Should Kids be allowed to post in the forums?

[+NeverSummer]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

Not sure that we can lump forum use into geocaching activity, but I understand your point. I don't think anyone wants to see kids out of the activity, that's for sure. As for the forums...I think you can see most folks are ok with that too. (just be prepared to have a hand slapped if you overstep...)

[+Castle Mischief]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

[+Panther&Pine]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

[+Castle Mischief]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

Crap. I'm average. Time to archive my caches and recycle my geocoins...

 

I've noticed that you can almost divide the caching community between the "retired and traveling" set and the "gamer" set. If you combine the AARP statistics with the XBox live statistics I think you'll get the geocaching statistics.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[knowschad]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

[+Panther&Pine]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

I seem to recall that 'active' was defined as having logged a cache in the last three months, but that was a while ago.

I would love to get my hands on the user portion of the dbs and some sql reporting tools.

[+GeoGeeBee]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone.

 

I swore to myself I wasn't going to post again in this thread. But I can't let this kind of illogic go unchallenged.

 

Where to start?

 

"removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers"

 

This is just so wrong. Only a tiny percentage of geocachers ever visit the forums. Not allowing kids to post might irritate a few to the point where they would quit geocaching, but it certainly would not " = no kids geocachers." The kids who go geocaching with their parents would still be geocachers. The kids who never visit the forums would still be geocachers. The kids who browse the forums but don't feel the need to post would still be geocachers.

 

" = 50% of geocachers gone"

 

The idea that half of all geocachers are under the age of 18 is preposterous on its face.

 

I do appreciate you standing up for yourself. But try to think through your logic before making your argument. And by the way, not being allowed to post in the forums wouldn't keep you from earning that merit badge, either.

 

In case I haven't made it clear in my previous post, I'll state it more plainly: The people posting in this thread have caused me to re-evaluate my position. I'm fine with well-behaved children posting here. (I do think if GS is going to allow it, though, they should change the Terms of Use to remove the language that says it's not allowed.)

 

Since I, the OP, was the only one who ever thought banning minors from the forum is a good idea, I'm kind of surprised to see the thread keep going on and on and on. I would think that the total agreement would have caused interest to wane.

[+The Blorenges]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account

that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

 

How can he know? Nobody has to give their date of birth when creating an account, do they?

 

And what about family accounts which cover 2 adults + x children?

 

Hey... You don't think he just pulled that stat out of his back pocket, do you?

 

MrsB (well above average)

Edited July 22, 2011 by The Blorenges

[+GeoGeeBee]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

[knowschad]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

I seem to recall that 'active' was defined as having logged a cache in the last three months, but that was a while ago.

I would love to get my hands on the user portion of the dbs and some sql reporting tools.

 

If that is true (logging a cache in the last three months) I would have to say 'meh'. These days, in particular, that would include an awful lot of smartphone users trying out the app just once.

[knowschad]

removing kids in forums = no kids geocachers = nearly 50% of cachers gone. I am 14 and love to geocache and would hate to be limited to the activities involved in it. As well am I a boy scout who have recently been majorly involved due to the addition of the merit badge

 

50%? I don't know if I'd agree that's the right mix. I don't have any hard data either, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of active cachers, 70% or more are over the age of 25 and at least a full 50% are of retirment age- just based on events and Geowoodstock group pictures and galleries.

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

 

No, that would remove the noise created by the casual experimenter that decided quickly that caching was not for them for one reason or another.

[+Panther&Pine]

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

 

No, that would remove the noise created by the casual experimenter that decided quickly that caching was not for them for one reason or another.

Well the 'average' number of finds per account is apparently 34, so if we set the threshold at say 50 finds and has logged a cache in the last three months (accounts for those pesky weather extreams that keep people indoors) would that be decent sample restrictions?

[+TeamMagicParrot]

I think it has a lot to do with common sense. Sure, I'm willing to admit I'm underage. I'm not one who's going to broadcast my age and location to everyone, but rather act in a sensible way. I don't post in these forums often, but I enjoy hearing what individuals who enjoy the same activity as myself have to say. That being said, every so often we see a user post something that could be considered in bad taste, and on some instances it's someone under 18. Not saying that it's a person always under 18, but in most places you'll see on the internet, those users under 18 have a "shorter leash" so to speak, in terms of respect, than those over 18. Here, I've found a lot of respectful users such as myself. More importantly, I enjoy caching and meeting other people in the community, and that's what the forums are for, to recall those stories, or to share opinions, online. Anyone with just plain common sense and respect should be welcome on here, and thankfully, many users here have that. End of my story! Cache on.

[knowschad]

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

 

No, that would remove the noise created by the casual experimenter that decided quickly that caching was not for them for one reason or another.

Well the 'average' number of finds per account is apparently 34, so if we set the threshold at say 50 finds and has logged a cache in the last three months (accounts for those pesky weather extreams that keep people indoors) would that be decent sample restrictions?

 

Certainly better, but the stat of 34 as the "average find" still does not match up in the least with my local reality amongst people that most would consider "true" geocachers. Among the cachers that I know, I would probably put that number at more like 100-200, with many well into their thousands.

[GOF and Bacall]

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

 

No, that would remove the noise created by the casual experimenter that decided quickly that caching was not for them for one reason or another.

Well the 'average' number of finds per account is apparently 34, so if we set the threshold at say 50 finds and has logged a cache in the last three months (accounts for those pesky weather extreams that keep people indoors) would that be decent sample restrictions?

 

Certainly better, but the stat of 34 as the "average find" still does not match up in the least with my local reality amongst people that most would consider "true" geocachers. Among the cachers that I know, I would probably put that number at more like 100-200, with many well into their thousands.

 

Well then. That rules ME out.

[knowschad]

According to Jeremy the 'average active cacher' is 38.

 

If he was averaging every account that found more than one cache, that may be true. I'd like to see the stats, though, when averaging every account that has found more than, say, 500 caches (in other words, eliminate the casual experimenters).

But that would skew the results. If you set a condition that is biased towards people who have been caching for a long time, that's going to cause it to skew towards older people. How many 12-year-olds have been caching long enough to rack up 500 finds?

 

No, that would remove the noise created by the casual experimenter that decided quickly that caching was not for them for one reason or another.

Well the 'average' number of finds per account is apparently 34, so if we set the threshold at say 50 finds and has logged a cache in the last three months (accounts for those pesky weather extreams that keep people indoors) would that be decent sample restrictions?

 

Just looking at the finders of your "Place and Time" cache (a rare 1/1 cache that would not be expected to garner any special attention by experienced cachers)

 

2196

572

665

72

50

1526

637

552

4290

85

1396

1982

1608

------

1195.85 Average

[+Panther&Pine]

 

Well the 'average' number of finds per account is apparently 34, so if we set the threshold at say 50 finds and has logged a cache in the last three months (accounts for those pesky weather extreams that keep people indoors) would that be decent sample restrictions?

 

Just looking at the finders of your "Place and Time" cache (a rare 1/1 cache that would not be expected to garner any special attention by experienced cachers)

 

2196

572

665

72

50

1526

637

552

4290

85

1396

1982

1608

------

1195.85 Average

True. That is an impressive average. At the rate I'm finding it is only going to take me ten years to get to that level.

[+sword fern]

This thread has come to a conclusion. With the feedback topic concluded and a good stopping point, this thread should be locked. IMO.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

This thread has come to a conclusion. With the feedback topic concluded and a good stopping point, this thread should be locked. IMO.

 

+1 , this thread has run it's course.

[knowschad]

This thread has come to a conclusion. With the feedback topic concluded and a good stopping point, this thread should be locked. IMO.

 

+1 , this thread has run it's course.

 

I don't know about that. The discussion has taken a slight turn to trying to get some idea of the age of your average cacher, but that is reasonably on-topic for a thread about kids in the forums. Its not like we're discussing cats or anything. We still have under-18 geocachers checking in with their opinions, for that matter.

[knowschad]

I think it has a lot to do with common sense. Sure, I'm willing to admit I'm underage. I'm not one who's going to broadcast my age and location to everyone, but rather act in a sensible way. I don't post in these forums often, but I enjoy hearing what individuals who enjoy the same activity as myself have to say. That being said, every so often we see a user post something that could be considered in bad taste, and on some instances it's someone under 18. Not saying that it's a person always under 18, but in most places you'll see on the internet, those users under 18 have a "shorter leash" so to speak, in terms of respect, than those over 18. Here, I've found a lot of respectful users such as myself. More importantly, I enjoy caching and meeting other people in the community, and that's what the forums are for, to recall those stories, or to share opinions, online. Anyone with just plain common sense and respect should be welcome on here, and thankfully, many users here have that. End of my story! Cache on.

 

I agree that a bad post is just that... a bad post, regardless of the age of the writer. Yours was a very carefully considered and worded post on the subject. Thanks!

[+dfx]

But should dogs be allowed to post in the forums?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

But should dogs be allowed to post in the forums?

Depends if they are nearsighted, farsighted, or just tryin' to be kewl wearing their shades......

[+cx1]

This thread has come to a conclusion. With the feedback topic concluded and a good stopping point, this thread should be locked. IMO.

People who are tired of reading a thread should just stop reading it instead of asking for it to be locked. So there is no legitimate reason to lock this thread. IMO

[+ArmyFanGeo]

I was going under the terms of visiting with their parents to geocache with them - I wasn't saying a kid who has an independent account. If you perhaps say 3 kids to a parent that makes up a lot of geocachers. Nearly as in terms of 30% as well. I NEVER said independent accounts, please excuse my one mistake rather than completely bagging on it and demoting myself.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I was going under the terms of visiting with their parents to geocache with them - I wasn't saying a kid who has an independent account. If you perhaps say 3 kids to a parent that makes up a lot of geocachers. Nearly as in terms of 30% as well. I NEVER said independent accounts, please excuse my one mistake rather than completely bagging on it and demoting myself.

You still aren't making sense. Kids who geocache with their parents, and do not have their own accounts, cannot post in the forums. Not because of the rules, but because they don't have an account. So changing the rules about kids posting in the forums would not affect them at all.

 

There have been a lot of good, well thought-out, arguments posted here in favor of children being allowed to post. Yours isn't one of them.

[+hzoi]

You must be kidding me. This thread started as a passive agressive note and has now devolved into the battle of the statisticians.

 

I'd say kill the thread, but it's just so entertaining, I don't know if I can stop now.

[+sword fern]

You must be kidding me. This thread started as a passive agressive note and has now devolved into the battle of the statisticians.

 

I'd say kill the thread, but it's just so entertaining, I don't know if I can stop now.

 

Kill it. It has served its purpose.

[+GeoGeeBee]

You must be kidding me. This thread started as a passive agressive note and has now devolved into the battle of the statisticians.

 

I'd say kill the thread, but it's just so entertaining, I don't know if I can stop now.

There was nothing passive about it!

[+GeoBain]

You must be kidding me. This thread started as a passive agressive note and has now devolved into the battle of the statisticians.

 

I'd say kill the thread, but it's just so entertaining, I don't know if I can stop now.

There was nothing passive about it!

 

It wasn't direct. Until the last page I thought you started this thread because of Cold Gears. I had no idea it was about Ambient Skater.

[+cache_test_dummies]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

[+larryc43230]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

And here is the updated wording:

 

"To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian."

 

--Larry

[knowschad]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

 

Old Section 4:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

New Section 4:

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

 

(In other words, the clarification involved totally removing the wording about an age limit. Welcome, kids!

[cb82]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

 

Old Section 4:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

New Section 4:

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

 

(In other words, the clarification involved totally removing the wording about an age limit. Welcome, kids!

 

Except this is still in the TOU -

 

"By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning."

[knowschad]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

 

Old Section 4:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

New Section 4:

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

 

(In other words, the clarification involved totally removing the wording about an age limit. Welcome, kids!

 

Except this is still in the TOU -

 

"By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning."

 

That must be in the Geocaching TOU, not the Forum TOU, right? All there is in the forum guidelines regarding age now is this:

 

"To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian."

[+GeoBain]

Who thinks CG or AS are under adult supervision when posting?

[cb82]

According to the Release Notes for the August 2nd 2011 Update, the release will include:

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums"

 

Old Section 4:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

New Section 4:

4. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock puppet is an account made on an internet message board by a person who already has an account for the purpose of posting anonymously. Use your own account for posting personal opinions. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted and both the puppet and actual account may be banned from using the services of Groundspeak.

 

(In other words, the clarification involved totally removing the wording about an age limit. Welcome, kids!

 

Except this is still in the TOU -

 

"By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning."

 

That must be in the Geocaching TOU, not the Forum TOU, right? All there is in the forum guidelines regarding age now is this:

 

"To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian."

 

Correct. Just seems kind of odd that it is now OK to post in the forums ABOUT geocaching if your under 18, but it's not OK to have you own geocaching account.

[knowschad]

Who thinks CG or AS are under adult supervision when posting?

 

We are all supervising them, aren't we? It takes a villiage, and all that...

[+GeoBain]

Who thinks CG or AS are under adult supervision when posting?

 

We are all supervising them, aren't we? It takes a villiage, and all that...

 

Good call!

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

Who thinks CG or AS are under adult supervision when posting?

 

We are all supervising them, aren't we? It takes a villiage, and all that...

And who supervises us?

Everyone has their own personality and on-line inflection doesn't always come across at any age.

The End

[knowschad]

Who thinks CG or AS are under adult supervision when posting?

 

We are all supervising them, aren't we? It takes a villiage, and all that...

And who supervises us?

Everyone has their own personality and on-line inflection doesn't always come across at any age.

The End

They call them "The Moderators".

[Pup Patrol]

The Terms of Use cover it all...the site, the forums, everything.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

 

GEOCACHING.COM SITE

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

 

Last updated: August 2, 2011

 

Welcome to www.geocaching.com, the Global Headquarters for the Sport of Geocaching. This Web site includes access to geocaching related information, the Groundspeak Forums and such other services and sites as may be made available form time to time by Groundspeak Inc. (the "Site") These Terms of Use form a legal agreement between the account holder ("You") and Groundspeak, Inc. ("Groundspeak").

 

1. Information Available at this Site

 

This Site contains general information about Groundspeak, its activities and its services. This Site also contains information about caches and related activities published to the Site by users like You. Groundspeak does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of the information available on this Site. You are solely responsible for verifying the accuracy of any information available on this Site. Groundspeak disclaims responsibility for Your reliance on information at this Site in Section 10 below.

 

2. Privacy

 

Groundspeak is dedicated to protecting your privacy. The privacy policy can be found at http://www.geocaching.com/about/privacypolicy.aspx.

 

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions

 

Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

 

Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice.

 

The Site and all content available on the Site are protected by applicable intellectual property laws, and are for personal and noncommercial use. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved by Groundspeak or by the respective owners of the intellectual property rights. All materials available on or through the Site, other than Third Party Submissions (collectively, the "Site Materials") are the property of Groundspeak or of its licensors and are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Groundspeak reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions upon Your use and viewing of particular Site Materials, and any such terms and conditions may be posted on the Site in connection with those Site Materials. You may not reproduce or retransmit the Site Materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, except as follows: You may make a single copy of the Site Materials solely for Your personal, noncommercial use, but such copying must be consistent with any applicable additional terms and conditions and You must preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with such Site Materials. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form and whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of such materials. If you have any questions, contact us at contact@Groundspeak.com.

 

Subscription portions (if any) of the Site may contain additional terms and conditions applicable to use of that portion of the Site, including without limitation password usage and protection rules. If You subscribe to any service at this Site, You will be asked to agree to those terms and conditions as part of the subscription transaction, and those terms and conditions will be deemed incorporated into this Agreement by this reference.

 

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

 

Edited August 2, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[knowschad]

The Terms of Use cover it all...the site, the forums, everything.

 

http://www.geocachin...termsofuse.aspx

 

GEOCACHING.COM SITE

TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT

 

<snip>

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

 

I agree that there seems to be an as-yet unresolved conflict, but the release notes specifically spell out forum posting, not account holding:

 

Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums

 

In addition, Section 4 of the FORUM guidelines used to speak to minors posting in the forums. That entire section has now been removed.

[+GeoBain]

Forum Guidelines

Read the Forum Guidelines

The goal of the Groundspeak Forum is to promote the activity of geocaching and GPS usage. It is an open forum sponsored by Groundspeak Inc. for discussing all aspects of geocaching, Waymarking, Wherigo™, benchmark hunting, GPS usage and other Groundspeak-related GPS gaming. It is a friendly social network for GPS enthusiasts around the world.

 

The forum guidelines for posting are important and should be read and accepted before you choose to participate. Groundspeak and the global geocaching community encourage contributors who are courteous, polite and respectful. We discourage those who choose to behave in a disrespectful and/or irresponsible manner. Groundspeak, its staff and volunteer moderators will take appropriate steps to ensure discussions adhere to these guidelines.

 

In general, we will leave it to you, the community, to manage your own conduct. We ask that you treat other forum participants with respect. Please remember that this is a public venue read by many people of all ages, from around the world, spanning all walks of life. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

Additional Terms: The Groundspeak Forums are further governed by the GEOCACHING.COM SITE TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT, the terms of which are hereby incorporated into these guidelines by reference. The Terms of Use Agreement may be found here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

 

TOU

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions

 

[...]

 

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

 

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian.

[knowschad]

Yup... they sure clarified things, didn't they?

[knowschad]

Groundspeak's lackey Bryan offered this clarification of the update under discussion:

 

Nate,

 

"Updated Terms of Use Agreement (Section 4) to clarify age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums" seems to be causing some confusion being discussed in the General and OT forums.

 

Can you clarify what exactly was changed and what Groundspeak's current policy on age restriction for posting to Groundspeak Discussion Forums actually is? (In other words, would you mind clarifying the clarification?)

 

Historically, there was no mention of age in the requirements for posting to the discussion forums. We've now added the following: "To post in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian." What this is intended to mean is that users who are under 18 can post in the forums but only if they are supervised. While identification and enforcement may be a potential issue, we expect to use this provision in cases where abuse of the forum guidelines is taking place.

[AZcachemeister]

Considering some other recent threads I find that:

 

It is entirely possible to be less than 18 years of age, yet more than 18 years in maturity.

 

It is also possible to be more than 18 years of age, yet less than 18 years in maturity.

 

Nobody EVER 'grows up', we just learn how to act in public. (well, sometimes)

[+NeverSummer]

Considering some other recent threads I find that:

 

It is entirely possible to be less than 18 years of age, yet more than 18 years in maturity.

 

It is also possible to be more than 18 years of age, yet less than 18 years in maturity.

 

Nobody EVER 'grows up', we just learn how to act in public. (well, sometimes)

Well put.

[Night_Hiker]

Really, the whole "hate in your heart" and 'whoa my drama meter' wasn't negative?

 

And the calling each other snobs?

 

Ok..I guess that's adult nice behavior.

 

Sorry, I missed the "hate in your heart" bit:

 

not everyone that enjoys geocaching are old and retired. Older people can be just as ignorant and complain over stupid issues. You can't judge a group by certain individuals. This game is for fun and some people just take it to serious, getting hung up on the comments of one person. Just get over it and keep on truckin, can't enjoy yourself with all that hate in your heart

 

Sounds to me like a younger person posted that. "Drama meter" was a reaction to that younger person's overstatement.

I'm 21 sir, I don't mean kids i mean younger people. I read the forums regularly and most all i see is some older person complaining about something pointless and not worth being an issue.

[knowschad]

Really, the whole "hate in your heart" and 'whoa my drama meter' wasn't negative?

 

And the calling each other snobs?

 

Ok..I guess that's adult nice behavior.

 

Sorry, I missed the "hate in your heart" bit:

 

not everyone that enjoys geocaching are old and retired. Older people can be just as ignorant and complain over stupid issues. You can't judge a group by certain individuals. This game is for fun and some people just take it to serious, getting hung up on the comments of one person. Just get over it and keep on truckin, can't enjoy yourself with all that hate in your heart

 

Sounds to me like a younger person posted that. "Drama meter" was a reaction to that younger person's overstatement.

I'm 21 sir, I don't mean kids i mean younger people. I read the forums regularly and most all i see is some older person complaining about something pointless and not worth being an issue.

I guess that would be because most of the people that post here are "older people". It stands to reason that when somebody here is "complaining about something pointless" that it would be somebody in the majority, wouldn't it?