Charities in Event Listing

[+Keith Watson]

Reading the thread this morning, the only value I can pull from it is the opportunity to perhaps start a betting pool on who's going to get IBTL closest to the actual time.

 

I have been thinking the same thing. Just waiting for the moderator to come in and put and end to this.

[+Keith Watson]

Or in other words, the stubbornness of who will get the last word (mainly by people who really couldn't care whether the thread is open and productive or derailed and locked).

This is why people TRY to avoid the forums. Griefers take threads off topic and it degrades to uselessness... while legitimate questions remain unanswered to the people who ask them.

Please stop posting if it's not towards a productive end.

If the thread's destiny is to have no answer, then still stop posting. What does it matter to you? Let it go. Let it die. Who cares if it's unlocked? The battle of ego is crazy in here.

 

Yet you continue to post off topic after I asked you to stay on topic. I suspect a moderator will be making the request soon.

 

There's a question.

Push towards an answer that satisfies the person who asked it.

If that's not possible, derailing and locking is not the only solution.

Just stop posting in it.

People who have an answer, or who have good input one way or another, will respond. And it'll move naturally, and respectably, towards an end.

Just stop with the meta debates. For the sanity of us all.

And with that I'm done with the OT.

 

The question was answered. The OP was not satisfied with the answer and they as well as other started posting off topic.

 

If you ask a question you have to accept you don;t like the answer. Just because you don;t like it does not mean it was not answered.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Keith Watson

[+t4e]

WOW... I was bored this morning and decided (against my better judgement to skim through this previously unread thread)

 

In my opinion, if you don't like the rules, you can always exercise your right to not play.

 

I know it has been mentioned before; Groundspeak has rules. If you disagree with them, you are of course entitled to speak your mind... but if the answer you get is not what you agree with, want to hear, or like... well... it's still an answer...

 

I guess if you really want to disagree with the way things are being run you could always buy Groundspeak and change things, or start your own Geocaching website, but really that seem a little overboard. I would still say that just not participating and letting Groundspeak know that you feel so strongly that you have to terminate your account is a realistic option.

 

Yes, that would mean you can no longer LOG your finds, but you can still cache, still go to events, even still visit the website under an assumed name and get coordinates for free. Just that number, which Geocaching was never supposed to be about would not roll over 1 more time...

 

In the end it all comes down to how important your stance really is to you. Will adhering to Groundspeaks rule so morally corrupt you that you need to leave, or can you agree to disagree, tell them so, even publicly in the forums, get an answer (agreeing or disagreeing with you), let it go and head out and find another cache...

 

Just my opinion... I in no way mean this to be argumentative... but only post it to offer perhaps perspective.

 

Dyverdown

 

totally irrelevant, I never said I will not play, I never demanded an answer or else I’ll quit, and I never said I want to change anything, I asked why the guidelines are applied inconsistently, which seems to have been an issue that popped up quite a few times last year.

while Groundspeak is certainly free to make whatever rules they wish to make, there must be some logic behind them and if someone asks for an explanation would be a matter of courtesy to address the question.

 

You are correct. The original issue has been dealt with. The second issue of inconsistent application of the guidelines is off topic and any further discussion of that should be taken up in another thread. Please limit further posts to answering and or discussing the original post.

 

not off topic at all, they are very closely related

a discussion always has ramifications that are related to the original subject

 

please someone enlighten me and show me where in the guidelines does it say you can't mention donating something to a charity

 

if you want to play this game there is no valid excuse for not learning how to play

if you can't be bothered to learn perhaps you should pick a different hobby but that would be hard since every game has rules

 

That seems like pretty good advise. If you wish to play this game, then there is no excuse for not learning how to play. That includes making yourself acquainted with the guidelines.

 

The second line I would probably change to something like "if you can't be bothered to read the guidelines for yourself you should pick a different hobby since we don't really like spoon feeding people information that is readily available to every person wishing to publish a cache."

 

what’s that got to do with anything in this thread?

I know the guidelines and i asked a valid question, there is no such reference in the said guidelines that the “word” charity” cannot be mentioned, so in an attempt to better understand what the guidelines should be I asked for it to be clarified

 

The problem with this thread is that it was not opened to ask a legitimate question. It was started to make an accusation against the reviewer.

 

If knowledge was really what the OP was after, she was provided that information in the second post.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307#solicit

 

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.

 

This is not new. This has been enforced for years.

 

The rest of the posts has shown the real motive for authoring the thread.

 

nope, not all …the listing I questioned had a word “charity” in it and it was nowhere close to what the guidelines state “Geocaches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted”, there was no agenda in that listing just a plain and simply word…as opposed to some of the links I provided that truly had an agenda.

[+Keith Watson]

I asked why the guidelines are applied inconsistently, which seems to have been an issue that popped up quite a few times last year.

 

This forum topic is not about the consistency of the application of the guidelines. I am sure there is a forum topic about that. If not, feel free to start your own. This forum thread, started by you, is about charities in event listings.