Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
OKH

Request for Comment: Cache Agenda

Recommended Posts

So I hid a cache today and as is my practice, I placed a Fallen Heroes geocoin in the cache and placed a quick blurb in the cache page about the service member. I received the following response from the reviewer today:

 

Hi, I'm a volunteer cache reviewer covering New York for geocaching.com and I'm reviewing your new cache Cropsey's Respite(GC****) for publishing on the website but first I have a question about it meeting the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

This cache honors the life and ultimate sacrifice of Marine Staff Sergeant Richard Pummill, Taps 20 October 2005, Nasser Wa Salaam, Iraq. Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women. A geocoin remembering SSG Pummill is making its inaugural run in this cache.

Geocaching is supposed to be a light family activity and not a platform for an agenda. The quote above taken from your cache page crosses that line from informative to agenda. The above quote should be stricken from your cache page.

 

I'm temporarily disabling your new cache to clear it from the review queue. Please respond with an 'enable' note which will move your cache page back into the queue where I'll find and gladly finish reviewing it for you.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the reviewer was right on the money. An excellent agenda but an agenda just the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Personal opinion: Tell them to f-off.

Realistic: Try rewording it to mean the same thing but appease the anti-military reviewer.

 

edit: or remind them that without the military there would be no GPS and thus no geocaching.

Edited by bramasoleiowa

Share this post


Link to post

The page doesn't express support or resistance to the war or a government. It say to remember this guy and people like him.

 

Groundspeak should be ashamed of themselves. I'll remember to lock the kids away next Memorial Day since that's not a family friendly day and it clearly has an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Personal opinion: Tell them to f-off.

Realistic: Try rewording it to mean the same thing but appease the anti-military reviewer.

 

edit: or remind them that without the military there would be no GPS and thus no geocaching.

Moderator comment: If you cannot post like a grownup, don't post. There is no reason for potty language and personal attacks.

 

Reviewer comment 1: Don't assume that the New York cache reviewer is anti-military. There are reviewers with military experience and those with none, and each would be obligated to enforce the "no agenda" guideline in the same way. I need to go leave a similar "agenda" note on a pending cache submission that goes a bit overboard in quoting from the Bible and linking to a religious website. I am confident that an atheist cache reviewer would leave the same note that I'll be leaving as a devout Christian. Geocaching is a light, fun activity. The agendas -- whether positive, negative or neutral -- belong elsewhere.

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

I've come to understand that any and all agendas are being treated equally when it comes to caches these days. Easy enough to remove that wording or to rephrase it.

 

As for bramasoleiowa - I appreciate and thank you for your service - but please try to understand that the reviewers (volunteers much like yourself) are just doing thier jobs as instructed by the powers that be (also much like yourself).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going with the reviewers. That cache description is far outside of what i would enjoy. This is supposed to a fun hobby and we should keep it that way and not turn it into some agenda for either side. I'm as pro military as they come (two years in Vietenam) in case you are wondering.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, fair enough - I'll remove the wording. Still sticks in my craw because I don't believe that I wasn't pushing an agenda beyond "Remember this guy," but I get where you guys are coming from. Thanks for your help.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

 

I've seen some memorial caches and would a better wording here be "I placed this cache in the memory of SSG Pummill as a testament to his sacrifice" or is that still skating on thin ice? Now, I want to be clear that I'm not writing this as if I expect this response over another but instead am asking a question merely on the chance that the catch in the verbiage is not where I thought: If what I wrote is an agenda, would it be because it is someone in military service or because I used the word "sacrifice" or are all memorial caches outside of the boundaries? This is not a rhetorical question to make a point but an actual inquiry :blink: Thanks for the responses. Just trying to find out where the lines lie in terms of an agenda in a case like this.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly don't know except that perhaps the better expression would be "anything that remotely invites controversy." A cache that honors, say, those in the American Revolution has little chance of offending someone even though it pushes an agenda (liberty, democracy) whereas someone might get all butthurt over the mention of a soldier. Groundspeak decided to call that an agenda and there ya go. A little disingenuous, but whatever.

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

Edited by OKH

Share this post


Link to post

first off let me state that I totally support our service men and women and I do have an agenda of remembrance and to promote Veterans rights. I am a veteran and a member of The VFW, DAV, and Viet Nam Veterans of America.

I do think the wording on this cache is over the top as promoting an agenda and probably not in the best interest of this hobby. a zero tolerance of agendas is one of the things that keeps this hobby safe for the widest range of participants. It's comforting to know that when I take my grandkids geocaching we probably won't open a cache and find something offensive to them or me.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's more than just what is controversal here.

You're still trying to make it into people taking sides.

 

I think anything political of any nature does not belong here.

I think it does not have to invite controversy.

 

Anything political, or religious, or anything similar.

 

This is a game. It is meant to include all people, no matter what backgrounds.

 

Does it push an agenda, is not the question so much as, "is it political?" means it doesn't belong here. (although it goes without saying if it pushes an agenda it's out)

 

I even don't like it when people put their political agenda's in their forum signatures. I think that's very inappropriate too.

 

This is supposed to be fun. Keep it light.

I'm not even particularly in favor of caches in honor of people. there is a time and a place for that. That's not light in the spirit of fun.

So someone has this sad cache message about a lost loved one, and someone writes, "had a blast finding your cache!!" Not in the spirit of the game.

 

I get heavy about politics and religion and lost loved ones and all the rest sometimes too. I just need a place to go to have fun that doesn't have all of that in it for a change.

I don't want to visit a cache that's a downer.

 

Think of this of how the olympics were supposed to be.

A place where we can all meet beyond all of that. Where we can have fun together no matter what our political and religious and other persuasions.

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, I have heard things like this about NY Admin.

Take it out and just move on. Its not worth getting flustered.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stick to the facts, with no exhortations to pray or to refect on anything patriotic and you may be OK. You can tell the story of a soldier in a historical context : This is what happened. Don't tell anybody to honor him or state that he is a fallen hero.

 

My suggestions as to the rewording of the cache description:

 

This cache is dedicated to a local citizen in the Tri-State area:

 

 

Marine Staff Sgt. Richard T. Pummill

 

of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pummill died from an improvised explosive device while conducting combat operations against enemy forces near Nasser Wa Salaam, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Died on October 20, 2005.

 

Staff Sergeant Richard Pummill, 27, was from Cherry Grove. He graduated from Anderson High School in 1996 and immediately joined the Marines as a career.

 

Pummill was married with a three year old boy.

 

"He was a fantastic father. He's dedicated and adores his son. His son looks just like him," said Linda Pummill, Richard's mom.

 

She found out Thursday night when two Marines showed up at her door.

 

They told her Pummill was in a Humvee with some other Marines when they hit a bomb.

 

"He was one kick a** Marine," Linda told 9News. "My son loved our country. He loved the Marine Corps. He lived to be a Marine."

 

Richard loved his mother and grandparents who guided him growing up.

 

"We raised one hell of a person. He was an awesome person. He loved life. He adored his grandparents," Linda said.

 

She says she'll cherish the last phone message he left at home.

 

"Hey Mom. I guess you're over at Grandma's or Susan's. Just wanted to call and say hello. That I love you. Bye," Richard said in the message.

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, I have heard things like this about NY Admin.

Take it out and just move on. Its not worth getting flustered.

 

I assure you that every reviewer who is doing his job as directed by Groundspeak (which happens to be owned by an Air Force vet) would do the same thing.

 

A cache that honors, say, those in the American Revolution has little chance of offending someone even though it pushes an agenda (liberty, democracy) whereas someone might get all butthurt over the mention of a soldier. Groundspeak decided to call that an agenda and there ya go. A little disingenuous, but whatever.

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

 

A cache asking visitors to pause and reflect on the sacrifices of the soldiers of the American Revolution would get the same treatment. A page that simply provides background (for instance a cache at the Saratotga battlefield, that dispassionately recounts the facts of the Battle of Saratoga) would be treated differently.

 

You may see caches with agendas out there, but the pages may have been altered after publication, or published before the guidelines were clarified for reviewers.

 

If BrianSnat were a reviewer he would have done the the same as your reviewer, even though he is a strong supporter and admirer of our military. Many a reviewer has had to turn down caches that push agendas that they passionately support.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

 

Keystone, please enlighten me. I am truly not understanding.

 

How exactly is "please take a moment to reflect on Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women" an agenda? Where is the "telling you how to think or what to think" present in that sentence?

 

It reads as a request, not a directive, at least to me. How is a request to pause and be thankful for any public servant an agenda?

 

Finally, perhaps so that I could fully understand, how would that be written to be agenda-free (the "just strike the sentence from the record" teaches us nothing, but as someone else stated, GS helping us by showing a "proper" sentence would be much more educational.")

 

Currently, it seems to me an agendas are being pushed indeed, but removing that sentence is not an easy fix....

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, I have heard things like this about NY Admin.

Take it out and just move on. Its not worth getting flustered.

If you think the issue is NYAdmin, or the military serviceman from the OP's cache page, then you aren't paying attention. It's about personal agenda's not being allowed on the cache page. Positive or negative.

Share this post


Link to post
How exactly is "please take a moment to reflect on Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women" an agenda?

 

You may have to look up the definition of agenda.

 

Finally, perhaps so that I could fully understand, how would that be written to be agenda-free (the "just strike the sentence from the record" teaches us nothing, but as someone else stated, GS helping us by showing a "proper" sentence would be much more educational.")

 

Something like this might work. "This cache is is the starting point for a geocoin remembering SSG Richard Pummill who was KIA in Iraq" No agenda, just a fact.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

 

Something like this might work. "This cache is is the starting point for a geocoin remembering SSG Richard Pummill who was KIA in Iraq" No agenda, just a fact.

 

Whoa! Let's not inject the hoary head of REASON into this thread...

Share this post


Link to post

 

You may have to look up the definition of agenda.

 

 

Ya know, I looked up "patronize" while I was at it...

 

 

Something like this might work. "This cache is is the starting point for a geocoin remembering SSG Richard Pummill who was KIA in Iraq" No agenda, just a fact.

 

Alright, since you already think I'm stupid, there's no harm in me stating that I still "don't get it."

 

"A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon"

 

I fail to see how remembering servicemen and women is a matter to be acted or voted upon. I fail to see how it is "political" if that is what you insinuate with the "you may have to look up the definition of agenda" comment.

 

Newsflash. Support of personnel does not equate to support of policy. Unless, of course, you wish to turn the clock back 35 years.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the reviewer on this one.

In practice, good agendas must be treated the same as not-so-good agendas.

 

The problem is that what one may say is a good agenda, another may say is one of the not-so-good kind. Personally, I don't want anyone else to decide for me what they think is a good one and what is not.

 

I'd rather do without any agendas and just have a fun game.

There are many other venues out there for touting an agenda. Geocaching shouldn't be one of them.

 

I support this reviewer in doing his difficult job. It's never any fun to have to tell someone 'no'. Most people don't take it very well.....

Share this post


Link to post

FWIW - the cache was published last night after I took out the offending sentence.

Share this post


Link to post

In my worthless opinion, the New York reviewer, and everyone else that "attempts" to define agenda caches, need their heads examined.

 

Please note that there is a black and white difference between MEMORIAL and AGENDA. If you don't understand the difference, look it up on Webster's. If you do know the difference but are still brain dead in its implementation, then there's NO hope for you.

Share this post


Link to post

Good for you!

 

I think your TB for MSS Pummill is nice and is an appropriate way to honor him and his ultimate sacrifice for our country. I always pause a bit to think about the person and their life when I see a memorial TB.

 

Happy Caching!

Share this post


Link to post

 

You may have to look up the definition of agenda.

 

 

Ya know, I looked up "patronize" while I was at it...

 

 

Something like this might work. "This cache is is the starting point for a geocoin remembering SSG Richard Pummill who was KIA in Iraq" No agenda, just a fact.

 

Alright, since you already think I'm stupid, there's no harm in me stating that I still "don't get it."

 

"A list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon"

 

I fail to see how remembering servicemen and women is a matter to be acted or voted upon. I fail to see how it is "political" if that is what you insinuate with the "you may have to look up the definition of agenda" comment.

 

Newsflash. Support of personnel does not equate to support of policy. Unless, of course, you wish to turn the clock back 35 years.

 

Another definition of agenda is "an underlying often ideological plan or program". That is what Groundspeak means by an agenda. The underlying reason for the cache in question is to honor the sacrifice of a service member. Tthat is by definition an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

Another definition of agenda is "an underlying often ideological plan or program". That is what Groundspeak means by an agenda. The underlying reason for the cache in question is to honor the sacrifice of a service member. Tthat is by definition an agenda.

 

I was really out of this until this last post. I'm not attacking you, Brian. I know you do a lot here but if that's Groundspeak's position then perhaps they need to nuance it a little.

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents ...

 

Anything that promotes a particular viewpoint is an agenda. Period.

 

And agendas are not permitted on the cache page unless they are cleared in advance by Groundspeak in writing. Period.

 

It matters not whether we/you/the reviewer personally agrees with the agenda. It's not permitted on the page.

 

Reviewers perform their job without regard to their personal beliefs.

 

Caches either meet the guidelines or they don't.

 

Groundspeak has been pretty clear on their stance on agendas of any sorts being on the cache page.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama

Share this post


Link to post

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

 

I've seen some memorial caches and would a better wording here be "I placed this cache in the memory of SSG Pummill as a testament to his sacrifice" or is that still skating on thin ice? Now, I want to be clear that I'm not writing this as if I expect this response over another but instead am asking a question merely on the chance that the catch in the verbiage is not where I thought: If what I wrote is an agenda, would it be because it is someone in military service or because I used the word "sacrifice" or are all memorial caches outside of the boundaries? This is not a rhetorical question to make a point but an actual inquiry :rolleyes: Thanks for the responses. Just trying to find out where the lines lie in terms of an agenda in a case like this.

 

mrbort, think you missed the import of the word "imperative" in Keystone's response. An imperative verb is a verb that exhorts, commands, or requests an action. Simply removing the imperative changes the nature of the write up. In the use of the imperative (support, remember, reflect) the writer moves from providing information to telling the reader how to respond. How the reader (cacher) responds is their business. Attempting to create a particular response is an agenda.

 

Does that help?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Another definition of agenda is "an underlying often ideological plan or program". That is what Groundspeak means by an agenda. The underlying reason for the cache in question is to honor the sacrifice of a service member. Tthat is by definition an agenda.

 

Yeah, well, ok. I suppose there's a reason I asked Keystone for his opinion, as a reviewer, as opposed to a forum regular. :rolleyes:

 

We'll keep talking in circles, I suppose, since I, stating this once again, fail to equate honoring the sacrifice of a service member with an ideology or program, hence not meeting the definition of agenda.

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents ...

 

Anything that promotes a particular viewpoint is an agenda. Period.

 

 

Again, all that I am asking is someone please correlate reflecting on the public service of any group of people with a particular viewpoint! What viewpoint exactly is being "pushed" in memorializing or remembering?

 

There is indeed a separation between the people and the policy.

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents ...

Anything that promotes a particular viewpoint is an agenda. Period.

With that in mind, would you consider this cache to be promoting and agenda? Leave No Trace

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents ...

Anything that promotes a particular viewpoint is an agenda. Period.

With that in mind, would you consider this cache to be promoting and agenda? Leave No Trace

 

cough cough....

 

Good point. Same with these?

 

GC1KR2W

 

GC10284

 

GCJ6KA

 

GC198WF

Edited by Jeep_Dog

Share this post


Link to post
We'll keep talking in circles, I suppose, since I, stating this once again, fail to equate honoring the sacrifice of a service member with an ideology or program, hence not meeting the definition of agenda.
The problem is not that you are honoring the sacrifice of a service member with your cache.

 

The problem is that you are exhorting others to honor the sacrifice of a service member ("Please take a moment to reflect..."). That is what the guidelines mean when they say "For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted."

 

Yes, it can seem like a subtle distinction. As others have suggested, just stick to the facts.

 

And yes, there might seem to be a bit of a double-standard, since it seems to be fine to include "agendas" like

  • please enjoy the view
  • please remember to CITO
  • please continue along the trail to the beautiful waterfall just a hundred feet past the cache
  • please remember to trade up, trade even, or don't trade

Maybe those just aren't considered "religious, political, charitable or social agendas".

Share this post


Link to post

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

 

I've seen some memorial caches and would a better wording here be "I placed this cache in the memory of SSG Pummill as a testament to his sacrifice" or is that still skating on thin ice? Now, I want to be clear that I'm not writing this as if I expect this response over another but instead am asking a question merely on the chance that the catch in the verbiage is not where I thought: If what I wrote is an agenda, would it be because it is someone in military service or because I used the word "sacrifice" or are all memorial caches outside of the boundaries? This is not a rhetorical question to make a point but an actual inquiry :rolleyes: Thanks for the responses. Just trying to find out where the lines lie in terms of an agenda in a case like this.

 

mrbort, think you missed the import of the word "imperative" in Keystone's response. An imperative verb is a verb that exhorts, commands, or requests an action. Simply removing the imperative changes the nature of the write up. In the use of the imperative (support, remember, reflect) the writer moves from providing information to telling the reader how to respond. How the reader (cacher) responds is their business. Attempting to create a particular response is an agenda.

 

Does that help?

 

Hi thanks...

 

I was actually quite clear about the meaning of the word "imperative." If I looked stupid or like I was looking for an argument or making trouble, then I certainly apologize.

 

Perhaps I was inelegant at the way I framed my question...

 

I actually clearly understood that Keystone's response was to drop the entire imperative sentence; my confusion lay in which part of the sentence was objectionable. My assumption was that it was the imperative that made the sentence unacceptable (as evidenced in the example sentence I chose as a replacement). I was seeking clarification of whether this assumption was correct. What I was trying to clear up exactly was if it was because of (as I assumed) the imperative nature ("please take a moment") of the sentence or the other content of the sentence ("sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women"). That is why I offered an example without the imperative yet included the bit about sacrifice. I was just trying to ascertain whether my assumption about Keystone's response was correct.

 

There were actually two main questions to my post: My first major question was whether my example was acceptable. The second was in multiple parts and concerned whether the example that I wrote still consisted of an agenda because it was promoting a particular viewpoint through its verbiage.

 

Again, if I came across as argumentative, I apologize. I really just wanted clarification and perhaps my question obfuscated that.

Share this post


Link to post
We'll keep talking in circles, I suppose, since I, stating this once again, fail to equate honoring the sacrifice of a service member with an ideology or program, hence not meeting the definition of agenda.
The problem is not that you are honoring the sacrifice of a service member with your cache.

 

The problem is that you are exhorting others to honor the sacrifice of a service member ("Please take a moment to reflect..."). That is what the guidelines mean when they say "For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted."

 

Yes, it can seem like a subtle distinction. As others have suggested, just stick to the facts.

 

And yes, there might seem to be a bit of a double-standard, since it seems to be fine to include "agendas" like

  • please enjoy the view
  • please remember to CITO
  • please continue along the trail to the beautiful waterfall just a hundred feet past the cache
  • please remember to trade up, trade even, or don't trade

Maybe those just aren't considered "religious, political, charitable or social agendas".

 

This does a great job of explaining it IMO and is what I struggled to, in my previous post verbalize (I ended up giving up and seeing what other people had written and am glad I did) in response to Isonzo Karst's statement about

In the use of the imperative (support, remember, reflect) the writer moves from providing information to telling the reader how to respond. How the reader (cacher) responds is their business. Attempting to create a particular response is an agenda.

 

The point you made about the apparent double standard is the one I was wrestling with and I think you made it quite well. It's not the imperatives that are the problem... just the ones that promote a religious, political, etc agenda. Thanks for a great post.

Share this post


Link to post
You may have to look up the definition of agenda.
Ya know, I looked up "patronize" while I was at it...
Good one. You'd think a Moderator in these forums would be a little less snarky, but we get it pretty regularly from Briansnat. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
...please take a moment to reflect on...

 

I don't see this as telling anyone how to think about anything. It simply asks that the reader take a moment to think about the situation being discussed. You are free to make up your own mind as to what you think about it. It certainly does not promote the war or the military or a political entity or ideology.

 

Please, take a moment to reflect on the statements I have made.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is not that you are honoring the sacrifice of a service member with your cache.

 

 

Just a small point - it isn't my cache. I do not believe any of my caches have an agenda.... I try to avoid such things. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

Personal opinion: Tell them to f-off.

Realistic: Try rewording it to mean the same thing but appease the anti-military reviewer.

 

edit: or remind them that without the military there would be no GPS and thus no geocaching.

 

The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT!

 

FREEDOM ISN"T FREE

 

If it was for the DOD (Department of Defense) we wouldn't have GPS in the first place.

 

TGC

Edited by texasgrillchef

Share this post


Link to post

I think the reviewer was right on the money. An excellent agenda but an agenda just the same.

 

It's no agenda... No different than honoring a park, or honoring being enviromental.

 

EVERY CACHE has SOME sort of Agenda to it. Either honoring a park, a peice of land, or natural monument, being enviromental, or even some form or history, or even some government item. This is no different than that.

 

There are MANY cache/hides started in MEMORIUM for someone who has died.

 

This is deffinately "Family Friendly"

 

I take Major insult on your view of this... and view you as a BIGOT.

 

Get a Life!

 

TGC

 

FREEDOM ISN"T FREE!

Share this post


Link to post

My 2 cents....as has been clearly shown in this thread, certain "agendas" are kay with Groundspeak....certain ones are not. CITO, LeaveNoTrace, even GeoCaching ITSELF can be considered an "agenda" per the ways that Groundspeak chooses to define it. And although any remark about the reviewer will rapidly be met with a comment along the lines of "They are all doing exactly as prescribed by Groundspeak", it is VERY easy to see that some reviewers insert their own rules & regulations into their decisions.

 

Requiring 3rd-party approval for a cache located on PRIVATE land, or adjacent to it, is a new one that has been invented by another reviewer. As yet, he hasn't replied to my request for some elaboration of just why a completely outside party needs to determine if they own the land where a cache is set, even though it's quite obvious they don't.

 

There is no "tell me how to think" involved in this cache. It's a simple request...you can choose to ignore it if you want. Enforcing non-sense rules such as this, that don't even NEED enforcing, is GREATLY impacting the sport we love, & not in a positive way. As of today, there have been ZERO new caches hid within at least 25 miles of my area in the last 5 days or so. You just have to abide by so many multiple rules that it's VERY difficult to do it anymore.

 

I think Groundspeak has made a statement in the past that they were trying NOT to enforce multiple rules upon Geocaching, or something to that effect. Unfortunately, that is just what they are doing & it shows. But there seems to be no real way for the cacher himself to defend that. Any comment to that effect is almost always met with something to the effect of, "We're right".

Share this post


Link to post

Moderator comment: If you cannot post like a grownup, don't post. There is no reason for potty language and personal attacks.

 

Reviewer comment 1: Don't assume that the New York cache reviewer is anti-military. There are reviewers with military experience and those with none, and each would be obligated to enforce the "no agenda" guideline in the same way. I need to go leave a similar "agenda" note on a pending cache submission that goes a bit overboard in quoting from the Bible and linking to a religious website. I am confident that an atheist cache reviewer would leave the same note that I'll be leaving as a devout Christian. Geocaching is a light, fun activity. The agendas -- whether positive, negative or neutral -- belong elsewhere.

 

I don't assume. Because it's obvious! Anyone who supported our Military as well as our FORM of government IS in fact ANTI-American AND ANTI-Military. Being from a military family & haveing several current & retired military personal read the comment left by the reviewer, we were ALL APPALED! AND VERY INSULTED!

 

WE Feel that the REVIEWER is obviously to us ANTI-Military. Sorry but you LOSE that argument.

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

 

While it may not have anything to do with the cache... IT DOES have something to do with the GEOCOIN that made its DEBUT AT THAT CACHE... The geocoin is in memorium to the fallen HERO.

 

I am sorry but I am sure anyone in the sevice would take offense to your comments as well.

 

TGC

Share this post


Link to post

Personal opinion: Tell them to f-off.

Realistic: Try rewording it to mean the same thing but appease the anti-military reviewer.

 

edit: or remind them that without the military there would be no GPS and thus no geocaching.

 

The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT!

 

FREEDOM ISN"T FREE

 

If it was for the DOD (Department of Defense) we wouldn't have GPS in the first place.

 

TGC

Oddly - you have in many ways - proved the point. It does indeed carry an agenda.

 

As much as I might agree with the agenda - it is still an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Moderator comment: If you cannot post like a grownup, don't post. There is no reason for potty language and personal attacks.

 

Reviewer comment 1: Don't assume that the New York cache reviewer is anti-military. There are reviewers with military experience and those with none, and each would be obligated to enforce the "no agenda" guideline in the same way. I need to go leave a similar "agenda" note on a pending cache submission that goes a bit overboard in quoting from the Bible and linking to a religious website. I am confident that an atheist cache reviewer would leave the same note that I'll be leaving as a devout Christian. Geocaching is a light, fun activity. The agendas -- whether positive, negative or neutral -- belong elsewhere.

I don't assume. Because it's obvious! Anyone who supported our Military as well as our FORM of government IS in fact ANTI-American AND ANTI-Military. Being from a military family & haveing several current & retired military personal read the comment left by the reviewer, we were ALL APPALED! AND VERY INSULTED!
Now I'm confused. Anyone that supports our military is anti-military?

 

The reviewer's personal opinions on the government, it's military, and the current price of tea has nothing to do with him publishing the cache or not. He's required to follow the reviewer guidelines, and if there's an obvious agenda (no matter what the agenda is) he cannot publish it. It's just that simple.

 

WE Feel that the REVIEWER is obviously to us ANTI-Military.
You're not paying attention.

 

Sorry but you LOSE that argument.
And you've lost a few things too.

 

Reviewer comment 2: To fix the issue, drop the imperative sentence: "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." When you tell me how to think or what to think, that is where the agenda arises. It has nothing to do with the location or describing the cache the reader is hunting. Focus on the facts, not the agenda.

While it may not have anything to do with the cache... IT DOES have something to do with the GEOCOIN that made its DEBUT AT THAT CACHE... The geocoin is in memorium to the fallen HERO.
Geocoins ARE allowed to have an agenda. So are Travel Bugs. Caches, however, are not.

 

I am sorry but I am sure anyone in the sevice would take offense to your comments as well.
Most of the people in the "service" can understand concepts that you're not able to grasp, and I don't think they'd be offended at all after it was explained to them.

 

Think about it this way... what if I wanted to place a cache that was VERY anti-military? What if my cache page made fun of all the people that died fighting for our country and was extremely rude to those that still served? I don't think you'd enjoy coming across that page or that cache. Right? The problem is that there's no good way to draw a line and say that the agendas on one side of the line are acceptable and the agendas on the other side are not.

 

The anti-military agenda is one that most people would think should be pretty obviously not allowed. But what about a "good" agenda that supports UNICEF? This in an organization that most people only know as a charity that raises money for kids and poor folks around the world. Surely that would be allowed. But... I'd be offended because the "UN" part of UNICEF stands for United Nations, and that's an organization that makes my blood boil. The reasons are irrelevant here.

 

So to avoid having the reviewers decide which agendas wouldn't offend anyone (there are really very few) they decided to eliminate them all from cache pages. Now this is a place you can come to for geocaching and not have to worry about a non-stop stream of people's personal politics, religious views, etc. while you're finding caches.

 

Isn't that better?

Share this post


Link to post

...

This cache honors the life and ultimate sacrifice of Marine Staff Sergeant Richard Pummill, Taps 20 October 2005, Nasser Wa Salaam, Iraq. Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women. A geocoin remembering SSG Pummill is making its inaugural run in this cache.
....Thoughts?

 

I put the agenda in bold. It's a tough call though because your agenda isnt' about any one action to be taken. It's merely asking someone to think about the people who serve. So the call to think is what they are calling the agenda even though there isn't a focus beyond the topic.

 

The cure in my opinion is to place the cache in honor of this person while not asking folks to ponder. Let the description cause the pondering without asking because it touches on the things that will cause folks to think.

Share this post


Link to post

... This is supposed to a fun hobby and we should keep it that way ...

 

Keeping it that way means allowing freedom. In turn that means you can chase your own fun, but you should not impose on the cache owner who is feeling that this is what they should be doing. You can discretely avoid the cache later.

Share this post


Link to post
You may have to look up the definition of agenda.
Ya know, I looked up "patronize" while I was at it...
Good one. You'd think a Moderator in these forums would be a little less snarky, but we get it pretty regularly from Briansnat. :rolleyes:

 

Geez, now a simple statement of fact is being snarky. It was apparent to me that the poster was not completely familiar with the all the definitions of an agenda, which he proved in his subsequent post.

 

The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT!

 

I know the reviewer in question personally, and I can assure you that he would be very surprised to learn this about himself.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

....Another definition of agenda is "an underlying often ideological plan or program". That is what Groundspeak means by an agenda. The underlying reason for the cache in question is to honor the sacrifice of a service member. Tthat is by definition an agenda.

Another definition of agenda is to cause a person to come to a specific location because you want to show them something you think is worth seeing. A very commonly promoted agenda by many members of this forum.

 

The question isn't if a cache is allowed to have an agenda. They are. The question is where is the line and I think this cache can be done without crossing the line.

Share this post


Link to post

... BIGOT!...

 

Either that doesn't mean what you think it does, you are suffering an accute case yourself, or perhaps you are running a bit hot under the collar and said it for dramatic effect without actually meaning it.

 

Lets hope it's the last one. Freedom isn't free but the free discussion of a cache doesn't have to be this ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...