Request for Comment: Cache Agenda

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

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.

 

 

Proven in your mind, certainly, since you insist on taking exception to my honest and heartfelt (dare I say agenda-free?!?!?!?) inquiries with patronizing tone and projeciton of logical delusions (is this "snarky?" I will have to look that one up....)

 

I do not think that I have demonstrated any lack of understanding of the "definition." I believe I have demonstrated confusion in equating the memorialization of any group of people with an "agenda." Yet, everyone chooses to disengage in that genuine desire to understand.

 

How is the concept of pausing to reflect on any population of people an "agenda"? Exactly what "underlying often ideological plan or program" is being pushed by a statement of "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." No one has clearly explained this - probably because it cannot be logically explained without revealing some sort of GS "undiscussable."

 

I believe another another problem that I'm reading in this forum is that in itself political apathy and avoidance of any agenda can also be an ethos and a corresponding agenda. Hence, it has been implied that it would appear that the reviewer himself may be imposing an agenda. This concern has not been well articulated - although I must confess, one about which I really could care a less.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

Technically every cache has an agenda - to have fun. The line where it becomes an inappropriate agenda is indeed a fuzzy one (it's why reviewers will often run these things past other reviewers), but there is a point when an agenda becomes obvious. "Support the troops", "Save this forest", "Promote breast cancer awareness", "Up the IRA", "Remember the Alamo" all contain exhortations and when you have that it's hard to

pretend there is no agenda.

 

Hence, it has been implied that it would appear that the reviewer himself may be imposing an agenda

 

The only agenda the reviewer was promoting was doing his job as directed by Groundspeak. Some of the things said about him here have been appalling. Knowing him as I do though, he wouldn't take offense because he would find the charges to be so laughable.

Edited September 2, 2009 by briansnat

[+OKH]

I actually wanted to be clear about this - the reviewer, who has been helpful to me in the past, isn't at fault, nor is he/she "anti-troop" or anything of the sort. They only operate within the guidelines set by Groundspeak. If anything, it's Groundspeak that are the un-nuanced, scared of their own shadows simpletons.

[larwyn]

I hate for this to be my first post, but I feel too strongly on this matter to keep quiet on the subject.

As a veteran I am actually more offended that the original poster was not allowed to ask that you take a minute to reflect...., than I would be by an anti-military cache description. I certainly have the right not to read about or search for a cache if it has an offensive agenda. Or even to search out an anti-military cache and leave pro-military swag... I would much rather hear you say that you do not like the military than to hear you say that I cannot ask others to take a bit of time to think of those who have died for our freedom, and your right to stand up against me and mine.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

cough cough...

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

That old chestnut really should be renamed "Catch-22".

 

Among other things "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can’t stop them from doing."

Edited September 3, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+mrbort]

I actually wanted to be clear about this - the reviewer, who has been helpful to me in the past, isn't at fault, nor is he/she "anti-troop" or anything of the sort. They only operate within the guidelines set by Groundspeak. If anything, it's Groundspeak that are the un-nuanced, scared of their own shadows simpletons.

 

You're absolutely right that the reviewers are acting within the constraints given to them by GS (probably, justifiably conservatively as other reviewers have noted) and GS is responsible for the content. I would say that taking as an example the replies from a certain gourmand in this topic, GS probably has reason to be cautious in its emplacement (and subsequent enforcement by the reviewers) of the guidelines regarding agenda promotion. It's SO easy to offend and by taking away any sort of possible agenda that could even remotely be perceived as controversial, they're protecting and growing their base of clients. I think that niraD really summed it up well with the distinction between advocacy of a cause and "have fun," "enjoy this historic area," etc. I take a bit of exception with the word "simpleton" in relation to the people who have taken an idea using new-ish technology and converted it into a worldwide hobby with millions of users.

 

I'm glad that you got your cache published and appreciate the support that you are showing for the brave men and women risking and sometimes losing their lives in the service of our country.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I hate for this to be my first post, but I feel too strongly on this matter to keep quiet on the subject.

As a veteran I am actually more offended that the original poster was not allowed to ask that you take a minute to reflect...., than I would be by an anti-military cache description. I certainly have the right not to read about or search for a cache if it has an offensive agenda. Or even to search out an anti-military cache and leave pro-military swag... I would much rather hear you say that you do not like the military than to hear you say that I cannot ask others to take a bit of time to think of those who have died for our freedom, and your right to stand up against me and mine.

The distinction would be that it's entirely possible to be completely pro-military and still think that this agenda as well as other agendas do not belong on the cache page in accordance with the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines that all cache hiders must agree to before they submit a cache for publication.

 

Swag is not covered by the agenda prohibition.

[larwyn]

 

The distinction would be that it's entirely possible to be completely pro-military and still think that this agenda as well as other agendas do not belong on the cache page in accordance with the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines that all cache hiders must agree to before they submit a cache for publication.

 

Swag is not covered by the agenda prohibition.

 

I do not believe that my statement was in any way vague. I understand.

[+tozainamboku]

A few comments. First of all Grounspeak needs to clarify the no soliciting guidelines to indicate that certain agendas related directly to geocaching can be stated on the cache page. Clearly one can suggest the cacher do CITO in areas were there is trash that needs to be removed or that if you trade you should trade even or trade up. One can ask people to enjoy the view or continue down the trail to the waterfall or anything else directly related to the cache. If the cache is in a cemetery, I suspect one could say on the cache page "Please be respectful while your are searching for the cache."

 

The solicitation rule is meant to prevent caches from advertising or espousing an opinion that is not directly related to geocaching or the particular cache location. You generally only need to be concerned if you are trying to create a particular theme for your cache. Most people get into problems when they want to honor the memory of a particular individual or small group and expand this to include a much larger group. People post caches in honor of a friend who is a cancer survivor and wind up talking about all cancer survivors. Then it becomes hard to determine if the cache is soliciting for some cancer survivor support group. Even if unnamed, it becomes difficult for the reviewer to know where to draw the line. So the decision is to not allow cache that honor a big group or that ask people to pray, reflect, ponder, meditate etc.

 

For most Americans (and probably in most other countries as well) honoring those who give their lives in the service of your country is so natural that we don't think about it as a agenda. We celebrate holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day. We watch our President and other politicians make speeches and lay wreaths at the grave of heros. We see it movies and popular culture. It is so much a second nature to us that we forget that it is an agenda. Not everyone may agree that all those that died in war deserve respect.

 

In the Shinto religion, it is believed that the souls of those that died in the service of the Emperor of Japan are enshrined at the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo. To many Japanese it only makes sense that Japanese politicians should visit the shrine on certain important dates and pay respect to the dead. The priest of the shrine determine who's soul is eligible for enshrinement. In 1978 they decided that even those who were convicted of war crimes in World War II were eligible to be enshrined. This include some individuals executed by the allies for their crimes at the end of the war. To many Japanese there is no doubt that you should honor the people who sacrificed their lives for Japan and the Emperor. To others this is not so straight forward. They would prefer their politicians stay away from the official visits to the shrine. I'm not saying that any one is proposing we honor war criminals. We are talking about Americans who fought with honor and carried out their duty within US Military and applicable international laws. The example of Japan is only given to show that what is seems to be agenda-less is not so easily classified. If Groundspeak were to allow caches that honor all American service men and women who fell on the battlefield, then could they tell a Japanese geocacher who hides a cache near Yasukuni that they can't say "Please reflect on the souls enshrined here"?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... As a veteran I am actually more offended that the original poster was not allowed to ask that you take a minute to reflect...

I am a Veteran, and don't see a problem. I too sometimes have trouble identifying an agenda, but realize that the guideline isn't aimed at any particular group.

 

I certainly have the right not to read about or search for a cache if it has an offensive agenda. Or even to search out an anti-military cache and leave pro-military swag... I would much rather hear you say that you do not like the military than to hear you say that I cannot ask others to take a bit of time to think of those who have died for our freedom, and your right to stand up against me and mine.

The nice thing about 'no agenda' is that we don't have to worry about it either way... we don't know if the cache owner is pro or anti-whatever, and shouldn't.

 

There are plenty of ways to remember or salute or reject whoever for whatever outside of geocaching.

 

If you really must express an agenda do it with a Travel Bug, it will be seen by a lot more people than a cache will anyway!

[larwyn]

... As a veteran I am actually more offended that the original poster was not allowed to ask that you take a minute to reflect...

I am a Veteran, and don't see a problem. I too sometimes have trouble identifying an agenda, but realize that the guideline isn't aimed at any particular group.

 

I certainly have the right not to read about or search for a cache if it has an offensive agenda. Or even to search out an anti-military cache and leave pro-military swag... I would much rather hear you say that you do not like the military than to hear you say that I cannot ask others to take a bit of time to think of those who have died for our freedom, and your right to stand up against me and mine.

The nice thing about 'no agenda' is that we don't have to worry about it either way... we don't know if the cache owner is pro or anti-whatever, and shouldn't.

 

There are plenty of ways to remember or salute or reject whoever for whatever outside of geocaching.

 

If you really must express an agenda do it with a Travel Bug, it will be seen by a lot more people than a cache will anyway!

 

I'm not out to promote an agenda. I expressed my view of the discussion here, I suppose "muted and uninformed" is one way to deal with a problem (ignorance is bliss) and the "no agenda (except)" is a means to make that happen.

[+texasgrillchef]

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.

 

In which case.. I will start issuing SBA's on ALL caches that have an agenda of pushing state/national parks, or being enviromental, or businesses, or govermentment lands, historical sites or anything else that would otherwise have an agenda of getting you to visit some place or see something, or change your ways of the enviroment. Either we allow agendas.. or we allow NO agendas of any form. Period... Black or white... No gray lines... No fence resting. However, I am not really going to do that, even though I should to start making a point of how hypocritical the system is. We as people have agenda's it's all a part of who we are.

 

Oh and lets give the guy back his money for his geocoin as well. Since the geocoin is in "memorium" to the fallin solidier. Let's ban those geocoins.

 

I only say that the CACHE in question is where THAT geocoin started it's life being in caches. Therefore if the geocoin is APPROPRIATE.. then it should be APPROPRIATE to post that note in the ORIGINATING cache of the geocoin in question.

 

I just find it very hypocritcal that we will ALLOW a geocoin with a so called "Agenda" but not allow anyone to post anything in the logs or cache page ABOUT the geocoin itself! Crazy

 

Oh... and what about those who leave their business cards behind in cache's? Or other buisness related junk. Hmmm maybe we should start going around to everyone's cache hides and start elminating anything in it that mentions any form of business. All buisness cards, coupons, even pens & pencils with business related logo's on them.

 

Oh & lets get rid of all the geocoins/travelbugs that have agenda's too. Like all the military geocoins, The jeep geocoins & TB's.

 

Sounds like to me the only "AGENDAS" that are those that Groundspeak.com can make a few bucks off...

 

HEY Groundspeak.COM.... I have an agenda I would like to have you approved... willing to pay a $10,000 fee for my agenda... interested?

 

Hmmmm sounds good to me!

 

Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas. Thats how I feel about this thread. Cache's that are in memorium of someone should be allowed. Thats all the original OP was suggesting. Not that someone be Pro-Military or anything else. Just simple supporting of our troops who lost their lives so we can have the freedom we all so crave to have..

 

TGC

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

 

In which case.. I will start issuing SBA's on ALL caches that have an agenda of pushing state/national parks, or being enviromental, or businesses, or govermentment lands, historical sites or anything else that would otherwise have an agenda of getting you to visit some place or see something, or change your ways of the enviroment. Either we allow agendas.. or we allow NO agendas of any form. Period... Black or white... No gray lines... No fence resting. However, I am not really going to do that, even though I should to start making a point of how hypocritical the system is. We as people have agenda's it's all a part of who we are.

 

Oh and lets give the guy back his money for his geocoin as well. Since the geocoin is in "memorium" to the fallin solidier. Let's ban those geocoins.

 

I only say that the CACHE in question is where THAT geocoin started it's life being in caches. Therefore if the geocoin is APPROPRIATE.. then it should be APPROPRIATE to post that note in the ORIGINATING cache of the geocoin in question.

 

I just find it very hypocritcal that we will ALLOW a geocoin with a so called "Agenda" but not allow anyone to post anything in the logs or cache page ABOUT the geocoin itself! Crazy

 

Oh... and what about those who leave their business cards behind in cache's? Or other buisness related junk. Hmmm maybe we should start going around to everyone's cache hides and start elminating anything in it that mentions any form of business. All buisness cards, coupons, even pens & pencils with business related logo's on them.

 

Oh & lets get rid of all the geocoins/travelbugs that have agenda's too. Like all the military geocoins, The jeep geocoins & TB's.

 

Sounds like to me the only "AGENDAS" that are those that Groundspeak.com can make a few bucks off...

 

HEY Groundspeak.COM.... I have an agenda I would like to have you approved... willing to pay a $10,000 fee for my agenda... interested?

 

Hmmmm sounds good to me!

 

Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas. Thats how I feel about this thread. Cache's that are in memorium of someone should be allowed. Thats all the original OP was suggesting. Not that someone be Pro-Military or anything else. Just simple supporting of our troops who lost their lives so we can have the freedom we all so crave to have..

 

TGC

 

Some of you guys seriously need to slow down and think about it a bit...WOW!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas...

See? We CAN agree on some things!

[Clan Riffster]

Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas. Cache's that are in memorium of someone should be allowed.

And if I were to type up a cache page asking you to remember the brave Al-Queda freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives on 9-11, striking a blow against the Evil Empire known as America, I suppose that would be OK with you? You seem to forget that this is a global game, not a national one.

[+ChileHead]

I just want to find ammo cans in the woods.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I just want to find ammo cans in the woods.

Sorry, personal agendas are not allowed.

[+Rustynails]

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.

 

Very well put, Ketstone.

[+briansnat]

. If anything, it's Groundspeak that are the un-nuanced, scared of their own shadows simpletons.

 

There are 3 ways to go. Allow all agendas, allow some agendas or allow no agendas.

 

If you allow all agendas then eventually many caches will be promoting some cause. Give to your local food bank, donate to an animal shelter, Toys for Tots, all great things, but do you really want to have numerous causes pushed on you while you are ostensibly out to have fun?

 

If all agendas are allowed we'd have to allow things like "Support the Westboro Baptist Church" (look it up if you want to see anti military), "Al-Qaeda Rocks!", "Hurrah for NAMBLA" and "Vote for Bob Smith". Is that really something that you would see as beneficial to the sport?

 

If you allow some agendas, then where do you draw the line? Boy Scouts? Great organization in my eyes, but to a segment of the population they are evil incarnate. Support the Troops? There are actually people who don't. Planned Parenthood? Many people are ardent supporters, but some see them as baby killers. Greenpeace? A wonderful cause to some and a pro commie organization to others.

 

Allowing some agendas would put reviewers in the position of having to judge the worthiness of each agenda. There is enough controversy at times over their interpretation of the guidelines, which is supposedly their area of expertise. Do you really want to put them in the position of judging the worthiness of every cause?

 

The third alternative is to leave the sport free of agendas. Let's go out and have some fun and if we have a

personal cause we should use the appropriate venue to promote it.

[+AstroDav]

. If anything, it's Groundspeak that are the un-nuanced, scared of their own shadows simpletons.

 

There are 3 ways to go. Allow all agendas, allow some agendas or allow no agendas.

 

If you allow all agendas then eventually many caches will be promoting some cause. Give to your local food bank, donate to an animal shelter, Toys for Tots, all great things, but do you really want to have numerous causes pushed on you while you are ostensibly out to have fun?

 

If all agendas are allowed we'd have to allow things like "Support the Westboro Baptist Church" (look it up if you want to see anti military), "Al-Qaeda Rocks!", "Hurrah for NAMBLA" and "Vote for Bob Smith". Is that really something that you would see as beneficial to the sport?

 

If you allow some agendas, then where do you draw the line? Boy Scouts? Great organization in my eyes, but to a segment of the population they are evil incarnate. Support the Troops? There are actually people who don't. Planned Parenthood? Many people are ardent supporters, but some see them as baby killers. Greenpeace? A wonderful cause to some and a pro commie organization to others.

 

Allowing some agendas would put reviewers in the position of having to judge the worthiness of each agenda. There is enough controversy at times over their interpretation of the guidelines, which is supposedly their area of expertise. Do you really want to put them in the position of judging the worthiness of every cause?

 

The third alternative is to leave the sport free of agendas. Let's go out and have some fun and if we have a

personal cause we should use the appropriate venue to promote it.

 

So a whole series of caches...approx a dozen...named after the BSA & each one clearly promoting a specific attribute of a scout is an agenda? Curiously, this series was hidden & is maintained by a reviewer. Hummm...I guess THAT agenda was deemed worthy.

 

Don't take that wrong however. I fully & firmly believe in the BSA, as I do the military & the respect that those who choose to serve deserve. But as many have pointed out, almost EVERY cache COULD be considered as having a non-geocaching agenda. So there's quite a bit of contradiction here.

Edited September 3, 2009 by astrodav

[+Rockin Roddy]

. If anything, it's Groundspeak that are the un-nuanced, scared of their own shadows simpletons.

 

There are 3 ways to go. Allow all agendas, allow some agendas or allow no agendas.

 

If you allow all agendas then eventually many caches will be promoting some cause. Give to your local food bank, donate to an animal shelter, Toys for Tots, all great things, but do you really want to have numerous causes pushed on you while you are ostensibly out to have fun?

 

If all agendas are allowed we'd have to allow things like "Support the Westboro Baptist Church" (look it up if you want to see anti military), "Al-Qaeda Rocks!", "Hurrah for NAMBLA" and "Vote for Bob Smith". Is that really something that you would see as beneficial to the sport?

 

If you allow some agendas, then where do you draw the line? Boy Scouts? Great organization in my eyes, but to a segment of the population they are evil incarnate. Support the Troops? There are actually people who don't. Planned Parenthood? Many people are ardent supporters, but some see them as baby killers. Greenpeace? A wonderful cause to some and a pro commie organization to others.

 

Allowing some agendas would put reviewers in the position of having to judge the worthiness of each agenda. There is enough controversy at times over their interpretation of the guidelines, which is supposedly their area of expertise. Do you really want to put them in the position of judging the worthiness of every cause?

 

The third alternative is to leave the sport free of agendas. Let's go out and have some fun and if we have a

personal cause we should use the appropriate venue to promote it.

 

So a whole series of caches...approx a dozen...named after the BSA & each one clearly promoting a specific attribute of a scout is an agenda? Curiously, this series was hidden & is maintained by a reviewer. Hummm...I guess THAT agenda was deemed worthy.

 

Don't take that wrong however. I fully & firmly believe in the BSA, as I do the military & the respect that those who choose to serve deserve. But as many have pointed out, almost EVERY cache COULD be considered as having a non-geocaching agenda. So there's quite a bit of contradiction here.

 

I would bet that series was placed before we had to worry that people would want to push agendas on us....just a guess though. There's actually no contradiction at all, unless you want there to be IMHO, but I know how that is going to be seen already. Truly, it would appear to me that those of us who are trying to explain this to you guys are really just wasting our time since you seem to have your minds made up.

 

My only real suggestion left is why not make your own caching website and allow whatever you want. See how popular that becomes when you get every crazy idea under the sun as a cache agenda... I mean, you don't like the rules in place here, prove you're right and do for yourself. Or, you can continue to harp that Joe Blow can't have his "support our military" agenda and keep your blood pressures elevated!

 

Seriously, the change made was so simple, the OP made it and is happy (if I'm reading things correctly), what's the problem? So you can't tell us what to think or feel, is that such a bad thing?

[+runawaybunny]

Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas. Cache's that are in memorium of someone should be allowed.

And if I were to type up a cache page asking you to remember the brave Al-Queda freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives on 9-11, striking a blow against the Evil Empire known as America, I suppose that would be OK with you? You seem to forget that this is a global game, not a national one.

 

I'm curious to hear the answer to this as well.

[+Jackalgirl]

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

 

I'm in the military. In the Navy, to be exact. Please don't presume to speak for me.

 

I am not offended by the reviewer's actions. Nor am I offended by Groundspeak's policy. I understand the distinction between recounting a person's actions as part of an historical cache and one that exhorts someone to do something (even nicely).

 

I do not believe that anyone who expresses doubt about the US Government, its actions, or the actions of the government is "anti-American" or a bigot (which is a very strong word and not, I think, an appropriate one for this situation; in fact, I am offended by your use of it). "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." That's the oath I took upon enlisting. This means I will support and defend all Americans' rights to free speech, and this includes the freedom to criticize the government and, yes, the military.

 

By contrast, what the OP did not do, thankfully, is try to imply that anyone who does so is somehow a bad person. The OP simply asked people to "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women." But it does exhort an implied support for the military to which some people might take offense. I don't agree with those people, but I support their right to feel that way. I also support your right to feel that those people are wrong; however, please don't make statements on other service members' behalf without some careful thought, first. You don't have the right to speak on my behalf.

 

I think that the geocoin is the very best way to exhort that particular (and in my mind, very worthy) agenda. I'm very big on remembering the fallen and I think that TBs and geocoins are the best way to do it: by design, the coin or bug will (hopefully) travel and will get around. It'll have a wider effect, and spread the memory of SSG Pummill farther and amongst a broader swath of different people, than a mere cache would do.

 

Edited to add: you seem to be under the misconception that Groundspeak won't allow a memorial cache. Of course they will. What they don't allow is a cache that exhorts you to do something (outside of the normal purview of geocaching-related cultural practice, such as CITO, not trampling plants, enjoying the view, etc). All the OP had to do (and did) was remove the exhortation to take time and reflect. If you look at the cache page, you'll see that it is still a memorial. I think it would take some kind of simpleton to see the page and not think about SSG Pummill's death, even if he or she did not click on the link to the notice of his death. The OP should not direct what people are supposed to think about SSG's death. However, the OP guarantees that he will be recognized and remembered, at least by the people who come across that cache or the geocoin. How people recognize and remember SSG Pummill is a function of their own characters.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jackalgirl

[tttedzeins]

 

Some of you guys seriously need to slow down and think about it a bit...WOW!

 

What he said.

 

All this fuss about a dead guy, do you honestly believe he cares one way or another.

Now before the flames come out, I spent time in the army, got shot more times that I care to remember, lost more friends than I care to remember, got my fair share of revenge. Difference is we had 2 choices

1) go to army

2) go to jail for 2 years then go to army

I did not like it nor would I recommend it to any one else.

I could rant on for pages but won't

Edited September 3, 2009 by tttedzeins

[+Castle Mischief]

It's really simple.

 

 

...Allowing some agendas would put reviewers in the position of having to judge the worthiness of each agenda. There is enough controversy at times over their interpretation of the guidelines, which is supposedly their area of expertise. Do you really want to put them in the position of judging the worthiness of every cause?

 

...You seem to forget that this is a global game, not a national one.

 

I struggle to understand how anybody cannot comprehend these two points.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+hukilaulau]

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.

Exactly. And to further illustrate the point, here is part of the text from the cache page of a cache of mine published less than two weeks ago, by NYAdmin...

 

"I'm not big on tribute caches, but I wanted to recognize ******** who left us recently. It was her cache that brought me to this wonderful park,"

 

If I had said, "Please stop and smell the flowers and reflect on the joy she brought to people" then I expect the cache would have been rejected. A subtle nuance, maybe, but I am surprised at how difficult the concept seems to be for some people.

Here's my agenda for the day: "I support NYAdmin!!" So am I gonna get a warning?

[+sbell111]

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.

 

Technically every cache has an agenda - to have fun. The line where it becomes an inappropriate agenda is indeed a fuzzy one (it's why reviewers will often run these things past other reviewers), but there is a point when an agenda becomes obvious. "Support the troops", "Save this forest", "Promote breast cancer awareness", "Up the IRA", "Remember the Alamo" all contain exhortations and when you have that it's hard to

pretend there is no agenda.

 

Hence, it has been implied that it would appear that the reviewer himself may be imposing an agenda

 

The only agenda the reviewer was promoting was doing his job as directed by Groundspeak. Some of the things said about him here have been appalling. Knowing him as I do though, he wouldn't take offense because he would find the charges to be so laughable.

Please make your quotes retain the poster's name and the time that it was posted. The shortcut back to the original post is helpful also, especially when you only include a very small bit of their post.

[knowschad]

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

 

 

This is the edited version of your post?

[+Castle Mischief]

Now.. I know what I said all sounds stupid and riduculas. Cache's that are in memorium of someone should be allowed.

And if I were to type up a cache page asking you to remember the brave Al-Queda freedom fighters who sacrificed their lives on 9-11, striking a blow against the Evil Empire known as America, I suppose that would be OK with you? You seem to forget that this is a global game, not a national one.

 

Keep in mind that one person's Freedom Fighter is another's Terrorist.

 

I think Clan Riffsters's point was that the reverse is true as well.

[+the pooks]

Having read through this topic leads me to conclude that I am very glad that gc.com has adopted their policy of no agendas on cache listings and applaud the impartial and professional way that reviewers apply this policy. The length of this discussion and the heated responses by some posters is living proof that agendas are best left out of geocaching which is intended to be an impartial game open to anyone and everyone.

[+OKH]

Maybe what GC should do is just become a straight listing service to make sure no agendas get through, considering EVERYTHING is an agenda. Everything, including the sacred cow of CITO. Very simply list coords, attributes and container type and be done with it.

[+dakboy]

...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.

And as a potential cache finder, I'm not required to read that sentence, or actually do what's asked.

 

Earlier this summer I found a hsitorical cemetery cache with the following in its description

Please pay your respects to these forgotten and downtrodden souls while in this area.

Would that qualify as "pushing an agenda" the same as the OP's original wording? It sure sounds like it. Same reviewer too.

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

All this fuss about a dead guy, do you honestly believe he cares one way or another.

 

 

Your service aside and noted, that's pretty callous. I'm glad you've come to grips with loosing buddies, but some haven't gotten to your level of toughness.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[+Castle Mischief]

Maybe what GC should do is just become a straight listing service to make sure no agendas get through, considering EVERYTHING is an agenda. Everything, including the sacred cow of CITO. Very simply list coords, attributes and container type and be done with it.

 

Or, if you can't agree with the policies of the listing service, consider your options. There are other options.

[+Castle Mischief]

Earlier this summer I found a hsitorical cemetery cache with the following in its description

Please pay your respects to these forgotten and downtrodden souls while in this area.

Would that qualify as "pushing an agenda" the same as the OP's original wording? It sure sounds like it. Same reviewer too.

 

It's been said before, but should be repeated, that one cache does not set precedent for another, and cache owners can often edit the cache description after it's been published unbeknownst to the reviewer.

 

Put down your pitchfork and torches folks.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Maybe what GC should do is just become a straight listing service to make sure no agendas get through, considering EVERYTHING is an agenda. Everything, including the sacred cow of CITO. Very simply list coords, attributes and container type and be done with it.

 

I always thought geocaching.com was a listing service...

.

.

.

oh...wait...it is!!! Being a product of Groundspeak, they have every right to impose what they see fit as far as what will and won't be listed...as others have said, there are other options...if one doesn't like how things are done, one is free to leave...

[+Jeep_Dog]

 

For most Americans (and probably in most other countries as well) honoring those who give their lives in the service of your country is so natural that we don't think about it as a agenda. We celebrate holidays like Memorial Day or Veterans Day. We watch our President and other politicians make speeches and lay wreaths at the grave of heros. We see it movies and popular culture. It is so much a second nature to us that we forget that it is an agenda. Not everyone may agree that all those that died in war deserve respect.

 

Toz - thank you. I've been asking for some help to make the mental leap, and your example helped. While I still do not see asking for someone to pay respect as equitable to being an "agenda," I can at least see how it could be construed as such.

 

 

Hence, it has been implied that it would appear that the reviewer himself may be imposing an agenda

 

The only agenda the reviewer was promoting was doing his job as directed by Groundspeak. Some of the things said about him here have been appalling. Knowing him as I do though, he wouldn't take offense because he would find the charges to be so laughable.

 

With the number of times I've witnessed you get beyond frustrated with folks who did not read your posts or worse misinterpret your posts, I am surprised you have done the same. If a reviewer imposes an agenda of "no agendas" as directed by Groundspeak, that reviewer is imposing an agenda. Over the years I have been nothing short of appreciative of reviewers, and give them the benefit of the doubt given their altruism as volunteers. I certainly take exception with grabbing a quote from me, then discussing the personal tttacks, which I have deliberately steered clear. I agree some of the statements have been "over the line" if not "appalling."

 

It may behoove us, especially moderators such as Keystone and yourself, to also step back. Post #3 by bramaoleiowa was a bit direct, and in the words of Keystone "if you cannot post like a grownup, don't post." The "f-off" piece can easily be construed as sophmoric, but since we've obviously gone down the sunny path of pluralism here in the land of Groundspeak, it may be a time to exercise some of the "understanding" which appears at least to be an espoused value. Indeed, some folks exhibit emotion on this topic - but for many of those who have expressed the emotion, their service and the war is unarguably an emotional events. Some of lost friends and family, and some use the "f-off" piece as their daily language, and what is construed to some as rough may not be so rough. I'm not defending anyone here, just cautioning if we live under the pluralism banner here, we may need to practice plurualistic tenets...and saying we can't be too critical of passion when some are equally passionate about hugging their local reviewer (well deserved, mind you) and about CITO/environmental issues, and are allowed to comment with free reign without having moderators zooming in with a patronizing tone (not a reference to Keystone).

 

I completely agree, however, with the emotional response (sorry briansnat, contrary to your obvious disdain, I was not one of them knee-jerking with emotion) as being evident as some sort of control to things getting out of hand.

 

Yet, what I've read by those who are more balanced here (we've had emotional rhetoric on both sides here), is that some consistency or clarification (perhaps examples - a guideline, not a rule) of agenda items may be helpful.

 

Quite frankly, from many perspectives, the anti-support-the-troops movement is winning an agenda (hence being unknowningly reinforced by GS) by getting "support the troops" coined as an agenda. Toz helped me remember that since this is a global game, and that in some societies equating support of service personnel equates to support of the government's policies, then all of this discussion may be relevant. In light of this, I think, is where some clarfication of "agenda" items may be helpful. Quit worrying about how "we see 'support the troops' as an agenda item" will cause a negative reaction (that cat's out of the bag) and worry more about clearly delineating where that line may be. Most of us will shrug it off and move one, even if we feel it is a "pansy pluralistic move."

 

Goodness, Stunod and Mischief - enough with the "precedence" drum beating already. I think the points were that some of these were published even under the guise of the new guidelines, so points are being made in regards to consistency in approval of caches as opposed to "here's a precedent, so we are right." I really didn't feel like debating/pointing out the dates of caches and the likes, especially since Stunod's wedded to a lawyer...

[+Jeep_Dog]

Being a product of Groundspeak, they have every right to impose what they see fit as far as what will and won't be listed...as others have said, there are other options...if one doesn't like how things are done, one is free to leave...

 

One last thought - I really do not see how repeated statements like this really help further an environment of understanding and pluralism that we are trying to achieve here.... seems to send the exact message and beas bad as the statement in post #3.

[+sbell111]

Being a product of Groundspeak, they have every right to impose what they see fit as far as what will and won't be listed...as others have said, there are other options...if one doesn't like how things are done, one is free to leave...

One last thought - I really do not see how repeated statements like this really help further an environment of understanding and pluralism that we are trying to achieve here.... seems to send the exact message and beas bad as the statement in post #3.

On the other hand, the position of Groundspeak has been fully explained. It's been explained a number of times in this thread and in several previous threads. We really are to the point that if people can't find it within themselves to live with this decision, then they should consider moving on to a listing service that is more to their liking.

[+Castle Mischief]

Goodness, Stunod and Mischief - enough with the "precedence" drum beating already. I think the points were that some of these were published even under the guise of the new guidelines, so points are being made in regards to consistency in approval of caches as opposed to "here's a precedent, so we are right." I really didn't feel like debating/pointing out the dates of caches and the likes, especially since Stunod's wedded to a lawyer...

 

Allow me to beat another drum. Reviewers are human. Sometimes they miss things.

 

If the "well this cache says this" crowd can stop ignoring some of the more plausible reasons then maybe I don't have to beat the drum.

[+dakboy]

Earlier this summer I found a hsitorical cemetery cache with the following in its description

Please pay your respects to these forgotten and downtrodden souls while in this area.

Would that qualify as "pushing an agenda" the same as the OP's original wording? It sure sounds like it. Same reviewer too.

 

It's been said before, but should be repeated, that one cache does not set precedent for another, and cache owners can often edit the cache description after it's been published unbeknownst to the reviewer.

All I'm asking for is consistency in the application of a rule which is apparently open for interpretation. It's not about "precedence" - it's about applying the same standard every time you invoke this rule.

 

The 2 sentences here (the one I quoted, and the OP's) are very, very similar, yet one is verboten and the other was allowed. Similar words, similar intent, inconsistent application of the rule by the same reviewer.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The distinction would be that it's entirely possible to be completely pro-military and still think that this agenda....

Alledged agenda. I don't think anyone at all has actually shown what the agenda is. I did point out what I think, they think the agenda is, but I also pointed out that it really promotes nothing in particular.

 

If the agenda was clear. There would not be this much controversy.

[+Castle Mischief]

Earlier this summer I found a hsitorical cemetery cache with the following in its description

Please pay your respects to these forgotten and downtrodden souls while in this area.

Would that qualify as "pushing an agenda" the same as the OP's original wording? It sure sounds like it. Same reviewer too.

 

It's been said before, but should be repeated, that one cache does not set precedent for another, and cache owners can often edit the cache description after it's been published unbeknownst to the reviewer.

All I'm asking for is consistency in the application of a rule which is apparently open for interpretation. It's not about "precedence" - it's about applying the same standard every time you invoke this rule.

 

The 2 sentences here (the one I quoted, and the OP's) are very, very similar, yet one is verboten and the other was allowed. Similar words, similar intent, inconsistent application of the rule by the same reviewer.

 

I can't say anything to this that I and other cachers have already said. There are reasonable, plausible explanations for why this might happen. If you haven't read them by now then you probably never will.

[+Renegade Knight]

...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.

 

We agree on the solution to make the cache approvable. We don't agree that there was a problem.

 

When sbell111 said the issue had been addressed I went back to my favorite explainer of all things Groundspeak. Alas here I'm not seeing it. They neither told you how to think or what to think.

 

Therfore unless someone was more clear than you on this, I don't think we have a bright line test that would work on this cache so we all could understand. We just know there is a wiff of agenda, else we would not have controversy. However if he had said. "Please take a moment to reflect on the wonderful GPS system that makes all this great fun possible" you get the same "wiff" but I don't think you would get the same cache agenda penalty call.

[+Renegade Knight]

...oh...wait...it is!!! Being a product of Groundspeak, they have every right to impose what they see fit as far as what will and won't be listed...as others have said, there are other options...if one doesn't like how things are done, one is free to leave...

Some of my better caches are published elsewhere. This site either had first shot, or I already knew the answer would be "no".

 

The guidlines aren't always the best way to promote good high quality viable caches that folks here claim they want to see.

[knowschad]

Thoughts?

 

 

Be careful what you ask for.. you just might get it.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

...The distinction would be that it's entirely possible to be completely pro-military and still think that this agenda....

Alledged agenda. I don't think anyone at all has actually shown what the agenda is. I did point out what I think, they think the agenda is, but I also pointed out that it really promotes nothing in particular.

 

If the agenda was clear. There would not be this much controversy.

This is the stated agenda. "Please take a moment to reflect on SSG Pummill's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our servicemen and women."

 

Not everyone would agree that servicemen and women have sacrificed. (Note for the record, that I personally believe they HAVE sacrificed. But my personal belief doesn't come into play when determining whether or not something is an agenda here.)

 

Suppose, for the sake of argument, someone wanted to place a cache in honor of the Lockerbie Bomber and to reflect on his sacrifices of being imprisoned all these years.

 

Or a cache to honor Charles Manson and the sacrifices he has endured being denied parole multiple times.

 

Or what if someone put on their cache page that cachers should "Please take a moment to reflect on Osama bin Laden's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all his servicemen".

 

It's all the same thing.

 

The problem, as I see it, as has been noted by some above, some people have a hard time distinguishing that honoring or recognizing the sacrifices of our servicemen is an agenda. An agenda that perhaps many people agree with, but an agenda nonetheless.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+sTeamTraen]

If a reviewer imposes an agenda of "no agendas" as directed by Groundspeak, that reviewer is imposing an agenda.

1. No, he or she isn't. "No agendas" is not an agenda. It's a policy. It's how they run their business. It's set forth in the conditions which people agree to when they check those boxes at the bottom of the cache submission form.

 

2. If you kidnap someone and a police officer arrests you and takes you into custody, does that mean that the officer is kidnapping you as well?

 

3. In any case, this thread, starting with the OP, is not about "no agendas". It is about "no agendas to be published on the cache page". You can have a TB for Obama or Palin or Jesus, or "Support our Troops" swag. You just can't have an agenda - as defined by Groundspeak and enforced by the volunteer reviewers - on the cache page, and a good approximate test is the presence of the imperative form of a verb.

 

Yes, Groundspeak allows certain agendas, such as CITO (although if you try to say something like "help preserve the fragile environment of Planet Earth", you might have trouble getting your CITO event published). That's done for good marketing reasons. I'm quite sure that if Coca-Cola came up with an attractive offer, that the agenda of providing all Americans with cool, sparkling refreshment might suddenly become an acceptable agenda too; or maybe Groundspeak will come over all patriotic and put Old Glory on the front page of the site. (That might not be a good marketing move: caching is growing twice as fast outside the US as within it.) But otherwise, to a very close approximation, if anyone, anywhere in the world might hold the opposite view to whatever your idea is, it probably doesn't belong on a cache page.

 

It's true that there are loads of caches out there which have agenda-y language in them. Some have been edited post-publication, and some just slipped by. To set out on a witch-hunt for them is not helpful. The other day I got a speeding ticket; I didn't ask the officer where he'd been the previous week when somebody overtook me on the same stretch of road going 20mph faster than what he'd pulled me over for. That's life, especially with over one million (!) caches having been published. One million. It's a number you hear a lot when the government is spending it, but when you have one million individual <anything>, you're never going to have consistency, especially when whatever errors there are can be put in front of the entire planet within minutes.

 

If you believe that your reviewer is being over-zealous in applying this guideline, you can write to appeals@geocaching.com and a real live employee of the company - owned, as someone pointed out earlier, by a proud USAF veteran - will look at it. I'm confident that they would backup New York Admin's decision here.

Edited September 3, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+OKH]

Thoughts?

 

 

Be careful what you ask for.. you just might get it.

 

I am finding this out.

[+ArcherDragoon]

...oh...wait...it is!!! Being a product of Groundspeak, they have every right to impose what they see fit as far as what will and won't be listed...as others have said, there are other options...if one doesn't like how things are done, one is free to leave...

Some of my better caches are published elsewhere. This site either had first shot, or I already knew the answer would be "no".

 

The guidlines aren't always the best way to promote good high quality viable caches that folks here claim they want to see.

Each site has their own pros and cons...I am not debating that at all...

 

These sort of threads usually come up because someone thought they were being singled out...and than the threads stay open for far too long (especially since the OP said he/she did get the cache published a couple posts back) and usually go nowhere besides the nit-picking about who said what and how it was said...who quoted someone out of context...he/she misspelled something...etc...etc...etc...

 

Sure, guidelines may not be the best for every situation, but they are the system you have to work with...like it or don't...but it is what it is...

 

Edit: Spelling

Edited September 3, 2009 by ArcherDragoon