YouTube Videos

[+Ve8]

I have not seen the full reasons behind this and there could be more to this but I thought it was worth bringing this to the attention of the wider community for two reasons. Firstly to get an open response from Groundspeak (you never know ) and secondly to make others aware so they don't make a simular mistake.

 

Very recently Sven. had his Geocaching.com account locked, he has publicly posted that one of the reasons behind this action relate to his YouTube channel which features imaginative hides, this channel has also inspired others to place more creative caches.

 

I have previously appealed on Svens behalf to Groundspeak stated that guidelines on videos on images only apply to geocaching.com and forums.Groundspeak.com. In their response to my appeal they said that as Sven's online activities could not be controlled outside of Groundspeak's sites the only option open to them would be to restrict his access to gc.com.

 

Imagine if a family decided to go out for a sunny afternoons caching and decided to video their experience then innocently place it on YouTube to share with friends - Would they be breach of the rules? Would they be at risk of getting their GC account locked?

 

I know it would be common courtesy to ask a CO permission to film their cache but regardless of opinion the copyrights of the media remain with the author allowing them to use it as they wish... do ammo cans now require a model release

[Neath Worthies]

It is sad that someone who obviously feels passionate about Geocaching has run foul of Groundspeak's desire to maintain absolute control of their view of how the game should be played. It is clear from the whole "Sven episode" than one cannot question the company nor their representatives without fear of censorship or sanction. It should be recognised that Groundspeak is a private commercial company and that they can do whatever they want, within the law, to their customers.

 

However I would have hoped that a mature and responsible company would exercise ultimate power with a little more delicacy than has been shown in this case. I also hope that the power of censorship be restrained to allow a wide ranging discussion here.

 

In Sven's case now that his account has been "locked" does this imply he cannot maintain his caches? In which case will they be allowed to remain active? Also what happens to his Premium Membership fees?

[+Aggrajag]

Having read a fair bit of the related thread (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=281183&st=0) I do think that your post is a little one-sided and is not presenting the whole story. I'm not going to take sides either way but I think people need to read more before they make a comment.

 

[edit: I've re-read my post and your post and it sounds like I was having a dig - I wasn't. I was just trying to say it's a huge issue and needs a lot of reading to see all the muck that's being thrown about in several directions.]

Edited October 14, 2011 by Aggrajag

[+Happy Humphrey]

There are lots of spoiler videos on Youtube, and spoiler photos and videos in various places. I imagine that Groundspeak have a full-time job tracking down all the miscreants and banning them. It seems to take quite a bit of detective work, judging from what we know about the pursuit of Sven.

 

Here is an example of the worst type of spoiler photo and video list. Possibly the owners of the web site allowing publication of these photos should be approached, and if they refuse to remove the offending posts then drastic action should be taken against them. Or at least, the web site owners should provide Groundspeak with the identities of all the contributors so that they can be banned.

[+OMUK]

There are lots of spoiler videos on Youtube, and spoiler photos and videos in various places. I imagine that Groundspeak have a full-time job tracking down all the miscreants and banning them. It seems to take quite a bit of detective work, judging from what we know about the pursuit of Sven.

 

Here is an example of the worst type of spoiler photo and video list. Possibly the owners of the web site allowing publication of these photos should be approached, and if they refuse to remove the offending posts then drastic action should be taken against them. Or at least, the web site owners should provide Groundspeak with the identities of all the contributors so that they can be banned.

 

Now that is ironic!

[+Ve8]

Having read a fair bit of the related thread (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=281183&st=0) I do think that your post is a little one-sided and is not presenting the whole story. I'm not going to take sides either way but I think people need to read more before they make a comment.

 

[edit: I've re-read my post and your post and it sounds like I was having a dig - I wasn't. I was just trying to say it's a huge issue and needs a lot of reading to see all the muck that's being thrown about in several directions.]

A very fair point which is why I was careful to state this was just one of the reasons why his account was locked. I have a few pictures that could described as spoilers which I have put aside for a new blog and I am finding myself wondering if I could be risking the wrath of a big frog.

 

Clearly we are not aware of exact correspondence been sent between Sven and Groundspeak but I think we need clarification on what Groundspeak see as acceptable when it comes to posting content on external sites. With over 377,000 views I'm thinking in Sven's case maybe he is getting too popular?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Ve8

[+Aggrajag]

One point about the CCC thread that Happy Humphrey has linked to - most of the pictures and videos are uploaded by the actual cache owner who wants to show off his goods, as it were. Items posted by other members are usually 'called out' and asked to be removed or edited.

[+Happy Humphrey]

One point about the CCC thread that Happy Humphrey has linked to - most of the pictures and videos are uploaded by the actual cache owner who wants to show off his goods, as it were. Items posted by other members are usually 'called out' and asked to be removed or edited.

Some are, some aren't. The Youtube ones are similar; for instance Sven tends to mostly post videos of his own caches.

 

An example from the thread in question is this one.That is not the poster's cache. There are many other examples of photos of great cache hides that people found and have posted pictures of. Personally, I think it's a great thread and very inspirational - but that goes for the Youtube videos as well.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

What is sad about this whole issue is there may be faults on both sides, only one is able to wield a big stick.

 

As suggested it appears that if you question you run the risk of being punished. It would also seem that if you have enough friendly ears within Groundspeak you can make trouble for somebody else.

 

But we can take heart that Groundspeak are able to answer the age old question "Does size really matter?" clearly 377,000 seems to tip the balance!

[+Legochugglers]

As an avid follower of 'Svengate' it is obvious that he is passionate about Geocaching and has some fantastic ideas about cache placement/containers and how to 'play the game'. His heart appears to be in the right place but often it is firmly on his sleeve. Follow the EMcache forum to get a feel of how much he loves Geo-caching.

 

At some point the universe will change and I predict that a future 'game' is played by cyber geo-cachers where amazing finds are discovered via satelite links and and following virtual passages on other planets etc etc. Someone will be yhe new pioneer and maybe it won't be Groundspeak.

 

Good luck to him. I enjoyed the footage and I feel it inspires good geocaching.

[+Hawkins2.5]

I posted a comment about the actual videos in a previous thread so I won't repeat myself here. If those videos are the cause for the ban then I feel it has been VERY unfair. However, I do get the feeling that there may be more to this than we know. (Not basing this on any knowledge or facts so sorry if I am wrong!)

[+Happy Humphrey]

Groundspeak is encouraging people (except Sven!) to post geocaching videos on Youtube and similar. Rather confusing. Perhaps we need some guidelines about what videos can be posted and what will lead to the use of the infamous Groundspeak "big stick"?!

 

See 'Geocaching vlogs and online videos: the new horizon of caching media' and 'Go Geocaching'.

 

Perhaps Sven's videos were seen as too good, and threatened to rival gc.com's own channel? I've no idea what the problem really is.

[+The Real Boudica.]

{Just copying this from the main topic, I meant to put it here in the first place but couldn't find this thread earlier. Not that I thought it had disappeared or anything!!}

 

The ironic thing is I would never have come across svens videos without GS kicking up a fuss and prompting threads like these. I am not in his area but if I came across a similar cache elsewhere I might feel less elated than finding it blind, but that would be my fault for being so curious. Every time I see 'spoiler alert' on anything I can't help myself (and then can't help kicking myself!).

 

There are some awesome ideas on there which I will file away for any hides I might make in the future. I am a newbie but love interesting hides and am lucky to live in an area where very few are run of the mill. All videos like this do is raise the level of the game, just like cachers who make creative hides, would I have got hooked if my first few finds were plastic pots under piles of sticks, I doubt it, I certainly wouldn't have got my husband into it. Now, there is no way I would place a cache unless I thought it lived up to our local standard, so want to see as many ideas as possible. Spoilers on the cache page are one thing and CO are well justified to delete as desired for the sake of future finders but unles sven is linking the videos to his logs whats the problem. I really hope TPTB have not put him off this great game of hide and seek, and hope that that would not have been their intention.

 

In my line of work I am often acting as the intemediary between two parties who have VERY different ideas of how things should be done. We do need rules/guidelines in most things in life, if we all had the same morals and common sense it wouldn't be a problem, just a very boring world to live in, but these rules/guidelines should always be questioned when warranted and those whose job it is to impose those rules should always listen and try not to take it as personal slight. Which seems to be a bit what has happened here (if not then some one should speak up and say exactly what the problem is, sven has repeatedly said on here and other forums that he has nothing to hide). It may be that he has an attitude that GS are not fond of but that should not affect they way the rules are applied to him versus others. A teacher singling out the uncharismatic kid in the class. Planning officers refusing applications from agents with an ego problem. Police offficers singling the odd family on the estate, all for no reason other than personal opinion, all these things would be frowned upon by most people including, I suspect GS employees. Until I see evidence saying otherwise this appears to be a similar case.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

There is a lot more than has been presented for view. Think Iceberg, visible above the seas surface, but the majority of it hidden. Groundspeak consider interactions with their customers to be confidential, so will very rarely discuss interactions between themselves and a individual customer.

 

You'd castigate Groundspeak if after a interaction with a customer, they then started discusing it in public. Only for that member to then make a public complaint that they are doing so. So Groundspeak are in a No Win Situation whichever way they operate.

 

Sven has full knowledge of all the issues behind the topic. And the OP Ve8 also has a good idea of the details, having posted on other forums including EMCache about this [he owns and runs EMCache, and Sven has made a number of posts related to this on there]. But with more information.

 

Part of this topic is related to issues between community members, some of which has been going on for a extended period. Details of which are in the Public realm, so I'm not breaking confidentiality.

 

If Groundspeak decide to keep to their policy of confidentially, then some of those who have castigated them in this topic will continue to do so. Despite never knowing the full facts.

 

Personally I would expect any person recording a Video of the Hunt for any Non Traditional Cache I own. Which is intended for public view. To obtain my permission to do so, out of respect for my wishes that the caches are not ruined. With Traditional caches, I've no issues as the location can be seen using Google Satellite/StreetView, But each cache owner is intitled to their own personal opinion on that.

 

Dave-Mancunian Pyrocacher

This post has been made under my Member Account, as it is my own personal opinion. And is in no way a official opinion or reply.

[+Happy Humphrey]

...

Sven has full knowledge of all the issues behind the topic. And the OP Ve8 also has a good idea of the details, having posted on other forums including EMCache about this [he owns and runs EMCache, and Sven has made a number of posts related to this on there]. But with more information.

...

I've followed "Svengate" on EMCache as well and there's nothing really on there to help illuminate this, so I wouldn't bother searching for it. As happens so often, for good reasons or otherwise we're left in the dark about the thinking behind the account lock and have to make our own guesses. It sounds like there's a LOT more than any of us know and none of it is on EMCache.

 

I suppose that if you post anything geocaching-related anywhere on Youtube you just have to hope that it's not going to come under the scrutiny of Groundspeak too much; we've learnt very little from this episode.

 

I'm sure Sven would agree that it would be bad practice to publish video which gives away multi or mystery cache stages, and I'm not aware of any such film by him. I agree with Dave that I can't see any problem with video of straightforward traditional caches, although perhaps if it's 4* or 5* difficulty due to a particularly tricky hide it might be worth checking first.

[+Unobtainium]

and secondly to make others aware so they don't make a simular mistake.

I would hope GS would not lock an account without warning and so should someone inadvertently offend GS or anyone else by posting a video, they would given the opportunity to correct the situation.

This post has been made under my Member Account, as it is my own personal opinion. And is in no way a official opinion or reply.

[+Ve8]

There is a lot more than has been presented for view. Think Iceberg, visible above the seas surface, but the majority of it hidden. Groundspeak consider interactions with their customers to be confidential, so will very rarely discuss interactions between themselves and a individual customer.

 

You'd castigate Groundspeak if after a interaction with a customer, they then started discusing it in public. Only for that member to then make a public complaint that they are doing so. So Groundspeak are in a No Win Situation whichever way they operate.

 

Sven has full knowledge of all the issues behind the topic. And the OP Ve8 also has a good idea of the details, having posted on other forums including EMCache about this [he owns and runs EMCache, and Sven has made a number of posts related to this on there]. But with more information.

 

Part of this topic is related to issues between community members, some of which has been going on for a extended period. Details of which are in the Public realm, so I'm not breaking confidentiality.

 

If Groundspeak decide to keep to their policy of confidentially, then some of those who have castigated them in this topic will continue to do so. Despite never knowing the full facts....

 

Two points.

1. Read the OP
   
2. Why is my link to emCache relevant? I've not mentioned it.
   

[+Happy Humphrey]

If Groundspeak decide to keep to their policy of confidentially, then some of those who have castigated them in this topic will continue to do so. Despite never knowing the full facts.

If Groundspeak decide to keep the facts hidden and don't even give guidance as to how to avoid being drawn into the same situation then they deserve to be castigated. There's no need to explain exactly what everyone has said or done, but it's reasonable to expect that the policies that can lead to a user being locked are explained.

 

Dave (Mancunian Pyrocacher) has said that it's not what we thought, i.e. it's not because Sven has posted caching-related videos on Youtube that include shots of traditional caches being found. If that was a significant factor then there'd be no "tip of the iceberg" remark. I was starting to suspect that this wasn't the reason because it makes no sense when we can see how Groundspeak are encouraging that very activity.

 

Mysteriously, we are given no hint as to what the real cause behind the locking was. Keeping us in the dark is a pretty good way to ensure that the criticism continues, as Dave says above.

 

Unfortunately, Sven cannot clarify either, as he isn't allowed to post on here.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hmmm...sounds like Dave has been misinformed at some point! There seems to be no iceberg...

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

 

Part of this topic is related to issues between community members, some of which has been going on for a extended period. Details of which are in the Public realm, so I'm not breaking confidentiality.

 

 

Dave-Mancunian Pyrocacher

This post has been made under my Member Account, as it is my own personal opinion. And is in no way a official opinion or reply.

 

I agree with you, there is an element of guilty by association going on here. Groundspeak would do well to remember under what circumstances Sven came to their attention. And how it has subsequently been "reported" to them.

 

There is a thread on another board where Sven has detailed all the contact trails, warts and all according to him, predictably no one would confirm if he is indeed leaving anything out.

 

But that is going off topic, so going back on topic:

I feel that unless there is some clarification others will fall foul of the big stick. Despite Groundspeak encouraging Vlogging I for one am now reluctant to openly identify any of mine.

[+Cup.]

Hello, this is Sven's girlfriend.

 

I find all of this petty and frustrating, and I really don't want to get involved, but he's asked me to post this, as he's rather frustrated that as he's been banned he cannot reply to accusations in this thread.

 

He says:

 

You'd castigate Groundspeak if after a interaction with a customer, they then started discusing it in public. Only for that member to then make a public complaint that they are doing so. So Groundspeak are in a No Win Situation whichever way they operate.

 

"Let's make it a win situation for GS then, let them post any or all of my interactions. Assuming of course that if they can then I'm also able to post the same." He's got nothing to hide he says, GS obviously have nothing to hide. Right?

[+propperdad]

I will be demanding a refund if geocaching.com bans members from having geocaching videos on youtube.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/ clearly instructs cachers to, and I quote,

1 Browse

Search for interesting geocaches:

There are 1,549,826 active geocaches and over 5 million geocachers worldwide.

2 Discover

Explore the world as you search for the cache using a GPS device or smartphone. Find the cache, sign the logbook and see what others have left behind.

3 Share

Share your experience with other treasure seekers.

 

Yep, step 3 share.

 

chew on that for a while, thanks

 

p.s. Dave Ulmer has a great caching vid on you tube, something about a new invention. lol

Edited October 18, 2011 by propperdad

[+EvanBlack]

I want to make sure Groundspeak sees this so I'm posting this here as well.

 

I think this ban does more harm than good. Many people enjoy his videos, many of which have started geocaching because of this vlog. Not to mention the several caches of his own that are now un-managed from the ban, hurting other members. He documents his experiences and takes you along for the ride. The only way I'd know if it was a geocache from his video, is if it was IN MY HAND. Which at that point I've already found it on my own. lol

I really enjoy the videos as it gives me many ideas on how to create caches of my own!

I thought geocaching was about just chilling out and having fun. Typically geocachers are the nicest people in the world. Sharing the sport was "supposed" to be a good idea. This ban just makes geocaching.com look like sticks in the mud, and bullies. Very uncool.

I hope you rethink this. Otherwise you might as well ban me too. Since I've taken other geocachers where caches are, shown muggles that are just getting interested some caches, and I've even talked about the cool geocaches I've found in stories. I'm sure I'm not the only one. So if you're going to ban him, get the ban hammer out, because there are alot of us that share this sport with others. For all the friends and family, I've taken geocaching and revealed it's precious secrets, I deserve to be banned too.

We're not CIA and this isn't national secrets we're revealing here. We're sharing the FUN.

Try to remember that it's all about F U N.

[+MartyBartfast]

I thought that this all blew up because the owner of a cache featured in one of Sven's videos asked him to remove it and he refused.

 

While I don't have a problem with the videos being posted, and indeed having seen some of them I think it serves to push the agenda of high quality caches, I do think that if any of the cache owners asked for a particular video of their cache to be removed then it should be. I can't help thinking that if Sven had removed that one cache then this whole thing wouldn't have escalated to the situation he's now in.

[+Happy Humphrey]

IIRC Sven did query the deletion request (as it didn't feature a spoiler) and the complaint was withdrawn.

Apparently there have also been a couple of other complaints but I think that these have been kept secret and details are not available to anyone except Groundspeak staff.

 

In my opinion, a cache owner is within his rights to ask that the cache retrieval sequence be cut from the video but if such a request is refused it's between the cache owner and the video producer (assuming that the video is not linked from a Groundspeak site). The same if a forum gives too much away about your puzzle cache; you can join in the discussion and ask that certain posts be edited.

 

If a video shows nothing of the container (or location in the case of a non-traditional cache) there's nothing to worry about anyway. In the only case we know of where there was a complaint, it was a traditional cache, the cache wasn't identified and there was no section showing the find taking place and no view of the container. All the video did was advertise what a good location it was in.

 

If this situation helps identify what a "spoiler" is according to the Groundspeak terms of use, then it's a good thing it's escalated like this. Certainly, with more and more "spoiler" cache videos appearing on sharing sites it's worth clarifying what we think the policy should be. In my opinion, if the video has no direct link from a Groundspeak web site it's no concern of theirs. If you're planning to seek out a cache and you search the wider internet for clues then I don't see why you would be unhappy to find them.

[+thebruce0]

Here's what I glean from this...

1. Links to spoilers cannot be posted in Groundspeak territory without cache owner permission

2. Spoilers can be shared outside of Groundspeak territory with or without cache owner permission

3. Common decency would be to remove spoilers if a cache owner contacts owner of said spoiler video/media (but there are no legal grounds to demand it)

4. Groundspeak cannot force anyone outside of Groundspeak territory to remove spoilers (nor do they have any legal grounds to do so)

5. Groundspeak own their territory. They can make decisions as they see fit as per the TOS, including banning someone for whatever reason.

6a. Banning someone for sharing an anonymous, unconnected video that a cache owner recognizes as their own outside of Groundspeak territory and not linked from within is perfectly within their rights. But probably not smart for PR.

6b. Refusing to acknowledge a cache owner's request to save the status of a difficult hide/puzzle by removing spoilers content (even if not explicitly connected) is probably not smart for reputation.

7a. The fact that other media remains untouched by Groundspeak seems to imply that there is indeed more beneath the surface which prompted their "bully" tactic.

7b. The user has expressly stated that every video that contains a spoiler has been, as it stands now, given approval from their respective COs. Not every video in the channel was linked in this forum (but the channel was).

8. Video creators and bloggers should not fear documenting their adventures and finds, although keeping in mind respectful dissemination of solutions and guides, for the sake of respect, sanity, and community.

9. Groundspeak should attempt to clear the air here with the public that is dramatically concerned with the recent events, for the sake of PR.

10. Banning the user clearly won't solve the problem that it's implying it's trying to solve. Geocachers will geocache. Bloggers will blog. Videographers with document. Sock puppet accounts will..sock puppet?

11. No one is positive what happened or why - Groundspeak is silent, and the user(s) imply there's more to the story yet haven't shared anything (here or elsewhere) that's revealing which also implies there may be an agenda to denigrate Groundspeak.

12. Groundspeak has demonstrated they operate on reports only - they don't hunt out and seek "rule-breakers" proactively.

 

Ultimately, I don't know (or at least I can't be sure) that anyone has the whole story here. And so I'm reserving any judgement as to who's truly at fault and who acted exactly as they should. All I know is that videos containing spoilers will continue to be posted to Youtube, whether linked here or not, whether with CO permission or not, whether referring to the specific caches or not. And Groundspeak would have a heck of a time dealing with every single tattle-tail who reported a video outside of GS territory.

 

Please, Groundspeak, expound on this situation for us.

Edited October 18, 2011 by thebruce0

[Neath Worthies]

What an excellent post! Very well said thebruce0

[+GeoBain]

I would hope GS would not lock an account without warning and so should someone inadvertently offend GS or anyone else by posting a video, they would given the opportunity to correct the situation.

 

Sven was given ample warning. That is not the problem. The problem is he decided to stand his ground since Groundspeak basically overstepped their authority in this issue.

 

Agree or disagree with Sven's posting of spoilers, it's irrelevant. The TOS says you cannot post spoilers using their tools. It does not cover other company's servers. As such, Groundspeak has no right to terminate his account because of spoiler videos on Youtube.

[+thebruce0]

Agree or disagree with Sven's posting of spoilers, it's irrelevant. The TOS says you cannot post spoilers using their tools. It does not cover other company's servers. As such, Groundspeak has no right to terminate his account because of spoiler videos on Youtube.

Well, again, technically they do have that right, they've reserved that in the TOS, afaik.

But it would be a dumb move, and bad for PR as a bullying tactic, but it's in their rights... which, again, is why I do think there's more to this story, on whatever side it may lie...

[+GeoBain]

Agree or disagree with Sven's posting of spoilers, it's irrelevant. The TOS says you cannot post spoilers using their tools. It does not cover other company's servers. As such, Groundspeak has no right to terminate his account because of spoiler videos on Youtube.

Well, again, technically they do have that right, they've reserved that in the TOS, afaik.

But it would be a dumb move, and bad for PR as a bullying tactic, but it's in their rights... which, again, is why I do think there's more to this story, on whatever side it may lie...

 

But they haven't reserved that in the TOS. Of course they have taken the stance that they have. But I would argue that 1) They need to rewrite the TOS to actually say what they think it should say since it currently does not. 2) They need to realize that they can't dictate what we do outside their servers.

 

But you're right, regardless of what the TOS actually says or not, Groundspeak comes off looking like a bully in this situation.

[+propperdad]

geocaching.com you tube channel

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/GoGeocaching?feature=grec_index#p/a/u/2/-33OE_7085E

 

attention found a spoiler vid. better ban yourself.

[+The HERB5]

geocaching.com you tube channel

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/GoGeocaching?feature=grec_index#p/a/u/2/-33OE_7085E

 

attention found a spoiler vid. better ban yourself.

It states "Spoilers included with permission of Owner"

[+thebruce0]

It states "Spoilers included with permission of Owner"

 

So did Sven

So unless he's lying, something's missing here...

[+sTeamTraen]

This sort of thing flares up from time to time in the forums. It generally comes down to a choice between:

 

/1/ Groundspeak is a really, really stupid and petulant organisation, run by extremely small-minded people with unbelievably thin skins, and bans people whenever they do anything remotely out of line, even if this massively annoys lots of ordinary paying customers.

 

and

 

/2/ We don't have all of the facts by which to judge.

 

Funnily enough, in pretty well all of the cases which I can remember, it turns out to be /2/. And if Groundspeak is run by small-minded bigots, they must live in some corner of the office which is off-limits to everybody else, because I've never met anyone remotely like that. "Shoot from the hip" is very definitely not the motto in Seattle (sometimes I wish it were).

 

This time could, of course, be an exception to that. But as someone has pointed out, Groundspeak seems to like video bloggers. So maybe there's just a little more to this story than we've been told. And as Dave said, Groundspeak won't discuss the details in public (and if they did, oh my, what an outcry there'd be *then*).

[+Happy Humphrey]

In this case there seems to be several other possibilities!

 

[edit to add]

And Nick, judging by your recent comment on the petition; you are in possession of relevant details which Sven has chosen to keep hidden, in spite of his insistence that all the facts are out in the open. The only other possibility is that you've made an assumption about Sven's character and behaviour based on your own speculation. Having met you, I don't believe you would do that. The plot thickens.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+sTeamTraen]

And Nick, judging by your recent comment on the petition; you are in possession of relevant details which Sven has chosen to keep hidden, in spite of his insistence that all the facts are out in the open. The only other possibility is that you've made an assumption about Sven's character and behaviour based on your own speculation. Having met you, I don't believe you would do that. The plot thickens.

I don't have any information at all. Groundspeak doesn't discuss this sort of issue with anybody except, perhaps, volunteers who may have been directly involved. My comment on the UserVoice thread is essentially the same as the one I made above here: I've been watching this kind of thing happen long enough to be able to "safely" guess that there is more to this than "someone posted some videos, Groundspeak ruthlessly hunted them down and banned them". I have no idea who the person involved is, or what their videos revealed. I do know that you don't get a site ban without several warnings, often multiple ToU issues, and a lot of internal discussion taking place at Groundspeak.

Edited October 19, 2011 by sTeamTraen

[+thebruce0]

I do know that you don't get a site ban without several warnings, often multiple ToU issues, and a lot of internal discussion taking place at Groundspeak.

This.

 

I hope

Edited October 19, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Happy Humphrey]

I have no idea who the person involved is, or what their videos revealed.

With respect, I'm disappointed that you decided to make such posts without even having a glance at the evidence; "guess" or not.

 

There are (it appears) two reasons for the ban and only one of them is to do with the videos; but that's common knowledge and the details are readily available to peruse (with a little simple searching). Unfortunately for Groundspeak the other reason is also highly debatable...but I'm certainly not going to go into details here.

[+Aggrajag]

On an entirely unrelated side-note, how come Happy Humphrey shows with my avatar? Does it show mine for everyone? or does it always show whoevers is viewing it? or is it just my browser that's bugged? (everytime I come here.)

[+dfx]

Agree or disagree with Sven's posting of spoilers, it's irrelevant. The TOS says you cannot post spoilers using their tools. It does not cover other company's servers. As such, Groundspeak has no right to terminate his account because of spoiler videos on Youtube.

Well, again, technically they do have that right, they've reserved that in the TOS, afaik.

But it would be a dumb move, and bad for PR as a bullying tactic, but it's in their rights... which, again, is why I do think there's more to this story, on whatever side it may lie...

 

But they haven't reserved that in the TOS.

 

Yes they have.

 

http://www.geocachin...termsofuse.aspx

 

 

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions

Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. 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.

 

Bolding mine. In essence, they can and may ban anyone, at any time, for any or no reason at all, spoilers posted or not.

[+Lord & Lady Boogie]

Agree or disagree with Sven's posting of spoilers, it's irrelevant. The TOS says you cannot post spoilers using their tools. It does not cover other company's servers. As such, Groundspeak has no right to terminate his account because of spoiler videos on Youtube.

Well, again, technically they do have that right, they've reserved that in the TOS, afaik.

But it would be a dumb move, and bad for PR as a bullying tactic, but it's in their rights... which, again, is why I do think there's more to this story, on whatever side it may lie...

 

But they haven't reserved that in the TOS.

 

Yes they have.

 

http://www.geocachin...termsofuse.aspx

 

 

3. License to Use Site; Restrictions

Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. 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.

 

Bolding mine. In essence, they can and may ban anyone, at any time, for any or no reason at all, spoilers posted or not.

 

No question they can do it, no doubt they would dress it up in the how they do but ask should they do it?

 

Please all of us, when we are not reading these excellent threads, take some time to read TOU's T&C's EULA's and other such legalease. Then gasp at the amount of services/products that can be taken away with no reason! Then seek legal advice on if they are actually enforceable, especially when monies "a sale" has taken place. When it comes to it the ONLY place such terms can be tested is in a court.

 

So lets get back to the question in hand, What is a spoiler? How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Bolding mine. In essence, they can and may ban anyone, at any time, for any or no reason at all, spoilers posted or not.

Perfectly true.

Incidentally, the Terms Of Use specifically limit the definition of spoilers breaching the Terms to be if you've posted them via the "geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums".

The text mentions "content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site", before going into the details of the types of forbidden content. I'm not sure whether a hyperlink can be regarded as "otherwise transmit".

 

But although Groundspeak can still do what they like, you won't have broken the TOU just by the act of uploading a spoiler to Youtube.

 

On an entirely unrelated side-note, how come Happy Humphrey shows with my avatar? Does it show mine for everyone? or does it always show whoevers is viewing it? or is it just my browser that's bugged? (everytime I come here.)

Look OK to me, with your usual avatar.

[+Aggrajag]

Look OK to me, with your usual avatar.

I mean your Avatar has my image.

[+Amberel]

Look OK to me, with your usual avatar.

I mean your Avatar has my image.

It must be a problem at your end, never had any problems with avatars here. HH's avatar is a photo of Bogart.

 

Rgds, Andy

Edited October 19, 2011 by Amberel

[+MartyBartfast]

 

So lets get back to the question in hand, What is a spoiler? How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

 

GS don't have the time or resources (nor I suspect the inclination) to go trawling the net looking for people who may be posting spoilers, or giving away clues to caches/puzzles. They're only going to find out about it if someone brings it to their attention by complaining, so if you've posted a spoiler somewhere and someone asks you to remove it, do so and they're not likely to bring it to the attention of GS; refuse to do so and you run the risk they'll complain to GS and GS may get out the big stick again.

[+sTeamTraen]

With respect, I'm disappointed that you decided to make such posts without even having a glance at the evidence; "guess" or not.

It's an internet forum, not the Old Bailey. I doubt whether anyone else in that UV thread has access to any real evidence either.

[+GeoBain]

I do know that you don't get a site ban without several warnings, often multiple ToU issues, and a lot of internal discussion taking place at Groundspeak.

 

I think Sven's post in the other thread makes it clear why he was banned. (a bogus interpretation of the TOU)

 

Seem's we're all wrong about the sites TOS. Sandy says:

 

You are without question in violation of our Terms of Use (section 4m) - as pointed out by several responders to that thread. While I cannot force you to remove the video, as I mentioned previously, I can now impose a period of suspension from Geocaching.com. You are asked to remove that specific spoiler video from YouTube, so that you are not in violation of our Terms of Use, or you will be suspended from Geocaching.com. Please note that if we hear from other cache owners similarly affected, we will be contacting you immediately.

I will await your reply or the removal of the video.

 

 

See you when im unbanned.

 

edit: although the ban will be unjust as I do have permission *shrug*

 

edit2: also the video im being threatened of being banned for simply video of a public(?) place. No geocache, nothing that would help you find it. So it's also not a spoiler by my definition.....It only shows what the description already says is there. I'm revealing NOTHING a cacher doesn't already know by the description. As I say, the ban will be unjust.

 

BTW, Groundspeak has still not removed this bit from the TOU: "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site."

 

The bolded part restricts the TOU to Groundspeak's servers. They have no right dictating what anyone does on someone else's servers.

[+GeoBain]

How can the newbie avoid falling fowl of the big stick?

 

Take care not to associate your Youtube account with your geocaching account or reveal your identity in your videos. Then there ain't squat they can do since they don't know who owns the Youtube account.

[+Happy Humphrey]

BTW, Groundspeak has still not removed this bit from the TOU: "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site."

 

The bolded part restricts the TOU to Groundspeak's servers. They have no right dictating what anyone does on someone else's servers.

You hit the nail on the head there. The TOU are clearly relating to anything posted (or uploaded or otherwise transmitted - whatever that means - via geocaching.com and the Groundspeak forums). You can therefore post spoilers to your heart's content on Youtube or wherever you like and you need have no fear of TOU violation, no matter who complains. Not unless you post the video on the forum or include it on a cache page. It probably needs checking for legality, but I imagine that includes posting a link to the video.

 

Terms Of Use relates to the Use of the Website. I don't see that you can violate the TOU in any way when you're not signed on to the website and not using it. I'm sure that Groundspeak recognise that, which is why the wording carefully makes this clear. A Groundspeak employee has confirmed in the recent past that they can't punish someone just for posting videos about other people's caches on Youtube.

 

A much more likely example of a TOU infringement is that you log a cache and in your enthusiasm you upload a photo (without the consent of the cache owner) of the container being held aloft by proud eight-year old son. With the tell-tale location just about discernable in the background. Now THAT could lead to a ban, according to section 4(m), as it's a spoiler and it was published using Groundspeak's "Publishing Tools and Forums". In practice, I guess that 4(m) would only be invoked if the cache owner deleted your log and then you uploaded the photo again after being asked not to. But the fact remains that you violated the TOU.

[+sTeamTraen]

BTW, Groundspeak has still not removed this bit from the TOU: "You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site."

 

The bolded part restricts the TOU to Groundspeak's servers. They have no right dictating what anyone does on someone else's servers.

The quoted clause in which the words "via the Site" are bolded does not mean, by some form of wordplay, "You are responsible for content which you put on this site, therefore you are somehow not responsible for content which is off this site". It's a general principle of logic, if not law, that the statement "You are responsible for X" does not mean "Thus, by default, you are therefore entirely free to do anything which is not X" (it's also a general principle of rhetoric that if you have to distort the weighting of words in clause 456z to prove that clause 123q is wrong, you don't have much of a leg to stand on). Bolding the words "via the Site" distorts the meaning and intention of the clause, which is to cover legal liability of, for example, libellous content. This is a fairly common thing to find in web site ToUs, as it gives some element of protection to the hosting company.

 

Based on the quote from Groundspeak which has been posted, the applicable part of the ToU is 4(m) which says that (You may not):

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

In other words, by using this site, you agree not to post spoilers (without consent from the CO) anywhere. This clause was introduced a few months ago; if I recall correctly, it was initially as a reaction to sites which publish the solutions to Mystery caches. It explicitly says that if you're going to play here, you have to observe a minimal amount of respect for the game in other places. I don't think that that's massively unreasonable - all you're being asked to do is to not reveal information that the cache owner doesn't want revealed. It's the kind of elementary respect which is an essential part of existing in a community.

 

I'm going to presume that the banned user posted a video and the cache owner complained. So Groundspeak can either upset the cache owner by not doing anything about it, or they can upset the video poster and his/her supporters by asking them - and I would guess that this was done on multiple occasions, with escalating levels of firmness - to remove it, in accordance with the ToU. If those assumptions are true, I wonder whether anyone else here would have done anything different in similar circumstances. (I hope it's reasonable to suggest that that should be the criterion to judge Groundspeak's actions here.)

Edited October 20, 2011 by sTeamTraen