Jump to content

Veterans day cache


deranja

Recommended Posts

A local reviewer of in my area shot down a cache because of the title as he put it was "political or pushing an agenda" the title was "Thank a Veteran" Then was asked to change the name.

 

The same reviewer published an event for 11-11-11 to meet up and wave American flags to honor Veterans. Did a search for Veteran caches and over 780 popped up with it in the title.

 

Really?!

 

So we emailed Groundspeak and this was the response:

Thank you for writing in. Certainly the Veterans do great work, for which they are worthy of both recognition and support. However, as you go down the list of organizations and people starting with those doing great work, and then those who are doing good work, and then those who are doing fair or so-so work, and on to those who are held in a negative light by nearly everyone, serious problems become obvious. Those problems are where do you draw the line, and who draws it? This is what is known as a slippery slope issue; once you start on the slope, it is hard to avoid slipping beyond where you wanted to be. Therefore, the answer is that we do not step on the slope at all.

 

Just curious as to the thoughts of others on the matter. Is putting a cache out for the veterans pushing an agenda? If so, arnt the Breast cancer awareness caches doing the same..... as well as CITO? (ok now im ready for the burning torches and pitch forks)

 

What do you all think? has anyone else had a similar situation?

Link to comment

Thank a veteran? Of course it's an agenda. Once you add action words like thank, honor, pause to reflect, be aware of, etc. to a cache name or description that will set most reviewer's agenda alerts buzzing.

 

Breast cancer awareness would also be considered an agenda.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

You will need to go through those 780 caches one by one and put them into two categories:

 

Neutral references: "Veteran's Memorial Park Cache," "Veteran's Cemetery Cache" and any other "Veteran's" cache that only contains factual statements and geographic references ("there are many veterans' graves here;" "this VFW chapter was started by World War II veterans, and we thank them for giving permission to hide a cache near their social hall;" etc.)

 

Agenda references: "Please take a moment to pause and reflect as you give thanks to the many veterans buried here;" "this cache is to honor and pay tribute to the veterans who meet here regularly at the VFW hall - if you see one, you should thank him for his service;" etc.)

 

Report back with your findings. I would bet that more than half are "neutral references," and the balance are grandfathered under previous interpretations of the guidelines, were changed post-publication, represent a toned-down version after compromising with the reviewer, or were published by reviewers who aren't interpreting the guideline in the same manner as the rest of the group.

Link to comment

Just making sure I understand this. We have what, three pages on a forum entry showing this rule being CLEARLY defied.....

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.
(The defacement or destruction is visible on a low res jpeg image taken from SPACE.....)

 

but, the rules/reviewers have an issue with people wanting to honor our military veterans? Or, since the celebratory tone of the post I'm referencing...

 

We did it, geocachers! Take a bow!

 

...it almost looks like this cache series had/has an agenda of CLEARLY defying a rule, and potentially making geocaching harder for all of us by doing so, I can only assume this entire series is awaiting archival now, by one of our astute reviewers.

 

(Damage to the environment may not be an issue at this particular location. I'm referencing the apparently selective enforcement of the rules, and what is, in my opinion, a skewed perspective on things.)

 

I normally support the staff at Groundspeak 100%, and have even encouraged Members to pay for the premium membership. However, on this issue, I can't. And, yes, I am a military veteran, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If someone trying to do something to honor a part of our society that is largely responsible for us having the freedom to live as we choose is shot down by a reviewer, how is the other post I'm referencing in any way condoned? Since I suppose I'm a paying customer, perhaps someone can answer me this.

Link to comment

If someone trying to do something to honor a part of our society that is largely responsible for us having the freedom to live as we choose is shot down by a reviewer, how is the other post I'm referencing in any way condoned? Since I suppose I'm a paying customer, perhaps someone can answer me this.

While I think honoring out vetetans is a good thing, you must realize that geocaching is a worldwide game. Not everybody in the world wants to honor our veterans. Would you be as happy about caches honoring 'the martyrs who have killed American oppressors' or 'pray for our brave lads who brought down the towers with their lives' (no real caches or groups are represented here, just examples). So you can see it's all in your point of view. Groundspeak, as an international company, has to balance every view, so no agendas.

Link to comment

...perhaps someone can answer me this.

 

This is perhaps one of the better explanations that I've found:

 

New cache request denied

 

The same reviewer published an event for 11-11-11 to meet up and wave American flags to honor Veterans.

 

My guess is that it was an oversight on the Reviewers part, or the phrasing may have been added post Publication. Merely the word, "Veteran" in the Title, would not necessarily raise any flags with most Reviewers I imagine.

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment

This series overlooked? Thanks for Your Service

I ran a search on that term and found a large series of caches in a midwestern state. I would not have published any of those caches unless the owner obtained special permission from Groundspeak.

 

I did, however, publish an analogous series in Ohio a few years ago, minus the tribute poem in the cache description. That cache series owner DID write to Groundspeak to obtain permission for limited "tribute" content in their cache writeups.

Link to comment

If someone trying to do something to honor a part of our society that is largely responsible for us having the freedom to live as we choose is shot down by a reviewer, how is the other post I'm referencing in any way condoned? Since I suppose I'm a paying customer, perhaps someone can answer me this.

While I think honoring out vetetans is a good thing, you must realize that geocaching is a worldwide game. Not everybody in the world wants to honor our veterans. Would you be as happy about caches honoring 'the martyrs who have killed American oppressors' or 'pray for our brave lads who brought down the towers with their lives' (no real caches or groups are represented here, just examples). So you can see it's all in your point of view. Groundspeak, as an international company, has to balance every view, so no agendas.

Although, I wouldn't agree with the celebration posed in the example, I would defend their right to create a cache about it. Again, not my sandbox, so I don't get to make the rules.

Link to comment

If someone trying to do something to honor a part of our society that is largely responsible for us having the freedom to live as we choose is shot down by a reviewer, how is the other post I'm referencing in any way condoned? Since I suppose I'm a paying customer, perhaps someone can answer me this.

While I think honoring out vetetans is a good thing, you must realize that geocaching is a worldwide game. Not everybody in the world wants to honor our veterans. Would you be as happy about caches honoring 'the martyrs who have killed American oppressors' or 'pray for our brave lads who brought down the towers with their lives' (no real caches or groups are represented here, just examples). So you can see it's all in your point of view. Groundspeak, as an international company, has to balance every view, so no agendas.

 

Well, the beauty of our country is that we're free to advocate those things if we choose. I, because of that freedom, can choose not to look for caches I don't like, or like the theme of. (As I would likely do with a "Find the 72 Virgins" cache that looked like a pipe bomb. Just an example.) Again, while as a veteran, it does irritate me, the main point of my reply was the selective enforcement of the rules by Groundspeak. (Or by volunteers representing Groundspeak.) When someone posts clear photographic evidence of one of the "rules" being broken, nothing is said with any official authority. And, I say again, that the tone of that post leads me to believe the intent was there all along, which speaks to an agenda. While the agenda may not have been known at the time of publishing, it should be plainly obvious now. Another counter point I will give is that while Groundspeak may have clients world wide, they are based in America. I don't know the demographics data for all of us, but I'd bet a solid majority are from here as well. I'm also going to assume that the vast majority of people that would find this cache are American as well. And, I never saw anything the OP stated (which I'm assuming to be complete info....) in which he was trying to deliberately exclude anything, nationality, or anyone. My wife published a cache for our 15th wedding anniversary. By the logic presented to justify this cache being shot down, so should that one have been. And, I work as an analyst, and understand there is always some subjectivity in the "quality control" process. This isn't something up for subjectivity. One cache is shot down for not following a rule, one cache is celebrated for unmistakably breaking one. It doesn't jive.

 

Now, I'm not trying bash our reviewers, or the effort they volunteer their time with. As I say in every posting I submit to be published, I sincerely do appreciate it. But, selective enforcement of the rules isn't good. If the problem is that the rules published by Groundspeak aren't clear, or leave too much room for interpretation, it needs to be addressed. Premium Members are paying customers. While the fee may be nominal, I'd like to think it merits us a bit of customer service, like someone telling us why we should live with a double standard. Or, as they say in the Pirates movies, "We thought they were more guidelines, than actual rules...", let us know that as well, and be prepared for the arguments that come with it.

 

This isn't an issue that will likely stop anyone from caching, and it doesn't even affect me directly. But, the rules should apply to all of us the same.

Link to comment

Let me get this right. A cacher may not have an event on a National Holiday like Veterans Day and entitle it "Thank A Veteran" because it is political in nature and someone may be offended by that? You don't see those offended trying to get the "day off" abolished. I'm told that Groundspeak can sell Veterans Geocoins for profit OR charge cachers a fee for using their logo on their Veterans Geocoin? It upsets me that it's okay to make money off of the subject but we can't honor those that are the subject. Just sayin and sayin no more!

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm stunned that the focus from Groundspeak seems to be placing so much effort into defending this inconsistency, rather than just apologizing. As a Navy veteran myself, I find it deeply disturbing that something as precious as serving one's country is considered questionable content. Disgusting.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm stunned that the focus from Groundspeak seems to be placing so much effort into defending this inconsistency, rather than just apologizing. As a Navy veteran myself, I find it deeply disturbing that something as precious as serving one's country is considered questionable content. Disgusting.

 

Well said, I'm not sure Groundspeak realizes the can of worms they've opened up. From the rumble I'm hearing from our local cachers this revolt is just starting.

Link to comment

Let me get this right. A cacher may not have an event on a National Holiday like Veterans Day and entitle it "Thank A Veteran" because it is political in nature and someone may be offended by that? You don't see those offended trying to get the "day off" abolished. I'm told that Groundspeak can sell Veterans Geocoins for profit OR charge cachers a fee for using their logo on their Veterans Geocoin? It upsets me that it's okay to make money off of the subject but we can't honor those that are the subject. Just sayin and sayin no more!

How is a Thank A Veteran event relevant to geocaching? I think that is the Groundspeak rational for not publishing such an event.

Link to comment

When the original cache was submitted the denial for publication was as follows:

 

"Thanks for the submission, but I'll have to ask you to change your Title, Description and Hint that refers to Veterans.

 

Groundspeak offers this Listing service with the expectation that the Listing pages will have some information about the cache, and maybe a small amount of information about the surrounding area. Listing pages are not intended to be platforms for political, religious, or social agendas."

 

There are obviously more than a couple problems with this, not the least of which is a blatant disregard for Veterans. I GREATLY appreciate what some of the others have said here and echo their disgust and dissatisfaction.

 

I would simply like to add that if this moderator was honest about his reasons he would have to quit his job. EVERY cache is either political, religious or social - seriously. We don't do this for a living - we do it for FUN - it is a SOCIAL activity. And as proven already, there are NUMEROUS political and religious caches published all the time - INCLUDING ONE HE PUBLISHED THAT SAME DAY that was admitedly "political."

 

A simple apology and admission of inappropriate/unjust action on the reviewers part would go a long way. Without it, it looks like this dissatisfied group of people may go a short way over the internet to a less popular but more customer friendly caching organization. That's the wonderful benefit our Veteran's provide for us - CHOICE. I'm making my choice now and it doesn't look good for Groundspeak.

Edited by lynni-j
Link to comment

Let me get this right. A cacher may not have an event on a National Holiday like Veterans Day and entitle it "Thank A Veteran" because it is political in nature and someone may be offended by that? You don't see those offended trying to get the "day off" abolished. I'm told that Groundspeak can sell Veterans Geocoins for profit OR charge cachers a fee for using their logo on their Veterans Geocoin? It upsets me that it's okay to make money off of the subject but we can't honor those that are the subject. Just sayin and sayin no more!

How is a Thank A Veteran event relevant to geocaching? I think that is the Groundspeak rational for not publishing such an event.

 

How is "Thank You Grand High Pobah" relevant? Or Thank a Teacher, Thank a Lifeguard or thank anyone else? The fact is there are at least a dozen caches already published with the name Thank a Vet or Veteran and this particular reviewer published one even MORE political than this one on THE SAME DAY he denied this one.

 

It isn't an agenda issue - it isn't even an issue of being "relevant to geocaching." It's an issue of inconsistency and, on the part of this particular reviewer, absolute discrimination and power mongering. Seriously - a simple apology and clarification of what the rules really mean is all that is needed here but because everyone is so spineless and afraid to "offend" someone no apology or admission of wrong doing is taking place.

 

And for the record - I respect your right to agree with Groundspeak (though you don't actually say if you do or not). It's a right we all enjoy and should THANK A VETERAN for. Many died so we could have this very conversation. :-)

Edited by lynni-j
Link to comment

lynn-j, you really need to dial it down a notch and quit personalizing it to the reviewer. They're just doing their job. Thanks.

With all due respect, this *is* a personal issue to many of us either as veterans, or relatives of veterans--BOTH of Lynni-j's sons are US Marines. And I have to agree that it does seem to be personal because of the fact that Groundspeak's reviewers are obviously allowed some amount of interpretation when deciding whether to publish a cache or not. The reviewer that refused to publish this cache seems to be working of a different set of rules from other reviewers, some of whom published veteran-tribute caches on this same Veteran's Day.

Link to comment

We had an 11-11-11 cache denied for the exact same reason. The local reviewer quoted the same guideline about "agendas," and then further expanded on it by saying that caches that "evoke emotion" are not allowed. My first reaction was to re-do the cache page so that it wouldn't include an "agenda" honoring our veterans on Veterans Day (and this is what I did so I could get it published). My gut reaction, however, was one of extreme confusion and just a bit of anger. We have found and logged, literally, HUNDREDS of caches across the world that "honor" everything from veterans, 9-11 victims, 9-11 responders, firefighters, Girl Scouts, police officers, even random dead people in cemeteries. This past summer, we found a cache hidden right on top of a two-year-old child's grave...if that doesn't evoke some emotion, I don't know what does.

 

My chief complaint with the stance Groundspeak is taking is that it is obvious that this guideline is not enforced uniformly. There were TONS of caches published for 11-11-11 that had references in both the titles and cache descriptions about honoring our veterans. There are TONS of caches in the world that honor all kinds of things (just type in the keyword "honor" in cache name to see some of them) and many of them have something in the description about taking some time to honor whomever it's about.

 

I agree that Groundspeak should not have to decide which "causes" or "agendas" are worthy. I am just disappointed that some caches get published and others don't when the theme is exactly the same. I would never have written my cache page in the way I did, originally, if I had thought there would be an issue with honoring our veterans...it's just that we have found so many caches of a similar kind that WERE published.

Link to comment

Let me get this right. A cacher may not have an event on a National Holiday like Veterans Day and entitle it "Thank A Veteran" because it is political in nature and someone may be offended by that? You don't see those offended trying to get the "day off" abolished. I'm told that Groundspeak can sell Veterans Geocoins for profit OR charge cachers a fee for using their logo on their Veterans Geocoin? It upsets me that it's okay to make money off of the subject but we can't honor those that are the subject. Just sayin and sayin no more!

How is a Thank A Veteran event relevant to geocaching? I think that is the Groundspeak rational for not publishing such an event.

I've attended events to celebrate the month of November, the Autumn equinox, breakfast for dinner, a wedding, jazz music and many others that have nothing to do with geocaching.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm stunned that the focus from Groundspeak seems to be placing so much effort into defending this inconsistency, rather than just apologizing. As a Navy veteran myself, I find it deeply disturbing that something as precious as serving one's country is considered questionable content. Disgusting.

 

Well said, I'm not sure Groundspeak realizes the can of worms they've opened up. From the rumble I'm hearing from our local cachers this revolt is just starting.

 

This "can of worms" has been opened for years and threads pop up like this several times a year where people are furious that Groundspeak won't let them promote their agenda. I recall a huge blow up because they wouldn't allow caches encouraging tsunami relief. Another furor about not allowing Toys for Tots caches. There have been many others. The veteran one comes up at least once a year, usually around this time.

 

Groundspeak has wisely (in my opinion) decided to keep all agendas out of geocaching. The idea is to keep it a light-hearted, fun activity. Nearly everybody has their pet agenda and I like that I can geocache without being bombarded with caches urging me to be aware of breast cancer, support PETA, give to the Red Cross, find Jesus, thank a teacher, whatever.

 

It's not an anti veteran thing (the president of Groundspeak is a veteran himself, as are many of the reviewers), it's an anti agenda thing.

 

Frankly I think the idea of honoring veterans by sticking a film canister in a parking lot or some Tupperware in a tree stump is kind of lame. If you really want to honor them volunteer at a VA hospital, support legislation that positively impacts our veterans, go to a Veterans Day observance, donate money to veteran related causes, join the Patriot Guard, clean up the veterans section of a cemetery. A geocache in their honor? That is just a cop out. Do something tangible for these men and woman who gave so much.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Here's how I interpret the agenda guideline: If Groundspeak allows caches honoring veterans, then they must allow caches honoring any other group. They cannot say we'll honor good causes because the definition of a good cause changes a lot depending on who you talk to. I don't think your reviewer hates veterans (s)he was just doing the job and interpreting the guideline. The event seems fishy, but all the celebration stuff could easily have been added after publication. I think most reviewers would allow any cache that present just facts, but once you add words like thank, honor, pause to reflect, be aware of, etc it becomes an agenda.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm stunned that the focus from Groundspeak seems to be placing so much effort into defending this inconsistency, rather than just apologizing. As a Navy veteran myself, I find it deeply disturbing that something as precious as serving one's country is considered questionable content. Disgusting.

 

Well said, I'm not sure Groundspeak realizes the can of worms they've opened up. From the rumble I'm hearing from our local cachers this revolt is just starting.

 

This "can of worms" has been opened for years and threads pop up like this several times a year where people are furious that Groundspeak won't let them promote their agenda. I recall a huge blow up because they wouldn't allow caches encouraging tsunami relief. Another furor about not allowing Toys for Tots caches. There have been many others. The veteran one comes up at last once a year, usually around this time.

 

Groundspeak has wisely (in my opinion) decided to keep all agendas out of geocaching. The idea is to keep it a light-hearted, fun activity. Nearly everybody has their pet agenda and I like that I can geocache without being bombarded with caches urging me to be aware of breast cancer, support PETA, give to the Red Cross, find Jesus, thank a teacher, whatever.

 

It's not an anti veteran thing (the president of Groundspeak is a veteran himself, as are many of the reviewers), it's an anti agenda thing.

 

Frankly I think the idea of honoring veterans by sticking a film canister in a parking lot or some Tupperware in a tree stump is kind of lame. If you really want to honor them volunteer at a VA hospital, support legislation that positively impacts our veterans, go to a Veterans Day observance, donate money to veteran related causes, join the Patriot Guard. Do something tangible for these men and woman who gave so much.

All valid points, briansnat. I think the frustration comes with the wide range of interpretation of the agenda guideline and the fact that alot of geocaches and events have some kind of agenda, albeit vague and non-controversial, yet still an agenda. As I noted above, I attended a wedding event. Some folks are opposed to marriage, others firmly believe it to be a sacred institution. It's just a sampling.

Link to comment

Frankly, I'm stunned that the focus from Groundspeak seems to be placing so much effort into defending this inconsistency, rather than just apologizing. As a Navy veteran myself, I find it deeply disturbing that something as precious as serving one's country is considered questionable content. Disgusting.

 

Well said, I'm not sure Groundspeak realizes the can of worms they've opened up. From the rumble I'm hearing from our local cachers this revolt is just starting.

 

This "can of worms" has been opened for years and threads pop up like this several times a year where people are furious that Groundspeak won't let them promote their agenda. I recall a huge blow up because they wouldn't allow caches encouraging tsunami relief. Another furor about not allowing Toys for Tots caches. There have been many others. The veteran one comes up at last once a year, usually around this time.

 

Groundspeak has wisely (in my opinion) decided to keep all agendas out of geocaching. The idea is to keep it a light-hearted, fun activity. Nearly everybody has their pet agenda and I like that I can geocache without being bombarded with caches urging me to be aware of breast cancer, support PETA, give to the Red Cross, find Jesus, thank a teacher, whatever.

 

It's not an anti veteran thing (the president of Groundspeak is a veteran himself, as are many of the reviewers), it's an anti agenda thing.

 

Frankly I think the idea of honoring veterans by sticking a film canister in a parking lot or some Tupperware in a tree stump is kind of lame. If you really want to honor them volunteer at a VA hospital, support legislation that positively impacts our veterans, go to a Veterans Day observance, donate money to veteran related causes, join the Patriot Guard, clean up the veterans section of a cemetery. A geocache in their honor? That is just a cop out. Do something tangible for these men and woman who gave so much.

 

As a veteran my self, and still serving, I happen to agree with this post, and I agree with Groundspeaks stance.

Link to comment

Rules or guidlines ar made to be broken. Their is an exception to everything. And this exception just seems to of gone the wrong way.

Their ar many caches that are in "honour" of Christmas does that break the rules. As CHRISTMAS is CHRIST's Mass, so werew honouring someones religious idol.

In this area i know of a least half a doezen that say "in honour of our newest baby" or "to celebrate our first child" so if one of theses children grow up to be a service person and a vetran , is that cache need to be removed?

Caches are usually relevent to the geographic area their placed. Although Geocaching is INTERNATIONAL, you go to certain areas of the world and their only relevant to that area. If it was called "In Honour to ALL our veterans World Wide" would that cover it?

I myself had a cache called "Caching with the Gods" it was in a park with a hill (mount) and park was called Olympus; thus Gods of Mount Olympus.Im a Polytheist and it didnt offend me. But im sure as a Christmas one does some this one did too. Being PC is not about honouring ANY walk of life, its about RESPECT for each other and those before us and coming after us. Something were losing in society. If the cache name offends -their's 99,9999 others around u to find.

Link to comment

Here's how I interpret the agenda guideline: If Groundspeak allows caches honoring veterans, then they must allow caches honoring any other group.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Supporting veterans is an agenda I happen to support -- but it's still an agenda. And once you start allowing "good" agendas, you open the door to "bad" agendas. Do we want Ku Klux Klan caches? Or Westboro Baptist Church caches? Or NAMBLA caches? I sure don't. Caching's about caching. Leave your other baggage at the door.

 

FWIW, I'm an OEF/OIF veteran still serving on active duty, my dad's a 25 year veteran of the National Guard, his dad was too old to fight in WWII but helped build airfields in the Aleutians. Grandfather on the other side was a Navy veteran in the Pacific. Not that that makes me better than anyone -- just FYI for those who might have been tempted to take a potshot.

 

edit to add: I also happen to agree that hiding a film can to honor veterans is about as useful as putting on a "support our troops" bumper sticker. Sure it makes you feel good about yourself, but actions (volunteering at the USO, sending a care package, anything briansnat listed above) speak a bit louder.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

And, I'll reply again with, it doesn't matter what the "agenda" is. This one just happens to involve Veteran's Day. The "agenda" could be me posting a cache to get people to meet and have dinner with me. (Been to one of those as well....) The thing I am trying to highlight is at best inconsistent, and at worst deliberate selection in enforcement of the rules. And, the stance of "we support no agenda" doesn't hold water. The first event cache I went to was a celebration of the 10th anniversary of Geocaching, and Groundspeak even created a new icon for people that went to events celebrating it. (and sold tshirts, geocoins, dog collars, stickers for your car....) So, I suppose that "we support no agenda" doesn't include the agenda of making money. I suppose if we start paying Groundspeak for the privilege of "supporting our agenda" it will then become alright? And, Brain, in re-reading the thread I referenced (now at 5 pages), you agree that they are wrong to be leaving an impact like they are. The point I'm trying to make is that according to the rule that Groundspeak established, that series should be archived. And, I don't see how "big Groundspeak" can say that it hasn't hit the radar yet. At least two forum mods have commented on that topic. And, other people in this thread have noted a gross inconsistency with the same reviewer, and what they interpret to be acceptable. Again, if there is that much ambiguity in the rules, it needs to be clarified. Or, has been mentioned, Groundspeak may need to stop worrying about the 1% that might be offended by a Veteran's day cache, and maybe take note of the much larger number that seem to be offended by the refusal of one. Maybe they need to stop pretending to hold the "we support no agenda" stance, and revise it to a "that cache goes out of the way to be offensive" stance, which would make a LOT more sense.

 

Later!

Link to comment

lynn-j, you really need to dial it down a notch and quit personalizing it to the reviewer. They're just doing their job. Thanks.

With all due respect, this *is* a personal issue to many of us either as veterans, or relatives of veterans--BOTH of Lynni-j's sons are US Marines.

Please don't take the position that you speak for all veterans on this issue. You do not speak for me. Groundspeak's position is appropriate, in my opinion.

 

And I have to agree that it does seem to be personal because of the fact that Groundspeak's reviewers are obviously allowed some amount of interpretation when deciding whether to publish a cache or not.
It's not personal. This thread topic comes up with predictable reliability. Also, I think that your conclusion that the reviewers have flexibility in this area is in error. Agenda caches are published either because approval has been sought and obtained from tptb or because one of the volunteer reviewers erred. I'll not support an argument that just because a cache was published in error or by special exception then all agenda caches should be published.
Link to comment

The thing I am trying to highlight is at best inconsistent, and at worst deliberate selection in enforcement of the rules.

Reviewers are human beings. Accidents happen.

 

 

And, the stance of "we support no agenda" doesn't hold water. The first event cache I went to was a celebration of the 10th anniversary of Geocaching, and Groundspeak even created a new icon for people that went to events celebrating it. (and sold tshirts, geocoins, dog collars, stickers for your car....) So, I suppose that "we support no agenda" doesn't include the agenda of making money.

Obviously, it's OK for your cache to promote geocaching.

 

Or, has been mentioned, Groundspeak may need to stop worrying about the 1% that might be offended by a Veteran's day cache, and maybe take note of the much larger number that seem to be offended by the refusal of one.
The idea that they should allow or disallow any cache based on majority rules makes no sense to me. The guideline exists for a reason. Many have explained this reason. No one has submitted a compelling argument against this reason. If you think that a compelling argument exists, pop over to the website forum and start a thread. Try to get the rule changed in the appropriate venue and let's see what happens. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Course...the case may be that some of those caches you found were changed after the cache was published...while you may think this is a "valid" work-around, it isn't...

 

As with any "job" where people work, you will get a difference of opions and how something should be enforced. No appology needed on the part of the reviewer...he/she is only doing what he/she thinks is right based on the information available at the time.

Link to comment

lynn-j, you really need to dial it down a notch and quit personalizing it to the reviewer. They're just doing their job. Thanks.

With all due respect, this *is* a personal issue to many of us either as veterans, or relatives of veterans--BOTH of Lynni-j's sons are US Marines.

Please don't take the position that you speak for all veterans on this issue. You do not speak for me. Groundspeak's position is appropriate, in my opinion.

 

I never said I was speaking for you, sbell111, nor did I say I "speak for all veterans". Allow me to share with you the definition of the word "all":

all   [awl] adjective

1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration)

 

I said "...many of us". Here is the definition of the word "many":

man·y   [men-ee] adjective

1. constituting or forming a large number; numerous

 

While "many" is not a specific number, in this instance, it does constitued a "large number" of people, so please read ALL the words someone writes (maybe twice) before you start quoting and responding to individual posts.

Link to comment

The way that sentence is written, the 'many' modifies 'us', which I took to be geocachers. It then went on to identify that group of 'many' as 'veterans or relatives of veterans'. In other words, it could be restated as 'geocachers who are veterans or relatives of veterans' believe this way, which is obviously not correct.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

The way that sentence is written, the 'many' modifies 'us', which I took to be geocachers. It then went on to identify that group of 'many' as 'veterans or relatives of veterans'. In other words, it could be restated as 'geocachers who are veterans or relatives of veterans' believe this way, which is obviously not correct.

 

Trust me--my "many" definitely doesn't have to include you...you can move onto your next reply, LOL.

Link to comment

...it could be restated as 'geocachers who are veterans or relatives of veterans' believe this way, which is obviously not correct.

 

And a friendly tip: For someone who specifically requested that I not speak for them, which I hadn't, you may want to avoid "restating" anyone else's post. Unless of course, you're a fan of irony.

 

Have a great day!

Link to comment

I am a Marine and I am perfectly fine with Groundspeak's stand. An agenda is an agenda is an agenda. And to be perfectly honest, when I am caching, I'd rather be out there having fun, not having the real world thrown in my face every time I hit the find button on my GPS. I get enough real world every day. I don't need it in my recreation as well.

 

And as much as someone may want to have the right to have a cache honoring their cause du jour, keep in mind that this site is a privately held company, not a public service, and it has a right to set their own rules of how their site is used.

 

Have there been inconsistencies in how the "no agenda" guideline has been applied? Sure there has. Mistakes, lapses of judgement, grandfathered caches, and any number of other reasons have contributed to those inconsistencies. But as other guidelines state, a published cache is not a precedent for getting new caches published.

 

Finally, I have to agree with the previous post that points out far better and more meaningful ways to honor veterans. There are even better ways to do so while caching. For instance....

 

If you go to a cache at a VFW, American Legion, or such post, go inside and spend a little time with the veterans there. Shake a few hands, buy 'em a drink or lunch, say thanks, and move on. Or spend a little more time and listen to their stories.

 

When you cache in a cemetery, tidy up veterans' markers, reset flags, clean the years of dirt off of them, bring and put up flags, etc. Or just stop, read their name, and reflect a bit. Say a little prayer if that's your thing. All of that only takes a moment. Take a break, do a little, then dash off for your next smiley.

 

Spend more time at a war memorial than it takes to grab a cache, scribble your name, and speed off. Take the time to reflect on the meaning of the memorial and the very real people and sacrifices it represents.

 

OK. That was far more than I planned on saying. I'll hop off my soapbox.

 

Semper Fi

Link to comment

So just to paraphrase some of the Moderators, Reviewers and other cachers, caches that pay tribute to Veterans, Fireman, 9/11, teachers and so forth are promoting agendas and are therefore should not be published.

 

I have a series of caches that pay tribute to local cachers should i archive them? Like:

GC23PTE

 

What about the caches that are tributes to the reviewers? (published by reviewers) such as:

GC1R5JJ

GC1MKQ3

Link to comment

I am a Marine and I am perfectly fine with Groundspeak's stand. An agenda is an agenda is an agenda. And to be perfectly honest, when I am caching, I'd rather be out there having fun, not having the real world thrown in my face every time I hit the find button on my GPS. I get enough real world every day. I don't need it in my recreation as well.

 

And as much as someone may want to have the right to have a cache honoring their cause du jour, keep in mind that this site is a privately held company, not a public service, and it has a right to set their own rules of how their site is used.

 

Have there been inconsistencies in how the "no agenda" guideline has been applied? Sure there has. Mistakes, lapses of judgement, grandfathered caches, and any number of other reasons have contributed to those inconsistencies. But as other guidelines state, a published cache is not a precedent for getting new caches published.

 

Finally, I have to agree with the previous post that points out far better and more meaningful ways to honor veterans. There are even better ways to do so while caching. For instance....

 

If you go to a cache at a VFW, American Legion, or such post, go inside and spend a little time with the veterans there. Shake a few hands, buy 'em a drink or lunch, say thanks, and move on. Or spend a little more time and listen to their stories.

 

When you cache in a cemetery, tidy up veterans' markers, reset flags, clean the years of dirt off of them, bring and put up flags, etc. Or just stop, read their name, and reflect a bit. Say a little prayer if that's your thing. All of that only takes a moment. Take a break, do a little, then dash off for your next smiley.

 

Spend more time at a war memorial than it takes to grab a cache, scribble your name, and speed off. Take the time to reflect on the meaning of the memorial and the very real people and sacrifices it represents.

 

OK. That was far more than I planned on saying. I'll hop off my soapbox.

 

Semper Fi

Although not a Marine, but rather a grunt from a different era, I stand by Semper Questio, word-for-word and top-to-bottom.

Link to comment

Too disturbed to respond. This really upsets me. We probably wouldn't be able to wander from here to there and seek caches if it weren't for the Veterans. This series overlooked? Thanks for Your Service

 

In which country is your version of "from here to there"?

 

There are other possible "agenda" caches that would probably upset you even more if they WERE published. As has been pointed out, we don't all agree on all causes. Best to just keep geocaching as geocaching, and not as advertising for a cause.

Link to comment

or were published by reviewers who aren't interpreting the guideline in the same manner as the rest of the group.

 

...and this is what confuses a LOT of cachers.

 

As often as this topic comes up I wish there were a way to create more consistency with regard to agendas and avoid the confusion. However, I'm pretty sure that allowing "good causes" like supporting our Veterans, but not allowing causes which are not so good, is going to be a successful approach to establishing more consistency with regard to agendas.

Link to comment

So just to paraphrase some of the Moderators, Reviewers and other cachers, caches that pay tribute to Veterans, Fireman, 9/11, teachers and so forth are promoting agendas and are therefore should not be published.

 

I have a series of caches that pay tribute to local cachers should i archive them? Like:

GC23PTE

 

What about the caches that are tributes to the reviewers? (published by reviewers) such as:

GC1R5JJ

GC1MKQ3

 

Caches named for favorite people, are not agendas. What they may promote could be an agenda. I do not see promotion in those caches listed above (one small phrase, perhaps). It's all in the wording.

 

Kneeling to thank a hero is a personal choice. Asking somebody else to kneel in thanking a hero is an agenda. While it may be a small difference, it is the difference between an agenda or not.

 

Needless to say, I agree (to this point) with the Groundspeak position.

 

To continue to nit-pik is a waste of oxygen.

 

My 2¢

Link to comment

 

Snip...

 

However, I'm pretty sure that allowing "good causes" like supporting our Veterans, but not allowing causes which are not so good, is going to be a successful approach to establishing more consistency with regard to agendas.

 

 

This puts in mind of something my sis-in-law says.

 

Remember. Kitty heaven is mousey hell.

 

IOW - Your good agenda isn't necessarily someone else's good agenda and vice versa. How ya gonna police that? Who is going to be the social arbiter?

Link to comment

So just to paraphrase some of the Moderators, Reviewers and other cachers, caches that pay tribute to Veterans, Fireman, 9/11, teachers and so forth are promoting agendas and are therefore should not be published.

 

I have a series of caches that pay tribute to local cachers should i archive them? Like:

GC23PTE

 

What about the caches that are tributes to the reviewers? (published by reviewers) such as:

GC1R5JJ

GC1MKQ3

It seems a tribute to an individual, particularly someone you know like a family member or fellow geocacher, is seen as different then honoring an entire group. In addition saying you placed a cache in honor/memory of so-and-so, is different than placing a cache and asking people to take action like "thank a vet". But is is all up to how the reviewer sees it. The agenda guidelines are necessarily somewhat open to interpretation.

 

There are certain things reviewers look for in deciding something is an agenda. I've been told that if you ask people to do something such as "remember their sacrifice" or "thank a vet" it raises a red flag. I've seen cases where someone has brought the issue to forum simply because the reviewer wanted them to take out the one sentence and make a big deal of over it. You most likely could have a cache honoring veterans if you simply state some facts about Veteran's day (and it is appropriate because the cache is in Veteran's Park or in front of the VFW post) and avoid phrases like "Thank a Vet".

Link to comment

So just to paraphrase some of the Moderators, Reviewers and other cachers, caches that pay tribute to Veterans, Fireman, 9/11, teachers and so forth are promoting agendas and are therefore should not be published.

 

I have a series of caches that pay tribute to local cachers should i archive them? Like:

GC23PTE

 

What about the caches that are tributes to the reviewers? (published by reviewers) such as:

GC1R5JJ

GC1MKQ3

 

This post by a reviewer was linked to earlier, but apparently you didn't see it or didn't read it, so I will quote it here, if I may, because it answers your questions about those caches in the first paragraph:

 

Caches to honour an individual (person, dog, etc) generally don't trigger the "agenda" guideline. Once you try to honour a group, and especially if the wording suggests that the cache seeker might like to do the same thing, it's fairly easy to cross the line. (In both cases, "YMMV" applies.) You might not think that anything as simple as honouring service personnel could be seen as an agenda, but that's generally how Groundspeak, the lackeys, and the reviewers will see it.

 

The line between an acceptable and an unacceptable agenda has to be drwan somewhere (example: "this cache honours the gallant SS officers who fought to keep the Bolsheviks from invading our beloved German fatherland in 1945" blink.gif), and Groundspeak has made the choice to draw that line right at the top of the page. This means that a number of causes which almost nobody on the planet would object to are excluded, as are causes which might be controversial internationally but which 99.9% of the people likely to visit the cache would support.

 

Groundspeak has absolutely no tree-hugging pinko liberal hippy peacenik agenda; indeed, the company President is an Air Force veteran. Keeping agendas - even great ones - off cache pages is the best guarantee of keeping this game free for everyone, in the same way that keeping established religion out of the US Constitution is the best way to guarantee freedom of religion.

Link to comment

Just making sure I understand this. We have what, three pages on a forum entry showing this rule being CLEARLY defied.....

 

4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.
(The defacement or destruction is visible on a low res jpeg image taken from SPACE.....)

 

but, the rules/reviewers have an issue with people wanting to honor our military veterans? Or, since the celebratory tone of the post I'm referencing...

 

We did it, geocachers! Take a bow!

 

...it almost looks like this cache series had/has an agenda of CLEARLY defying a rule, and potentially making geocaching harder for all of us by doing so, I can only assume this entire series is awaiting archival now, by one of our astute reviewers.

 

Just a note: the person who started the thread about that series was not the owner of the series, and had hit the sarcasm juice hard that day. Yes, he/she was being very sarcastic, not serious.

 

And no, regardless of what you think of the series, the agenda was never to "CLEARLY defy a rule". It was to create a power trail.

 

End note.

Link to comment

Dont yell "agenda" in crowded movie theater! :laughing:

 

So i can not encourage people to pick up garbage along the trail if they have time while on the way to the cache...... like CITO?

 

I agree that agendas/advertisement (unless a new movie wants to advertise :blink: ) should not be allowed in placing caches. However, who draws that line? Groundspeak, the reviewers the players?

 

I realize that this can go back and forth forever, nor will it probably ever get solved as Groundspeak will probably not get involved.

 

I doesn't bother me that the Veterans cache was denied, but its the double standards and inconsistencies that i feel need to be addressed.

Link to comment

Dont yell "agenda" in crowded movie theater! :laughing:

 

So i can not encourage people to pick up garbage along the trail if they have time while on the way to the cache...... like CITO?

 

I agree that agendas/advertisement (unless a new movie wants to advertise :blink: ) should not be allowed in placing caches. However, who draws that line? Groundspeak, the reviewers the players?

 

I realize that this can go back and forth forever, nor will it probably ever get solved as Groundspeak will probably not get involved.

 

I doesn't bother me that the Veterans cache was denied, but its the double standards and inconsistencies that i feel need to be addressed.

 

CITO is the one sactioned "agenda" that Groundspeak allows, and that is because it directly aides us in our geocaching activity. There is no double standard or inconsistancy as it is now, but if they allowed Veteran's tributes, then we would certainly have a double-standard.

 

I have yet to see you address the point of this being a world-wide activity and how you would feel about similar tribute caches placed in honor of people that we, in the U.S. might consider our enemies?

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...