Charities in Event Listing

[+t4e]

 

I appreciate that you are not "holding an event in support of xyz" charity -- but I already hopped on the "it's a good cause" bandwagon when I read it... and that's what the Listing Guidelines (and CacheDrone) are trying to avoid.

 

 

so what is your opinion on an event that for the past two years has picked a specific charity and is expressly asking people to bring items for the said charity?

[+Keith Watson]

"As a volunteer, I suspect you have a superior you report to? I would like to have that person review this cache before I make any changes. Please have that person contact me at their earliest convenience. Failing that, please delete this cache event and my account."

 

Really? Is that one line really that important that you would give up a hobby you have pursued for the past 9 1/2 years?

 

People, I think some of you need to step back and take a look from another perspective.

 

I started a thread just like this one many years ago. It resulted because I had a cache listing fail to get published for this very rule. The result of the forum thread was the archival of other caches and a lot of unhappy people throwing accusations about others and how horrible they were when it came to charity. Exactly what is going on here with unpleasant accusations about others and name calling.

 

Go ahead and continue how you, after all you are free to express your opinion. I would like to let you know that you may not be happy with the results.

[+Keith Watson]

 

I appreciate that you are not "holding an event in support of xyz" charity -- but I already hopped on the "it's a good cause" bandwagon when I read it... and that's what the Listing Guidelines (and CacheDrone) are trying to avoid.

 

 

so what is your opinion on an event that for the past two years has picked a specific charity and is expressly asking people to bring items for the said charity?

 

If it really upsets you that much, report it, get it archived. I am sure there will be a few people that will like to thank you for your effort. It may not be a very polite experience I suspect. There are a few events that I could have had archived in the past, but decided it was not worth the hassle.

[+GeeOCachers]

This is not the first time this has happened. We all remember the link to the menu fiasco. It is very important for me to stand up for things I believe in. If it causes me to lose something I have had for many years, then so be it. It is more important that I stand up until I can't stand anymore, rather than just roll over and give up. Other than the reviewer believing they are correct, I have yet to see any actual reasoning behind the decision. So I have escalated it to the next level.

 

I will be donating the left over gifts to charity whether they like it or not. I will not raffle them as the reviewer suggested. It is not his place to tell me what to do with the gifts. I see no reason to remove the text as it does not violate the rules provided.

 

Sadly, I may not be the only one unhappy with the results.

[+hikerT]

... I guess I'd rather see the text removed from the listing, the CO enable it, the event to happen and for everyone to have a good time.

...and THEN as a side process, the CO could pursue the matter with Groundspeak... .and I would hope that would sort stuff out in anticipation of next years' event.

 

I don't usually pay much attention to this stuff, but I think it's because I see a "good thing" (the event) that might not "be happening" over one of the more common Listing Guidelines and it troubles me.

 

I was a kid. I liked getting toys.

 

I agree. I don't know why this is such a big deal. Delete the text and make an announcement at the event. OR, take your ball and go home, which is the option I see the CO has chosen. And that's disappointing because no children will benefit from this now, and I don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewer.

[+GeeOCachers]

By the way, this was the ruling I was presented with

 

This needs to be removed because no aspect of a listing can support charity, even if stated vaguely. It doesn't matter what you do with any extra gifts, have extra draws or something, but listings cannot suggest any connection with charity.

 

yet the rule states this

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

1. Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be a light and enjoyable family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda.

 

It does not say that "no aspect of a listing can support charity". My cache is not soliciting. It is not posted for any charitable agenda and is certainly a "light and enjoyable family-friendly" event.

 

I would suggest that the rules state that the listing can mention what I do with any leftover items, including donating them, as long as I am not soliciting. The majority of the event has nothing to do with this and can therefore not possibly be perceived as being posted for any charitable agenda.

[+GeeOCachers]

... I guess I'd rather see the text removed from the listing, the CO enable it, the event to happen and for everyone to have a good time.

...and THEN as a side process, the CO could pursue the matter with Groundspeak... .and I would hope that would sort stuff out in anticipation of next years' event.

 

I don't usually pay much attention to this stuff, but I think it's because I see a "good thing" (the event) that might not "be happening" over one of the more common Listing Guidelines and it troubles me.

 

I was a kid. I liked getting toys.

 

I agree. I don't know why this is such a big deal. Delete the text and make an announcement at the event. OR, take your ball and go home, which is the option I see the CO has chosen. And that's disappointing because no children will benefit from this now, and I don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewer.

 

You can blame me, that is fine. I prefer to stand up for what I believe in, rather than bow to pressure. I have done nothing wrong.

[+gg]

OMG. And I NEVER use that acronym nor do I use it lightly. The past year Geocaching has deteriorated to the point that is ludicrous. The fact that this longstanding traditional event is up for debate is crazy.

 

BTW I LOL'd (Again seldom used unless I mean it) at the Cache Nazi illustration. And if you don't think it's funny then you need to find your sense of humor or put on your big boy pants and lighten up!

 

Ban me. I am self-exiled from placing caches. I may even just find my caches and not log them or enjoy the Garmin sponsored website http://www.opencaching.com/ They are more reasonable.

[+RCA777]

Wow, that's really stretching it. A charitable event would be "bring toys so that they can be given to the charity." That's not what it says and that's not what was intended either (and honestly I don't see how anyone could read that into it).

 

My opinion is:

 

If it said (and it does NOT) "bring toys so that they can be given to a charity" it could be considered a charity event.

The listing clearly does not say this, and therefore it's not a charity event.

 

The listing does imply that a charity may benefit from the event being held; to that end, in my opinion I would consider it charitable, as I said before.

If the event doesn't happen kids won't get toys in the toy exchange which sucks.... AND..... a charity won't benefit from the leftovers because there won't be any.

That is highlighting a good cause, which is a cause.... or an agenda.

 

The only item of contention seemed to be the "charity" text that was apparently missed in the original review(s); that's why I was a proponent of a quick change being made by the CO, the listing being enabled and everyone enjoying the event... that would let the CO go through whatever process they wanted with the Reviewer/Groundspeak.

 

In my opinion, people could still bring toys, they'd still get to do a gift exchange and the event organizers would be able to work with their attendees regarding the leftover toy situation.

As it stands, things have escalated and the listing was Archived and blood pressure has risen all over the place.

 

I'm only hoping that things are resolved one way or the other, so folks have a fun event to go to.

[+thebruce0]

Always good to know we can have guidelines applied consistently, regardless of who, when, where, or the reviewer. That certainly goes a long way to also avoiding debates, misunderstandings, hassles, and wastes of time - both for the cacher and reviewer...

 

All sarcasm aside, this has been happening all to often recently. One minor little issue blows up into a battle between a rock and a hard place, unnecessarily, with no sufficient explanation or reasoning. The result tends to be the cacher standing up on principle, and effectively "taking their ball and going home". Consequence? Very little in the grand scheme, so it's shrugged off.

Until it happens again.

And again.

 

It's usually the little things that cause the most ire. Why? Because they're little things. Big things are easy to defend one way or another.

This?

Ridiculous. For all the reasons posted above.

Yes, there is always an "easy way out". But sometimes it is pertinent to question a decision, discuss, and sort out a reasonable resolution, rather than simply "roll over and give up".

 

There's nothing wrong with the event listing.

A phrase and an interpretation of a guideline is causing conflict.

The result may well be the archival of the event from the website.

Will the event still happen? I'd be very surprised if it was canceled. It can still happen. Kids can still be happy. Leftover gifts can still be donated to charity. So yes, having the listing archived is still standing on principle, and not forcing disappointment on any children.

 

I hope it changes and the listing, and GeeOCachers, remains active. For a boatload of reasons. As opposed to the lack of reasons as to the opposite.

[+dfx]

The listing does imply that a charity may benefit from the event being held; to that end, in my opinion I would consider it charitable, as I said before.

If the event doesn't happen kids won't get toys in the toy exchange which sucks.... AND..... a charity won't benefit from the leftovers because there won't be any.

The last part is also true if there are no leftovers. The listing does not invite or encourage anyone to bring extra toys just so those can be given to the charity. That would be an agenda. That's what you're reading into the text, but it's not actually there.

[+Treknschmidt]

I agree. I don't know why this is such a big deal. Delete the text and make an announcement at the event. OR, take your ball and go home, which is the option I see the CO has chosen. And that's disappointing because no children will benefit from this now, and I don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewer.

 

To you its not a big deal but to the CO it is. Having hosted four events this past year (two of which were shutdown temporarily because of wording) I don't blame the CO for sticking to his guns. We host these events for the enjoyment of others, to give back to the geocaching community and to just plain have fun. It becomes less enjoyable when you are being nitpicked for every single word you choose intentionally or not. Did someone complain about the wording on this event? Would it be so horrible for a spare toy to fall in the hands of a needy child this Christmas? I don't see where any solicitation took place and I really don't think there was a hidden agenda here. I think the reviewer could lighten up just a tad here but that is just my opinion and I really don't care who likes it.

[+Keith Watson]

For an event that does not have an agenda, I find it interesting how much is being posted about the children missing out. Why does it matter if that one line is there or not. If the children getting presents is so important, take the line out, have the event, and give the left overs to charity. Seems to me like this is being twisted to make some look like they are against charity just because the CO is not getting his own way.

[Pup Patrol]

For reference, the sentence that was demanded to be removed from the cache listing is:

Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity.

And the quote from last year's identical event, which went by unchanged, was:

Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity.

 

To me, this is the problem. If this "agenda" ruling has been applied consistently "for years", then the ruling should have applied to last year's event, too.

 

I'm completely baffled as to why the exact same listing text is now unacceptable this year.

 

No, that "precedence" argument doesn't hold water when we're talking about something that has been in effect "for years", so please don't try to slide that under the door.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Tequila]

For an event that does not have an agenda, I find it interesting how much is being posted about the children missing out. Why does it matter if that one line is there or not. If the children getting presents is so important, take the line out, have the event, and give the left overs to charity. Seems to me like this is being twisted to make some look like they are against charity just because the CO is not getting his own way.

 

I agree 100%

 

.

[+Keith Watson]

For reference, the sentence that was demanded to be removed from the cache listing is:

Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity.

And the quote from last year's identical event, which went by unchanged, was:

Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity.

 

To me, this is the problem. If this "agenda" ruling has been applied consistently "for years", then the ruling should have applied to last year's event, too.

 

I'm completely baffled as to why the exact same listing text is now unacceptable this year.

 

No, that "precedence" argument doesn't hold water when we're talking about something that has been in effect "for years", so please don't try to slide that under the door.

 

It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.

[+thebruce0]

It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.

 

That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently and randomly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings.

Edited December 5, 2011 by thebruce0

[Pup Patrol]

It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.

 

That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently and randomly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings.

 

Exactly.

[+GeeOCachers]

For an event that does not have an agenda, I find it interesting how much is being posted about the children missing out. Why does it matter if that one line is there or not. If the children getting presents is so important, take the line out, have the event, and give the left overs to charity. Seems to me like this is being twisted to make some look like they are against charity just because the CO is not getting his own way.

 

I agree 100%

 

.

 

I, being the CO, am not discussing the children missing out. I am arguing that the general rule being applied to my cache isn't a valid application. Indeed, the line has no bearing on if the children get presents. Having the event and giving the left overs to charity is exactly what I would like to do. I see no reason to leave the line out though.

[+Tequila]

It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.

 

That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently and randomly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings.

 

Actually, all it says, is that the reviewer missed it in years past. And that may be nothing more than over worked reviewers.

 

We have significantly increased the number of reviewers in Ontario thereby reducing the volume per reviewer.

 

 

.

[+thebruce0]

It does apply if you complain that it got through last year and not this year.

That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently and randomly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings.

Actually, all it says, is that the reviewer missed it in years past (eta: and currently). And that may be nothing more than over worked reviewers.

We have significantly increased the number of reviewers in Ontario thereby reducing the volume per reviewer.

That only reinforces the fact that guidelines are applied inconsistently, randomly, or incorrectly, if they've been enforced for years with different results on identical listings with different reviewers.

[+Dr. House]

I wonder if the same charitable donation could have occurred had nothing been mentioned in the listing text and extra toys became available at the event. Last year's incarnation of this event seemed very well organized and I would imagine that a quick announcement to the attendees (or a vote by show of hands, if there's a concern about democracy for some odd reason) would have satisfied both sides here.

[+dfx]

For an event that does not have an agenda, I find it interesting how much is being posted about the children missing out. Why does it matter if that one line is there or not.

It matters because the CO feels (and IMO rightfully so) that this line does not break any rules, because it does not solicit and does not constitute an agenda (and neither does the rest of the listing nor the event itself), and thus Groundspeak/the reviewers have no business telling him to remove it. Something I have complete sympathy for, and some people do indeed stand up for what they believe is right. And the fact that there's events posted all over the world which clearly spell out that there's a charitable side activity to them without anybody apparently having a problem with them doesn't help.

[+t4e]

 

I appreciate that you are not "holding an event in support of xyz" charity -- but I already hopped on the "it's a good cause" bandwagon when I read it... and that's what the Listing Guidelines (and CacheDrone) are trying to avoid.

 

 

so what is your opinion on an event that for the past two years has picked a specific charity and is expressly asking people to bring items for the said charity?

 

If it really upsets you that much, report it, get it archived. I am sure there will be a few people that will like to thank you for your effort. It may not be a very polite experience I suspect. There are a few events that I could have had archived in the past, but decided it was not worth the hassle.

 

perhaps you need to read the rest of my posts...particularly post#28

 

I think the reviewer could lighten up just a tad here but that is just my opinion and I really don't care who likes it.

 

you might get to hear about the forum rules and being respectful to the members

 

 

Actually, all it says, is that the reviewer missed it in years past. And that may be nothing more than over worked reviewers.

 

We have significantly increased the number of reviewers in Ontario thereby reducing the volume per reviewer.

 

 

that is no excuse for being inconsistent and bending and twisting the guidelines based on how the wind blows

 

 

I agree. I don't know why this is such a big deal. Delete the text and make an announcement at the event. OR, take your ball and go home, which is the option I see the CO has chosen. And that's disappointing because no children will benefit from this now, and I don't blame Groundspeak or the reviewer.

 

"take your toys and go home"...that is a great attitude

 

sucks for those that have the integrity to stand by what they believe in instead of asking "how high" when asked to jump

 

 

to me, what just happened today adds one more black eye to what is supposed to be a fun activity...a very, very sad state of affairs

[+Keith Watson]

sucks for those that have the integrity to stand by what they believe in instead of asking "how high" when asked to jump

 

Are you suggesting others in this forum don't have integrity?

[+t4e]

sucks for those that have the integrity to stand by what they believe in instead of asking "how high" when asked to jump

 

Are you suggesting others in this forum don't have integrity?

 

why does any comment have to suggest something else than what it says? why can't it just be taken as it is without being twisted into something completely different?...please just stop this nonsense of thinking that everything has a double meaning...its quite annoying

 

i don't beat around the bush suggesting things, if i wanted to make such a statement i would have said so...so the answer is NO

[+northernpenguin]

Hilarious.

 

Maybe a better wording will be "any extra toys will be blown up in a dumpster in front of 20 screaming kids on their birthdays."

 

Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity. Or maybe it is just this one reveiwer. Course, previous actions by this reviewer would set precedent in their books.

 

As I mentioned in my latest, please ensure your supervisor contacts me.

 

Hmm. I'd attend that event, just for the pyrotechnics. Everyone loves fireworks, particularly Mythbusters style fireworks. Anyone got an old cement truck?

[+t4e]

Hilarious.

 

Maybe a better wording will be "any extra toys will be blown up in a dumpster in front of 20 screaming kids on their birthdays."

 

Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity. Or maybe it is just this one reveiwer. Course, previous actions by this reviewer would set precedent in their books.

 

As I mentioned in my latest, please ensure your supervisor contacts me.

 

Hmm. I'd attend that event, just for the pyrotechnics. Everyone loves fireworks, particularly Mythbusters style fireworks. Anyone got an old cement truck?

 

 

best show

 

don't try this at home...ever

[+Keith Watson]

sucks for those that have the integrity to stand by what they believe in instead of asking "how high" when asked to jump

 

Are you suggesting others in this forum don't have integrity?

 

why does any comment have to suggest something else than what it says? why can't it just be taken as it is without being twisted into something completely different?...please just stop this nonsense of thinking that everything has a double meaning...its quite annoying

 

i don't beat around the bush suggesting things, if i wanted to make such a statement i would have said so...so the answer is NO

 

Not trying to twist anything. Just trying to figure out who those are that don't ha e integrity are. Your statement implies to me you think there are others that don't. I just want to be clear what you are saying.

 

As for twisting words, I am sure the statement about me and carity was a pretty goid twist.

 

what I do notice is another thread quickly turning into name calling and whining over something that won't be solved by this kind of behavior. Disect, deflect, and demand all you want. It won't make sny difference because it is Groundspeak that is going to decide and they won't do it here.

[+The A-Team]

While I've been reading this thread, I keep thinking back to the discussion (argument?) that happened about events honouring Veterans on Nov 11. Basically what GS/the reviewers came out with was the matter of a "cause". Giving to charity or supporting Veterans can be viewed as "causes". The question was, "Where is the line between an acceptable cause and an unacceptable cause?" Groundspeak decided that rather than having subjective decisions made by reviewers about what would qualify as an acceptable cause, they disallowed any cause. That way, there's no "line" or grey area. If it is or is related to a cause, it cannot be in a listing. Here's a quote from that discussion, made by Groundspeak:

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.

In reference to the event in question, see RCA777's post here. I agree with him that the mention of a charity in the listing does constitute a "cause", and can change the perception of attendees. I don't see any reason why the event can't go ahead, but if you want to have it listed on Geocaching.com, the mention of "charity" will have to be removed.

 

As far as consitency, can things not change over time? Are reviewers forced to apply rulings the same as they did in the past, or can rules/guidelines be reinterpreted? Maybe we should just go back to the way the guidelines were enforced 5 years ago? As long as reviewers apply the guidelines consistently from now, I don't see a problem. If you are seeing rulings that are inconsistent, and it bugs you, feel free to bring it to the attention of the reviewer or Groundspeak. Just remember that by doing so, you may be affecting someone else's enjoyment of geocaching.

 

...and that's how I see it.

[+t4e]

 

what I do notice is another thread quickly turning into name calling and whining over something that won't be solved by this kind of behavior. Disect, deflect, and demand all you want. It won't make sny difference because it is Groundspeak that is going to decide and they won't do it here.

 

again you're twisting things...please show me where the name calling took place...just because people want to discuss something it is automatically branded as "name calling" and "this kind of behavior"

 

there is quite a difference between arguing with someone and discussing differences of opinion, and in an attempt to keep the forums polite the moderators like to jump to conclusions too soon, but so do some users

 

over and over again i get the feeling that we are treated like kids, and if you dare to have an opinion that doesn't line up with the "corporate" view you're in violation of a forum rule, whether it applies to the situation or not

 

has been said before, the forum is a means of discussion, so when something is brought up on here is not necessarily to obtain some resolution

 

if the purpose of the forums is different perhaps only posts about bugs, suggestions and problems should be allowed...until than is a tool for discussion

 

 

In reference to the event in question, see RCA777's post here. I agree with him that the mention of a charity in the listing does constitute a "cause", and can change the perception of attendees.

 

the word "charity" changes your perception?

 

Please go ahead and do a search for caches with "charity" in the title........its a word, its not a specific charity...and as the event is worded right now it is not against the guidelines by any stretch of the imagination...perhaps Groundspeak wishes to change the wording in the guidelines, than you have a point

 

As far as consitency, can things not change over time? Are reviewers forced to apply rulings the same as they did in the past, or can rules/guidelines be reinterpreted? Maybe we should just go back to the way the guidelines were enforced 5 years ago? As long as reviewers apply the guidelines consistently from now, I don't see a problem. If you are seeing rulings that are inconsistent, and it bugs you, feel free to bring it to the attention of the reviewer or Groundspeak. Just remember that by doing so, you may be affecting someone else's enjoyment of geocaching.

 

...and that's how I see it.

 

NO, when you have the same Guidelines for the past 5 years there is no excuse for not applying them consistently

this is over and over the same issue, same guidelines for the past 5 years but all of a sudden someone decides to put a different spin on the wording in them and apply them differently...that is what is being discussed here

 

right, that is very smart way of dealing with things... put the blame on the person pointing out a listing(s) that are grossly against the guidelines, make them feel bad for defending themselves...just what i thought its the right way to fix problems

how about the reviewers line up and interpret the guidelines the same everywhere?

 

i do have quite an extensive collection of listings, from around the world, that range anywhere from the plain wording as this listing in question has, to as far as naming the charity for this year and specifically asking people to bring donations

once the events took place and are archived i will post those links for everyone's enjoyment

 

btw: the list is not a bookmark on my account

Edited December 6, 2011 by t4e

[+Keith Watson]

again you're twisting things...please show me where the name calling took place...just because people want to discuss something it is automatically branded as "name calling" and "this kind of behavior"

 

 

Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity.

 

I think that demonstrates is pretty well.

[+thebruce0]

Context, dude.

Jokes. Wit. Sarcasm. Jest. Happens everywhere on this forum.

"You are a complete idiot" is not the same as posting a satirical image. (or linking to 'humorous' videos)

There is a time and place for everything. That was directed at me, and no one said who the "cache nazi" was - it could have been t4e, or me, or anyone else.

"Groundspeak/CacheDrone is a Cache Nazi" must be something you inferred for it certainly was not said, and clearly not implied.

Please drop the discussion on namecalling and personal attacks. That is not the subject here.

[+t4e]

again you're twisting things...please show me where the name calling took place...just because people want to discuss something it is automatically branded as "name calling" and "this kind of behavior"

 

Sounds like Groundspeak (and apparently Keith) would prefer and condone that behaviour before giving to charity.

 

I think that demonstrates is pretty well.

 

LMAO

 

that is your argument for name calling?

 

and what is the GeeOCachers quote doing in there?

 

my reply was directed at thebruce, but you conveniently removed his reply and added GeeOCachers's one, which makes no sense whatsoever since they are the CO and i think its pretty clear that i agree with their opinion

 

 

 

you as well as CD have seriously taken it out of context, please take a hard look at the whole post, in the context that picture is posted it implies one thing....that I AM the cache nazi and i say to thebruce that he gets no cache for his silly post of a pop con eating frog

 

jeeeez i wish people would just use their power of analytical thinking before jumping to conclusions

[+northernpenguin]

IBTL

[+Keith Watson]

you as well as CD have seriously taken it out of context, please take a hard look at the whole post, in the context that picture is posted it implies one thing....that I AM the cache nazi and i say to thebruce that he gets no cache for his silly post of a pop con eating frog

 

jeeeez i wish people would just use their power of analytical thinking before jumping to conclusions

 

I am pretty sure I have a good understanding of what it was.

 

I agree with the slippery slope.

[+t4e]

you as well as CD have seriously taken it out of context, please take a hard look at the whole post, in the context that picture is posted it implies one thing....that I AM the cache nazi and i say to thebruce that he gets no cache for his silly post of a pop con eating frog

 

jeeeez i wish people would just use their power of analytical thinking before jumping to conclusions

 

I am pretty sure I have a good understanding of what it was.

 

I agree with the slippery slope.

 

you obviously don't, since you are not even bothering to tell me what does GeeOCachers's post have to do with mine

 

you are just assuming and twisting my actions to suit your own thinking

 

EDIT

actually don't even bother....you are taking this thread off topic, i'm surprised no authority figure has showed up to point it out yet, and i would like for the discussion to continue on the original subject it was started

Edited December 6, 2011 by t4e

[+Keith Watson]

you as well as CD have seriously taken it out of context, please take a hard look at the whole post, in the context that picture is posted it implies one thing....that I AM the cache nazi and i say to thebruce that he gets no cache for his silly post of a pop con eating frog

 

jeeeez i wish people would just use their power of analytical thinking before jumping to conclusions

 

I am pretty sure I have a good understanding of what it was.

 

I agree with the slippery slope.

 

you obviously don't, since you are not even bothering to tell me what does GeeOCachers's post have to do with mine

 

you are just assuming and twisting my actions to suit your own thinking

 

EDIT

actually don't even bother....you are taking this thread off topic, i'm surprised no authority figure has showed up to point it out yet, and i would like for the discussion to continue on the original subject it was started

 

Nope, don't have to assume or twist anything to understand what I see. I totally get what is going on.

[+thebruce0]

Stop. Stop. Stop.

Stop talking about anything but the topic of this thread. An honest, sincere request.

If nothing more needs to be said, then nothing more needs to be said.

Let those involved update us now with whatever happens.

Everyone's bit has been said.

[+Dr. House]

I wonder if the same charitable donation could have occurred had nothing been mentioned in the listing text and extra toys became available at the event. Last year's incarnation of this event seemed very well organized and I would imagine that a quick announcement to the attendees (or a vote by show of hands, if there's a concern about democracy for some odd reason) would have satisfied both sides here.

 

Another idea along the same line of thought above that would have satisfied both parties here (Groundspeak and the CO) would be to give the excess gifts back to those cachers who brought them in. Clearly there'd be an element of trust when giving them back to someone, but I think most people could figure it out.

 

Once they've been given back to the person who brought it to the event, that person could then decide whether they wanted their item donated or not (and to a charity of their own choosing, should they wish to persue that). Again, none of this has to be mentioned on the cache page (Happy Frog) and the kids stand to benefit also (Happy kids and CO).

[+Tequila]

The ultimate decision on how to proceed lies with the C.O.

 

If it was me, here is what I would do.

 

(1) Remove the line in question and get the event published. Assuming the event is paramount, and I have no reason to suspect it isn't, this would benefit the most people - CO, attendees etc. Everyone can enjoy it just as much as they did in past years.

 

(2) In parallel, file an appeal with Groundspeak (it would appear this has already been done). This will result in a definitive position with respect to the line in question. If a decision in favour of the CO arrives before the event, change the listing. If it arrives after the event, you can use it for next year. If the decision is not in favour of the CO, you already have the event (with modified description) listed and everyone can still enjoy it.

 

 

.

[+gg]

 

Please call me a name.

 

KTHXBAI

[+MontyFam]

 

Please call me a name.

 

KTHXBAI

 

GEORGE!

[+northernpenguin]

I wonder if the same charitable donation could have occurred had nothing been mentioned in the listing text and extra toys became available at the event. Last year's incarnation of this event seemed very well organized and I would imagine that a quick announcement to the attendees (or a vote by show of hands, if there's a concern about democracy for some odd reason) would have satisfied both sides here.

 

Another idea along the same line of thought above that would have satisfied both parties here (Groundspeak and the CO) would be to give the excess gifts back to those cachers who brought them in. Clearly there'd be an element of trust when giving them back to someone, but I think most people could figure it out.

 

Once they've been given back to the person who brought it to the event, that person could then decide whether they wanted their item donated or not (and to a charity of their own choosing, should they wish to persue that). Again, none of this has to be mentioned on the cache page (Happy Frog) and the kids stand to benefit also (Happy kids and CO).

 

+1 to both suggestions. There is an issue with the event putting that information in the listing, not that the event would potentially give gifts to charity. You can still do that, just not on the cache page .... no?

[+t4e]

The ultimate decision on how to proceed lies with the C.O.

 

If it was me, here is what I would do.

 

(1) Remove the line in question and get the event published. Assuming the event is paramount, and I have no reason to suspect it isn't, this would benefit the most people - CO, attendees etc. Everyone can enjoy it just as much as they did in past years.

 

maybe it is an option for you but not one that the CO seems to want to take, and i fully agree with their decision

 

plus its not the point...the cache listing is not against the current guidelines, unless they were changed since yesterday

 

 

(2) In parallel, file an appeal with Groundspeak (it would appear this has already been done). This will result in a definitive position with respect to the line in question. If a decision in favour of the CO arrives before the event, change the listing. If it arrives after the event, you can use it for next year. If the decision is not in favour of the CO, you already have the event (with modified description) listed and everyone can still enjoy it.

 

 

not at all...to my knowledge the decisions from appeals is for the cache in question, you can't have a raincheck..plus, a cache approved by appeals doesn't mean similar caches will be published

 

that is another sore point...the reviewers want nothing to do with such listings, ever, so they wash their hands of them and deny because apparently they broke some guideline that sounds like it might fit the situation, even though they fully know its not the case

 

if the CO gives in and makes the changes they ask for all is fine, if not they are directed to appeals

 

and the process is repeated for the next cacher

 

 

Please call me a name.

 

KTHXBAI

NAME!

Edited December 6, 2011 by t4e

[+Tequila]

The ultimate decision on how to proceed lies with the C.O.

 

If it was me, here is what I would do.

 

(1) Remove the line in question and get the event published. Assuming the event is paramount, and I have no reason to suspect it isn't, this would benefit the most people - CO, attendees etc. Everyone can enjoy it just as much as they did in past years.

 

maybe it is an option for you but not one that the CO seems to want to take, and i fully agree with their decision

 

 

For greater certainty, can you clarify that, because of the line in question, you support not having the event, at the expense of the cachers kids who otherwise would have had a fun event and gift? Is that what you are saying?

 

 

.

[+thebruce0]

more mis-reading...

That's not what I read t4e saying. In this context, the only thing happening is the event being archived due to "to a local charity" being in the description - not canceled.

But we haven't heard if the event itself will be canceled. I'd be surprised if it were.

Edited December 6, 2011 by thebruce0

[+Tequila]

more mis-reading...

That's not what I read t4e saying. In this context, the only thing happening is the event being archived due to "to a local charity" being in the description - not canceled.

But we haven't heard if the event itself will be canceled. I'd be surprised if it were.

 

Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification.

 

 

.

[+thebruce0]

Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification.

Hence the term "leading". It was not implied nor written. There was no 'certainty' in the first place. No one said, nor implied as far as I can tell, that they would rather have the event canceled at the expense of children's enjoyment than change the listing text.

[+Tequila]

Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification.

Hence the term "leading". It was not implied nor written. There was no 'certainty' in the first place. No one said, nor implied as far as I can tell, that they would rather have the event canceled at the expense of children's enjoyment than change the listing text.

 

You are the first person that delineates a difference between the "event" and the "event listing".

 

If the CO intends to hold the "event" regardless of whether the "event listing" is ever published on gc.com, then I withdraw my question.

 

I am trying to ascertain what is more important. The actual event or listing the event with the "charity statement" included.

 

If the CO is having the event regardless, my question is answered.

 

I haven't seen any indication this is the case.

 

.