Jump to content

Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?


Bulldograce
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Today I received notification from Geocaching.com of multiple caches that were archived.

 

Upon further examination it became quite apparent that this cacher "KG6EAR", deliberately archived his caches to ENDORSE; a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

 

The commentary consisted of;

"To celebrate a "day with out a gay" I thought I would eliminate some of my geocaches to call attention to the contributions made by gays in our society. I deserve to marry whom I please. I would never wish to control anybody else's ability to marry. It's a sad statement on society that anyone should even have to make statements like this. We clearly haven't completely reached a total state of enlightenment. Miles from it."

 

 

What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

 

A couple of example caches...

 

The Secret of the Secret Garden

 

Event

Link to comment

A cache owner can choose to remove their cache listings for whatever reason they'd like.

 

I'm not sure how effective a political statement is on the geocaching.com servers and I'd just as soon keep it out of our activity, but not the end of the world. The archived listing won't be popping up moving forward, so his statements will disappear pretty quickly.

Link to comment

A cache owner can choose to remove their cache listings for whatever reason they'd like.

 

I'm not sure how effective a political statement is on the geocaching.com servers and I'd just as soon keep it out of our activity, but not the end of the world. The archived listing won't be popping up moving forward, so his statements will disappear pretty quickly.

 

ayep.

Link to comment

Today I received notification from Geocaching.com of multiple caches that were archived.

 

Upon further examination it became quite apparent that this cacher "KG6EAR", deliberately archived his caches to ENDORSE; a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

 

The commentary consisted of;

"To celebrate a "day with out a gay" I thought I would eliminate some of my geocaches to call attention to the contributions made by gays in our society. I deserve to marry whom I please. I would never wish to control anybody else's ability to marry. It's a sad statement on society that anyone should even have to make statements like this. We clearly haven't completely reached a total state of enlightenment. Miles from it."

 

 

What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

 

A couple of example caches...

 

The Secret of the Secret Garden

 

Event

 

They're HIS/HER listings. They can archive them if they want.

 

However, if this irked me in any way, I'd swoop in and place a cache nearby, so they couldn't unarchive them when they change their mind. :huh::D

 

That'll teach 'em to bring their agenda into geocaching through a loophole. :D

 

Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

Help me here, this wasn't done in retaliation to something gc.com (supposedly) did?

 

I would suspect that it was more likely prompted by the 'call in gay' protest that was planned for today.

 

While I personally think it was an interesting idea on part of the CO to participate in that way (if that was their intention), not sure if I think it is a very effective method for spreading the word... but then, I'm not sure how effective or positive calling in sick today would have been either.

Link to comment
Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D
They can still have civil unions, so it's a battle over semantics and not over rights. California voted and the majority decided what was best for California.

 

Archiving caches over this was pointless.

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

1. Looking at unpublished caches for the account in question, I see no evidence of a run-in with the cache reviewers about a cache submission. To the contrary, there's evidence that this account holder has a good relationship with the local cache reviewers, having gone out of their way to provide helpful information about a land management issue several months back. Unless new facts come to light, it's best not to conclude that Groundspeak or its volunteers had any role in this incident.

 

2. Should the cache owner later decide to request the unarchival of their caches, they would face an uphill battle on several fronts. Cache reviewers are volunteers and have better things to do than to help reverse rash actions by cache owners. Archival is meant to be permanent. The owner could have temporarily disabled their listings and (but for this forum thread) this would have had a greater impact in terms of the agenda they're promoting. Also, the archival logs promote an agenda and I could see where Groundspeak or a cache reviewer might ask for the removal of that material as a condition of unarchiving the listings.

 

3. Please keep discussion in this forum thread focused upon the action taken by the cache owner as it relates to geocache ownership, the listing guidelines, etc. If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage, the recent Proposition 8 vote in California, etc., the Off Topic forum offers a warm and sunny home for your thread.

Link to comment
Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D
They can still have civil unions, so it's a battle over semantics and not over rights. California voted and the majority decided what was best for California.

 

Archiving caches over this was pointless.

Agreed, but lets take that a little further.

Archiving ones own caches over any agenda not directly related to geocaching is pointless.

Link to comment
Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D
They can still have civil unions, so it's a battle over semantics and not over rights. California voted and the majority decided what was best for California.

 

Archiving caches over this was pointless.

 

Well this thread will be locked soon now that the fuse is lit. :D

 

Let me respond with a question: Please give us an example of a time and place where "Separate BUT Equal" really worked??? :huh::):)

 

:D

 

BTW - I used to share your sentiment. My wife asked me that question and it changed the way I thought about the issue.

 

i_just_like_rainbows-6229.jpg

Link to comment
Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D
They can still have civil unions, so it's a battle over semantics and not over rights. California voted and the majority decided what was best for California.

 

Archiving caches over this was pointless.

 

Well this thread will be locked soon now that the fuse is lit. :D

 

Let me respond with a question: Please give us an example of a time and place where "Separate BUT Equal" really worked??? :huh::):)

 

:D

 

BTW - I used to share your sentiment. My wife asked me that question and it changed the way I thought about the issue.

 

i_just_like_rainbows-6229.jpg

Start a thread in off-topic and I will answer you. :)
Link to comment
What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

Two words come to mind.

 

The first word is "sneaky". It's a way to slip an agenda onto a website that has gone through great lengths and taken a lot of hits because of their sometimes unpopular, anti-agenda stance.

 

Next word is "silly" - because it is.

Link to comment

3. Please keep discussion in this forum thread focused upon the action taken by the cache owner as it relates to geocache ownership, the listing guidelines, etc. If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage, the recent Proposition 8 vote in California, etc., the Off Topic forum offers a warm and sunny home for your thread.

 

Oh, for pity's sake, no. :D I practically live over in that forum.

Link to comment

The cache owner probably felt that archiving the caches was just one way of expressing support, I think it is fine.

People support causes by expressing their beliefs in the communities where they consider themsleves a member. I think the archiving of the caches was a way of expressing solidarity with a cause, a simple straightforward expression of support.

 

Geocachers are a community like any other, communities are people who live together, not people who are like minded. Choosing to make your community aware of your beliefs is fine. Choosing to further an agenda through cache placement is not fine but that isn't what happened.

 

I won't try to characterize the actions of the cache owner.

Suggesting their actions were not well thought out is incredibly arrogant.

 

No one can know the mind of another person, this cacher may have decided to make a condsidered protest in a community that is personally valued, it may have been very well thought out and we will never know when or how the decision was reached unless that cacher chooses to tell us.

Link to comment
What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

Two words come to mind.

 

The first word is "sneaky". It's a way to slip an agenda onto a website that has gone through great lengths and taken a lot of hits because of their sometimes unpopular, anti-agenda stance.

 

C'mon now, should we really believe that this site has an "anti-agenda stance"? I mean, go search for caches called SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and see how many are out there that have not been archived. These shouldn't have been allowed to begin with. Matter of fact, some have been denied publication for that very agenda. Yet others are allowed to stay, and even some new ones pop up.

Link to comment
What are your opinions and thoughts on this situation?

 

Two words come to mind.

 

The first word is "sneaky". It's a way to slip an agenda onto a website that has gone through great lengths and taken a lot of hits because of their sometimes unpopular, anti-agenda stance.

 

C'mon now, should we really believe that this site has an "anti-agenda stance"? I mean, go search for caches called SUPPORT OUR TROOPS and see how many are out there that have not been archived. These shouldn't have been allowed to begin with. Matter of fact, some have been denied publication for that very agenda. Yet others are allowed to stay, and even some new ones pop up.

 

There are a dozen caches called "Support our Troops

You are right!! (and the obvious obverse) :D

Apparently some agendas are OK and some are not.

The last one was created just a few months ago Support our Troops

Link to comment
Seriously though, if I was a homosexual in California, I'd be an activist too. I'm amazed at the lack of consideration we still have for fellow human beings just because their lifestyle is different. :D
They can still have civil unions, so it's a battle over semantics and not over rights. California voted and the majority decided what was best for California.

 

Archiving caches over this was pointless.

 

Well this thread will be locked soon now that the fuse is lit. :huh:

 

Let me respond with a question: Please give us an example of a time and place where "Separate BUT Equal" really worked??? :):):)

 

:D

 

BTW - I used to share your sentiment. My wife asked me that question and it changed the way I thought about the issue.

 

i_just_like_rainbows-6229.jpg

Start a thread in off-topic and I will answer you. :)

 

Your thread awaits. :)

 

Sorry Keystone. You called it. I started composing almost immediately, but dadblasted work got in the way of me finishing quickly. :D

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

I do not understand how archiving one's caches to protest a particular issue, which is not connected with geocaching, promotes one's stance on that issue. It makes those who it inconveniences AWARE of the cache owner's stance and perhaps the depth of the cache owner's feelings. But, I fail to see how inconveniencing people makes them sympathetic. (And, archiving one's own caches does not really impress me with the depth of the owner's feelings.)

 

If I was going to archive any of my caches to protest a particular issue, I'd archive the ones that would inconvenience those who supported my OPPONENTS. If nothing else, it would serve as a punishment for those who supported my opponents. However, I'd think twice or three times before archiving those that would inconvenience my supporters or friends. It might just be enough to turn them against me.

Link to comment

C'mon now, should we really believe that this site has an "anti-agenda stance"?

Yes, you should. It's in the listing guidelines, after all.

 

You should also believe that the site has other stances. They're in the forum guidelines, after all.

It may be in the guidelines, but if it isn't consistently enforced for ALL agendas, then why should it be taken seriously?

Link to comment

C'mon now, should we really believe that this site has an "anti-agenda stance"?

Yes, you should. It's in the listing guidelines, after all.

 

You should also believe that the site has other stances. They're in the forum guidelines, after all.

It may be in the guidelines, but if it isn't consistently enforced for ALL agendas, then why should it be taken seriously?

 

You do realize you're having this conversation with Captain Clorox, don't you? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Definitely a loophole in the agenda policy. But unless this site is going to start regulating opinion there's not much one can do. Additionally, I'm sure there are many more reason to archive a cache than there is to place one.

 

Plus, it worked. I had only heard of the "Day without a Gay" once before and this brought the idea back to the forefront. Awareness is the key of any movement.

Link to comment

Definitely a loophole in the agenda policy. But unless this site is going to start regulating opinion there's not much one can do.

Well, I suppose that someone could edit all the archive logs to simply say "Archived," and then lock the cache pages to future logs. Me, I haven't the time to do that. I'm really upset about the proposed bailout of the domestic automobile industry, so I'm going to drown my hamsters.

Link to comment

Definitely a loophole in the agenda policy. But unless this site is going to start regulating opinion there's not much one can do.

Well, I suppose that someone could edit all the archive logs to simply say "Archived," and then lock the cache pages to future logs. Me, I haven't the time to do that. I'm really upset about the proposed bailout of the domestic automobile industry, so I'm going to drown my hamsters.

 

Why drown them? Just hypnotize them into thinking they are lemmings and point them in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean.

Link to comment

If you're gay, just be gay and shut up. Same if you're straight. Be straight and shut the heck up. The hypocricy is that if I archived caches to call attention to my straightness, I'd be considered a homophobe. The CO can do what he/she wants but the entire notion is ridiculous.

Link to comment

Did anyone stop to think that by creating this thread and then continuing to add to it is exactly what the CO wants??

 

As mentioned earlier, the actual archiving would have been noticed by about 10 people. By creating this thread and turning it into the most active thread on the site, we are fulfilling his wish.

 

Just stop posting and his purposed is defeated.

Link to comment
If you're gay, just be gay and shut up. Same if you're straight. Be straight and shut the heck up. The hypocricy is that if I archived caches to call attention to my straightness, I'd be considered a homophobe.

I think you missed the point. The owner wasn’t calling attention to his homosexuality. He was calling attention to oppression.

 

For your analogy to apply you would instead archive your caches in order to call attention to being oppressed because of your heterosexuality. If you were, in fact, being oppressed because of your heterosexuality, then there would be no hypocrisy.

 

The CO can do what he/she wants but the entire notion is ridiculous.

Yes, it is a little silly. Whether one agrees with the protest agenda or not, an invisible protest seems pretty pointless.

Link to comment
If you're gay, just be gay and shut up. Same if you're straight. Be straight and shut the heck up. The hypocricy is that if I archived caches to call attention to my straightness, I'd be considered a homophobe.

I think you missed the point. The owner wasn’t calling attention to his homosexuality. He was calling attention to oppression.

 

I fully understand what the point was intended to be and I still think it was lame.

 

I am for equal rights as much as the next guy but the typical American has NO IDEA what real oppression is.. I got a kick out of your analogy.

Link to comment

I would place a cache at every location that he archived.

 

But I'm hoping that he's not abusing the archive facility. Archiving is permanent, did he archive them or disable them?

If the reviewer lets his archived, not disabled, caches be reactivated, for any reason, then I'll lodge a formal protest with Groundspeak.

Link to comment
Plus, it worked. I had only heard of the "Day without a Gay" once before and this brought the idea back to the forefront. Awareness is the key of any movement.
It did work for the handful of people in this thread. I hadn't heard of it either. What day is it? I'll have to make sure that I'm not sick that day. :rolleyes:
Link to comment

[memory trigger]

...oppressed because of your heterosexuality...

[/memory trigger] :rolleyes:

14 years ago I got denied a wait job because I wasn't gay. 3 years ago I got denied a 2 night a week contract by a gay nightclub because I was nether gay nor transvestite. I took advantage of free consolations both times and the lawyers basically laughed at me telling me there was nothing that could be done about it, and yet I fail to see how archiving caches over it would even begin to call "more than negligible" attention to it.

In fact a protest sign would do a better job.

 

What I should have done was find a gay lawyer. :D

Link to comment

I would place a cache at every location that he archived.

 

But I'm hoping that he's not abusing the archive facility. Archiving is permanent, did he archive them or disable them?

If the reviewer lets his archived, not disabled, caches be reactivated, for any reason, then I'll lodge a formal protest with Groundspeak.

Some people mistakenly archive caches because they don't understand the difference between archiving an disabling. It probably happens more the other way where someone disables a cache when they meant to archive it. The reviewers are generally helpful in correcting the case where some used the wrong log. In this case, I suspect the cache owner intended to archive the cache. Disabling a cache for one "day without a gay" would not have seemed as effective. The point of the protest was to make people aware of the gay community and the contributions gays make to the community in general. The theory is that this would then translate into at least sympathy for gays desire for equal rights to marry. I'm not sure if the second part follows from the first, but in this case the cache owner has gotten us to realize that many different people including people with different sexual orientation contribute to geocaching.

Link to comment

I would place a cache at every location that he archived.

 

But I'm hoping that he's not abusing the archive facility. Archiving is permanent, did he archive them or disable them?

If the reviewer lets his archived, not disabled, caches be reactivated, for any reason, then I'll lodge a formal protest with Groundspeak.

 

True, I'd call it abuse of the archive facility. And if they were disabled, that would actually have drawn more attention to his cause. Then again, this forum thread was started, never mind. :D But he could have been totally clueless, and not known the difference between archiving and disabling. Certainly was clueless about getting his hand slapped over the whole "agenda" thing. Probably one of those happy 80% of geocachers who never set foot in these forums. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I would place a cache at every location that he archived.

 

But I'm hoping that he's not abusing the archive facility. Archiving is permanent, did he archive them or disable them?

If the reviewer lets his archived, not disabled, caches be reactivated, for any reason, then I'll lodge a formal protest with Groundspeak.

I have been told by reviewers that archived caches can be reinstated if they meet the current guidelines. Therefore, I would have no problem with these caches eventually being reinstated if the cache owner so chose if he were to make them comply with the guidelines.

Link to comment
Plus, it worked. I had only heard of the "Day without a Gay" once before and this brought the idea back to the forefront. Awareness is the key of any movement.
It did work for the handful of people in this thread. I hadn't heard of it either. What day is it? I'll have to make sure that I'm not sick that day. :D

There's a woman I work with who was out sick yesterday. I'll have to ask her today if she's a lesbian. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...