Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

You seem to be ignoring that it is not seekers who are upset. It is hiders. Also I don't think the disputed clause in the terms and conditions is really an issue. Groundspeak was asking for Sven to respect the wishes of one of the hiders. Having read Sven's comments on a number of forums postings I think respect for the opinion of others seems to be lacking as is respect for the rules of this forum. The cache belongs to the hider and without hiders there is no geocaching. Also clearly Sven uses the resources of Geocaching.com to locate the caches he videos. Now if he was videoing caches not listed on this site he might have an argument.

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?

 

Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.

 

The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.

Link to comment

You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to [sven's finds on his profile], cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.

 

This

Link to comment

If I have got this right,

 

Permission was given initially, then revoked. Sven after some wrangling, still refused to remove the cache from the vid. Correct so far ?

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked?

 

This is the real part of this I don't understand. And as far as I have read, hasn't been explained. Just about everything else has, most of it now under judicial review.

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked? And 'because ofthe time taken to film/edit/upload' is no reason for defence. It probably equates to the same time as 'conception/developing/deploying/maintaining'.

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?

 

Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.

 

Agreed, but Sven's statements are still wrong, and that was my point. A cache owner might allow Sven to include the GC code, but this does not change that the GC is included.

 

The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.

 

What I am saying is that if I were a local cacher, I would be upset about such videos and would react with archiving my effected caches. It took me 2 minutes to identify the June 8 cache that has been referred to above.

Comparing found it logs and dates of photos is not something I'd call detailed research. That's a simple and basic approach done within a few minutes. So it is simply wrong to claim that Sven's videos are no spoilers. You can discuss about whether spoilers are something bad, but not about the fact that the videos are spoilers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

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?

 

Spoilers are common almost everywhere. I have not watched out for videos, but I often came across enormous spoilers by chance by looking at the photo sites of local geocachers or their blogs (when one of my caches was effected which did not happen often I contacted the person providing the spoiler). What also happens quite frequently are spoilers for the solution of mystery caches.

 

As an unexperienced cacher I certainly would fail to find some of the shown hideouts - a few years ago e.g. fake screws would have made me to give up. You might be right that there are caches that are suffering more from spoilers than the shown ones, but still I feel that the videos can easily be used as organized spoiler site for local cachers. The advantage of the CCC thread is that there contributions from all around the world are collected that makes tracking much harder to almost impossible.

Let's put it that way: I believe that Sven was way too unexperienced as cacher to start to load up such videos a few days after having started to geocache. I am convinced that he acted in good will, but made many mistakes due to his lack of experience and is apparently not willing to admit his mistakes.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Yes this is certainly more about cache/puzzle integrity rather than finders feeling the puzzle is spoiled.

 

If you make a difficult cache, the integrity is spoiled if those who would go to find a spoiler are able to go and find one. For the player, it's not that a spoiler exists - if it does I can ignore it and still solve the puzzle myself. The point is that if I as a cache owner want people to find it only by solving it or locating it, a spoiler out there that I haven't ok'd, in my mind, certainly ruins the integrity of the puzzle.

 

Now, that's not to say that I'm of the mind to go out and hammer down anyone who tries to post a spoiler. As I commented earlier, my hope would be that other geocachers would respect the puzzle or hide, and not provide spoilers to other players. I can't stop it of course, but if it does happen, I have a few options: whimper and complain, sick big brother on the culprit, archive my cache, or change the puzzle/hide so the spoiler is irrelevant.

 

Only one of those options has caused the controversy here. It's a dirty, sticky situation where I don't think any of the three parties (CO, Sven, Groundspeak) really opted for the best overall solution... but ymmv.

Link to comment

You seem to be ignoring that it is not seekers who are upset. It is hiders. Also I don't think the disputed clause in the terms and conditions is really an issue. Groundspeak was asking for Sven to respect the wishes of one of the hiders. Having read Sven's comments on a number of forums postings I think respect for the opinion of others seems to be lacking as is respect for the rules of this forum. The cache belongs to the hider and without hiders there is no geocaching. Also clearly Sven uses the resources of Geocaching.com to locate the caches he videos. Now if he was videoing caches not listed on this site he might have an argument.

A number of people here seem to be confusing/blurring two things

 

1) Groundspeak can ask a cacher to be respectful of other cachers which I think most would feel as quite reasonable.

But are unable to do any more than ask unless....

 

2) The action that the cacher is being asked to be more respectful about is explicitly prohibited in the agreed ToU.

 

The reason for this is that Groundspeak are in a legal contract with the cacher of which the ToU forms the terms of. Therefore they should not take any action (other than advisory) outside the ToU, even if they meant the ToU to say something else.

 

As for the morality of what Sven has or has not done, well this is totally irelevent as far as the ban goes.

IMHO Groundspeak are in breach of contract.

Link to comment

I don't think I'll be replying further...

 

If only wagering were allowed I could have won a bet on how long this statement would stand.

 

Oh but you missed the bit right after your quote x x x

 

I may, depends what is written and how I feel

Link to comment

If I have got this right,

 

Permission was given initially, then revoked. Sven after some wrangling, still refused to remove the cache from the vid. Correct so far ?

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked?

 

This is the real part of this I don't understand. And as far as I have read, hasn't been explained. Just about everything else has, most of it now under judicial review.

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked? And 'because ofthe time taken to film/edit/upload' is no reason for defence. It probably equates to the same time as 'conception/developing/deploying/maintaining'.

 

Totally agree,... although I am approaching it from the other side ie Why did they ask for it to be removed, what was their motivation and how did they phrase their request?

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?

 

Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.

 

Agreed, but Sven's statements are still wrong, and that was my point. A cache owner might allow Sven to include the GC code, but this does not change that the GC is included.

 

The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.

 

What I am saying is that if I were a local cacher, I would be upset about such videos and would react with archiving my effected caches. It took me 2 minutes to identify the June 8 cache that has been referred to above.

Comparing found it logs and dates of photos is not something I'd call detailed research. That's a simple and basic approach done within a few minutes. So it is simply wrong to claim that Sven's videos are no spoilers. You can discuss about whether spoilers are something bad, but not about the fact that the videos are spoilers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The reason for this is that Groundspeak are in a legal contract with the cacher of which the ToU forms the terms of. Therefore they should not take any action (other than advisory) outside the ToU, even if they meant the ToU to say something else.

 

As for the morality of what Sven has or has not done, well this is totally irelevent as far as the ban goes.

 

IMHO Groundspeak are in breach of contract.

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.
Link to comment
Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

 

Indeed but instead they're hiding behind another clause. Perhaps they need Sven's $30 REALLY bad?

Link to comment
Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Indeed but instead they're hiding behind another clause. Perhaps they need Sven's $30 REALLY bad?

Either way, it seems pretty clear to me that the Terms of Use Agreement gives Groundspeak the right to suspend and/or ban Sven from their website.

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?

 

Of course the point that the CO gave permission is relevant. If they gave permission for the caches to be featured then there is absolutely no case to answer.

 

Agreed, but Sven's statements are still wrong, and that was my point. A cache owner might allow Sven to include the GC code, but this does not change that the GC is included.

 

The more important issue as Happy Humphrey quite rightly says is 'are they really spoilers?'. You would have to do some detailed research to follow the videos, match them to GC numbers (if quoted) and then cross reference all the information and then work out where they were and then travel to the East Midlands of England and then find the cache and then throw your arms in the air and say 'Oh no!!! Svens video spoilt it for me.

 

What I am saying is that if I were a local cacher, I would be upset about such videos and would react with archiving my effected caches. It took me 2 minutes to identify the June 8 cache that has been referred to above.

Comparing found it logs and dates of photos is not something I'd call detailed research. That's a simple and basic approach done within a few minutes. So it is simply wrong to claim that Sven's videos are no spoilers. You can discuss about whether spoilers are something bad, but not about the fact that the videos are spoilers.

 

Cezanne

So what you are saying is, if your cache was featured on a channel championing the best caches in your region and acknowledging how good they were you would immediately archive your caches.If the video showed a finder pulling a box out of a secret door in a tree then I would agree with you but as far as I could see they don't. Comparing found it logs, dates of photos etc is certainly the sort of research I would only do if I was stumped and feeding my natural inclination to find a cache and I would feel quite happy investigating every media source I could to achieve this. Are we cheating when we go on google to find answers to puzzle caches? To then turn round and blame the source of that info seems a bit hypocritical.

Link to comment

If I have got this right,

 

Permission was given initially, then revoked. Sven after some wrangling, still refused to remove the cache from the vid. Correct so far ?

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked?

 

This is the real part of this I don't understand. And as far as I have read, hasn't been explained. Just about everything else has, most of it now under judicial review.

 

One question. Why wouldn't he remove it, when asked? And 'because ofthe time taken to film/edit/upload' is no reason for defence. It probably equates to the same time as 'conception/developing/deploying/maintaining'.

 

Totally agree,... although I am approaching it from the other side ie Why did they ask for it to be removed, what was their motivation and how did they phrase their request?

Agree also ... why did he want it removing after initially saying yes..... how was it phrased ? Also how was it inferred .... something that often happens in txt/email ..... sender reads it in one manner and the recipient reads it in another but the words don't change. Infliction in language says far more than the words.

And my guess is that is how all this has come about.

Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

 

It stands up. Xbox Live run a similar policy, banning you from using Xbox Live with no recoarse of action on your part if they deem you have broken TOU/A. Ask those many who have been banned, for whatever reason, and have no explaination. You agreed to the contract! Not from personel experience I have to say.

Edited by JimJoolz
Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

It's pretty standard boilerplate language for many U.S. website Terms of Use Agreements, especially Web 2.0 sites.

Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

 

Nooooo it's perfectly acceptable "it's our playground and we get to say who plays". In that case they would ban Sven and refund his money....

 

OR

 

They could hide behind a clause and pretend it says something it doesn't and not refund Sven anything....

Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

 

Nooooo it's perfectly acceptable "it's our playground and we get to say who plays". In that case they would ban Sven and refund his money....

 

OR

 

They could hide behind a clause and pretend it says something it doesn't and not refund Sven anything....

 

They can 'hide' as you put it behind a clause that you read one way and they read another. But the all encompassing clause quoted is their get out of jail card, and you accept it in agreeing to the terms. Giving Sven his money would be purely a good will gesture, and nothing more.

 

But the one question remains. Why didn't he remove the content when asked?

Link to comment

Did you read that Terms of Use Agreement? In the first paragraph of Section 3, you'll see:

 

Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Hmm, quite interesting, seems like an Unfair Contract Term.

Not that I am an expert in contract law I don't recon that would stand up in court under UK contract law. Not sure about the US though.

 

Nooooo it's perfectly acceptable "it's our playground and we get to say who plays". In that case they would ban Sven and refund his money....

 

OR

 

They could hide behind a clause and pretend it says something it doesn't and not refund Sven anything....

Since the clause says Groundspeak can suspend/revoke Sven's privileges "without liability," they don't have to refund his money. Sven agreed to the Terms of Use when he started using the site. If he didn't understand them when he paid for his membership, then perhaps he should blame himself.

Link to comment

Since the clause says Groundspeak can suspend/revoke Sven's privileges "without liability," they don't have to refund his money. Sven agreed to the Terms of Use when he started using the site. If he didn't understand them when he paid for his membership, then perhaps he should blame himself.

 

Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.

 

It remains to be seen, he's still waiting for an email back from them when their legal eagle is back in the office.

Edited by Cup.
Link to comment

I don't think I'll be replying further...

 

If only wagering were allowed I could have won a bet on how long this statement would stand.

 

Oh but you missed the bit right after your quote x x x

 

I may, depends what is written and how I feel

 

I didn't miss the rest of your quote. I chose to disregard it to serve my own purposes. Sound familiar? :anicute:

Link to comment

[

 

Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.

 

It remains to be seen, he's still waiting for an email back from them when their legal eagle is back in the office.

 

But the final all encompassing clause, states he doesn't have to break contract in any way shape or form. If they merely feel they don't someone using THEIR website, they can stop you without liability. Thats why they put the clause in the TOA. If they don't want you, they don't have to have you. And you agree to it when you sign up.

 

As I have said before, XboxLive run a similar thing, successfully. It even goes as far as banning not just the Gametag you use (your online name) but because that tag is associated to your Xbox itself, it bans the machine itself. So to get back onto XboxLive, you need a new Gametag but also a new Xbox! And you have no comeback whatsoever. Anything they offer you, purely goodwill. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Cup-

“Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.”

 

Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.

Link to comment

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

Link to comment
Cup-

“Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.”

 

Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.

 

By the ensuing silence, I guess they put the spade back in the shed.

Still never answered the one question of why wouldn't he remove it on initially being asked.

I guess we will never know.

Link to comment
Cup-

“Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.”

 

Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.

 

By the ensuing silence, I guess they put the spade back in the shed.

Still never answered the one question of why wouldn't he remove it on initially being asked.

I guess we will never know.

... and conversely, the other question is why did the CO ask for removal, what was their motivation and in what manner did they ask?

 

I have no confidence that either of the above answers will be particularly postive.

Link to comment

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them

 

First, please learn how to quote correctly because that isn't what I posted ( I don't have perseveration), and you and Sven should have learned by now that not being truthful in what you post is a big part of your total problem. Second, for you to continue to act childish isn't helping your image either and you could end up in timeout with Sven. :)

Link to comment

Oh, Lord help us. This thread has now infected my Twitter feed. I may have to "unfollow" Groundspeak until this thing runs its course.

 

Oh, I saw that. You or myself never should have though. GoGeocaching was attempting to send an @ tweet to a Twitter user who questioned the ban, but they messed up his Twitter username, and sent it to an invalid username. Their next tweet they corrected it, and sent it to the correct username.

 

I don't know if Twitter considers this a bug, but if someone you're following sends an @ tweet to an invalid username, all the followers will see the tweet. Personally, I would have deleted the offending tweet.

 

 

Cup-

“Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.”

 

Sven was given the chance to comply with the TOU as Groundspeak sees them and he refused thereby breaching the contract so from that line of reasoning alone he is NOT entitled to a refund. Beyond that, GS doesn't have to give a reason. His attitude, arrogance, and his own duplicity got him into this mess. If he had have been truthful about what he did he might have gotten more support here in the forums. He and you just keep digging the hole deeper.

 

I tend to think they are emboldened by the absolutely overwhelming support they are getting in the matter. Sure, there are about 20 people arguing with them in this thread vs. about 10,000 supporters. :lol:

Link to comment

 

So what you are saying is, if your cache was featured on a channel championing the best caches in your region and acknowledging how good they were you would immediately archive your caches.

 

If the cache is spoilered, yes. I do have a question that typically involves at least two visits to the location and a spoiler showing the cache, would ruin everything.

 

If the video showed a finder pulling a box out of a secret door in a tree then I would agree with you but as far as I could see they don't.

 

Where is the difference between a secret door in a tree and some of the shown caches? Did you look at the videos? The one with the gully for example?

 

Comparing found it logs, dates of photos etc is certainly the sort of research I would only do if I was stumped and feeding my natural inclination to find a cache and I would feel quite happy investigating every media source I could to achieve this. Are we cheating when we go on google to find answers to puzzle caches? To then turn round and blame the source of that info seems a bit hypocritical.

 

You seem to mix up the seeker's point of view and the hider's point of view. The issue is not what I am doing, but what cachers wanting to find the caches are willing to do. For tricky hideouts, long multi caches and complex puzzle caches, searching around for spoilers is often easier and less time consuming than doing the cache without exploiting the spoilers.

 

As using google is regarded, I do not regard it as cheating as there are many geocaches where google is the intented approach. Note, however, that this adds a further level of complexity to the issue as seekers might end up with spoilers without having any intent to cheat.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

You seem to mix up the seeker's point of view and the hider's point of view. The issue is not what I am doing, but what cachers wanting to find the caches are willing to do. For tricky hideouts, long multi caches and complex puzzle caches, searching around for spoilers is often easier and less time consuming than doing the cache without exploiting the spoilers.

The issue for me is that I haven't seen a reason that a hider should care other that "That is the way I set up my cache and I don't want people finding it some other way."

 

I have some difficult puzzles and I know that some finders have found it because they go the coordinates from someone else. I don't let it bother me. On cache was found accidentally when someone was looking for a place to hide a cache. It doesn't bother me. The FTF on my multi skipped the second waypoint, the one that I was most proud of because it was a tricky hide. It was partly my fault for using a old archived cache for the third waypoint. Since they were in the area the finders decided to check on the old cache that had found previously, so they were able to complete the cache without finding WP2.

 

I can understand that if you have a multi where you have to visit some virtual locations that were the real reason for placing the cache and these were skipped because of a spoiler, you might be disappointed. My attitude would be the people who used this spoiler were really cheating themselves. Hopefully most people would realize that the best part of the caches were these intermediate waypoints. But if someone is more concerned with a smiley than with enjoying the best parts of the cache, that's their problem not mine.

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:

 

Those are my two choices? Well, gee... tough decision!

 

How about instead, I simply let my opinion be known when the question arises?

Link to comment

Since the clause says Groundspeak can suspend/revoke Sven's privileges "without liability," they don't have to refund his money. Sven agreed to the Terms of Use when he started using the site. If he didn't understand them when he paid for his membership, then perhaps he should blame himself.

 

Don't be silly, Sven is paying for a service, if they want to say "no thanks, don't fancy providing you a service" then they'd have to issue a refund!

 

Sven hasn't broken the contract, he cannot be penalized.

 

It remains to be seen, he's still waiting for an email back from them when their legal eagle is back in the office.

 

Nothing silly about that, the way I see it. I think that makes perfect sense. If you agree to Terms of Use (even if you don't really read them) and then proceed to ignore them, even after polite requests to do so, You pays your money and you makes your choice.

Link to comment
Those are my two choices? Well, gee... tough decision!

 

How about instead, I simply let my opinion be known when the question arises?

That's... what I've been saying. Didn't think that was an "option" for the CO, but I suppose it's relevant. All my other comments have said just that - ideally players would respect the CO's wishes to keep the spoilers away from public access if desired. That = making your opinion be known.

Not sure what else you're referring to... since as a cache owner you (generic 'you') should be aware of the nature of the internet - as mentioned, you can't guarantee spoilers won't get published, and stopping one instance won't stop them from necessarily happening again. But sure, of course, let your opinion be known...:yikes:

Link to comment

 

I have some difficult puzzles and I know that some finders have found it because they go the coordinates from someone else. I don't let it bother me. On cache was found accidentally when someone was looking for a place to hide a cache. It doesn't bother me. The FTF on my multi skipped the second waypoint, the one that I was most proud of because it was a tricky hide. It was partly my fault for using a old archived cache for the third waypoint. Since they were in the area the finders decided to check on the old cache that had found previously, so they were able to complete the cache without finding WP2.

 

I would not have a problem with any of these situations either. I do not like organized spoilers in the internet however. They can be used in an unlimited and completely anonymous manner. The situations you mentioned do not happen more often than "normal" finds for most caches.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The issue is not what I am doing, but what cachers wanting to find the caches are willing to do. For tricky hideouts, long multi caches and complex puzzle caches, searching around for spoilers is often easier and less time consuming than doing the cache without exploiting the spoilers.

 

cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif?w=200&h=200

 

Mr Smith cannot find XYZ cache, stumped he turns to the internet.

 

Explain how Mr Smith might come from XYZ cache to finding Sven's videos? Impossible.

 

Infact, better still, I've got a real world example.

 

Remember the CO that complained? Well he's been bellyaching to the local people it seems, here is the most recent log on his cache:

 

2nd look, thought I knew what I was looking for this time. Couldn't even find the video on you tube. Found a fish though.

 

If these are spoilers they're not doing a very good job.

Link to comment

Mr Smith cannot find XYZ cache, stumped he turns to the internet.

 

Explain how Mr Smith might come from XYZ cache to finding Sven's videos? Impossible.

 

Mr Smith might fail perhaps if he pumping his head against the wall like in your image.

A clever cacher who wants help will look at the spoilers even before going to the cache for the first time.

 

How do all "those thousands" that enjoy Sven's videos learn about the videos? Don't you think that those videos are

quite well known and easy to find?

 

Suppose someone is confronted with a tricky cache found by Sven. Then he just needs to look up when Sven has found the cache and use this date to search for the video. The same can be done with many other sites of this type as well.

As most cachers do not find that many caches per tour, the approach is very simple and efficient.

 

 

Infact, better still, I've got a real world example.

 

Remember the CO that complained? Well he's been bellyaching to the local people it seems, here is the most recent log on his cache:

 

2nd look, thought I knew what I was looking for this time. Couldn't even find the video on you tube. Found a fish though.

 

If these are spoilers they're not doing a very good job.

 

I'd rather believe that the log has been written in support of Sven. If he could find the video, he has not watched it.

A verbal hint by someone what I need to look for is less informative than a video showing me the hideout. I have often known

what to look for and still failed. The main issue is *where* and not only "what".

 

I am not even denying that it can happen that someone who is viewing the videos does not get spoilt. What I am saying is that

it is easily possible to derive valid informations about the caches from Sven's videos. Whether someone is able or willing to derive these informations,

is a completely separate topic.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

A clever cacher who wants help will look at the spoilers even before going to the cache for the first time.

 

How?

 

Google reports there are 9 million results for "geocache videos"

 

About 8,980,000 results (0.25 seconds)

 

Surely it would be quicker for Mr Smith to go and find the cache rather than look through all those?

 

You didn't answer. How does stumped Mr Smith go from XYZ cache to Sven videos?

 

You cannot. It's simply impossible.

 

Hence Sven's argument that the videos aren't spoilers and cause no harm.

Link to comment

A clever cacher who wants help will look at the spoilers even before going to the cache for the first time.

 

How?

 

Google reports there are 9 million results for "geocache videos"

 

There are much more clever ways than using Google to look for geocache videos.

When you claim that Sven has brought many people to geocaching, you at the same time admit that

his videos are known.

 

About 8,980,000 results (0.25 seconds)

 

Surely it would be quicker for Mr Smith to go and find the cache rather than look through all those?

 

Certainly, but most geocachers are more clever and do not need to use brute force.

There a lot of more elaborate search methods - the fact that you are not aware of them does not imply that

they do not exist.

 

A while ago I solved a wardriving ? cache by clever searching methods. (Not spoilers in that case.)

 

You didn't answer. How does stumped Mr Smith go from XYZ cache to Sven videos?

 

You cannot. It's simply impossible.

 

Hence Sven's argument that the videos aren't spoilers and cause no harm.

 

It is not impossible. It appears that Sven's idea about a spoiler is quite restricted.

For him a spoiler only seems to occur if someone who fails to find a cache can enter the

cache name into some search form, and gets the spoiler as output.

 

What you ignore among others is the following: Typically, photo, blog and video sites

of local cachers are known in the local community. Once one is familiar with one of these sites,

it is pretty easy to use them to obtain spoilers on a large number of local caches.

Even without being a local I am able to assign most of the videos to the shown cache. For a local

cacher this is even much easier.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

i cant believe this argument is still going on! Unfortunately our game has become sullied with scrutinizing the minutia of the TOS. tis a shame.

 

Unfortunately though some people are going to become angry with you just because you're popular. Its bound to happen though when your videos dominate the cue for next videos on youtube after trhe one with the fake brick and pipe. Nobody can stop watching after that smooth voice comes on and its a cool cat talking about fun little hides doing what you like to do. Everyone gets jealous of that. We're all tired of lifting lampost skirts in walmart parking lots.

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