching agenda-free was important to them.

 

It took me a long time after that to see that their position was correct. Geocaching should be free of agenda. Groundspeak and geocaching.com should not support causes. As a listing site they should allow members to list events for, by and about geocachers, but that event having an agenda should not matter.

 

I have heard Reviewers state something like 'We don't have to like the cache, but if it is within the guidelines we have to publish it'. Take that same attitude with events!

 

However, I do not think that events should be geocaches!

 

The fact that events cannot be held for the purpose of geocaching bears that out.

 

Travel bugs can have an agenda. I haven't seen any "Nuke Gay Whales For Christ" TBs pop up, but if one did it would not reflect badly on Groundspeak or geocaching.com, so what is different about listing events?

Edited December 7, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+sTeamTraen]

Geocaching.com is a cache listing service which also provides a mechanism for announcing non-geocaching (by rule) events.

 

Can you show me where Groundspeak or Geocaching.com attaches their imprimatur and states "We support this event"?

It's often stated - sometimes by volunteers and maybe even lackeys - that Groundspeak's objection to agendas and solicitation is because of the possibility of upsetting people, and/or because if someone has an event or a cache for Jesus, someone will want one for Jihad.

 

I prefer a different explanation, which I think is even simpler, and probably more all-American. This site reaches a million people, give or take a factor of two. If I owned a resource that allowed messages to reach a million people, I'd either want to be paid for its use, or to be the one who decides who gets a freebie. Hence, on the one hand, paid-for advertising and "no commercial caches"; on the other, Groundspeak and not forum members deciding what's a good cause, and "no charity events". KBI would be proud...

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Geocaching.com is a cache listing service which also provides a mechanism for announcing non-geocaching (by rule) events.

 

Can you show me where Groundspeak or Geocaching.com attaches their imprimatur and states "We support this event"?

It's often stated - sometimes by volunteers and maybe even lackeys - that Groundspeak's objection to agendas and solicitation is because of the possibility of upsetting people, and/or because if someone has an event or a cache for Jesus, someone will want one for Jihad.

 

I prefer a different explanation, which I think is even simpler, and probably more all-American. This site reaches a million people, give or take a factor of two. If I owned a resource that allowed messages to reach a million people, I'd either want to be paid for its use, or to be the one who decides who gets a freebie. Hence, on the one hand, paid-for advertising and "no commercial caches"; on the other, Groundspeak and not forum members deciding what's a good cause, and "no charity events". KBI would be proud...

Simple enough, restrict Event Listings ownership to Premium Members!

[+KBI]

I covered that possibility ...

So did I.

 

Argh!!!! Government Bad!!!! Grrrr!!!

Oversimplifying someone else’s opinion to the point that you completely misrepresent it may make you feel better, and may be an effective way to gain a few high fives from those who share your own view, but I know that you know that it is intellectually dishonest as all get out.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I just sent a donation to a British fellow that is walking the length of the Amazon River. He has been at it for over 2 years and has about 8 months to go. I wonder if he has a chance to pick up a geocache here and there on his journey in the 'woods?.'

 

I know that there are a few of caches in Iquitos, Peru, one of the larger cities along the Amazon river (it's the larges city in the world that is not accessible by road). One is a virtual, one an earthcache (that has not been found since it was published in September), and there are a couple of traditionals. One of those has not been found either. There is a chance I may be able to find a couple of them early next year if the currently tentative plans to go there on business comes through.

 

"Walking" the amazon rivers seems an odd way to travel. Years ago I read a wonderful book called "Running the Amazon" the chronicled a journal of several people that paddled it from source to the ocean in kayaks.

[+Sol seaker]

 

Is there any valuable reason to justify the prohibition to publish any social cache event nowadays, for instance??

 

 

YES....

 

As was stated very nicely above, this is a chance to get away from the world, to escape these problems even if only for a little while. Why would you want to take the fun out of caching?

 

In addition to that, you run the risk of people not agreeing with your social agenda.

that kills the geocaching spirit, which I see as reaching beyond all agendas across all social and other boundaries.

 

We come here to meet on common ground.

 

Once we start bringing up the agendas geocaching will lose that "across all lines" status.

 

It will be just more stuff to divide us all, rather than bringing us all together, which is what I like about geocaching.

 

Start bringing out the agendas and we will spend our time arguing about that rather than coming together in peace.

 

A place for us all to come together no matter what our background.

 

That sounds like a REALLY BIG, Really great social agenda to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Start bringing out the agendas and we will spend our time arguing about that rather than coming together in peace.

Yeah, rather than arguing about micros and lame hides and the really important things that so often bring us together in peace!

[+briansnat]

In fact, if it's news stories that help or hurt our game, wouldn't "Geocachers unite for a picnic lunch to raise awareness for the American Red Cross"... the type of event that would be listed FAR more often than "Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ" would be.

 

Does it help our image more to say that we hide from controversy in fear of criticism or that we try to help the world around us?

 

There is nothing preventing geocachers from uniting for any cause. Earlier this year a group of about 15 geocachers gathered here to spend a day building a new hiking trail in a state park. After a day of some hard, physical labor, the hiking trail was complete. They did so because they felt a desire to give back to the community. They didn't need the reward of incrementing their find count to do so.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

In fact, if it's news stories that help or hurt our game, wouldn't "Geocachers unite for a picnic lunch to raise awareness for the American Red Cross"... the type of event that would be listed FAR more often than "Nuke a Gay Whale for Christ" would be.

 

Does it help our image more to say that we hide from controversy in fear of criticism or that we try to help the world around us?

 

There is nothing preventing geocachers from uniting for any cause. Earlier this year a group of about 15 geocachers gathered here to spend a day building a new hiking trail in a state park. After a day of some hard, physical labor, the hiking trail was complete. They did so because they felt a desire to give back to the community. They didn't need the reward of incrementing their find count to do so.

Totally agree. An Event isn't a geocache and one should not earn a smilie for hosting or attending.

 

As to the rest... those folks used word-of-mouth, maybe local forums, whatever was available to them to get the word out so interested geocachers would come do trail maintenance.

 

Wouldn't it have been much more effective, easier and brought more attention to their cause if they could have posted a "Trail Building Day in YouGottaWork State Park" event?

Edited December 7, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler