Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?

[+sbell111]

I don't believe that any changes are necessary. If the CO wants the caches unarchived and they fit the current guidelines, they should be unarchived. Otherwise, the CO should be free to build new cache pages for the caches. These new cache pages should be promptly listed if they meet the current guidelines.

[+Bulldograce]

I had mixed feeling about posting this situation.

 

I do not support the behavior portrayed in the archival of these caches or the specific " Day without a Gay" agenda.

 

This I found quite irritating, as if the Geocaching community was "punished" due to this cachers sexual orientation and beliefs.

 

In addition the owner of the caches says "I thought I would eliminate some of my geocaches to call attention to the contributions made by gays in our society". So there is no mistake that he intentionally archived them.

 

This action performed has done nothing but hurt the geocaching community. Removal of perfectly good and enjoyable caches helped in what way?

 

What I see; is a sneaky scheme and abuse of Geocaching.com as a platform for a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

[+sbell111]

What I see; is a sneaky scheme and abuse of Geocaching.com as a platform for a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

How was the guideline abused? Is it not a cache owner's decision whether or not to keep a cache active on GC.com? Can a person not archive his caches for whatever reason he chooses, whether or not the rest of us think the idea has merit? Edited December 12, 2008 by sbell111

[+Bulldograce]

How was the guideline abused? Is it not a cache owner's decision whether or not to keep a cache active on GC.com? Can a person not archive his caches for whatever reason he chooses, whether or not the rest of us think the idea has merit?

 

I do see what you are trying to convey... This is directly from the Geocaching guidelines:

Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Thus I would say the guideline was abused...

 

I agree that the owner can archive for ANY reason.... But I do NOT agree that they use GC.com as there platform to sneak in any agenda regardless of merit.

[+Bulldograce]

Let me rephrase what I just wrote...

 

 

Yes I agree that a cache owner CAN archive for any reason. Though making that reason public in order to advance there agenda and use GC.com as the platform for that personal, political, sexual or religious agenda... would be abuse of the guidelines.

[+JeremyR]

Thus I would say the guideline was abused...

 

I agree that the owner can archive for ANY reason.... But I do NOT agree that they use GC.com as there platform to sneak in any agenda regardless of merit.

Broadly speaking, the more that an authority (be it governmental or commercial) tries to stop people promoting a particular agenda through a particular means, the more people will look for the loopholes and try to protest their point anyhow. In any activity that involves large numbers of diverse people, you're going to encounter people you don't agree with doing things that you don't accept. You have two choices in this circumstance: (1) Get wound up about it and feel like you have to do something back (like post in the forums) or (2) Say to yourself "I don't agree with that but whatever..." and then get on with your day. Your choice.

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't believe that any changes are necessary. If the CO wants the caches unarchived and they fit the current guidelines, they should be unarchived. Otherwise, the CO should be free to build new cache pages for the caches. These new cache pages should be promptly listed if they meet the current guidelines.

Yup. Pretty simple.

[+Renegade Knight]

Let me rephrase what I just wrote...

 

 

Yes I agree that a cache owner CAN archive for any reason. Though making that reason public in order to advance there agenda and use GC.com as the platform for that personal, political, sexual or religious agenda... would be abuse of the guidelines.

 

The best answer is to *YAWN* what was your point again? Oh, yeah, use that method on the offending party.

 

I found the method, boring, uncreated, pointless, futile, and still don't understand the point, the agenda, the problem and don't care to bother to figure it out. The dude archived a cache. Not exactly excitning news. Now if the police blew it up. That's interesting.

[+trainlove]

Yup. Pretty simple.

Then there is simply no such thing as archive anymore.

Why have a SBA attribute at all either?

[+sbell111]

Yup. Pretty simple.

Then there is simply no such thing as archive anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why have a SBA attribute at all either?

I've often wondered why that attribute exists. However, I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread. As far as I know, no one logged an SBA on the referenced caches.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I had mixed feeling about posting this situation.

 

I do not support the behavior portrayed in the archival of these caches or the specific " Day without a Gay" agenda.

 

This I found quite irritating, as if the Geocaching community was "punished" due to this cachers sexual orientation and beliefs.

 

In addition the owner of the caches says "I thought I would eliminate some of my geocaches to call attention to the contributions made by gays in our society". So there is no mistake that he intentionally archived them.

 

This action performed has done nothing but hurt the geocaching community. Removal of perfectly good and enjoyable caches helped in what way?

 

What I see; is a sneaky scheme and abuse of Geocaching.com as a platform for a personal, political, moral, sexual and religious agenda.

 

Possibly, you should put yourself in their shoes just for a short while before judging their actions? As I see it, gays are discriminated on merely because of their sexual preference. The point trying to be made, what would the world do without gays, rings true here too, there'd be that many less caches and cachers, that many less coins and coiners, that many less everything in the world. I think the point was made quite well, but I think archiving might have been a bit overboard, just a disabled cache would have done about as much.

 

But, then someone might have had reason to complain about the log, so actually, I guess archiving was probably best.

[+trainlove]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Well, if archive is exactly the same as temporarily disable (disable listing) then why have both abilities?

[+sbell111]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Well, if archive is exactly the same as temporarily disable (disable listing) then why have both abilities?

It isn't exactly the same.

 

If I disable one of my caches, I can make it 'active' at any time of my choosing without review by a reviewer and it doesn't lose any of it's grandfathered goodness. If I archive my cache, I do not have teh power to reactivate it at my whim. I must contact a reviewer, who will rereview it at a time based on their schedule. It must now meet all current guidelines as it is no longer grandfathered.

[+Renegade Knight]

... what would the world do without gays, rings true here...

 

Let me clarify some confusion. Gay is something you can do. It's not who you are. If you confuse who you are with what you do you have a problem. This is simple reality and holds true for everthing humans can obsesse over. I drink. I am not a Drunk. If I were a Drunk, I have a problem. There is zero judgment on the rightness of wrongness in that statment. Humans can obsesse over anything to the pont of it being a problem because it impacts their life in negative ways.

 

The Sexually obsessed do tend to be discriminated against. However that holds true for a variety of obsessions. That their is one variation in social favore doesn't lessen the discrimation against the others, or make the one class more deserving of special protection above and beyond human rights that we all share.

 

Then the qeustion of what the world would do without "Gays". One answer is "about the same if it were sluts, man whores, leg men, or women who like tight butts. The real answer is that's a stupid question because you are labeling someone by a single trait. The real question is how would the world get along without Jim, or Jane. My uncle, my friend, or my co worker. Strangly I learned this lesson from another "Gay" protest. This guy and that group must not be on the same page.

 

When you look at the contributions of Gays to the world. Another stupid point. Artists gave us art. Scientists gave us discoveries. The founding fathers gave us a country. They would have gave us these things regardless of where they park their equipment. It's as meaningful as pointing out "look at all the great contribuations of the nailbiters". I'll bet any founding fathers who were nail biters didn't make their contribution via nail biting.

 

However this is still a cache, and the owner can archive the cache for any reason they want. No skin off my back.

[+Renegade Knight]

Yup. Pretty simple.

Then there is simply no such thing as archive anymore.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Why have a SBA attribute at all either?

I've often wondered why that attribute exists. However, I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread. As far as I know, no one logged an SBA on the referenced caches.

My guess is so it can be filtered. SBA usually means there is a problem. The cache is active until the problem is resolved. Some folks would want to filter it out and avoid the problem themselves.

[+Rockin Roddy]

... what would the world do without gays, rings true here...

 

Let me clarify some confusion. Gay is something you can do. It's not who you are. If you confuse who you are with what you do you have a problem. This is simple reality and holds true for everthing humans can obsesse over. I drink. I am not a Drunk. If I were a Drunk, I have a problem. There is zero judgment on the rightness of wrongness in that statment. Humans can obsesse over anything to the pont of it being a problem because it impacts their life in negative ways.

 

The Sexually obsessed do tend to be discriminated against. However that holds true for a variety of obsessions. That their is one variation in social favore doesn't lessen the discrimation against the others, or make the one class more deserving of special protection above and beyond human rights that we all share.

 

Then the qeustion of what the world would do without "Gays". One answer is "about the same if it were sluts, man whores, leg men, or women who like tight butts. The real answer is that's a stupid question because you are labeling someone by a single trait. The real question is how would the world get along without Jim, or Jane. My uncle, my friend, or my co worker. Strangly I learned this lesson from another "Gay" protest. This guy and that group must not be on the same page.

 

When you look at the contributions of Gays to the world. Another stupid point. Artists gave us art. Scientists gave us discoveries. The founding fathers gave us a country. They would have gave us these things regardless of where they park their equipment. It's as meaningful as pointing out "look at all the great contribuations of the nailbiters". I'll bet any founding fathers who were nail biters didn't make their contribution via nail biting.

 

However this is still a cache, and the owner can archive the cache for any reason they want. No skin off my back.

 

First, I disagree that these people have a "Choice" as to their sexual preference I know this from seeing a loved one grow up gay, they tried hard NOT to be gay, but it's not like flipping a switch or just choosing to be one or the other.

 

Second, nailbiters, artists etc aren't discriminated upon, so that won't work in this argument. Gays are discriminated upon, beaten up killed etc, and for nothing more than being gay. It's about the same as the dicrimintaions blacks have dealt with.

[+sbell111]

... what would the world do without gays, rings true here...

Let me clarify some confusion. Gay is something you can do. It's not who you are. If you confuse who you are with what you do you have a problem. This is simple reality and holds true for everthing humans can obsesse over. I drink. I am not a Drunk. If I were a Drunk, I have a problem. There is zero judgment on the rightness of wrongness in that statment. Humans can obsesse over anything to the pont of it being a problem because it impacts their life in negative ways.

 

The Sexually obsessed do tend to be discriminated against. However that holds true for a variety of obsessions. That their is one variation in social favore doesn't lessen the discrimation against the others, or make the one class more deserving of special protection above and beyond human rights that we all share.

 

Then the qeustion of what the world would do without "Gays". One answer is "about the same if it were sluts, man whores, leg men, or women who like tight butts. The real answer is that's a stupid question because you are labeling someone by a single trait. The real question is how would the world get along without Jim, or Jane. My uncle, my friend, or my co worker. Strangly I learned this lesson from another "Gay" protest. This guy and that group must not be on the same page.

 

When you look at the contributions of Gays to the world. Another stupid point. Artists gave us art. Scientists gave us discoveries. The founding fathers gave us a country. They would have gave us these things regardless of where they park their equipment. It's as meaningful as pointing out "look at all the great contribuations of the nailbiters". I'll bet any founding fathers who were nail biters didn't make their contribution via nail biting.

 

However this is still a cache, and the owner can archive the cache for any reason they want. No skin off my back.

First, I disagree that these people have a "Choice" as to their sexual preference I know this from seeing a loved one grow up gay, they tried hard NOT to be gay, but it's not like flipping a switch or just choosing to be one or the other.

 

Second, nailbiters, artists etc aren't discriminated upon, so that won't work in this argument. Gays are discriminated upon, beaten up killed etc, and for nothing more than being gay. It's about the same as the dicrimintaions blacks have dealt with.

I agree with Roddy. Wow. Twice in the same day. Whodathunkit.

 

I believe that people are gay or not regardless of whether they ever 'park their equipment'.

Edited December 12, 2008 by sbell111

[+wbgt]

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.

I was going to say the exact same thing. I would've never known about the archiving if this thread hadn't been created.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

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.

 

Why would we want to defeat his purpose?

[+Quiggle]

I believe that people are gay or not regardless of whether they ever 'park their equipment'.

To everyone, not just sbell111, who continues to ignore Keystone's request in post #13 (I realize that post is on page 1 and we're at page 3 already) I'll quote it:

 

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.

 

To keep this topic open, let's keep it on topic, please.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

... what would the world do without gays, rings true here...

 

Let me clarify some confusion. Gay is something you can do. It's not who you are. If you confuse who you are with what you do you have a problem. This is simple reality and holds true for everthing humans can obsesse over. I drink. I am not a Drunk. If I were a Drunk, I have a problem. There is zero judgment on the rightness of wrongness in that statment. Humans can obsesse over anything to the pont of it being a problem because it impacts their life in negative ways.

 

The Sexually obsessed do tend to be discriminated against. However that holds true for a variety of obsessions. That their is one variation in social favore doesn't lessen the discrimation against the others, or make the one class more deserving of special protection above and beyond human rights that we all share.

 

Then the qeustion of what the world would do without "Gays". One answer is "about the same if it were sluts, man whores, leg men, or women who like tight butts. The real answer is that's a stupid question because you are labeling someone by a single trait. The real question is how would the world get along without Jim, or Jane. My uncle, my friend, or my co worker. Strangly I learned this lesson from another "Gay" protest. This guy and that group must not be on the same page.

 

When you look at the contributions of Gays to the world. Another stupid point. Artists gave us art. Scientists gave us discoveries. The founding fathers gave us a country. They would have gave us these things regardless of where they park their equipment. It's as meaningful as pointing out "look at all the great contribuations of the nailbiters". I'll bet any founding fathers who were nail biters didn't make their contribution via nail biting.

 

However this is still a cache, and the owner can archive the cache for any reason they want. No skin off my back.

 

I can tell that your heart is in the right place here. You're looking out for equality. Some of the language you've used makes me a little uncomfortable because I feel like you're minimising the oppression that sexual orientation can receive. As long as you acknowledge that this discrimination exists and that it's wrong for it to exist and then acknowledge that there are people who are trying their best to counter this discrimination, then we're on the same page.

 

EDIT to come on-topic:

As to whether it belongs in Geocaching, it seems that it was perfectly within the guidelines to do so, and while it wasn't effective at raising awareness to the oppression with just the archiving, the resulting forum discussion has had some footprint. This is a game that puts everyone on a level playing field so to use it as a method to say, "If I wasn't here, this cache wouldn't be here." raising eyebrows.

 

Now, if this individual was stuffed in the closet and forced to marry "Judy" down the block because he lived in fear of his father and brothers finding out about his true feelings, would he still be geocaching? Would he still have hidden these caches? Would he still have had the job he has? Probably. But the statement says, "This is a part of who I am. I will not be someone else. If you want that part of me gone, you might as well want all of me gone. This is what that would look like." So... yeah... if he wasn't a gay geocacher, that cache wouldn't be hidden.

 

Unfortunately, there are people who (1) don't get it and think it's a movement to get people to realise gay exists; (2) are homophobic and want gay people gone at all costs. So, it's not very effective activism without the follow-up of people (including straights) explaining what the point is. I don't think he could have gone into all this explanation in his archive note and had it not been at risk to editing.

Edited December 12, 2008 by Redneck Parrotheads

[+Renegade Knight]

...

First, I disagree that these people have a "Choice" as to their sexual preference I know this from seeing a loved one grow up gay, they tried hard NOT to be gay, but it's not like flipping a switch or just choosing to be one or the other.

 

Second, nailbiters, artists etc aren't discriminated upon, so that won't work in this argument. Gays are discriminated upon, beaten up killed etc, and for nothing more than being gay. It's about the same as the dicrimintaions blacks have dealt with.

First I didn't actually address choice. However we all make choices. Personally I think we are all hard wired to have preferences, fetishes, and obsessions to some degree or another. We all make choices in regards to tham. Some folks are so obsessed over caching it interferes in their work. Technically that's a problem. Pick anything if it "owns you" It's a problem. Many people are owned by their money.

 

My entire point made using nail biting and gay as examples is quite simply that the great people of the past did not produce their great works while actively engaged in the act of nail biting or sex (of whatever kind). In other words my point was that neither really wasn't relevant the way the cache owner was trying to say it was. It was the loss of people who we care about that I said mattered.

[Clan Riffster]

yet you seem to be saying that the cache I identified is there since the owner may have edited it after the fact?

That's not how I interpreted Keystone's comments. I believe he was telling you how a cache which may violate a particular guideline can occasionally squeak through the reviewing process, rather than detailing the precise method employed for that specific cache.

[+wavector]

yet you seem to be saying that the cache I identified is there since the owner may have edited it after the fact?

That's not how I interpreted Keystone's comments. I believe he was telling you how a cache which may violate a particular guideline can occasionally squeak through the reviewing process, rather than detailing the precise method employed for that specific cache.

 

If a cache "squeaks" through the reviewing process and it is clearly against the guidelines it should be re-reviewed and archived. The cache I pointed out does exist, it either came to be because a cache reviewer approved it or it was edited after the fact, in either case the guideline has been abrogated, that clearly demonstrates that caches that support an agenda can be approved and are allowed to stand, the guideline clarification notwithstanding.

 

If I edited a cache name to become "Support Gay Pride" do you think I would get a note from the local reviewer? If my local reviewer approves a cache that is clearly contrary to the clarified guidelines can I expect my cache listing to stand just because my local approver is unaware of the guidelines?

If not knowing makes the cache promoting an agenda OK then the CO is well within the guidelines when he archived caches and used the logs to make a statement, I have never heard anyone suggest that caches may only be archived for certain reasons.

Clearly eliminating a cache listing cannot be promoting an agenda by using a cache listing since the end result is no cache listing.

[+flask]

does anyone besides me want to call BS on the use of "sexually obsessed" to categorically describe gay people?

 

suppose you have a nice home with a wife and kids (or husband, depending). you'd prefer to be able to live without being discriminated against because of the gender of your partner.

 

you'd prefer not to be beaten, fired, bombed out, or killed. you'd prefer to live your tidy little suburban life without garbage being dumped on your front steps or epithets sraypainted on your car.

 

come to think of it, you prefer your windshield not to have a baseball bat put through it.

 

it's really just that simple.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

does anyone besides me want to call BS on the use of "sexually obsessed" to categorically describe gay people?

 

suppose you have a nice home with a wife and kids (or husband, depending). you'd prefer to be able to live without being discriminated against because of the gender of your partner.

 

you'd prefer not to be beaten, fired, bombed out, or killed. you'd prefer to live your tidy little suburban life without garbage being dumped on your front steps or epithets sraypainted on your car.

 

come to think of it, you prefer your windshield not to have a baseball bat put through it.

 

it's really just that simple.

I agree one hundred percent with flask. The use of the term "sexually obsessed" to denote gay persons as a group is, and was, the invention of the poster, was derogatory, and is entirely unsubstantiated by facts, and, in fact, contradicts the facts. I am surprised that the forum moderators allowed such a derogatory and unsubstantiated statement to go uncensored.

[+gelfling6]

As others have said, it's well within the rights of a placer to archive their caches.

 

But, gc.com, really won't make that big a statement platform.. All that would happen, is

a few out of the nearly 700,000+ caches would be disabled for one day, then (hopefully)

reactivated.. Not too many would really notice, except for that one day...

 

On the global scale, it needn't be said.. One person, or however many, it could make

a very big difference, if someone was counted on for their reliability, was for that one

day, Unavailable.. Many need to see that picture!

 

I support the "Call Out Gay" day, but, on here... disable caches because the owner is gay,

big statement, Little progress.

[+WRASTRO]

Many years ago I had an employee try to play the race card when I told her that not showing up for work on a random basis was a problem for me and for the company. I told her I didn't care if she was green but that I did expect her to be at work on time each day and to perform her duties. She quit because I wouldn't buy in to her agenda.

 

If caches are archived due to reasons other than not being viable I find that to be a bit sad. I don't promote agendas in this game and I wish everyone else could manage to do the same.

[+flask]

ooh, ooooh!

 

while we're on the fun topic of labeling people "sexually obsessed", i have a gay neighbor who's been celibate for 20 years. as far as i can tell it has something to do with a distaste for casual sex and a lack of interest in a relationship. (hey, he's got other things on his plate.)

 

the people four doors down have 13 kids. all single births, no fertility drugs. no joke, no exaggeration.

 

NOW who looks sexually obsessed?

[+Wintonian]

I have been watching this post but havn't wanted to wade in as is dosn't look like it needs another iron in the fire.

 

I don't promote agendas in this game and I wish everyone else could manage to do the same.

 

Having said that this is one of the reasons I like caching - we can put our opinions and belifs to one side and have fun insted, making this a perticualy relevent comment.

 

It is an important debate to have but one I feel should be held elseware.

 

As far as archiveing the cache in the OP is concerned from what I can gather promoting an aganda can be a reason for a cache to get archived, therefore if someone wants to do it volenteraly and GS havn't raised concerns about it for breaking the guidelines then prehaps it shouldn't be an issue.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Hampshire_Hog

[+TrailGators]

ooh, ooooh!

 

while we're on the fun topic of labeling people "sexually obsessed", i have a gay neighbor who's been celibate for 20 years. as far as i can tell it has something to do with a distaste for casual sex and a lack of interest in a relationship. (hey, he's got other things on his plate.)

 

the people four doors down have 13 kids. all single births, no fertility drugs. no joke, no exaggeration.

 

NOW who looks sexually obsessed?

I have a hunch that earlier comment was referring to a subset of that group that turn nice parks into pickle parks. Some of us have accidentally run across those while caching. Edited December 13, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Moose Mob]

I am not seeing a lot of geocaching related in the latest trend of this discussion. Matter of fact, this thread never had a very strong geocaching basis to it. Perhaps it needs to be off topic? I'll come back and look in the morning.

[Clan Riffster]

If a cache "squeaks" through the reviewing process and it is clearly against the guidelines it should be re-reviewed and archived.

Has anyone argued otherwise? You seem to be on the same page as everyone here, including Keystone, so I'm not sure why you're getting riled up. If there's a cache out there that violates the guidelines as they were posted at the time it was published, then that cache needs to be looked at. You've said it. I've said it. I believe Keystone said much the same thing. Did you post an SBA to the offending cache so the local reviewer can take a look at it, or would you prefer that Keystone, singlehandedly fix every problematic cache mentioned in these global forums?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Now if the police blew it up. That's interesting.

 

A very good point.

 

Dude archived a cache and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The rest is only an issue if you want it to be. I choose not.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+Wintz50]

Some one else should steal their locations before they could get them relisted.

[+The finch farmers]

More work for admin to bring the caches back when archived? They do not need more work.

Have admin take the day off and see what kind of complaints that creates.

Edited December 13, 2008 by The finch farmers

[+WatchDog2020]

Some one else should steal their locations before they could get them relisted.

 

And use the exact same cache description and exact same coords - LOL

[CoyoteRed]

I'd say the archiving of the cache(s) to raise awareness did have the desired effect. This is one of the hottest recent topics.

 

Should it be allowed? Again, I don't see how it could be effectively regulated. Additionally, I'm not sure why you'd want to regulate it. There are TB's and collectibles with agendas.

[+briansnat]

It's this site's policy in most cases to grandfather caches that aren't in compliance after a guideline change or clarification. That's why there are so many "Support Our Troops" caches out there. Fact of the matter is that it is an agenda and is no longer allowed. Groundspeak took a lot of heat for this stance.

 

That thread you linked is from April.

This cache was created in September. Support Our Troops

Can a cache created in September be grandfathered in April?

 

Fact of the matter is briansnat - you are wrong.

Apparently they are allowed.

 

 

Fact of the matter is Wavector - YOU are wrong. You can look it up in the guidelines. You can e-mail Groundspeak if you like (contact@geocaching.com). Do either and you will learn that I am indeed correct. The fact that a cache somehow made it through the review process despite a conflict with the guidelines is irrelevant. Reviewers make mistakes. Caches are changed after publication. There are a number of reasons that this can happen.

 

If you think the Support Our Troops agenda is considered to be an acceptable exception to the guidelines then you are wrong. Submit one and let us all know how it came out.

Edited December 13, 2008 by briansnat

[+Rockin Roddy]

Some one else should steal their locations before they could get them relisted.

 

And this will help...how? Will it "get even" with the person? Will it "make a point"? Will it make you feel better about yourself? or will it be merely to try to take away from the point the CO was trying to make?

 

Can I ask, if it's to get even with or to make a point, what's the point and how would you be getting even? I see it as just another comment thrown out trying to add flame to the fire. You'd actually be giving back to this person as I somehow doubt they plan to publish a new cache at the spot, so you'd simply be giving them a new cache to find (if they so choose). If this is your purpose, THANKS for being neighborly!

 

Who are you hurting with your idea?? Why did you feel the need to post your idea in the first place? I guess I don't get it!

 

The caches in question were archived, they were done so without conflict of any guidelines, so what's the problem? If you disagree with this, stop reading this thread...simple!

[+KBI]

Some one else should steal their locations before they could get them relisted.

Would doing so also constitute an agenda?

[+wavector]

I have a hunch that earlier comment was referring to a subset of that group that turn nice parks into pickle parks. Some of us have accidentally run across those while caching.

 

Did someone make a pass at you?

Why did you use the term "accidentally", is that being offered as a form of reassurance to readers?

 

I often geocache with my children and finding any two people engaging in sexual activity would bother me, in most localities there are laws against such public activity. If I encountered two teenagers copulating in a park when I was out geocaching with my children I would phone the police and file a complaint. If I found a man and a woman copulating in the park I would phone the police and file a complaint. If I encountered two men engaging in sexual activity in public I would phone the police and file a complaint. If I found you in a public park copulating with <put your personal fancy here> I would phone the police and file a complaint.

In none of these cases would I decide the park is no longer a nice place.

My intolerance in this is entirely justified as sex is not a proper activty for public places.

Your remarks suggest that the actions of two people in the park are a yardstick by which you measure niceness? If you were in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and you saw two male geese engaged in sexual activities would that ruin the niceness of the park for you as well?

 

The CO is making a point by archiving caches and I don't think that public sexual activity was the problem, public sexual activity in the area of a cache doesn't even warrant an SBA nor is it relevant to this discussion regardless of the intensity of your personal feelings.

 

The CO archived his caches and did so apparently because he believes what he believes. Perhaps intolerance is a problem in the area of California where he lives, perhaps he geocaches in an area where people have made a point of demonstrating that they are narrow and intolerant of others.

Several of the remarks on this thread demonstrate there is a subset that really thinks their personal feelings are echoed by the general populace and they feel free to express their narrowness and intolerance believing that others secretly agree with them. You can easily spot them because they tend to use pejorative terms when demonstrating their intolerance.

 

If some of those who are demonstrating their intolerance are from California like the CO that is good evidence that the CO may be justified in protesting in some way. Using his geocaches to protest might even serve the purpose of warning the international geocaching community of the fact that intolerance may be an issue in that area. People from Canada or Europe or other enlightened areas of the world may decide that they best avoid places where intolerance for others is demonstrated.

[+wavector]

Did you post an SBA to the offending cache so the local reviewer can take a look at it...

 

I don't post SBA's on caches that I haven't visited as a rule. I did post an SBA on a cache that the local reviewer published in a nearby National Park, it is a "nice" park even though there are a few problem geese.

 

As it stands the cache I linked is proof that caches do get published post-guideline clarification and they are allowed to stand so caches that promote an agenda can and do get published on geocaching.com even after the guidelines have been clarified.

 

You seem to be suggesting that a cache published that is clearly contrary to the guidelines gets to stay until a geocacher makes a specific complaint?

 

If a local reviewer publishes a cache in a wildlife refuge does it get to stay until another geocacher or a park manager makes a specific complaint on the cache page or should it be archived as a soon as it is identified?

Yes, I expect Keystone and briansnat or any other reviewer to hit the archive button on any cache that is clearly contrary to the guidelines as soon as the cache is identified. If a cache has been published in error it should be retracted, a local geocaher should not have to make themselves the target of the cache owners anger by filing an SBA and becoming personally responsible for the retraction. The cache listing should be retracted and that should be done by any volunteer reviewer who becomes aware of the cache.

 

In the case of this thread the CO archived a cache, it is gone and there is no cache listing so it is not even possible to suggest that the CO was using a geocache listing to promote an agenda, yet the CO is characterized as rash and sneaky. The cache I linked that is clearly contrary to the "clarified agenda guidelines" is still listed and the reviewers who have seen the cache listing seem content to let it stay there and even offer excuses for it's existence.

 

It isn't that hard to be fair.

[Keystone]

Yes, I expect Keystone and briansnat or any other reviewer to hit the archive button on any cache that is clearly contrary to the guidelines as soon as the cache is identified.

Point me to a cache in Ohio or Pennsylvania that is not grandfathered and is not guidelines-compliant, and I'll be all over it like a rabid FTF hound searching for a fake rock in a quarry.

 

Briansnat is a forum moderator. If you find a post in the "Getting Started" forum that violates the forum guidelines, use the "report this post" feature and he will be glad to assist.

 

As you can see, volunteers have specific areas of responsibility. Unless it was some sort of emergency, I wouldn't step into another reviewer's territory to get involved in a situation where I didn't know all the facts, local land management rules, etc. Ohio and Pennsylvania are the 9th and 10th most cache-dense states in the country. My work there keeps me busy enough, along with three other cache reviewers. I don't supervise any other reviewers. Groundspeak does. So, if this cache really bothers you, write to the local reviewer or write to Groundspeak.

 

When you're finished with the "Support Our Troops" caches, put on your deputy badge and start on caches near police stations. Sometimes they slip through, too, as police stations aren't always obvious from the maps. From an aerial photo, they look like any other building. I am quite certain I've published caches near police stations without knowing it. I do the best I can, and I sleep well at night. The same is true for the "agenda" guideline.

[+wavector]

When you're finished with the "Support Our Troops" caches, put on your deputy badge ...

 

It isn't that hard to be fair.

If it was a "PETA" cache the same guidelines would apply.

 

I may be reading your post wrong but you seem to scorning the idea that geocachers should act when they see geocaches which violate the guidelines? Is your use of the term "deputy badge" intended to convey a negative view of geocachers who report or point out geocaches which violate the guidelines?

[+Rockin Roddy]

When you're finished with the "Support Our Troops" caches, put on your deputy badge ...

 

It isn't that hard to be fair.

If it was a "PETA" cache the same guidelines would apply.

 

I may be reading your post wrong but you seem to scorning the idea that geocachers should act when they see geocaches which violate the guidelines? Is your use of the term "deputy badge" intended to convey a negative view of geocachers who report or point out geocaches which violate the guidelines?

 

I believe he's telling you to take your concerns up with your local reviewer, but I could be mistaken! Also, I don't understand why the cache was brought up in the first place since you admit you haven't found the cache yet? Is it in your area and comes up on your searches? If not, then yeah, you might be letting things bother you which clearly shouldn't??

Edited December 13, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[Keystone]

I may be reading your post wrong but you seem to scorning the idea that geocachers should act when they see geocaches which violate the guidelines?

Yes, you are reading my post wrong. I needed to rebut your suggestion that I'm somehow personally responsible for any non-compliant cache anywhere in the world. I did that, and I've also told you the correct way to address the issue. It says right in the guidelines that geocachers are encouraged to report non-compliant caches. I agree with that.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Some one else should steal their locations before they could get them relisted.

 

And use the exact same cache description and exact same coords - LOL

 

Yeah, that'll teach that gay guy to try to be equal!

 

Silly gay people, wanting rights and stuff.

 

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Many years ago I had an employee try to play the race card when I told her that not showing up for work on a random basis was a problem for me and for the company. I told her I didn't care if she was green but that I did expect her to be at work on time each day and to perform her duties. She quit because I wouldn't buy in to her agenda.

 

I get the feeling there's more to this story...

 

And how does "I knew somebody who wasn't white and they didn't like me" relate to a thread about a cacher who archived a couple caches in the spirit of Day Without Gay?

[+wavector]

I believe he's telling you to take your concerns up with your local reviewer, but I could be mistaken! Also, I don't understand why the cache was brought up in the first place since you admit you haven't found the cache yet? Is it in your area and comes up on your searches? If not, then yeah, you might be letting things bother you which clearly shouldn't??

 

As you can see, volunteers have specific areas of responsibility. Unless it was some sort of emergency, I wouldn't step into another reviewer's territory to get involved in a situation where I didn't know all the facts, local land management rules, etc.

 

A a cache that supports the young men and women who fight for freedom clearly isn't an emergency so my guess is that you are mistaken Roddy because what keystone said is very clear. That particular "Support my Agenda" cache only came up because it was pointed out as an example of a cache that was clearly listed to support an agenda and it was published after that guideline had been specifically clarified.

 

I am not going to complain about any cache (unless the cache owner is charging me admission ) but that doesn't mean I am not interested in fair. The CO archived a few caches with a log that clearly stated why. He has been characterized as sneaky and rash and the uphill battle he is facing if he chooses to try and relist the archived caches has been described. Another cache which was listed to support an agenda has been identified and the discussion has escalated to include the responsibility of reviewers in regards to archiving caches which are clearly contrary to the clarified guidelines.

 

As I now understand it has to be up to geocachers who can be characterized as ones wearing "deputy badges" to complain directly to Groundspeak and I got the distinct impression, perhaps mistakenly, that those complaints may definitely not be welcome. I wonder if any other readers received the same impression?

 

While I am complaining I have been told that I should also start complaining about the caches close to police stations? I am not sure that is relevant at all or is it a valid instruciton to anyone who wishes to complain about caches that are listed to support an agenda. Perhaps it is just another attempt at characterization?

 

Do you think the all the characterizations are valid?

 

It isn't that hard to be fair.