Youtube geocaching videos

[+niraD]

They are saying they have the right to control what you say anywhere and by any means.

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

They are saying they have the right to control what you say anywhere and by any means.

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources.

 

At their whim. Could you also be in favour of apple revoking your right to use the iphone just because they decided to day it was your turn for the big stick?

[+Bear and Ragged]

I requested the link be removed from the locked post that i am unable to edit so i can conform to the tos. Ignored she still threatens me witht the banhammer. So i've made the video private.

 

Why can't they just edit the post and be done with it???

 

 

I requested Sandy remove the link, so i can conform

Try hitting the Report button, bottom left of the post, and asking a Mod to delete the link.

[+Sven.]

Tried...also emailed two mods...

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

Long live Oceania.

[knowschad]

This is a sad day for geocaching, in my opinion*. They have decided that it is their right to censor what members can say on other websites. Must anyone who has a geocaching blog or who posts videos now have to get cache owner permission before sharing their experiences geocaching? What nonsense.

 

While many people may agree that it's not nice to spoil someone else's cache, it is simply a fact of life in this internet age, that information is shared online in a number of ways. Keeping people from using the internet to share information is something that dictators do (and not very successfully based on recent events). It shouldn't be something that Groundspeak does. Geocaching is advanced by sharing our experiences. Censoring what can be discussed about geocaching on other website to keep a few cache owners happy is not very good for geocaching in the long run.

 

* for knowschad.

 

Please don't feel that you need to add that asterisked clause to what is clearly your opinion. I only ask that you make it clear that it is your opinion when you state something as a fact that is strictly your opinion. If, for example, you state that it is OK to sign online without signing the paper log... that is your opinion, and not a universally acknowledged fact. When you say, "This is a sad day for geocaching", I think we all know that you are expressing your opinion.

 

The above was Knowschad's opinion .

[+GeoBain]

They are saying they have the right to control what you say anywhere and by any means.

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources.

That's what I said. They can suspend your account for spoiling or giving out solution anywhere and by any means.

[+rosebud55112]

So just to be clear, if I don't post it through GS's website, it's OK for me to publish all the spoilers I want.

 

Does that also mean that as long as I don't do it through GS's website, it's OK for me to stalk and harass other members? Cool!

[+slukster]

You studying at the Toz school of posting? By using GC.com you accept the TOU. The TOU states you can not post spoilers anywhere. So you have agreed to not post spoilers anywhere. TPTB may not be able to take a violator to court over it but they can certainly lock an account.

LOL

[knowschad]

Aside from any legal or guideline issues, aside from any permission issues, the bottom line for me is, how would I feel if I found one of my own trickier hides posted there? I have watched a number of the OPs videos, and I will say that the videos are well done, and the caches selected are, for the most part, pretty unique, and I include several of the OPs own caches in that statements.

 

But if I were going through Youtube and saw one of my own hides revealed like that, I would be extremely angry. I may or may not have any recourse, but I would be furious! You say that you have permission from all of the cache owners to reveal their tricks, and I have to take you on your word. I know that I generally would not agree to that, but I am only one geocacher.

 

But, as Sandy inferred in her first post, right or wrong... what you are doing goes against the SPIRIT of geocaching*. Everything about this simply feels sleazy to me, including your attitude. I can't find the logic to support that, but my gut tells me, loud and clear, that you are being very selfish and immature about this.

 

 

*In my opinion, Toz.

[+mpilchfamily]

So just to be clear, if I don't post it through GS's website, it's OK for me to publish all the spoilers I want.

 

Does that also mean that as long as I don't do it through GS's website, it's OK for me to stalk and harass other members? Cool!

That should be how the TOU is interpreted but it seems GS reps want to look at section 4 subsection (m) as restricting you from posting spoilers anywhere at any time. A bit overreaching and arrogant if you ask me. Like the RIAA trying to make it illegal or try to charge you a fee to copy music from a CD you purchased onto your PC to transfer into your MP3 player.

 

But the only course of action they can take against you is suspending your account.

 

I suspect they'll be revising the TOU in the near future to better reflect the broad scope of control they are wanting to have over what we can and can't post regarding geocaching outside and within there sites.

[+dfx]

Just for the record: I still think that the paragraph from the TOU refers to their own publishing tools and thus would only apply if spoilers (or links to them) were posted in here. However, it's quite clear that Groundspeak can, may and will suspend any account for any reason, even without explanation or good reason, rendering the whole point kinda moot.

Edited August 31, 2011 by dfx

[jholly]

***WARNING THIS IS A 2 CENTS PRODUCTION***

 

spoilers, right or wrong is no longer the issue.

 

I live near the OP and have spoken to him a few times in our local geocaching forum (online not in person ), agree he does not like to be wrong (who does?) and so far has not been convinced his opinion should change, neither have I.

 

Now GS is involved and IMHO (risking a ban probably) is flexing a "Big broher" muscle. It may interest to know that the CO who may have complained did change some of the cache page wording after the initial exchange to omit certain detail that "spoilt" the cache location.

 

This is now a question of free speech:

People died and do die everyday for the right to freedom of speech. Many band together in the face of larger and stronger opposition to uphold the notion of freedom of speech. What may have passed may not be cricket but GS to be an out an out bully is not on (that's how I see it). I say do not impose a ban, but it's your business GS, your dollars rolling in you look after it how you see fit.

 

Flame away!!!

 

Not sure how it is in the Kingdom, but here in the colonies freedom of speech only applies to the government limiting free speech. In the case of a private enterprise they are free to limit the speech. They own the enterprise and they get to set the rules. Naturally if a person is outside the US and posts something to a website there is not much GS can really do about. But they can elect to ban that person from their site. It make seem like it is limiting free speech but according to our constitution is is not. Look at it this way, the [insert political party here] website is not required to discuss or provide a forum for members of the [insert opposing political party here] to discuss their points of view. They are free to restrict and prohibit the opposing point of view discussion. Now if the government were to state and prohibit the discussion, then, yes, that would be limiting freedom of speech.

[+The Flying Ks]

I really like the videos to be honest. They get my creative juices flowing, and I think anything that takes you beyond a tupperware hidden under a lightpost... that's a good thing. ON the other hand... if he came to my area and gave one of mine away without my permission I might be just a bit... unhappy about it. He doesn't post GZ, doesn't name the cache. I like the idea of user submitted content, too. I would write back and ask if my geocaching account will be suspended if I don't take my videos down. Just my opinion - don't want to get flamed.

[+slukster]

I have to admit that I have enjoyed the OP's video's and have gotten some great ideas from them. Kind of like a video version of the CCC thread (I know, I know, in the CCC thread it mostly is the CO's posting their caches). I guess it doesn't bother me since I know I will never seek any of these caches (assuming they are all overseas) and also my memory is terrible so I wouldn't remember the video's even if I came across one of the caches. If the cache # and location is not given then I don't really see a problem with it. Now if I knew that the caches were ones in my local area (as I have come across on the CCC thread) then I might not view the video's.

 

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Edited August 31, 2011 by slukster

[knowschad]

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Seriously? Have you got any caches that you consider to be unique? For example, I once had one where the first stage was a faked-up bronze weight-limit plaque on a bridge. I have never yet seen anything remotely similar. If I found a video of that, I would not care that he didn't give the location or GC#. I would be upset that some people now knew to look for a dummy plaque on a bridge, and those finding my plaque would have their sense of reward diminished when they found it.

[+slukster]

Sven&Cup,

Have you really only been caching since June of 2011 as your profile shows? If so, man you have found a great variety of caches in your 250 finds. If more noobies could find this many great caches in their early days I would hope we would have so many more unique, fun caches out there.

Edited August 31, 2011 by slukster

[+slukster]

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Seriously? Have you got any caches that you consider to be unique? For example, I once had one where the first stage was a faked-up bronze weight-limit plaque on a bridge. I have never yet seen anything remotely similar. If I found a video of that, I would not care that he didn't give the location or GC#. I would be upset that some people now knew to look for a dummy plaque on a bridge, and those finding my plaque would have their sense of reward diminished when they found it.

Have you posted any of your unique hides in the CCC forum? I have posted 3 so far (only two with pics/ video, only because I never took a pic of the other one). I commented on another recently that was almost exactly like another of mine. As I get back out to some of my other unique caches I plan on posting pics of them as well. All of my local cachers (the usual one that find all new caches within the first 3 months of publishing) have already found them so I am not worried about spoiling it for them. And most of them don't frequent these forums (at least they don't post for what I have seen. Maybe lurkers? Only Briansnat, HarryDolphin, addisonbr and one or two others I recognize as locals who post regularly). As has been pointed out in many threads the people who frequent these forums is such a small fraction of the entire community. The chances of someone seeing the pictures of my caches (or the videos online from Sven&Cup for that matter) and then remembering the location before they get there I think is slim, in my opinion (I hate having to put disclaimers in my posts)

[+tozainamboku]

It is clear that some people (probably including TPTB) feel strongly the cache owners have every right to expect that others will not spoil their caches. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Perhaps it is an artifact of our Puritan background. In writing in one of the Challenge threads, I commented that since these are all on the honor system you can be as creative as you like in claiming a find and if you don't have an American flag to plant on the top of the mountain you could use any other flag or simply wave your hand to complete the challenge. The response I got was that they would never think to do something other than what the challenge literally asked them to do. I think this is the same with caches. We have puritans who have invented the concept that finding a geocache using any information beyond what the cache owner gave you is "cheating".

 

I think in other cultures (and maybe even among most Americans), all's fair in finding a cache. If you can get some additional info by reading the logs it's okay. If you can get some additional info from phoning a friend it's okay. If the muggle who knows where the cache is comes out and gives a hint it's okay. And yes, even if you find a "cheat" site with help that is okay as well.

 

Still many cache owners seem to get upset when they find there are spoilers to their caches posted in YouTube or on someone's blog. I think once again we have a cultural bias that says if a cache owner asks you to take down a spoiler it is the proper thing to do. I certainly agree that that there is no reason to be stubborn about your right to post the spoiler and you can be nice to the cache owner and remove the spoiler. I guess I disagree that the cache owner have an expectation for you to do so. Groundspeak is creating an expectation with the TOU change and now with enforcing this TOU to apply to not Groundspeak website.

 

I think we have a schism that may be hard to bridge. For some of us, the reality that geocachers share information about caches is a good thing. For others, cache owners have a legitimate expectation that their cache will not be spoiled.

 

I know of no other place where this expectation exists. In a recent thread I posted

Warner Bros. Studios

Burbank, CA

 

To: Groundspeak, Inc.

 

It has come to our attention that the Geocaching.com website is publishing spoilers to some of our summer blockbusters. This is resulting in the loss of potential audience (particularly for DVD and VOD sales) as viewers who find these geocaches are not likely to watch something if they already know how it turns out.

 

We ask you to cease and desist from the publication of spoilers without first obtaining written permission from our legal department.

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

Jeff Robinov

President

I think everyone understood this was humor. Jeff Rabinov, unlike Jeremy Irish, does not believe that the screenwriters and directors have a expectation that there aren't movie spoiler sites (or that geocachers wouldn't spend 4 pages posting their favorite movie spoilers).

Edited August 31, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+Frank Broughton]

There TOU, they can interpret it how they want. Its a shame they are taking this rout. Either way its a loose, loose for them.

 

haha - of course - it is a west coast thingie, I guess - they seem to always take the route that most people would not take! Is that good or bad, who knows? Like I have said over and over again, controversy sure looks like it is a marketing tactic for GS and if so, it is effective!

[knowschad]

It is clear that some people (probably including TPTB) feel strongly the cache owners have every right to expect that others will not spoil their caches. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Perhaps it is an artifact of our Puritan background.

 

Screech!!!! Sorry, had to slam on my brakes, and was not able to make it past this stop sign. What the $%!& are you talking about, Toz?!? The Puritans really had opinions on cache spoilers?!?

[+Frank Broughton]

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Seriously? Have you got any caches that you consider to be unique? For example, I once had one where the first stage was a faked-up bronze weight-limit plaque on a bridge. I have never yet seen anything remotely similar. If I found a video of that, I would not care that he didn't give the location or GC#. I would be upset that some people now knew to look for a dummy plaque on a bridge, and those finding my plaque would have their sense of reward diminished when they found it.

 

How is that fake plaque mounted? Would it not violate the TOS if it is mounted in any way?

[+M 5]

Toz has turned into a broken record, and the record wasn't even good to begin with. I suppose I should add one of those comical emoticons in a weak attempt to make it sound like a joke. Nah!

[+GeoBain]

So just to be clear, if I don't post it through GS's website, it's OK for me to publish all the spoilers I want.

 

Does that also mean that as long as I don't do it through GS's website, it's OK for me to stalk and harass other members? Cool!

I'm pretty sure you would run afoul of the cyberstalking CRIMINAL laws and the police would be happy to get involved at that point.

[+GeoBain]

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Seriously? Have you got any caches that you consider to be unique? For example, I once had one where the first stage was a faked-up bronze weight-limit plaque on a bridge. I have never yet seen anything remotely similar. If I found a video of that, I would not care that he didn't give the location or GC#. I would be upset that some people now knew to look for a dummy plaque on a bridge, and those finding my plaque would have their sense of reward diminished when they found it.

If he obtained permission first, it's not different than the CCC thread. It all comes down to respect for your fellow cacher. The entire game depends on mutual respect of fellow cachers. Otherwise, we all know where each other's caches are and chaos could ensue.

[+tozainamboku]

It is clear that some people (probably including TPTB) feel strongly the cache owners have every right to expect that others will not spoil their caches. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Perhaps it is an artifact of our Puritan background.

 

Screech!!!! Sorry, had to slam on my brakes, and was not able to make it past this stop sign. What the $%!& are you talking about, Toz?!? The Puritans really had opinions on cache spoilers?!?

I explained this in the last thread on the topic. I believe it was about a spoiler site in The Netherlands. Someone had pointed out that only about two caches on that site were in the United States. Most were in Germany. I pointed that it seem there are more complaints about spoiler sites from Europe and speculated that we don't have as much problem with spoilers in the US because of our Puritan background. We would tend to feel that cachers should not get credit for finding a cache without doing the hard work. That means using only the information the cache owner wants us to have. In other cultures, I suspect the view is that all is fair in finding a cache.

 

I also pointed out that this was the same day the rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dropped and my theory was highly influenced by a report I had heard on the radio earlier that day that Europeans had a different view of this case because they didn't hold the puritanical views of Americans. So the use of Puritan with regards to spoilers should be taken with a grain of salt, though I suspect there is a bit of truth in it.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

This is now a question of free speech:

 

 

Oh, good grief.

[knowschad]

Would it bother me if it was one of my video's was posted? As long as it doesn't call out the location, CO or cache # then I wouldn't mind.

Seriously? Have you got any caches that you consider to be unique? For example, I once had one where the first stage was a faked-up bronze weight-limit plaque on a bridge. I have never yet seen anything remotely similar. If I found a video of that, I would not care that he didn't give the location or GC#. I would be upset that some people now knew to look for a dummy plaque on a bridge, and those finding my plaque would have their sense of reward diminished when they found it.

 

How is that fake plaque mounted? Would it not violate the TOS if it is mounted in any way?

TOS? Guidelines, you mean?

[knowschad]

It is clear that some people (probably including TPTB) feel strongly the cache owners have every right to expect that others will not spoil their caches. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Perhaps it is an artifact of our Puritan background.

 

Screech!!!! Sorry, had to slam on my brakes, and was not able to make it past this stop sign. What the $%!& are you talking about, Toz?!? The Puritans really had opinions on cache spoilers?!?

I explained this in the last thread on the topic. I believe it was about a spoiler site in The Netherlands. Someone had pointed out that only about two caches on that site were in the United States. Most were in Germany. I pointed that it seem there are more complaints about spoiler sites from Europe and speculated that we don't have as much problem with spoilers in the US because of our Puritan background. We would tend to feel that cachers should not get credit for finding a cache without doing the hard work. That means using only the information the cache owner wants us to have. In other cultures, I suspect the view is that all is fair in finding a cache.

 

I also pointed out that this was the same day the rape charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dropped and my theory was highly influenced by a report I had heard on the radio earlier that day that Europeans had a different view of this case because they didn't hold the puritanical views of Americans. So the use of Puritan with regards to spoilers should be taken with a grain of salt, though I suspect there is a bit of truth in it.

OK. So, perhaps it is because of our work ethic. I don't believe that, true, but at least I can understand that statement.

[+Ash McCloud]

Ok I know that many have weighed in on this. But what all of this looks like to me is grandstanding to bring more people to his youtube account. I don't think it mattered one way or another what anyone on here thought it was just a way to present his site to the cachers. He gives out a question on whether he should keep the site. Question is a link to his asking of whether to keep the site. It sounds like according to that he has had some people question it.

I personally don't see anything terrible about what he shows but bringing it on here to star a argument seems to be a waste of time. I guess for all of us who posted as well as read this forum, hooray for us for not making any difference whatsoever. I think this cacher just likes to be seen. I compliment him on achieving what I assume to be his true goal. Getting his name out there. BRAVO!!

Edited August 31, 2011 by Keystone
Removed link.

[+tozainamboku]

I may have shot myself in the foot with the puritan references. What I am really trying to understand is why this strong feeling that posting certain geocache information online is "not in the spirit of geocaching" and why should Groundspeak be banning members who publish this information?

 

To me it is the most natural thing for geocachers to share their geocaching experience. The main topic of conversation at events is usually discussion of the unique way someone hid a cache. Some cachers have well establish phone-a-friend networks and share information as they are out in the field searching for caches. When I found a difficult cache recently, I got emails from four separate geocachers asking me for a hint. Groups get together all the time to work on puzzles. Talking about geocaches and sharing information is fundamental to playing this game for many, many people.

 

Sharing information seems to be acceptable in most cases. However, there seems to be a line where the information is put out in a public place where anyone might find it with an internet search. I guess I'm have difficulty seeing exactly where this line is or even why there should be a line.

 

More and more people are using social networking sites like Facebook or YouTube to share. This includes the sort of information that was once shared face to face or in private emails. People who have become used to communicating with a whole network of friends sometime fail to consider where their formerly private conversation is now public. Certaily you could limit who sees your Facebook posts or even your YouTube videos, but trying to determine which video is a cool depiction of your geocaching experience that you want to share with the world and which is a spoiler that you want to expose only to a few trusted friends (and now hide from Groundspeak) could be difficult without some guidelines as to what sharing is appropriate and what isn't.

 

I also have trouble understanding what is so morally wrong with spoilers.

 

As a cacher, I prefer to figure out tough caches by myself. It does give me a particular sense of satisfaction. I don't even look at the CCC thread here and avoid many of the videos posted in the Latitude 47 blog. My biggest complaint are the unsolicited hints I get sometimes when I post a DNF. These hints come both from cache owners and from other geocachers. On the other hand, I know many geocachers who have no qualms asking for a hint on a difficult cache. The statisfaction of finding the cache, even with help from a friend, far outweighs the frustration of not finding a cache. A particularly cool hide or even a particular well crafted puzzle can still be appreciated even if "spoiled" by a hint.

 

The moral issue doesn't seem to be spoilers per se, as Groundspeak spoils caches in the blog, and the CCC thread here is allows to stay open dispite the fact that it contains spoilers. These are deemed okay because the cache owner gave permission. So, what appears to be the problem is an expectation that cache owners can control the spoilers to their caches.

 

I want to know where does this expectation come from? Does Stephen King expect that endings of his books aren't going to be posted somewhere? Does Jeff Rabinov have an expectation that there won't be movie spoiler websites? Did Richard Garriot really expect that there wouldn't be a Ultima Cheats site? What makes cache owners so different that they have this expectation that spoilers about their caches won't be published in some public place?

 

Sandy refers to the "spirit of geocaching". I can buy this if it has a narrow meaning. If a cache owner asks for someone to take down a spoiler then, "in the spirit of geocaching", the poster of the spoiler should work with the cache owner to find a suitable compromise. I think this is what failed here. The OP felt that the particular video was not a spoiler. It did not identify the cache, nor it even show the cache container. It was strictly a video of a fallout bunker. The only "spoiler" was that is says the cache is hidden somewhere in the bunker. Rather than working with the cache owner to find out what was objectionable in the video, the two of them took it to the forum where the name calling escalated until the moderator locked that thread.

 

As is usually the case in these forum disputes we will never know the full reason that Groundspeak became involved. However, this involvement has now raised an issue of just what is allowed under the TOU and whether it makes any sense for Groundspeak to try and control what geocachers post on non-Groundspeak sites.

 

I suppose one argument may be that if Grounspeak doesn't get involved some geocachers would stop hiding clever caches or making up difficult puzzles, and that soon we would be reduced to only seeing LPCs and hide-a-keys on guardrails. I'm not covinced of this at all. In fact these spoilers might even be encouraging more hides as more people get to see these ideas and get inspiration from them. And I expect that many of these hiders simply enjoy thinking up new evil cache ideas and will do so whether or not they get spoiled.

 

It just seems to me that geocaching is better off when people feel free to share information about geocaches and make it a fun game. A few cache owners with unreasonable (in my opinion) expectations have resulted in a policy that ultimately makes geocaching less fun and may have the effect of reducing the number of clever hides.

[+bflentje]

***WARNING THIS IS A 2 CENTS PRODUCTION***

 

spoilers, right or wrong is no longer the issue.

 

I live near the OP and have spoken to him a few times in our local geocaching forum (online not in person ), agree he does not like to be wrong (who does?) and so far has not been convinced his opinion should change, neither have I.

 

Now GS is involved and IMHO (risking a ban probably) is flexing a "Big broher" muscle. It may interest to know that the CO who may have complained did change some of the cache page wording after the initial exchange to omit certain detail that "spoilt" the cache location.

 

This is now a question of free speech:

People died and do die everyday for the right to freedom of speech. Many band together in the face of larger and stronger opposition to uphold the notion of freedom of speech. What may have passed may not be cricket but GS to be an out an out bully is not on (that's how I see it). I say do not impose a ban, but it's your business GS, your dollars rolling in you look after it how you see fit.

 

Flame away!!!

 

Not sure how it is in the Kingdom, but here in the colonies freedom of speech only applies to the government limiting free speech. In the case of a private enterprise they are free to limit the speech. They own the enterprise and they get to set the rules. Naturally if a person is outside the US and posts something to a website there is not much GS can really do about. But they can elect to ban that person from their site. It make seem like it is limiting free speech but according to our constitution is is not. Look at it this way, the [insert political party here] website is not required to discuss or provide a forum for members of the [insert opposing political party here] to discuss their points of view. They are free to restrict and prohibit the opposing point of view discussion. Now if the government were to state and prohibit the discussion, then, yes, that would be limiting freedom of speech.

 

Thank you. I was going to suggest to Lord Boogie that perhaps he/she should actually read through the Constitution sometime.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

They are saying they have the right to control what you say anywhere and by any means.

I don't think so. I think they are saying that they have the right to control whether you can use their resources, based on what you publish anywhere. You're still free to publish whatever you want wherever you want. They're free to deny you access to their resources.

 

At their whim. Could you also be in favour of apple revoking your right to use the iphone just because they decided to day it was your turn for the big stick?

 

***WARNING THIS IS A 2 CENTS PRODUCTION***

 

spoilers, right or wrong is no longer the issue.

 

I live near the OP and have spoken to him a few times in our local geocaching forum (online not in person ), agree he does not like to be wrong (who does?) and so far has not been convinced his opinion should change, neither have I.

 

Now GS is involved and IMHO (risking a ban probably) is flexing a "Big broher" muscle. It may interest to know that the CO who may have complained did change some of the cache page wording after the initial exchange to omit certain detail that "spoilt" the cache location.

 

This is now a question of free speech:

People died and do die everyday for the right to freedom of speech. Many band together in the face of larger and stronger opposition to uphold the notion of freedom of speech. What may have passed may not be cricket but GS to be an out an out bully is not on (that's how I see it). I say do not impose a ban, but it's your business GS, your dollars rolling in you look after it how you see fit.

 

Flame away!!!

 

Not sure how it is in the Kingdom, but here in the colonies freedom of speech only applies to the government limiting free speech. In the case of a private enterprise they are free to limit the speech. They own the enterprise and they get to set the rules. Naturally if a person is outside the US and posts something to a website there is not much GS can really do about. But they can elect to ban that person from their site. It make seem like it is limiting free speech but according to our constitution is is not. Look at it this way, the [insert political party here] website is not required to discuss or provide a forum for members of the [insert opposing political party here] to discuss their points of view. They are free to restrict and prohibit the opposing point of view discussion. Now if the government were to state and prohibit the discussion, then, yes, that would be limiting freedom of speech.

 

Thank you. I was going to suggest to Lord Boogie that perhaps he/she should actually read through the Constitution sometime.

 

Ok, so I can only speak from my little islands point of view. Didn't realize that free speech is not available to Americans. Do you have any comments re the iphone analogy?

 

Oh,if you can post a link to a PDF (as long as you have the owners permission, wouldn't want to entrap you into some sort of law suit) of the constitution I'll have skim though it tonight.

 

Like I said flame away!

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

Ok, so I can only speak from my little islands point of view. Didn't realize that free speech is not available to Americans.

 

You're free to say whatever you want on the street of America. If you come into my house, though, you better watch your language or you might get kicked out.

 

We're in Groundspeak's house, here. They can impose whatever rules they want.

 

As for the very silly iPhone analogy: If you had agreed, when you purchased the iPhone, to not use it to phone people with Androids, then Apple would have a right to enforce that agreement. When you signed up for an account on geocaching.com, you agreed to abide by the Terms of Use. Those terms say "don't post spoilers." Groundspeak has the right to enforce those terms.

 

Deal with it.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

Thanks for the reply, but you miss the point. The point is that the TOU have not broken, the CO had given permission for the spoiler to be posted, maybe posthumously but at least given. It then transpires that "somebody" complained to GS, that can't be the CO in question because that would just be stupid as he has given permission. This is besides the fact that the video in question does not actually spoil anything. My point, not very eloquently put, is that GS appear to be acting beyond their own TOU as a sort of revenge for standing up for your self. IN MY OPINION!

 

comments welcome

[+Z-Storms]

This is a sad day for geocaching, in my opinion*. They have decided that it is their right to censor what members can say on other websites. Must anyone who has a geocaching blog or who posts videos now have to get cache owner permission before sharing their experiences geocaching? What nonsense.

 

While many people may agree that it's not nice to spoil someone else's cache, it is simply a fact of life in this internet age, that information is shared online in a number of ways. Keeping people from using the internet to share information is something that dictators do (and not very successfully based on recent events). It shouldn't be something that Groundspeak does. Geocaching is advanced by sharing our experiences. Censoring what can be discussed about geocaching on other website to keep a few cache owners happy is not very good for geocaching in the long run.

 

* for knowschad.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Especially when given everything I've read. I followed the first thread which included a link to the CO's blog where he mocked and laughed at everyone and how he got them (that's all of YOU that he's talking about) riled up and then dipped out and watched the fighting commence. Then, he sent a letter saying he gives permission. So, sounds like he just wanted to start trouble and won...because....the result = Groundspeak censors one person. Hmmmm......justice?

[+GeoBain]

My point, not very eloquently put, is that GS appear to be acting beyond their own TOU as a sort of revenge for standing up for your self.

They do appear to be acting beyond the scope of their TOU, but I believe it's because they believe they are right, not as any sort of revenge.

[+Z-Storms]

Ok I know that many have weighed in on this. But what all of this looks like to me is grandstanding to bring more people to his youtube account. I don't think it mattered one way or another what anyone on here thought it was just a way to present his site to the cachers. He gives out a question on whether he should keep the site. Question is a link to his asking of whether to keep the site. It sounds like according to that he has had some people question it.

I personally don't see anything terrible about what he shows but bringing it on here to star a argument seems to be a waste of time. I guess for all of us who posted as well as read this forum, hooray for us for not making any difference whatsoever. I think this cacher just likes to be seen. I compliment him on achieving what I assume to be his true goal. Getting his name out there. BRAVO!!

 

I also agree with this. It seems to me, that what it comes down to is a couple of people wanting (needing) attention. First, the CO with his blog (making fun of everyone in the forum), complaint (just to cause controversy), and permission. Second, the OP with his need to bring this to the forums, making it obvious that he just wants more attention and views, and creating more controversy. I think these two have a problem with each other and they've pulled everyone, including Groundspeak, into a needless argument.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

Ok I know that many have weighed in on this. But what all of this looks like to me is grandstanding to bring more people to his youtube account. I don't think it mattered one way or another what anyone on here thought it was just a way to present his site to the cachers. He gives out a question on whether he should keep the site. Question is a link to his asking of whether to keep the site. It sounds like according to that he has had some people question it.

I personally don't see anything terrible about what he shows but bringing it on here to star a argument seems to be a waste of time. I guess for all of us who posted as well as read this forum, hooray for us for not making any difference whatsoever. I think this cacher just likes to be seen. I compliment him on achieving what I assume to be his true goal. Getting his name out there. BRAVO!!

 

I also agree with this. It seems to me, that what it comes down to is a couple of people wanting (needing) attention. First, the CO with his blog (making fun of everyone in the forum), complaint (just to cause controversy), and permission. Second, the OP with his need to bring this to the forums, making it obvious that he just wants more attention and views, and creating more controversy. I think these two have a problem with each other and they've pulled everyone, including Groundspeak, into a needless argument.

 

I don't agree the argument is needless, a great deal has been discussed and faults with all parties have been identified. I do agree that a number of people have an agenda and have used us all to their ends, but hey it's up to us to listen and join in right?

[+tozainamboku]

 

Ok, so I can only speak from my little islands point of view. Didn't realize that free speech is not available to Americans.

 

You're free to say whatever you want on the street of America. If you come into my house, though, you better watch your language or you might get kicked out.

 

We're in Groundspeak's house, here. They can impose whatever rules they want.

 

It may be that Grounspeak can put whatever they like in the TOUs and it may be they can enforced these with a ban. That doesn't make it right nor does it mean that Groundspeak is acting in it's best interest or in the interest of geocaching.

 

First of all, this is a recent addition to the TOUs. I don't recall if you even have to check a box when you renew a premium membership. There is a box to check when you submit a cache, but now I'm checking the box just to get my cache published, not to agree with the TOUs.

 

Now say I have a blog and I post a video showing where I was caching this past weekend. Some cache owner sees my blog and complains to Groundspeak that I have posted a spoiler video showing their cache without permission. Groundspeak tells me to take it down or they will ban my account. Hey this was posted to share my geocaching experience with my friends and family, and perhaps with other geocachers. There is no intent to spoil a cache and in my opinion what I show in the video is not a spoiler. So I refuse to take it down. If they then ban my account they can be sure I'll just start promoting opencaching.com and selling pathtags and blogging about Groundspeak censorship. Maybe Groundspeak couldn't care less about one blogger complaining about them. But if they p*** off enough bloggers, they have a PR issue to deal with.

 

I'm not convinced that spoilers are a problem. Only that some cache owners have an unreasonable expectation that they have a say in whether someone gives out information about their cache. Sure, they may not want spoilers but getting Groundspeak to try and control this by banning accounts is silly. The next person who creates a cache spoiler video YouTube channel will just be more careful about not linking it to their geocaching account.

Edited August 31, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+Z-Storms]

Ok I know that many have weighed in on this. But what all of this looks like to me is grandstanding to bring more people to his youtube account. I don't think it mattered one way or another what anyone on here thought it was just a way to present his site to the cachers. He gives out a question on whether he should keep the site. Question is a link to his asking of whether to keep the site. It sounds like according to that he has had some people question it.

I personally don't see anything terrible about what he shows but bringing it on here to star a argument seems to be a waste of time. I guess for all of us who posted as well as read this forum, hooray for us for not making any difference whatsoever. I think this cacher just likes to be seen. I compliment him on achieving what I assume to be his true goal. Getting his name out there. BRAVO!!

 

I also agree with this. It seems to me, that what it comes down to is a couple of people wanting (needing) attention. First, the CO with his blog (making fun of everyone in the forum), complaint (just to cause controversy), and permission. Second, the OP with his need to bring this to the forums, making it obvious that he just wants more attention and views, and creating more controversy. I think these two have a problem with each other and they've pulled everyone, including Groundspeak, into a needless argument.

 

 

I don't agree the argument is needless, a great deal has been discussed and faults with all parties have been identified. I do agree that a number of people have an agenda and have used us all to their ends, but hey it's up to us to listen and join in right?

 

Very true, so needless isn't the right word. It has been educational.

[+CanadianRockies]

First of all, this is a recent addition to the TOUs. I don't recall if you even have to check a box when you renew a premium membership. There is a box to check when you submit a cache, but now I'm checking the box just to get my cache published, not to agree with the TOUs.

Like many Terms of Use Agreements, Groundspeak's includes a clause that allows them to modify it:

 

14. Changes to this Agreement

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to revise the terms of this Agreement at any time and from time to time. Each time You use the Site, You are bound by the version of this Agreement that is in effect and posted on the Site at the time of Your use. Please review them.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, this is a recent addition to the TOUs. I don't recall if you even have to check a box when you renew a premium membership. There is a box to check when you submit a cache, but now I'm checking the box just to get my cache published, not to agree with the TOUs.

Like many Terms of Use Agreements, Groundspeak's includes a clause that allows them to modify it:

 

14. Changes to this Agreement

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to revise the terms of this Agreement at any time and from time to time. Each time You use the Site, You are bound by the version of this Agreement that is in effect and posted on the Site at the time of Your use. Please review them.

 

I guess I should've reviewed them. Strike that paragraph from my previous response. It doesn't change the fact that I believe trying to control spoilers on third party sites is wrong and short sighted.

 

I will point out that in the forum thread that was started when this change was made, I indicated that I was ok with this so long as it refered to publishing spoilers on Groundspeak websites. If the action that Groundspeak has taken indicates that Section 4 (m) should be interpreted as applying to publishing on websites and media not under Groundspeak control, then I have dilemma. I want to keep geocaching but I don't agree with the Terms of Use. Fortunately I don't have a blog nor have I posted any videos that show caches I have found. (I am shown in a geocaching documentary pointing to a cache, but this was long before the TOUs were changed so I think I'm safe). But in the future, I may very well want to post something and I may have a different view of what constitutes a spoiler than either the cache owner or Groundspeak.

[+mpilchfamily]

Thanks for the reply, but you miss the point. The point is that the TOU have not broken, the CO had given permission for the spoiler to be posted, maybe posthumously but at least given. It then transpires that "somebody" complained to GS, that can't be the CO in question because that would just be stupid as he has given permission. This is besides the fact that the video in question does not actually spoil anything. My point, not very eloquently put, is that GS appear to be acting beyond their own TOU as a sort of revenge for standing up for your self. IN MY OPINION!

 

comments welcome

The TOU as we interpret it wasn't broken. Unfortunatly the TOU says nothing about any exceptions being made if permission has been given. Since GS is taking the hard line that they don't want any spoilers posted period then we have to abide by that or get suspended. Apparently they are willing to take any complaint weather its from the CO or some random person. None of that really matters. If we want to play the game with there site we have to play by there rules. And as most TOUs including this one says they have the right to change the rules at any time and for any reason.

[+CanadianRockies]

First of all, this is a recent addition to the TOUs. I don't recall if you even have to check a box when you renew a premium membership. There is a box to check when you submit a cache, but now I'm checking the box just to get my cache published, not to agree with the TOUs.

There are two boxes that you check each time you submit a cache for publication and/or modify a listing page.

 

The first box indicates: "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

The second box indicates: "Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement."

[+niraD]

Thanks for the reply, but you miss the point. The point is that the TOU have not broken, the CO had given permission for the spoiler to be posted, maybe posthumously but at least given.

Excuse me, but "posthumously" is unlikely. Perhaps you meant "after the fact" (or "ex post facto")?

[+GeoBain]

Unfortunatly the TOU says nothing about any exceptions being made if permission has been given.

 

Yes it does. They might try to stretch it to mean anywhere, but it does specify it's only a problem when done without consent from the CO.

 

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

That last bit is the part the OP is arguing. He claims he has permission and they still threaten to lock his account.

[+GeoBain]

Thanks for the reply, but you miss the point. The point is that the TOU have not broken, the CO had given permission for the spoiler to be posted, maybe posthumously but at least given.

Excuse me, but "posthumously" is unlikely. Perhaps you meant "after the fact" (or "ex post facto")?

 

Unless he got permission from the widow after killing the CO.

[+tozainamboku]

First of all, this is a recent addition to the TOUs. I don't recall if you even have to check a box when you renew a premium membership. There is a box to check when you submit a cache, but now I'm checking the box just to get my cache published, not to agree with the TOUs.

There are two boxes that you check each time you submit a cache for publication and/or modify a listing page.

 

The first box indicates: "Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache."

 

The second box indicates: "Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement."

Yes the check box says agree, but really do I have a choice. I want to publish my cache (or even just make a minor edit on the cache page). I check the box to get that to happen. I don't really agree. I lied. So sue me.

 

In anycase, your previous post indicated that just by using the site I am bound by the version of Agreement that is in effect and posted on the Site at the time of my use. It doesn't even need me to check a box.

 

I really don't pay any more attention to the Terms of Use than anyone else. If I ever decide to post a spoiler or a solution on another website or in some other media without getting the consent of the cache owner, I will be bound only by my own conscience as to what is right or wrong. I'm not likely to p*** off a cache owner just to prove a point however.

 

I didn't really want to debate the legalisms of a Terms Of Use agreement. What I'm curious about is what is so wrong with these spoilers that Groundspeak feels it has to have a controversial TOU restriction and to enforce this restriction by banning a member?

[+Sven.]

all of this looks like to me is grandstanding to bring more people to his youtube account.

 

Makes perfect sense. Create a fake persona. Video fake persona's cache so that fake persona can complain on forums and to Groundspeak. Then have real persona create this thread - all just to get a couple more views on the channel.

 

bad troll is bad.