Jump to content

Youtube geocaching videos


Sven.

Recommended Posts

If Groundspeak feels an alleged spoiler really isn't a spoiler, then they can resolve the matter in favor of the blogger.

If Groundspeak can clarify what they consider a spoiler and document that they have an process where each side can make there case that would prevent abuse of the TOUs by a cache owner, I would be happier than the current situation. Despite Sandy's earlier posts, I am not certain that Sven got a fair shake - particularly on the original video involving the bunker.

 

Is it your belief that bloggers should be free to publish whatever they want regardless of how it effects others?

Bloggers should be subject to same laws as other publishers - copyright, libel, obscenity, etc. In addition, blogging sites (Blogger, WordPress, etc.) can have Terms of Use for those who want to host their blogs on that site to limit what can be presented. Usually this has to do with posting unlawful, threatening, harassing, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or with the posting of "spam" advertising. I suppose if a blogging site want to have a rule against posting movies spoilers, for example, they could do so. There may be some sites hosting video game blogs that have TOUs against sharing game spoilers.

 

It may be within Groundspeak's rights to have TOUs that stipulate that by using Geocaching.com or the Groundspeak forums you agree to limit what you write about geocaching on third party sites. This seems to go a bit farther than what generally appears in TOUs on other website.

 

In this thread cache owners have admitted that nothing will stop the sharing of spoilers. It seems silly to restrict what information is shared about cachers in a a blog if this information is still going to be shared some other way. Perhaps if Groundspeak replaced "any media" with a more specific phrase indicating what they intend to stop. But even if you restricted it to public websites there is an issue of how enforceable it would be. It seems easy enough to create a spoiler site that can't be traced back to a Groundspeak account.

 

If not, then how would you propose to resolve those conflicts? This is the third time I've asked you that question.

I believe that simply a desire to keep spoilers about your cache off some media is not sufficient reason to prevent people from sharing what they want to share. The "spirit of geocaching" as defined by Groundspeak, and I assume by others, is that part of the fun of the game is to meet the challenges put out there by a cache owner. As such, using spoilers and, even more so, providing spoilers to others, is seen a not being in the spirit of geocaching. On the other hand, one simply needs to look around to see that there are plenty of geocacher for whom finding the cache is paramount and all is fair when seeking a cache. Rather than struggling with a impossible puzzle or being forced to go on an odyssey to to find all the stages of a multi, some cachers will seek out spoilers. And there are those who find it in the spirit of geocaching to help out those who ask for help. Rather than having people frustrated and quitting geocaching, they want people to have fun and find caches. And of course there are many who find it in the spirit of geocaching to show examples of particularly cool cache hides with the hope of encouraging more hides like these. They will carefully identify their site as having spoiler so that it can be avoided. And as a courtesy to cache owners will not identify the particular cache so as to limit the usefulness of their site to spoil particular caches.

 

So my answer is to resolve this conflict by educating cache owners that there is only so much you have control over once your cache is published. Cache owners need to respect that not everyone plays the game they way the want it to be played. Cache owner are free to request that people not publish spoilers, but they shouldn't expect Groundspeak to provide them with a big stick to enforce this this.

 

However, if Groundspeak and the majority feels different, then while I will continue to convince them they are wrong, at least I want to make sure that the rules will not be abused. I want a guarantee of this and not some speculation that Groundspeak is doing this behind the scenes and we only hear about the extreme cases of spoiler sharing that result in a ban.

Link to comment

In this thread cache owners have admitted that nothing will stop the sharing of spoilers. It seems silly to restrict what information is shared about cachers in a a blog if this information is still going to be shared some other way.

Nothing will stop the publication of spoilers, but that doesn't mean Groundspeak shouldn't act to reduce and discourage their publication. Nothing will stop murders from occurring, but I still believe there should be laws against murder.

 

[H]ow would you propose to resolve those conflicts? This is the third time I've asked you that question.

So my answer is to resolve this conflict by educating cache owners that there is only so much you have control over once your cache is published.

But conflicts will still occur even if you convince a few cache owners that they should allow spoilers to be published for their caches. Assume there continues to be a large number of cache owners who do not share your views about spoilers being okay. Assume they continue to prefer that spoilers not be published. You can pretend to live in a world where gumdrops grow on trees and nobody disagrees with each other, but Hobbes knew otherwise.

 

So, how would you resolve the conflict between cache owners' preferences and the preferences of bloggers? This is my fourth request for a serious, real-life answer.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

...waits for a player to take the 'bloggers are free from all responsibility' angle and seek out answers to every puzzle cache or great hide or surprise experience they can find, and publish them all, free for anyone. ...Ruining the game for all those COs ...Providing a site the Groundspeak can do nothing about ...run by a user that they are unable to suspend or ban ...forcing every CO affected to either bite the bullet, change their caches, or archive them. Because the blogger has free reign out there, and there's nothing Groundspeak can do to deter it - even the simple act of denying them access to their site.

 

Get real... *sigh*

Link to comment

...waits for a player to take the 'bloggers are free from all responsibility' angle and seek out answers to every puzzle cache or great hide or surprise experience they can find, and publish them all, free for anyone. ...Ruining the game for all those COs ...Providing a site the Groundspeak can do nothing about ...run by a user that they are unable to suspend or ban ...forcing every CO affected to either bite the bullet, change their caches, or archive them. Because the blogger has free reign out there, and there's nothing Groundspeak can do to deter it - even the simple act of denying them access to their site.

 

Get real... *sigh*

 

Sven != the person in your scenario.

 

A good reason why groundspeaks round peg wont fit in every square hole....

Link to comment

So, how would you resolve the conflict between cache owners' preferences and the preferences of bloggers? This is my fourth request for a serious, real-life answer.

So how do you propose to handle this conflict. Sven got a ban. His supporters petitioned to have it reversed. Sven continues to believe he did nothing wrong. Obviously, according to Hobbes the king can dictate whatever laws he wants and the people must obey. That doesn't mean someone's rights didn't get trampled.

 

For the umpteenth time, I have agreed that even though I don't like it, I concede that Groundspeak is the absolute sovereign of who gets to use their site. They can make up any dadgum rule they want and justify it because it fits their perception of the spirit of geocaching.

 

You know there are lots of times the majority wants to resolve a dispute by making it illegal to do something. In the beginning of the 20th century, some Americans felt that alcohol was the cause of serious societal problems. To deal with this the United States Constitution was amended to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. From 1920 till 1933 this was the law in the United States. Did it stop people from using alcohol? Of course not. Instead it contributed to all sort of criminal activity as people found ways around the laws. I'm sure in 1933, when the 18th amendment was repealed, the people who felt imbibing alcohol was not in the spirit (no pun intended) of being a responsibly citizen, still felt this way. But by then the majority realized that enforcing the law did little to stop the use of alcohol and may have even encourage its use. Prohibition resulted in a more general disrespect for law and contributed to the creation of organized crime syndicates.

 

What Groundspeak puts in its TOUs may be the law, but that does not make it a good law.

 

OH and ask me again how I would resolve the conflict, and I'll give you another answer you will say is not a serious response.

Link to comment
Sven != the person in your scenario.

Didn't say it was. But that certainly sounds like what Sven's supporters are arguing for. No doubt about it.

I doubt that is what most of Sven's supporters are arguing for. I am. But the reason is because, like you, I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere to settle the conflict between what some cache owners want and what people who want to share information want. I'd prefer it be set closer to the scenario you gave than to where it is set now. The TOUs now allow a cache owner to point to any video or mention of their cache and say it provides solutions, hints, or spoilers without their consent. Groundspeak still hasn't made clear what their definition is, so it appears it is what ever a cache owner says. This allows abuse. I want clear limits on what a cache owner can object to.

 

Unlike many, I have not been convinced that a scenario like you describe would necessarily cause any great harm to geocaching. Cache owners hide caches now, realizing that people will share hints and spoilers with phone-a-friends or in casual conversations. They realize that spoilers get posted online and in various media - sometimes the cache owner can delete the spoiler (e.g., on their cache page) and other times they can only ask that it be deleted. Cache spoiler sites already exists - some far "worse" (as far as cache owners are concerned) that what Sven does on his site. Yet these cache owners continue to hide caches. So while cache owners may not like it, and a few may choose to archive their cache if it is spoiled, this doesn't appear to cause a collapse of the geocaching world. On the contrary it appears that sites like Sven's may actually contribute to geocaching, encouraging muggles to try geocaching, and encouraging geocachers to give more thought to the caches they hide. And while it may be true that enough cache owners who hide interesting caches would allow bloggers and videographers to post information on their cache freely so that sites like Sven's could continue to serve these purposes, I personally don't see the need to make sharing information hard.

 

I actually would not mind a TOU that allows spoilers to be posted and only requires that they be taken down if a cache owner requests it, but if only Groundspeak also indicates that abuse by cache owners will not be tolerated. If a cache owner could be banned for claiming a spoiler when there isn't one or flip-flopping on whether they gave permission, perhaps we'd have something closer to a fair system here.

Link to comment

BTW, a lot of the people arguing against this ban are not Sven supporters. I, for one, am just against banning someone who is not in violation of the TOU, while using the TOU as the reason for the ban.

 

Want to ban him under the "we can ultimately do what we want 'cause it's our site" clause? Fine. Give the proper reason for the ban.

 

Want to update the TOU to actually be the over-reaching TOU you intended in the first place and THEN ban him for TOU violation if he doesn't comply with the new TOU? Fine. At least then he's actually violating the TOU. But make sure the darn thing says what you intended it to say first.

 

As I said before, Sven is probably the worst person to use to show the problem with the TOU as currently written. His actions to date have been pretty arrogant and not in keeping with the spirit of geocaching.

 

But the fact remains that the ban was unjust, at least for the reason given. And that is the point I have been arguing. I do NOT support Sven.

Link to comment

So, how would you resolve the conflict between cache owners' preferences and the preferences of bloggers? This is my fourth request for a serious, real-life answer.

 

I would realize that there is no way I can really control off-site content.

 

I would continue to provide cache owners with the ability to delete posts on the cache listings if they contain spoilers.

 

I would continue to have moderators remove spoiler content from the forums.

 

Ultimately the only control Groundspeak can assert over content is for content which exists on their own servers.

 

Even though they can ban Sven's account, if he has more than a couple of brain cells, he can continue to pull content from the website, find caches, and posts spoilers to his heart's content.

 

However, since he's been officially banned, there's nothing stopping him now from upping the ante and posting more details and really spoiling those caches.

Link to comment

I actually would not mind a TOU that allows spoilers to be posted and only requires that they be taken down if a cache owner requests it, but if only Groundspeak also indicates that abuse by cache owners will not be tolerated. If a cache owner could be banned for claiming a spoiler when there isn't one or flip-flopping on whether they gave permission, perhaps we'd have something closer to a fair system here.

 

Wow!! I think you folks may actually be getting somewhere with that paragraph! That makes sense to me, with the possible exception of the "flip-flopping" clause. The problem I have with that clause is that a cache owner could appear to flip-flop by objecting to more recent changes in content, editing, or even a change in where the information is posted (eg: originally on a rarely visited personal website, now showing on YouTube)

Link to comment

...waits for a player to take the 'bloggers are free from all responsibility' angle and seek out answers to every puzzle cache or great hide or surprise experience they can find, and publish them all, free for anyone. ...Ruining the game for all those COs ...Providing a site the Groundspeak can do nothing about ...run by a user that they are unable to suspend or ban ...forcing every CO affected to either bite the bullet, change their caches, or archive them. Because the blogger has free reign out there, and there's nothing Groundspeak can do to deter it - even the simple act of denying them access to their site.

 

Get real... *sigh*

 

The reality is that there really is nothing Groundspeak can do to deter it, if the blogger decides to post the content in such a way as to keep his blogger account completely separate from his geocaching account. If Groundspeak has no clue what geocacher is blogging, how do you propose they ban him? They certainly have no legal grounds to approach Youtube or blogsRus in order to have the account shut down.

 

I said this a long time ago. Geocaching is based on the honor system and goodwill of all those who participate. It is in everyone's best interest to find common ground on such issues.

 

I think Sandy was on much better ground when she made a proper request of Sven to take down the content. Hopefully, given time and enough people expressing their concerns that his video was a spoiler, perhaps he would have removed the content. Believe it or not, community pressure does work from time to time.

 

But once she pulled the "you have violated the TOU because some of the people in the forums said you did" card, she put Sven on the defensive and he immediately dug his heels in. Instead of trying to reach a mutual agreement between the two parties, Sandy, on behalf of Groundspeak, tried to force the issue and now we're at a point where I fully expect to see lots more spoilers rather than fewer.

Link to comment

So, how would you resolve the conflict between cache owners' preferences and the preferences of bloggers? This is my fourth request for a serious, real-life answer.

So how do you propose to handle this conflict. Sven got a ban. His supporters petitioned to have it reversed. Sven continues to believe he did nothing wrong. Obviously, according to Hobbes the king can dictate whatever laws he wants and the people must obey. That doesn't mean someone's rights didn't get trampled.

I'm reasonably pleased with the way conflicts are handled right now. Groundspeak has determined that bloggers need the owners' permission to publish spoilers for Groundspeak geocaches. If there's a dispute between the parties, then Groundspeak can intervene. If the blogger doesn't like Groundspeak's decision and continues publishing undesired spoilers, then they risk being exiled from the Groundspeak geocaching community.

 

Nobody's rights got trampled. Bloggers still have the right to publish information about caches...even spoilers. But if they ignore an owner's request to remove a spoiler, then they risk having their Groundspeak website privileges revoked. Giving up the right to do whatever you want is the price you pay for joining a civilized community.

 

For the umpteenth time, I have agreed that even though I don't like it, I concede that Groundspeak is the absolute sovereign of who gets to use their site. They can make up any dadgum rule they want and justify it because it fits their perception of the spirit of geocaching.

There's an important difference between not liking a Groundspeak policy and believing those policies are illegitimate. I'm please to see that your view has evolved over time. A couple weeks ago, you wrote:

 

It may be that legally they can ban a geocacher because he shared his geocaching experiences on another site with geocachers who voluntarily looked to see what was on that site despite a warning that there might be spoilers. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, this is ludicrous.

And you didn't seem to recognize that cache owners might have legitimate preferences:

 

If it gets you so ticked off that some did one of your caches without solving the puzzle maybe you shouldn't be hiding puzzle caches.

And you now seem more open-minded than when you wrote this:

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it.

Link to comment

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?

 

Redacted for redundancy

Edited by Maripossa24
Link to comment

 

For the umpteenth time, I have agreed that even though I don't like it, I concede that Groundspeak is the absolute sovereign of who gets to use their site. They can make up any dadgum rule they want and justify it because it fits their perception of the spirit of geocaching.

There's an important difference between not liking a Groundspeak policy and believing those policies are illegitimate. I'm please to see that your view has evolved over time. A couple weeks ago, you wrote:

 

It may be that legally they can ban a geocacher because he shared his geocaching experiences on another site with geocachers who voluntarily looked to see what was on that site despite a warning that there might be spoilers. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, this is ludicrous.

 

Not sure where see that my stance changed here. I agree Groundspeak can create rules in the TOUs and then can enforce them by banning a persons access to the site. But I still think that a rule limiting what information cachers share on third party sits is ludicrous. It doesn't accomplish the goal it sets out to accomplish and in my opinion it is unnecessary. But if Groundspeak feels otherwise then at least provide some assurance that this will not be abused.

 

About the only change I've made on this was way back in an earlier thread on this topic where I said that I didn't agree with the new TOUs. Someone (probably CanadianRockies) pointed that TOUs had a clause (presumably way back when I agreed to them by checking a box) that I did agree to be bound by the current version of the TOUs every time I use site. So now I agree that I (and Sven for that matter) are bound by the TOUs. That still doesn't mean I agree with the TOUs. In order to continue to have access to the site I will not post spoilers without cache owner consent - something that I wasn't likely to do anyhow.

 

Perhaps what you need to open a feedback request that the TOUs be changed so that anyone who says they disagree with the TOUs is banned from geocaching :unsure::ph34r:

 

And you didn't seem to recognize that cache owners might have legitimate preferences:

 

If it gets you so ticked off that some did one of your caches without solving the puzzle maybe you shouldn't be hiding puzzle caches.

And you now seem more open-minded than when you wrote this:

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it.

Yes, here I changed my opinion but the quotes you pick don't really indicate the subtle difference. Originally I referred to control freak cache owners who want to stop spoilers because they can't bear to have someone find a cache in a different matter than they intended. Since then some cache owners have posted here (particularly knowschad and Cezanne) and argued that their motivation is not to prevent someone from using spoilers, but to make sure that the spoilers were not so easy to find that someone who might otherwise have solved the caches "as intended" will either accidentally see the spoiler or otherwise be unable to resist using it. Now, I'm not sure that either of these are much of a problem that cache owners need to worry about it, but I will take back my reference to "control freak".

 

The second quote actually expresses my personal issue with spoilers on a cache page or in a forum discussion. I am one of those caches who prefers to find caches without using spoilers (though there are cases when I use the encrypted hint or look at past logs for a hint). As such I don't like people sending me unsolicited spoilers or hints and often will says something in a DNF log to discourage this. So from my personal point of view, if there are going to be public spoilers, I'd rather see them clearly labeled as such.

 

Sven posted a video talking about how he has spoken to Groundspeak and they agree with him and they are going to get him back online as soon as possible. Problem Solved.

Apparently, the Groundspeak lawyer may have indicated that as currently written Section 4(m) doesn't apply to third party sites. We will have to wait and see if Groundspeak changes the TOUs so that it clearly refers to spoilers posted on third party sites such as YouTube. If they do, then Sven will likely be in hot water again if he doesn't remove the videos the cache owner has complained about. If they don't, you can be sure there will be another proposal in Feedback by some cache owners to do something about spoilers.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Perhaps what you need to open a feedback request that the TOUs be changed so that anyone who says they disagree with the TOUs is banned from geocaching :unsure::ph34r:

Why would I request something I don't want? :huh: When you create a "straw man" to attack, you simply look foolish.

 

Yes, here I changed my opinion but the quotes you pick don't really indicate the subtle difference.

There's a huge difference between your earlier view that there's only one reasonable argument against spoilers...

 

The only reasonable argument against spoilers is to allow those finders who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it.

...versus your current view that such an argument is only your personal view...

 

[The above] quote actually expresses my personal issue with spoilers on a cache page or in a forum discussion.... So from my personal point of view, if there are going to be public spoilers, I'd rather see them clearly labeled as such.

Now, you seem much more open-minded about the possibility that other geocachers also might have other reasonable arguments against spoilers. And that's a good thing, for which I commend you.

Link to comment

Now, you seem much more open-minded about the possibility that other geocachers also might have other reasonable arguments against spoilers. And that's a good thing, for which I commend you.

What you see here was the process of my changing my position on one thing. Early on I stated a belief that cache owners were so insistent on being able to get spoilers removed from third party site because they wanted to control how their cache were found. Several cache owners provided some different reasons and I accept that there are other motivations at work. I believe the quote you keep harping on was in a response to one of their posts. I was probably mulling over my own desired to avoid spoilers when I cache when I said the only reasonable argument against spoilers was to allow finder who don't want inadvertently see a spoiler to be able to see the cache without it. I'm sorry I said it because now someone wants to use to catch me in a contradiction.

 

You know we could view this as a debate and declare you the winner because my position changed, or we could view this as forum discussion where we make try points hoping to convince the other side (and TPTB) to move a little toward our position. I've been willing to move on the issue of what motivates cache owners to want to stop spoilers. I haven't agreed with all the reasons they have given. Even this reason, which I have sympathy with, I don't feel is that great of a problem if the spoilers are clearly labeled as such.

 

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

Link to comment

If they do, then Sven will likely be in hot water again if he doesn't remove the videos the cache owner has complained about. If they don't, you can be sure there will be another proposal in Feedback by some cache owners to do something about spoilers.

I'm led to believe that Sven HAS removed all the videos that were complained about. He's still staying banned. There has been a LOT of goalpost-moving going on in this saga.

 

I can't be sure that all such videos have gone because on a practical level they are very difficult to use as spoilers.

For example, a few weeks ago I searched for a very well-hidden traditional cache. Despite the whole area being trampled down by numerous visitors I saw no sign of anything resembling a cache, nor anything that the hint might have referred to. A couple of weeks ago I saw that a note had been added to the cache page, saying that because of a spoiler video the cache was to be archived. I also noticed that Sven was one of the recent finders, and it seems pretty obvious that this is one of the videos complained about.

So I set about finding the spoiler video; now that the cache is about to go I might as well see where the darned thing was hidden. Could I identify the correct video? No way, even after checking every one of them. It's clearly not that big a problem, even when people are going out of their way to find a spoiler. I can't identify the cache here as it would identify the owner which wouldn't be fair as I haven't checked with him first.

 

Since then the note has been removed, I'm guessing as a result of the Youtube video being removed, so it's lucky that I didn't see the video (or perhaps unlucky for me!).

Link to comment

I'm led to believe that Sven HAS removed all the videos that were complained about. He's still staying banned. There has been a LOT of goalpost-moving going on in this saga.

 

Sven removed all videos that had ever been mentioned by Groundspeak after a lengthy phonecall with them. Then once he confirmed this was done Groundspeak found more videos they wanted removed, ones that had never been mentioned previously by either the or a cach owner....

 

Sven feels more than a bit miffed.

 

As I said before, disregarding the rights or wrongs of any of the arguments here or what Sven did. I find groundspeaks actions here unamusing.

Link to comment

You know we could view this as a debate and declare you the winner because my position changed, or we could view this as forum discussion where we make try points hoping to convince the other side (and TPTB) to move a little toward our position.

Personally, I don't view discussions like this as competitions with winners and losers. If an exchange of ideas helps people broaden their views and understand how others feel, then we all win, even if nobody changes their position.

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

 

Somehow I feel you would be in opposition to anything suggested, but at least we can agree on the giving away of final coordinates for multis and mystery caches. I think most would agree with that one.

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

Giving out hints, spoilers, even videos, isn't all that bad if it's remaining within the game only, although I'd like the Cache Owner to be granted the courtesy of deciding what to reveal -- if I want to post a video of my cache, I'll do that myself, thanks.

 

But the OP's spam ad (which this what this thread is for), placing for profit such spoilers of other people's caches for the whole world to see, is what I find disgusting. The proponents who then arrive in support of the practice are just as bad. The fact that “nobody can do anything about it” is irrelevant. If a thing is wrong, it's wrong regardless if the person saying so has the power to prevent the wrong.

 

Suppose there's an Easter egg hunt. Even if the entire family knows where I hid them, it remains a fun game. But suppose a friend of mine finds out where I hid them. My friend tells a bunch of miscreants, who arrive and trash the Easter egg hunt with glee, saying “that sure was fun, more of that please!”. Some people around here will insist “you can't stop them, so it's OK”. The “friend” will say “I had permission (OK I didn't so just try and stop me), why does the Easter Bunny hate me, well then you should pick your friends more carefully next time, go watch these videos since I get paid for each view and tell me what you think.”

 

I'd rather be allowed to play the game, without some bad apples ruining it.

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

 

Somehow I feel you would be in opposition to anything suggested, but at least we can agree on the giving away of final coordinates for multis and mystery caches. I think most would agree with that one.

 

Actually, you did not make a suggestion regarding the version you would like to see. Your arguments brought forward in this thread made me believe that you feel that publishing the final coordinates of multi caches or mystery caches (and of course also posting videos und photos from which the location can be clearly deduced) is ok. Did you change your mind?

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

My personal preference is to find caches without using spoilers. I would guess I'm not the only one. But other people may be willing to find caches with different degrees of help. Ideally, cache owners would be willing to give help to anyone who asks so their caches can be found. But this is not always the case. And even if it is, contacting the the cache owner is not always an easy thing to do. So people will seek out any help the can find for a cache.

 

My preference is to allow those who want to find caches without spoiler to do so and to allow those who want to exchange spoilers to do so. I realize that putting spoilers in certain very public places (such as on the cache page itself) may make it hard for the first group. But cache owners can remove spoilers posted on the cache page already. Besides there isn't as much of an issue, if Groundspeak wants to limit spoilers on Groundspeak sites as there is with them trying to limit spoilers on other sites.

 

Now you (Cezanne) have suggested that you make some caches "difficult" in order to limit the number of visitors to the final, and that if these caches were spoiled you would have to archive them because they would could not withstand the additional traffic. This is hard for me to fathom based on my experience, but I suppose it's possible that in some area in Europe, there may be significant numbers cachers who generally avoid puzzles and multi but would find them if spoilers are available. I'd like to see more evidence that this is the case. If it is, then I will agree that posting the coordinates of a puzzle or multi cache on a spoiler website can have negative consequences.

 

I suppose a similar argument can be made for clever camouflage like the caches Sven featured. However here we have an issue of people who look for these caches and can't find them. They end up trampling the vegetation or taking apart sprinklers or walls looking for a cache hidden in some unexpected way. If instead they see a spoiler video, then can narrow their search and find the cache with less damage. Spoilers make even protect the cache itself, by giving a finder the understanding of how to remove the cache and open it to sign the log, instead of forcing it because they've never seen this kind of container. What's more, a site like Sven's isn't going to result in a lot more people visiting the cache site. Someone visiting the East Midlands can look at Sven's videos but would have no idea which caches are being featured. They would not be able to go find the cache now that it has been spoiled because they still have no idea which cache it is.

 

The main problem I have is a one size fits all approach. The TOUs as written (particularly if interpreted to apply to third party sites) invite abuse from cache owners. If Groundspeak would provide a narrow definition of spoiler instead of writing something they can interpret as broadly as they desire so it becomes the moving goalposts that Happy Humphrey refers to, this would be a move in the right direction.

Link to comment

The fact that “nobody can do anything about it” is irrelevant. If a thing is wrong, it's wrong regardless if the person saying so has the power to prevent the wrong.

 

It's not irrelevant. The fact that you have no real control over it is the very reason you should attempt to come to some amicable solution. It's also why you should take care in where you draw your lines.

 

The only relevant claim of spoiler is the argument that the videos spoil the idea of the cache. That's the only real reason I see for CO's to be upset with these videos.

 

And frankly, that is not nearly as egregious as posting coordinates or even posting the gc code for caches.

 

Instead of making a big stink about videos that are really no worse than the CCC thread, Groundspeak should instead reserve making contact with the video poster for those situations in which the spoilage is a bit more severe. If they came across a video like the one with the GC code showing, then I'm sure that a polite request explaining how the GC code showing in the video could lead others directly to the cache would probably result in Sven agreeing and pulling the video.

 

In other words, pick your battles so you don't get pulled into a war.

Link to comment

My personal preference is to find caches without using spoilers. I would guess I'm not the only one.

 

My question was rather whether you find it acceptable that e.g. the final coordinates of multi caches and mystery caches are published, not whether you would use such sites.

 

But other people may be willing to find caches with different degrees of help. Ideally, cache owners would be willing to give help to anyone who asks so their caches can be found. But this is not always the case. And even if it is, contacting the the cache owner is not always an easy thing to do. So people will seek out any help the can find for a cache.

 

And my stance on this is that there should be limits on what is regarded by the community as good style.

For example, asking for the final coordinates of a 120km multi cache does not fall into the category "asking for help".

 

 

Now you (Cezanne) have suggested that you make some caches "difficult" in order to limit the number of visitors to the final, and that if these caches were spoiled you would have to archive them because they would could not withstand the additional traffic. This is hard for me to fathom based on my experience, but I suppose it's possible that in some area in Europe, there may be significant numbers cachers who generally avoid puzzles and multi but would find them if spoilers are available.

 

Actually, there are not only those who generally avoid puzzles and ignore them if no spoilers are available, but who rather hate such caches that much that they like to do everything that ruins such caches and/or frustrates the cache owners that much that they archive such caches and do not hide any further. Certainly these group is smaller than the group of those who just would use spoiler sites, but they have a lot of power.

 

I suppose a similar argument can be made for clever camouflage like the caches Sven featured. However here we have an issue of people who look for these caches and can't find them. They end up trampling the vegetation or taking apart sprinklers or walls looking for a cache hidden in some unexpected way. If instead they see a spoiler video, then can narrow their search and find the cache with less damage. Spoilers make even protect the cache itself, by giving a finder the understanding of how to remove the cache and open it to sign the log, instead of forcing it because they've never seen this kind of container.

 

I agree, but still I think it's the cache owner who finally should be able to decide (in case of conflict Groundspeak can and should step in). I typically mention in my logs for caches where I become aware of damage to the area that a hint or a better hint might be helpful and I am not a fan of certain types of hiding styles.

 

Personally, I think that sometimes spoiler videos as Sven's also have the converse effect than the one you mention above, namely when viewed by very unexperienced cachers living far away. They are exposed to a lot of creative ways to hide a cache and then try to disassemble various objects around the cache at their next hunt just because they have come across such hiding styles. Within this thread several cachers with very few finds who have not attended a single event, claimed that they learnt a lot from Sven's videos. I am sceptic about this and I think that it would be better if unexperienced cachers first get more experience and meet with other cachers before dealing with tricky containers and hideouts.

 

 

The main problem I have is a one size fits all approach.

 

We agree on that point. That's why I asked with what you would come up that is not one-sided.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I still believe there are good reasons to allow the sharing of cache information even without the consent of the cache owner. I'd like a solution that recognizes this and isn't so one sided in favor of cache owners.

 

I do not feel that giving away the final coordinates of multi or mystery caches or the exact hideout of a traditional is just "cache information". That's possibly giving away everything to everybody. There should be a limit in this respect, and this limit is not only an issue relevant to cache owners.

 

If the solution you would like to see means that it is ok to give away everything about a cache without consent, then I am in opposition.

 

Cezanne

 

Somehow I feel you would be in opposition to anything suggested, but at least we can agree on the giving away of final coordinates for multis and mystery caches. I think most would agree with that one.

 

Actually, you did not make a suggestion regarding the version you would like to see. Your arguments brought forward in this thread made me believe that you feel that publishing the final coordinates of multi caches or mystery caches (and of course also posting videos und photos from which the location can be clearly deduced) is ok. Did you change your mind?

 

Cezanne

 

No, I have NEVER said publishing of coords was ok. Feel free to point it out if you think otherwise.

 

Most of my posts in this thread have been centered around Groundspeak choosing the wrong reason for the ban of Sven and the fact that the TOU does not say what they intended for it to say. I have also said they have no business trying to dictate what others do outside their servers. This is not the same thing as saying I am ok with the posting of coords to multis and puzzles.

 

I have said that there is no way to control what is published outside of Groundspeak's servers.

 

I have said that Groundspeak should continue to provide tools to CO's to delete such posts from the cache pages and they should continue to have moderators remove such content from the forums.

 

They should also continue to educate members how some CO's feel about the subject so they are at least aware that some do not like having their caches spoiled.

 

But rather than try controlling every video that might spoil the idea of a cache placement, they should probably concentrate their efforts on situations where obvious and egregious spoilage has occurred. And rather than being heavy handed, they should probably realize how little actual control they have over such behavior. Realizing this lack of control, perhaps they would be encouraged to choose negotiation/education over strong arm tactics.

Link to comment
The main problem I have is a one size fits all approach. The TOUs as written (particularly if interpreted to apply to third party sites) invite abuse from cache owners.

Stop saying that.

If Groundspeak would provide a narrow definition of spoiler instead of writing something they can interpret as broadly as they desire so it becomes the moving goalposts that Happy Humphrey refers to, this would be a move in the right direction.

You're traveling the slippery slope.

There is no evidence that Groundspeak would pay any attention to what they feel is not a spoiler, regardless of whether the CO complains.

 

What they've set up is, inherenty, and naturally, a neutral position - not favouring the CO or the 'spoiler'. They will decide one way or another on each instance a CO may complain - after the CO has initiated contact with the 'spoiler'. That is the process they've demonstrated.

 

This particular case has clearly been FAR more complex than just "the CO complained about something that's not really a spoiler, and Groundspeak banned Sven".

 

Arguing about TOU itself, the standard situation is not Sven's, it's the former. If a CO complains, that does not mean Groundspeak is obliged to take action in every single case.

 

While the ability for the CO to complain itself favours the CO (sort of like a player logging a NA), the flexibility remains easily to favour the player if what they're sharing is not indeed a 'spoiler' (as defined by Groundspeak - for the fun of all players, COs and Finders alike - not as defined by the CO).

 

In short: The TOU sets Groundspeak up as a neutral moderator in situations that a conflict arises between the CO and a player who has published content the CO considers a spoiler on a third party site. As the neutral moderator, they make the judgement call.

That's it. That's all.

 

After that, then you deal with what Groundspeak considers a spoiler within the context of the complaint, not what the CO considers a spoiler. Can they be more clear about their definition of a spoiler? Perhaps. But there are numerous threads here arguing about vagueness and flexibility of Groundspeak TOU and guidelines. Take a number =P

 

Point being - the right that Groundspeak has to take action against a player who willing breaks their TOU, provided a conflict arose between community members about cache spoilers, is entirely legitimate and correct. Groundspeak must retain the right to suspend/ban users from their servers at their will, for whatever reason they see fit.

Link to comment

Personally, I think that sometimes spoiler videos as Sven's also have the converse effect than the one you mention above, namely when viewed by very unexperienced cachers living far away. They are exposed to a lot of creative ways to hide a cache and then try to disassemble various objects around the cache at their next hunt just because they have come across such hiding styles. Within this thread several cachers with very few finds who have not attended a single event, claimed that they learnt a lot from Sven's videos. I am sceptic about this and I think that it would be better if unexperienced cachers first get more experience and meet with other cachers before dealing with tricky containers and hideouts.

 

That is perhaps your worst argument to date. Rather than being a valid argument against spoilers, that is more an argument against creative hides altogether.

Link to comment

Suppose there's an Easter egg hunt. Even if the entire family knows where I hid them, it remains a fun game. But suppose a friend of mine finds out where I hid them. My friend tells a bunch of miscreants, who arrive and trash the Easter egg hunt with glee, saying “that sure was fun, more of that please!”. Some people around here will insist “you can't stop them, so it's OK”. The “friend” will say “I had permission (OK I didn't so just try and stop me), why does the Easter Bunny hate me, well then you should pick your friends more carefully next time, go watch these videos since I get paid for each view and tell me what you think.”

 

I'd rather be allowed to play the game, without some bad apples ruining it.

Suppose there are a group of kids at the Easter egg hunt with ADD or some similar disorder who get very frustrated looking for the eggs. Now, you have some idea that fairness dictates that no child gets any help because that would "spoil" the hunt, but your friend decides its better to help these kids who are frustrated. In order to be fair to all the kids he says "any one who needs help can come to me and I tell them where the eggs are". Now the ADD kids are happy because they can find eggs too. Sure there may be some kids who could have found the eggs on their own who take advantage of the help. Perhaps they will learn that is is more fun to find eggs rather than be told where they are hidden and next time won't opt for the "easy way".

 

Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to Sven starting this thread? He clearly was concerned when Groundspeak started telling him what he could or couldn't post on his YouTube channel. It seems to me that Sven likes to share his geocaching experiences, particular when he finds a particularly clever hide. While it seems simple enough to ask each cache owner for permission to feature their cache, this isn't the way things happen in general. Bloggers post reviews of books, movies, new iPhones, etc. without having to get permission. While sometimes permission for using photos, video, and other copyright material is sought, fair use doctrine means that it is not always necessary. Why can't you believe that Sven acted in good faith, believing that fair use allows him to show the caches he found? He clearly takes steps to not identify the cache (Sure you might see a GC code flash by in one of his videos and perhaps if you have been to a cache he features you can identify it, but if you are looking for a spoiler for a particular cache it would not show up in a search.). It also seems that there are many people who enjoy seeing videos of clever hides. They are inspired to hide similar caches and this improves the overall "quality" of caches for everyone. Perhaps Sven's motivation is to improve the quality of geocaching.

Link to comment
The main problem I have is a one size fits all approach. The TOUs as written (particularly if interpreted to apply to third party sites) invite abuse from cache owners.

Stop saying that.

If Groundspeak would provide a narrow definition of spoiler instead of writing something they can interpret as broadly as they desire so it becomes the moving goalposts that Happy Humphrey refers to, this would be a move in the right direction.

You're traveling the slippery slope.

There is no evidence that Groundspeak would pay any attention to what they feel is not a spoiler, regardless of whether the CO complains.

 

This particular case has clearly been FAR more complex than just "the CO complained about something that's not really a spoiler, and Groundspeak banned Sven".

 

Incorrect Sven was initially asked to remove a video that didn't even show a geocache.....It only showed the Nuclear bunker, something which the CO tells everyone about in the descripion AND is shown frequently throughout photos in the cache page.

 

Sven's video wasn't a spoiler by any measure, yet Groundspeak sent the email and made the demands.

Link to comment

Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to Sven starting this thread? He clearly was concerned when Groundspeak started telling him what he could or couldn't post on his YouTube channel.

 

Actually, Groundspeak (Sandy, to be precise) started this whole thing by "requesting" the removal of a video. She started the way she should have.

 

Then he brought the issue to the forums. Whether it was for honest debate or in order to drive traffic to his Youtube channel is debatable.

 

What is clear is that prior to his bringing it to the forums, Sandy was under the proper impression that Groundspeak could not require him to remove the video and some healthy debate about what consitutes spoilage ensued.

 

But after the discussion turned to the TOU and some made the incorrect argument that the TOU forbid the publishing of spoilers anywhere, Sandy did an about face and decided to use strong arm tactics by then threatening a ban.

 

From that point on, focus was sort of lost on trying define an acceptable community definition of spoiler that could be accepted by reasonable members of the community.

 

It turned more into legalistic defintions of spoilage with Sven changing up and saying that his videos absolutely were not spoilers since now he needed to find a loophole to get out of his ban.

 

And on the other side people like Cezanne trying to define a very broad legalistic definition of spoilers which is just not enforceable in any reasonable manner.

 

IMHO, what we should concentrate on is what constitutes a reasonable request to remove content due to spoilage. Not some legalistic definition whereby Groundspeak can say remove it or you're banned. But rather a definition where you could go to someone and say this is what the community at large has requested be respected when taking photos or making videos to be published in blogs. A definition that takes into account finders as well as the CO's. Right now, it seems a bit one sided.

Link to comment
Suppose there are a group of kids at the Easter egg hunt with ADD or some similar disorder who get very frustrated looking for the eggs.

Ok, so anyone who can't solve a puzzle or find a cache has a natural attention disorder. If they approached the hider, maybe they'd have compassion and help.

 

In order to be fair to all the kids he says "any one who needs help can come to me and I tell them where the eggs are". Now the ADD kids are happy because they can find eggs too.

The hider would probably have been happier had the ADD kids asked for help, or someone had asked them to help the ADD kids - the one who "decided" it was better to help regardless of the hider's opinion.

 

Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to Sven starting this thread?

Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to any CO who wishes to ensure the integrity of their cache is retained against people who demand their rights to spoil it elsewhere?

 

It seems to me that Sven likes to share his geocaching experiences, particular when he finds a particularly clever hide.

Like we suggested MUCH earlier in this thread, there are alternate ways to do that, besides disrespecting a CO's wishes.

 

While it seems simple enough to ask each cache owner for permission to feature their cache

That's not what's being suggested.

 

Why can't you believe that Sven acted in good faith, believing that fair use allows him to show the caches he found?

If that was the precise story also provided by Groundspeak, I'd personally be more willing to believe it. As it is right now, evidence provided by both sides favours the CO at this point. (and many of the sentiments offered in this thread regarding the greater issue at hand have helped sway some of my own opinions)

 

It also seems that there are many people who enjoy seeing videos of clever hides. They are inspired to hide similar caches and this improves the overall "quality" of caches for everyone. Perhaps Sven's motivation is to improve the quality of geocaching.

No one denies that is a benefit of sharing. No one is arguing against that.

 

Incorrect Sven was initially asked to remove a video that didn't even show a geocache.....It only showed the Nuclear bunker, something which the CO tells everyone about in the descripion AND is shown frequently throughout photos in the cache page.

As emphasized, the situation grew far more complex than that before Sven was suspended.

Once again, with no one here having the full, objective story, all we can base our opinions on for this particular case is what we've heard from Groundspeak, what we've heard from Sven, and the opinions of said parties within this thread.

Not looking good for Sven&Cup.

 

Why did I come back? I should put this thread on ignore now :P

Link to comment
IMHO, what we should concentrate on is what constitutes a reasonable request to remove content due to spoilage. Not some legalistic definition whereby Groundspeak can say remove it or you're banned. But rather a definition where you could go to someone and say this is what the community at large has requested be respected when taking photos or making videos to be published in blogs. A definition that takes into account finders as well as the CO's. Right now, it seems a bit one sided.

This.(on the part about allowing the community to 'define' what is a spoiler, except it would need to be case by case, and Groundspeak would still be under no obligation to adhere to that - but it would ease community tension a bit at least)

 

/me (anonymously) registers SpoilerOrNot.com and sets up HotOrNot vote engine

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to Sven starting this thread?

Why must you ascribe bad or selfish intentions to any CO who wishes to ensure the integrity of their cache is retained against people who demand their rights to spoil it elsewhere?

I have changed my stand on this. Initially I argued that cache owners who wanted to prevent spoilers were some kind of control freaks with unreasonable expectations of what they could control. After several well thought out responses by cache owners as to why they want to prevent or at least reduce spoilers on their caches, I now accept that not all cache owners who want to limit spoilers are control freaks with unreasonable expectations.

 

I still believe there are some, though perhaps only a very small number, and that the TOUs as written are open to abuse by these cache owners. Despite what you say, this thread provides some evidence of this. The original video that Sven was asked to remove showed no more that the what the cache owner already showed on the cache page, and complied with the cache owner's request not to show the cache or the specific hiding spot. It appears that Groundspeak did not take that into consideration in asking for Sven to remove it.

 

I do not have details of the subsequent videos Sven was asked to remove. I understand that Sven at least believes these videos where not spoilers in the sense that the TOUs were meant to limit. Like others, he may agree that the coordinates of a puzzle or a final of a multi are spoilers but a picture of a cool cache container that isn't identified as a particular cache is not.

 

I will admit that I have taken a stance that is less popular and am no doubt in a minority. I tend to view things in degrees rather than as black and white. So I have difficulty deciding where to draw the line as to what is a spoiler. So I do argue that we should accept spoilers happen. Instead of punishing people for sharing we should encourage sharing that promotes the most fun for everyone. Cache owners with legitimate concerns that spoilers harm their cache should be allowed to ask for these to be removed. Groundspeak may choose to support cache owners by sanctioning the most egregious spoiler sites. But they should provide a documented way for bloggers to protect themselves against vindictive and arbitrary cache owners. At the very least sache owners should have to make a case why their cache is harmed.

Link to comment

 

And on the other side people like Cezanne trying to define a very broad legalistic definition of spoilers which is just not enforceable in any reasonable manner.

 

Actually, I think that whichever policy one comes up with, it will never be enforcable outside of gc.com. In my opinion, it still helps a lot, however, to provide some process which allows effected cache owners to complain with the result that Groundspeak will look into the case, and even more importantly, to make it clear that disclosing what constitutes the heart of a cache in public without the cache owner's consent is not within the spirit of geocaching.

 

I already mentioned that publishing the final coordinates of a multi cache or a mystery cache or providing any information that allows one to visit the final without the coordinates falls in the category "disclosing the heart of a cache". Likewise, I'd say that showing the hideout of a tricky cache in a video or on a photo falls in this category as well.

 

Certainly, it is very hard to draw the line between spoiler and non spoiler and I have mentioned some examples in this thread. If a spoiler is only a minor one, I personally would not fight for its removal. I would be willing, however, to fight against unwanted spoilers which attack the heart of a cache. For example, if someone just writes that he found the final of a cache at the roots of a tree and it is known that the cache is located in a forest area and the hideout is not the heart of the cache, I might or might not contact the person about his log/blog entry, but never would take the case to Groundspeak. If someone discloses the location of a hard puzzle cache or the final of a long hiking cache, I'd be much more inclined to take actions if a polite mail asking for removal of the spoiler were denied.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
I still believe there are some, though perhaps only a very small number, and that the TOUs as written are open to abuse by these cache owners.

The only effect of this "abuse" will be endless emails and complaints to Groundspeak. There's no reason they won't only pay due attention to legitimate concerns. Who cares how much a CO complains if Groundspeak deems the complaints insignificant? This is why I say stop saying "open to abuse by COs". The COs don't determine Groundspeak's actions - Groundspeak does. Beyond that, we will see no effect.

 

Instead of punishing people for sharing we should encourage sharing that promotes the most fun for everyone.

Yes. Which is why Groundspeak will take action against players whose intent is to ruin caches for their COs (which can result in archival by the CO, which means less geocaches, and less fun for everyone). In the case of a (legitimate) spoiler... It can be edited and retain its awesomeness. Or recreated to not be related to any particular cache. Or removed to make the CO happy. Or which can remain published as is, upsetting the CO and forcing an adjustment (thus making the spoiler itself possibly irrelevant), or an archival (thus making the spoiler itself possibly irrelevant), or prompting suspension and/or banning from the geocaching community. These are all valid outcomes.

 

It still seems to me that adjusting the spoiler (so it can remain and continue to be awesome and inspirational) or removing it outright is the best solution for all involved, and for the community. Before it even hits Groundspeak's judgement call!

 

Cache owners with legitimate concerns that spoilers harm their cache should be allowed to ask for these to be removed. Groundspeak may choose to support cache owners by sanctioning the most egregious spoiler sites. But they should provide a documented way for bloggers to protect themselves against vindictive and arbitrary cache owners. At the very least sache owners should have to make a case why their cache is harmed.

Exactly! And... how is this not already in place?

Sven shared a video (multiple videos actually)

The CO(s) made a case to Groundspeak.

Groundspeak felt that the complaint was legitimate, and warranted stepping in. (** as I mentioned above, this case is not 'cut and dry'; mainly, there are many other bloggers and videographers who have not been affected by this ruling; so why Sven? There's obviously more here than simply 'sharing a video that's not a spoiler' as repeatedly claimed)

In this case, Sven's account was given suspension due to the outcome of the exchange. Sven can still geocache. He can still publish spoilers. But not with this suspended account.

Hopefully others will see this case, and the actions taken by and against Sven, and it will be a deterrent of others doing the same thing in the future.

This action is a deterrent, not a firewall. Spoilers will still exist out there. But people should know that forcefully claiming rights to publish spoilers against CO wishes (only those spoilers which Groundspeak deems legitimate) will result in suspension and/or banishment from the geocaching.com community.

 

The COs cannot "abuse" this right. You can only disagree with Groundspeak's judgement about what constitutes a legitimate spoiler, after the CO has made the complaint.

 

The ideal situation? Again?

Situation: CO contacts publisher of the spoiler, asking removal of said spoiler. The publisher then --

 

A) understands the request, and either removes said spoiler, or alters it so as not to be related in any way to the CO's cache. Or

B) insists it's not a spoiler, and the CO complains to Groundspeak, who agrees with the publisher that it's not a sufficient spoiler; the CO then decides what to do about the cache himself. Or

C) insists it's not a spoiler, and the CO complains to Groundspeak, who agrees with the CO that it is a sufficient spoiler to warrant action; the publisher then steps aside and reluctantly either removes said spoiler, or alters it so as not to be related in any way to the CO's cache. Or

D) insists it's not a spoiler, and the CO complains to Groundspeak, who agrees with the CO that it is a sufficient spoiler to warrant action; the publisher then continues to insist it's not a spoiler, prompting consequential action by Groundspeak in the suspension and/or banning of the publisher's account, with the goal that © be the resolution. The CO and Groundspeak understand that the spoiler will continue to remain, but there is nothing further they can do about it, and the CO is forced to alter the cache, or archive it, or live with the cache they published which they now feel is 'spoiled'.

 

MOST situations will end at A.

The so-called "abusers" will end at B.

People who don't want to make a scene or take the effort to fight will end at C.

Sven chose D. This thread is the result.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

snip..

You sure are confident that Groundspeak is reviewing the complaints and is not taking action on those which are unreasonable. I'd prefer to hear this from Groundspeak along with an explanation of why the complaint about the bunker video was acted on. I prefer not to blindly accept that Groundspeak is doing something that a. they haven't said they are going to do and b. we have a example where on first appearances at least they didn't do it.

 

(Yes I know Sven wasn't banned for the bunker video, but Sandy did in fact invoke the TOUs along with the nebulous "spirit of geocaching" as justification from Sven being asked to remove it).

Link to comment

 

And on the other side people like Cezanne trying to define a very broad legalistic definition of spoilers which is just not enforceable in any reasonable manner.

 

Actually, I think that whichever policy one comes up with, it will never be enforcable outside of gc.com. In my opinion, it still helps a lot, however, to provide some process which allows effected cache owners to complain with the result that Groundspeak will look into the case, and even more importantly, to make it clear that disclosing what constitutes the heart of a cache in public without the cache owner's consent is not within the spirit of geocaching.

 

I already mentioned that publishing the final coordinates of a multi cache or a mystery cache or providing any information that allows one to visit the final without the coordinates falls in the category "disclosing the heart of a cache". Likewise, I'd say that showing the hideout of a tricky cache in a video or on a photo falls in this category as well.

 

Certainly, it is very hard to draw the line between spoiler and non spoiler and I have mentioned some examples in this thread. If a spoiler is only a minor one, I personally would not fight for its removal. I would be willing, however, to fight against unwanted spoilers which attack the heart of a cache. For example, if someone just writes that he found the final of a cache at the roots of a tree and it is known that the cache is located in a forest area and the hideout is not the heart of the cache, I might or might not contact the person about his log/blog entry, but never would take the case to Groundspeak. If someone discloses the location of a hard puzzle cache or the final of a long hiking cache, I'd be much more inclined to take actions if a polite mail asking for removal of the spoiler were denied.

 

Cezanne

 

First, I will just reiterate that I do believe Sven's videos ARE spoilers.

 

But I think the disconnect between us is in the severity of such spoilers. You seem to be convinced that Sven's spoilers are of the type that can lead someone directly to the cache. I think they are only of the type that give up the type of hide, very similar to the photos in the CCC thread.

 

While it "might" be possible to ascertain the location of a hide by viewing his videos, it certainly would not be easy except for the one that shows the GC code.

 

I would argue that it would probably be easier to dig through all the previous logs on the listing for information than it would be to match his videos to cache listings.

 

I might be convinced that once someone has visited ground zero on an initial search of the area that by going through all the videos one by one they might be able to recognize the location and thus discover the location. But it certainly is not a straight forward way of spoiling the location.

 

That's why even though I think his videos fall under a broad definition of spoilers, they're not really the type of videos Groundspeak should be mediating. They are, imho, pretty benign. (and not a violation of the TOU, as currently written)

Link to comment

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.

 

Oh, I have no problem in understanding why some people might think it's nasty or mean or spoils their "fun" or whatever (and, fwiw, I have the imagination to do that no matter how many finds or hides I have). I'm sure I might be annoyed in the case you cite - but I'm also realistic enough to understand that the internet is a very big place and that that sort of thing might happen.

 

It's not a question of not understanding - indeed, it's actually because I think I understand some of the ways that the internet works :-)

Link to comment

(Yes I know Sven wasn't banned for the bunker video, but Sandy did in fact invoke the TOUs along with the nebulous "spirit of geocaching" as justification from Sven being asked to remove it).

 

If only she had banned him for posting links in the forums... an actual TOU violation. :anibad:

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

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.

 

Oh, I understand that - as I've said and, as I think you mentioned also, they can ban anyone they want at anytime for any reason.

 

Practically I think they're rather silly to do so - it strikes me as both impractical (given the size and nature of the internets) and, if they link any ban to specific off-site behaviour, potentially one of those oh so convenient freedom of speech issues. It won't come to that of course, but that's what picqued my interest in all of this.

Link to comment

"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.

 

I understand precisely why it might not be a useful, helpful, pleasant etc... thing for someone to do. I can imagine why a cache owner might be annoyed, cross, angry etc... about it. I just think it's utterly impractical to police and, as I've suggested above, I'm really unconvinced that "favouring" a cache owner over another user can in anyway be considered fair in terms of freedom of expression.

 

Sorry to reply with the same thing - I'm simply concerned that people understand that I do "get it". My concerns are a combination of practical and fundamental issues.

Link to comment

I'm really unconvinced that "favouring" a cache owner over another user can in anyway be considered fair in terms of freedom of expression.

 

Freedom of expression still exists as someone can decide not to comply to Groundspeak's request. Freedom of expression does not mean that one can behave as one wants. BTW: Without cache owners there are no caches to seek out.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
BTW: Without cache owners there are no caches to seek out.

 

Oh, I get that entirely. Personally I've no interest in annoying cache owners most of the time.

Does that mean you have no interest in doing anything that would annoy cache owners, or does it mean you have no interest in cache owners who do things that annoy you? :unsure:

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