Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
t4e

Charities in Event Listing

Recommended Posts

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.

 

If this were my forum, I would remind folks that categorizing other members posts or opinions as "whining" is insulting.

 

It seems to be acceptable here, especially when one doesn't agree with another person.

 

It's still insulting, even if it's not chastised for being against the Forum Guidelines. It's especially shocking when the insulting posts come from reviewers/moderators, the people who should be models of forum behaviour.

 

Here's what makes me laugh.

 

Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see.

 

SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me."

 

So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it.

 

How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo!

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

In general, we will leave it to you, the community, to manage your own conduct. We ask that you treat other forum participants with respect.

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

there is nothing "anecdotal" about the listings i posted...they are pretty much black on white, unless some color was used

 

i had knowledge of those listings way before they took place... and it was never my intention to rat out anyone and cause grief to the CO's

i don't really care if the wording was there or not, as it showed in our example here the original event was published with the offending word in it

 

You should care if the wording was there before it was published as those other events were given as some sort of proof. If this is not the case, what was the point them of being referenced.

 

it was not an issue until a "copycat" listing popped up and perhaps because the CO was not a known figure in the community the listing was scrutinized further

and please don't go reading into that statement more than it really is, we all tend to be less vigilant with someone that we expect to be up to certain standards

as an example, i personally will not scrutinize the reports i get from someone that has been submitting them to me for the past 5 years as opposed to someone that just started one month ago

i have more faith and trust in the more senior person that they know what they are doing, and based on past experience when i always had good output from them

the same does not apply to the new person in the job

so no, its not an 'inflammatory" remark, its just a normal state of affairs

 

I personally find the use of "not a known figure in the community" offensive in this example. This implies that lesser know cachers can not be trusted and well know cachers can. I would expect that the reviewers do not subscribe to this and treat us all equally. I don't expect any special treatment when I submit a cache listing or post a find on a cache. I have been caching for over 8 years, found 4,854 caches, and have owned 96 caches / events that have been visited 9,400 times by 2,446 different cachers. Does this mean I should be treated any different than a cacher that started a week ago?

 

As for this not being an issue until a "copycat" listing was submitted, I don't see that being confirmed by the owner of the "copycat" listing or reviewer. Again that would be an unconfirmed speculation from what I can tell.

 

Other than suggesting again that the reviewers are treating us based on our standing in the geocaching community, do you have any new evidence that has not been presents to support your claims?

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

I still find it interesting that this is such a contentious topic here. The reviewers did actually respond in the thread, a few times, just not to the satisfaction of the OP. "Because I said so" isn't seen as a valid response, yet it is perfectly valid:

 

- Groundspeak is a private corporation

- Groundspeak's business is based on user submitted content

- The user submitted content is subject to review based on "guidelines".

- The "guidelines" were created by the private corporation

- The reviewers are appointed by Groundspeak, to review content as per their Guidelines

- The reviewers who do not review listings to the private corporation's satisfaction are removed from that role

- Groundspeak can decide which guidelines to apply, when to apply them and where to apply them

- Groundspeak maintains discussion forums, where people can discuss issues relating to the hobby, or call the review process out, or the reviewers, or complain about Jeremy Irish if they want.

- Sometimes there are inconsistencies in the review process, intentional or not.

 

Now lets' look at some other Internet properties that are based on user submitted content:

 

Flickr

- Flickr is owned by Yahoo, a private corporation

 

- The user submitted content is subject to review based on "guidelines".

- The "guidelines" were created by the private corporation

- If your content is removed, you can send an email to a generic mailbox which may, or may not respond

 

Youtube

 

- Youtube is owned by Google, a private corporation

 

- The user submitted content is subject to review based on "guidelines".

- The "guidelines" were created by the private corporation

- If your content is removed, you can send an email to a generic mailbox which may, or may not respond

 

Picasa

 

- Picasa is owned by Google, a private corporation

 

- The user submitted content is subject to review based on "guidelines".

- The "guidelines" were created by the private corporation

- If your content is removed, you can send an email to a generic mailbox which may, or may not respond

 

Vimeo

 

- Vimeo is a private corporation

 

- The user submitted content is subject to review based on "guidelines".

- The "guidelines" were created by the private corporation

- If your content is removed, you can send an email to a generic mailbox which may, or may not respond

 

A private corporation is not a democracy. You have the option to complain, they have the option to ignore. If you can't live with that, there are other geocaching sites. Well, they have oh about 1% of the listing data that Groundspeak has because the customer base is generally much happier over here.

 

I feel this thread was probably completely unnecessary if the OP had just started an email conversation with a reviewer, and been willing to listen to their response. In my 10 years of geocaching, I have never had an email to a reviewer go unanswered, and I'd say that's prevented a good two dozen forum threads on my part cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Google and Yahoo are publicly traded companies.

 

Ok, I meant that more as in a corporation not a government or social club. But you're right.

Shareholders are even less concerned about someone with user provided content who feels "slighted" by that Corporation.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the difference here is that we paying customers are dealing directly with masked, unpaid volunteer individuals who represent the company to whom we're paying membership fees.

If I have Youtube/Vimeo/Flickr content removed and altered "because they say so", it's a lot harder for me to judge the judgement of the one who made the call. There, we have only Corporation and Guidelines. Here, it's easier to feel "slighted" by the intermediary representatives than by the corporation itself. And because we have an appeals process, we have the ability and the right to call into question judgements made by those reviewers.

That very process introduces a level of easily accessible doubt at decisions any one paying customer may not "like".

 

Blaming the empowered customer for having problems with judgement calls is not the problem, it's a consequence of the system. It will not end, and these forums will continue to erupt with contentious issues. They need to be dealt with - logically, feasibly, consistently, fairly, and respectably. Customers may get into hissy fits with each other, but those said representatives MUST continue to remain respectable and treat customers properly, otherwise a storm will roll in - and not necessarily over the corporation, but its representatives. IF the discussion of issues remains productive and respectable, the guidelines will and should continue to become more refined and understandable, even if longer and more detailed.

 

Those other major sites have a very different dynamic than Groundspeak - in membership, fees, support, and content dynamic. The Geocaching.com community is by nature more empowered to fight judgement calls they dislike. Blaming the customer is blaming the system. Issues need to be dealt with, not laughed at, not shrugged off, and certainly not ridiculed, let alone by Groundspeak's representatives.

 

Amazed this thread (linked in theme I suppose with others) is still alive... but it was revived by a concern that events were allowed to exist, after the original issue had begun, specifically and in some cases blatantly against the very guideline applied denying the original listing (and my bet is that knowing of past events, those listings were purposely not mentioned to reviewers until their archival specifically so that the offending party wouldn't be unfairly vilified for "ratting" on them).

It's a valid concern, in my opinion, that should have some official response. Whether it's admittance to a mistake, or confirmation that the customer skirted said rule by modification post-publish, or that exceptions were made, or (god forbid) that very rule was knowingly ignored by the reviewer(s) in question. It's sort of like reviewers only being able to deal with listing infractions as they're "reported" -- if they're forced to deal with those, then I think they should be obligated to provide an explanation for raised concerns they can't actively deal with - it's not a request for every possible circumstance in the past and future to be explained, t4e has only asked about the listings she quoted (implying also a desire to understand the reasoning). So, how were those listings able to exist? Mistake? Purposeful exception? Ignorance? A regional variance in guideline application? Or were they indeed by cheating members skirting the reviewers?

 

IMO, there is no evidence to put the blame for those listings on anyone yet since all we know at this point is that they were archived with the offending text in the descriptions.

Being able to trust and understand the logic behind the review process utilized by the reviewers is a HUGE benefit for the community, given the system in place that empowers the community to report perceived problems with those very reviewers.

Help us trust you, and these issues can be quelled and resolved MUCH faster, and with FAR less drama.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the difference here is that we paying customers are dealing directly with masked, unpaid volunteer individuals who represent the company to whom we're paying membership fees.

If I have Youtube/Vimeo/Flickr content removed and altered "because they say so", it's a lot harder for me to judge the judgement of the one who made the call. There, we have only Corporation and Guidelines. Here, it's easier to feel "slighted" by the intermediary representatives than by the corporation itself. And because we have an appeals process, we have the ability and the right to call into question judgements made by those reviewers.

That very process introduces a level of easily accessible doubt at decisions any one paying customer may not "like".

 

Blaming the empowered customer for having problems with judgement calls is not the problem, it's a consequence of the system. It will not end, and these forums will continue to erupt with contentious issues. They need to be dealt with - logically, feasibly, consistently, fairly, and respectably. Customers may get into hissy fits with each other, but those said representatives MUST continue to remain respectable and treat customers properly, otherwise a storm will roll in - and not necessarily over the corporation, but its representatives. IF the discussion of issues remains productive and respectable, the guidelines will and should continue to become more refined and understandable, even if longer and more detailed.

 

Those other major sites have a very different dynamic than Groundspeak - in membership, fees, support, and content dynamic. The Geocaching.com community is by nature more empowered to fight judgement calls they dislike. Blaming the customer is blaming the system. Issues need to be dealt with, not laughed at, not shrugged off, and certainly not ridiculed, let alone by Groundspeak's representatives.

 

Amazed this thread (linked in theme I suppose with others) is still alive... but it was revived by a concern that events were allowed to exist, after the original issue had begun, specifically and in some cases blatantly against the very guideline applied denying the original listing (and my bet is that knowing of past events, those listings were purposely not mentioned to reviewers until their archival specifically so that the offending party wouldn't be unfairly vilified for "ratting" on them).

It's a valid concern, in my opinion, that should have some official response. Whether it's admittance to a mistake, or confirmation that the customer skirted said rule by modification post-publish, or that exceptions were made, or (god forbid) that very rule was knowingly ignored by the reviewer(s) in question. It's sort of like reviewers only being able to deal with listing infractions as they're "reported" -- if they're forced to deal with those, then I think they should be obligated to provide an explanation for raised concerns they can't actively deal with - it's not a request for every possible circumstance in the past and future to be explained, t4e has only asked about the listings she quoted (implying also a desire to understand the reasoning). So, how were those listings able to exist? Mistake? Purposeful exception? Ignorance? A regional variance in guideline application? Or were they indeed by cheating members skirting the reviewers?

 

IMO, there is no evidence to put the blame for those listings on anyone yet since all we know at this point is that they were archived with the offending text in the descriptions.

Being able to trust and understand the logic behind the review process utilized by the reviewers is a HUGE benefit for the community, given the system in place that empowers the community to report perceived problems with those very reviewers.

Help us trust you, and these issues can be quelled and resolved MUCH faster, and with FAR less drama.

 

Perhaps the use of the word "community" is an error on Groundspeak's part. While we do have a community of peers (Geocachers), our relationship with Groundspeak is that of a customer. We do NOT get equal say on the things Groundspeak does, or what the reviewers do. If we had equal say with the reviewers, we would be using a Peer Review type system. The argument could be made for Groundspeak here that perhaps they should close the forums, as that would remove the drama as well.

 

I am thankful that we have this "community" discussion option where we can question the reviewers in public, and the Corporation in public. I am not of the mindset that Groundspeak owes us some sort of adherence to their own guidelines. It's Jeremy's bus, he can drive it where he likes. If he drives it the wrong way, the customers will flee.

 

There are decisions that are made upstairs that frankly we're not going to learn about. Perhaps the American Red Cross paid for banner ads on the site. Groundspeak would block all other Charities as per some sort of revenue sharing agreement. Did they? Probably not. I am speculating there. The thing I am not speculating about is that Groundspeak will run the site, as they see fit, and occasionally make partnerships that are outside the "Guidelines". That's why this line is in the Guidelines:

 

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

 

Which is basically, Groundspeak can do what they want, when they want, whenever they want.

 

But don't confuse the use of the word "Community" on the Groundspeak owned sites with "Community" in the social sense of the word. We are the customers. We can make suggestions, and they are in no way whatsoever binding on the Corporation, or it's representatives.

Share this post


Link to post

Regardless of the definition of "community", I was primarily referring to the system set up - and the repeated use of the direction - to "take it to appeals" if you don't like a reviewer decision. The "community" - the customers, both paying and non-paying, are empowered to, effectively, review the reviewers and their decisions. This is a different dynamic than the major social media sharing sites.

Share this post


Link to post

there is nothing "anecdotal" about the listings i posted...they are pretty much black on white, unless some color was used

i had knowledge of those listings way before they took place... and it was never my intention to rat out anyone and cause grief to the CO's

 

Why not? You stated elsewhere that you are "a firm believer that people in the wrong need a lesson to learn from the experience."

 

yes, i know it is quite a parallel but at the end of the day we are paying customers to Groundspeak even if the reviewers are volunteers and do it for the love of the game, they are the representatives of GC and the first "authority" we have access to, would be nice if they had the courtesy to make a comment

 

It would be nice when you toss someone into the mix and expect a comment from them for you to contact them and make them aware of the thread. Have you contacted Cache Effect, onecrazycanadian, dalesmanX, and Tom Bombadil? You shouldn't assume they are aware of this thread otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

Blaming the empowered customer for having problems with judgement calls is not the problem, it's a consequence of the system.

 

It is a problem when the empowered customer knows of the something wrong, does nothing about it, and them complains that nothing was done about it. In this thread and poster claimed to have a list of caches that violated the guidelines and did nothing about it. Then after nothing could be done about it it, the list was displayed for all to see as some offer of proof that wrong had been done. If they person holding the information really believed that the listing were in violation then they could have reported them to reviewers.

 

Amazed this thread (linked in theme I suppose with others) is still alive... but it was revived by a concern that events were allowed to exist, after the original issue had begun, specifically and in some cases blatantly against the very guideline applied denying the original listing (and my bet is that knowing of past events, those listings were purposely not mentioned to reviewers until their archival specifically so that the offending party wouldn't be unfairly vilified for "ratting" on them).

 

I don't believe that is quite true. Are there more events that have not been mentioned? Again, this could have been taken up with a reviewer and there would have been no "unfairly vilified for "ratting" on them".

Share this post


Link to post

 

I personally find the use of "not a known figure in the community" offensive in this example. This implies that lesser know cachers can not be trusted and well know cachers can. I would expect that the reviewers do not subscribe to this and treat us all equally. I don't expect any special treatment when I submit a cache listing or post a find on a cache. I have been caching for over 8 years, found 4,854 caches, and have owned 96 caches / events that have been visited 9,400 times by 2,446 different cachers. Does this mean I should be treated any different than a cacher that started a week ago?

 

As for this not being an issue until a "copycat" listing was submitted, I don't see that being confirmed by the owner of the "copycat" listing or reviewer. Again that would be an unconfirmed speculation from what I can tell.

 

Other than suggesting again that the reviewers are treating us based on our standing in the geocaching community, do you have any new evidence that has not been presents to support your claims?

 

i'm sorry that you feel so easily offended, but its true...someone that has been around for a long time it is expected to know the guidelines way better than someone that just started...there is no insult in that, it is how it is, we all start off as noobs and learn over time

 

what is this "geocaching court of justice"? i already told you a few times...evidence are the listings i posted, i have politely asked for someone in position of authority to explain why they were allowed, that has not happened instead you keep asking me for evidence, are you one of those in position of authority to answer my question?

 

if your are not please do not waste your typing asking for more evidence

 

I still find it interesting that this is such a contentious topic here. The reviewers did actually respond in the thread, a few times, just not to the satisfaction of the OP. "Because I said so" isn't seen as a valid response, yet it is perfectly valid:

 

 

nope, "i said so" is a valid answer when dealing with a child

 

not even in my job an "because i said so" is acceptable, and i am an employee not business owner, in fact they encourage us to question anything we are ask to do in an attempt to ensure accuracy and avoid possible mistakes...

 

 

there is nothing "anecdotal" about the listings i posted...they are pretty much black on white, unless some color was used

i had knowledge of those listings way before they took place... and it was never my intention to rat out anyone and cause grief to the CO's

 

Why not? You stated elsewhere that you are "a firm believer that people in the wrong need a lesson to learn from the experience."

 

 

yes, that is what i stated but its totally out of context here

i don't believe the owners of those events are not in the wrong

 

Blaming the empowered customer for having problems with judgement calls is not the problem, it's a consequence of the system.

 

It is a problem when the empowered customer knows of the something wrong, does nothing about it, and them complains that nothing was done about it. In this thread and poster claimed to have a list of caches that violated the guidelines and did nothing about it. Then after nothing could be done about it it, the list was displayed for all to see as some offer of proof that wrong had been done. If they person holding the information really believed that the listing were in violation then they could have reported them to reviewers.

 

 

please allow me to LMAO at that...thanks

 

report them before so you can venture into the name calling and accusations of ruining someone elses fun? :lol:

 

sorry to see that you missed the whole point of this thread

 

i know that comment will come back to "bite" you one day :lol:

 

this is becoming quite entertaining now :D

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

I still find it interesting that this is such a contentious topic here. The reviewers did actually respond in the thread, a few times, just not to the satisfaction of the OP. "Because I said so" isn't seen as a valid response, yet it is perfectly valid:

 

 

nope, "i said so" is a valid answer when dealing with a child

 

not even in my job an "because i said so" is acceptable, and i am an employee not business owner, in fact they encourage us to question anything we are ask to do in an attempt to ensure accuracy and avoid possible mistakes...

 

 

Really? Only in the context of a child?

 

If you are standing on my front lawn, and I tell you to leave "because I said so", you must leave. Even if you are 73 years old.

If you take something of mine, and I tell you to give it back "because I said so", you must return it. Even if you are 34 years old.

If I put up a website, and you want to place content on it, you have to do it as per my terms and conditions (also could be read "I said so"), or I can delete your content.

 

It is perfectly acceptable for the owner of something to do with it as they please. Groundspeak owns the site. Period.

If you don't like their terms, you don't have much final say in the decision. You may perceive that you do, and in the interest of their business objectives they may decide to listen to you but unless you buy the company, what Jeremy, or one of his representatives says, goes.

 

Child, Adult, Senior, or otherwise

Share this post


Link to post

i'm sorry that you feel so easily offended, but its true...someone that has been around for a long time it is expected to know the guidelines way better than someone that just started...there is no insult in that, it is how it is, we all start off as noobs and learn over time

 

The problem with that it assumes that knowling the guidelines means following the guidelines. As you have clearly demonstrated, that is not always the case.

 

Blaming the empowered customer for having problems with judgement calls is not the problem, it's a consequence of the system.

 

It is a problem when the empowered customer knows of the something wrong, does nothing about it, and them complains that nothing was done about it. In this thread and poster claimed to have a list of caches that violated the guidelines and did nothing about it. Then after nothing could be done about it it, the list was displayed for all to see as some offer of proof that wrong had been done. If they person holding the information really believed that the listing were in violation then they could have reported them to reviewers.

 

 

please allow me to LMAO at that...thanks

 

report them before so you can venture into the name calling and accusations of ruining someone elses fun? :lol:

 

sorry to see that you missed the whole point of this thread

 

i know that comment will come back to "bite" you one day :lol:

 

this is becoming quite entertaining now :D

 

I have not missed anything. Lets have a recap.

 

1) Someone violated the guidelines and got caught.

2) A third party took it upon themselves to start a forum thread about it.

3) The cache owner asked to have the event and their account deleted if their demands were not met.

4) The cache owner gave up the offending content in order to have the listing um-archived.

 

Clearly having the event listed was more important than any charitable reference as indicated by the content being removed.

 

I am not sure what is going to come back and bite me? Years ago I went to the forums with this very same issue and it erupted into a flame war. I have learned from that and now go through different channels. What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it.

 

Geocaching is a community and we have been given the tools to act in the forms of log types we can use to indicate there are problems with caches. These tools also include contacting reviewers. A route you can take if you wish to remain anonymous. If you don't like what you get there you are free to contact Groundspeak themselves. If you don't like what you get there, you are basically stuck and have to deal with it. Once these paths have be used, using the forums is not likely to get you anywhere as the people that can actually do anything about it have already spoken.

 

5) This forum thread continues to debate the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it.

 

 

that is one heck of a comparison there, drug dealing vs geocaching listing, yeap the latter sure is a major criminal activity :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

anyways i think this thread has run its course, it is very clear to me that it is acceptable to have differences in "treatment" based on whatever reasons there may be

 

below is, in my view, the post with the most common sense in this thread and to a certain extent pointing out a very valid point, different treatments for different people

 

and it should be "unburied" as a reminder

 

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.

 

If this were my forum, I would remind folks that categorizing other members posts or opinions as "whining" is insulting.

 

It seems to be acceptable here, especially when one doesn't agree with another person.

 

It's still insulting, even if it's not chastised for being against the Forum Guidelines. It's especially shocking when the insulting posts come from reviewers/moderators, the people who should be models of forum behaviour.

 

Here's what makes me laugh.

 

Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see.

 

SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me."

 

So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it.

 

How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo!

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

In general, we will leave it to you, the community, to manage your own conduct. We ask that you treat other forum participants with respect.

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post

(I don't want to be a gnat, though to some I'm sure I already am, but I have to make sure my response is attached to that quote #159)

Share this post


Link to post

anyways i think this thread has run its course, it is very clear to me that it is acceptable to have differences in "treatment" based on whatever reasons there may be

 

below is, in my view, the post with the most common sense in this thread and to a certain extent pointing out a very valid point, different treatments for different people

 

and it should be "unburied" as a reminder

 

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about.

 

If this were my forum, I would remind folks that categorizing other members posts or opinions as "whining" is insulting.

 

It seems to be acceptable here, especially when one doesn't agree with another person.

 

It's still insulting, even if it's not chastised for being against the Forum Guidelines. It's especially shocking when the insulting posts come from reviewers/moderators, the people who should be models of forum behaviour.

 

Here's what makes me laugh.

 

Back in the summer CacheViewer declined a cache listing because it promoted the virtues of the drive-thru window of a restaurant. Instead of simply accepting that and updating their listing, this whiner kicked and screamed like a child that they were being treated so unfairly then promptly went on their own personal vendetta. They collected over 50 listings and DEMANDED that the reviewers take IMMEDIATE action against those listings just to satisfy the ego and entitlement issues that so cripple their delicate self-confidence. As the logs went out they likely puffed up with pride knowing the swath of disablings were sending shock waves across the province. So while this whining child-like cacher sat veiled in secrecy, the reviewers took all the heat from the locals that were so frustrated. All of this just because some listing wasn't allowed to promote a local restaurant. So here's what I see.

 

SOME cachers in Ontario simply cannot accept that things don't always go their way, but instead of being adult about it they would rather see everyone else suffer too. "I didn't get my way so I'm going to take it out on everyone else. And I'm going to do it behind everyone's back safe in my secret bunker where no one will ever know it was me."

 

So from time to time things like this happen in Ontario, because when some cacher with entitlement issues gets turned down they sabotage a bunch of other cache listings... claiming it is to be fair, but never with the courage to be public about it.

 

How does that make you feel "thebruce0"? Imagine that guy was reading or even posting in this same thread... Any special words for the person that flipped out and emailed me that list of 50+ caches demanding they be changed? I blame THAT guy for all of this nonsense that has happened this year. I blame the mentality that SOME people have, that they need to take others down all because they didn't get their way. Boo hoo!

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

In general, we will leave it to you, the community, to manage your own conduct. We ask that you treat other forum participants with respect.

 

1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly.

 

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

Ok, what has that got to do with charities in event listings? I guess this thread truly is dead as I no longer see anything new or insightful. Please, if you want to post something for the sake of posting something, I am sure there are forums somewhere else that will appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it.

 

 

that is one heck of a comparison there, drug dealing vs geocaching listing, yeap the latter sure is a major criminal activity :lol:

 

Not a big leap. It is exactly what happened.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it.

 

 

that is one heck of a comparison there, drug dealing vs geocaching listing, yeap the latter sure is a major criminal activity :lol:

 

It's a pretty spot on analogy though.

 

The only way you can say a reviewer has intentionally ignored the guidelines is to point out the violation and see if the reviewer acts on it.

 

Unless you point it out you'll never know if the reviewer was ever aware of the issue. Therefore, it's not really fair to use those as "proof" of the point you are attempting to make.

 

Even the cache that sparked this thread was published initially. The reviewer caught the error after the fact. I'm not sure if he caught it on his own or if it was pointed out. But it clearly demonstrates that mistakes are made and rectified all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
But it clearly demonstrates that mistakes are made and rectified all the time.

Only not all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
But it clearly demonstrates that mistakes are made and rectified all the time.

Only not all the time.

 

Mistakes or rectification.

 

I believe you are wrong if you don't think mistakes happen all the time.

 

That leaves rectifying those mistakes. Are you reporting problems and being ignored? If so, it is a surprise to me. Seems like a lot of the problems with Canadian reviewers going out of their way to fix mistakes is due to someone reporting a whole bunch of caches.

 

You can't really expect to have it both ways.

 

If you're reporting a ton of caches and they're archiving or disabling them to satisfy your concerns, then apparently they're rectifying mistakes.

 

If you are not reporting problems you find, then you can't say they're not rectifying mistakes. Post the NM logs. Get the ball going.

 

Otherwise, you have no reason to complain about reviewers not doing their job.

 

This thread is about a cache EVENT LISTING that was active for almost a month. Then suddenly it gets disabled with a note to change content.

 

I'm not the reviewer. But it sure looks to me like someone reported that cache and the reviewer stepped in and fixed it up, just like the local cachers have requested.

 

Now all of a sudden people want to hang him out to dry for doing the very thing they are complaining about not being done for other caches.

 

If you or t4e wish to make a real point, seek out active caches you think are in breach of the guidelines and report them. Then report back to us on whether or not your reviewer is doing his or her job.

 

OR

 

Chill out. Have a donut. Let the reviewers do their thankless job in peace for a while. I think they've been bullied enough for now.

 

* Edited to correct my omission of the words EVENT LISTING from my post.

Edited by GeoBain

Share this post


Link to post

 

This thread is about a cache that was active for almost a month.

 

would really help if you would really know what the thread is about :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

 

This thread is about a cache that was active for almost a month.

 

would really help if you would really know what the thread is about :lol:

 

So it has nothing to do with the cache mentioned in post #7?

 

You just poof, came up with this particular question out of thin air?

 

I realize YOU didn't post the link to the cache; dfx did. But we've seen a LOT of that type of posting before.

 

I guess it was 100% coincidental that your OP coincided with the request by CacheDrone to GeeOCachers to remove that sentence from their cache?

 

Ok. Whatever you say.

 

Temporarily Disable Listing

12/04/2011

 

Maybe I missed it during review but I have to ask for an update on this listing

 

quote:

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

 

 

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. Thanks for understanding and ENABLING when updated.

 

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

 

what hidden guideline is this part of now?

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

Share this post


Link to post

What you have done is like watching drugs dealers sell drugs over a week. Then after they are no longer coming back, complain that the police did nothing to stop it.

 

 

that is one heck of a comparison there, drug dealing vs geocaching listing, yeap the latter sure is a major criminal activity :lol:

 

It's a pretty spot on analogy though.

 

The only way you can say a reviewer has intentionally ignored the guidelines is to point out the violation and see if the reviewer acts on it.

 

Am I the only one who understands that the examples provided aren't there to point out "violations" that have been ignored and not acted upon, but instead to point out that those "violations" that have been acted upon, in fact aren't?

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only one who understands that the examples provided aren't there to point out "violations" that have been ignored and not acted upon, but instead to point out that those "violations" that have been acted upon, in fact aren't?

 

Aren't what?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I gave you a point for my post error. However, Events DO count in your find count just as any other caches does, so one could argue that yes, events are caches.

 

However, as I have previously argued that event caches should NOT be counted in your find count, I will just have to award you that point for catching the fact that I sometimes type faster than my mind works.

 

So, other than an error in leaving out EVENT, do you care to stop playing words games and address the content of my post?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I gave you a point for my post error. However, Events DO count in your find count just as any other caches does, so one could argue that yes, events are caches.

 

However, as I have previously argued that event caches should NOT be counted in your find count, I will just have to award you that point for catching the fact that I sometimes type faster than my mind works.

 

So, other than an error in leaving out EVENT, do you care to stop playing words games and address the content of my post?

 

there is nothing else to address, my comment about knowing what the thread is about was strictly related to the cache reference as opposed to event

 

 

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

 

huh? can you for once try reading something without misinterpreting it?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

 

She knows events are considered caches. She's just trying to sidestep the post.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I gave you a point for my post error. However, Events DO count in your find count just as any other caches does, so one could argue that yes, events are caches.

 

However, as I have previously argued that event caches should NOT be counted in your find count, I will just have to award you that point for catching the fact that I sometimes type faster than my mind works.

 

So, other than an error in leaving out EVENT, do you care to stop playing words games and address the content of my post?

 

there is nothing else to address, my comment about knowing what the thread is about was strictly related to the cache reference as opposed to event

 

Do you plan to seek out other "LISTINGS" (;)) that are in breach of the guidelines and report them so as to put your reviewer to task or do you plan on chilling out, having a donut, and letting the reviewers do their thankless job in peace for a while since they've been bullied enough for now?

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

 

She knows events are considered caches. She's just trying to sidestep the post.

 

and again you both totally missed the most important part of my post which i mentioned twice "AFAIC"...if you need a translation that means "As Far As I'm Concerned", meaning MY Opinion Only....i really don't care what GC classifies the events as, they are not caches, and i am entitled to an opinion aren't I? I'm certainly officially entitled to disagree with GC so i guess that automatically entitles me to an opinion

 

 

Do you plan to seek out other "LISTINGS" (;)) that are in breach of the guidelines and report them so as to put your reviewer to task or do you plan on chilling out, having a donut, and letting the reviewers do their thankless job in peace for a while since they've been bullied enough for now?

 

i don't give a monkey's spot where the sun don't shine to find other listings, i provided a wide variety of examples

 

"chill"?...no, i hate cold

"donut"?...no, i don't eat sweets

"let the reviewers do their thankless job in peace for a while since they've been bullied enough for now"....i don't see any of them being stressed out from replying in this thread and bullying? seriously?...their grownups, sure they can handle a discussion with opposing points of view

all it was asked of them was to provide a logical answer for the discrepancies, apparently we're not worthy of an answer

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I gave you a point for my post error. However, Events DO count in your find count just as any other caches does, so one could argue that yes, events are caches.

 

However, as I have previously argued that event caches should NOT be counted in your find count, I will just have to award you that point for catching the fact that I sometimes type faster than my mind works.

 

So, other than an error in leaving out EVENT, do you care to stop playing words games and address the content of my post?

 

there is nothing else to address, my comment about knowing what the thread is about was strictly related to the cache reference as opposed to event

 

 

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

 

huh? can you for once try reading something without misinterpreting it?

 

Nope again, I am sure I got it.

 

Here is something to ponder.

 

Cost to the user for listing a cache = $0.00.

Cost to the user for having a listing published = $0.00.

Cost to the user view a cache listing = $0.00.

 

The fact is that geocaching in its basic form is free. You can pay for some extra features, but the basics are free. From where I see it, no one has the right to expect any kind of explanation for what Groundspeak, lackies, or reviewers do with regards to a service that is provided for free. I could see that if you are paying for caches to be published then you would want some value for your money. If you pay someone to do something for you, then you would have the right to know how they spent your money. In the case of listing caches, this it not the same.

 

Some may say that this wasn't even your cache, so why are you pocking your nose into something that does not concern you. I will accept that you are standing up for the little guy. But in this case the little guy has left you hanging because they capitulated in favor of what meant more to them.

 

Here is a challenge for you. It may be possible that the reviewers are not answering because they don't understand what you are asking, or may not like the way you question has been worded. If you have any unanswered questions and want it answered here try this. Ask you questions in a clear simple manor with nothing extra like sarcastic and or inflammatory remarks, commentary, or leading questions to try and push the result you want.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Unless of course, you are referring to me not putting cache EVENT in my post. My bad. +1 point to t4e. <_<

 

yes,that is correct...afaic an EVENT is not a cache, and that is AFAIC

 

but of course this has no relation to the subject of this thread, so i'm done commenting on off topic posts

 

I hate to break your logic, but both and event and a cache are both represented as listings and therefore there is no distinction between the two when it comes to solicitation. It was a nice try though.

 

She knows events are considered caches. She's just trying to sidestep the post.

 

and again you both totally missed the most important part of my post which i mentioned twice "AFAIC"...if you need a translation that means "As Far As I'm Concerned", meaning MY Opinion Only....i really don't care what GC classifies the events as, they are not caches, and i am entitled to an opinion aren't I? I'm certainly officially entitled to disagree with GC so i guess that automatically entitles me to an opinion

 

I'm not as stupid as you would condescendingly like to imply.

 

It doesn't really matter what you are CONCERNED about. Fact is, Groundspeak considers them as caches and as long as they do, then they have to adhere to the guidelines just as any other cache does.

 

The day they make a distinction between events and regular caches (which I personally hope they do), then you can try to get them to write up separate guidelines for them.

 

But until they do, events are subject to the guidelines just as any other cache is.

 

And btw, I'm not sure you are "officially" entitled to anything. Since you like word games, you will have to take that up with Groundspeak or whatever authority you wish to make your opinion or disagreement official.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Do you plan to seek out other "LISTINGS" (;)) that are in breach of the guidelines and report them so as to put your reviewer to task or do you plan on chilling out, having a donut, and letting the reviewers do their thankless job in peace for a while since they've been bullied enough for now?

 

i don't give a monkey's spot where the sun don't shine to find other listings, i provided a wide variety of examples

 

Irrelevant examples since you did not point them out to the reviewers at a point in time in which action could have been taken. Therefore, you have no way of knowing whether or not the reviewers were aware of the mistake at the time the LISTINGS were active.

 

The only way to make your examples relevant would be to report them while they are still active, much like the LISTING which sparked this thread.

 

bullying? seriously?...their grownups, sure they can handle a discussion with opposing points of view

all it was asked of them was to provide a logical answer for the discrepancies, apparently we're not worthy of an answer

Bullying pretty much covers what I've seen.

 

I've challenged you at least twice now to personally contact the reviewers involved in the examples you posted earlier and invite them to post here. Again, you have no way of knowing they have read your thread unless you personally invite them and get an acknowledgement that they have been so advised of this thread.

 

Personally, if I were a reviewer I would stay as far away from this thread as possible. You are just attempting to pick a fight with them and I cannot foresee ANY answer they could give that would not result in your jumping on them and sinking your virtual teeth into them.

Share this post


Link to post

you have no way of knowing they have read your thread unless you personally invite them and get an acknowledgement that they have been so advised of this thread.

 

Before I get called on this, obviously if they post here it is pretty evident they are aware of the thread regardless of any personal communications made to them.

Share this post


Link to post

Exercising my right to disagree

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.- Winston Churchill

The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.- Napoleon Bonaparte

 

Removing those from your profile may help attracting positive attention from the reviewers. To me that looks like you are looking just to argue. Taking a less confrontational stance may surprise you. Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest.

Share this post


Link to post

Nope again, I am sure I got it.

 

Here is something to ponder.

 

Cost to the user for listing a cache = $0.00.

Cost to the user for having a listing published = $0.00.

Cost to the user view a cache listing = $0.00.

 

The fact is that geocaching in its basic form is free. You can pay for some extra features, but the basics are free. From where I see it, no one has the right to expect any kind of explanation for what Groundspeak, lackies, or reviewers do with regards to a service that is provided for free. I could see that if you are paying for caches to be published then you would want some value for your money. If you pay someone to do something for you, then you would have the right to know how they spent your money. In the case of listing caches, this it not the same.

 

nope, you didn't get it at all

what’s that got to do with the subject of this thread?

 

 

Some may say that this wasn't even your cache, so why are you pocking your nose into something that does not concern you. I will accept that you are standing up for the little guy. But in this case the little guy has left you hanging because they capitulated in favor of what meant more to them.

 

“some” as in yourself?

my opinion stands regardless of what the event owner chose to do and I started this thread for my own benefit in an attempt to avoid such issues in the future if I perhaps want to use such wording…in other words, clarification of interpretation of guidelines

 

“little guy”? you were insulted by my comment that the newer members are treated differently and now you go calling someone “little guy”?

 

 

Here is a challenge for you. It may be possible that the reviewers are not answering because they don't understand what you are asking, or may not like the way you question has been worded. If you have any unanswered questions and want it answered here try this. Ask you questions in a clear simple manor with nothing extra like sarcastic and or inflammatory remarks, commentary, or leading questions to try and push the result you want.

 

I guess you don’t really read my replies; here it is for the second time

 

i guess its time i post the promised links since those events took place already

 

please, someone in position of authority enlighten me how those events didn't have to change their description?

 

 

 

 

I'm not as stupid as you would condescendingly like to imply.

 

I never implied such a thing; if you chose to interpret it that way is your choice

 

And btw, I'm not sure you are "officially" entitled to anything. Since you like word games, you will have to take that up with Groundspeak or whatever authority you wish to make your opinion or disagreement official.

…yes I am

You are most certainly allowed to disagree with Groundspeak.

 

Exercising my right to disagree

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.- Winston Churchill

The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.- Napoleon Bonaparte

 

Removing those from your profile may help attracting positive attention from the reviewers. To me that looks like you are looking just to argue. Taking a less confrontational stance may surprise you. Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest.

 

..you’re kidding me right? ..you run out of arguments and pick on my signatures?

 

first you tell me to go post somewhere else and now you’re telling me how to think and what to believe in?

i always did and always will stand by my opinions, and those quotes are extremely true coming from major figures with a lot of life experience, too bad you find them insulting

 

FYI I did not have these signatures until about 2 weeks ago, and in previous debates I still didn’t get any “positive attention” from reviewers so your theory is invalid.

 

my suggestion to you is to actually stop posting in this thread if you don't have anything to add that is on topic and stop picking on me, personally

Share this post


Link to post

The spoken and written English language like other languages has problems when facial and body expressions are removed and more so with the English language. Anyone reading these forums will have to rely on the text at face value as other communication components are missing. This may not be so obvious to those that have not had extensive training in this area. One of the important things to know is that what you type is open to interpretation by the reader.

 

Remember, What you type may not be interpreted the same way bu others.

 

Here s you original post.

 

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

 

what hidden guideline is this part of now?

 

The first line of this post indicates what it is you wish to know. A valid question to me. If you expected an answer from a reviewer then you should have indicated that. Instead you ask for someone, and a few have responded. So the first line of you original past has been answered.

 

The second line is contradictory to the first line. If what you want is a hidden guideline, then it is meant to be hidden and there fore you will not receive and answer to your question. Ending the second line with the word now would indicate that hidden guidelines have been used before. The second line is not really needed at all as the answer to the first line should cover the second line. The second line is what is sometimes know as a leading question. People who see what looks like leading questions and recognize them may respond differently than you would wish, or may not respond at all depending on what the leading question implies.

 

Another important part of communicating is that the person writing is responsible to make sure their words are chosen in such a way that they can not be misinterpreted. If you post something in the forums and it is read differently then what you intended then you have failed to communicate your thought correctly. Nothing wrong with this as it happens all the time. If it does happen, make reiterate you point using simpler terms. The correct response is not to tell the person reading your post that they don't get it and go back and re-read what you posted. Remember, it is the posters responsibility to convey their thoughts in a way the reader can understand them.

 

Adding a list of caches where there is charitable contradicts the argument that there is nothing in the guidelines about mentioning charities. It would appear more an attempt that the guidelines are being enforced un-equally. This would be off topic from the original post and a different question all together.

 

Exercising my right to disagree

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.- Winston Churchill

The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know.- Napoleon Bonaparte

 

Removing those from your profile may help attracting positive attention from the reviewers. To me that looks like you are looking just to argue. Taking a less confrontational stance may surprise you. Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest.

 

..you’re kidding me right? ..you run out of arguments and pick on my signatures?

 

first you tell me to go post somewhere else and now you’re telling me how to think and what to believe in?

i always did and always will stand by my opinions, and those quotes are extremely true coming from major figures with a lot of life experience, too bad you find them insulting

 

FYI I did not have these signatures until about 2 weeks ago, and in previous debates I still didn’t get any “positive attention” from reviewers so your theory is invalid.

 

my suggestion to you is to actually stop posting in this thread if you don't have anything to add that is on topic and stop picking on me, personally

 

I am not telling me how to think and what to believe in. This was not any kind of personal attack. It was a suggestion to help you out. I even made that very clear by including the words "Just a suggestion to help you out on your quest." I guess I failed because you did not understand this simple post and chose to perceive it as some sort of personal attack.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

This thread has long ago moved past simply the fact that the original event was disabled and forced to have the word "charity" removed.

The topic is now not about the rule specifically, but now a response to the official response. A reason was given. But an inconsistent application of the reasoning was discovered. THAT is where the concern now lies, and the issue for which a response is requested.

 

Once again:

IMO, there is no evidence to put the blame for those listings [containing the same offending text and other content previously labeled unpublishable by reviewers on behalf of Groundspeak] on anyone yet since all we know at this point is that they were archived with the offending text in the descriptions.

Being able to trust and understand the logic behind the review process utilized by the reviewers is a HUGE benefit for the community, given the system in place that empowers the community to report perceived problems with those very reviewers.

Help us trust you, and these issues can be quelled and resolved MUCH faster, and with FAR less drama.

 

Unfortunately this thread, like others, has started to sway into meta-argument and more personal offending remarks amongst forum members.

A question was asked.

Why do people have to attack why the question was asked? Stop that. We're all intelligent people (I choose to believe). Stop the condescension. Stop the sarcasm. Stop the snide offense. If you can't add to the discussion or answer the question (even if you want to state the obvious that direct communication would be more optimal - of course it would be), then please, take a deep breath, step back, and I dunno, maybe go geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Edited by Keith Watson

Share this post


Link to post

The second question is related to the original, and presented by the OP themselves. It's up them if it's on topic for the thread. Don't derail it.

Share this post


Link to post

And btw, I'm not sure you are "officially" entitled to anything. Since you like word games, you will have to take that up with Groundspeak or whatever authority you wish to make your opinion or disagreement official.

…yes I am

You are most certainly allowed to disagree with Groundspeak.

 

She granted GOF and Bacall the right to disagree. I didn't see where she officially granted you anything. But like I stated earlier, that is between you and whatever authority you acknowledge as granting such.

Share this post


Link to post

The second question is related to the original, and presented by the OP themselves. It's up them if it's on topic for the thread. Don't derail it.

 

This is a very interesting statement.

 

When this thread was started, and answered 13 minutes later, I wondered why it was ever started. In less that 2 minutes the OP could have gotten the answer to the posed question by a quick search of the Guidelines. No need for a forum thread.

 

When the second "question" was posed, it became apparent that the purpose of the thread was probably not fully stated in the original question.

 

It has been repeatedly suggested that the OP directly contact either the Reviewer(s) or Groundspeak and ask for clarification. I don't recall seeing a post here indicating she has done that.

 

I think most, but not all, would agree she is not going to get an answer from the Reviewers or Groundspeak in this thread.

 

I also think most, but not all, would agree that this thread is no longer going to serve any positive purpose.

 

.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

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."

Share this post


Link to post

I also think most, but not all, would agree that this thread is no longer going to serve any positive purpose.

 

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

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...