Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
t4e

Charities in Event Listing

Recommended Posts

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

 

It looks like the people that make the decisions say it is so far.

Share this post


Link to post

I have just posted a Reviewer Note on the cache page. http://coord.info/GL72E2VE

 

This cache event has been referred to appeals. We review caches on a case-by-case basis and understand this is a grey area. Groundspeak's guidelines (visit link) state caches should not solicit for any purpose. This includes the sentence "Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity."

 

We consider this a slippery slope. If we allow mentions of donating to charity in general, we could allow it for other causes then other not so good causes, so we prefer not to go down this slope at all. Thus, Cache Drone asked to have this sentence removed.

Of course, this has no relevance to whether gifts are actually donated to charity. That is fine, we only ask to keep it off the cache page.

 

Cache Drone has agreed to unarchive the event so people can still attend and have a great time.

We (Groundspeak and Cache Drone) are asking the cache owner to compromise and edit the listing to remove this sentence.

 

If you have any questions regarding cache guidelines or volunteer reviewers, please email appeals@Groundspeak.com directly.

 

Thank you for continuing this discussion within this forum rather than the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

And so yet another listing reviewed and moderated by Ontario reviewers and supported by appeals has lost to interpreted grey guidelines while other listings that fall in the same context around the continent and world have been published free of such supposedly unchanged constraints that have been 'enforced for years'.

 

<3 fair consistency.

:blink:

 

ETA: Just to add - I hope the event stays. It's for the kids. It's just ridiculous the sequence of events that brought it to this point. It's up to the CO whether the listing is archived and the event remains, or it's edited, or archived and canceled.

 

ETA2: How is it a "slippery slope" if no precedent is set? Just because this one is published doesn't mean anyone can use it as a reason for theirs to be published in the future. I hate when that defense is used...

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

edit: n/m, missed the note posted previous to the unarchival.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Petty at best if you ask me! Ridiculously petty.

Edited by Frank Broughton

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, just want to check to be clear...

 

5:40 - Nicole notes here and with a note on the cache that the listing text should be updated

5:52 - my comment above

5:55 - CD's unarchival note implying the listing is fine as worded (inferring on my part, I should say)

 

Is the CO still expected to remove the 'offending' text?

Share this post


Link to post

just remove the gift part, and you're golden

 

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

 

I'm sure the charities could use a few hard workers

Share this post


Link to post

just remove the gift part, and you're golden

 

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

 

I'm sure the charities could use a few hard workers

Nah... then you'd be soliciting for Nike. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

haha - is thread for real? Are we this petty? Crazy...... slippery slope?????? I have a cache called that....

 

I would say hard to believe, but not lately.

Share this post


Link to post

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?

 

 

thebruce got it right

 

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.

 

and if you want to play the "poor kids missing out" card can tell that to Groundspeak

 

i fully support the CO's decision to stand by his beliefs and if it was me i would have done exactly what he did, in fact i just said that as soon as i saw his enable log

 

i'm sure the event will go on whether there is an active listing or not, the kids will have fun and the charity will get the excess, the area has a very close knit and strong community of geocachers

 

just remove the gift part, and you're golden

 

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

 

I'm sure the charities could use a few hard workers

 

now that i agree with 100% :lol:

 

can use the

 

Happy Festivus!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

I'll not enable it until I have my response to Groundspeak about the "compromise" resolved.

 

Given the response from NicoleLackey is likely to be the same as the answer you get from appeals@ (if not the exact same), will you be archiving this event or editing to conform with the guidelines?

Share this post


Link to post

I've made a further request as I don't feel there is any compromise. Doing what they say isn't a compromise in my books. I'll wait for a response to that request before doing anything.

Share this post


Link to post

For the record, Nicole asked you to compromise and did not suggest Groundspeak would. The compromise here is remove the line vs archive the event.

 

I fail to see why it is so [REDACTED] important that the cache listing has that line about donations in it. The only benefit I see is advertising that you are doing the good deed to a wider audience than the event attendees that are present, since you can still donate the gifts to a charity regardless of the event listing on Geocaching.com. You can still put that information on cross listings, facebook, blogs, giant blimps hovering over the event or l nothing at all if you so desire.

 

Edit: iPhone keyboard just murdered my typing there. Typos corrected.

Edited by northernpenguin

Share this post


Link to post

This whole thread and the thought process on all sides is beyond ridiculous.

 

Your commentary is incredibly insightful. Might you have something constructive to add to this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

I just like to find boxes of crap in the woods. Please leave any social stuff off cache and event pages please. I see plenty of that in my real life.

Share this post


Link to post

I've reproposed an actual compromise. Just waiting for a final response from that.

 

Assuming that the answer is once again the same as the previous appeal(s) submitted, I wonder what kind of timeframe TPTB have on archiving your event for leaving the text about the charity in place?

 

I agree with ChileHead: Charities = good, suggesting on cache pages = bad.

Share this post


Link to post

We've had successful events in our area that over the years have raised thousands of dollars in cash and truckloads of food and toys for kids that are given to our local food cupboard. With no mention of any charity or donation or collecting on the cache page.

 

How? It's all done on our local forums. The event is listed on geocaching.com as a regular holiday event. Our local forums add any additional "solicitation" type items. The cache page stays agenda free, we collect food & money for those in need as the local forums can say whatever they want within reason.

 

This year we had about $700 in cash raised from the raffles, and a SUV full of canned goods and toys.

Share this post


Link to post

I've reproposed an actual compromise. Just waiting for a final response from that.

 

Just wondering. If you don't get what you want, does that mean you still want them to delete your account?

Share this post


Link to post

We've had successful events in our area that over the years have raised thousands of dollars in cash and truckloads of food and toys for kids that are given to our local food cupboard. With no mention of any charity or donation or collecting on the cache page.

 

How? It's all done on our local forums. The event is listed on geocaching.com as a regular holiday event. Our local forums add any additional "solicitation" type items. The cache page stays agenda free, we collect food & money for those in need as the local forums can say whatever they want within reason.

 

This year we had about $700 in cash raised from the raffles, and a SUV full of canned goods and toys.

 

While all that is fine and dandy, it doesn't address the issue at hand here. The issue is that in the CO's mind, the line in question does not constitute an agenda and does not solicit in any way. And I fully agree with that. It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post

 

While all that is fine and dandy, it doesn't address the issue at hand here. The issue is that in the CO's mind, the line in question does not constitute an agenda and does not solicit in any way. And I fully agree with that. It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

 

Except that just by mentioning that excess will be donated to charity, it encourages people to bring items for charity.

It's only just over that line but it is technically on the other side of it.

Share this post


Link to post

While all that is fine and dandy, it doesn't address the issue at hand here. The issue is that in the CO's mind, the line in question does not constitute an agenda and does not solicit in any way. And I fully agree with that. It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

 

Except that just by mentioning that excess will be donated to charity, it encourages people to bring items for charity.

 

Which is exactly one of the explanations we were given here and that certain people oh so conveniently agreed with. Only that later on it got thoroughly debunked by the updated "ruling" that maybe, a casual mention is just that, a casual mention, and doesn't solicit or do anything else. Sorry, I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, this is complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
While all that is fine and dandy, it doesn't address the issue at hand here. The issue is that in the CO's mind, the line in question does not constitute an agenda and does not solicit in any way. And I fully agree with that. It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

It's clearly not a simple statement of fact. It's a statement of opinion, since it's "in the CO's mind". When you submit a cache, what matters is not what's in your mind, it's what's in the reviewer's mind. When you appeal a refusal to publish, what matters is not what's in your mind, it's what's in Groundspeak's mind.

 

The CO is entitled to hold his opinion and you are entitled to hold yours, but the reviewer and/or Groundspeak are still the arbiters. That's the nature of the client/provider relationship, despite what corporate propaganda of the "have it your way" variety, or folk wisdom such as "the customer is always right" might suggest. (I wanted my Whopper served with fava beans and a nice Chianti, but I couldn't have it my way. It turns out that Burger King makes the rules, not me.)

Share this post


Link to post

We've had successful events in our area that over the years have raised thousands of dollars in cash and truckloads of food and toys for kids that are given to our local food cupboard. With no mention of any charity or donation or collecting on the cache page.

 

How? It's all done on our local forums. The event is listed on geocaching.com as a regular holiday event. Our local forums add any additional "solicitation" type items. The cache page stays agenda free, we collect food & money for those in need as the local forums can say whatever they want within reason.

 

This year we had about $700 in cash raised from the raffles, and a SUV full of canned goods and toys.

 

not everyone frequents forums, no matter what they are...

 

I've reproposed an actual compromise. Just waiting for a final response from that.

 

Just wondering. If you don't get what you want, does that mean you still want them to delete your account?

 

an account is never deleted

Share this post


Link to post
While all that is fine and dandy, it doesn't address the issue at hand here. The issue is that in the CO's mind, the line in question does not constitute an agenda and does not solicit in any way. And I fully agree with that. It's a simple statement of fact, nothing more.

It's clearly not a simple statement of fact. It's a statement of opinion, since it's "in the CO's mind". When you submit a cache, what matters is not what's in your mind, it's what's in the reviewer's mind. When you appeal a refusal to publish, what matters is not what's in your mind, it's what's in Groundspeak's mind.

 

 

wrong...its a matter of arbitrary interpretation by reviewers and GC

 

 

This cache event has been referred to appeals. We review caches on a case-by-case basis and understand this is a grey area. Groundspeak's guidelines (visit link) state caches should not solicit for any purpose. This includes the sentence "Any extra kids gifts will be donated after the event to a local charity."

 

 

nowhere in the guidelines is there such wording

 

GC should put a big, red, bold note at the top of the Guidelines "the interpretation of this guidelines are at the discretion of GC and the reviewers, which may result in different outcomes on different parts of the world"

 

guaranteed nobody will ever question any decision

 

the Guidelines are there to guide me, i don't want to spend time creating a cache only to find out that my reviewer decided to put a different spin on some wording, totally different than a reviewer in Lapland, for example

Share this post


Link to post

This whole thread and the thought process on all sides is beyond ridiculous.

 

Your commentary is incredibly insightful. Might you have something constructive to add to this discussion?

 

I could not be any more insightful - here I will say it a different way: pride is an ugly thing (it is not honorable) and it is in full display!

Share this post


Link to post

 

GC should put a big, red, bold note at the top of the Guidelines "the interpretation of this guidelines are at the discretion of GC and the reviewers, which may result in different outcomes on different parts of the world"

 

 

And you should capitalize your sentences. But I doubt that is gonna happen either.

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

With great reluctance, I will shortly be removing the supposed offending text from the cache page. Although I don't agree with the original interpretation of the guidelines by the reviewer, nor do I agree with the "compromise" as it has been given to me, I must move on. In order to do that I needed to have some reassurance.

 

The compromise in this case was that Cachedrone unarchived "the cache despite his reluctance" and I am to remove the offending text. Unarchiving to me seems to be a step in the process, not part of a compromise. To me, a compromise would be something like my porposal, simply that I could leave the text in this year and remove it from subsequent events. However, that isn't the case here. I will move on though.

 

The reassurance I received is that Nicole stated "We are also working with CacheDrone and the other 200+ reviewers to take a step further and work towards being more consistent". By stating this to me and my relaying it to others, we can hope to achieve consistency in the near future when publishing events. We can also hold them to account should such an occasion rise again. I hope that Groundspeak, CacheDrone and others will take note of the failure to provide consistent application of the guidelines throughout this "game" and truly work toward repairing the damage it has caused to many of the "players". This has been a long standing issue that needs resolution.

 

In the end, the event will take place which is good news. Just for the record, any additional toys collected will be donated to charity :) I think I can say that here, right?

Share this post


Link to post

As long as the 'charity' isn't one of [those websites which shall not be named]. :ph34r:

 

ETA: You could also add the leftover toy clause in a note/announcement log, as that's not the listing and not subject to the same guidelines (as per business names and other restricted content) :anibad:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

"part" != "all"

 

All was not given up. I doubt seriously that anyone would expect that an event would be listed with nothing else except the line that was deleted. Therfore "part" is correct as the cache owner did not give up everything.

Share this post


Link to post
All was not given up. I doubt seriously that anyone would expect that an event would be listed with nothing else except the line that was deleted. Therfore "part" is correct as the cache owner did not give up everything.

really? semantics?

 

"All" - from the standpoint of what would have happened without the request, to what happens after the resolution. There was a requirement - there was no compromise. He had to adhere to the requirement in full or face the consequence. There was no 'part' of the situation that was granted in his favour. It was all or nothing -- all, or face the consequence. He chose all, rather than the consequence.

 

"part" != "all".

 

The only benefit, for lack of a better term, to come from all this was the statement "We are also working with CacheDrone and the other 200+ reviewers to take a step further and work towards being more consistent". This is a given. It's not a compromise (would this not be true if he had chosen otherwise?).

Come on.

 

Anyway, the situation is resolved. Moving on.

I'm fine if this thread is locked now to stop it devolving further into petty arguments.

(At least NP got IBTL =P)

Share this post


Link to post
All was not given up. I doubt seriously that anyone would expect that an event would be listed with nothing else except the line that was deleted. Therfore "part" is correct as the cache owner did not give up everything.

really? semantics?

 

"All" - from the standpoint of what would have happened without the request, to what happens after the resolution. There was a requirement - there was no compromise. He had to adhere to the requirement in full or face the consequence. There was no 'part' of the situation that was granted in his favour. It was all or nothing -- all, or face the consequence. He chose all, rather than the consequence.

 

"part" != "all".

 

The only benefit, for lack of a better term, to come from all this was the statement "We are also working with CacheDrone and the other 200+ reviewers to take a step further and work towards being more consistent". This is a given. It's not a compromise (would this not be true if he had chosen otherwise?).

Come on.

 

Anyway, the situation is resolved. Moving on.

I'm fine if this thread is locked now to stop it devolving further into petty arguments.

(At least NP got IBTL =P)

 

I would say there are two benefits.

 

1) The event listing gets enabled.

2) The kids still get the left overs.

 

Apparently getting the event enabled was more important to the cache owner than keeping the one line of the description. This is proven by the fact that the line was removed. This tells me there were two parts here. Getting the event enabled, and keeping the one line. The choice was made by the cache owner to give up one of the two. Thus the cache owner was not forced to give up all.

Share this post


Link to post

If he did not remove the text, the event listing would be archived from the website. That was the consequence. It was comply either with the entirety of the request - remove the line - or have the listing be archived. There was NO compromise. Argue against that as much as you want, doesn't change the fact. He removed the line so that the event would not be archived. That's all there was to it. That is not a compromise. That is complying with the requirement.

I'm done.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually what was even more important as I stated many times, is that the continued application of the guidelines be consistent. I feel that Groundspeak has addressed this enough that I will obey and change the line. Not a compromise in my books, but at least an acknowledgement of the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

If he did not remove the text, the event listing would be archived from the website. That was the consequence. It was comply either with the entirety of the request - remove the line - or have the listing be archived. There was NO compromise. Argue against that as much as you want, doesn't change the fact. He removed the line so that the event would not be archived. That's all there was to it. That is not a compromise. That is complying with the requirement.

I'm done.

 

Actually there were two requirements. The cache owner wanted to enable the listing and keep the one line. That was the cache owners requirement. Groundspeak's requirement was that the line be removed. The cache owner demanded to have both. Groundspeak's position was that the cache owner could not have both. So, a compromise was made. You seem to be looking at it from a different angle and applying the logic. Remember, if one party gives up part, then there is a compromise which is exactly what happened. Call it what you will or look at it from what angle you want or rationalize.

Share this post


Link to post

I hate beating dead horses, truly, but the enabling of the cache was implied, not requested. My only request was that the line remain. Groundspeak's only request was that the line be removed. Archiving was a conditioned response to my lack of adherence to Groundspeak's request. When it became obvious that Groundspeak was unwilling to allow me to keep the line, I made a modified request. Again, that was denied. I modified the line AFTER Groundspeak allowed me to do so by Unarchiving. Unarchiving was a requirement to allow me to make the change. I solely enabled the listing. Therefore Groundspeak did not compromise or make any changes on their end.

 

The only reason I continued on was because of the note above from Nicole.

 

Horse = Dead

Stop beating it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

GC should put a big, red, bold note at the top of the Guidelines "the interpretation of this guidelines are at the discretion of GC and the reviewers, which may result in different outcomes on different parts of the world"

 

 

And you should capitalize your sentences. But I doubt that is gonna happen either.

 

 

what the heck does that have to do with anything?

 

what is this, grammar and punctuation class? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

ETA: You could also add the leftover toy clause in a note/announcement log, as that's not the listing and not subject to the same guidelines (as per business names and other restricted content) :anibad:

 

Not recommended. Doing so would fall under the maintenance of a cache listing, which logs are a part of that aspect. Using the "announcement" log type by any host would be likely viewed as attempting to circumvent the guidelines they agreed to follow.

 

Have a search in the Canada Forums for "Plasma Boy" if you are so inclined as an example of how a cache log with an agenda is also not permitted under the Terms of Use.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...