Jump to content

YouTube Videos


Ve8

Recommended Posts

Not everything Sandy said is correct. Not that I think she's deliberately lying I just think she's confused with so much going on.

I'm sorry to say that as I understand it, we've been told by at least two Groundspeak officials that Sven is deliberately lying and that the above is basically a pack of lies. Unfortunately as they offer no evidence I cannot confirm one way or another.

My own opinion is that Sven is not lying, even if one or two facts might be debatable. I'm not accusing Groundspeak of lying either; just sloppiness, confusion and attempts to cover up mistakes by the use of smokescreens. If anyone at Groundspeak cares to e-mail me genuine proof that Sven is telling massive porkies as accused, then I'll be happy to withdraw these remarks, respect any necessary confidentiality agreement and shut up.

 

You can see why I was trying to check the

As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos.

statement, because if this is confirmed then it points to Sven being untruthful. Otherwise it's Sandy at fault. There should be four videos on Youtube of caches by the same cache owner, one of which was uploaded recently and the others before the ban.

Link to comment

 

You can see why I was trying to check the

As a follow up on this matter, he has subsequently posted another video on his Youtube channel featuring a cache by the same cache owner who complained to us about the three videos.

statement, because if this is confirmed then it points to Sven being untruthful. Otherwise it's Sandy at fault. There should be four videos on Youtube of caches by the same cache owner, one of which was uploaded recently and the others before the ban.

 

There is a video uploaded on Oct 13th which is of a cache clearly related to a cache in another video posted earlier, and I reckon there are at least 3 belonging to the same cache owner, there may be a fourth but I haven't watched them all.

 

So far today from the videos I've positively identified 4 caches, which I could now walk up to and find in seconds, I've also identified 2 which are part of a series, but I don't know which one of the series, and I know there's another video which is of that series but I haven't identified which ( again 'cos I haven't looked at them all).

 

We can argue about who said what when, and what the legal eagles would make of the T's & C's but none of that alters the fact that the cache owners of some of the caches in these videos don't want them there and I think they have a right to object. If Sven refuses to remove the videos then GS can only either do nothing in which case the cache owners will be cheesed off, or ban Sven - which they've done.

Link to comment

I've found out which caches they are (thanks to some assistance) and it turns out I've actually found one of them and failed on another... I didn't recognise them from the videos. :anicute: They are very local to me. It will be a huge shame if these great caches are removed because of the videos, although that's the prerogative of the cache owner if he feels that they are no longer going to work.

Link to comment

We are going round in circles and I fail to see how this thread can progress, furthermore I no longer give a cr@p.

 

As the OP I'd prefer if the thread was now locked, I suspect some contributors may disagree so I'll leave to final decision with the forum mod.

 

Bye Bye

 

I quite agree, but would still welcome a response from Groundspeak as to what a their definition of a spoiler is :lol:

Link to comment

As the iceberg is revealed I would like to understand why the subsequent CO asked for his Caches to be removed from the channel and what the complaint was.

 

Well that's not likely to happen as I can't see the CO involved sticking their head above the parapet so that everyone on here can split into factions to either lambast them for making the complaint or defend their choice to do so.

 

So we have a cache owner who clearly is inventive in his cache creation, and has had 3 of his caches featured, then a fourth, I can understand how he might feel that every inventive cache he creates might end up being posted on the channel and he might be a bit miffed about it. This somewhat answers the point that it's not possible to track down the caches from the videos. for if a local cacher finds one of Fred (the inventive cache owner)'s caches and sees it on the channel, they may quickly come to realise that when looking for another one of Fred's tricky hides it would be worth having a browse of the channel first and see if you recognise the GZ when you get there, and suddenly all his good hides become cache-n-dashes for those in the know.

 

Sven should have removed the videos when requested, and avoided posting further videos of caches owned by those two cachers, and none of this would have happened.

 

People said that GS posting their side of the story was never going to happen. But they did!... So why should'nt the CO involved give an account of why they felt they didnt like their caches to be featured on the channel. There is a consensus of opinion that might say that they would be honoured to be featured on a channel that celebrates creative and well constructed geocaches.

Link to comment

I still don't think GC are within their rights to ban Sven, even if the CO(s) have asked for them to be removed. The fact remains that the TOU do not cover external sites, maybe they should and maybe the rules should be made a little clearer and the definition of a spoiler agreed. It may also be of interest to know just when the other CO's complained.

 

That's not to say I think Sven is right (morally)to refuse the CO's requests but obviously Sven puts a great deal of effort into the vblog and for him it is a very personal thing. Just removing a few videos is no big deal surely, but don't forget the request from GC was to remove ALL of them. It must be realised by now that was unreasonable.

 

The only reason GS are citing a break in the TOU is so they don't have to give him his money back.

 

Now is the time to compromise BOTH of you!

Link to comment

The only reason GS are citing a break in the TOU is so they don't have to give him his money back.

 

You really think Groundspeak care two hoots about losing $30??? I doubt that very much.

I totally agree. I think GS have gone way over the top here but to accuse them of wanting to save $30 or whatever is ludicrous. It's all about control, not about money.

Link to comment

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.

 

Take note of the bold here. Interesting word. Inferring there was dialogue between CO and Sven prior to Groundspeak involvement. So why would they get involved? Certainly not because Sven asked, I'm sure. So must be on the CO request. And why would he want GS involved? Only the CO and Sven/Cup can answer that.

I think the timeline of correspondence between all parties involved with the issue is very important. So much can be lost in context without knowing when and who emailed/txt/PM'd etc etc. For example.

A posts vid on Youtube.

B asks his cache removed from vid.

A explains vid is not spoiler.

B still asks for removal

A further explains, meanwhile B asks GS to be involved.

GS request A remove vid or face suspension, A explains not spoiler. Meanwhile B has change of heart tells A

GS, unaware of change of heart by B, suspend A as vid has not changed despite warning.

World collapses and legal discussion ensues.

 

At the end of the day, their Terms clearly state, they have the last word on suspension of accounts if they deem so fit. And if they deem your not being fair to others playing the game, they will suspend you.

If you have issues with that, don't play the game.

Link to comment

[Today at 09:45:58 PM] Bobbinz: At the last Jacaru event I went to [sven was] the only topic of discussion

 

So the original complainee (Jacaru) hosts an event, then tells every local person he can all about Sven's videos.....THEN complains that Sven's videos might lead to local people finding his caches....

 

WAT?

Edited by Cup.
Link to comment

Sven. has had ample opportunities to comply with our Terms of Use.

 

Sven is complying with the terms of use as HE reads them. (Seems to me the majority agree)

 

Having a look at this thread and the final decision by Bryan

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1533777-can-Groundspeak-help-us-against-spoiling-

will show you, however, that the intent of section 4(m) is to help cache owners against spoiler outside of geocaching.com.

 

So at the latest when Sandy wrote Sven and explained Groundspeak's point of view, it must have become clear to Sven that his

understanding of the ToU is different from what Groundspeak has in mind. It was his decision to insist on that he can publish on

his private channel whatever he wants to and still be a respectful to his fellow geocachers and that exactly is the point where he erred.

 

I fully agree that the ToU can be misunderstood, but once one receives an explanation from Groundspeak, it is not any longer valid to argue about personal

interpretations.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I fully agree that the ToU can be misunderstood, but once one receives an explanation from Groundspeak, it is not any longer valid to argue about personal

interpretations.

 

Respect for fellow humans should be first and foremost in anyones decision making whether caching related or not. I would hope that goes without saying.

 

It seems the main argument here is that GS may have intended the TOUs to say one thing and can argue this till they are blue in the face, but they actually don't, which is where Sven (and others) felt he was right to argue the point.

 

I thought the whole point of having legal eagles write up these documents, and the reason they generally become completely unintelligible to any average reader, is so that they can stand up in a court of law, (not that I am saying this where it should go, personally I think it has blown up out of all proportion already), but if these documents don't say what they actually mean they don't serve their purpose.

 

It doesn't matter what someone intended to say, if they don't say precisely that it will get misinterpreted, No?? eg: Oh I meant the sign to say No trespassing allowed but I forgot the No.

 

Surely this is even more important in such an international game where readers are going to interpret things differently. If it spelt out that you cannot publish spoilers on any other website or publication, then dictated what these were deemed to be, Sven would never have been able to interpret them differently. Thats not to say people won't ignore these terms, but they at least can know they do so at their peril.

 

Its like the note that says logs 'may' contain spoilers - to me it infers be careful, logs might contain spoilers, don't read them if you don't want to see them - to others it says 'go on post spoilers to youre hearts content, because you are allowed to'.

 

If it said something more like 'cachers beware if you read any further you might come across something which spoils your experience/makes it easier to find/insert any other phrase most sensible people can understand' those others might not be so confused.

Edited by THE REAL BOUDICA
Link to comment

Suppose someone published (not on gc.com) the final coordinates to a whole load of puzzle- and multi-caches, and she was delighting in advertising (again, not on gc.com) the existence of their spoiler site whilst telling CO's to go to h*** if they complained.

 

I think we'd all agree that the hypothetical miscreant should have her gc.com account closed, right?

 

Just wondering where people are drawing the line.

Link to comment

Suppose someone published (not on gc.com) the final coordinates to a whole load of puzzle- and multi-caches, and she was delighting in advertising (again, not on gc.com) the existence of their spoiler site whilst telling CO's to go to h*** if they complained.

 

I think we'd all agree that the hypothetical miscreant should have her gc.com account closed, right?

 

Just wondering where people are drawing the line.

 

 

You are absolutely right but missed the point by miles. Svens point has always been that he doesn't give co-ordinates to puzzle caches etc, just interesting, inspirational viewing whilst trying not to spoil the experience.

Link to comment

Suppose someone published (not on gc.com) the final coordinates to a whole load of puzzle- and multi-caches, and she was delighting in advertising (again, not on gc.com) the existence of their spoiler site whilst telling CO's to go to h*** if they complained.

 

I think we'd all agree that the hypothetical miscreant should have her gc.com account closed, right?

 

Just wondering where people are drawing the line.

 

Well if we're talking about something like your "Telepathy" cache (and "Inversion" which I've only just noticed) I'd say "Thank you very much for the coordinates" and save myself a sea of troubles! Speaking of seas of trouble your Jurassic Park cache also gave me a lot of bother I recall.

 

I hadn't seen Sven's videos before this lot blew up and I must say they (the one or two I've watched anyway) seem pretty harmless to me.

Link to comment

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.

 

Take note of the bold here. Interesting word. Inferring there was dialogue between CO and Sven prior to Groundspeak involvement. So why would they get involved? Certainly not because Sven asked, I'm sure. So must be on the CO request. And why would he want GS involved? Only the CO and Sven/Cup can answer that.

I think the timeline of correspondence between all parties involved with the issue is very important. So much can be lost in context without knowing when and who emailed/txt/PM'd etc etc. For example.

A posts vid on Youtube.

B asks his cache removed from vid.

A explains vid is not spoiler.

B still asks for removal

A further explains, meanwhile B asks GS to be involved.

GS request A remove vid or face suspension, A explains not spoiler. Meanwhile B has change of heart tells A

GS, unaware of change of heart by B, suspend A as vid has not changed despite warning.

World collapses and legal discussion ensues.

 

At the end of the day, their Terms clearly state, they have the last word on suspension of accounts if they deem so fit. And if they deem your not being fair to others playing the game, they will suspend you.

If you have issues with that, don't play the game.

Link to comment

This cache owner had asked Sven. directly, and Sven. had refused. When we intervened and pointed out our Terms of Use, he argued vehemently that the videos are not spoilers - even though that is the name of his Youtube channel.

 

Take note of the bold here. Interesting word. Inferring there was dialogue between CO and Sven prior to Groundspeak involvement. So why would they get involved? Certainly not because Sven asked, I'm sure. So must be on the CO request. And why would he want GS involved? Only the CO and Sven/Cup can answer that.

I think the timeline of correspondence between all parties involved with the issue is very important. So much can be lost in context without knowing when and who emailed/txt/PM'd etc etc. For example.

A posts vid on Youtube.

B asks his cache removed from vid.

A explains vid is not spoiler.

B still asks for removal

A further explains, meanwhile B asks GS to be involved.

GS request A remove vid or face suspension, A explains not spoiler. Meanwhile B has change of heart tells A

GS, unaware of change of heart by B, suspend A as vid has not changed despite warning.

World collapses and legal discussion ensues.

 

At the end of the day, their Terms clearly state, they have the last word on suspension of accounts if they deem so fit. And if they deem your not being fair to others playing the game, they will suspend you.

If you have issues with that, don't play the game.

The way I understood matters the position between A & B & GS was sorted out (not necessarily amicably, but sorted out nevertheless). It was when C also complained, and (this assumption needs some clarification)unpleasant e-mails were sent that Sven felt the need not to comply with the CO's wishes, dig his heels in and recieved his ban.

 

I totally agree with the sentiment of complying with CO's wishes, common courtesy if they politely request that their caches be removed form Svens video site but I am not sure if this is actually what happened. Will we ever know?

Link to comment

 

I almost fell off my chair when I read the above. What does that mean?

 

Is it missing an 'H' in the middle or a 'T' at the beginning. The former I hope. (LOL)

 

I think you just need to get down with the kids, it just means "what" apparently although I did wonder if it was an acronym :ph34r:

 

You might need top be careful how you 'get down with the kids' ! Not just be a GS ban your looking at !!!! :o

Link to comment
Well if we're talking about something like your "Telepathy" cache (and "Inversion" which I've only just noticed) I'd say "Thank you very much for the coordinates" and save myself a sea of troubles! Speaking of seas of trouble your Jurassic Park cache also gave me a lot of bother I recall.

Troubles? Bother? Really? Neil, you don't have to force yourself to visit my caches if they're that unpalatable. Alternatively, I'd be happy to provide hints by PM if you like.

Link to comment
You are absolutely right but missed the point by miles.

I've missed no point and am not attempting to draw an analogy with "Sven.". It was a hypothetical scenario, intended to draw out opinions on account closure in an extreme case.

It's a good point and although I don't mind people sharing puzzle cache tips and even solutions, once the balance is too much in favour of puzzles being pointless as the solution is always readily available within a short time then I think that ideally, action would be appropriate. However, Groundspeak don't need to quote Terms Of Use, they can simply lock the account using their discretionary powers.

There is a massive grey area, however, and it would probably all have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

 

Also, I don't see that any direct action could be taken against the puzzle solution web site, so if the web site owner made enough effort to stay anonymous then there'd be nothing anyone can do. And what if you had to pay a subscription to join the puzzle site before you could see any solutions?

Link to comment
Well if we're talking about something like your "Telepathy" cache (and "Inversion" which I've only just noticed) I'd say "Thank you very much for the coordinates" and save myself a sea of troubles! Speaking of seas of trouble your Jurassic Park cache also gave me a lot of bother I recall.

Troubles? Bother? Really? Neil, you don't have to force yourself to visit my caches if they're that unpalatable. Alternatively, I'd be happy to provide hints by PM if you like.

 

No hints required! I did Inversion this morning. Thanks for your caches, they're always fun.

Link to comment
... However, Groundspeak don't need to quote Terms Of Use, they can simply lock the account using their discretionary powers. ...
I'm with you on that.

 

No hints required! I did Inversion this morning. Thanks for your caches, they're always fun.
So you did -- strange that I didn't get an email notification! Hope the horses didn't give you any trouble ;) and that the weather held long enough for you to appreciate the views. Edited by I!
Link to comment

I totally agree with the sentiment of complying with CO's wishes, common courtesy if they politely request that their caches be removed form Svens video site but I am not sure if this is actually what happened. Will we ever know?

 

Probably not. What worries me however regardless of how the communication between the involved parties looked like is that Sven and Cup still deny that the videos do contain spoilers.

Even for non locals it is possible to match many of the videos with the shown cache. They might still argue that they think that such spoilers are tolerable (because that's a subjective point of view), but all these false claims (no cache id is shown which is false for at least one video), no information can be obtained for the shown caches (false for many of the videos) are quite annoying. I feel treated like an idiot. Every cacher of average intelligence and caching experience will be able to use the videos in a spoiler way if he/she intents to do so.

All this gives me the feeling that Sven and Cup treat us as fools.

 

I do not think that we need a precise definition of a what is a spoiler. If some information can provingly be used by an external person to find a cache and this information is not part of the cache description, then it is a definitely a spoiler.

Cezanne

Link to comment

enh... "spoiler" is definitely a very vague term. It all depends on what the cache owner intended to be a part of the discovery and caching experience with their particular cache.

 

For example, I would support a claim that a video showing a hidden bunker would be a spoiler if the hidden bunker was supposed to be a surprise as part of the hunt for the cache (especially if the CO asks in the listing not to post photos that give away anything not already in the description), even though the cache itself is not revealed. It "spoils" the intended experience with the cache.

 

And that opens the door for a lot of interpretation about what is and isn't a spoiler, from physical hides to puzzle solutions. (heck, even the definition of a 'hint' is debatable).

 

But if you cut through all that, and just be considerate the CO's wishes for their cache if you blog/share an experience, then no more drama, right? *knock on wood*

 

Ok... let's say I wanted to share a really cool hide I found, but didn't want to give away a cache. Maybe I'd mimic the hide somewhere else, even if only set up for the documentation of whatever it is I wanted to share. That's good for everyone, no? The only exceptions would be unique hides that can't be duplicated anywhere else. In that case, I'd question whether I should share it with the public at all. That would be akin to providing the answer to a 5 difficulty puzzle on, say, answers.com, even if not linked to the GC code. (try googling just some notable phrases or text content of any puzzle - you'd be surprised how much you could find that would aid your solving struggle, if not providing the answer itself).

 

Spoiler isn't clear cut. One person's spoiler is another person's hint is another person's enjoyable experience. Just be considerate as a blogger, and aware as a CO.

*shrug*

Link to comment

 

Every cacher of average intelligence and caching experience will be able to use the videos in a spoiler way if he/she intends to do so.

 

 

Playing devil's advocate here but is it the fault of the person who posted the videos or the fault of the person using them for a different purpose to that which was intended? It never even occurred to me when I watched them (before all the hype) that I could find out which caches they are because that's not how I choose to play the game. To me they were merely a form of entertainment and a chance to see some interesting hides, the likes of which I haven't seen before.

Link to comment

enh... "spoiler" is definitely a very vague term. It all depends on what the cache owner intended to be a part of the discovery and caching experience with their particular cache.

 

 

I'm staying out of the details of who said what to whom regarding Sven as it is too complex for me to follow! But I agree with this statement above. There can be a conflict between "share your experience online" and a "spoiler".

 

If someone shows a photo of the cache in it's hiding location, I think most everyone would agree that is a spoiler. But after that, it depends on the context and intentions of the owner. If the location is intended to be a surprise, then (for example) even saying the cache is in a bunker is a spoiler (let alone photos or video). But if the cache is advertised as being in a bunker, I don't see photos or videos spoiling the experience. I have found some interesting caches in underground mines - amazing places. But it was no secret that the caches were in these mines, and most everyone (including me) posted lots of photos (not of the cache, but of the underground journey). I looked at many of those photos in advance; it gave me an idea of what to expect, but it did not spoil the experience at all. Being there first hand is much different than a photo. I've seen lots of photos of Mt. Everest; that would not spoil the impact if I was ever able to climb it myself. Photos and videos of the nuclear bunker give me a feel of what it is like; but they also make me want to go there.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

And this is the key point:

Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

Hopefully we won't end up with people purposefully spoiling all the hard puzzle caches and revealing difficult hides. :P

past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community

I completely believe that.

 

It's nice that Nate shared this update honestly and transparently. It's a boon to the free sharing of geocaching adventures and experiences. I just hope people don't abuse that ability :)

Link to comment
4(m) is in the "Publishing Tools and Forums" section, which begins by limiting the Agreement to Groundspeak's own website and forums. It's as clear as day.

Allow me to wager the price of a pint of the beer of your choice, that Groundspeak's legal department will differ with you on that one. :D

 

As I mentioned earlier, that paragraph was added specifically to try and prevent people from creating websites full of Mystery cache spoiler info. If you create a site full of spoiler info, you risk having your access to Groundspeak's site and forums suspended. (The specific extension to YouTube videos as opposed to searchable coordinate information is, I trust we can agree, not to the crucial issue.)

 

Now, maybe a lawyer skilled in looking for loopholes might, just, be able to argue that 4(m) should be preceded by wording like "notwithstanding the preamble to this section", or moved to a different section entirely. But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers. The principal premise of this thread seems to be that the uploader is some kind of martyr who is being done some terrible wrong simply because he posted a video clip which upset nobody but Groundspeak. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Nick,

Groundspeak's legal department have now set about clarifying that this section meant what I thought it did.

The price of a pint of my local draught Welbeck Brewery ale varies quite a bit, but to be generous I've taken the lowest price I've paid this Autumn. £2. Lovely stuff, so if you're in this neck of the woods at any point I'd love to take you up on that generous offer. If you're feeling really generous I'll accept a stein of Kronenbourg in one of your excellent Strasbourgeois establishments next time I'm across there!

Kind regards from Sherwood Forest...

Link to comment
4(m) is in the "Publishing Tools and Forums" section, which begins by limiting the Agreement to Groundspeak's own website and forums. It's as clear as day.

Allow me to wager the price of a pint of the beer of your choice, that Groundspeak's legal department will differ with you on that one. :D

 

As I mentioned earlier, that paragraph was added specifically to try and prevent people from creating websites full of Mystery cache spoiler info. If you create a site full of spoiler info, you risk having your access to Groundspeak's site and forums suspended. (The specific extension to YouTube videos as opposed to searchable coordinate information is, I trust we can agree, not to the crucial issue.)

 

Now, maybe a lawyer skilled in looking for loopholes might, just, be able to argue that 4(m) should be preceded by wording like "notwithstanding the preamble to this section", or moved to a different section entirely. But even were this to be the case, it doesn't alter the fundamental question of whether what the uploader of the videos did was "right", in some sense which I hope we can agree on without having to join political parties or read particular newspapers. The principal premise of this thread seems to be that the uploader is some kind of martyr who is being done some terrible wrong simply because he posted a video clip which upset nobody but Groundspeak. That doesn't appear to be the case.

Nick,

Groundspeak's legal department have now set about clarifying that this section meant what I thought it did.

The price of a pint of my local draught Welbeck Brewery ale varies quite a bit, but to be generous I've taken the lowest price I've paid this Autumn. £2. Lovely stuff, so if you're in this neck of the woods at any point I'd love to take you up on that generous offer. If you're feeling really generous I'll accept a stein of Kronenbourg in one of your excellent Strasbourgeois establishments next time I'm across there!

Kind regards from Sherwood Forest...

 

In the absense of a "like" button :lol::D:lol::D:lol::D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...