Jump to content

Veterans day cache


deranja

Recommended Posts

 

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?

 

 

^^^ This ^^^^

 

That wouldn't bother me at all. If it was close to me i would even go find it.

Link to comment

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.

 

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that pay tribute to Veterans, Fireman, 9/11, teachers and so forth are promoting agendas and are therefore should not be published.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

 

I think you missed the point. Geocaching is about geocaching. Other agendas, not so much.

 

I suppose if we start paying Groundspeak for the privilege of "supporting our agenda" it will then become alright?

 

Technically, yes. That's what happened with the A.P.E. caches, 20th Century Fox paid for that privilege. That's also what happened with the Splinterheads caches.

 

 

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?

 

 

^^^ This ^^^^

 

That wouldn't bother me at all. If it was close to me i would even go find it.

 

Really?

 

If an Al-Qaeda cache celebrating the 9/11 attacks was published, that'd be OK with you?

 

How about a power trail around you where they hid one cache celebrating the death of each person who was killed on 9/11. Just hunky dory?

 

Westboro Baptist Church brought out the "God Hates [gay people]" posters for my best friend's funeral after he died in November 2008. If Fred Phelps wants to place a "Captain Keith Jernigan is Burning in [heck]" cache in your neighborhood, you'll be on the FTF chase?

Link to comment

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

Seems to me Groundspeak did get involved because they upheld the statement from the reviewer whose action you were questioning...or did I miss something in your first post about what Groundspeak sent you?

Link to comment
Just curious as to the thoughts of others on the matter.

As a Veteran myself, I am glad Groundspeak has opted to take the high road, rather than sorting through which agendas they will allow. I consider this little hobby a fun, light activity. If I saw a cache placed in New York City to honor those brave Jihadists who gave their lives to strike a mortal blow against The Great Satan by bringing down the symbols of its power on September 11, 2001, I would likely be bothered by that. If you'll shift your thinking outside the continental U.S., you may grasp why Groundspeak chose that path. This is a global game, not a national one.

Link to comment

 

Really?

 

If an Al-Qaeda cache celebrating the 9/11 attacks was published, that'd be OK with you?

 

How about a power trail around you where they hid one cache celebrating the death of each person who was killed on 9/11. Just hunky dory?

 

Westboro Baptist Church brought out the "God Hates [gay people]" posters for my best friend's funeral after he died in November 2008. If Fred Phelps wants to place a "Captain Keith Jernigan is Burning in [heck]" cache in your neighborhood, you'll be on the FTF chase?

 

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me. Do i agree with it no, does finding the cache make me a supporter of it no and it if it did bother me i have the choice to not find it (i ignore bush hides too). Do they have the right to believe and support what ever they want even though i dont agree or like it, yes.

 

If "agenda" caches are againt the rules then they all need to go and not differ from reviewer to reviewer and area to area.

Link to comment

If "agenda" caches are againt the rules then they all need to go and not differ from reviewer to reviewer and area to area.

 

The automatic reviewer software is still a work in process. Until it is ready for prime time, we will just have to put up with inconsistant humans.

 

What are all of these inconsistancies that you see, by the way?

Link to comment

 

Really?

 

If an Al-Qaeda cache celebrating the 9/11 attacks was published, that'd be OK with you?

 

How about a power trail around you where they hid one cache celebrating the death of each person who was killed on 9/11. Just hunky dory?

 

Westboro Baptist Church brought out the "God Hates [gay people]" posters for my best friend's funeral after he died in November 2008. If Fred Phelps wants to place a "Captain Keith Jernigan is Burning in [heck]" cache in your neighborhood, you'll be on the FTF chase?

 

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me.

 

Fair enough. You're a better person than I am. And no, that's not sarcasm. It'd be nice if I could turn the other cheek as easily. (But then I'd make a pretty ineffective soldier if I could.)

 

Back to your original post: for what it's worth, I'd argue that the Veterans Day event you described shouldn't have been published, either. (Got a link?)

Link to comment

What are all of these inconsistancies that you see, by the way?

 

There does not have to be consistency. Each approval (or rejection) is an event unto itself. No other approval (or rejection) can have any bearing upon it.

 

That is the essence of the "no precedents" escape clause.

 

The reviewers at least attempt consistency on most matters. But they are human, and each situation is a little bit different. I think they do a pretty good job.

Link to comment

Got a link?

 

Since it's likely that a quick search of the OP's area would turn this one up, I'll just preempt the criticism with a mea culpa:

 

http://coord.info/GC31GKN

 

I honestly can't remember the Short Description being there, and I would likely have asked for it to be removed. Looking at the flag waving part gives me a bit of pause at this point in time, although there are so many silly flas mob events out there I could easily see going "meh" at the time.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

Link to comment
The reviewers at least attempt consistency on most matters. But they are human, and each situation is a little bit different. I think they do a pretty good job.

The reviewers discuss various "is this an agenda?" issues, several times per week. The final verdict is sometimes very close, sometimes unanimous. Whether the issue is religious, military, medical, or something else, the reviewers, who number among themselves veterans, LEOs, evangelical Christians, practising Catholics, and survivors of several medical conditions, put their views to one side and decide in the interest of the game.

 

Not every reviewer brings every borderline case for discussion, and that's fine too. Occasionally this leads to apparent inconsistency. Groundspeak thinks that's also fine.

 

I do wonder why some people try to argue that /a/ refusing an "agenda" cache is an insult to <potentially honoured group>, and then try to have a second bite at the cherry by arguing that /b/ the real problem is inconsistency. Since the reviewers don't have quite as much time as certain cache owners to hunt down counterexamples, my prediction is that inconsistency is going to be part of this game for a long time to come.

Link to comment

If "agenda" caches are againt the rules then they all need to go and not differ from reviewer to reviewer and area to area.

You're free to post a "Needs Archive" (i.e., needs reviewer attention) log or send a private email to the appropriate reviewers in cases where you believe inconsistencies exist. That probably will cause the reviewers to take a second look at the caches, reconsider their initial decisions, and (if they agree your cases have merit) inform the cache owners that some editing of their cache descriptions are required.

 

Or, you could accept that some inconsistencies are likely to exist when humans are involved and move on with your life.

Link to comment

ok. I'll agree that there is no perfect system, and I did state there is always some subjectivity. I'll agree that perspective does change how reviewer A sees something compared to how reviewer B sees it. I get that. I'll even agree that the reviewer of the Veteran's Day cache that started this whole thing was right, based on the "no agenda" rule.

 

Back to the question that I started with, and that shows, what, in my opinion is gross inconsistency. The Alien Head series of caches has a thread running on this forum, with clear photographic evidence of a blatant violation of a rule, and nobody from GS had cracked down to correct it. (Which in this case means acrhiving those caches, or someone with a rake fixing the newly made trails out there.) If this cache was denied for breaking a rule, how is that one not being dealt with? (If it has in the last several hours, I apologize. I haven't been back to that thread yet.) I can understand some subjectivity or sympathy with "agendas". This is pretty well black and white. And, violating this rule has a vastly greater chance of affecting all geocachers with lands lost to geocaching because of the damage caused. (Again, environmental impact may be negligible. Environmental impact isn't the issue. It's causing damage to the property, that would not be there were the caches not placed.)

 

sbell11 said this:

 

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.

 

Seriously? Almost everything in the United States is decided by the majority. Everything from politics, to economy to almost everything. Ask Kmart sometime what happened when the majority of shoppers started shopping at Walmart. And, I've already said this will most likely not happen, but if a majority of cachers took offense to this, and started caching elsewhere, GS would most definitely take notice.

Link to comment

Got a link?

 

Since it's likely that a quick search of the OP's area would turn this one up, I'll just preempt the criticism with a mea culpa:

 

http://coord.info/GC31GKN

 

I honestly can't remember the Short Description being there, and I would likely have asked for it to be removed. Looking at the flag waving part gives me a bit of pause at this point in time, although there are so many silly flas mob events out there I could easily see going "meh" at the time.

 

Sorry for any confusion.

 

Actually, even the short description is merely a statement of fact: On this Veteran's day we honor our heroes that have served for our freedom. Yes, we generally do. But its not telling, or even asking me to do the same.

Link to comment
The Alien Head series of caches has a thread running on this forum, with clear photographic evidence of a blatant violation of a rule, and nobody from GS had cracked down to correct it. (Which in this case means acrhiving those caches, or someone with a rake fixing the newly made trails out there.) If this cache was denied for breaking a rule, how is that one not being dealt with?

 

You're free to post a "Needs Archive" (i.e., needs reviewer attention) log or send a private email to the appropriate reviewers in cases where you believe inconsistencies exist. That probably will cause the reviewers to take a second look at the caches, reconsider their initial decisions, and (if they agree your cases have merit) inform the cache owners that some editing of their cache descriptions are required.

 

Or, you could accept that some inconsistencies are likely to exist when humans are involved and move on with your life.

 

^^^^This^^^^

 

I get you have your heart in the right place. Please don't feel picked on. This subject comes up with some regularity.

 

But if you are really concerned about other caches, you could try the suggestion above. While it may make you quite unpopular with the COs of those caches, if it makes you feel better to take these matters into your own hands, then perhaps you should consider doing that.

 

I'm not a big fan of policing other's caches from afar. But you are certainly free to do what your conscience tells you to do.

Link to comment

Rules or guidlines ar made to be broken.

That saying has never, ever made any sense to me. :blink: Rules are not made to be broken. Rules are made to be kept. That's why they call 'em "rules"!

Only weez got guidelines.

 

If "agenda" caches are againt the rules then they all need to go and not differ from reviewer to reviewer and area to area.

I'm glad several reviewers have posted and explained the process they use in deciding whether something is an agenda or not. It sounds like they really want to get your cache published. In doing so, they allow somethings that you you might feel are exceptions - for example a tribute cache for a friend who is in the military, or a cache page that provides some background about the memorial near the cache. Of course when they they do this there are some areas that appear to borderline. It looks like most reviewers take these to the reviewers' forum and try to see what others think - so there is some consistency.

 

Another problem that reviewers face with the agenda guidelines, is that cache owners can change their cache pages after they have been published. Most reviewers don't have the time to go back and review caches when someone makes an edit. (Most edits are minor changes so even if they get notified when a cache page changes, reviewers might not bother to look at them). Some players undoubtedly are aware of this and, if they really insist on a agenda, might be submitting a write-up they know will be published and then changing it afterwards. If you can show a reviewer that someone did this, they may very well archive the cache unless the owner changes the page back to meet the guidelines.

 

There may be some inconsistencies between reviewers, or even between what a reviewer published a year ago and what he will publish today. The review process is certainly imperfect. You can always appeal if you think the reviewer is treating you unfairly. However, Groundspeak tends to back reviewers on the agenda issue because they realize this is probably the most difficult part of the reviewers' task and reviewers can only try their best to apply the guidelines fairly. I've certainly had my share of criticism of the reviewers and the review process, and have even gotten forum suspensions for implying that reviewers might not always treat people fairly; but I have yet to see an example with the agenda guideline where I didn't think the reviewer wasn't trying his or her best to handle a difficult situation.

Link to comment

quote name='DazDnFamily' 4. Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

 

quote name='DazDnFamily' The Alien Head series of caches has a thread running on this forum, with clear photographic evidence of a blatant violation of a rule, and nobody from GS had cracked down to correct it. (Which in this case means acrhiving those caches, or someone with a rake fixing the newly made trails out there.) If this cache was denied for breaking a rule, how is that one not being dealt with? snip This is pretty well black and white.

 

I am pretty sure this has all been said before in one way or another but some seem to refuse to get the point .........

 

1) DazDnFamily - You actually quoted the guideline yourself, it relates to cache placements, GS have (no) little control over how cachers finding the cache behave but they attempt to control the way cache placers behave. Somehow I dont think a rake is going to help in AH situation, though I guess it might provide a valuable purpose in life for someone! B)

 

2) If someone visiting a veterans day cache wants to pay their respects, fine, if some one just wants the smiley also fine but a CO cannot attempt to co-erce finders into doing anything they dont wish to do.

 

3) To the OP, and others up in arms, why are you so extra-ordinarily upset about this particular cache, that you wish any other 'agenda' caches that have slipped through the net to be archived, yet you claim 'as a supporter of veterans to be happy to claim a smiley on an Al Quaida Cache, Really! I am astounded. :o

 

Seems to me the fault (not the right word can't think of another) was the CO's for being so honest about the intent in the writing of the cache page, not any other reviewers who have missed the point/been hoodwinked into publishing agenda caches in the past.

 

Ps I know I messed up the quotes! :(

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.

 

Thank you BrianSnat. This is an excellent post. I hope people are listening.

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.

 

Thank you BrianSnat. This is an excellent post. I hope people are listening.

Hmmm what about the Dinosaur Train PBS Caches? Check out the current thread on that one. I think the problem is Groundspeak not applying their rules evenly. Of course it's their game and they can play however they want. The truth is, agendas are promoted all the time within geocaching.

Link to comment

Hmmm what about the Dinosaur Train PBS Caches?

I think those are more commercial caches than agenda-promoting caches. As others have pointed out, Groundspeak does make occasional, pre-arranged exceptions. From their guidelines:

 

On very rare occasions, Groundspeak makes an exception for a commercial cache. Arrangements are made before placement. If your cache is commercial in any way, please contact Groundspeak for clarification about how to comply with cache listing guidelines.

Link to comment

I've seen this crop up more than once in the last ten years. From getting my own virtual (back in the WOW days '04) being shot down. To event caches be not approved. So what I've done is just put something about a vet or a bunch of them, including my parents and my son. But I do firmly believe that Groundspeak's stance is closely related to Hanoi Jane.

 

I disagree. Because while veteran's day is a pretty easy one to get agreement on in the US, if they allow it, where should they draw the line? Teachers? Firefighters? Police? How about churches? Non-profits?

 

Somewhere in there, you will begin to get less and less commonality of agreement. Opening the door to agendas in any fashion puts Groundspeak in the position of having to draw the line somewhere, which they clearly want to stay out of. Thus, they rule out all agendas. While I don't necessarily agree, I certainly understand, and will respect that stance.

 

As for inconsistency, reviewers are volunteers, they sometimes get it wrong. If you feel something shouldn't be published, submit and needs archived, with the reason why. Simple.

 

I'll honor veterans in other ways, and respect Groundspeaks policy, without the insults being used here.

Link to comment

 

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.

 

This is an awesome post!!

Thank you Briansnat!!!

I for one, am VERY Grateful that Groundspeak doesn't allow agendas.

No matter how imperfectly it is implemented, I'm really glad the reviewers to their best to keep agendas out of the game.

When I go out to cache I want to forget about all that and have fun. Thank you for keeping this fun!!!

 

 

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.

 

 

Someone else who feels the same way I do. Thank you!

Link to comment

 

Really?

 

If an Al-Qaeda cache celebrating the 9/11 attacks was published, that'd be OK with you?

 

How about a power trail around you where they hid one cache celebrating the death of each person who was killed on 9/11. Just hunky dory?

 

Westboro Baptist Church brought out the "God Hates [gay people]" posters for my best friend's funeral after he died in November 2008. If Fred Phelps wants to place a "Captain Keith Jernigan is Burning in [heck]" cache in your neighborhood, you'll be on the FTF chase?

 

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me. Do i agree with it no, does finding the cache make me a supporter of it no and it if it did bother me i have the choice to not find it (i ignore bush hides too). Do they have the right to believe and support what ever they want even though i dont agree or like it, yes.

 

If "agenda" caches are againt the rules then they all need to go and not differ from reviewer to reviewer and area to area.

 

This doesn't bother you?

How about a cache saying, "Support gay rights!"

Or how about "Support abortion"?

How about a cache saying, "Support Obama!"?

Or how about "Support the release of Charles Manson"?

Or how about...

 

It could get worse from there, but I hope you're starting to get the idea.

 

We really just want to cache in peace and not be bothered by issues.

If they allow one agenda then they have to allow them all. What a mess that would make.

 

Someone commented on what would happen if people stood up for including agendas, well what a mess that would make!! There would be a whole lot more people standing up all of a sudden, just wanting a peaceful, fun past-time back.

 

Thank you Groundspeak for having good insights on this one!!!

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...