Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

[waffle]

 

See it seems Sven (and many others) disagree with you (and many others).

 

Have you looked at some of the 206 comments under his video regarding the ban? Youtube video: OW8Yy_HChuk (I daren't link to it!)

 

There's a whole audience of people who love seeing creative caches.

 

Whilst Sven is upset that two people have one person has complained, and it was never his intention to upset people, he maintains it is impossible to find caches from his videos.

 

Sven suggests that those who want to see spoilers creative caches can.

 

Everyone else....don't go on his channel, or other similar channels, or the ccc thread...etc.

 

And we can all live happily ever after.

 

Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day, he isn't forcing it down anyone's throat. Don't like it? Don't look at it. Simples.

Link to comment

Whilst Sven is upset that two people have one person has complained, and it was never his intention to upset people, he maintains it is impossible to find caches from his videos.

 

But he is wrong with his claim and I have already explained you why he is wrong.

I can guarantee you e.g. that if Sven lived in my area and showed this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ff9047c1-9247-4030-b1a7-fdb8e9219c9e

among 150 other caches, I would immediately know how this cache is hidden without getting any

additional information apart from Sven's list of finds and the set of videos.

Keep in mind that your situation is different to the situation of someone who has cached for many years in the same region.

 

Because that's what it boils down to at the end of the day, he isn't forcing it down anyone's throat. Don't like it? Don't look at it. Simples.

 

It is hard for me that you still have not understood that the issue cache hiders have with spoilers is not that everyone who does not like to look at spoiler videos, do not need to watch them, but that this possibility exists at all.

 

By removing the videos about caches whose owners do not want their caches be shown in this way, Sven easily could have both complied to the wish of the effected cache owners and have continued to show all other videos to the audience interested.

 

Moreover, there are much better ways to show people creative ways of hiding caches by doing it in a similar way as in the CCC thread where inputs from many parts of the world are mixed and not one cacher comes up with so many examples from a small region.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Whilst Sven is upset that two people have one person has complained, and it was never his intention to upset people, he maintains it is impossible to find caches from his videos.

 

Either Sven or Sandy is lying. Sandy clearly stated at the beginning of this thread that a complaint was received. Then recently she informed us that after that situation had been resolved that another complaint was received and it was this complaint that ultimately led to the ban.

 

You and/or Sven claim one person complained. (You placed two people have in strike out code.)

 

I tend to believe Sandy is giving us a better picture of what happened. Sven has been playing games with this from the beginning.

 

I do not believe the TOU says what Groundspeak intended it to say. 4(m) resulted as a quick fix to tack in a statement to cover spoiler sites. The TOU needs to be amended to properly convey Groundspeak's intentions.

 

However, give Sven's history of posting, I cannot in good conscious continue to argue this case. He has been disingenuous at best. Cezanne makes a good point. It really shouldn't take a TOU for Sven to do the right thing. He should give CO's a link to any spoilers of their caches and give them an opportunity to request removal and then respect any such requests. That is just as a matter of courtesy to his fellow cachers.

 

Honestly, I get the impression that Sven does what Sven wants and to heck with anyone else. I don't know that we are really losing a lot with his removal from this game.

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.

 

Thanks for the link to feedback site where the TOU change was discussed. I was unaware of this feedback suggestion. At about the same time there was another feedback suggestion directed a particular spoiler site in the Netherlands and I was under the impression that the TOU was a reaction to that site. I did not realize that the TOU change was brought about as a suggestion to "control" spoilers in general.

 

I find the feedback site a poor alternative to these forum for discussing changes to guidelines and TOUs. Perhaps for that reason I don't regularly check that site and may miss suggestion to change guidelines that really should be discussed here (IMO). Had I seen this feedback suggestion I would have given input as to why I think adding something to the TOUs to control spoilers and trying to force compliance by threat of banning of accounts was a bad idea. I would have also pointed out that despite the frustration of some European cache owners that people were circumventing their puzzles by using spoilers, there should be no expectation by cache owners that their caches won't be discussed online.

 

There seems to be a distinction that they want made between spoilers posted on "public" sites and those shared in a more restricted setting. There is an acceptance the spoilers will be exchanged by cachers at events or via phone a friends. It's not clear if I were to set up a Spoiler Club website that required people to sign up for an account whether or not this would be acceptable. The TOU does not mention public sites, and therefore doesn't define what is public.

 

My personal opinion is that there is no difference from posting on YouTube or in blog, or a private website that can only be seen if you sign up for an account, or a photo sharing site where you need an invitation to see the pictures. What happens with a cacher who posts picture of every cache they find to share with family and friends? Can a cache owner demand that they these pictures be taken down? Could Sven put the videos that have been challenged on a file sharing site that requires an an account and post an notice in his YouTube account that there are more videos there for those who want to sign up?

 

There are more questions raised by this poorly written and ill conceived section in the TOU. Quite frankly I believe that you will have fewer people placing creative caches because of this. Perhaps a few cache owners would have archived their caches because they were being spoiled, but I doubt there were that many. And what will these owners do when the spoilers are forced underground. There will still be people exchanging these spoilers. Wouldn't they still archive there caches because they are not being found as intended. I believe that if you put out a puzzle or a complex multicache for people who enjoy such caches, these people will still find the cache as intended regardless as to whether there are spoilers available. Similarly, it you have a unique hide, people who enjoy finding these without hints or spoilers will find them without using hints and spoilers. The demands of the Dutch cache owners were more of "How do I prevent people who don't want to find my cache as I intended from finding it?" Instead of stopping spoilers, a better approach is to require spoilers be labelled so people who want to avoid them can.

Link to comment

Honestly, I get the impression that Sven does what Sven wants and to heck with anyone else. I don't know that we are really losing a lot with his removal from this game.

 

No Sven has a differing opinion (along with hundreds of the people who signed the petition/commented on his channel). There are millions of spoilers on the web the majority without permission. Sven seems to be a victim of his own success it seems.

Link to comment

Sven is simply a victim of an poorly thought out policy. A few cache owners took advantage of the feedback forum to lobby for a requirement in the guidelines or the terms of use against spoilers. This makes a few cache owners happy. On the other hand the policy seems harsh and unfair to someone like Sven who has enjoyed sharing the interesting geocaches he has found with others. In order to warn people who don't want to seen spoilers before the hunt caches, he called his YouTube site GeocacheSpoilers and later posted warning that cachers in the English Midlands may want to avoid watching these videos. A lot of cachers enjoyed these videos. Many got ideas for creative hides in the areas they lived. People who otherwise might not have seen many creative styles for hiding caches saw them.

 

Groundspeak may feel that their policy is not so severe. After all if Sven would get permission from cache owners to post his videos, he could still be in compliance with the policy. Just as Sven should be more willing to comply with cache owner wish, one would hope that cache owners would work with Sven to find ways their caches might be featured that are acceptable. Sven has carefully not identified the caches he shows. There is no way for someone looking for a spoiler for a particular cache to find it on Sven's site. Perhaps someone in the Midlands could watch all the videos and hope to see something familiar, but it has not been shown that his site would lead to significant numbers of finders using the spoiler. Instead the real issue for cache owners seem to be control. They feel entitled to control how people find their caches. This is an unfortunate attitude. Groundspeak would do better to dissuade cache owners from this attitude that they can control how people find their caches rather than give in and limit the ability of geocachers to share their experiences online.

 

Groundspeak's policy will not stop the sharing of spoiler information. The next YouTube site will carefully be set up so it cannot be tied to a geocaching.com account. I fail to see what the policy accomplished except to create a lot of dissatisfaction among bloggers and among cachers who enjoy the videos and pictures that are shared.

 

It is very hard to get Groundspeak to reverse a decision. However it has been done before. I encourage everyone who feels as I do to continue to pressure Groundspeak to repeal section 4(m) of the TOUs.

Link to comment

It is very hard to get Groundspeak to reverse a decision. However it has been done before. I encourage everyone who feels as I do to continue to pressure Groundspeak to repeal section 4(m) of the TOUs.

 

They won't. But in the least I don't think it is too much to ask them to amend their terms to make them say what they want them to say! I think we've seen enough confusion in these threads to justify an amendment.

 

If they wanted to ban Sven i'd have more respect for them if they told him he's no longer welcome and offered him a refund, rather than pretending the terms say something they don't.

Link to comment

Groundspeak does not tolerate cachers being disrespectful of other cachers. This cacher was well-informed of the consequences of his actions. That he has deliberately posted yet another video of a cache by the cache owner who lodged the complaint shows his blatant disregard not only for our Terms of Use, but for other cachers.

 

Further, the Terms of Use were written by legal council. This behavior is not permitted if one wants to use Geocaching.com.

 

Again, Sven. was only asked to remove videos featuring caches by one cache owner, not the whole collection.

Link to comment

Groundspeak does not tolerate cachers being disrespectful of other cachers. This cacher was well-informed of the consequences of his actions. That he has deliberately posted yet another video of a cache by the cache owner who lodged the complaint shows his blatant disregard not only for our Terms of Use, but for other cachers.

 

Further, the Terms of Use were written by legal council. This behavior is not permitted if one wants to use Geocaching.com.

 

Again, Sven. was only asked to remove videos featuring caches by one cache owner, not the whole collection.

 

If this is indeed the case, then Sven has very much earned his suspension.

Link to comment

I find it remarkable that Groundspeak has felt the need to continue to respond in this thread. This is very unusual and goes to show that Groundspeak is aware that the rule itself, if not the rationale for it, is unclear. Normally, Groundspeak posting their side while Sven is banned and cannot defend himself would be intolerable, but it since Sven is able to defend himself, at least through a surrogate, that isn't such a problem in this case.

 

Section 4 of the TOU specifically addresses the use of Groundspeak Publishing Tools and Forums. Yet they have decided that Section 4(m) applies to any media - including third party sites. For language written by legal council, this is pretty shoddy. What is even less clear is what sharing of cache information, if any, is allowed without consent of the cache owner. Are we still allowed to talk about caches we have found at events? Can we email or phone a previous find for a hint? If that person responds have they violated the terms of use?

 

In my opinion, the phrasing of the TOU is so broad as to threaten the ability to share geocaching experiences online. It has been this sharing, both in the online logs and in personal blogs and videos, that has made geocaching so successful. Now anything anyone publishes about geocaching requires consent of the owner of the cache. Cache owners who have been known to delete legitimate found logs out of spite, can now out of spite ask that mention of their caches be taken off third party websites. The TOU is written so that Groundspeak is almost forced to ban people based on the word of a cache owner. We don't know if Sven did discuss these videos with a cache owner and felt that the second video was no longer showing whatever the cache owner found objectionable. Groundspeak has decided to take the side of cache owners and there is apparently no appeal if a cache owner's objections are unreasonable.

 

Of course in my personal opinion a cache owner demanding the removal of a spoiler from a third party website is just as unreasonable as a movie producer demanding the removal of spoiler from movie spoiler website. Caches - like movies - are going to be spoiled. I don't buy it that not removing a video because a cache owner complains in necessarily disrespectful. I'll agree that common courtesy would mean to try to work out an agreement withe cache owner as to what is shown. I believe however that not all cache owners are going to be reasonable in negotiating, especially now that they have a Groundspeak rule to point to. I find it sad that fewer videos like Sven's will be posted and fewer cachers will blog about their experiences. Andm because of this fewer people will find out about geocaching or will get to see some examples of really great and creative cache hides.

Link to comment

I find it remarkable that Groundspeak has felt the need to continue to respond in this thread. This is very unusual and goes to show that Groundspeak is aware that the rule itself, if not the rationale for it, is unclear. Normally, Groundspeak posting their side while Sven is banned and cannot defend himself would be intolerable, but it since Sven is able to defend himself, at least through a surrogate, that isn't such a problem in this case.

 

Section 4 of the TOU specifically addresses the use of Groundspeak Publishing Tools and Forums. Yet they have decided that Section 4(m) applies to any media - including third party sites. For language written by legal council, this is pretty shoddy. What is even less clear is what sharing of cache information, if any, is allowed without consent of the cache owner. Are we still allowed to talk about caches we have found at events? Can we email or phone a previous find for a hint? If that person responds have they violated the terms of use?

 

In my opinion, the phrasing of the TOU is so broad as to threaten the ability to share geocaching experiences online. It has been this sharing, both in the online logs and in personal blogs and videos, that has made geocaching so successful. Now anything anyone publishes about geocaching requires consent of the owner of the cache. Cache owners who have been known to delete legitimate found logs out of spite, can now out of spite ask that mention of their caches be taken off third party websites. The TOU is written so that Groundspeak is almost forced to ban people based on the word of a cache owner. We don't know if Sven did discuss these videos with a cache owner and felt that the second video was no longer showing whatever the cache owner found objectionable. Groundspeak has decided to take the side of cache owners and there is apparently no appeal if a cache owner's objections are unreasonable.

 

Of course in my personal opinion a cache owner demanding the removal of a spoiler from a third party website is just as unreasonable as a movie producer demanding the removal of spoiler from movie spoiler website. Caches - like movies - are going to be spoiled. I don't buy it that not removing a video because a cache owner complains in necessarily disrespectful. I'll agree that common courtesy would mean to try to work out an agreement withe cache owner as to what is shown. I believe however that not all cache owners are going to be reasonable in negotiating, especially now that they have a Groundspeak rule to point to. I find it sad that fewer videos like Sven's will be posted and fewer cachers will blog about their experiences. Andm because of this fewer people will find out about geocaching or will get to see some examples of really great and creative cache hides.

 

I usually appreciate your insightful input but there's been too much of the same thing that's tl/dr in this thread.

 

This ain't books or movies nor books, it's community, when it comes down to it. Sven flipped a community member, or more than one, the bird, and did the same to GS when they asked him, politely to desist. Now he is arguing the fine points via "proxy", which was very obviously set up anticipating the consequences of the actions he premeditated. He's being a Richard. Many community members don't appreciate spoilers.

Link to comment

I find the feedback site a poor alternative to these forum for discussing changes to guidelines and TOUs. Perhaps for that reason I don't regularly check that site and may miss suggestion to change guidelines that really should be discussed here (IMO).

 

I also do not check the feedback site regularly, but came across a link to that feedback thread somewhere.

 

There are more questions raised by this poorly written and ill conceived section in the TOU. Quite frankly I believe that you will have fewer people placing creative caches because of this.

 

Why? If there are many cache owners who do not care about sites like Sven's, then there will be only a few cachers sending requests to remove material related to their caches and thus even less complaints to Groundspeak if the easiest and most natural approach will be to solve such issues directly between the effected geocachers.

 

Would it have harmed Sven's collection that much to remove or possibly change the videos showing the caches of the complaining cacher?

It appears that enough videos would have remained to enjoy for those who enjoy such videos. For me Sven's message is "I can do whatever I want and do not care about the wishes of fellow cachers".

 

 

The CCC thread has existed for a long time and without causing comparable problems. Why does anyone who is interested into creative hides needs a local collection of such caches that makes this collection very easily available to other forms of use (I'd say abuse)? The local people have the chance to visit these caches anyway and learn to know about creative hides on the spot and might rather prefer from seeing hide styles from other regions they do not yet know. The non local cachers who are watching such videos also cam only profit from being shown a larger variety.

 

There are certainly ways to encourage cachers to hide creative caches that avoid to conflict with cache hider's wishes to not getting their caches spoilt.

 

 

I believe that if you put out a puzzle or a complex multicache for people who enjoy such caches, these people will still find the cache as intended regardless as to whether there are spoilers available. Similarly, it you have a unique hide, people who enjoy finding these without hints or spoilers will find them without using hints and spoilers.

 

Agreed, but we both know that there are lots of people who do not enjoy either of these, and if I were in a situation that 10% find my cache the way I enjoy the cache and 90% find it via a spoiler site, my frustration level would be much too high to be willing to invest work and time into the cache and thus would take away another cache from the 10%.

The logs I receive are my only motivation for hiding caches - I am not enjoying hiding caches per se.

 

The demands of the Dutch cache owners were more of "How do I prevent people who don't want to find my cache as I intended from finding it?" Instead of stopping spoilers, a better approach is to require spoilers be labelled so people who want to avoid them can.

 

That approach does not handle the owner's view and this aspect has been mentioned before.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Many community members don't appreciate spoilers.

And many do. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah. Lazy ones, those who just want "points", those who look for creative ideas...(notice the last group).

 

Somebody who owned more than one cache on the channel discussed didn't like their caches being "spoiled". If GS condoned such spoilers by omission, said person is less likely to go to the trouble of creating more.

 

Bloviating & backseat lawyering aside, it's a case of "I'll do what I want & screw all of you" (and get lots of hits on my youtube channel, thanks).

Link to comment

If I were Sven or Cup and you did I would be instructing my solicitor to sue you.

Just my humble opinion.

Are you serious?

There may be local laws that limit what the TOUs can say about your behavior on third party sites.

 

Imagine if Groundspeak's TOUs said "You agree not to promote other geocaching sites in any media". That might be seen as unfair trade practices. While I can't talk about all the great caches the squirrel has on this site, at least I can still go on my local geocaching group's board and tell everyone about the great cache I found today that was listed on the other site. And assuming it wasn't cross listed here, I might even be able to post a spoiler picture. :unsure:

Link to comment

If I were Sven or Cup and you did I would be instructing my solicitor to sue you.

Just my humble opinion.

Are you serious?

There may be local laws that limit what the TOUs can say about your behavior on third party sites.

 

Imagine if Groundspeak's TOUs said "You agree not to promote other geocaching sites in any media". That might be seen as unfair trade practices. While I can't talk about all the great caches the squirrel has on this site, at least I can still go on my local geocaching group's board and tell everyone about the great cache I found today that was listed on the other site. And assuming it wasn't cross listed here, I might even be able to post a spoiler picture. :unsure:

 

Could you blow this up for me?onion%20sacks%20003.jpg

 

Seriously, the issue is somebody not "playing nice", not what's uploaded where.

Link to comment

Many community members don't appreciate spoilers.

And many do. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah. Lazy ones, those who just want "points", those who look for creative ideas...(notice the last group).

 

Somebody who owned more than one cache on the channel discussed didn't like their caches being "spoiled". If GS condoned such spoilers by omission, said person is less likely to go to the trouble of creating more.

 

Bloviating & backseat lawyering aside, it's a case of "I'll do what I want & screw all of you" (and get lots of hits on my youtube channel, thanks).

I tend to pick battles where the example case doesn't help my point. Early on in this thread I posted

I would think that Sven&Cup may have responded differently if they had gotten email from a cache owner asking them to please take down a video that featured their cache, instead of an email from Groundspeak saying any spoiler video is "not in the spirit of geocaching."

Then some referred me to the original thread in the UK forum (which by that time I had looked at). Clearly the cache owner had asked Sven to remove the spoiler and he refused. Ideally these two cachers should have come to some agreement about what was shown in the videos and never gotten Groundspeak involved. Now it seems when a second cache owner complained, Sven tried to play tricks to get around the request to remove another video. Clearly, again he should have come to an agreement with the cache owner. The problem now is that the cache owner is in the cat bird seat. They have no incentive to negotiate as they know Groundspeak will back them up.

 

My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner? The rule establishes a right for caches owners that no one else in a similar situation has. I don't care that caches aren't movies or that cache owners don't get paid for hiding caches like authors do for writing books. You put something out in public that interested people are going to talk about. You can't stop people from talking about it. Groundspeak has a rule that may or may not stop some people from sharing cache information. If it stops people from sharing then I fear for a caching world with fewer blogs and videos (getting permission for everything you write may be too much of a burden for many bloggers). On the other hand, I know it's not going to stop everyone. Sven seems adamant about keeping his videos online. Perhaps he will accept a permanent ban and cache under Cup's account or create a sock puppet that cannot be traced to him. Perhaps he will stop logging finds online. He'll just keep posting spoilers and there won't be anything Groundspeak can do about it. It's a hollow rule and it won't have the effect that the cache owners who demanded it want.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Many community members don't appreciate spoilers.

And many do. Just sayin'.

 

Yeah. Lazy ones, those who just want "points", those who look for creative ideas...(notice the last group).

 

Somebody who owned more than one cache on the channel discussed didn't like their caches being "spoiled". If GS condoned such spoilers by omission, said person is less likely to go to the trouble of creating more.

 

Bloviating & backseat lawyering aside, it's a case of "I'll do what I want & screw all of you" (and get lots of hits on my youtube channel, thanks).

I tend to pick battles where the example case doesn't help my point. Early on in this thread I posted

I would think that Sven&Cup may have responded differently if they had gotten email from a cache owner asking them to please take down a video that featured their cache, instead of an email from Groundspeak saying any spoiler video is "not in the spirit of geocaching."

Then some referred me to the original thread in the UK forum (which by that time I had looked at). Clearly the cache owner had asked Sven to remove the spoiler and he refused. Ideally these two cachers should have come to some agreement about what was shown in the videos and never gotten Groundspeak involved. Now it seems when a second cache owner complained, Sven tried to play tricks to get around the request to remove another video. Clearly, again he should have come to an agreement with the cache owner. The problem now is that the cache owner is in the cat bird seat. They have no incentive to negotiate as they know Groundspeak will back them up.

 

My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner? The rule establishes a right for caches owners that no one else in a similar situation has. I don't care that caches aren't movies or that cache owners don't get paid for hiding caches like authors do for writing books. You put something out in public that interested people are going to talk about. You can't stop people from talking about it. Groundspeak has a rule that may or may not stop some people from sharing cache information. If it stops people from sharing then I fear for a caching world with fewer blogs and videos (getting permission for everything you write may be too much of a burden for many bloggers). On the other hand, I know it's not going to stop everyone. Sven seems adamant about keeping his videos online. Perhaps he will accept a permanent ban and cache under Cup's account or create a sock puppet that cannot be traced to him. Perhaps he will stop logging finds online. He'll just keep posting spoilers and there won't be anything Groundspeak can do about it. It's a hollow rule and it won't have the effect that the cache owners who demanded it want.

I had to click "show all" to even reply coherently.

 

You read "Richard" correctly. I used it for the same reason.

 

You're still going in circles. Some COs don't like their caches being spoiled "community spirit" or just plain "respect" would have resulted in those particular ones being deleted --- problem solved.

 

Sven elected to shoot for publicity and obviously split the account in anticipation of a ban which he welcomes (publicity?).

 

Ya got sucked in.

Link to comment

Ya got sucked in.

I may have got sucked in, in the beginning - my fault for not reading the UK thread before I posted. But I have always opposed the new section of the TOUs and think it's a bad idea. So yes Sven may be in violation of the TOUs and even very aware of it. While his actions may be those of a Richard, by standing up to this rule he has illustrated some of the reasons I feel its a bad rule. I've tried not to portray him as victim as other have, but I do believe it shows that videos like this are popular and that the intentions people have in sharing them are not nefarious. There is a fundamental conflict between the rights of caches owner's to stop spoilers and the rights of bloggers to share their caching experience free of the control of the cache owners. I do not feel that cache owners have any fundamental reason to expect the internet be free of spoilers of their caches. In fact these spoilers are a natural part of the geocaching community. I realize that many people take a different view than me. I'm not out of breath yet, so I'm going to keep trying to blow up that onion sack. :mellow:

Link to comment
Are we still allowed to talk about caches we have found at events? Can we email or phone a previous find for a hint? If that person responds have they violated the terms of use?
I can't see how face-to-face, email, or phone conversations could be considered "publishing" anything. Uploading content to web sites, on the other hand, is a form of publication. But IANAL...
Link to comment

My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner?

 

Some questions for you. The first two are just to make my point why I think that some unsymmetry might make sense.

Who is hiding the caches? Can you perform the activity geocaching without people hiding caches?

 

I wonder why you argue on the one hand that removing spoiler videos (in the concrete case a small number) would end up in less creative hides available for the searchers while you do on the other hand claim that for more complex or longer multi caches and mystery caches will not happen on at least the same scale.

 

As I have mentioned there are many possibilities to show creative hide styles to other cachers without ending up with spoilers that annoy the hiders of the effected caches.

 

As a cache hider I also expect the searchers to rehide the container properly even though I know that this does not happen in all cases. There are different sorts of expectations. The idea of a spoiler-free geocaching world is absurd, but the expectation that people who are providing spoilers react when they are contacted by effected cache owners is something which belongs to my idea of a geocaching community.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner?

 

I believe the wishes of the 'cache owner' override those of the 'cacher' and 'sharer of info', because ultimately, without the cache owners, and the placing of caches, there is no game. And then in the end we all lose.

 

At the end of it all, despite all the legal gobbledegoop that's spouted, it's a matter of personal respect for yourself and others.

If someone hides a cache next to a wall, and specifically asks you not to touch the wall, you don't touch the wall. Out of respect for the wishes of the cache owner, and the wall owner. So where is the difference here? Simply there isn't any.

 

If the cache owner asked for his cache clip to be removed, and it wasn't, it's another nail in the coffin of respect and common decency.

Link to comment

Honestly, I get the impression that Sven does what Sven wants and to heck with anyone else. I don't know that we are really losing a lot with his removal from this game.

 

No Sven has a differing opinion (along with hundreds of the people who signed the petition/commented on his channel). There are millions of spoilers on the web the majority without permission. Sven seems to be a victim of his own success it seems.

 

Sven has only been Geocaching for 4 1/2 freaking months, and created the Geocache Spoilers channel 7 days after he joined. Did he even know or have met another Geocacher before jumping into posting Geocache spoilers on the internet at like a million miles an hour?? Cripes, a one month break is the best thing for him. :)

Link to comment

[waffle]

 

See it seems Sven (and many others) disagree with you (and many others).

 

Have you looked at some of the 206 comments under his video regarding the ban? Youtube video: OW8Yy_HChuk (I daren't link to it!)

 

There's a whole audience of people who love seeing creative caches.

 

Whilst Sven is upset that two people have one person has complained, and it was never his intention to upset people, he maintains it is impossible to find caches from his videos.

 

 

OK, I know "daren't" isn't a word, because it's underlined in my web browser. :P

 

Nice use of the strike out command to say two people haven't complained, just one. It was two, but that is just a totally bizarre situation where the first complainer started a thread in the UK forum completely ranting about the videos, then as soon as Sven showed up in the thread they said "Ok, never mind, I changed my mind, I'm good with it, do whatever you want".

 

Not saying the complainer was threatened with cement shoes or anything. :lol:

Link to comment

OK, I know "daren't" isn't a word, because it's underlined in my web browser. :P

 

It's listed on popular dictionary websites?

 

as soon as Sven showed up in the thread they said "Ok, never mind, I changed my mind, I'm good with it, do whatever you want".

 

Not saying the complainer was threatened with cement shoes or anything. :lol:

 

Sven hasn't threatened the person? Infact the day after the complainer said it was fine for the caches to be on youtube he made repeated attempts to phone to CO. These were ignored, and he's accused of not trying to work with cache owners?

 

The second co sent rude & threatening emails to Sven.....So he didn't respond.

 

Next baseless accusation please:

Link to comment

OK, I know "daren't" isn't a word, because it's underlined in my web browser. :P

 

It's listed on popular dictionary websites?

 

as soon as Sven showed up in the thread they said "Ok, never mind, I changed my mind, I'm good with it, do whatever you want".

 

Not saying the complainer was threatened with cement shoes or anything. :lol:

 

Sven hasn't threatened the person? Infact the day after the complainer said it was fine for the caches to be on youtube he made repeated attempts to phone to CO. These were ignored, and he's accused of not trying to work with cache owners?

 

The second co sent rude & threatening emails to Sven.....So he didn't respond.

 

Next baseless accusation please:

 

If you thought I meant Sven was threatening him, I assure you I was just kidding. See? ==> :lol:

 

Another baseless accusation? How about the post you didn't respond to? Sven just jumped into posting Geocache Spoiler videos to the internet like a madman, with only a weeks experience in the game. Probably without knowing or interacting with any other players in the game on a personal basis. If I was so new and inexperienced, and someone pointed out what I was doing wrong, I'd say "my bad, sorry, didn't know".

Link to comment

If I were Sven or Cup and you did I would be instructing my solicitor to sue you.

Just my humble opinion.

Are you serious?

There may be local laws that limit what the TOUs can say about your behavior on third party sites.

 

Imagine if Groundspeak's TOUs said "You agree not to promote other geocaching sites in any media". That might be seen as unfair trade practices. While I can't talk about all the great caches the squirrel has on this site, at least I can still go on my local geocaching group's board and tell everyone about the great cache I found today that was listed on the other site. And assuming it wasn't cross listed here, I might even be able to post a spoiler picture. :unsure:

Do you think it would be worth the money to get an attorney's advice on those points?

Link to comment

My objection is not that that Sven got banned, or even that he should be allowed to act like a Richard (I don't know what that means but will assume it's less likely to get me suspended than the word I was going to use). I object to the rule itself. The rationale for this rule has been to respect the wishes of the cache owners. Why should the wishes of cache owners be respected and not the wishes of those who want to share information about caches free and unencumbered by an arbitrary cache owner?

 

Some questions for you. The first two are just to make my point why I think that some unsymmetry might make sense.

Who is hiding the caches? Can you perform the activity geocaching without people hiding caches?

I haven't seen any evidence that people will stop hiding caches en masse just because someone spoiled them. I know that some have threatened but I have no idea how many would carry out the threat. I don't doubt that you can give some examples in the past of cache owners who did archive caches because they were featured on a spoiler site, but my guess is that this is a small number. In any case, I don't see what a cache owner would gain by archiving their cache. It is an irrational response. Just taking your numbers (which I assume are entirely made up and have nothing to do with the true ratio of cachers who used spoilers to cacher who don't), lets assume that 9 out of 10 cachers used the spoiler. Now the cache owner gets 10 logs on their cache. Perhaps they can tell which of the cachers actually did the cache as intended because that one wrote a glowing 500 word long log about how great the cache was and the other 9 wrote TFTC. The cache owner should get satisfaction that the same one person who would have found the cache if there were no spoilers found it without a spoiler. Instead the cache owner gets upset because he got 9 logs he would not of otherwise gotten where he suspects the spoiler was used. Because of this he archives the cache :huh:

 

Prior to addition of section 4(m) to the TOU people hid caches. They grumbled in the forums and on the feedback site about spoilers, but they continued to hide caches. The TOU does not have a significant effect on whether or not someone will hide a creative cache or make an interesting multi.

 

I wonder why you argue on the one hand that removing spoiler videos (in the concrete case a small number) would end up in less creative hides available for the searchers while you do on the other hand claim that for more complex or longer multi caches and mystery caches will not happen on at least the same scale.
I'm not sure what you are refering to. In my long winded response I may have said something that could be interpreted this way. My argument is that sharing information about caches encourages geocaching and encourages cachers both to copy creative hides and to think up original ideas. It is clear that many cache owners will consent to videos and spoiler of their caches. So I can't really say for sure if the TOU will have much effect on the number of spoiler sites. I suspect that we will have spoiler sites where the site owner publishes only with the consent of the cache owner and we will have spoiler site where the site owner maintains enough anonymity as to prevent Groundspeak from going after them. So there may be plenty of spoiler sites left for people to get inspiration for creating caches.

 

What I have probably said is that if I were blogging about my geocaching experience, I would find it too burdensome to have to contact every cache owner for consent before I mention that I found their cache (not knowing what they might consider a spoiler). Certainly, it seems that a blogger could publish whatever they want and only have to redact information when a cache owner complains. But this too could be burdensome if a cache owner keeps changing what they find acceptable.

 

As I have mentioned there are many possibilities to show creative hide styles to other cachers without ending up with spoilers that annoy the hiders of the effected caches.

 

As a cache hider I also expect the searchers to rehide the container properly even though I know that this does not happen in all cases. There are different sorts of expectations. The idea of a spoiler-free geocaching world is absurd, but the expectation that people who are providing spoilers react when they are contacted by effected cache owners is something which belongs to my idea of a geocaching community.

 

Cezanne

The TOUs don't make it clear what ways of sharing information are acceptable. So while I agree there may be ways to share the same information that some cache owners would find acceptable, these need to be defined and Groundspeak needs to clearly state when section 4(m) (or any other section they add to placate some vocal cache owners) applies or doesn't apply.

 

Again, the way it appears the way Sven has acted (from Groundspeak's side of the story)is not acceptable. I agree that bloggers should respect the desires of cache owners when they are reasonable. Section 4(m) created a situation where cache owners can make unreasonable demands and Groundspeak will support them. Rightly or wrongly, Sven may believe that the demands from the cache owner were unreasonable.

 

I believe the wishes of the 'cache owner' override those of the 'cacher' and 'sharer of info', because ultimately, without the cache owners, and the placing of caches, there is no game. And then in the end we all lose.

Again shenanigans! There is no proof that cache owners will stop hiding caches en masse because they have no way to stop spoiler sites. There may be a few who do, but if so, IMO, good riddance. We don't need more hides by people who are more interested in controlling how others play the game. People are going to use spoilers. If there are spoiler sites it is possible that a few more people will find the cache using spoilers than if the only spoilers are phone-a-friends or discussions at events. Cachers should be hiding caches for others to find. Cachers who enjoy puzzles, or multis, or well camouflaged cache should be hiding these caches. Others who enjoy them will find them as intended. Those who don't will either not find the cache, go caching with some who does enjoy them, or use a spoiler.

 

At the end of it all, despite all the legal gobbledegoop that's spouted, it's a matter of personal respect for yourself and others.

If someone hides a cache next to a wall, and specifically asks you not to touch the wall, you don't touch the wall. Out of respect for the wishes of the cache owner, and the wall owner. So where is the difference here? Simply there isn't any.

 

If the cache owner asked for his cache clip to be removed, and it wasn't, it's another nail in the coffin of respect and common decency.

And cache owners need to respect that is natural for cachers to share information. Asking people not to share because the cache owner has a irrational fear that people are going to use spoilers to find their cache is disrespectful of people who like to share. (I learned in kindergarten that sharing was good). People also enjoy looking at these video and they get inspired to hide better caches. Preventing one of the best ways to promote and improve geocaching is disrespectful of the many cachers who enjoy watching these videos.

 

Sure cache owners can ask you not to touch the wall. But can they delete your log if you don't? Can they ask Groundspeak to ban you for not respecting their instruction?

 

Respect is a two way street. A person who has a spoiler site should work with the cache owners to reach an agreement as to what you show or don't show. But the request from the cache owner should be just that - a request. It is now a threat that is punishable by Groundspeak sanctions. An unreasonable cache owner can make unreasonable demands.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Ok. Let's think about photography for a second.

 

A photo journalist is allowed to take photos of anything as long as it's in a public forum, a public place, without requiring permission.

Say she takes a picture of someone who finds the photo used in their professional portfolio online. Subject complains to the photographer asking the photo to be removed. Photographer can stand on legal grounds stating that they're allowed to photograph anyone publicly, and keep the photo available. Or they could respect the subject's desire for privacy and remove the photo.

Let's say the photo was shared in a club, or used in a newspaper. If there are guidelines for membership or freelance work that require permission from ALL subjects - public or otherwise - in order to be used, and membership or contract can be revoked as the club/paper sees fit, then you can bet the photographer will no longer be associated with said club/paper if no permission was given and photo use was expressly revoked by the subject. Photographer could still publish the photo elsewhere and use publicly as they see fit, but even just for their attitude towards the subject, they can be cut of from the club/newspaper, and justifiably so. That won't stop the subject's photo from appearing elsewhere and remaining available publicly; but the photographer will have been 'punished' for their attitude in the context of the club / paper.

 

That's essentially what's happened here. Sven can still publish videos, they could potentially re-join as a different user, but from GS's position, the attitude towards cache owners (presuming Sven did, at any point, refuse to comply with a cache owner's request) was sufficient grounds to ban him from geocaching.com and the forums.

 

I'm not thinking at this point that Groundspeak is trying to stop spoiler videos from being posted without permission. I think their focus is on only allowing, and encourage, respectful inter-member community relations, whether within the forums or in general geocaching play.

 

Not that I think GS's words or actions were 100% clear throughout this process...

Not that I think Sven's attitude or passion for sharing his 'geocaching experiences' was 100% respectful and in the 'spirit of the game'...

 

But generally speaking, I think Sven's attitude towards the cache owner (provided the above about refusal to comply is completely truthful) is enough grounds for his suspension, if that's the ground that Groundspeak is now taking.

Link to comment

But generally speaking, I think Sven's attitude towards the cache owner (provided the above [...] is completely truthful)

 

Truthful? In context?

 

*shrug*

 

I don't think I'll be replying further...I may, depends what is written and how I feel Sven, who is without his tongue, needs defending. But I'm quite bored of all this. I think all that can be said has been said.

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Tens of thousands of people ARE pleased with his videos. Two aren't.

 

Curiously enough me and Sven fixed one of the CO's caches on the day of the recording. We actually had something in the car to fix the cache, and specifically drove back to do this. (All recorded in logs for prosperity).

 

Then the CO sent rude threatening emails demanding he removed content....

Link to comment

But generally speaking, I think Sven's attitude towards the cache owner (provided the above [...] is completely truthful)

 

Truthful? In context?

 

*shrug*

 

I don't think I'll be replying further...I may, depends what is written and how I feel Sven, who is without his tongue, needs defending. But I'm quite bored of all this. I think all that can be said has been said.

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Tens of thousands of people ARE pleased with his videos. Two aren't.

 

Curiously enough me and Sven fixed one of the CO's caches on the day of the recording. We actually had something in the car to fix the cache, and specifically drove back to do this. (All recorded in logs for prosperity).

 

Then the CO sent rude threatening emails demanding he removed content....

 

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Sven has overwhelming support, and there are just a few detractors in this thread. Of course you could say Groundspeak, inc. is the biggest detractor. :blink: Sven and all his UK supporters are free to move their hides to, and start caching on [another listing site]. Which wouldn't bother me in the least, being a huge supporter of [another listing site] myself. Do you really want to do this? (or take legal action)? Up to you.

 

Not that anyone has said Sven is considering legal action, but it has come up in the thread. :)

Edited by Keystone
gratuitous references to another listing site were genericized by a moderator
Link to comment

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Tens of thousands of people ARE pleased with his videos. Two aren't.

 

That's pretty polemic. Two effected cache owners complained. There are much more cachers who do not like their caches be spoilt.

Moreover, by deleting the few videos about which someone complained would not have decreased the pleasure of the group who enjoyes such videos.

 

Curiously enough me and Sven fixed one of the CO's caches on the day of the recording. We actually had something in the car to fix the cache, and specifically drove back to do this. (All recorded in logs for prosperity).

 

Then the CO sent rude threatening emails demanding he removed content....

 

I do not know the emails sent, but it could be that the cache owner detected the videos on the occasion of receiving your logs and was quite angry about them. If you upload video by video, it is even easier to couple your logs with the videos and to use them as spoilers. I need to admit that in case this happened to me, my anger over the spoiler would have been completely overlaid my happyness with someone else fixing my cache in that particular moment. Of course this does not mean that I defend rudeness. However, it is also often a matter of interpretation what is regarded as rude and what not in e-mail correspondence.

Your insisting on that Sven's videos are no spoilers, makes it certainly not easy to discuss the issue with you and Sven.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Tens of thousands of people ARE pleased with his videos. Two aren't.

Your facts are wrong.

Yeah there are probably lots of people who believe Sven got his just desserts. I have trouble understanding why cache owners get so agitated by their cache being spoiled, so it's really hard for me to understand why someone in Minnesota or Austria cares so much about a cache in England being spoiled. Any one other than the cache owner who did want to have the cache spoiled could easily avoid looking at a site called GeocacheSpoilers :unsure:. The cache owners don't like it because they want to control how others find their cache. In order to satisfy a couple of cache owners, there may be thousands who would like to see these videos who can't if Sven were to take them down. I'm not sure what motivates him to keep them in place when asked by a cache owner to take them down. Perhaps because he felt the request was rude or perhaps because he truly feels that the the video doesn't spoil anything. But it doesn't matter because Groundspeak has adopted an unfair one-sided one-size-fits-all approach to complaints about spoilers.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Tens of thousands of people ARE pleased with his videos. Two aren't.

Your facts are wrong.

Yeah there are probably lots of people who believe Sven got his just desserts. I have trouble understanding why cache owners get so agitated by their cache being spoiled, so it's really hard for me to understand why someone in Minnesota or Austria cares so much about a cache in England being spoiled. Any one other than the cache owner who did want to have the cache spoiled could easily avoid looking at a site called GeocacheSpoilers :unsure:. The cache owners don't like it because they want to control how others find their cache. In order to satisfy a couple of cache owners, there may be thousands who would like to see these videos who can't if Sven were to take them down. I'm not sure what motivates him to keep them in place when asked by a cache owner to take them down. Perhaps because he felt the request was rude or perhaps because he truly feels that the the video doesn't spoil anything. But it doesn't matter because Groundspeak has adopted an unfair one-sided one-size-fits-all approach to complaints about spoilers.

 

OK, so you are having a hard time understanding. You have made that quite clear. I'm not having quite so hard a time. Perhaps as a cache owner, I DO want to control how others find my cache. So? If I have invested some thought, time, and money into making the cache, why not? I make no apologies for that.

 

But I have said all along that I felt the major issue here isn't spoilers as much as attitude, and I stand by that.

Link to comment
Perhaps as a cache owner, I DO want to control how others find my cache. So? If I have invested some thought, time, and money into making the cache, why not? I make no apologies for that.

note: I'm not defending anything here, just saying...

 

As a cache owner with a difficult puzzle, you should probably also realize:

1) Spoilers may exist out there already that you don't know about, and

2) Telling Groundspeak about one instance won't stop spoilers in the future from getting out either (see #1)

 

So which is better for the cache owner? Stress out and constantly police the internet over the possibility of your puzzle/cache being spoiled? Or step back and realize that it may happen anyway, and just encourage people via your cache listing to not share solutions or the hide with others because you value the difficulty and would prefer the cache not be spoiled for others - then hope anyone who finds it has the decency to respect your wishes?

 

This sort of thing happens everywhere; it's the nature of the internet. As a cache owner, it's really not worth it to take a proactive stance against people sharing spoilers, apart from encouraging people not to. Let it go, and move on. (or, sick Big Brother on every instance you find, and get infuriated when that doesn't ultimately solve your problem)

:grin:

Link to comment

Yeah there are probably lots of people who believe Sven got his just desserts. I have trouble understanding why cache owners get so agitated by their cache being spoiled, so it's really hard for me to understand why someone in Minnesota or Austria cares so much about a cache in England being spoiled.

 

Simply because for me it is about spoilers in general. I do not prefer them just because they effect cachers of others abroad that I will never go to to visit. Everything else would be inconsistent in my opinion.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Sven-

post #118 ..."Bearing in mind...I never provide the location, the general area or even the GC code - so what AM I spoiling? I'm only showing unique or cool containers."...

 

post #217 -nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.

 

I’ve read this entire thread and found it interesting. I also just happened to be looking at YouTube geocaching videos this morning for another reason and saw a caching video by Sven’s persona there posted on June 8th of this year where he not only showed the container but also what is clearly the GC number for about 7 seconds, although, as he intimates, he didn’t personally write the GC number there. Where the GC number is shown, no matter who put it there, I’d say that would clearly make post #118 false.

 

Post #217 is worded such that (the old Clinton; “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”), although his video I saw doesn’t directly give you the location, anyone who has the ability to look up GC numbers can easily find the location, making post #217 false as well. I looked up the GC code shown in the video just to check and the cache shown does not belong to Sven. I did a screen capture of a frame of that video in case it 'mysteriously' disappears after this post and he claims otherwise.

 

It appears Sven isn't being completely honest in his claims and knows it. Point and match to Groundspeak.

Link to comment
Sven-

post #118 ..."Bearing in mind...I never provide the location, the general area or even the GC code - so what AM I spoiling? I'm only showing unique or cool containers."...

 

post #217 -nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.

 

Where the GC number is shown, no matter who put it there, I’d say that would clearly make post #118 false.

 

Post #217 is worded such that (the old Clinton; “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”), although his video I saw doesn’t directly give you the location, anyone who has the ability to look up GC numbers can easily find the location, making post #217 false as well.

 

It appears Sven isn't being completely honest in his claims and knows it. Point and match to Groundspeak.

 

blah blah

 

1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.

 

Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.

 

Next?

Link to comment
Sven-

post #118 ..."Bearing in mind...I never provide the location, the general area or even the GC code - so what AM I spoiling? I'm only showing unique or cool containers."...

 

post #217 -nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.

 

Where the GC number is shown, no matter who put it there, I’d say that would clearly make post #118 false.

 

Post #217 is worded such that (the old Clinton; “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is”), although his video I saw doesn’t directly give you the location, anyone who has the ability to look up GC numbers can easily find the location, making post #217 false as well.

 

It appears Sven isn't being completely honest in his claims and knows it. Point and match to Groundspeak.

 

blah blah

 

1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.

 

Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.

 

Next?

 

It's getting ridiculous. The GC number is shown in the video because it is written on the cache box (to help to identify the cache) which is shown in full view and not because it is provided by the cache owner as additional information to the spoiler video. It is also absurd to claim that Sven's videos have been an inspiration for a series that has been hidden before the videos existed and before Sven has set up his account.

Moreover, please note that Sven's statement "ever provide the location, the general area or even the GC code" is wrong and it does not play any role for that whether he has permission or not.

Furthermore, note that many of the videos of Sven directly match with finds by him on the same day. Do you really think that cachers are so silly that all these information is not a massive spoiler?

Geocachers are used to find caches with a lot less of information than is provided there. So please start with accepting that regardless of the ToU and the permission issue, many of the videos are spoilers.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Cup-“blah blah

 

1/81? Well done, but Sven didn't provide that information, the CO did.

 

Permission for the video you're speaking about is granted by the CO (ask him) infact the CO in question gave permission because HE went to youtube for inspiration for HIS series.

 

Next?”

 

You are obviously trying to miss the point. What Sven said he did and what the facts show he did are two diametrically opposed things. Sven’s own words say that “nothing is revealed in the video to say where the cache is anyway so nobody could find it.” That is clearly not so. Whether the CO gave permission or not isn’t the point, and I made that clear. The point is what Sven (and you) are saying is not fact, by his own words in those two posts.

 

Please answer the question, and no double talk, if the video clearly shows the GC code (which Sven also denies multiple times) is it possible for any geocacher to find that cache? That is a rhetorical question, by the way. :P

 

Next?

Link to comment

I know that we're going round in circles a bit here, but Svengate seems to have been covered as far as we can on the available evidence so perhaps this thread should die off.

 

I'm still interested in the definition of "spoiler", however.

 

If you have to go searching the internet for caching videos, and then spend hours matching up all the potential spoiler videos against peoples' geocaching profiles to deduce which caches they may be, are they really spoilers? If you've gone to that trouble then you're clearly hoping to find information, not hoping to avoid it.

 

Personally I think the (faulty?) TOU cover the circumstances quite well. If I have a cache on my "to find" list and in the logs someone has included a link to a video which shows the cache find (or they've linked it in a forum post in a thread about the cache) then I'd regard it as a spoiler as I could easily view this video inadvertently. If there's nothing on any Groundspeak site which links to the video I'm unlikely to be aware of it and won't see the video unless someone points me at it. I don't see how something that one is unlikely to view by accident can be a spoiler.

 

That's why I've given permission for anyone to upload video of any of my caches as long as the TOU as currently worded are not violated.

 

Cezanne; I believe that the CO of the series that was "spoilt" by Sven was inspired by watching videos of caches (before Sven was caching or making videos of caches), so it would have been hypocritical to refuse Sven permission to show the caches in this series. I think that's what Cup meant. Actually I've found all of that series and have seen some of the videos afterwards and IMO they don't spoil the hides at all. They aren't the sort where you are likely to fail to spot the cache without assistance.

Just out of interest; how many caches with (say) an hour's drive of your home also have spoiler videos on Youtube? Is it common in your part of the world?

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