Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Cup is replying on behalf of Sven, who cannot join the discussion due to being banned. She is the other half of the caching team.

 

Thanks. I never would have figured that out by myself. ;)

 

To actually be on topic, claiming that something that has "spoiler" in the name isn't about spoilers seems a bit...odd, to put it mildly.

 

I agree. I'm usually in lock step with The Frog like maybe 1% of the time, but I support their decision for the ban here!! There's spoiler videos on the web. At least 2 people complained about their caches being shown without permission. His general geographic area is known. I am completely baffled by why anyone would want to make and post videos of other people's Geocaching ideas in the first place, let alone the massive anti-Groundspeak backlash over it. Must be a Europe thing, like the massive anti-Timberland backlash. :blink:

When this firsr broke, it around the time Dominique Strauss-Kahn returned to France after charges against him in the US were dropped. I read something in the newspaper that day about the difference in attitude to DSK in Europe vs. the United States and the UK. It basically said that Europeans didn't have the encumbrance of puritan morality that Americans and British have, so what Strauss-Kahn did wasn't seen as that bad. It immediately occurred to me that there is a difference between Europe and America when it comes to spoilers. The puritan work ethic makes us think that taking a shortcut to find a cache is wrong. One should find caches as "the onwner intended". Europeans without this baggage, find the idea of spoiler sites and free exchange of information on the internet (ala Julian Assange) not wrong at all. Most of the spoiler sites are found in Europe.

 

However when someone is banned, it's the American and British that complain the guideline is bad and Austrians like Cezanne who defend the rule. I think the people who post about it aren't necessarily representative of their countries.

Link to comment

 

However when someone is banned, it's the American and British that complain the guideline is bad and Austrians like Cezanne who defend the rule. I think the people who post about it aren't necessarily representative of their countries.

Please take the mouse out of your pocket. There have been a couple I agreed with.

Link to comment

 

However when someone is banned, it's the American and British that complain the guideline is bad and Austrians like Cezanne who defend the rule. I think the people who post about it aren't necessarily representative of their countries.

Please take the mouse out of your pocket. There have been a couple I agreed with.

Link to comment

Why does my post say Ringbone?

Cup is replying on behalf of Sven, who cannot join the discussion due to being banned. She is the other half of the caching team.

 

Thanks. I never would have figured that out by myself. ;)

 

To actually be on topic, claiming that something that has "spoiler" in the name isn't about spoilers seems a bit...odd, to put it mildly.

 

I agree. I'm usually in lock step with The Frog like maybe 1% of the time, but I support their decision for the ban here!! There's spoiler videos on the web. At least 2 people complained about their caches being shown without permission. His general geographic area is known. I am completely baffled by why anyone would want to make and post videos of other people's Geocaching ideas in the first place, let alone the massive anti-Groundspeak backlash over it. Must be a Europe thing, like the massive anti-Timberland backlash. :blink:

When this firsr broke, it around the time Dominique Strauss-Kahn returned to France after charges against him in the US were dropped. I read something in the newspaper that day about the difference in attitude to DSK in Europe vs. the United States and the UK. It basically said that Europeans didn't have the encumbrance of puritan morality that Americans and British have, so what Strauss-Kahn did wasn't seen as that bad. It immediately occurred to me that there is a difference between Europe and America when it comes to spoilers. The puritan work ethic makes us think that taking a shortcut to find a cache is wrong. One should find caches as "the onwner intended". Europeans without this baggage, find the idea of spoiler sites and free exchange of information on the internet (ala Julian Assange) not wrong at all. Most of the spoiler sites are found in Europe.

 

However when someone is banned, it's the American and British that complain the guideline is bad and Austrians like Cezanne who defend the rule. I think the people who post about it aren't necessarily representative of their countries.

 

Oh boy, now the two of us are going to be accused of stereotyping by Nationality. I actually do agree with most of your first paragraph. (As I don my asbestos suit). However, most of the banned cacher's overwhelming support is from The UK.

 

Sandy's explanation works for me, and I support her decision to post on such a matter which Groundspeak normally wouldn't comment on.

 

And by the way, another thing I've noticed I'll probably get flamed for. Did anyone notice the banned cacher has only been caching for 4 1/2 months?!?! It's not like he's been posting these videos for years. Man, that's a lot to pack into 4 1/2 months. Perhaps if he had slowed down a little, and gained much more experience, he'd have found that posting spoilers is generally frowned upon. Except in Europe, that is. :ph34r:

Link to comment

So then it seems Sven wasn't completely honest in saying that every cache featured in his videos has permission from their COs to be published (regardless of linking from the forum)

That isn't what Sven said.

 

I stand corrected... from a quick recap:

#50: "I have permission for everything I've posted"

#55: "I have permission to post all the videos I've linked."

#63: "The CO has given permission, to spoil the cache. Yes."

#108: "I HAVE PERMISSION, FROM THE CO'S TO ALL THE LINKS I'VE POSTED. I'VE SAID THIS WHAT FEELS LIKE A DOZEN TIMES NOW."

#149: "Even though i have an email giving permisson for it to be on youtube from the c/o.."

 

However, as the channel was also linked, all the videos, technically, would need to be addressed, it seems. Any video linked in forum, as per above, is stated to have CO permission; but have all the caches depicted in the channel been given permission?

 

Would this not have been an issue if the channel weren't linked here, or would Groundspeak still have taken action?

I don't know.

 

dramadramadramadramadrama

Link to comment

Would this not have been an issue if the channel weren't linked here, or would Groundspeak still have taken action?

I don't know.

 

Yes. Sandy has not once stated that the reason for the ban was due to the links to the youtube page. Her original response and the response from today make it clear that the issue is with the Youtube videos themselves.

 

Groundspeak thinks that sub-section 4(m) can stand alone even though it is contained in Section 4 and therefore inherits

 

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.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

You simply cannot strip

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

out of the section. That is called taking something out of context. It MUST be read within the context of the section is resides in.

Link to comment

GeoBain, I'm not in disagreement. Let me clarify:

 

Sven posted links to spoiler videos and his channel. Because of that, I could see how they can follow TOU and consider all videos in context of the ban.

 

The problem (which I presume you're referring to) is if the channel wasn't linked, then the only infringement would be the link to the individual video(s) for which he said all posted here had permission - but Groundspeak would still have called him on his entire youtube channel containing uncleared spoiler content.

 

The problem there is that Groundspeak would be making a statement that no one, ever, anywhere, can post any content that spoils geocache hides without CO permission, or they can be banned if reported. That is quite the bold move. So it's getting into a very shady territory if that's the case - it's effectively a fear tactic that'll dissuade any common blogger from discussing their experiences if they fail to get explicit permission from the respective CO, if all it takes is the CO to spot their cache somewhere, even if completely unlinked to the source.

Granted it does get to petty bickering, in a way, if for an example case 1) the CO is willing to make a huge fuss over say a mom&pop account blogging their great family adventure about the cache and 2) the mom&pop account opts not to 'edit/remove' their story because they don't get why it's an issue with the CO being completely unlinked.

 

This whole thing is opening the door for a whole lot of potential future controversy, if that is what Groundspeak is saying. By the TOU, I can see GS's position based on the fact that videos and the channel were linked. Not that I like it, but I can understand it - they were linked here, using their tools and site.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

So it seems that Sven has been banned for violation of section 4(m) of the terms of use.

 

The big problem with ToUs is that you agree to them simply by posting on the website. And they have a clause that they can be changed at any time and by using the site you agree to be bound by the version that is in effect at the time of your use whether or not you are aware of any change.

 

There are many of us who don't agree with section 4(m), particularly if it applies to third party website. All we can do is continue to argue it is a terrible clause and does not promote geocaching or Groundspeak. Since we have posted, we have agreed to abide by this phrase (even if what we posted on YouTube or any other site predates it).

 

Repeal section 4(m)

 

There are going to be two groups - cache owners who feel that they are harmed by spoilers, and cachers who find these spoilers useful in finding caches they might otherwise not have have found or who find these videos and blogs entertaining and educational.

 

At first blush, section 4(m) seems to be a good compromise between these groups. If you get permission from cache owners you can publish solutions, hint, spoilers, or coordinates for their caches. So owners who don't want spoilers are protected and blogs and spoilers sites can continue to show caches so long as the get permission. However, there are problems with this.

 

It is possible for a blogger to believe they have permission to post something. In one of the caches Sven dealt with, the cache page said it was ok to post pictures of the area in the logs, just don't show the cache location. Sven believed that this gave him permission to post pictures of the area in a video so long as he didn't show the cache location. However the cache owner decided that the permission that was given on the cache page didn't apply to Sven. And of course Sven felt that if what he showed could not be tied to a particular cache how could it be a spoiler. But some cache owners, after finding out their cache had been featured, felt that even though there was nothing shown that identified this as a particular cache, it was still a spoiler. Section 4(m) leaves it up to the cache owner to decide what is a spoiler and whether or not permission has been given.

 

I can imagine a scenario where someone shows the cache owner exactly what they are going to post and gets permission to post it. Then a few weeks later the cache owner change their mind and decides either that they didn't give permission. Now, one could argue that if you have a cache owner that flip-flops on permission it's no big deal to delete the video. Still I would be a little wary of publishing anything just because I don't want to get hit with a request demand from Groundspeak to remove something from my blog and then be up against their deadline or risk a suspension.

 

Section 4(m) as it applies to other sites is also unenforceable. It should be fairly easy to set up a site using a name that can't be traced to your Geocaching.com account. Someone even now could set up a new YouTube account and copy Sven's videos. Sven could delete the videos that cache owners have objected too, but cacher will soon find the copies elsewhere. Now Groundspeak could go after Sven and he could say that the videos were copied by someone without his permission. Would Groundspeak now force Sven to go to YouTube (or whatever site is hosting the videos) and get them removed because they violate his copyright? Perhaps Sven prefers to let these videos go into the public domain to be shared by anyone who want to.

 

I don't see what gives a cache owner any expectation that their cache will not be spoiled. Everyone seem to agree that cachers will discuss interesting caches at events or use phone-a-friend to get hints and spoilers when they are searching for a cache. There seems to be some cache owners who feel that public third party websites are different enough from just sharing with your buddies. Perhaps what is different is that Groundspeak can create a Section 4(m) and punish cachers who share their geocaching experience that way whenever a cache owner takes exception. In this day and age when anyone can post YouTube videos or have a blog or write about the caches they have found on Facebook, I see little difference from phoning a friend or discussing caches at a event. Perhaps I can still be convinced there is a difference. I just don't see it.

 

I believe that Section 4(m) was created because of spoiler sites that published the final coordinates for puzzle and multi caches. I'm not sure that it was initially thought that it would be used for someone's blog or vlog that shows interesting caches they found. But once cache owners discovered it they began demanding that it be applied in these cases. I want to know where it stops. Just where does any media end? And to what extent is the intent of the publisher taken into account. The spoiler sites are clearly intended to circumvent solving a puzzle or doing the stages of a multi. Sven's vlog - despite it's name - was intended to highlight creative types of hides. Others have blogs that simple document the caches they have found. People have started Yahoo! groups to tackle caches hidden by a particular hider. Now all a cache owner has to do is complain to Groundspeak and they can stop any of these.

Link to comment
Now all a cache owner has to do is complain to Groundspeak and they can stop any of these.

This.

 

Except this one minor adjustment: --presuming the CO has already dealt with the publisher of said spoiler who has refused to cooperate with the CO. I'm willing to bet if the CO goes straight to GS, they'll first request the CO take it up with the media owner.

Nonetheless, I agree with everything else said above

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However, we will take this opportunity to explain recent events that led to this site suspension.

 

This user has drawn many people to geocaching through his YouTube channel. This is one of the reasons that Groundspeak featured Sven. in one of our Blog (Latitude 47) posts (unfortunately removed due to recent events).

 

However, our Terms of Use state that a user may not, "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." (Section 4m).

 

With cache owner permission, videos can be created and posted on other forms of media. Groundspeak has never requested that this user remove all the videos he has posted on YouTube. Rather, two months ago we were contacted by the cache owner of a featured cache, who asked that we intervene in having the video of his cache removed from YouTube.

 

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his YouTube channel. We then explained that not complying with the Terms of Use would result in site suspension, and Sven. complied, removing the video from YouTube.

 

At that time, we thanked him for his cooperation, and explained that other cache owners may come forward, meaning we would need to follow up on any subsequent complaints.

 

Another cache owner came forward about three videos that featured his caches. He wanted them removed. When we contacted Sven. he failed to respond for some time. When pressed about removing the videos, he refused, knowing that the consequence was site suspension from Geocaching.com.

 

Importantly, Sven. did not seek permission from the cache owners who requested that Groundspeak intervene. As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos - again without obtaining permission.

 

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use. He has also had the opportunity to partner more closely with Groundspeak, but has chosen instead to dig in his heels. Groundspeak cannot partner with someone who openly and actively ignores our Terms of Site use. We consider this unfortunate, as we see how a partnership could benefit the game - under better circumstances. However, the decision has been Sven.'s, not ours.

I see that you're saying that Sven is a liar, and perhaps being in possession of all the secret correspondence you can be quite sure about that.

 

So you have an advantage over us, particularly as Sven is banned from this forum and even if he's reinstated he's already been forbidden to quote any correspondence without permission (which judging from recent experience is unlikely to be forthcoming).

 

But one thing I can be sure about; the Terms of Use.

If you look at Section 4 you'll see that it clearly applies ONLY TO THE GEOCACHING.COM WEBSITE AND FORUMS. That applies to all subsections, so taking 4(m) out of context seems mischievous.

I think that you know this very well, and that Sven has indeed complied with them (judging from what you say above). You accidentally give the game away by calling them "Terms of Site use", which is perfectly accurate, but not what you're using against Sven. There's no need to repeal 4(m), because of this limitation.

 

I speculate that section 4(m) was added by someone who knows about legal matters, so he made sure that it was under the heading

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

...knowing that extending it to the whole world of the internet would be unenforceable and perhaps illegal.

And just to make sure that we realise that we're only talking about Groundspeak's 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.

...

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

...

Link to comment

Would this not have been an issue if the channel weren't linked here, or would Groundspeak still have taken action?

I don't know.

 

Yes. Sandy has not once stated that the reason for the ban was due to the links to the youtube page. Her original response and the response from today make it clear that the issue is with the Youtube videos themselves.

 

Groundspeak thinks that sub-section 4(m) can stand alone even though it is contained in Section 4 and therefore inherits

 

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.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

You simply cannot strip

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

out of the section. That is called taking something out of context. It MUST be read within the context of the section is resides in.

Even within the context, it still says "publish, in any form of media,..."

 

It's in the context of use of this site, because this site is the source of the cache information in the first place. Sven came to this site, used the information from this site to find caches, then published spoilers. Because he wouldn't stop doing that, he's no longer permitted to use this site.

 

The context of "this site" doesn't remove the meaning of "any form of media."

Link to comment

 

If you look at Section 4 you'll see that it clearly applies ONLY TO THE GEOCACHING.COM WEBSITE AND FORUMS.

It appears that Groundspeak (and presumably, their lawyers) disagree with your interpretation. Unless someone wants to challenge their interpretation in court, then we'll have to take their word for it.

Link to comment

So then it seems Sven wasn't completely honest in saying that every cache featured in his videos has permission from their COs to be published (regardless of linking from the forum)

That isn't what Sven said.

 

I stand corrected... from a quick recap:

#50: "I have permission for everything I've posted"

#55: "I have permission to post all the videos I've linked."

#63: "The CO has given permission, to spoil the cache. Yes."

#108: "I HAVE PERMISSION, FROM THE CO'S TO ALL THE LINKS I'VE POSTED. I'VE SAID THIS WHAT FEELS LIKE A DOZEN TIMES NOW."

#149: "Even though i have an email giving permisson for it to be on youtube from the c/o.."

 

 

And these quotes are about the videos he shot himself? He also appears to advertise for videos from outside sources. His YouTube profile (on his main channel page) still includes the text: "If you have a video of a decent cache please send it to [name redacted by Yuck]@gmail.com for inclusion." I saw at least one video (a water down the drain pipe cache) that was submitted by someone else. Of course it could very well be their cache, or they received permission to send it to some guy in the UK. Or Maybe not.

Link to comment
Even within the context, it still says "publish, in any form of media,..."

 

It's in the context of use of this site, because this site is the source of the cache information in the first place. Sven came to this site, used the information from this site to find caches, then published spoilers. Because he wouldn't stop doing that, he's no longer permitted to use this site.

 

The context of "this site" doesn't remove the meaning of "any form of media."

 

A website isn't a "form of media". Text, audio, pictures, videos. Those are forms of media.

Link to comment

 

Even within the context, it still says "publish, in any form of media,..."

Yes, within the context it says "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to:

publish, in any form of media,...". That's quite clearly to counter any claim that a spoiler is not a spoiler because it was uploaded in photo form (for instance). Or if Groundspeak introduce video uploads, the claim that that particular form of media is not covered.

Link to comment

Even within the context, it still says "publish, in any form of media,..."

 

It's in the context of use of this site, because this site is the source of the cache information in the first place. Sven came to this site, used the information from this site to find caches, then published spoilers. Because he wouldn't stop doing that, he's no longer permitted to use this site.

 

The context of "this site" doesn't remove the meaning of "any form of media."

 

"any form of media" covers such things as pictures, videos, text, LINKS, etc. that one might post using their publishing tools or forums. Which, coincidentally, gives them all the authority they needed to ban Sven once he posted the link to his Youtube channel. But that is not the reason given by Sandy. Had she stated "We have banned you due to linking to spoilers in our forums." then I would be 100% behind them since I do believe the Youtube channel contains spoilers.

Link to comment

 

If you look at Section 4 you'll see that it clearly applies ONLY TO THE GEOCACHING.COM WEBSITE AND FORUMS.

It appears that Groundspeak (and presumably, their lawyers) disagree with your interpretation.

 

Actually, it appears,unless Sven is intentionally misquoting Sandy, that Groundspeak also realized that their TOU did not allow them to take action for content posted to another site. It appeared to me they changed their mind later once they figured they had enough support to get over the backlash that a ban would cause.

 

Honestly, the biggest problem here is that the OP's actions and word play with regards to permission and what a spoiler is have served to muddy the waters. It's really hard to speak out against this ban when it my gut says it was ultimately warranted. The OP has been his own worst enemy.

 

However, we are given a TOU to guide our actions. Wou can't just make up rules and expect members to abide by them. If you don't want spoilers posted on Youtube, then fix the TOU so it actually states that we are not to post them anywhere, period.

Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

Link to comment

 

"any form of media" covers such things as pictures, videos, text, LINKS, etc. that one might post using their publishing tools or forums. Which, coincidentally, gives them all the authority they needed to ban Sven once he posted the link to his Youtube channel.

 

On a slightly-related possibly-relevant note, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that a website publisher could not be held liable for content to which their site linked:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/sued+hyperlinks+defamatory+sites+Supreme+Court/5578595/story.html

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/web-links-dont-constitute-defamation-supreme-court-rules/article2206256/

 

If I read this correctly, had the website publisher embedded the material, they would have been liable.

Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

I suspect that Groundspeak's legal team were aware not to push it any further than that. Either that or they were incredibly sloppy.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

I suspect that Groundspeak's legal team were aware not to push it any further than that. Either that or they were incredibly sloppy.

 

Does it really matter what the meaning of "is" is?

 

Sven posted spoilers. COs complained. GS asked Sven to remove specific spoilers and play nice. Sven said "kiss my grits". GS banned Sven.

 

Legal wrangling aside, Sven doesn't seem to want to play well with others unless it's by his rules. We all play in the same sandbox here, it belongs to GS, they write and enforce the "rules" as they see fit. I for one am glad that they try to keep the cats from pooping in it.

Link to comment

Actually, it appears,unless Sven is intentionally misquoting Sandy, that Groundspeak also realized that their TOU did not allow them to take action for content posted to another site. It appeared to me they changed their mind later once they figured they had enough support to get over the backlash that a ban would cause.

 

Sven showed me the email, that's a direct quote word for word:

 

Groundspeak is well aware that we have no recourse to insist or penalize you for posting videos about other people's caches on Youtube, which is why my initial email was a request and presented the cache owner's perspective.

 

Seems she changed her mind when she thought she could very loosely deem the terms ban it, obviously assuming he wont bother to take it up in a small claims court.

 

But the legal beagle at GS is away on vacation for two weeks. He's awaiting Eric's response once he's clarified with Mr legal:

 

a ) what a spoiler is defined as, because Eric agreed that they weren't spoilers.

b ) what the terms actually say

 

Eric also said the terms could do with being clarified to actually say what Sandy wants them to say.

Edited by Cup.
Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

I suspect that Groundspeak's legal team were aware not to push it any further than that. Either that or they were incredibly sloppy.

 

Does it really matter what the meaning of "is" is?

 

Sven posted spoilers. COs complained. GS asked Sven to remove specific spoilers and play nice. Sven said "kiss my grits". GS banned Sven.

 

Legal wrangling aside, Sven doesn't seem to want to play well with others unless it's by his rules. We all play in the same sandbox here, it belongs to GS, they write and enforce the "rules" as they see fit. I for one am glad that they try to keep the cats from pooping in it.

 

Too many American references with the "meaning of is", and "kiss my Grits". :lol:

 

As I said before, I agree with this decision, as do you. But we are in the minority, brotha. A big time minority. There's not even so much as one detracting comment posted to the YouTube Channel. If I get up the nerve, maybe I'll say a piece over there. But probably not. B)

Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

I suspect that Groundspeak's legal team were aware not to push it any further than that. Either that or they were incredibly sloppy.

 

Does it really matter what the meaning of "is" is?

 

Sven posted spoilers. COs complained. GS asked Sven to remove specific spoilers and play nice. Sven said "kiss my grits". GS banned Sven.

 

Legal wrangling aside, Sven doesn't seem to want to play well with others unless it's by his rules. We all play in the same sandbox here, it belongs to GS, they write and enforce the "rules" as they see fit. I for one am glad that they try to keep the cats from pooping in it.

 

Too many American references with the "meaning of is", and "kiss my Grits". :lol:

 

As I said before, I agree with this decision, as do you. But we are in the minority, brotha. A big time minority. There's not even so much as one detracting comment posted to the YouTube Channel. If I get up the nerve, maybe I'll say a piece over there. But probably not. B)

 

I figured the Clinton reference was known well enough even over the pond. The meaning certainly should be clear enough, and it isn't a stretch to replace "grits" with a word fitting to anywhere.

 

Cat turds are cat turds.

Link to comment

As I said before, I agree with this decision, as do you. But we are in the minority, brotha. A big time minority. There's not even so much as one detracting comment posted to the YouTube Channel. If I get up the nerve, maybe I'll say a piece over there. But probably not. B)

You may be a minority of those posting to this thread, but I suspect you are in the majority over all. Most people have this impression that spoilers are bad - or at least that cache owners should get to decide which spoilers are ok and which are bad. And beyond this most Americans at least will argue that since Groundspeak is a private company, they can write any rules in their terms of use that they wish and can enforce them by canceling someone's membership on the site (effectively keeping them from using it for geocaching).

 

You want minority - look at me. Most of the people defending Sven are trying to interpret the TOU some way that would allow Sven to keep his site and participate on Geocaching.com. I think I may be the only one who thinks that sharing ones geocaching experiences is a natural and integral part of geocaching, and that sometimes this means you post videos or any other media on third party websites showing the caches you found. It would certainly include posting videos showing cool hides and interesting cache locations. But now Groundspeak has created a rule saying that any cache owner can go to Groundspeak and say I've posted a spoiler and if I disagree, Groundspeak will ban me.

 

I've listed other creative works whose authors don't get this privilege of punishing people who post spoilers. There are movie spoiler sites, video game spoiler sites, book spoiler sites, etc. The authors, screenwriters, directors, programmers, etc. don't go trying to shut down these sites. They accept them as a natural part of what they do. I have not been convinced that a cache owner has any more reason to expect that his cache won't be spoiled somewhere than any of the above. Yet Groundspeak has now created a mechanism that gives cache owners this right.

 

You may argue that without the rule, people who place creative caches will stop placing them and all we will be left with are LPCs*. I argue that by preventing people from freely sharing these "quality" hides fewer people will be exposed to quality hides and we will wind up with more LPCs. I truly believe this rule was unnecessary and that it is counterproductive. But apparently I'm in the minority.

 

*I use LPC as an example for not creative cache - even though I personally don't consider all LPCs to be non creative. They are use here in the vernacular sense they have acquired because of all the threads that complain about them. I suspect the people who complain about LPCs would prefer to see caches like the ones Sven features in his videos.

Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

I suspect that Groundspeak's legal team were aware not to push it any further than that. Either that or they were incredibly sloppy.

 

Does it really matter what the meaning of "is" is?

 

Sven posted spoilers. COs complained. GS asked Sven to remove specific spoilers and play nice. Sven said "kiss my grits". GS banned Sven.

 

Legal wrangling aside, Sven doesn't seem to want to play well with others unless it's by his rules. We all play in the same sandbox here, it belongs to GS, they write and enforce the "rules" as they see fit. I for one am glad that they try to keep the cats from pooping in it.

 

Too many American references with the "meaning of is", and "kiss my Grits". :lol:

 

As I said before, I agree with this decision, as do you. But we are in the minority, brotha. A big time minority. There's not even so much as one detracting comment posted to the YouTube Channel. If I get up the nerve, maybe I'll say a piece over there. But probably not. B)

 

I figured the Clinton reference was known well enough even over the pond. The meaning certainly should be clear enough, and it isn't a stretch to replace "grits" with a word fitting to anywhere.

 

Cat turds are cat turds.

One of the two JJC, you don't know much about cats or cat turds if you think that they are all the same. I don't claim to be a geocacher. I like youtube and cachng videos. I would not want to be a paying member of this service.

Link to comment

However when someone is banned, it's the American and British that complain the guideline is bad and Austrians like Cezanne who defend the rule. I think the people who post about it aren't necessarily representative of their countries.

 

I can only speak for myself. I am certainly not a typical Austrian, but I do not think that plays a role here.

 

I'd rather say that in countries where using spoilers or cheating has a less bad image then in others, more cachers will make use of spoiler sites and so more cache owners are annoyed and effected. Moreover, countries with a higher percentage of complex caches are more heavily effected. It is not a coincidence that the initiative that led to the change of the ToU originated from Europe (specifically from the Netherlands - see among others

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1533777-can-Groundspeak-help-us-against-spoiling- )

 

Building up simple theories for complex issues never works, but if you want to come up with some simple explanation I'd rather suggest to divide the cachers into two groups by putting the cachers who own caches that are seriously effected by spoilers (up to the point where the caches are alomost ruined) and/or who appreciate caches of that type in the first group and all others in the other group. There are many more caches of the described type in Europe.

 

BTW: I would prefer by far if people like Sven understood that they seriously annoy some cache owners by their actions and were willing to give in and make compromises instead of having them banned.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'd say a website is more a platform for distribution of various forms of media. But this could go off on a tangent of definitions of 'platform' and 'media' and 'senses' =P

I would argue that common use of medium refers to image/video/text, and common use of platform refers to tv/internet/radio/movie/book/etc.

Well, that's going to be news to everyone who works, like me, in the television industry. We all think that TV is a medium. Newspaper is a medium. Radio is a medium. And the Internet is a medium.

It doesn't matter whether the internet is to be regarded as a "medium", or whether the TOU just mean photos, audio, video etc. The context is

"Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site... You agree not to: ...".

 

Now, if you wanted to make it clear that Groundspeak users are also not allowed to upload certain types of content anywhere else, i.e. on Youtube and the like, you certainly wouldn't structure it like this. You'd make sure that your list of banned content was not included within a section with a heading "Use of Publishing Tools and Forums". In my opinion, that's simply not open to interpretation. Everything in that section is to do with Use of Publishing Tools and Forums. How much more clear can it be?

 

 

Have a look at this feedback thread and look at the final statement by Bryan (from the legal team)

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1533777-can-Groundspeak-help-us-against-spoiling-

 

They announced the added part of the ToU as remedy to the problem posted that was about external spoiler sites. So I am sure that the intent was from the beginning to discourage cachers to provide external spoilers and to take actions in case cache owners complain.

As long as no one complains (regardless of whether on Groundspeak pages or outside), certainly nothing will happen. So all the references to spoilers on Groundspeak sites go in the wrong direction.

 

The issue here is not that Sven posted these videos, but that effected cache owners complained and that he was not willing to comply with the wishes of at least one cache owner.

 

I think that Groundspeak had hoped that the changed ToU would suffice so that any dedicated cacher would be willing to comply and remove spoilers (which can easily happen without bad intent) when being asked to do so. I need to add that personally I am quite disappointed that someone who seems to a pretty dedicated and enthusiastic geocacher is ignoring wishes of fellow cache hiders in such an arrogant manner.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I believe that Section 4(m) was created because of spoiler sites that published the final coordinates for puzzle and multi caches.

 

You are wrong. The initiative started due to youtube videos and similar pages.

 

The spoiler sites are clearly intended to circumvent solving a puzzle or doing the stages of a multi. Sven's vlog - despite it's name - was intended to highlight creative types of hides.

 

You cannot separate these aspects. I know lots of caches with creative hides which are multi caches or mystery caches.

For example, most of the European lost place adventure caches have multiple stages and showing such caches in videos ruins them in most cases. If one recognizes the location, one does not need any longer coordinates and even has available more information than if just having the coordinates. So spoiler videos can be much worse than data bases with final coordinates.

 

As the difference between private spoilers and openly available ones is regarded, I have already mentioned why I think that there are differences. For example, I own a cache where it is important to restrict the number of visitors per time period. If information on this cache is distributed in a private manner this happens in a limited way and stays under control which is not the case as soon as something is available on the internet. It is not any longer possible to take into account e.g. if a cacher is already experienced enough for a certain type of cache (I am not talking about illegal caches).

As events are concerned, most cachers I know are more reluctant to provide full solutions to caches on events where they are not anonymous than on the internet where many also might hope that the cache owners never become aware of the spoiler sites. If one of my caches is massively spoilt at a local event, there will be cachers telling me about what happened. In case of spoiler sites, many of those who frown upon spoiler sites will not even know about their existence and thus cannot warn me.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Does a suspension achieve anything? What's to keep this cacher from creating a new account, from continuing to find caches and make more videos or from stopping other cachers from sending him videos? If enough folks submit their own spoiler videos, he may have hundreds of videos from all over the world. Also, he could create a new channel and post silent videos without anybody knowing who did it.

Link to comment

Have a look at this feedback thread and look at the final statement by Bryan (from the legal team)

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1533777-can-Groundspeak-help-us-against-spoiling-

 

They announced the added part of the ToU as remedy to the problem posted that was about external spoiler sites. So I am sure that the intent was from the beginning to discourage cachers to provide external spoilers and to take actions in case cache owners complain.

It looks like you're correct and that Bryan added this subsection thinking that it would cover external sites too, whether or not the geocaching.com sites were used.

Unfortunately, as it is worded it clearly doesn't cover that. It's no use Groundspeak saying, "Well, yes it doesn't actually say that but it's what we meant"! So we've ended up with some ToU that are highly misleading. Groundspeak need to revisit this section and say what they actually meant to say.

 

Also, it needs a definition of "spoiler" as that's far from clear. Is it a spoiler if it doesn't show the container? Or if there's no easy way of identifying the cache? If you show the approach to within 50 yards of a traditional cache and not the retrieval, do you still need permission from the cache owner? Google Street View acts as a spoiler in many cases. The cache that first caused the trouble was a traditional and the video doesn't show the container at any point. However, it was classed as a "spoiler" by Sven to warn the viewer, and the cache owner complained (even though he later withdrew the complaint, presumably having wiatched the video more carefully).

So where does the line get drawn? It's a can of worms.

Link to comment

Does a suspension achieve anything? What's to keep this cacher from creating a new account, from continuing to find caches and make more videos or from stopping other cachers from sending him videos? If enough folks submit their own spoiler videos, he may have hundreds of videos from all over the world. Also, he could create a new channel and post silent videos without anybody knowing who did it.

 

I would hope that the number of cachers who behaves in this manner and takes joy out of ruining the work of other caches is limited and that many are too attached to their statistics anyway.

Moreover, mixing the videos would at least make the data mining approach harder than having only videos where Sven is in the picture or is speaking as it can then be concluded that he is reporting about caches he has found.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Also, it needs a definition of "spoiler" as that's far from clear. Is it a spoiler if it doesn't show the container? Or if there's no easy way of identifying the cache? If you show the approach to within 50 yards of a traditional cache and not the retrieval, do you still need permission from the cache owner? Google Street View acts as a spoiler in many cases. The cache that first caused the trouble was a traditional and the video doesn't show the container at any point. However, it was classed as a "spoiler" by Sven to warn the viewer, and the cache owner complained (even though he later withdrew the complaint, presumably having wiatched the video more carefully).

So where does the line get drawn? It's a can of worms.

 

Actually, personally I had hoped that the new formulation and the will of Groundspeak to contact people publishing such spoiler sites in case they do not reply to personal mail would act as deterrent.

I am fan of clear definitions, but even I had hoped that we would not need one for spoiler and most issues could be handled already at the level of the involved cachers.

 

Among the videos shown by Sven on his channel some show the hideout directly and how the cache is retrieved. Moreover, showing the container even if it is not at its place often provides a lot of help as well - think e.g. of the example of an artificial screw. It might be that he asked for permission before posting these videos on his channel, but I am sceptic as he is not very sensible to the topic of spoilers and claims that leaving out cache names and coordinates means that he is not spoilering which is not true. He has load up so many videos in a very short time and has only about 300 finds, so that using a data mining approach a lot of information can be deduced by local cachers from his video collection. This is not a borderline case for me.

 

 

It happened about 2-3 times in my caching life (I am very careful) that a cache owner felt that I mentioned something I should not have mentioned and contacted me. Even though I did not agree that the statement I had made was a spoiler, I willingly rephrased my formulations. I feel that this is the proper reaction. I do not want my caches to be spoilt and so I try my best not to spoil the caches of others and give the owner the credit for being the cache owner and to decide what he considers as spoiler.

 

I know many caches where I had to refrain from telling amusing stories in the log (and also other locations like blogs, forums etc) because they would have been spoilers. I think that the cache hider's interest is the first priority, entertaining other cachers comes thereafter.

 

As Google street view is regarded, I do not think that for the caches Sven is showing the hideout would be recognizable on Google. (There is one with a gully, another one with a transmitter and receiver etc.)

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

and takes joy out of ruining the work of other caches

 

WAT?

 

If he took pleasure in ruining their work I'd imagine he'd post the GC code, he'd link to the video from the logs, he'd muggle damage and ruin their caches etc.

 

He did quite the opposite. He takes joy in sharing inventive caches, and the community takes joy in seeing them.

Link to comment

It's already been pointed out that people may post spoilers as each cache description has the following on it:

**Warning! Spoilers may be included in the descriptions or links.

Either they are allowed, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

Providing a warning does not condone spoilers. It warns you of them.
Link to comment

So I think that there is sufficient warning in this case. No problem, particularly as Groundspeak encourage this very activity; see Geocaching Vlogs and Online Videos – The New Horizon of Caching Media, an article which I believe originally even boasted a link to Sven's Youtube channel! And of course, there is the very popular and inspirational Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread on this very forum, which as far as I know is very much approved of by the moderators, despite not featuring a "spoilers" warning.

 

Good point but Mod Approval ≠ GS Approval. I could be wrong, though i'm pretty sure that GS doesn't really monitor the Forum.

 

The CCC thread readers and posters to attempt to keep out spoilers posted by finders of somebody else's cache. It isn't perfect, but generally when that happens, the poster is reprimanded by the readers. The prevailing attitude in that thread is, spoil only your own caches.

Link to comment

and takes joy out of ruining the work of other caches

 

WAT?

 

If he took pleasure in ruining their work I'd imagine he'd post the GC code, he'd link to the video from the logs,

 

I have already explained that there are different types of spoilers. If a cacher in my area came up with such a video collection, I'd been able to identify every single cache within less than 2 hours.

 

he'd muggle damage and ruin their caches etc.

 

That's a different level of ruining where everyone will agree that the caches are ruined. The type of ruining I speak about is a different type. SOme cachers will even enjoy spoiler sites as it allows them to find caches they could not visit without the spoilers or for which they would have to invest more work. There are other cachers however that get very annoyed if their caches get effected by spoilers.

 

BTW: Some cachers have mentioned that the two types of ruining caches can even be linked in some cases. Spoiler videos on you tube are also visible to non geocachers and some locations are easy to identify for everyone and some tricky hideouts in urban locations are tricky to protect the caches from muggles while spoiler videos attract their attention to caches they would not have known about.

This is only a side comment, not my point.

 

He did quite the opposite. He takes joy in sharing inventive caches, and the community takes joy in seeing them.

 

Some part of the community while others are annoyed. I'd like that Sven once arrived at the conclusion that while he pleases some with this videos he annoys others. In case a hider is unhappy about a video showing his cache, the natural protection should be to remove the video regardless of what the rules of Groundspeak or whomever are saying. That is part of respecting the work of cache owners and should be done also if one does not understand why a cache owner feels that way about spoilers. Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the objective of every cache hider to attract many people to his cache and have many visitors.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

So I think that there is sufficient warning in this case. No problem, particularly as Groundspeak encourage this very activity; see Geocaching Vlogs and Online Videos – The New Horizon of Caching Media, an article which I believe originally even boasted a link to Sven's Youtube channel! And of course, there is the very popular and inspirational Pictures - Cool Cache Containers (CCC's) thread on this very forum, which as far as I know is very much approved of by the moderators, despite not featuring a "spoilers" warning.

 

Good point but Mod Approval ≠ GS Approval. I could be wrong, though i'm pretty sure that GS doesn't really monitor the Forum.

 

The CCC thread readers and posters to attempt to keep out spoilers posted by finders of somebody else's cache. It isn't perfect, but generally when that happens, the poster is reprimanded by the readers. The prevailing attitude in that thread is, spoil only your own caches.

 

I agree. Personally, I even prefer if things work reasonably without intervention of Groundspeak. I neither expect Groundspeak to watch cache logs nor forum posts nor external sites for spoilers. On cache pages the owners can act themselves and in the forums there are moderators (if needed at all). I expect Groundspeak to act only in extreme cases of external spoilers where no agreement between the involved cachers can be reached.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

As a cache owner my issue would not be whether other cachers are warned that spoilers are available for my caches and they should not look at them, but rather that cachers who want to obtain spoilers can obtain them very easily and openly in the internet against my will.

 

And thankyou, a fantastic point. Imagine one of your caches was included in Sven's blog. Now consider your statement above.

 

Now imagine I'm a cacher, I cannot find your hide, it's a good hide. I really want to find it. I'm determined, so I look for spoilers on the internet......

 

Now....How do you propose that I go from your cache to Sven's videos?

 

I could search google for the name of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search msn for the gc code of the cache....I would come up blank.

I could search yahoo for the location of the cache...I would come up blank.

 

Spoiler? I think not.

 

Why does my post say Ringbone?

 

Your post only says "bone". Ring isn't available right now. :P

Link to comment

I wonder if Sven had called his site CoolCaches instead of GeocacheSpoilers if he would be in the same situation.

Have you read Sandy's 10/21/11 post on the Feedback site, Toz? I think it does a pretty good job of telling the inside story here. If it is true, and I have no doubt that it is true, at least from Groundspeak's perspective, then this has nothing to do with the name of the blog, but has everything to do with Sven's stubborn refusal to honor the requests of cache owners. Does he need to honor their requests on his own blog site? Of course not! Would it have been the polite thing to do? Of course. Can Groundspeak then ban Sven from the Groundspeak website? According to the TOU that Sven agreed to, yes they can.
Link to comment

Groundspeak has rarely responded to threads of this nature. However...

 

noise-fingers-in-ears-001.jpg

 

I think your terms need re-writing if that's what you want them to say.

I think that pretty well sums up the blog owners position.

..and maturity.

 

Regarding the issue of Sven's permission that some are so hung up on... he may actually have had 100% permission originally. He probably did. But permission was apparently revoked on several of them, and that was apparently not respected by the blogger.

Link to comment
Jumpin' Jack Cache-

“Does it really matter what the meaning of "is" is?

 

Sven posted spoilers. COs complained. GS asked Sven to remove specific spoilers and play nice. Sven said "kiss my grits". GS banned Sven.

 

Legal wrangling aside, Sven doesn't seem to want to play well with others unless it's by his rules. We all play in the same sandbox here, it belongs to GS, they write and enforce the "rules" as they see fit. I for one am glad that they try to keep the cats from pooping in it.”

That post pretty well sums it up but I’m not sure that the word “spoilers” is completely correct in this case but that’s the “is” is conundrum.

 

The first question is, can GS prevent the YouTube videos from being posted, and the answer is no. The second question is, can they ban a member for posting what they ‘feel’ are spoilers on another site, and the answer is clearly yes. Whether anyone agrees that the decision is justified or not appears to be the main divide in this thread. It would appear that the only way for Sven to get out of time out is to comply with CS’s request to remove all videos they deem to be offensive from YouTube whether he agrees with their decision or not. This has nothing to do with free speech but rather house rules trump everything else.

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