Jump to content

Fighting Hate through Geocaching


strontium87
Followers 10

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pantadeusz said:

Guys, if I may add something, this is a forum to discuss general geocaching topics ...

I remember the same feelings of a few threads here, one was "How did you serve" , and it continued for around eight years.

There were a couple of interesting threads , one on Bronies, another on Furries, but of course they were general topic related...  :D

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Don't want to sound too critical but i would rather see information stated on the cache page. I know you said that you deleted the description to get the cache enabled but i still think it needs to have something besides links. Doesn't have to be much, maybe a bit about him, the heinous tragedy that occurred, and/or his memorial. In this case, keep to the facts. I don't care to click on links, especially when i'm out in the field.

I agree. Originally the links were just for additional information. I had information on the cache page. I had to delete a lot of it, but it got disabled again. At that oint, the option seemed to be to delete it all. Not my choice. GS and reviewers choice.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Blue Square Thing said:

I'm surprised to be honest - I read the cache page just after it came out so I can recall the sort of information that was on there. Given that there seems to be a general acceptance of things like war memorials from recent wars as valid caching sites I'm rather surprised that they insisted you remove the information.

The funny thing is, about 7 years ago I had a multi cache in this location for about 2 years. When I was gifted the virtual, I just copy/pasted the cache description from the multi to the virtual. No one ever complained about the cache description when it was multi, but someone complained within a few days when it was a virtual. I'm guessing there are just more cache complainers now, maybe more eyes on the cache page since it is a new virtual, or it's a reflection of the current political climate in this country.

Side note... on the vitual, I provided a link to the multi and the reviewer insisted that I delete the link to the old multi as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Everything is going to be offensive to someone.  You have to take the good with the bad.  Suck it up and deal with.  I found one in a cemetery used for slaves only.  I found it interesting to see how the graves were randomly laid out with small and crooked head stones.  The cache didn't glorify slavery, it lead me to a place in the woods to see history first hand. 

Edited by brbaker1995
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, pantadeusz said:

Guys, if I may add something, this is a forum to discuss general geocaching topics. I appreciate that Americans invented geocaching and I thank you for it. However, I find that your US home politics discussed here, while quite interesting from the historical and societal perspective, is extremely inconsequential for geocaching as a game. I have found over 1700 caches, none of them in either of the American continents, so I am not sure what this subject is doing here...

I'll just add... geocaching as a hobby is a worldwide game, but geocaching.com is owned by Groundspeak. So there's nothing stopping anyone from listing a geocache outside of gc.com with whatever content they want. That said, by using geocaching.com, they do set the ground rules for content. But knowing that it's a worldwide game, I believe they are trying to be as agreeable as possible towards a platform that's the least controversial for a global audience. That means no making additive exceptions for certain countries/cultures, but by being reductionist and as uniform and fair as possible for everyone. Lowest common denominator, as it were. GS is a private company, not a government one, trying to serve the world, so hopefully people can remember that too :)

Link to comment
13 hours ago, simpjkee said:

The funny thing is, about 7 years ago I had a multi cache in this location for about 2 years. When I was gifted the virtual, I just copy/pasted the cache description from the multi to the virtual. No one ever complained about the cache description when it was multi, but someone complained within a few days when it was a virtual. I'm guessing there are just more cache complainers now, maybe more eyes on the cache page since it is a new virtual, or it's a reflection of the current political climate in this country.

Side note... on the vitual, I provided a link to the multi and the reviewer insisted that I delete the link to the old multi as well.

 

Quote

I'm kinda wanting to reduce (or at least modify) my geocaching footprint in the world. Not so much like an enviromental footprint......but more of a sociological footprint.

 

LOL.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, simpjkee said:

Side note... on the vitual, I provided a link to the multi and the reviewer insisted that I delete the link to the old multi as well.

A multi's description that was no problem for two years and now a link to that archived listing is a problem. This may be a case for appeals.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, on4bam said:

A multi's description that was no problem for two years and now a link to that archived listing is a problem. This may be a case for appeals.

 

Appeals has already been involved, and the virtual cache in question was archived by Geocaching HQ.  I think it would be best to use this cache as an example supporting the point that agendas are not permitted on cache pages, and then move back to the general topic of keeping cache pages free from agendas.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Appeals has already been involved, and the virtual cache in question was archived by Geocaching HQ.  I think it would be best to use this cache as an example supporting the point that agendas are not permitted on cache pages, and then move back to the general topic of keeping cache pages free from agendas.

Can I clarify for a moment: the subject of the virtual cache was a problem? Or the naming? Or the association between the two? Or something else?

I think it would be helpful to have that clarified so that I, for example, know what an "agenda" means in this context. That would stop me falling into whatever trap simpjkee seems to have fallen into. If it's not appropriate to discuss it here then simply let me know and whom I should address these questions to. Thanks.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

 If it's not appropriate to discuss it here then simply let me know and whom I should address these questions to. Thanks.

If you're not sure whether a subject you put on a page meets guidelines, simply ask your Reviewer.

Most we've met  like to publish caches, and will work with you on "fixing" it if need be.   

Sometimes some like to push the limit ( challenge caches is a good example...), and sometimes it bites them in the can.  :)

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Appeals has already been involved, and the virtual cache in question was archived by Geocaching HQ.  I think it would be best to use this cache as an example supporting the point that agendas are not permitted on cache pages, and then move back to the general topic of keeping cache pages free from agendas.

The cache was 100% free of any agenda when it was archived this morning. I've deleted everything I wrote on the cache page over the last couple days to try and satisfy the reviewer/GS. It was archived anyway...

... but now it's unarchived and reenabled. I have no idea what's going on with it.

I did not report anything to appeals. I've been trying to work it out with the reviewer, but I think there has been some miscommunication between us regarding what exactly the problem with the cache is and the way I put notes on my cache page when I do owner maintenance.

For example, when a reviewer disables a cache, it is apparently against the rules to explain why it was disabled and what you did to reenable it. I don't think that is any different than what I do on all my caches when I complete owner maintenance. This meticulous attitude towards owner maintenance is what got me a virtual in the first place. In this occasion, the reviewer took it as me protesting GS/reviewers decisions, which I found odd because I never disagreed with their decision and my owner note explained how I was trying to comply with it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Blue Square Thing said:

Can I clarify for a moment: the subject of the virtual cache was a problem? Or the naming? Or the association between the two? Or something else?

I think it would be helpful to have that clarified so that I, for example, know what an "agenda" means in this context. That would stop me falling into whatever trap simpjkee seems to have fallen into. If it's not appropriate to discuss it here then simply let me know and whom I should address these questions to. Thanks.

I would appreciate some clarification as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Most we've met  like to publish caches, and will work with you on "fixing" it if need be.

 

Unfortunately that has not been my experience here. I think that kind of friendly assistance went out the window when I posted the owner note that he feels was me protesting GS's decision. That being said, since I already knew he felt I was protesting, I didn't ask for any more help. I just complied as much as I knew how to save the cache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Most we've met  like to publish caches, and will work with you on "fixing" it if need be.   

4 minutes ago, simpjkee said:

Unfortunately that has not been my experience here. I think that kind of friendly assistance went out the window when I posted the owner note that he feels was me protesting GS's decision. That being said, since I already knew he felt I was protesting, I didn't ask for any more help. I just complied as much as I knew how to save the cache.

We had a cache that the other 2/3rds was anxious over, said some things in frustration, sorta getting in the way of her getting one published.

An apology in her "what can I do to start over?" email got her back on track (with the help of the same Reviewer) and requirements were met.  :)

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

It would be best to iron out the issues with one particular cache directly with your reviewer and with Appeals, rather than in the forums.  Forum community participants cannot see archived logs or prior text of cache listings.

They can see the prior text on my old multi of the same name. I have the archived logs and emails. I'd be happy to post them since I already tried on the cache page, but it seems reviewers and GS are a little sensitive to that for some reason. I don't understand why owner maintenance notes are deleted by the reviewer in this situation.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, simpjkee said:

I don't understand why owner maintenance notes are deleted by the reviewer in this situation.

I would if I felt it was an attempt to push some sort of agenda.

Just some clarification on the Multi by the same name, I think it's important to point out that the Reviewer at the time (different than for your Virtual), had some concerns with the original write up.  In your response, you appeared to argue your case effectively, and the Listing appears to have been Published without any changes.  8 years later, the same argument doesn't appear to have worked out so well.

The fact that 2 Reviewers had concerns, should have alerted you that there might have been an issue.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Nomex said:

I would if I felt it was an attempt to push some sort of agenda.

Just some clarification on the Multi by the same name, I think it's important to point out that the Reviewer at the time (different than for your Virtual), had some concerns with the original write up.  In your response, you appeared to argue your case effectively, and the Listing appears to have been Published without any changes.  8 years later, the same argument doesn't appear to have worked out so well.

The fact that 2 Reviewers had concerns, should have alerted you that there might have been an issue.

The first reviewer has concerns about it not being family friendly. I made changes to it and it was published. 

This reviewer has concerns that it promoted an agenda after someone complained. He disabled it and sent me an email about it. I complied with everything the reviewer asked me to do. I also posted an owner maintenance note explaining the complaint, the email i got, and what changes I was making. Then I reenabled it. It was then disabled again, my owner maintenance note was deleted, and I got another email saying I couldn't post the reviewers email to me on the cache page or protest his decision on the cache page. I then complied again by deleting all the wording in the cache description. I never protested it. All I did was comply. I posted an owner maintenance note without the email from the reviewer and reenabled it. This note was also deleted. Then I emailed the reviewer to ask why the note was deleted. He asked me to delete more stuff on the cache page. I complied again and I wrote a much shorter owner maintenance note. I don't have any questions about the agenda or anything. I've completed with all that. I even agree that as noble as an agenda it was there were some elements that were an agenda. I was happy to delete it to comply even though it had been fine years before on the multi.

My only question is why I can't post an owner maintenance note explaining why it was disabled and maintenance I preformed to reenable it. That's the only part I don't understand. I was gifted this virtual for being a good cache owner/maintainer. Why then put in barriers for me to maintain this one?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, the nature of the controversy played a role in how you could respond. Maybe the CO felt that if there was any semblance of a 'victim' theme in your OM note then it could play against the whole intent of reducing drama, and draw lines that some readers of the listing may jump over, pitting you against reviewer and/or Groundspeak.

If it's a sensitive issue, then maybe the reviewer was just looking for a bare-bones explanation that the description had been updated, in the OM note, without detailed explanation (as neutral as it may be).  For less sensitive issues that's not as big a deal, I'd say. But in this case, maybe it could be?

But again, I'm just guessing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 21.08.2017 at 10:38 PM, strontium87 said:

I'm disappointed that Groundspeak has not spoken out about the racist turmoil happening in the US especially around Confederate monuments/statues.(...)

(...) because lack of such statement makes it harder to take the game hostage and we have go back to Facebook or Twitter.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Seriously. Total ban on agenda of any kind is one of the things I respect the most when it comes to Groundspeak. Even then you can't sometimes escape controversy. Imagine the sh*tstorm we'd have when they started taking sides.

It's a game which we go out playing to escape (among the others) partial media and silly politics. Tou go out to relax and have fin without thinking of ***.

 

_________________

*** I havent mentioned any subject on purpose. I'm sure everyone has theirs but this isn't the place...

 

Edited by TheVoytekBear
Link to comment
Quote

My only question is why I can't post an owner maintenance note explaining why it was disabled and maintenance I preformed to reenable it. That's the only part I don't understand.

Yes, that seems to be a recurring theme with Groundspeak. That's why it's best Groundspeak not get into cache censorship based on political ebbs and flows such as the OP suggested.

Link to comment
On ‎9‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:46 PM, simpjkee said:

<...>

My only question is why I can't post an owner maintenance note explaining why it was disabled and maintenance I preformed to reenable it. That's the only part I don't understand. I was gifted this virtual for being a good cache owner/maintainer. Why then put in barriers for me to maintain this one?

I don't know what was posted exactly, but I can see GS deleting your note it, for example, your Maintenance Log explained the problem with a little too much detail.

For example, if your Cache Description talks about Coca Cola, then a reviewer could kick it back to you saying that you can't explicitly mention a product name. Then, you remove the reference to Coke, and write an Owner Maintenance log entry stating that the reviewer objected to you mentioning Coca Cola, so you had to remove it.

Of course, the restrictions on Cache Descriptions don't apply to log entries (you can say, "I found this cache, then sat at GZ and had a Coke"), but because it's the CO writing it in a OW log, the effect is pretty much the same.

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...
Followers 10
×
×
  • Create New...