Jump to content

Request for Comment: Cache Agenda


OKH

Recommended Posts

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.

Admittedly, there is probably a better way to say what I did...I didn't mean for it to sound like post #3...

 

My sincere apologies...

Edited by ArcherDragoon
Link to comment
. 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!

 

Show me where I have harped about that certain "agenda". I made only 1 previous post in this entire thread & the closest I got to mentioning my personal feelings about the issue was:

 

"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 don't think that's considered harping.

 

My point, and I gave just 1 example to show, was that Groundspeak seems to have left the definition of "agenda" up to several dozen different individuals to determine. With the difference in people...no two are the same...that's ALOT of room for things to go wrong, or at the very least, generate many misunderstandings & variations in cache publishing. That is easy to see has already happen in the past.

 

I have no desire to start my own caching site or perhaps I would have already done it. I like Groundspeak. I like Geocaching.com. I'm just posting examples of real-life caches that I have found in my immediate vicinity which could easily be taken to contradict the "No Agenda" rule. ANYTHING can be taken as an agenda if a certain person chooses to do so.

 

It may be a GOOD guideline....I'm not implying it isn't. However, the way it's worded, the way it's taken, & the way it's enforced is FAR from ideal. If it was ideal, we wouldn't be participating in this thread right now.

Link to comment
If it was ideal, we wouldn't be participating in this thread right now.

I disagree. There are so many entitlement junkies in the world that, even if your self described guideline Nirvana were reached, some folks would still whine endlessly when their private little agenda didn't pass muster. Most cachers are bright enough to figure out what Groundspeak means when talking about agendas. A smattering few are not. Hence, the continued arguments.

Link to comment
. 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!

 

Show me where I have harped about that certain "agenda". I made only 1 previous post in this entire thread & the closest I got to mentioning my personal feelings about the issue was:

 

"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 don't think that's considered harping.

 

My point, and I gave just 1 example to show, was that Groundspeak seems to have left the definition of "agenda" up to several dozen different individuals to determine. With the difference in people...no two are the same...that's ALOT of room for things to go wrong, or at the very least, generate many misunderstandings & variations in cache publishing. That is easy to see has already happen in the past.

 

I have no desire to start my own caching site or perhaps I would have already done it. I like Groundspeak. I like Geocaching.com. I'm just posting examples of real-life caches that I have found in my immediate vicinity which could easily be taken to contradict the "No Agenda" rule. ANYTHING can be taken as an agenda if a certain person chooses to do so.

 

It may be a GOOD guideline....I'm not implying it isn't. However, the way it's worded, the way it's taken, & the way it's enforced is FAR from ideal. If it was ideal, we wouldn't be participating in this thread right now.

 

Ummm, just because your post was referenced, this doesn't mean the entire comment was aimed solely at you. I believe my comment to you solely ended after I addressed your "contradiction" comment. I guess I could have made the changeover from commenting on your post better, but I thought most understand that they alone are not the only ones being addressed...sorry.

Link to comment

Isn't a bonus cache against the guidelines if it asks you to find the other caches in order to find the bonus? The agenda is that the hider is promoting the finding of their other caches.

 

Most "bonus" caches I've seen, you don't get to claim as a find on the website. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic or why you resurrected this thread to ask...

Link to comment
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.

 

This might fly.

Link to comment

...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.

I know I, personally, would not be offended by your examples of Lockerbie and Manson. I respect that GS has their rules, as loose as they may be, but I believe that the folks who support caches with an "agenda" (ridiculous) would also support a cache supporting your examples. Jusy my opinion, which is worthless.

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