Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?

[+wavector]

It says right in the guidelines that geocachers are encouraged to report non-compliant caches. I agree with that.

 

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.

 

You shouldn't take references to the duties of reviewers as personal critiques of you or your actions, that isn't fair to people who may be speaking of reviewers generally, I am also glad you are sleeping well, I also sleep well.

 

You may want to take into account the fact that new geocachers reading these forums often take the tone of a moderator as an indicator to guide their own personal conduct. Suggesting that geocachers who are willing to point out geocaches which are listed to support an agenda are geocachers who are wearing "deputy badges" may not achieve the desired effect of Groundspeak being informed of caches which are listed to support an agenda.

 

But since you say Groundspeak "encourages" geocachers to report non-compliant caches and you also agree with that policy then here is my report, as far as I can tell this cache is non-compliant and it has nothing to do with the local land management policy.

Support My Agenda

 

I am not sure reporting an archived cache would be as effective in getting the listing removed since it is already removed by the archiving itself but you did bounce some ideas off the thread earlier. Were you suggesting that if I complain to Groundspeak about the CO's archived caches that Groundspeak will edit all the archival logs on the CO's caches and then lock the caches to future logs or were you only musing that that is an action you might undertake on your own if you had time? Didn't you say that you didn't get involved in other reviewers' areas unless it was an emergency?

[Trinity's Crew]

So the cacher is gay. Who cares? Gay, straight, whatever. Much ado about nothing if you ask me.

[+The Blorenges]

But since you say Groundspeak "encourages" geocachers to report non-compliant caches and you also agree with that policy then here is my report, as far as I can tell this cache is non-compliant and it has nothing to do with the local land management policy.

Support My Agenda

 

So, if this cache really bothers you, write to the local reviewer or write to Groundspeak.

 

Why don't you do as Keystone has suggested above? Find the name of the Reviewer who published that cache originally* and contact him directly by emailing him through his profile.

 

*For those new geocachers who don't know how to find the name - Go to the very first log on the cache page: it will give the date the cache was published and the reviewer's name.)

 

Back to the cache in hand... I've never seen this rather unusual course of action before, but then I've never heard of 'Day without a Gay' before now. However, I support Groundspeak's 'no agendas' stance with regards to cache listings.

MrsB

Edited December 13, 2008 by The Blorenges

[+Rockin Roddy]

It says right in the guidelines that geocachers are encouraged to report non-compliant caches. I agree with that.

 

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.

 

You shouldn't take references to the duties of reviewers as personal critiques of you or your actions, that isn't fair to people who may be speaking of reviewers generally, I am also glad you are sleeping well, I also sleep well.

 

You may want to take into account the fact that new geocachers reading these forums often take the tone of a moderator as an indicator to guide their own personal conduct. Suggesting that geocachers who are willing to point out geocaches which are listed to support an agenda are geocachers who are wearing "deputy badges" may not achieve the desired effect of Groundspeak being informed of caches which are listed to support an agenda.

 

But since you say Groundspeak "encourages" geocachers to report non-compliant caches and you also agree with that policy then here is my report, as far as I can tell this cache is non-compliant and it has nothing to do with the local land management policy.

Support My Agenda

 

I am not sure reporting an archived cache would be as effective in getting the listing removed since it is already removed by the archiving itself but you did bounce some ideas off the thread earlier. Were you suggesting that if I complain to Groundspeak about the CO's archived caches that Groundspeak will edit all the archival logs on the CO's caches and then lock the caches to future logs or were you only musing that that is an action you might undertake on your own if you had time? Didn't you say that you didn't get involved in other reviewers' areas unless it was an emergency?

 

Can we get back on the topic? First you suggest Keystone is thin-skinned, then you shoot rounds over his bow...having a bad day?? As was suggested, the report should be sent to the LOCAL REVIEWER...simple enough, why are you bringing up this cache (which, btw, has nothing to do with the topic on hand)??

 

Oh, and Keystone, keep up the good work, my friend!!

 

As for the topic, seems the message has gone far, mission accomplished!

[+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.

 

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?

You bet there is more to the story and you really don't deserve to hear it since you are so willing to pass judgement about someone you don't know and without knowing the facts. But here it is anyway.

 

This young single Mom applied for a receptionist position at a small Company I co-managed. She was not the most qualified applicant but I wanted to do what I could to help her since she was trying to improve her lot in life. So I hired her and we got along quite well. I am pretty sure she even liked me. After a few months she started having problems with getting to work on time or not coming in at all. This was a problem for the company because others had to do her job when she wasn't there. I took flak for hiring her and for wanting to keep giving her chances to shape up. After several talks with her she claimed that I was not being fair to her because of the color of her skin. My response was that I didn't care if her skin was green. What I did care about was her doing her job since it was unfair to the other people in the company when she didn't show up for work. A couple of weeks later she quit. I am obviously a racist as you seem so ready and willing to assume.

 

So how does this apply to this thread? I was trying to give an example of someone who tried to use an agenda in an inappropriate way. I guess it wasn't a very good example.

 

I think someone archiving caches to promote an agenda is an inappropriate thing to do. I made no judgement about the particular agenda being promoted.

[+Tequila]

It is really sad that so many forum threads quickly degenerate into something off topic and confrontational.

 

And it is even sadder to see the same individuals clearly agitating and trying to get an argument going.

 

Why don't you just turn the PC off and go find a geocache somewhere?

Edited December 13, 2008 by Tequila

[+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?

You bet there is more to the story and you really don't deserve to hear it since you are so willing to pass judgement about someone you don't know and without knowing the facts. But here it is anyway.

 

This young single Mom applied for a receptionist position at a small Company I co-managed. She was not the most qualified applicant but I wanted to do what I could to help her since she was trying to improve her lot in life. So I hired her and we got along quite well. I am pretty sure she even liked me. After a few months she started having problems with getting to work on time or not coming in at all. This was a problem for the company because others had to do her job when she wasn't there. I took flak for hiring her and for wanting to keep giving her chances to shape up. After several talks with her she claimed that I was not being fair to her because of the color of her skin. My response was that I didn't care if her skin was green. What I did care about was her doing her job since it was unfair to the other people in the company when she didn't show up for work. A couple of weeks later she quit. I am obviously a racist as you seem so ready and willing to assume.

 

So how does this apply to this thread? I was trying to give an example of someone who tried to use an agenda in an inappropriate way. I guess it wasn't a very good example.

 

I think someone archiving caches to promote an agenda is an inappropriate thing to do. I made no judgement about the particular agenda being promoted.

 

....a young single mother who desperately needed a job quit a job that obviously wasn't appropriate to her schedule and family needs, two weeks after having a discussion that highlighted this problem... and you think it's all because of you and your opinions?

 

Yeah, thanks for sharing more to that story, although it's clearly completely off-topic to this thread and has no place being mentioned here at all. I'm still not sure how she had some agenda or how that relates to homosexuality. I'm also not sure where I called you a racist. I get the impression that you're reading things into your little privilege check that you've read into my comments.

 

But people can archive caches for whatever reason they want. It's hardly "an agenda." But then again, wanting equal rights is not an agenda... except to the people who already enjoy those rights and don't care if others have them. Stating they are archiving a cache for the reason they are archiving it is not against any Geocaching policy. Bottom line.

[+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.

 

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?

You bet there is more to the story and you really don't deserve to hear it since you are so willing to pass judgement about someone you don't know and without knowing the facts. But here it is anyway.

 

This young single Mom applied for a receptionist position at a small Company I co-managed. She was not the most qualified applicant but I wanted to do what I could to help her since she was trying to improve her lot in life. So I hired her and we got along quite well. I am pretty sure she even liked me. After a few months she started having problems with getting to work on time or not coming in at all. This was a problem for the company because others had to do her job when she wasn't there. I took flak for hiring her and for wanting to keep giving her chances to shape up. After several talks with her she claimed that I was not being fair to her because of the color of her skin. My response was that I didn't care if her skin was green. What I did care about was her doing her job since it was unfair to the other people in the company when she didn't show up for work. A couple of weeks later she quit. I am obviously a racist as you seem so ready and willing to assume.

 

So how does this apply to this thread? I was trying to give an example of someone who tried to use an agenda in an inappropriate way. I guess it wasn't a very good example.

 

I think someone archiving caches to promote an agenda is an inappropriate thing to do. I made no judgement about the particular agenda being promoted.

 

....a young single mother who desperately needed a job quit a job that obviously wasn't appropriate to her schedule and family needs, two weeks after having a discussion that highlighted this problem... and you think it's all because of you and your opinions?

 

Yeah, thanks for sharing more to that story, although it's clearly completely off-topic to this thread and has no place being mentioned here at all. I'm still not sure how she had some agenda or how that relates to homosexuality. I'm also not sure where I called you a racist. I get the impression that you're reading things into your little privilege check that you've read into my comments.

 

But people can archive caches for whatever reason they want. It's hardly "an agenda." But then again, wanting equal rights is not an agenda... except to the people who already enjoy those rights and don't care if others have them. Stating they are archiving a cache for the reason they are archiving it is not against any Geocaching policy. Bottom line.

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can archive a cache they own any time for any reason. Did you actually bother to read the title of this thread? "Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?" I have been responding to the agenda part of the question. I really don't care what the agenda is. Can I make that any more clear for you? I don't think it is appropriate to be bringing agendas into the geocaching activity.

 

The timeline of the story I attempted to share was over a period of many months. The situation had nothing to do with the employee's schedule or family needs. Feel free to continue to attempt to twist this into something that makes me seem like a bad person. If it works for you then I am happy to help you out in some way.

 

This is supposed to be a geocaching topic, not an equal rights debate. If you want that you should take it over to the off topic area.

[Clan Riffster]

here is my report

 

Support My Agenda

Unless I misread Keystone's suggestions, he did not advocate using the Groundspeak forums for your cache compliance platform.

If that cache bothers you, why not do as he suggested and report it to the appropriate reviewer?

I think their profile can be found at the bottom of that cache page.

Thanx!

[+The Jester]

Agenda's in logs are not allowed, see this old thread in the Canada forum. So archive your caches for whatever reason you want, just don't use the logs to promote said reason.

[Trinity's Crew]

I have seen a lot of people defending the decision to archive this cache for the purpose of promoting an agenda. I don't really care either way but I DO wonder how these same people would react if they didn't agree with the agenda.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell. If you disagreed with the agenda would you still defend the cacher's right to post it? I'm pretty sure some wouldn't.

 

Edit to add: I think it's okay to archive the cache AND explain why so I'm okay with his archive message. Of course I'd also be okay with someone archiving caches to support marriage between a man and a woman. Same thing, right?

Edited December 14, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+Savoy 6]

Wow, I guess if an ammo box isn't rainbow, how would I know (or care) what the orientation is.

 

Being a membership driven group, with rules that are established, isn't this settled on the first page.

 

As far as agendas, the ASPCA or PETA may get on us for kicking that horse again, and again, and again...

 

Let's not ruin fun with agendas or politics. I have enough of both on a daily basis.

[+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?

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.

 

backpedal any quicker and you'll break your ankle.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can archive a cache they own any time for any reason. Did you actually bother to read the title of this thread? "Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?" I have been responding to the agenda part of the question. I really don't care what the agenda is. Can I make that any more clear for you? I don't think it is appropriate to be bringing agendas into the geocaching activity.

 

The timeline of the story I attempted to share was over a period of many months. The situation had nothing to do with the employee's schedule or family needs. Feel free to continue to attempt to twist this into something that makes me seem like a bad person. If it works for you then I am happy to help you out in some way.

 

This is supposed to be a geocaching topic, not an equal rights debate. If you want that you should take it over to the off topic area.

 

Hmm... you're the one who brought up the non-white person you helped out who wasn't totally ingrateful to you and quit just because you didn't agree with her. I was on-topic and I STILL don't see what your little experience has to do with the topic at hand, agendas, or geocaching in any way.

 

Clear something up for me:

 

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can archive a cache they own any time for any reason.

I don't think it is appropriate to be bringing agendas into the geocaching activity.

 

So someone can archive a cache for ANY reason at ANY time except when YOU don't agree with them.

Got it.

 

Would you like some fries with that privilege?

[+WRASTRO]

 

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can archive a cache they own any time for any reason. Did you actually bother to read the title of this thread? "Archival of cache due to GAY social agenda?" I have been responding to the agenda part of the question. I really don't care what the agenda is. Can I make that any more clear for you? I don't think it is appropriate to be bringing agendas into the geocaching activity.

 

The timeline of the story I attempted to share was over a period of many months. The situation had nothing to do with the employee's schedule or family needs. Feel free to continue to attempt to twist this into something that makes me seem like a bad person. If it works for you then I am happy to help you out in some way.

 

This is supposed to be a geocaching topic, not an equal rights debate. If you want that you should take it over to the off topic area.

 

Hmm... you're the one who brought up the non-white person you helped out who wasn't totally ingrateful to you and quit just because you didn't agree with her. I was on-topic and I STILL don't see what your little experience has to do with the topic at hand, agendas, or geocaching in any way.

 

Clear something up for me:

 

I wholeheartedly agree that anyone can archive a cache they own any time for any reason.

I don't think it is appropriate to be bringing agendas into the geocaching activity.

 

So someone can archive a cache for ANY reason at ANY time except when YOU don't agree with them.

Got it.

 

Would you like some fries with that privilege?

You are just too funny! I never said I had a problem with the person archiving their caches. I also never said I had any disagreement with the agenda. My statements have all been about bringing the agenda to geocaching. I don't support bring the agenda into the game.

 

Clear enough?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

You are just too funny! I never said I had a problem with the person archiving their caches. I also never said I had any disagreement with the agenda. My statements have all been about bringing the agenda to geocaching. I don't support bring the agenda into the game.

 

Clear enough?

 

First, don't say things you don't mean. You don't think I'm too funny. You hate that I disagree with you and questioned you bringing up a completely irrelevant life experience at the expense of a single mother who's not here to defend herself. You personally attacked me in my non-compliant cache thread because you fantasized that I called you a racist. Be honest. Frankly, I believe you owe me an apology for falsely claiming I called you a racist and then personally attacking me.

 

Next, if you're fine with people archiving their own caches for any reason at any time, that includes being able to archive a cache on a Day Without Gay for the reason of being gay. Since it is not against the guidelines by any stretch of the imagination, it is entirely kosher to do it, regardless of whether you agree with the reason or time of the archiving.

 

By the way, GAY is not an agenda and is neither is wanting equal rights in a society that claims to provide them.

[Keystone]

WRASTRO and Redneck Parrotheads,

 

Please take your conversation to Private Messages. Your posts are off topic. Don't post to the thread any more. Thanks.

[+FireRef]

I guess another issue that could be brought up with this is the following:

 

Since GS.com has a non-agenda policy for caches... if a person were to place a gay-themed cache, and it were denied, would they have a legal claim for discrimination?

 

Just food for thought. I disagree completely and wholeheartedly with the idea of this agendaless caching that GS.com seems to want to promote. I don't necessarily agree with this agenda, but believe the people have the right to place the cache and name/describe it as they see fit. Or that they should. See my sig file.

[Clan Riffster]

people have the right to place the cache and name/describe it as they see fit.

Unless I'm way off base, most folks are perfectly free to hide caches promoting any agenda they wish, from "Save the Manatees" to "Nuking Whales for Jesus". They can wax philosophic about their agenda all over their cache page, and in the cache title, if they wish. They just can't list that cache on this particular website. They'll need to either find another listing service that is open to any and all agendas, or start their own.

[+MariettaGecko]

Getting back to the OP's comment, however, I can't see any reason to care why the hider archived his caches. I suppose you can get all sorts of upset if you like. I suppose you can rant and rave if that makes you happy. I mean, the rules state no agendas, but there is an agenda in EVERY cache out there. The agenda for every cache is to get someone to go someplace and find something hidden there. Additionally, unless the cache owner trims/whatever logs on their cache, people can post logs with an agenda anytime.

 

In the end, what do you figure that Groundspeak is going to do about it, archive his caches? Oh, wait, he already did that for them. And since I assume that he has removed his caches from their hiding places, they can't very well make the caches active again...

[+Rockin Roddy]

people have the right to place the cache and name/describe it as they see fit.

Unless I'm way off base, most folks are perfectly free to hide caches promoting any agenda they wish, from "Save the Manatees" to "Nuking Whales for Jesus". They can wax philosophic about their agenda all over their cache page, and in the cache title, if they wish. They just can't list that cache on this particular website. They'll need to either find another listing service that is open to any and all agendas, or start their own.

 

THANKS Clan, my thoughts exactly.

[+FireRef]

Still waiting for someone to answer the actual question I asked... could this be considered discrimination...

[+Castle Mischief]

Still waiting for someone to answer the actual question I asked... could this be considered discrimination...

 

No.

[+wavector]

Still waiting for someone to answer the actual question I asked... could this be considered discrimination...

 

Lawsuits aside, organizations that have demonstrated bias in this regard have not fared well.

The danger to Groundspeak doesn't lie in a lawsuit but in a widespread perception that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteers who work on their behalf are intolerant of homosexuality or homosexuals.

 

Clearly going back to archived caches and changing the cache pages isn't required because as most people have noted the caches are no longer actively listed by this service.

 

The lilypad should have room for lots of people.

It isn't that hard to be fair.

 

I have it on good authority that the OP might be able to change things. First, the OP needs a "deputy badge". Complaining about a cache that supports a generally popular agenda is how you earn a "deputy badge". Other geocachers have to consider you as some sort of "cache policeman" or an "interfering busybody", Groundspeak encourages this.

Once the OP has been properly buttoned with the badge then the OP can complain about a cache that is listed to promote an agenda but only if the OP is also willing to complain about caches that are close to police stations. To make progress the OP has to go and find some caches near "police stations" that have been overlooked by a reviewer. After that the complaints will be meaningful - then it is just a matter of a volunteer reviewer having "enough time" to open the archived cache listing and edit the logs so that the cache owners comments are removed. At that point no one will know why the caches were archived and then the cache pages can be locked so no further logs can be edited, that is it, in a nutshell.

 

That might be considered as a sign that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteer reviewers who work on their behalf are intolerant of homosexuality and are biased against homosexuals.

Edited December 15, 2008 by wavector

[+Castle Mischief]

Still waiting for someone to answer the actual question I asked... could this be considered discrimination...

 

Lawsuits aside, organizations that have demonstrated bias in this regard have not fared well.

The danger to Groundspeak doesn't lie in a lawsuit but in a widespread perception that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteers who work on their behalf are intolerant of homosexuality or homosexuals.

 

Clearly going back to archived caches and changing the cache pages isn't required because as most people have noted the caches are no longer listed by this service.

 

The lilypad should have room for lots of people.

It isn't that hard to be fair.

 

I have it on good authority that the OP might be able to change things. First, the OP needs a "deputy badge". Complaining about a cache that supports a generally popular agenda is how you earn a "deputy badge". Other geocachers have to consider you as some sort of "cache policeman" or an "interfering busybody", Groundspeak encourages this.

Once the OP has been properly buttoned with the badge then the OP can complain about a cache that is listed to promote an agenda but only if the OP is also willing to complain about caches that are close to police stations. To make progress the OP has to go and find some caches near "police stations" that have been overlooked by a reviewer. After that the complaints will be meaningful - then it is just a matter of a volunteer reviewer having "enough time" to open the archived cache listing and edit the logs so that the cache owners comments are removed. At that point no one will know why the caches were archived and then the cache pages can be locked so no further logs can be edited, that is it, in a nutshell.

 

That might be considered as a sign that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteer reviewers who work on their behalf are intolerant of homosexuality and are biased against homosexuals.

 

Discrimination is a sport of perception. Anybody in any group could perceive that they have been discriminated against. Groundspeak has also archived many other caches for agenda-related issues that were not GLBT issues. The rules are simple: no agendas.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Don't ask, don't tell. Nobody needs to know who you have sex with... but count on it, if you make an issue of it, they will react!

 

Just don't molest the hamsters.

[+FireRef]

Discrimination is a sport of perception. Anybody in any group could perceive that they have been discriminated against. Groundspeak has also archived many other caches for agenda-related issues that were not GLBT issues. The rules are simple: no agendas.

 

Not true - No agendas, unless TPTB approve them and get money for them by advertising them. Unite for Diabetes TB's, Jeep TB's, etc.

Edited December 15, 2008 by FireRef

[+wavector]

Discrimination is a sport of perception. Anybody in any group could perceive that they have been discriminated against. Groundspeak has also archived many other caches for agenda-related issues that were not GLBT issues. The rules are simple: no agendas.

 

Do you have a deputy badge?

Have you found a cache near a police station?

 

I am not saying the rules are complex, I am saying that the widespread perception that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteers who help them are biased against homosexuals or homosexuality would be a bad thing for Groundspeak, no it would be a really bad thing. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun light sport, you hear this all the time and you know what, I concur.

 

So when volunteers or employees of Groundspeak demonstrate bias of any type it detracts from the fun light nature of geocaching.

 

Here is an example : I see the word "cheater" thrown around on these forums all the time, it detracts from the fun light nature of geocaching. There is one volunteer who uses the word "integrity" every time he explains his logging practices and by doing so advances his "agenda", that integrity and geocaching be inextricably linked in the minds of forum readers. In addition the logging practices that are espoused ( along with the word integrity), are in my opinion stupid and self serving and they result in many many geocachers being labelled as "cheaters" by forum readers - that is supposed to be fun and light?

 

The problem isn't in the rules it is in the application of the rules, if Groundspeak wished to moderate their moderators they would.

They place great trust in the volunteers and basically let them decide what is appropriate commentary. Letting moderators do as they wish could cause problems for Groundspeak. Basically the position of a few volunteer reviewers might end up being the widespread perception that Groundspeak, it's employees or the volunteers who help them are biased against homosexuals or homosexuality.

 

That is probably fine with a lot of geocachers, and it is probably fine for some of the moderators. I contend that it isn't all right for Groundspeak. An uneven application of the guidelines is quite possible, moderators are just people and they have opinions that appear in their commentary all the time.

 

Now, to be fair, your comments are not going to carry any weight with me because you need to go and get a "deputy badge" by offering up public complaints of geocaches which are listed to support a popular agenda. Then after you get your "deputy badge" you need to find a cache near a police station. Once you have proved yourself unpopular with the moderators, and thereby the readers who take their direction from the moderators, and you have found a cache near a police station your comments might have some validity.

 

If you are not sure what I mean then go and read the comments about the "cache police"on the thread linked by The Jester. The attitude is clearly presented there by a geocacher reading the thread and it isn't the only occurence. Groundspeak encourages people to let them know when non-compliant caches are listed, it should be apparent that this encouragement is not always reflected in the comments made by moderators so there is a clear disconnect between the position that is held by Groundspeak and the comments made by volunteers on their behalf.

 

This clear disconnect may well lead to a situation where Groundspeak is perceived as a cache listing service that demonstrates a clear bias against homosexualtiy and homosexuals even though that may not be their position.

 

Let me clarify further - If a moderator came into this forum and said they do not get involved in caches that are not in their reviewing area unless there is an emergency that would be fair. If the same moderator then indicated that if there was enough "time" he would go to this cache listing, clear across the country, to edit the logs used to archive the cache to remove a comment made by the owner explaining why the cache was archived I would tend to view that as a biased action, regardless of any guideline.

[Clan Riffster]

Wow...

[+Rockin Roddy]

Do you guys believe any of what you type? Seriously?

[+wavector]

Don't ask, don't tell. Nobody needs to know who you have sex with... but count on it, if you make an issue of it, they will react!

 

Just don't molest the hamsters.

 

Hi Ed, I hope everything is going well with you.

 

I have no sympathy for the hamster.

 

People should not be pushed off the lilypad because they don't pass someone's personal smell test.

Perhaps you think that sexuality can be easily divorced from the basic personality but that has not been my experience.

 

The brouhaha started because a geocacher came here complaining about a cache owner who archived several caches and stated why they were being archived in the archival log, they were being archived in the spirit of the "Day Without Gay" initiative, apparently the cache owner felt that archiving a couple of caches was an acceptable method of demonstrating his support of that initiative.

 

You could argue that the cache owner was promoting an agenda using the cache listing but the cache is no longer listed, it has been archived so that is a tough argument to make. There is some merit in the argument that cache logs are being used to promote an agenda but even that doesn't hold a lot of water, the cache owner is archiving the caches, not logging them. Technically the logs used to archive the caches might be viewed as regular logs trying to promote an agenda but I would view that as a stretch.

 

If a moderator decided to go and edit the archived caches to remove the log used by the owner then no one would know why the caches were archived, this has been stated as a possibility by a site moderator and apparently only the lack of time is preventing this from occurring.

 

I think this listing service is flirting with all of that cache owners caches being archived and that geocacher leaving the sport altogether but that is just my hot-headed opinionated view.

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

[+TrailGators]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

Edited December 15, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Not true - No agendas, unless TPTB approve them and get money for them by advertising them. Unite for Diabetes TB's, Jeep TB's, etc.

 

Trackable items are exempt from the agenda guideline. We're talking about caches.

[+sbell111]

It should also be noted that according to the guidelines, caches with an agenda could be approved. All the CO needs to do is convince TPTB prior to submitting the cache for approval. I'm sure that it is a pretty steep slope that most be overcome to get these approved, but it should be, in my opinion.

[+flask]

as long as the restriction against agendas is uniformly applied, it isn't discrimination.

 

if SOME agenda bearing caches are allowed (e.g., cancer victims, honoring veterans), there MAY be a case for discrimination. please note my emphasis of the word "may".

 

the likelihood that such a case would be welcomed by a court is a pretty big stretch, considering that the right to list geocaches with this particular company are not to my knowledge protected areas of activity as are, say employment or housing.

 

if it could be proved that there is a pervasive pattern of discrimination with intent and resulting in some actual harm, that case would be more likely to go forward.

 

in this case i think what we have is an episode of archivals that while perhaps not frivolous, are not really within the bounds of acceptable cache traffic. if you archive a cache for any reason you cannot expect it to be reinstated automatically. the guidelines are pretty clear about this.

[+Jackalgirl]

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.

 

Your quote is from the geocache listing guidelines. You're interpreting it to extend across all activities related to geocaching, but as has been pointed out, TBs are exempt from the "no-agenda" stance, so clearly there is at least one aspect of geocaching that can be used as a platform for agendas.

 

There are no geocache archiving guidelines, as far as I am aware, so this might be another area in which people can advance agendas.

 

However, you could argue that since the cache is still listed (albeit in an archived status), that archiving the cache due to an agenda (and editing the page to describe that agenda) is a violation of the listing guidelines.

 

I might actually agree with you there, now that I come to think about it.

 

I do not agree with your statement that this cacher's actions have hurt geocaching in general; others might just as equally argue that by drawing attention to this cause, the actions have helped geocaching by linking it with (what some might argue is) a compassionate agenda. (Edited to add: from a personal standpoint, I have absolutely no issue with the "Day Without Gay" idea. I can't say that I support "calling in gay", but I understand the [and support] the point it's trying to make.)

 

But it's precisely this kind of disagreement that underscores why I think that the "no-agenda" rule for caches is appropriate and important. Because people are going to argue about what agendas are appropriate and if you open the door to one, however well-received by the majority of people, it is simply unfair to deny it to one that the majority of people loathe. I think you and I would probably be in agreement on this one.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Jackalgirl

[+wavector]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

Edited December 16, 2008 by wavector

[+sbell111]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

Wow. I just got a wicked dose of deja vu.

 

Did you make this exact post already?

[+TrailGators]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

[+Rockin Roddy]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Put the shoe on the other foot and your question is a mirror...Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting mtn-man's diner down at the corner? The end result is the same, it promote's someone's ideals. The problem isn't that these agendas aren't allowed, they are in the archived logs, the problem is some don't agree with or want to see the gay day agenda promoted, where having a good restaurant might be welcomed? The only people this will actually upset are those who are against either of these agendas...right???

 

We have already been given the answer here, what is the reason to continue on?? I say let it go and get on with your fun!

Edited December 16, 2008 by Rockin Roddy

[+sbell111]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

It makes no difference. The reason the 'no agendas' guideline exists is so the reviewers don't have to determine which agendas are worthy and which aren't.

[+TrailGators]

There is nothing in place to stop people from uniting and archiving dozens of caches to send out email notifications with their agenda to all the people watching caches or on notification lists for caches within 10-20 miles of their home coordinates. This would clearly would violate the intended use of the site and it seems like an underhanded way to promote an agenda. This is one case but it always starts with one case.

 

Well then take a shot at this simple question;

 

According to mtn-man this type of log is acceptable;

"A great place to eat is mtn-man's diner down at the corner."

 

The cache owner's logs read;

""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."

 

Perhaps you could point out the essential diffferences between the two logs?

 

If you bothered to read the linked thread about inappropriate logs you would know that the inclusion of a link or soliciting through logs is disallowed, Plasma-boy had to change a lot of logs to comply with the request from Groundspeak.

So there are two logs, one supports a popular agenda which would be mtn-man saying "my diner is a great place to eat and it is right down there at the corner". The other one is just as straightforward and clear, no solicitation, no links just a straight out statement of support.

Why, specifically, do you object to the second log when it appears to be well within the guidelines, at least it is according to mtn-man unless I am reading that wrong.

 

I can see you fear that more than one gay person might choose to offer support to the "Day without Gay" initiative by actually "uniting" and archving caches together which might cause emails which mention the "day with out a gay" intitiative to appear in your email but again, there is no solicitation and no link, just a statement telling you why the caches are being archived.

Do you think your fear would be justified if a bunch of us archived caches and said we were doing that to show support to mtn-man in the upcoming "gumbo cookoff"?

 

It may come as a surprise to you but there really is nothing to fear.

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

It makes no difference. The reason the 'no agendas' guideline exists is so the reviewers don't have to determine which agendas are worthy and which aren't.

I understand the guideline. My point was that kid cachers reading getting an email about a restaurant is way different than them getting an email about gay day. This is a family friendly game. If you guys don't see that, then there is not much else I can say. Edited December 16, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...It makes no difference. The reason the 'no agendas' guideline exists is so the reviewers don't have to determine which agendas are worthy and which aren't.

Very nice summary.

 

While I personally think my own agenda is the right one, it would get no more play on this site than someone elses clearly wrong agenda.

[+FireRef]

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting a diner near the cache site? Seems pretty much the same to me (except people's perception of unsolicited advertising being different from people's perception of homosexuality).

[+TrailGators]

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting a diner near the cache site? Seems pretty much the same to me (except people's perception of unsolicited advertising being different from people's perception of homosexuality).

I never said we should allow emails about diners, did I? The guideline is made because some people have no common sense. For example, I can't imagine kids going to their parents and saying "OMG! Mom and Dad I just got an email about a restaurant!" However, I can imagine kids going to their parents and asking "What is gay? Why is there gay day?"

[+tozainamboku]

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting a diner near the cache site? Seems pretty much the same to me (except people's perception of unsolicited advertising being different from people's perception of homosexuality).

I never said we should allow emails about diners, did I? The guideline is made because some people have no common sense. For example, I can't imagine kids going to their parents and saying "OMG! Mom and Dad I just got an email about a restaurant!" However, I can imagine kids going to their parents and asking "What is gay? Why is there gay day?"

I just found out that Mtn-Man's restaurant specializes in pork. My religion forbids eating pork. In fact the Bible says eating pork is an abomination. I am offended by this insult to my religious sensibilities that such an agenda can be promoted in the logs. My kids read the log and want to know why we can't go to the restaurant. What am I supposed to tell them?

[+wavector]

I never said we should allow emails about diners, did I? The guideline is made because some people have no common sense. For example, I can't imagine kids going to their parents and saying "OMG! Mom and Dad I just got an email about a restaurant!" However, I can imagine kids going to their parents and asking "What is gay? Why is there gay day?"

 

Actually the kids likely have school chums that say things like "I have two mommies".

I don't see your point about "family friendly" at all and I have three kids, if they ask me what gay people are I tell them.

It was mtn-man who said that logs telling people that there is a great diner just down the street called mtn-mans diner are logs that are OK and break no guidelines.

Logs offering support to an initiative like "day with out a gay" are no different at all, there is no link in the log and there is no solicitation. If a cache owner has an issue with a log for any reason, they can delete it, they don't even have to offer an explanation.

Kids today are well aware of the fact that other people may act and look differently than they do because most of the world does have common sense.

I can't imagine what you tell your children when they see a gay couple on a primetime TV show like the Amazing Race and I am quite certain I don't want to know.

[+FireRef]

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting a diner near the cache site? Seems pretty much the same to me (except people's perception of unsolicited advertising being different from people's perception of homosexuality).

I never said we should allow emails about diners, did I? The guideline is made because some people have no common sense. For example, I can't imagine kids going to their parents and saying "OMG! Mom and Dad I just got an email about a restaurant!" However, I can imagine kids going to their parents and asking "What is gay? Why is there gay day?"

 

Um - I dunno - maybe answer their question, as appropriate for their age level?

 

Except for Santa or the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, I don't promote lying to kids. Modifying things a little to make them understandable for their age is appropriate, but lying or avoiding topics because you're squeemish about them is a bad idea.

[+TrailGators]

So your main premise is that recommending a good place to eat that is near the cache is the same thing as promoting gay day? I disagree. Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting gay day?

 

Why should people that just want to play a game get emails promoting a diner near the cache site? Seems pretty much the same to me (except people's perception of unsolicited advertising being different from people's perception of homosexuality).

I never said we should allow emails about diners, did I? The guideline is made because some people have no common sense. For example, I can't imagine kids going to their parents and saying "OMG! Mom and Dad I just got an email about a restaurant!" However, I can imagine kids going to their parents and asking "What is gay? Why is there gay day?"

Um - I dunno - maybe answer their question, as appropriate for their age level?

 

Except for Santa or the Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy, I don't promote lying to kids. Modifying things a little to make them understandable for their age is appropriate, but lying or avoiding topics because you're squeemish about them is a bad idea.

 

The point is that it's not up to others to decide how anyone should raise their kids. My kids are doing extremely well so I have proof that what I have been doing works well. Childhood is a wonderful age. Geocaching is a wonderful game for kids. So I'm just being the Catcher in the Rye. The real reason the guideline is there is because we don't need to bring stuff like gay day into a fun family game. We also can't recommend diners either because if that happens then someone will think that the door is open for far less benign agendas.

[+wavector]

We also can't recommend diners either

 

Yes we can.