Youtube geocaching videos

[Blue Square Thing]

The problem comes with the suggestion that it is legitimate to attempt to restrict my ability to publish stuff on other parts of the internet based on a convention which seems to be being forced on everyone. That, in all seriousness, is an attempt to restrict my freedom to write or otherwise publish interesting stuff.

There are plenty of things that restrict your freedom to write and publish. If you write libelous material, then you risk being sued. If you publish classified documents, then you risk being arrested.

 

When you publish spoilers, you might ruin the fun for other geocachers. Why should your enjoyment of sharing your geocaching experiences be valued more than the fun of other geocachers? There are plenty of other caches out there to discover and share. Why not write about one of those -- one where the cache owner might even like the attention?

 

I agree with you, in general. I think it's almost always preferable to not annoy cache owners and to get on just fine with as many other people as possible.

 

But, on principle, I will also question whether simply annoying someone else is a valid reason for restriciting the ability to publish.

 

In the case of alleged spoilers, the two parties can resort to Groundspeak if they fail to resolve the issue between themselves.

 

My argument is that if these spoilers are off-site and there's no attempt to obviously link them to here, then why on earth should Groundspeak even want to get involved?

 

I'm aware that there are issues with the role of cache owners, but forcing a specific convention on all users, when there's clearly not agreement, is also an issue.

Then how would you propose that the disagreements be resolved?

 

If they're offsite? Frankly I'm utterly unconvinced that they either can or should be. Certainly not a disagreement about spoilers.

 

I'm sorry, I understand that people want to play by the "spirit" of the game and so on. I just don't see how attempting to restrict information in this sort of way is going to be effective.

[+CanadianRockies]

Just imagine if Michael Moore had to get permission to publish from the people and companies he features in his videos.

Just like Michael Moore, Sven is free to publish his videos without permission. But General Motors also is free to ban Michael Moore from using its website. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

[Blue Square Thing]

It strikes me, though, that by using the idea of showing disrespect (through spoilers or potentially otherwise) anywhere on the internet that there's the implication that either I stay quiet and play the game or I have the right to say what I want, but not both.

But, those aren't the only two options. Here's another one: Write what you want, but be open to the possibility of removing content if someone points out that it's ruining part of geocaching for them. And if you don't understand how it could significantly ruin things for them, then be prepared to make your case to Groundspeak. That's one way you can show respect to others.

 

Personally I'd question whether "ruining part of geocaching for them" is taking it a bit far fwiw (hey, I don't use a gps - I find they ruin stuff for me...), but in general people can avoid stuff elsewhere on the internet.

 

I hope that most of the time that most of the stuff I write on the internet isn't annoying people at all. But, you know, I'm not sure there aren't times when it is. And I'm not at all convinced that it's reasonable to try to restrict what I can say about something on another part of the internet.

 

But I'm really not certain that cache owners can claim any kind of intellectual copyright on their caches or cache sites that should be enforceable here under any circumstances.

I don't think anybody said cache owners can claim a copyright on their caches or sites. I think somebody used copyright as an analogy for explaining why cache owners' efforts deserve some sort of protection.

 

That's fine. But if they aren't claiming some form of intellectual copyright then I really don't see how cache owners can attempt to restrict what I say about their caches.

 

I just see this as more of a freedom to use the interwebz thing myself.

You are free to use the Internet. But that freedom isn't absolute.

 

Again, my argument is simply about how what I say on one part of the internet might restrict my ability to use another part.

[Blue Square Thing]

Just like Michael Moore, Sven is free to publish his videos without permission. But General Motors also is free to ban Michael Moore from using its website. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

 

I simply think there's a distinction between a corporate website (with the associated copyright issues) and a 35mm film canister thrown in some ivy next to a road.

[+CanadianRockies]

But, on principle, I will also question whether simply annoying someone else is a valid reason for restriciting the ability to publish.

Nobody is restricting your ability to publish spoilers on third-party sites. If you do so, however, then you might face consequences on Groundspeak's website. Again, I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

 

My argument is that if these spoilers are off-site and there's no attempt to obviously link them to here, then why on earth should Groundspeak even want to get involved?

I'm guessing many members of their website want them to get involved, and Groundspeak wants to respect the wishes of its "customers." In the end, however, it doesn't really matter what their reasons are. As you noted earlier, "Absolutely their right. For whatever reason (or no reason at all)."

[+CanadianRockies]

Just like Michael Moore, Sven is free to publish his videos without permission. But General Motors also is free to ban Michael Moore from using its website. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

I simply think there's a distinction between a corporate website (with the associated copyright issues) and a 35mm film canister thrown in some ivy next to a road.

So, it's okay for a big corporation like GE to ban Michael Moore from using its website (because of copyright issues?), but it's not okay for smaller corporations like Groundspeak, Inc., to ban Sven from using its website? I still don't understand.

Edited October 28, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+tozainamboku]

Just like Michael Moore, Sven is free to publish his videos without permission. But General Motors also is free to ban Michael Moore from using its website. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

 

I simply think there's a distinction between a corporate website (with the associated copyright issues) and a 35mm film canister thrown in some ivy next to a road.

I think the distinction is that GM is unable to keep Michael Moore from using their public website. Perhaps if they had some premium feature that he had to sign up for they could have something in their TOUs they could use to block him from using those features.

 

Geocaching.com knows that it has a virtual monopoly for geocaching. If someone wants to to geocache they need a geocaching.com account just to see the caches. Even if they are willing to not use the online logging feature to keep track of caches they have found, they still need to get the cache descriptions and coordinates. A ban from geocaching.com is heavy handed and is usually only used for the most serious vioaltions of the TOUs.

 

Now it's true that Sven only has a one month suspension, not a permanent ban, but unless he and Groundspeak come to some agreement on what will happen the next cache owner complains about one of his videos, they sort of have to keep escalating the punishment. And once it reaches a permanent ban, then Sven will be free to publish spoiler all he wants - so long as he keeps it untraceable to the sock puppet he will create in order to keep caching.

 

Nobody argues that Groundspeak can't have TOUs and enforce them. Some may wonder if they can have TOUs regarding actions someone takes on a non-Groundspeak site. Apparently they have legal council that thinks they can, and nobody has made a serious argument otherwise. But while they may legally be allowed to do this, there is a question of whether they should be doing this. This question has to do with fairness as well as with the effectiveness of their approach.

[+Team Taran]

Yes if someone wants to access a cache site that is exclusively listed on geocaching.com, they have to use the web site or get the information from the cacheowner. To do otherwise violates the cache owners intellectual property rights. Therefore to publish a spoiler for an exclusive listing you must use the resources of this web site.

[cezanne]

It strikes me, though, that by using the idea of showing disrespect (through spoilers or potentially otherwise) anywhere on the internet that there's the implication that either I stay quiet and play the game or I have the right to say what I want, but not both.

But, those aren't the only two options. Here's another one: Write what you want, but be open to the possibility of removing content if someone points out that it's ruining part of geocaching for them. And if you don't understand how it could significantly ruin things for them, then be prepared to make your case to Groundspeak. That's one way you can show respect to others.

 

Personally I'd question whether "ruining part of geocaching for them" is taking it a bit far fwiw (hey, I don't use a gps - I find they ruin stuff for me...), but in general people can avoid stuff elsewhere on the internet.

 

Maybe you have difficulties in understanding because you have not yet hidden a single cache and have found less than 100 caches among which there is no multi cache and no mystery cache.

 

I am wondering what would happen if you had a multi cache for which one needs to walk 140km and where due to a spoiler site cachers only visit the final or a mystery caches which typically requires many hours of work (say more than 10) and then the majority of cachers just walk to the final. I'd also regard it as absurd to have a traditional with a D=4* rating and then the majority of cachers write quickly found because they used a spoiler site. When people use phone jokers, many mention this in their log. Almost no one will however mention that he used a spoiler site in the internet (for obvious reasons).

 

Cezanne

Edited October 28, 2011 by cezanne

[+CanadianRockies]

Just like Michael Moore, Sven is free to publish his videos without permission. But General Motors also is free to ban Michael Moore from using its website. I'm not sure why people are having such a hard time understanding this distinction.

I simply think there's a distinction between a corporate website (with the associated copyright issues) and a 35mm film canister thrown in some ivy next to a road.

I think the distinction is that GM is unable to keep Michael Moore from using their public website. Perhaps if they had some premium feature that he had to sign up for they could have something in their TOUs they could use to block him from using those features.

The distinction that both you and BST don't seem to understand is that there is a difference between stopping someone from posting videos on a third-party website and banning someone from using a company's own website. And, just for the record, GM's website does have some features that require an account to use.

 

And once it reaches a permanent ban, then Sven will be free to publish spoiler all he wants - so long as he keeps it untraceable to the sock puppet he will create in order to keep caching.

Sven is already free to publish all the spoilers he wants -- on a third-party website. In fact, he's already done so.

Edited October 28, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'll remind people that the infamous Terms of Use (section 4) still make it clear that you're not in breach as long as you don't use Groundspeak's Publishing Tools or Forums to upload spoilers. So you can upload spoilers to your heart's content on Youtube, whether or not the cache owners agree, and you won't be in violation. You might get banned from geocaching.com anyway, but not because of a ToU infringement.

This is how the ToU stand today, but I expect that Groundspeak will realise their mistake before much longer so you'd better keep checking!

[+GeoBain]

I'll remind people that the infamous Terms of Use (section 4) still make it clear that you're not in breach as long as you don't use Groundspeak's Publishing Tools or Forums to upload spoilers. So you can upload spoilers to your heart's content on Youtube, whether or not the cache owners agree, and you won't be in violation. You might get banned from geocaching.com anyway, but not because of a ToU infringement.

This is how the ToU stand today, but I expect that Groundspeak will realise their mistake before much longer so you'd better keep checking!

 

That's the way I read the TOU and I suspect a change is coming as well.

[+CanadianRockies]

Some may wonder if they can have TOUs regarding actions someone takes on a non-Groundspeak site. Apparently they have legal council that thinks they can, and nobody has made a serious argument otherwise.

Then why would you raise a red herring like this? I'm not sure who "some" are, but they might want to check out the anti-spoiler clauses in contracts that people must sign before participating on television shows like Survivor, Amazing Race, Jeopardy, etc.

[+thebruce0]

First I'm not convinced that Groundspeak is all in favor of openly discussing geocaching, either here or on third party sites.

Ok, that's your opinion, your entitled to that. But right now, that's all it is.

 

Too often here threads are locked for discussing other geocaching sites or geocaching related products based on the commercial guidelines for the the Forums. Clearly Groundspeak is a company and it is reasonable for them to not want their resources used to promote other companies that might be competitors.

I'm not sure at all what that has to do with this issue. Publishing spoilers and talking about your geocaching experiences on 3rd party sites has nothing to do with discussing competitors and other commercial products here on this site.

 

What they have decided here is that a cache owner can object to anything related to their cache that is posted on a third party site, and if the poster does not "respect" the cache owners wishes they will apply sanctions to the poster's Geocaching.com account. They use the argument of "respect" of the wishes of the cache owner to justify this.

Nope. That's not what they've demonstrated. In this case, it's a matter of the fact that they deemed that what was posted, and the poster's attitude was not in good spirit to the game - not "anything". But, if you want to make that leap in your opinion that takes them from "spoiler" to "anything", you're entitled to that. But right now, that's all it is.

 

But there is nothing in the TOUs to prevent the cache owner from disrespecting the rights of bloggers to share their geocaching experience by making unreasonable demands.

Sure there is. Groundspeak can deny their request that the blogger be penalized, because they don't believe what the blogger shared was a spoiler. That's their option. It may not have been demonstrated in this case, but who knows how many owners out there have in the past tried this same tactic with Groundspeak and been denied? Do you know? It's as much a leap to assume it has as it is to assume it hasn't, unless you have evidence. Until then, right now, we're dealing with this case.

 

I'd argue that if you want to keep your geocaching.com account you almost have to check with cache owners before posting anything.

...

What [the TOU] says now is that cache owners can complain about anything that is related to their hide and you have to remove it or face sanctions.

Nope. No it doesn't.

 

Sven received a request from Groundspeak to remove a video that complied with what the cache owner had requested on the cache page.

There was much more to the exchange than just that. And regardless, Sven's attitude and position on spoiling caches ignoring owners' requests (in the case of legitimate spoilers) was enough to warrant a suspension, from GS's perspective (and personally from mine as well).

 

Don't delude yourself.

Wise words. Please heed them

 

Sven claims to be trying to work out things with cache owners (he may or may not be telling the truth) yet Groundspeak appears to be moving along with a ban, apparently to set an example for others.

Lots of hearsay. I try not to heed hearsay.

 

But, on principle, I will also question whether simply annoying someone else is a valid reason for restriciting the ability to publish.

No abilities are being restricted at all.

 

"Then how would you propose that the disagreements be resolved?"

 

If they're offsite? Frankly I'm utterly unconvinced that they either can or should be. Certainly not a disagreement about spoilers.

Sure there is. If you're not favoring the CO, then CO either has to "suck it up" and live with the bitter taste of the cache they feel is spoiled, or they do extra work to change the puzzle or alter the hide, or they can choose to archive it outright. So... that puts all the work on the CO, here. I don't see how that's a fair option. Regardless, one of those may still be the only option if the effect of the publish remains even if the publisher was punished here. Ultimately, the player forcing publishing of unpermitted spoilers does only serve to bring down the spirit of the game. Discouraging the act, forcefully, by suspension here is a good tactic, IMO, to encourage respectful play there.

Edited October 29, 2011 by thebruce0

[+tozainamboku]

Some may wonder if they can have TOUs regarding actions someone takes on a non-Groundspeak site. Apparently they have legal council that thinks they can, and nobody has made a serious argument otherwise.

Then why would you raise a red herring like this? I'm not sure who "some" are, but they might want to check out the anti-spoiler clauses in contracts that people must sign before participating on television shows like Survivor, Amazing Race, Jeopardy, etc.

You are correct, this statement did not belong in post it was quoted from.

 

However, as far as who "some" are - several people have made the point that as written now, Section 4 of the TOU is in regards to using the publishing tools and forums of Geocaching.com and Groundspeak. So section 4(m) doesn't refer to publishing spoilers on other sites. However, it appears that this is how it is being used. Groundspeak can always create a section in the TOUs that refers to other sites.

 

 

What they have decided here is that a cache owner can object to anything related to their cache that is posted on a third party site, and if the poster does not "respect" the cache owners wishes they will apply sanctions to the poster's Geocaching.com account. They use the argument of "respect" of the wishes of the cache owner to justify this.

Nope. That's not what they've demonstrated. In this case, it's a matter of the fact that they deemed that what was posted, and the poster's attitude was not in good spirit to the game - not "anything". But, if you want to make that leap in your opinion that takes them from "spoiler" to "anything", you're entitled to that. But right now, that's all it is.

I don't know the detail of the videos that resulted in the Sven's suspension. But the initial video discussed in this thread was a video in which Sven climb down into a fallout bunker. He never showed the cache or where it was hidden. What he showed was similar to pictures that were already on the cache page. On the cache page the owner said it was OK to post pictures of the bunker, but to not spoil the cache by showing where it was hidden. Groundspeak, upon receiving a complaint from the cache owner, sent Sven email. Initially, that email asked Sven to take down the video in the spirit of geocaching, acknowledging that they couldn't control what he posted on a third party site. When Sven brought this to the forum (this thread), Groundspeak changed its position and said that it was a violation of the Terms Of Use.

 

But there is nothing in the TOUs to prevent the cache owner from disrespecting the rights of bloggers to share their geocaching experience by making unreasonable demands.

Sure there is. Groundspeak can deny their request that the blogger be penalized, because they don't believe what the blogger shared was a spoiler. That's their option. It may not have been demonstrated in this case, but who knows how many owners out there have in the past tried this same tactic with Groundspeak and been denied? Do you know? It's as much a leap to assume it has as it is to assume it hasn't, unless you have evidence. Until then, right now, we're dealing with this case.

To me the actions of Groundspeak so far have been one side and favor the cache owner. Whether or not the cache owner was abusing Section 4(m) in this case, I have absolutely no doubt that cache owners will abuse this "right" they have have be given. Groundspeak's response in this case give me no confidence that they have any guidelines for dealing with an abusive cache owner.

 

We only have this case to go on. I won't speculate on what Groundspeak may or may not have done on other cases. The problem is, I want to discuss the whole idea that we need to have TOUs and enforce these with suspensions and bans in order to maintain something called the spirit of geocaching.

 

What makes a cache owner desired to not have his cache spoiled the "spirit of geocaching"? I can understand a spirit of geocaching that says don't spoil other people's fun by posting spoilers they wouldn't want to see. For many people, part of the fun of geocaching is working out a problem and figuring out a difficult hide. But the truth is that this is not the case for everybody. It may not even be the norm. Some people see to enjoy finding a cache over not finding on to the point the use phone-a-friend, discuss caches at events, ask owner and previous finder for hints, and use spoiler sites. To me a better definition of the spirit of geocaching would be to let people decide for themselves if they want to use spoilers or not. A cache owner who objects to spoilers is, IMO, not acting in the spirit of geocaching. If you place a cache, accept the fact that people may not find it in the particular way it you intended. Enjoy the fact that people are having fun according to their personal preferences and don't try to enforce something else. Now, that said, if a spoiler site is not clearly stating that it contains spoilers and it may be seen by someone who doesn't want to see the spoiler, then by all means ask them to take down the spoiler.

 

I'd argue that if you want to keep your geocaching.com account you almost have to check with cache owners before posting anything.

...

What [the TOU] says now is that cache owners can complain about anything that is related to their hide and you have to remove it or face sanctions.

Nope. No it doesn't.

The TOUs is an agreement you make when using the site. Groundspeak agrees to let you use the Geocaching.com website if you agree to abide by the provisions of the agreement. Section 4(m) says that you agree not to "Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner." For practical reasons, this mean that if you post something and later a cache owner decides that it include solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates, they can tell Groundspeak that you are in violation of the agreement. Grounspeak's remedy seems to be to give you some amount of time to comply and if you don't to suspend or ban your privileges on Geocaching.com.

 

There is nothing in the agreement that indicates if you can make a argument that what you posted does not contain solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates or that you had consent of the cache owner at some time in the past. Perhaps Sandy can post again and explain how this is adjudicated (in general, as the specifics of this case may involve private issues that the parties don't want shared).

"Then how would you propose that the disagreements be resolved?"

 

If they're offsite? Frankly I'm utterly unconvinced that they either can or should be. Certainly not a disagreement about spoilers.

Sure there is. If you're not favoring the CO, then CO either has to "suck it up" and live with the bitter taste of the cache they feel is spoiled, or they do extra work to change the puzzle or alter the hide, or they can choose to archive it outright. So... that puts all the work on the CO, here. I don't see how that's a fair option. Regardless, one of those may still be the only option if the effect of the publish remains even if the publisher was punished here. Ultimately, the player forcing publishing of unpermitted spoilers does only serve to bring down the spirit of the game. Discouraging the act, forcefully, by suspension here is a good tactic, IMO, to encourage respectful play there.

We disagree on what the spirit of the game is.

[cezanne]

What makes a cache owner desired to not have his cache spoiled the "spirit of geocaching"? I can understand a spirit of geocaching that says don't spoil other people's fun by posting spoilers they wouldn't want to see. For many people, part of the fun of geocaching is working out a problem and figuring out a difficult hide. But the truth is that this is not the case for everybody. It may not even be the norm. Some people see to enjoy finding a cache over not finding on to the point the use phone-a-friend, discuss caches at events, ask owner and previous finder for hints, and use spoiler sites. To me a better definition of the spirit of geocaching would be to let people decide for themselves if they want to use spoilers or not.

A cache owner who objects to spoilers is, IMO, not acting in the spirit of geocaching. If you place a cache, accept the fact that people may not find it in the particular way it you intended. Enjoy the fact that people are having fun according to their personal preferences and don't try to enforce something else.

 

I think that it is more important that the fun of those for which a certain cache is hidden (target audience) is not influenced to the negative than offering some cachers the chance to enjoy every cache at the cost of others. If someone e.g. visits only the final of a very long hiking cache, I feel that he/she in this way belittles the achievement of those who mastered the full route and did the cache in the intended way. So it is not only an issue of cache owners.

 

Cezanne

[+tozainamboku]

What makes a cache owner desired to not have his cache spoiled the "spirit of geocaching"? I can understand a spirit of geocaching that says don't spoil other people's fun by posting spoilers they wouldn't want to see. For many people, part of the fun of geocaching is working out a problem and figuring out a difficult hide. But the truth is that this is not the case for everybody. It may not even be the norm. Some people see to enjoy finding a cache over not finding on to the point the use phone-a-friend, discuss caches at events, ask owner and previous finder for hints, and use spoiler sites. To me a better definition of the spirit of geocaching would be to let people decide for themselves if they want to use spoilers or not.

A cache owner who objects to spoilers is, IMO, not acting in the spirit of geocaching. If you place a cache, accept the fact that people may not find it in the particular way it you intended. Enjoy the fact that people are having fun according to their personal preferences and don't try to enforce something else.

 

I think that it is more important that the fun of those for which a certain cache is hidden (target audience) is not influenced to the negative than offering some cachers the chance to enjoy every cache at the cost of others. If someone e.g. visits only the final of a very long hiking cache, I feel that he/she in this way belittles the achievement of those who mastered the full route and did the cache in the intended way. So it is not only an issue of cache owners.

 

Cezanne

This is the tired old argument of someone degrading the value of a cache because they took a short cut or didn't sign the log or whatever. IMO, they only cheat themselves. Someone who did your long hike would have the satisfaction of knowing they did it and they visited the interesting places along the way. They shouldn't see the value of that lessened because someone else skipped to the end. If they discover that this is the case they shouldn't blame the cache owner for not preventing this. What they can do is feel sorry that someone was more interested in the smiley than in getting the full measure of enjoyment this cache can provide.

[cezanne]

 

This is the tired old argument of someone degrading the value of a cache because they took a short cut or didn't sign the log or whatever. IMO, they only cheat themselves. Someone who did your long hike would have the satisfaction of knowing they did it and they visited the interesting places along the way. They shouldn't see the value of that lessened because someone else skipped to the end. If they discover that this is the case they shouldn't blame the cache owner for not preventing this. What they can do is feel sorry that someone was more interested in the smiley than in getting the full measure of enjoyment this cache can provide.

 

Actually, I have one concrete example in mind where a long hiking multi which meant a whole lot to me was done in the mentioned way by a cacher to protest against the way the cache is set up and to annoy the hiders. When I encountered his log I felt quite disappointed. Of course, I later on managed to get over the issue, but still it made me feel very sad for a few days.

Blaming the cache owners would be the last that would occur to me, and in the mentioned case they could not have avoided what happened anyway. My point was that the enjoyment of some cachers,also seekers not only finders, can be heavily effected by the finding caches in other ways than intended. So why is the enjoyment of those who want to visit every cache without being able or willing to master the while cache more important? Some people are e.g. proud of having obtained a pin which is only awarded to all who have finished a long distance hiking trail and would not be happy if all people can buy and wear such pins. Some cachers are very proud to have acconplished certain caches that have been hard for them and I appreciate if all what is possible is done to conserve the special value of such caches.

 

Cezanne

[+Bamilbis]

Some people are e.g. proud of having obtained a pin which is only awarded to all who have finished a long distance hiking trail and would not be happy if all people can buy and wear such pins.

 

Cezanne

 

Your post got me to think...what's the hardest "pin" in the world to earn? There may be others that are harder, but the hardest I could think of is the U.S. Navy Seal Trident. Turns out you can buy it on eBay for $4.95.

 

So it's perfectly leagle for me to buy and wear a Navy Seal trident despite my never being a Navy Seal. If I chose to buy it and wear it there is nothing the Navy could do about it. Do you think the Seals would feel their individual achievement was somehow tarnished because I was wearing their pin? I don't think so. I think they'd just see it as some goofballs wearing their insignia and would know that their achievement isn't tied to the pin...it's the other way around.

 

If you complete a super hard hike and are given some pin as a moment of that achievement and then see someone else wearing the pin you might stop them and bring up the hike. If they didn't actually do the hike it would be obvious in two seconds of talking to them. Would you feel less proud of what you did or instead just sorta pity they person you met?

 

Point is, who cares if a person wants to cheat? We all do to some extent anyway...some lie about doing it, others look up clues on YouTube, others phone a friend, others look at recent logs, others look at the hint, others look at cache photos.

Edited October 29, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[+Legochugglers]

Get a grip...there are monumentous challenges in life where people overcome the severest of difficulties, disabilities and trauma and you are losing sleep over the fact that someone has achieved a less difficult way of finding some tupperware in the woods.

[+thebruce0]

No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.

 

This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.

 

Movies are different - you make it, you can't unmake it. It's futile to stress over story spoilers being shared on the internet - once it's out it's out. But yes there are still companies that will do their utmost to 'hush' people they don't like. That's still happening with software piracy, music piracy, and video bootlegging. Yes, it happens all the time.

 

We're talking about geocaching. If our cache is spoiled, we can archive it. But you better well believe we don't want to, given all the work we put into it, and/or all the hope we have that people will experience the find the way we hope them to experience it.

 

Groundspeak understands that stuff can't be "stopped" out there.

But they also understand the nature of putting work into difficult tasks with the intention that people do what's required to complete them - and the hope that the people who create them have that others will do those necessary tasks.

 

Groundspeak is not out to silence spoilers. That's ludicrous!

 

Groundspeak is simply taking the stand that if it sees a player forcefully ruining the work into which a CO has put time and effort, then it will take a step to deter that particular user from doing so again. Will it always be an effective punishment? Who knows. It's not a certainty. But you know what? It's certainly a discouragement to people who want to publicly spoil those COs' work ignorant of their requests otherwise.

 

I'm a blogger. I share, I discuss, and if someone connects what I share to what I found, so be it. If a CO approaches me and would prefer I remove any photos or videos, I will. And I certainly hope that others would do the same for me, if I care about that cache's puzzle/hide integrity.

 

Balance. Etiquette. Respect. Fun. All around. How is that so hard to grasp?

 

I don't think there's really anything left to debate about whether Groundspeak overstepped their authority or not. Only whether the community thinks it was a good move or not. And because that's entirely subjective, it'll be an endless revolving debate... and with that I'm out.

[+Legochugglers]

No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.

 

This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.

 

Movies are different - you make it, you can't unmake it. It's futile to stress over story spoilers being shared on the internet - once it's out it's out. But yes there are still companies that will do their utmost to 'hush' people they don't like. That's still happening with software piracy, music piracy, and video bootlegging. Yes, it happens all the time.

 

We're talking about geocaching. If our cache is spoiled, we can archive it. But you better well believe we don't want to, given all the work we put into it, and/or all the hope we have that people will experience the find the way we hope them to experience it.

 

Groundspeak understands that stuff can't be "stopped" out there.

But they also understand the nature of putting work into difficult tasks with the intention that people do what's required to complete them - and the hope that the people who create them have that others will do those necessary tasks.

 

Groundspeak is not out to silence spoilers. That's ludicrous!

 

Groundspeak is simply taking the stand that if it sees a player forcefully ruining the work into which a CO has put time and effort, then it will take a step to deter that particular user from doing so again. Will it always be an effective punishment? Who knows. It's not a certainty. But you know what? It's certainly a discouragement to people who want to publicly spoil those COs' work ignorant of their requests otherwise.

 

I'm a blogger. I share, I discuss, and if someone connects what I share to what I found, so be it. If a CO approaches me and would prefer I remove any photos or videos, I will. And I certainly hope that others would do the same for me, if I care about that cache's puzzle/hide integrity.

 

Balance. Etiquette. Respect. Fun. All around. How is that so hard to grasp?

 

I don't think there's really anything left to debate about whether Groundspeak overstepped their authority or not. Only whether the community thinks it was a good move or not. And because that's entirely subjective, it'll be an endless revolving debate... and with that I'm out.

[+Legochugglers]

No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.

 

This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.

 

Movies are different - you make it, you can't unmake it. It's futile to stress over story spoilers being shared on the internet - once it's out it's out. But yes there are still companies that will do their utmost to 'hush' people they don't like. That's still happening with software piracy, music piracy, and video bootlegging. Yes, it happens all the time.

 

We're talking about geocaching. If our cache is spoiled, we can archive it. But you better well believe we don't want to, given all the work we put into it, and/or all the hope we have that people will experience the find the way we hope them to experience it.

 

Groundspeak understands that stuff can't be "stopped" out there.

 

Totally agree and if the CO's and Sven had the most basic of communication skills they would have sorted this issue out long ago without any need for Groundspeak intervention.

But they also understand the nature of putting work into difficult tasks with the intention that people do what's required to complete them - and the hope that the people who create them have that others will do those necessary tasks.

 

Groundspeak is not out to silence spoilers. That's ludicrous!

 

Groundspeak is simply taking the stand that if it sees a player forcefully ruining the work into which a CO has put time and effort, then it will take a step to deter that particular user from doing so again. Will it always be an effective punishment? Who knows. It's not a certainty. But you know what? It's certainly a discouragement to people who want to publicly spoil those COs' work ignorant of their requests otherwise.

 

I'm a blogger. I share, I discuss, and if someone connects what I share to what I found, so be it. If a CO approaches me and would prefer I remove any photos or videos, I will. And I certainly hope that others would do the same for me, if I care about that cache's puzzle/hide integrity.

 

Balance. Etiquette. Respect. Fun. All around. How is that so hard to grasp?

 

I don't think there's really anything left to debate about whether Groundspeak overstepped their authority or not. Only whether the community thinks it was a good move or not. And because that's entirely subjective, it'll be an endless revolving debate... and with that I'm out.

[+Legochugglers]

Totally agree with you and if the CO's and Sven had the communication skills in the first place I am sure that GS intervention would not have been necessary.

[+Legochugglers]

...and if my IT skills had been better I may have posted this on the first log I pressed send on. so there!

[+GeoBain]

What makes a cache owner desired to not have his cache spoiled the "spirit of geocaching"? I can understand a spirit of geocaching that says don't spoil other people's fun by posting spoilers they wouldn't want to see. For many people, part of the fun of geocaching is working out a problem and figuring out a difficult hide. But the truth is that this is not the case for everybody. It may not even be the norm. Some people see to enjoy finding a cache over not finding on to the point the use phone-a-friend, discuss caches at events, ask owner and previous finder for hints, and use spoiler sites. To me a better definition of the spirit of geocaching would be to let people decide for themselves if they want to use spoilers or not.

A cache owner who objects to spoilers is, IMO, not acting in the spirit of geocaching. If you place a cache, accept the fact that people may not find it in the particular way it you intended. Enjoy the fact that people are having fun according to their personal preferences and don't try to enforce something else.

 

I think that it is more important that the fun of those for which a certain cache is hidden (target audience) is not influenced to the negative than offering some cachers the chance to enjoy every cache at the cost of others. If someone e.g. visits only the final of a very long hiking cache, I feel that he/she in this way belittles the achievement of those who mastered the full route and did the cache in the intended way. So it is not only an issue of cache owners.

 

Cezanne

 

Yet, if someone were to visit only the final of a very long hiking cache and write his name in the logbook there isn't squat the CO can do about it.

 

Is that in the spirit of geocaching? No.

 

Is it pretty cheezy? Yes.

 

But the CO can not control someone getting the coords from a buddy and going straight to final no more than they can control someone solving a very difficult puzzle and then taking a van full of his friends to the final and everyone signing the logbook.

 

And ask Cav Scout about people being able to sign the logbook and get their online smiley even though they didn't actually perform the difficult part of the cache as he intended.

 

The weird thing is in that situation the CO is the one that managed to get banned, not the people spoiling the caching experiencing by getting their smiley in ways not intended by the CO.

[cezanne]

 

Yet, if someone were to visit only the final of a very long hiking cache and write his name in the logbook there isn't squat the CO can do about it.

 

Is that in the spirit of geocaching? No.

 

 

The cache owner can indeed do nothing about it. My point was that (like you) I think that such a behaviour is not in the spirit of geocaching and that at the expense of increasing the happyness of some, the happyness of others is decreased.

 

Cezanne

[+Bamilbis]

No, again, this is not about the fairness between players.

 

This about the freaking fact that if we as cache owners spend a LOT of time putting effort into a puzzle or a unique hide, we don't (necessarily) want it spoiled, outside of the reach of our control - that is, publicly on the internet where we have no way of ensuring it be removed, except by pleading. This is a standard sentiment that most anyone who intends something to be done some specific way would have.

 

 

Seems to me a cache is like a secret. When you place it nobody knows where it is and it's your secret and yours alone. At that point you have zero worry about finding your secret on YouTube or online or anything else as it's just your secret.

 

But then you post your secret. You publish it. I come along and find it and now it's OUR secret. More and more people come and the circle widens. With each addition to the collective group the amount of control of the secret diminishes for the CO. That's what the CO wanted, he wanted people to come and share his secret. The other edge of that sword is the loss of control.

 

In the end if the CO doesn't like the way the members of the group are treating his secret he can archive it.

[+GeoBain]

In the end if the CO doesn't like the way the members of the group are treating his secret he can archive it.

 

And frankly, with the exception of spoilers posted on Groundspeak's servers, that is where the CO's control over the issue should end.

[Maripossa24]

Oh man, Sven got banned?!

 

I watch his channel, and I don't see what the bfd is. They've helped me quite a bit as a newb, and I chose to see the vids. It's not like I thought I was going to watch a music video, and BAM! spoiler. I knew roughly what they would show. He never shows the coords, or exaclty where they are. I'm across the pond from him, and I can honestly say his channel helped get me "into" caching.

 

I vote BOO on the ban.

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh man, Sven got banned?!

 

I watch his channel, and I don't see what the bfd is. They've helped me quite a bit as a newb, and I chose to see the vids. It's not like I thought I was going to watch a music video, and BAM! spoiler. I knew roughly what they would show. He never shows the coords, or exaclty where they are. I'm across the pond from him, and I can honestly say his channel helped get me "into" caching.

 

I vote BOO on the ban.

 

You won't be across the pond for long. Trust me on that one.

[cadavis0609]

...can't believe this thread is still going. Everything that can possibly be said about this has to have been said by now.

[+GeoBain]

...can't believe this thread is still going. Everything that can possibly be said about this has to have been said by now.

 

We love repeating ourselves.

 

.... Over and over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and then again for good measure.

[knowschad]

...can't believe this thread is still going. Everything that can possibly be said about this has to have been said by now.

 

Reminds me of Congress.

[knowschad]

I think it is time that we put this issue to the vote and demand that Groundspeak be bound to the outcome. Everybody in favor, raise your hands. Opposed?

[+Ambrosia]

...can't believe this thread is still going. Everything that can possibly be said about this has to have been said by now.

 

We love repeating ourselves.

 

.... Over and over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and then again for good measure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and again.

[+Bamilbis]

This thread is nowhere near done. We have completely skimmed over my point of GS overreach. To recap, how is it okay, in any way, to suspend someone for actions taken on a third party site? (Especially when the TOU don't specifically forbid it?) How much stock are we putting in a CO's cache in terms of rights? The CO owns it lock stock and barrel? Someone posts a log he doesn't like and that log poster gets banned or suspended? What if a finder tells a friend to check out that cache? What if he later tells his friend to look in a certain spot? What if he tells his friends friend the GZ location? What f he posts a picture of the cache or of GZ? What if he posts a video on YouTube on how to find the cache???

 

Point is it's way hard to control the actions of people once they know the secret that the CO voluntarily shared. If I post on the Internet where something I hid is, I deserve the world to know where the something I hid is,

[+tozainamboku]

...can't believe this thread is still going. Everything that can possibly be said about this has to have been said by now.

That's how you argue. One side makes a point, the other a counterpoint. Sure it gets to the point that it sounds repetitive, and perhaps one side eventually gives up realizing they cannot convince the the other.

 

I know the cache owners who want to stop spoilers are a stubborn lot. Long before this incident, cache owners complained to Groundspeak about spoiler sites and videos. For a long time Groundspeak's answer was "We believe that it is not in the spirit of geocaching to show spoilers without the consent of the cache owner, but if they do so on a third party site there is nothing we can do about it."

 

Here's a feedback suggestion declined by Jeremy in January 2011.

 

But that didn't satisfy the cache owner's who wanted to stop spoilers so they kept submitting feedback suggestions till they got Groundspeak to change the TOUs in response to this request.

 

And they when Groundspeak changed the TOUs is was still not enough and some cache owners started this feedback thread demanding that Groundspeak ban users who spoil caches on public websites.

 

I don't think they will ever be satisfied. Unlike movie producers, authors, video game writers, and now I'll add magicians, it seems cache owners are not willing to accept the natural state of such things. People will want to share information about geocaches. They can cry all they want about such sharing not being in the spirit of geocaching. The problem with that is for game where there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, the natural thing is to exchange information and offer help to those who ask for it. And there will be people who post "spoilers" with the intent of sharing the cool caches they found because the want others to see what fun they have geocaching and perhaps to promote more quality hides like the ones they show in their blogs. They may even go out of their way so that someone looking for a spoiler would have trouble finding it on their site. But someone who has found the cache and therefor recognizes it, will tell the cache owner, who will then complain about something unlikely to be used as a spoiler.

 

I don't expect I will convince these cache owners to take the reasonable approach. You put out a cache, you ask for people not to spoil it, and then you let what happens happen. My hope, in continuing to argue is that Groundspeak will realize there are two sides to this argument. I'd prefer that section 4(m) be repealed, but that is not likely to happen. So for now my hope is that there will at least be documented safeguards to protect against cache owners abusing the rule.

[knowschad]

Oh, come on!!! You get your loved one a very special gift for Christmas. You really want it to be a total, unexpected surprise. The store calls, your loved one answers the phone, and the store says, "Your <very special gift> has arrived and you can come down and pick it up". SPOILED!!!

 

Are you telling me you won't be extremely upset with that store for giving away the surprise?

 

Perhaps the problem here is that some of you are thinking that a cache is always a pill bottle covered in camo duct tape and tossed in a bush. Spoiling that surprise is probably not going to get many people upset. But a cache where the cache owner spent a lot of time, possibly money, trying to come up with something that will blow the socks off of everybody, only to discover that some norom has video'd it and posted it to Youtube or a blog site or whatever for anybody to see... it doesn't matter if the cache name and GC# isn't shown... the IDEA has been exposed. That is why it is called a SPOILER! Is it that difficult to grasp the meaning of that term?

[cezanne]

Point is it's way hard to control the actions of people once they know the secret that the CO voluntarily shared. If I post on the Internet where something I hid is, I deserve the world to know where the something I hid is,

 

Certainly it is impossible to control what other people will do. However, note that the majority of cache pages do not tell where the cache is hidden, in the best case one gets coordinates of the final directly, but typically the hideout is not disclosed. For multi caches and mystery caches not even the coordinates are published in the public by the cache owners.

 

While I am not able to control spoilers, I still feel that it is against the spirit of geocaching to publish spoilers against the wish of the effected cache owners.

 

Cezanne

[+Bamilbis]

Oh, come on!!! You get your loved one a very special gift for Christmas. You really want it to be a total, unexpected surprise. The store calls, your loved one answers the phone, and the store says, "Your <very special gift> has arrived and you can come down and pick it up". SPOILED!!!

 

Are you telling me you won't be extremely upset with that store for giving away the surprise?

 

Perhaps the problem here is that some of you are thinking that a cache is always a pill bottle covered in camo duct tape and tossed in a bush. Spoiling that surprise is probably not going to get many people upset. But a cache where the cache owner spent a lot of time, possibly money, trying to come up with something that will blow the socks off of everybody, only to discover that some norom has video'd it and posted it to Youtube or a blog site or whatever for anybody to see... it doesn't matter if the cache name and GC# isn't shown... the IDEA has been exposed. That is why it is called a SPOILER! Is it that difficult to grasp the meaning of that term?

 

I think you screwed up the comparison. If you want to compare creating a special cache with buying a present for a loved one then a spoiler for the cache isn't the store calling your loved one to tell them it's arrived.

 

A better comparison for a spoiler would by your loved one calling the store and asking about the details of your purchase.

Edited October 30, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

[+Bamilbis]

Further, if I bought my wife a gift and she went out and snooped out what I bought her I wouldn't blame the store for spoiling her surprise...I'd blame her.

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't think they will ever be satisfied. Unlike movie producers, authors, video game writers, and now I'll add magicians, it seems cache owners are not willing to accept the natural state of such things. People will want to share information about geocaches.

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes once wrote that the "natural state" of things is where people are free to do whatever they want, but life in such a natural state is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So people organize themselves into civilized communities, giving up their right to do whatever they please and agreeing to accept ways to resolve disputes that might arise when people's preferences conflict.

 

Sure, it might be "natural" for some bloggers/videographers to want to share their experiences however they want, but civilized communities recognize that doing so sometimes will conflict with the preferences of others. So, communities pass laws forbidding the publication of libelous material, state secrets, obscenity, child pornography, etc.

 

In the case of geocaching, some cache owners would prefer that their hides not be spoiled by bloggers/videographers. How would you resolve this conflict of preferences? Groundspeak has decided that people should not reveal spoilers without the permission of the cache owners. If someone doesn't feel they are spoiling anything, then they can appeal to Groundspeak. This is how disputes are resolved in civilized communities.

 

If bloggers/videographers want to publish spoilers even when that conflicts with a cache owner's wishes, then they can do so. But they shouldn't expect to remain a part of Groundspeak's geocaching community.

[+CanadianRockies]

To recap, how is it okay, in any way, to suspend someone for actions taken on a third party site?

The producers of television shows like Survivor, The Amazing Race, and Jeopardy can impose severe penalties on participants who reveal spoilers on third-party websites. This is because there are conflicting preferences. The participants might want to reveal spoilers, but the producers don't want spoilers known. When conflicts arise within civilized communities, it's often best to resolve those conflicts rather than let people do whatever they want. In the case of television shows, legally enforceable contracts are agreed to. In the case of Groundspeak, a legally enforceable Terms of Use Agreement is agreed to.

 

(Especially when the TOU don't specifically forbid it?)

That's your opinion. Groundspeak's lawyer apparently believes it does. You're welcome to go to court to resolve that difference of opinion, if you wish.

 

How much stock are we putting in a CO's cache in terms of rights?

Cache owners have some rights but are denied others.

 

The CO owns it lock stock and barrel?

Cache owners own the physical caches but not any trackables that might be residing in them temporarily. Cache owners also own the copyright to what they wrote on the cache's listing page.

 

Someone posts a log he doesn't like and that log poster gets banned or suspended?

It depends on what is posted. Cache owners cannot delete a log simply because they don't like the log. If the log spoils the cache, though, then the cache owner can delete it. Of course, the poster can appeal to Groundspeak. If Groundspeak denies that appeal, however, and the poster continues to repost the offending log, then, yes, the poster can be suspended/banned. Cache owners also can delete "any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

What if a finder tells a friend to check out that cache?

No problem.

 

What if he later tells his friend to look in a certain spot?

No problem. Groundspeak has decided that private communications between geocachers are okay, even if they include spoilers.

 

What if he tells his friends friend the GZ location?

No problem. See above.

 

What f he posts a picture of the cache or of GZ?

If the cache owner feels this is a spoiler (and Groundspeak agrees), then this is not okay. See above.

 

What if he posts a video on YouTube on how to find the cache???

No problem, if it is done with the consent of the cache owner.

Edited October 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+GeoBain]

Oh, come on!!! You get your loved one a very special gift for Christmas. You really want it to be a total, unexpected surprise. The store calls, your loved one answers the phone, and the store says, "Your <very special gift> has arrived and you can come down and pick it up". SPOILED!!!

 

Excellent analogy! (for spoilers on the cache page)

 

It doesn't quite hold up for spoilers on Youtube. If my loved one wishes to call around to the stores in town and ask if I bought anything for her recently, then she's only hurting herself.

 

I guess some would take their kid's Christmas gifts back if they caught them digging through the closet for a sneak peak. But I've actually caught my son doing just that and I wrapped it up anyway and put it under the tree. I suspect most would react similarly.

[+Cup.]

(Especially when the TOU don't specifically forbid it?)

That's your opinion. Groundspeak's lawyer apparently believes it does. You're welcome to go to court to resolve that difference of opinion, if you wish.

 

Groundspeaks lawyer is now back from vacation and he can apparently read. He says it doesn't. Allegedly they're going to rush through a change of the TOU post haste.

 

Regardless of what you think of the actual spoiler issue I find it more than a little brow raising how Groundspeak have managed this, just make up terms and conditions to ban someone if they don't bow down to a lackeys demands?

 

They have offered Sven the chance to be unbanned, but are still insisting that he removes content from his youtube channel for this to happen. He will be given added premium member time to reimburse him.

 

Makes me wonder how it works in contract law. Sven broke no terms but was banned. They're then changing the terms and conditions mid contract.......And presumably Sven will remain banned unless he conforms to the new terms...

 

Either way regardless of what Sven has or hasn't done it's a pretty poor show on groundspeaks part imho.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't think they will ever be satisfied. Unlike movie producers, authors, video game writers, and now I'll add magicians, it seems cache owners are not willing to accept the natural state of such things. People will want to share information about geocaches.

The political philosopher Thomas Hobbes once wrote that the "natural state" of things is where people are free to do whatever they want, but life in such a natural state is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." So people organize themselves into civilized communities, giving up their right to do whatever they please and agreeing to accept ways to resolve disputes that might arise when people's preferences conflict.

 

Sure, it might be "natural" for some bloggers/videographers to want to share their experiences however they want, but civilized communities recognize that doing so sometimes will conflict with the preferences of others. So, communities pass laws forbidding the publication of libelous material, state secrets, obscenity, child pornography, etc.

 

In the case of geocaching, some cache owners would prefer that their hides not be spoiled by bloggers/videographers. How would you resolve this conflict of preferences? Groundspeak has decided that people should not reveal spoilers without the permission of the cache owners. If someone doesn't feel they are spoiling anything, then they can appeal to Groundspeak. This is how disputes are resolved in civilized communities.

 

If bloggers/videographers want to publish spoilers even when that conflicts with a cache owner's wishes, then they can do so. But they shouldn't expect to remain a part of Groundspeak's geocaching community.

Thank for the lesson on 17th century English philosophy. I had to look up who Thomas Hobbes was. Apparently he wrote this stuff in response to, of all things, the Puritans. Hobbs objected to the Puritans making up their own rules and trying to impose them on everyone else. His response was that people should accept rightful governments who develop rules and laws that apply equally to all while respecting individual rights whenever possible. Of course in doing so he was supporting the English monarchy over the government of Cromwell. In time his ideas formed the basis by which modern representative democracies enact laws to deal with the conflict between individual rights. So while I give it up to Thomas for standing up to the Puritans, and I understand the point you are making that Groundspeak can create whatever rules they see fit to promote the spirit of geocaching; I still believe that an opposing opinion is valid.

 

I have already accepted that Groundspeak makes the TOUs and the Sven probably violated them. (Certainly Groundspeak believes Sven knowingly violated the TOUs.) I agree that there is a conflict between the desires of certain cache owners and those who believe that cache information is meant to be shared. The cache owners make that clear by the numerous complaints and feedback thread about spoiler sites. My belief is that trying to control spoilers by creating a rule in the TOUs is ineffective and is only to going to lead to abuse by vindictive cache owners who have some personal dispute with some blogger. The arguments that cache owners give as to why their caches deserve special protection when other creative works don't typically enjoy such protections are not convincing to me (nor to many others). Geocaching is a game in which there's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy; so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist if someone who finds a cache used a spoiler or not.

[+tozainamboku]

Oh, come on!!! You get your loved one a very special gift for Christmas. You really want it to be a total, unexpected surprise. The store calls, your loved one answers the phone, and the store says, "Your <very special gift> has arrived and you can come down and pick it up". SPOILED!!!

 

This probably occurs more often than you imagine. In reality, your loved one will still appreciate the gift and the thought behind it, even if the surprise was spoiled. In fact, if the situation allows for it, your loved may attempt to hide from you the fact that the surprise was spoiled and even feign surprise when receiving the gift.

 

Look upon the cacher who appreciates a well hidden cache or a difficult puzzle or multi as your loved one. This person will go out of their way to avoid spoilers. But even if they inadvertently see a spoiler, they will still appreciate the work that went into your hide. They may even hide from you the fact it was spoiled and feign surprise when they log their find.

Edited October 30, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+CanadianRockies]

They have offered Sven the chance to be unbanned, but are still insisting that he removes content from his youtube channel for this to happen. He will be given added premium member time to reimburse him.

It sounds like this resolution should make most people happy. If Groundspeak changes the Terms of Use Agreement to make it clearer that people should not publish spoilers against the wishes of the cache owners, then that should be a good development.

 

Makes me wonder how it works in contract law. Sven broke no terms but was banned. They're then changing the terms and conditions mid contract.......And presumably Sven will remain banned unless he conforms to the new terms...

Read Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement again. Section 3, paragraph 1:

 

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.

Section 14:

 

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

If Sven didn't want to abide by these terms, then he had the option of not participating on this website.

Edited October 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

I still believe that an opposing opinion is valid.

I never said opposing opinions are invalid. I was just explaining why I believe civilized communities need ways to resolve conflicting preferences.

 

My belief is that trying to control spoilers by creating a rule in the TOUs is ineffective and is only to going to lead to abuse by vindictive cache owners who have some personal dispute with some blogger.

If Groundspeak feels an alleged spoiler really isn't a spoiler, then they can resolve the matter in favor of the blogger. Is it your belief that bloggers should be free to publish whatever they want regardless of how it effects others? If not, then how would you propose to resolve those conflicts? This is the third time I've asked you that question.

Edited October 30, 2011 by CanadianRockies