Jump to content

Non-family-friendly caches


Recommended Posts

Your reviewer found your cache listing offensive. You appealed and Groundspeak agreed with the reviewer. It's pretty much the end of the story.

Not really, for a couple reasons.

 

First, by raising these questions in the forums, I hoped to gain a better understanding about what is or is not allowed under Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. (There doesn't appear to be an actual guideline.)

 

A Help Center article states, "Cache pages should be family friendly." But Volunteer Reviewers seem to have varying views about whether that means events can be held in bars that exclude minors, whether caches can be hidden at clothing-optional locations or near adult stores, and even whether cache pages can refer to the particular podcast in question.

 

I find it interesting that Groundspeak appears to consider violence to be family friendly and has published puzzles that refer to the movie Saw and the video game World of Warcraft.

 

Second, by raising these issues in these forums, I've received some constructive suggestions for how I might retool my cache if I opt to resubmit it. For that, I'm very grateful.

 

Additionally, you seem to want to stay away from discussion of the commercial aspects.

See Post #3, where I said, "I'd be happy to discuss whether or not my submitted cache is commercial in another thread. But I'd like to focus on Groundspeak's family-friendly policy here." Even with a focus on Groundspeak's family-friendly policy, there seems to be plenty of things to discuss in this thread.

 

I'm really curious why you want people to visit this particular site and listen to 26 podcasts. Enough so that when you were denied, you decided to hold a trail in the court of public opinion

No trial here, just a fairly civil discussion. Isn't that what the forums are for?

 

I don't care if people listen to this particular podcast. I listen to it because I enjoy learning about how geocaching is done differently in another region, enjoy the hosts' philosophical discussions about geocaching ethics, and enjoy some of the humorous banter. I don't really care one way or the other about the crude language.

 

I put together a puzzle that I consider to be fun (and a little funny). Some geocachers might enjoy it; some might not. Just like plenty of other caches out there.

 

I've created several caches that I didn't expect to receive lots of visitors.

 

One of my Challenge Caches (GC351F5) has been out there for a couple years without any finds yet. But I consider it to be a fun challenge, and several other geocachers have indicated that they do, too.

 

One of my puzzle caches (GC21YFJ) was out there for over four years. It was very difficult, and most of the 19 finders worked in teams to solve the puzzle. Most of them seemed to enjoy the experience, and I certainly had fun creating the puzzle.

 

Not every cache has to appeal to a wide group of people.

 

Is there a Paul Harvey moment coming?

I don't think so.

 

In Post #1, I provided my cache's GC Code and the Appeal ID number "for any reviewers who want to check on 'the other side of the story.'"

 

In Post #3, briansnat indicated that he had read those notes. If there was a "rest of the story," then I think we would have heard about it already.

 

By more to the story, I was hinting at a hidden agenda for wanting people to visit that particular site. I'll take your word that this isn't the issue.

 

Two points however.

First: Once again I think that Groudspeak is guilty of being too vague and perhaps also of using terms that can have different meanings in different areas of the world. It seem to me that what they really mean is "4. Cache pages should be family friendly, and not offensive in nature."

 

Second: I'm not sure what Event cache venues has to do with a discussion of what content is allowed on cache pages. It seems like a red herring to me.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

Maybe this part of the Terms of Use Agreement ...... Item 4.

 

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

 

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

Thanks. It looks like the highlighted portions are pretty much a reaffirmation of the Help Center page that states, "Cache pages should be family friendly." But I guess Volunteer Reviewers can use the Terms of Use (and guidelines) when evaluating caches while they can't use the Help Center.

 

My point, though, is that my cache page (which is what I uploaded) doesn't contain any vulgar or obscene material. I explained to both the reviewer and Groundspeak Appeals that my cache page was family friendly. Neither of them claimed that anything on my cache page was vulgar, obscene, or otherwise family unfriendly.

 

Edit to add: But the Terms of Use Agreement does seem to bring some clarity to Groundspeak's family-friendly policy. It says no objectionable content can be uploaded to Groundspeak's websites. It doesn't prohibit caches from being hidden in locations that some people might find objectionable. Nor does it prohibit puzzles from using external websites that some people might find objectionable.

 

Once again, Groundspeak, say what you mean. I am absolutely sure that it you were to post a link to a porn site in this forum, it would be taken down and you might be taken down as well, but the TOU doesn't say that, unless you stretch "otherwise transmit" to include the posting of a html hotlink. If that is what they mean, why not just say so?

 

Where's an Army lawyer when you need one...

Link to comment

Since no one else is going to say it...

 

I will put fourth the possibility that this cache was denied because it required listening to Podcasts from an external source that Groundspeak could not control.

 

That podcast might contain information and tips regarding "other" geocaching sites and alternate outdoor activities *as well* as containing vulgar langauge and possible adult content.

 

I agree with CanadianRockies, this does need to be clarified, clearly, for a case such as this.

 

Otherwise, you need to consider the whole internet as possibly "family unfriendly". I mean as soon as I hit google to try and solve a puzzle.. I am in uncharted waters! Scary indeed...

 

Shaun

Link to comment

Based on the description offered, I am doubtful the Saw cache should have been published.

Based on the description offered, which Groundspeak guideline or Terms of Use clause do you believe the Saw cache violates?

 

It would not be family friendly. The OP made a puzzle where a vulgar podcast must be watched; the Saw puzzle requires a very not-family friendly movie to be watched. Some of the questions for solving don't even sound family friendly.

 

If the Saw puzzle could be solved via sites like IMDB and Wikipedia rather than watching the film it would seem okay to me.

 

Based on Groundspeak's stance with the OP, if the puzzle can be solved in only one way and that one way is commercial/agenda or not family friendly then the puzzle is verboten.

Link to comment

Based on the description offered, I am doubtful the Saw cache should have been published.

Based on the description offered, which Groundspeak guideline or Terms of Use clause do you believe the Saw cache violates?

It would not be family friendly. The OP made a puzzle where a vulgar podcast must be watched; the Saw puzzle requires a very not-family friendly movie to be watched. Some of the questions for solving don't even sound family friendly.

 

If the Saw puzzle could be solved via sites like IMDB and Wikipedia rather than watching the film it would seem okay to me.

 

Based on Groundspeak's stance with the OP, if the puzzle can be solved in only one way and that one way is commercial/agenda or not family friendly then the puzzle is verboten.

Again, which Groundspeak guideline or Terms of Use clause do you believe the Saw cache violates? Please provide a link and a quotation.

 

Or do you think it shouldn't have been published simply because you don't like it?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Based on the description offered, I am doubtful the Saw cache should have been published.

Based on the description offered, which Groundspeak guideline or Terms of Use clause do you believe the Saw cache violates?

 

It would not be family friendly. The OP made a puzzle where a vulgar podcast must be watched; the Saw puzzle requires a very not-family friendly movie to be watched. Some of the questions for solving don't even sound family friendly.

 

If the Saw puzzle could be solved via sites like IMDB and Wikipedia rather than watching the film it would seem okay to me.

 

Based on Groundspeak's stance with the OP, if the puzzle can be solved in only one way and that one way is commercial/agenda or not family friendly then the puzzle is verboten.

Josh, you're not going to get through.

His Reviewer explained the reason his cache was rejected.

He refused to hear that, and ran to Groundspeak.

Groundspeak agreed with the Reviewer, so he ran to the forums.

The issue has been explained to him ad nauseum, by other Reviewers, moderators and seasoned players.

He still refuses to here the answer, as it's not the answer he wants.

Continuing to feed this train wreck just postpones its predictable doom.

Link to comment

His Reviewer explained the reason his cache was rejected.

Actually, in Post #70, I explained that my Volunteer Reviewer had provided some reasons but that she also acknowledged she didn't have all the answers.

 

He refused to hear that, and ran to Groundspeak.

Actually, I did hear her reasons and even explained one of them (the topic of this thread) in Post #1. As well, I explained in Post #70 that, because my reviewer didn't have all the answers, she asked me to send my proposed cache to Groundspeak Appeals.

 

Groundspeak agreed with the Reviewer, so he ran to the forums.

Actually, seven days passed between the appeal decision and the creation of this forums topic. Hardly a run to the forums.

 

The issue has been explained to him ad nauseum, by other Reviewers, moderators and seasoned players.

He still refuses to here the answer, as it's not the answer he wants.

I started this thread because I hoped to receive some clarification. I did hear some clarification. In Post #98, for example, I thanked K13 and Keystone for pointing me to the Terms of Use clause that prohibits the uploading of vulgar content to Groundspeak's websites. This confirmed my initial impression that it is the cache listing pages that must be family friendly.

 

I also heard some constructive suggestions for how I might retool my cache if I opt to resubmit it. In Post #93, I thanked folks for those helpful ideas.

 

You're right, however, about there being an answer I didn't hear. Joshism appeared to suggest there's a Groundspeak guideline or Terms of Use clause that should have prevented the publication of a cache that makes use of family-unfriendly material that's off Groundspeak's websites. In Post #104, I asked him if he could point me to such a guideline or clause. So far, I haven't heard an answer.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

OP seems to be seeing this situation as "A is allowed so why isn't B allowed too" whereas I see it as "B isn't allowed and A shouldn't be either." (Where A is geocaching events at bars, puzzles that require watching Saw, and caches in front of porn shops & B is your puzzle requiring watching a vulgar podcast.)

 

I have already stated my agreement in this thread that the Guidelines could and should be spelled out more clearly on this issue.

 

However, lets consider some points which we can all agree on since they are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines:

1) The cache page must be family friendly.

2) The cache contents must be family friendly.

3) "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations."

3) For puzzle caches, "Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

4) Numerous times in the Guidelines, the word "perceived" is used in regards to limitations on caches.

 

From these givens, it seems logical to me that caches should be solvable via family-friendly methods and information. The OP seems to disagree with this deduction and/or disagree that such deductions are relevant to whether a cache is published; only explicitly stated Guidelines should apply.

 

Essentially, we are debating strict construction vs implied powers as they pertain to the Guidelines. Given all the posts in this thread, I think both sides have failed to convince the other, although one side seems to consist of the large majority of posters and Groundspeak. :smile:

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment
...although one side seems to consist of the large majority of posters and Groundspeak.

When I read the rantings of the other side, an image of three simians pops into my head for some reason. Each simian is displaying one particular method for hindering communication. A very odd image... Maybe my brain is trying to tell me something?

Link to comment

I dunnow, but it seems that the lillypad is trying to say that only family friendly materials/sources should be use for Geocaching.

Certainly there have been caches created that use questionable materials/sources, but I would venture to guess that TPTB are putting their foot down, and drawing the proverbial 'line in the sand'.

Link to comment

Given all the posts in this thread, I think both sides have failed to convince the other, although one side seems to consist of the large majority of posters and Groundspeak. :smile:

 

Probably the reason for the latter is that the vast majority of the posters are from the US. First, what is regarded as family friendly varies considerably throughout the world. Second, the strict focus on light, fun, family friendly activity is not shared in this extreme way for example in Europe. I do not have caches that involve vulgar language or whether one needs to study sources that use such language, but for example I do have caches that deal with very tragic parts of history and I'm aware of many other caches of that type (for example, caches dealing with concentration camps and what happened there). There are many interesting locations with a background story that is not suitable for small children in its original form, yet all these locations are worth to be seen and their history is interesting. Personally, I do not like the overstressed focus on the fun and lightness aspect.

 

As family-friendliness is regarded, in my country there are caches like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0d5bcee8-7777-40c5-8778-68c66c0c3ec4

and that one

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6746605c-b7a1-4375-924e-f4ee9af068c4

I'm not a fan of those caches (but not because their lacking family-friendliness), but I'm glad that such caches are not

censored in my country.

 

If a new reviewer started to reject such caches, this would cause an enormous revolt within the local community.

The vague guidelines make it possible however that something like that happens as almost everything depends on the individual judgement of the reviewer in charge of a cache.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

However, lets consider some points which we can all agree on since they are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines:

1) The cache page must be family friendly.

Actually, this isn't spelled out in the Guidelines. But Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement does prohibit the uploading of vulgar or obscene content to their websites. Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache's owner uploaded any vulgar or obscene content to their cache page?

 

2) The cache contents must be family friendly.

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache's contents are family unfriendly?

 

3) "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations."

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache has been placed in an inappropriate location?

 

3) For puzzle caches, "Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache owner did not include such a Note to Reviewer?

 

4) Numerous times in the Guidelines, the word "perceived" is used in regards to limitations on caches.

How does this relate to the Saw cache? I have to question whether that "clearly spells out" anything.

 

Essentially, we are debating strict construction vs implied powers as they pertain to the Guidelines.

It's Groundspeak's website, and they can interpret their guidelines any way they see fit. They can even completely ignore their guidelines if they want. I just wonder about the wisdom of doing this.

 

I think the guidelines (and Terms of Use Agreement) should be clear enough for the Volunteer Reviewers to make reasonably consistent rulings and for cache hiders to have a reasonably good idea of what is or is not allowed. That doesn't require spelling them out in minute detail. Based on what I've seen, though, it seems to require more clarification than exists now.

 

On that point, we seem to agree:

I have already stated my agreement in this thread that the Guidelines could and should be spelled out more clearly on this issue.

Link to comment

However, lets consider some points which we can all agree on since they are clearly spelled out in the Guidelines:

1) The cache page must be family friendly.

Actually, this isn't spelled out in the Guidelines. But Groundspeak's Terms of Use Agreement does prohibit the uploading of vulgar or obscene content to their websites. Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache's owner uploaded any vulgar or obscene content to their cache page?

 

2) The cache contents must be family friendly.

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache's contents are family unfriendly?

 

3) "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations."

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache has been placed in an inappropriate location?

 

3) For puzzle caches, "Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved."

Based on the description offered, do you have any reason to believe the Saw cache owner did not include such a Note to Reviewer?

 

4) Numerous times in the Guidelines, the word "perceived" is used in regards to limitations on caches.

How does this relate to the Saw cache? I have to question whether that "clearly spells out" anything.

 

Essentially, we are debating strict construction vs implied powers as they pertain to the Guidelines.

It's Groundspeak's website, and they can interpret their guidelines any way they see fit. They can even completely ignore their guidelines if they want. I just wonder about the wisdom of doing this.

 

I think the guidelines (and Terms of Use Agreement) should be clear enough for the Volunteer Reviewers to make reasonably consistent rulings and for cache hiders to have a reasonably good idea of what is or is not allowed. That doesn't require spelling them out in minute detail. Based on what I've seen, though, it seems to require more clarification than exists now.

 

On that point, we seem to agree:

I have already stated my agreement in this thread that the Guidelines could and should be spelled out more clearly on this issue.

 

I can't seem to find the post that had the details, but the questions on the Saw cache could easily be considered to be disturbing and to some, outright offensive.

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website. Do we really need to recite chapter and verse as to why?

Link to comment

I can't seem to find the post that had the details, but the questions on the Saw cache could easily be considered to be disturbing and to some, outright offensive.

And yet it was published, showing just how subjective "offensive" caches are.

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website.

Many find violence to be more offensive than nudity/sex. Yet Groundspeak publishes puzzle caches that are based on the Saw movie and World of Warcraft video games.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I can't seem to find the post that had the details, but the questions on the Saw cache could easily be considered to be disturbing and to some, outright offensive.

And yet it was published, showing just how subjective "offensive" caches are.

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website.

Many find violence to be more offensive than nudity/sex. Yet Groundspeak publishes puzzle caches that are based on the Saw movie and World of Warcraft video games.

 

You've mentioned previously published caches in this thread several times now and although I mentioned this in a post back on page one I'm really surprised that someone that has been caching for four years needs to be reminded that:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

Link to comment

You've mentioned previously published caches in this thread several times now and although I mentioned this in a post back on page one I'm really surprised that someone that has been caching for four years needs to be reminded that:

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

As I explained in Post #63, I'm not using the publication of these caches to justify publishing mine. I'm using their publication to show that Groundspeak's guidelines (or lack thereof) regarding family friendly caches might need to be clarified.

 

A cache that Don_J says "could easily be considered to be disturbing and to some, outright offensive" got published despite whatever guidelines exist. Others might be offended by World of Warcraft's violence, alcohol consumption, sexual innuendo, scatological references, and crude language. Yet several WoW-related caches have been published. There are caches at clothing-optional locations and outside adult stores. Over 70 caches (published by three reviewers) refer to the same podcast that my cache does.

 

That doesn't mean my cache should have been published. But it seems to indicate that some clarification of the guidelines could be helpful to both Volunteer Reviewers and cache hiders.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Over 70 caches (published by three reviewers) refer to the same podcast that my cache does.

 

In what way do these 70+ caches refer to the podcasts of dis-repute?

Are/is the podcast site mentioned in passing, or do I need to listen to the whole thing to get the details for solving a puzzle (in those cases)?

 

That doesn't mean my cache should have been published. But it seems to indicate that some clarification of the guidelines could be helpful to both Volunteer Reviewers and cache hiders.

 

The reviewer denied publication.

Groundspeak supported the decision.

How could it be made any more clear?

 

Caches perceived to be in questionable taste as determined by a panel of twelve impartial judges may be denied publication.

 

You included your disclaimers and warnings.

Groundspeak indicated they still didn't even want to go there.

 

And this coming from someone who has had caches denied due to obscure details in the reference books.

Your cache got denied. Even if it is over some completely irrelevant detail that the reviewer made up himself, it isn't worth the time already spent here.

Get over it.

Move on.

Go find some caches. :)

Link to comment

I've been to dozens of events in pubs and bars. I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere. Kids and parents alike seem to enjoy those events.

It may be different where you live, but up here in Western Canada (where the OP is from), minors are not allowed in pubs (there are a select few exceptions). Events held in pubs around here are expressly for adults only. I would think these would fall under "family unfriendly" because children are not allowed, but they keep getting published. I think that's part of why the OP is so confused about the policy (or lack of).

 

Whatever Groundspeak decides, they need to document it. This seems to be yet another undocumented guideline. If a cache listing or a website being linked to needs to be family friendly, and caches will be denied on that basis, the guidelines should say so. Currently, they don't.

Well we have already established that caching is for adults not children it seems. So having it at a pub seems normal

Link to comment

I feel for you, but I think it was appropriate that your cache was rejected.

 

I wouldn't appreciate a puzzle cache where I needed to listen to a podcast with lots of profanity and sexual innuendo.

 

You should find another way.

I don't expect everyone to appreciate the cache, not even all adults. There are plenty of puzzles I haven't solved. It's easy to ignore them.

 

My wife and I have created numerous caches specifically with kids in mind, and they have received many favourite points. I have no problem with kid-friendly caches. I also have no problem with caches aimed at adults, including puzzles that require calculus or advanced trigonometry. Or caches on cliffs, in tall trees, on clothing-optional beaches, events in pubs, etc.

 

I agree with you on some points. I don't think caches should be published on nude beaches and I disagree with events in pubs as well. I argued with my reviewer early on about events being held in places that exclude a portion of the geocaching population, however, the response was that it can be really hard to find an affordable venue so it's allowed.

 

However, you can't compare swearing to calculus. One is likely to be offensive, the other is not. I think maybe your definition of "family-friendly" is different than Groundspeak's. What they mean, I think, is that the cache page and the links contained on it must not contain offensive material.

Can have kid friendly events outside doesn't always have to be a bar just it seems when we grow up we automatically wanna have drinks at the bar when wee hang out. I agree caches should not be published neare nude beaches for kids sakes or make a warning on the cache page about it :)

Link to comment

Having attended numerous events in bars (and even hosting a couple!) I'm clearly OK with Groundspeak allowing those non-family friendly caches to be published.

 

I'm also OK with some ambiguity in the guidelines -- that's why they're guidelines, not rules. There are already enough of the guidelines to wade through to get a cache published without spelling out every possible situation.

 

Will each reviewer likely have a slightly different interpretation? Most likely. That's why appeals@Groundspeak.com exists. Their word is the final gospel on what is allowed or not.

 

Seven pages in and what have we learned? If you list a cache that requires adult content in order to solve a puzzle it may or may not get published. Yes, it's annoying to go through work only to be denied when another cache with a similar theme made it past another reviewer, but that's the nature of the beast.

Link to comment

Having attended numerous events in bars (and even hosting a couple!) I'm clearly OK with Groundspeak allowing those non-family friendly caches to be published.

 

I'm also OK with some ambiguity in the guidelines -- that's why they're guidelines, not rules. There are already enough of the guidelines to wade through to get a cache published without spelling out every possible situation.

 

Will each reviewer likely have a slightly different interpretation? Most likely. That's why appeals@Groundspeak.com exists. Their word is the final gospel on what is allowed or not.

 

Seven pages in and what have we learned? If you list a cache that requires adult content in order to solve a puzzle it may or may not get published. Yes, it's annoying to go through work only to be denied when another cache with a similar theme made it past another reviewer, but that's the nature of the beast.

 

There is noting in the guidelines that says that events can not be hosted in age restricted venues.

 

The guidelines being questioned are for the geocache listing, not the geocache location. There are plenty of caches locating in non-family friendly locations. Do you want to bring your kid to the local homeless camp, X rated video store parking lot or across the street from the main hooker pickup location in town? All bad locations, but they exist and there is nothing in the guidelines that says that they can't. Now, if you were to describe in your cache listing that this is the best hooker pickup location in town and the specific services that Cyndy offers, it probably wouldn't get listed.

Link to comment

The guidelines being questioned are for the geocache listing, not the geocache location. There are plenty of caches locating in non-family friendly locations. Do you want to bring your kid to the local homeless camp, X rated video store parking lot or across the street from the main hooker pickup location in town? All bad locations, but they exist and there is nothing in the guidelines that says that they can't.

What the guidelines do and do not permit depends on who you ask. In Post #111, for example, Joshism claimed the guidelines forbid caches in family-unfriendly locations because, "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations." (Emphasis added by Joshism.)

 

As well, in Post #70, I noted that my Volunteer Reviewer seemed to suggest she would not publish a cache if she was aware that it was placed near a family-unfriendly location.

 

As you pointed out, however, "There are plenty of caches locat[ed] in non-family friendly locations." So, it might be helpful if Groundspeak clarified what aspects of a geocache must be family friendly.

Link to comment

The guidelines being questioned are for the geocache listing, not the geocache location. There are plenty of caches locating in non-family friendly locations. Do you want to bring your kid to the local homeless camp, X rated video store parking lot or across the street from the main hooker pickup location in town? All bad locations, but they exist and there is nothing in the guidelines that says that they can't.

What the guidelines do and do not permit depends on who you ask. In Post #111, for example, Joshism claimed the guidelines forbid caches in family-unfriendly locations because, "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations." (Emphasis added by Joshism.)

 

As well, in Post #70, I noted that my Volunteer Reviewer seemed to suggest she would not publish a cache if she was aware that it was placed near a family-unfriendly location.

 

As you pointed out, however, "There are plenty of caches locat[ed] in non-family friendly locations." So, it might be helpful if Groundspeak clarified what aspects of a geocache must be family friendly.

 

Or we let it up to the reviewers to interpret with the guideline that there is no precedence for placement and use appeals as intended. Seems to work most of the time w/o cachers getting strapped with additional rules.

Link to comment

I think the argument can be fairly made that a cache page that directs someone to non family friendly content is not a family friendly page. Even with the warning on your page and the podcast page you are still directing users to proscribed content.

There was a nice response on another recent thread...

 

The real challenge for some people is the inability to place the cache on an ignore list if they are unable to do it. This seems to be a common theme lately.

Agreed.

Link to comment

I think the argument can be fairly made that a cache page that directs someone to non family friendly content is not a family friendly page. Even with the warning on your page and the podcast page you are still directing users to proscribed content.

There was a nice response on another recent thread...

 

The real challenge for some people is the inability to place the cache on an ignore list if they are unable to do it. This seems to be a common theme lately.

Agreed.

 

I would be quite capable of ignoring your caches. But that doesn't change the guidelines. Grounspeak wants the listings they publish to be family friendly. It is obvious from the fact that they refused to publish your listing that they include any outside material linked to from the page.

Link to comment

Just adding my two cents here... I would be less likely to watch 'Saw' than to listen to a podcast with a few swear words, if either one of them were required in order to be able to attempt a cache. But that's my opinion and others may feel the opposite, and that's fine. I'd have no problem in using my own judgement for myself (or my children) as to which caches I'd want to ignore.

 

I don't see how one is okay and the other isn't. If it is up to individual reviewers' standards then I think that is a mistake that GC policies should address. There should be clear guidance as to what should be permissible and what shouldn't be.

 

I'd want to err on the side of inclusion. If you have a cache in a location, or a puzzle that requires exposure to something, or any other facet of a cache that may be offensive, I'd rather let those who want to enjoy it do so, and those who want to ignore it do so as well. Like the OP alluded to, I don't scuba dive either, and any cache that requires scuba diving I realize I am not going to be able to find, but I have no problem in allowing those caches to exist.

 

Just as long as it is clearly marked: "This cache is located in a clothing-optional location, you may encounter nudity." "Solving this cache requires you to listen to a podcast that may contain offensive language." "In order to solve clues to locate this cache, you may need to watch a movie that contains gore or disturbing images." As long as it is clearly marked anyone who wants to avoid it can.

 

But I realize and understand that there are those that want to make it a nanny state and protect us from things some people find objectionable (and others don't) for whatever reason, whether they want to let their children browse geocaching.com without having to babysit them, or they just like to control other people's fun. Despite these comments, however I have no problem with GC defining what is and isn't "family-friendly". It should just be clearly delineated however. Any policy that permits a cache to require viewing of 'Saw' to exist, but denies a cache requiring you to listen to adult/profane/obscene language is clearly being arbitrary.

 

(And two further items: 1. I'm just addressing the 'family-friendly' argument like the OP requested. If the podcast required one to pay or subscribe in order to listen, then I agree it shouldn't be allow on those grounds. 2. I am assuming that boringgirl is right about the 'Saw' cache. It seems there are many replies that are okay with the one reviewer may allow something that another review may disallow, but then the GC appeal process should even out any bias. If that's the case then why would the result of the appeal process in these two cases wind up with different results? Maybe the OP should just resubmit the cache in Salem, Oregon. - just kidding. )

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

 

I don't see how one is okay and the other isn't. If it is up to individual reviewers' standards then I think that is a mistake that GC policies should address. There should be clear guidance as to what should be permissible and what shouldn't be.

 

 

But who is going to make those clear standards? Are they going to say all information must be available on the cache page? In this case, that would eliminate a lot of puzzle, field puzzle, and night caches. Or will they allow it if you have to listen to a podcast? If so they'll then have to have someone listen to every single podcast and have a list of which ones we can use.

 

It is just not possible for Groundspeak to think of every situation. Groundspeak has chosen these reviewers, and often times they must use their best judgement. Groundspeak trusts these reviewers to make the right call, and you can even appeal directly to Groundspeak if you don't believe what the reviewer said is the right thing....

Link to comment

 

I don't see how one is okay and the other isn't. If it is up to individual reviewers' standards then I think that is a mistake that GC policies should address. There should be clear guidance as to what should be permissible and what shouldn't be.

 

 

But who is going to make those clear standards? Are they going to say all information must be available on the cache page? In this case, that would eliminate a lot of puzzle, field puzzle, and night caches. Or will they allow it if you have to listen to a podcast? If so they'll then have to have someone listen to every single podcast and have a list of which ones we can use.

 

It is just not possible for Groundspeak to think of every situation. Groundspeak has chosen these reviewers, and often times they must use their best judgement. Groundspeak trusts these reviewers to make the right call, and you can even appeal directly to Groundspeak if you don't believe what the reviewer said is the right thing....

 

I'm not saying the rules have to spell out every single permutation of what is and isn't offensive. But there needs to be clear delineation as to whether reviewers should permit un-family friendly caches or not. If one reviewer says an obscene podcast is okay, but requiring you to watch 'Saw' isn't, but another allows 'Saw' and doesn't allow the podcast, then clearly it is a flawed system, or at the very least a system that could at some point be accused of playing favorites.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

 

I'm not saying the rules have to spell out every single permutation of what is and isn't offensive. But there needs to be clear delineation as to whether reviewers should permit un-family friendly caches or not. If one reviewer says an obscene podcast is okay, but requiring you to watch 'Saw' isn't, but another allows 'Saw' and doesn't allow the podcast, then clearly it is a flawed system, or at the very least a system that could at some point be accused of playing favorites.

 

Yes, you do have to spell it out. If you want the guidelines to be the same with all reviewers, someone has to define those guidelines. Now the minimum distance is easy; 161M. You don't do meters convert it into feet. OR miles. It's the same wither way. But deciding on family friendly, is a bit harder. Someone has to do it. But then that's the problem-how do you define family friendly? It is a mix of the words used and the context of the situation. But not only that, words that aren't bad, can still be family un-friendly. Can you say god? that's not a bad word, but it might offend someone. Yes, or no. Can you say the f-bomb? no. What about hell? If I tell you to go to hell, that would not be family friendly. If I say come hell or high water, would that be OK? What if it's the name of a cache in an area that has been flooded, such as Calgary? Their stampede motto this year is come hell or high water. Get it?Flooding, high water....Same word, one use is offensive, the other is a play on words, that in this case turns out to be true. What about the place in Newfoundland with the same name as an adult toy? Is that OK because it is a place?

 

You see my point, there is too much out there to ultimately define what is, or is not family friendly, and that's without considering how other raise their children. What one parent thinks is ok, their neighbors might not. This will be different from person to person, city to city, and country to country. It's impossible to say it is or is not OK. That's why the reviewers are able to make decisions on their own.

Link to comment

 

I'm not saying the rules have to spell out every single permutation of what is and isn't offensive. But there needs to be clear delineation as to whether reviewers should permit un-family friendly caches or not. If one reviewer says an obscene podcast is okay, but requiring you to watch 'Saw' isn't, but another allows 'Saw' and doesn't allow the podcast, then clearly it is a flawed system, or at the very least a system that could at some point be accused of playing favorites.

 

Yes, you do have to spell it out. If you want the guidelines to be the same with all reviewers, someone has to define those guidelines. Now the minimum distance is easy; 161M. You don't do meters convert it into feet. OR miles. It's the same wither way. But deciding on family friendly, is a bit harder. Someone has to do it. But then that's the problem-how do you define family friendly? It is a mix of the words used and the context of the situation. But not only that, words that aren't bad, can still be family un-friendly. Can you say god? that's not a bad word, but it might offend someone. Yes, or no. Can you say the f-bomb? no. What about hell? If I tell you to go to hell, that would not be family friendly. If I say come hell or high water, would that be OK? What if it's the name of a cache in an area that has been flooded, such as Calgary? Their stampede motto this year is come hell or high water. Get it?Flooding, high water....Same word, one use is offensive, the other is a play on words, that in this case turns out to be true. What about the place in Newfoundland with the same name as an adult toy? Is that OK because it is a place?

 

You see my point, there is too much out there to ultimately define what is, or is not family friendly, and that's without considering how other raise their children. What one parent thinks is ok, their neighbors might not. This will be different from person to person, city to city, and country to country. It's impossible to say it is or is not OK. That's why the reviewers are able to make decisions on their own.

Exactly.

It would, technically speaking, be possible to spell out precisely what is, and what is not, family friendly. All Groundspeak would need to do is hire a global team of language experts, covering every geographic region on the planet, as defined by linguistic patterns, and have them spell out what words, used in what context, are offensive in that geographical area. Since linguistic variations can change from one street to another, I estimate that this project could be completed in as few as ten years, and the resulting guideline defining family friendly would be roughly 63,092 pages long.

 

Personally, I'd rather they just stuck with what they have now, a highly dedicated team of volunteer Reviewers, who are asked to interpret the existing guidelines to the best of their ability. Save for the very rare case of an individual who is so obtuse and has such a raging ego that they refuse to accept being told they are wrong, the system works pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Link to comment

With all due respect to Justice Potter Stewart but to purloin and modify his popular phrase...

 

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["non-family friendly"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...

 

The definition of non-family friendly simply should reflect the ethics, morals, and values of Groundspeak, and not their volunteer’s individual "interpretation of them". It would seem prudent for Groundspeak to have a "non-family friendly" cache review board that their volunteer reviewers could access, refer to, or transfer the listing in the rare occurance a cache was to be denied based on that concern.

Link to comment

With all due respect to Justice Potter Stewart but to purloin and modify his popular phrase...

 

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["non-family friendly"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it...

 

The definition of non-family friendly simply should reflect the ethics, morals, and values of Groundspeak, and not their volunteer’s individual "interpretation of them". It would seem prudent for Groundspeak to have a "non-family friendly" cache review board that their volunteer reviewers could access, refer to, or transfer the listing in the rare occurance a cache was to be denied based on that concern.

 

There already is a review and multi-step appeal process in place.

 

It's been a couple of months since this was a hot topic. Can someone refresh my memory? Was this so called SAW cache ever reported to Groundspeak for not meeting the so called family values?

 

It's impossible to expect that any two reviewers are going to draw the exact line in the sand when it comes to such matters. If one lets a cache through that you think needs to be re-reviewed, contact Groundspeak and the same people that reviewed the appeal of the cache in the OP, will review it. If after that is done, there is still an inconsistency, then we have something to discuss.

 

As to the SAW cache, there are many possibilities. The local reviewer may not be familiar with the SAW series. If he asked the CO and they answered that it doesn't contain anything that isn't seen on half of American Television sets every night of the week, he'd barely be stretching the truth. The agents on NCIS Los Angeles shoot to death an average of five bad guys a week. It's also possible that he took community standards in mind. The MPAA rating for SAW was NR-17, meaning that it was not rated but suggested that you be 17 to view it. In Chile, the rating is 14. Different communities have different sensibilities towards such things. Additionally, how do you rate levels of violence? The American TV detective Barnaby Jones earned a nickname of "one shot Barnaby" as he fired one shot in every episode and took down the bad guy. The A-Team engaged in a running gun battle with fully automatic weapons every week, yet not a single person ever got shot. Which is more violent?

Link to comment
There already is a review and multi-step appeal process in place.

I knew this would come up. Upon an appeal to Groundspeak the basic assumption is that the reviewer made and error. An appeal process is an adversarial process that pits the hider vs the reviewer. Obviously, that is not conducive to an unbiased neutral and successful process.

 

It's impossible to expect that any two reviewers are going to draw the exact line in the sand when it comes to such matters...Different communities have different sensibilities towards such things.

Hence the need for Groundspeak to support their volunteers reviewers and to set the standard and assume this small role themselves. The reviewers then have access to the corporate knowledge of the "group" that deals with all the "non-family friendly" issues: consistency and Groundspeak's ethics, morals, and values are assured.

Link to comment

The real challenge for some people is the inability to place the cache on an ignore list if they are unable to do it. This seems to be a common theme lately.

Agreed.

+1!

 

I've seen a cache that is one big *adult* joke about a sexual act. It's not my cache and I never found it but rather disappointingly DNFed it instead while attempting the FTF. Basically, a suburb of a city shares it's name with a slang term for the sexual act in question, and the innuendo-ridden cache page very obviously pokes fun at it. If one was to be offended by crude innuendo at any level, one would be highly offended by this particular cache. It appears everyone who attempts the cache enjoys the humour and empirically it seems anyone who might be offended simply avoids it.

Link to comment

This shouldn't even need to be an issue. Why can't there just be a family-friendly attribute, and then all those that want to ignore non-family-friendly caches can do so.

 

Geocaching should be for everybody, not just those who only want to live a sanitized family-friendly life.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

This shouldn't even need to be an issue. Why can't there just be a family-friendly attribute, and then all those that want to ignore non-family-friendly caches can do so.

 

Geocaching should be for everybody, not just those who only want to live a sanitized family-friendly life.

 

+1

 

Furthermore.... who's family? As I understand it, families also visit clothing-optional areas...

Link to comment
Is it okay to have geocaching event's in non-family-friendly pubs but not okay to refer to a podcast that uses crude language? Presumably, parents are in a better position than Groundspeak to decide whether they want their kids to be exposed to strip clubs, bars, clothing-optional beaches, gay-friendly parks, chophouses, etc.

 

I've been to dozens of events in pubs and bars. I never encountered a non "family friendly" atmosphere. Kids and parents alike seem to enjoy those events. An event in a strip club? I doubt one would be published because that would cross the line. I'm sure you understand the difference and are only interested in stirring the pot.

 

I wonder if an event at a bar would get published in Northern Utah where alcohol is seen as very un-family friendly by the majority of the population in that area.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...