Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ZeppelinDT

"Cache pages cannot require or encourage players to place more caches."

Recommended Posts

So I just had an event rejected for publication because of a rule I had somehow completely overlooked and didn't even know existed, which states that  

Quote

cache pages cannot require or encourage players to place more caches.

 

The explanation was that events like this encourage people to place/adopt caches they might not otherwise place, which would then lead to poor maintenance and geolitter.

 

Now, I kind of understand where they're coming from, and I guess that makes sense, but if it's really true that they're worried about this sort of thing, how on Earth do they explain/justify the whole Creation Celebration drive from just a few months ago?  Wasn't there literally a souvenir awarded specifically for events that encourage players to place more caches?  Am I completely missing something here or is this insanely inconsistent?

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

The explanation was that events like this encourage people to place/adopt caches they might not otherwise place, which would then lead to poor maintenance and geolitter.

 

I think this is a very good reason, and history has proven this behavior is a result of encouraging hides for numbers.

It also encourages more and more micros, and poor quality containers because the more you hide the more it costs, so container quality is the first thing to cut back on. 

 

In the early days, some COs would hide an ammo box full of film canisters. The finder was supposed to take the ready-made "cache" and hide it. Funny how those COs don't hide a bucket full of ammo cans ready made to hide. 

 

10 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Am I completely missing something here or is this insanely inconsistent?

 

They are definitely inconsistent. Especially since 2010 when the power trail rule was lifted. Go ahead and hide 100+ caches along a trail and then never go back to maintain it, and encourage others to drop throwdowns. They turn a blind eye to PTs which are almost always miles of poor maintenance and geolitter. 

Edited by L0ne.R
errors and syntax
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

When we started there were a few seed caches around.  We thought they made sense at the time, with not many caches out. Most were film cans.

 - But all turned out same as most would today...  unmaintained plastic pieces with a moldy science experiment in each one.   :)

 

But "creation celebration" was simply events meant to "inspire the next generation of geocache makers".

They had workshops on cache-making,  guidelines , and one in our area was simply accurate gps usage and hiding.

I don't understand what's inconsistent about that.  They've done those same things since we started...

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

And the rules in place are for the global community in general, which they'd have very very little control over.  When it comes to the sanctioned actions of the parent company that runs this whole sheband (website), they can indeed essentially do anything they want; they're not beholden to their own rules for geocache placement. In the aspect of promotional periods, they have full control over the details of the promo and tasks, the methods of presentation, what's encouraged and discouraged. They can shape how they expect the promo period to play out and the effects it has on the community. Absolutely they can do what they like to encourage cache placement. But allowing any geocacher to host an event that encourages cache placement - well that puts a whole lot of ugly-baby judgment on the shoulders of reviewers to determine whether it's allowed to be published, because there can be goals in line with HQ and not, good reasons and bad reasons.

 

Promotional periods are also short, temporary periods of promoting a certain aspect of geocaching, so they're also under much more stringent and limited oversight than geocache listings and events.

 

Now if someone at HQ were, as a geocacher, to try to host an event in the same way as regular geocachers that encourages cache placement, they'd be falling under the same guidelines as everyone else and same review process. It's possible HQ might make an exception, because lackey, but ultimately a souvenir promotion is an entirely different beast than an event cache listing.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the Creation Celebration had the goal of empowering people to place better caches.

 

Getting rid of "seed caches," "Curse of the FTF" caches and "Pay it Forward" caches was a good thing.  I want to find caches thoughtfully placed by people who want to hide a cache, not lame caches hidden by people who feel forced/compelled to fulfill a requirement on another cache page (including an event).  There are still plenty of lame caches, but I like that the website doesn't wish to encourage or endorse the placement of lame caches.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

But "creation celebration" was simply events meant to "inspire the next generation of geocache makers".

They had workshops on cache-making,  guidelines , and one in our area was simply accurate gps usage and hiding.

I don't understand what's inconsistent about that.  They've done those same things since we started...

 

 

It's inconsistent because a "workshop on cache-making" pretty clearly "encourages players to place more caches", which is explicitly what the rule prohibits.

 

 

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But allowing any geocacher to host an event that encourages cache placement - well that puts a whole lot of ugly-baby judgment on the shoulders of reviewers to determine whether it's allowed to be published, because there can be goals in line with HQ and not, good reasons and bad reasons.

 

But didn't those same Reviewers still have to make those same judgments during the Creation Celebration period?  Creation Celebration events weren't actually hosted by HQ... they were still events that could be hosted by any geocacher and that encouraged cache placement.  I understand the "temporary/time-limited" aspect of it, and I guess that is a mitigating factor, but it still seems to be substantively very similar, and if the underlying concern is that these events will lead to the placement of poorly maintained caches and/or geolitter, I don't see how any of these factors alleviate that concern.  It seems more like a case of "well these things are still an issue but we're just not gonna worry about them for this brief period".

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

Getting rid of "seed caches," "Curse of the FTF" caches and "Pay it Forward" caches was a good thing.  I want to find caches thoughtfully placed by people who want to hide a cache, not lame caches hidden by people who feel forced/compelled to fulfill a requirement on another cache page (including an event).

 

I think that's a reasonable argument with respect to the "required" portion of the rule, and I agree that this part of the rule makes total sense, but I don't really see it as applicable to the "encouraged" part of the rule.  And with respect to Creation Celebration being more about hiding "better" caches, I think you're probably right, but encouraging "better" caches still sounds to me like a form of encouraging people to place more caches, so I think the inconsistency still applies.  Encouraging more "good quality" caches is, by definition, encouraging more caches.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ZeppelinDT said:

But didn't those same Reviewers still have to make those same judgments during the Creation Celebration period?  Creation Celebration events weren't actually hosted by HQ... they were still events that could be hosted by any geocacher and that encouraged cache placement.

 

The events themselves didn't directly encourage people to place cache listings for the event.  They were themed events that were to encourage creation of better geocaches and ideas.  People can still host events just like that today if they wish - they just can't directly promote creating geocache listings (publish one cache to gain entry, eg).  Those event caches were indeed judged to a degree by a reviewer and hq to become an 'approved' event for the promo period.  (not that there were any strict requirements other than the event date - plenty were just "come have a coffee and talk about geocaches" flash mobs)  In a sense the promo did encourage the 'hosting of lame events' just for a souvenir; but lame events aren't like 'lame geocaches' anyway. Don't attend them, they go away :)

 

The key distinction is between how to make better caches vs encouragement to create geocache listings. The former is acceptable, the latter isn't.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ZeppelinDT said:

It's inconsistent because a "workshop on cache-making" pretty clearly "encourages players to place more caches", which is explicitly what the rule prohibits.

 

I didn't see it like that at all.   :)

It seemed (to me) to be more of a "lessons in hiding"  thing,  similar to "geocaching 101" events.

 - Centered more on guidelines, good vs bad containers, permission and placement issues, and accurate coordinates.  

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ZeppelinDT said:

The explanation was that events like this encourage people to place/adopt caches ...

 

What was it on the cache page that the reviewer objected to?

 

I’d have thought, say, a workshop on cache creation would be ok (regardless of promotions).  Whereas an event that hands out film pots with instructions to ‘go hide them’, would not.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from on that.  Maybe it's just an issue where reasonable people can disagree, as I still have a hard time seeing how an event about creating better caches does not encourage people to hide more caches (unless I guess you're going as a purely theoretical/academic exercise because you're interested in the theory of geocache creation but don't actually intend to use that knowledge to hide new caches).

 

26 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

What was it on the cache page that the reviewer objected to?

 

Specifically, a few locals here (including myself) recently placed a new trail of challenge caches - we've hidden the physical caches but haven't yet decided what the challenges will be, so we wanted to host an event to see what sort of substantive challenges local cachers would be interested in, and (this is the part the flagged the issue) - to see if anybody attending would like to take ownership of any individual caches along the trail (the idea being that different COs would be able to create different substantive challenges, since the CO of any given challenge cache has to qualify for the challenge in order for it to be published).

 

To be clear though, I'm not objecting to the Reviewer's decision.  I fully acknowledge and concede that my event violates the rule as written, and I agree that the Reviewer made the right call given the rule set.  It was more just that the decision was the trigger that alerted me to the existence of this rule and that's what got me thinking about it and how it relates to the Creation Celebration series.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

The events themselves didn't directly encourage people to place cache listings for the event.

 

 

Just to be clear - the rule isn't limited to placing caches "for the event".  It includes any sort of encouraging of cache placement.  So, for example, hosting an event where the theme is "An event to discuss and plan the placement of a new themed series of caches", that would still be rejected under the rule.

Edited by ZeppelinDT

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ZeppelinDT said:

I guess I can sort of see where you're coming from on that.  Maybe it's just an issue where reasonable people can disagree, as I still have a hard time seeing how an event about creating better caches does not encourage people to hide more caches (unless I guess you're going as a purely theoretical/academic exercise because you're interested in the theory of geocache creation but don't actually intend to use that knowledge to hide new caches).

 

Again, what's disallowed (to my understanding not as a reviewer or lackey) is the direct call to create to geocache listings, not encouragement or education to make good caches (where someone might learn but never place because it's not a requirement or compelling).

 

3 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Specifically, a few locals here (including myself) recently placed a new trail of challenge caches - we've hidden the physical caches but haven't yet decided what the challenges will be, so we wanted to host an event to see what sort of substantive challenges local cachers would be interested in, and (this is the part the flagged the issue) - to see if anybody attending would like to take ownership of any individual caches along the trail (the idea being that different COs would be able to create different substantive challenges, since the CO of any given challenge cache has to qualify for the challenge in order for it to be published).

 

I would promote the event as discussing challenge caches. No more. If you promote the event as finding people to adopt caches, that could be the flag. If you promote the event as educational about challenge caches, then "on your own time" asking people if they'd like to take over the containers you've already placed is something not "condoned" by the listing as hosted by gc.com.  It's very touchy how you promote the event.

 

3 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Just to be clear - the rule isn't limited to placing caches "for the event".  It includes any sort of encouraging of cache placement.  So, for example, hosting an event where the theme is "An event to discuss and plan the placement of a new themed series of caches", that would still be rejected under the rule.

 

Yes, exactly, because the call is to directly create cache listings. ie, cache placement.

"An event to discuss challenge caches, what they are and how to create them" likely would not fall under the same rejection.  But directly planning a new themed series of caches (which you admit are already placed and offering for people to own) would be related to directly 'encouraging cache placement'.

 

So again, consder what the call to action is for the event. If the call is 'improvement', it's not the same as a call 'to place geocaches'.

 

It's very similar to the interpretation of the guideline about caches with an "agenda". You can draw attention to something, but you can't encourage an action related to that something. (if not approved by HQ as an exception of course)

 

So consider the presentation of your event and what its call to action is. That's the key element in the reviewer judgment. (and again, IANAR) :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

I would promote the event as discussing challenge caches. No more. If you promote the event as finding people to adopt caches, that could be the flag. If you promote the event as educational about challenge caches, then "on your own time" asking people if they'd like to take over the containers you've already placed is something not "condoned" by the listing as hosted by gc.com.  It's very touchy how you promote the event.

 

Yeah that's basically my plan.  I'm working with my Review now to figure out a solution.  Like I mentioned earlier, I don't fault the Reviewer for this and fully agree that he/she made the correct call based on the text of the rule, and this thread wasn't really meant to be about my event specifically, just more about the rule generally.  Maybe my issue is just more about the semantics of the rule... I completely understand where you're coming from, I just still disagree about the interpretation of the word "encourage".  I'm also with you on the part where events should not "require" or "compel" placement of new caches, but imo the word "encourage" is far broader than requiring/compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
 
 
 
1 hour ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Specifically, a few locals here (including myself) recently placed a new trail of challenge caches - we've hidden the physical caches but haven't yet decided what the challenges will be, so we wanted to host an event to see what sort of substantive challenges local cachers would be interested in, and (this is the part the flagged the issue) - to see if anybody attending would like to take ownership of any individual caches along the trail (the idea being that different COs would be able to create different substantive challenges, since the CO of any given challenge cache has to qualify for the challenge in order for it to be published).

 

Oh dear. :mellow: So it sounds like you've already hidden caches that you don't intend to maintain. Am I understanding correctly...you also want to encourage people to hide caches that support the challenges, or will the challenges be based on what already exists in the community?   I hope that you have at least set a good example in terms of container quality -- good quality watertight caches, maybe even swag size to make it fun for families and people who like trackables and signature items. At least people who don't qualify can have fun with other aspects of the game.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Oh dear. :mellow: So it sounds like you've already hidden caches that you don't intend to maintain. Am I understanding correctly...you also want to encourage people to hide caches that support the challenges, or will the challenges be based on what already exists in the community? 

 

Oy.  This is starting to get way off topic now, but neither of these comments are remotely correct.  None of this is really relevant to my main point, but I feel like I need to clarify to correct these wildly off-base assumptions.

 

Our local area already has a good range and variety of caches, but we don't really have any challenge caches around, and there's a long stretch of country road in the area that lends itself perfectly to a mini trail of sorts.  Some people have expressed an interest in creating some local challenge caches, so four of us got together and thought it would be fun to use this stretch of road to create a Challenge Trail.  But we want some diversity in the substance of the challenges, and a few others have already indicated they'd be interested in being a part of this effort, so while the four of us are taking on the primary responsibility of placing and maintaining these caches, we figured we would open it up to others who want to take part as well.  This would let more people participate, and it would also allow for a greater diversity in the substance of what sort of challenges will be required.  We want to make some pretty easy ones, some mid-range ones, and some hard ones.  We also want to create challenges that will be attractive rather than just obscure/random/annoying challenges that some people place, so we thought it would be a good idea to just host a general event to discuss exactly how this will be structured, and to see who else wants to join in and be "official" owners.  If somebody comes along and says "hey I'd like to own 3 challenge caches" then they can take 3 of them.  If nobody else wants to take any, then we'll just divide them up amongst the original four of us who physically placed them.  Between the four of us we have over 30,000 collective finds and about 100 collective hides and all of us regularly and actively maintain all of our hides.  And the entire trail is located within 10 miles of all four of our home locations, so maintenance will not be a problem.  And we're not asking people to place new additional hides just to support the challenge.  That has nothing at all to do with anything we're planning.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you haven't created the listings (thus own them), then in a sense you would be directly encouraging the creation of new caches via the event, a call to action (a nono). Again, the best way forward I'd suggest is just to host a 101-style event about challenge caches, without hinting at a call to action, and as a personalized aspect, not promoted in the event description at all, give people the opportunity to join in on the 'effort' to increase challenge caching in the area.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you haven't created the listings (thus own them), then in a sense you would be directly encouraging the creation of new caches via the event, a call to action (a nono). Again, the best way forward I'd suggest is just to host a 101-style event about challenge caches, without hinting at a call to action, and as a personalized aspect, not promoted in the event description at all, give people the opportunity to join in on the 'effort' to increase challenge caching in the area.

 

Yes.  I understand all of that.  I've already said several times that I know my event as described violates the rule.  I'm not disputing that at all.  The point of this thread is not about my event.. I only mentioned my event because it was the trigger that first made me aware of this rule.  The point of the thread is meant to be about the rule itself and whether it makes sense and/or is inconsistent with things like the Creation Celebration events.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ZeppelinDT said:
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you haven't created the listings (thus own them), then in a sense you would be directly encouraging the creation of new caches via the event, a call to action (a nono). Again, the best way forward I'd suggest is just to host a 101-style event about challenge caches, without hinting at a call to action, and as a personalized aspect, not promoted in the event description at all, give people the opportunity to join in on the 'effort' to increase challenge caching in the area.

 

Yes.  I understand all of that.  I've already said several times that I know my event as described violates the rule.  I'm not disputing that at all.  The point of this thread is not about my event.. I only mentioned my event because it was the trigger that first made me aware of this rule.  The point of the thread is meant to be about the rule itself and whether it makes sense and/or is inconsistent with things like the Creation Celebration events.

 

Right, and the response above is directly related to that.

Your call to action cannot be to place new geocaches, but you can educate and draw attention to aspects of geocaching.

During the event you can motivate people to use new knowledge in placement of geocaches if that's what they want to do.

In the event description you can't say for example you'll be creating something in order for attendees to place a new geocache (or discussing plans for new geocaches which people will in effect be 'creating')

Call to action.

It's applicable to your event, thus it's also applicable to the question you're posing.

IANAR. A reviewer might judge to make an exception. Heck an appeal to HQ could make an exception. Whatever your 'call to action' might be, if you really really want a call to action. HQ has to be convinced. But chances are, if there is a call to action in an event description, it won't be approved.

 

If you're saying you just don't like the wording that it's too vague, well then, I'd say contact HQ or post a website request thread to have the guideline text changed :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

If somebody comes along and says "hey I'd like to own 3 challenge caches" then they can take 3 of them.  If nobody else wants to take any, then we'll just divide them up amongst the original four of us who physically placed them.

 

I'm having trouble with this strategy. It's like you are taking spots and then divvying them out. And instead of a potential cache owner finding their own spot, here's a spot but we want you to be part of our geocaching co-op. I don't know, maybe that's fine. My gut reaction is :huh:. I get you are trying to encourage challenge caches, but part of being a cache owner, to me at least, is finding a nice spot and creating my own listing. I expect however that there are plenty of people who like the idea of a power trail style co-op, COs who are interested in owning a challenge listing but would rather have someone else find the spot, create the listing and maintain the cache. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

part of being a cache owner, to me at least, is finding a nice spot and creating my own listing. I expect however that there are plenty of people who like the idea of a power trail style co-op, COs who are interested in owning a challenge listing but would rather have someone else find the spot, create the listing and maintain the cache. 

 

Another good point. Even this aspect could be seen as not promoting good cache owner practices, according to HQ. Ideally, yeah, the cache owner should be finding their own location and hiding the cache themselves. If a CO hasn't even seen the location, how can they be absolutely trusted to maintain it themselves entirely? That is the very basics of cache ownership.  So that's another reason not to promote this particular strategy of cache placement as an official part of the event listing. But, if the host does it 'on their own' sometime during the event while it's running, then any potential problems are on the host, and people can't point a finger at HQ for condoning the potentially problematic strategy.

 

An alternative may be to host the event (educational/informative/social), then ask if anyone wants to join a team that will together go out and co-operatively place an entire trail, so owners can have the experience of finding a location, placing a cache, and fully (and properly) owning the cache. The event can't officially announce that's the plan, because it's a call to action for the placement of new caches. But you can do it independent of the official event.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Right, and the response above is directly related to that.

Your call to action cannot be to place new geocaches, but you can educate and draw attention to aspects of geocaching.

During the event you can motivate people to use new knowledge in placement of geocaches if that's what they want to do.

In the event description you can't say for example you'll be creating something in order for attendees to place a new geocache (or discussing plans for new geocaches which people will in effect be 'creating')

Call to action.

It's applicable to your event, thus it's also applicable to the question you're posing.

IANAR. A reviewer might judge to make an exception. Heck an appeal to HQ could make an exception. Whatever your 'call to action' might be, if you really really want a call to action. HQ has to be convinced. But chances are, if there is a call to action in an event description, it won't be approved.

 

If you're saying you just don't like the wording that it's too vague, well then, I'd say contact HQ or post a website request thread to have the guideline text changed :cool:

 

Fair enough.  I guess my argument is more along the lines of saying that I already agree with idea that a specific call to action would qualify as "encouraging" new cache placement - I don't know how anybody could deny that.  My point is more that I feel like an event based around cache hiding strategies or about how to create good caches is ALSO encouraging new cache placement.  I just have a hard time understanding how somebody could say that an event that's based on creating a quality cache does not encourage new cache placement.  Maybe the underlying intention was more about preventing specific references to hiding specific new caches, but that's really not how the rule currently reads.

 

 

7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I'm having trouble with this strategy. It's like you are taking spots and then divvying them out. And instead of a potential cache owner finding their own spot, here's a spot but we want you to be part of our geocaching co-op. I don't know, maybe that's fine. My gut reaction is :huh:. I get you are trying to encourage challenge caches, but part of being a cache owner, to me at least, is finding a nice spot and creating my own listing. I expect however that there are plenty of people who like the idea of a power trail style co-op, COs who are interested in owning a challenge listing but would rather have someone else find the spot, create the listing and maintain the cache. 

 

I understand and sympathize with all of that.  9 times out of 10 I also prefer the CO strategy you're describing.  And tbh I generally hate power trails.  The majority of my hides are ammo-can-in-the-woods type of hides.  I just happen to really like Challenge Caches though, and I've found a few others who like them, so in this instance it's really more about the challenge part of the cache than the location itself.  For me the real fun of challenge caches is that they create an interesting/fun way to set some new caching goals, so I tend to look at them a little differently than the way I look at more traditional/typical caches.  And in our case its really less about trying to actively recruit people and more about just allowing others to join in with us in case they want to.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If a CO hasn't even seen the location, how can they be absolutely trusted to maintain it themselves entirely?

 

Well the idea here is more that it will be maintained by the group as a whole.  There are four very active cachers who set this trail and all live within 10 miles of all hides, and we'll all be watching this trail and maintaining as necessary, regardless of who the "official" CO of record is, since the technical limitations of the GC site only allow one individual CO to be the owner of record.  I feel like this keeps veering off track into a substantive commentary about potential issues with the trail itself that really has nothing to do with the underlying point of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

My point is more that I feel like an event based around cache hiding strategies or about how to create good caches is ALSO encouraging new cache placement.

 

I hear you, I get your sentiment, but no, an event drawing attention to strategies and what constitutes quality is not a call to action for placement of new caches. People have to infer from that, or be inspired by that, on their own, to place new caches.  That's why 'call to action' is probably one of the best ways to elucidate the guidline.

 

It may be "encouraging" to hear that you play piano well, even though you haven't played for 5 years, but it's not a call to action to go and play the piano right now. No one told you to do so, you have to choose to do that.  Not everyone who hears of great strategies and learns of quality geocaches will feel compelled to place them themselves. That's the difference.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I hear you, I get your sentiment, but no, an event drawing attention to strategies and what constitutes quality is not a call to action for placement of new caches. People have to infer from that, or be inspired by that, on their own, to place new caches.  That's why 'call to action' is probably one of the best ways to elucidate the guidline.

 

It may be "encouraging" to hear that you play piano well, even though you haven't played for 5 years, but it's not a call to action to go and play the piano right now. No one told you to do so, you have to choose to do that.  Not everyone who hears of great strategies and learns of quality geocaches will feel compelled to place them themselves. That's the difference.

 

But the rule doesn't say "No calls to action".  The rule says that you can't "encourage" new cache placement.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ZeppelinDT said:

But the rule doesn't say "No calls to action".  The rule says that you can't "encourage" new cache placement.

 

And we see how it's carried out in practice by what reviewers allow and disallow.  And 'call to action', along with 'agenda' are terms that are quite often used in explanation for denials.

 

 

Just now, ZeppelinDT said:

Well the idea here is more that it will be maintained by the group as a whole. 

 

Yeah, that's also contrary to the guidelines :P One person must be primarily accountable for the geocache - that's the owner. "Placed By" can be anyone, any name, or group of names, but anyone helping with maintenance is still secondary to the primary owner who ultimately takes all responsibility for the condition of the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And we see how it's carried out in practice by what reviewers allow and disallow.  And 'call to action', along with 'agenda' are terms that are quite often used in explanation for denials.

 

I guess that's fair, but if that's such a common explanation for how the rule works in practice then perhaps they should just add that into the rule itself instead of relying on the much vaguer term of "encourage".  In your very first reply to this thread you made the point that part of the reason for the rule being instituted in the first place was to reduce the burden of Reviewers to make more subjective judgment calls and instead to have a more objective rule to rely on, so if the idea is to define things more clearly and objectively up front, it seems like they'd be much better off using more clearly defined terminology in the rule.  If rule denials regularly require additional explanations of denials then that to me indicates a poorly written rule.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ZeppelinDT said:

The point of the thread is meant to be about the rule itself and whether it makes sense and/or is inconsistent with things like the Creation Celebration events.

 

The inconsistency with the Creation Celebration events honestly isn't worth dwelling on. It was a special case. HQ can contradict themselves at any time if they so wish, and they've done so on many occasions. It's their sandbox and they can do what they want. Comparing a typical Event listing with a special promotion-based Event is comparing apples to oranges.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

 

The inconsistency with the Creation Celebration events honestly isn't worth dwelling on. It was a special case. HQ can contradict themselves at any time if they so wish, and they've done so on many occasions. It's their sandbox and they can do what they want. Comparing a typical Event listing with a special promotion-based Event is comparing apples to oranges.

 

I agree that they're certainly permitted to do what they want.  And I'm certainly not losing any sleep over this... just thought it was an interesting point worthy of discussion, and, at least imo, it feels somewhat representative of a broader theme of inconsistency/hypocrisy that I often sense from HQ.

 

Lol, I sure hope we're not gonna start peeling the onion of what sort of minor issues are worth dwelling on... if we pull too hard at that thread I think this entire forum will begin to unravel!  (I'm a rare poster here, but a frequent lurker).  

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Well the idea here is more that it will be maintained by the group as a whole.

 

It sounds like you might need to step back and consider your plan some more. At this point, it sounds like the prospective owners would largely be owners in name only and might never need to actually visit the container at any point in its life. To me, "hey, wanna own a cache? You won't need to do anything" just doesn't seem like it would be in the spirit of geocaching. It should also be noted that "maintenance by committee" often falls down and isn't recommended.

 

Maybe what you should be doing is holding the Event purely to brainstorm challenge ideas. While there, it can be mentioned that a certain road has been deemed a good spot for a challenge trail and interested parties can take some challenge ideas home with them and hide their own caches along that road.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Lol, I sure hope we're not gonna start peeling the onion of what sort of minor issues are worth dwelling on... if we pull too hard at that thread I think this entire forum will begin to unravel!  (I'm a rare poster here, but a frequent lurker).  

 

Don't worry, I'm sure a forum regular will be along shortly to nitpick your usage of a single word and turn this into a multi-page discussion. :laughing:

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The A-Team said:

It sounds like you might need to step back and consider your plan some more. At this point, it sounds like the prospective owners would largely be owners in name only and might never need to actually visit the container at any point in its life. To me, "hey, wanna own a cache? You won't need to do anything" just doesn't seem like it would be in the spirit of geocaching. It should also be noted that "maintenance by committee" often falls down and isn't recommended.

 

I appreciate the desire for help, but I'm not looking for input/commentary on our substantive plan here.  We have personal relationships with most of the people involved, we're all experienced hiders and cache maintainers, and we know our area well enough to know what will/won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, ZeppelinDT said:

instead of relying on the much vaguer term of "encourage".

 

I'm new to this and the forums, but to me, "encourage" would be something like "you should go do this". Meanwhile, the educational events that have been discussed would be more like "if this is something you already want to do, here's some tips on being successful at it". I'd describe that as "informative" rather than "encouragement".

 

But I also think this is a "divided by a common language" problem. Exact interpretation of the words used is going to vary by country, region, and individual. And this is likely to be true for any combination of words.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ZeppelinDT said:

Encouraging more "good quality" caches is, by definition, encouraging more caches.

I think the problem is that you've jumped from "encourage better quality caches" to "encourage more high-quality caches". They aren't the same thing.

 

Long before the Creation Celebration promotion, our area had a series of LSOH (Little Shop Of Horror) events, where a particular CO known for great caches would open up his workshop for an afternoon. These events were never pitched as "hide more high-quality caches". They were always pitched as "come use my workshop, or hang out while other people use my workshop". The CO was happy to show people how to use his tools, how he built his caches, how to implement some idea or the other, etc. But no one was expected to build or hide a cache.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ZeppelinDT said:

if that's such a common explanation for how the rule works in practice then perhaps they should just add that into the rule itself instead of relying on the much vaguer term of "encourage".

 

Thus why I offered: "

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If you're saying you just don't like the wording that it's too vague, well then, I'd say contact HQ or post a website request thread to have the guideline text changed :cool:

 

 

1 hour ago, ZeppelinDT said:

just thought it was an interesting point worthy of discussion, and, at least imo, it feels somewhat representative of a broader theme of inconsistency/hypocrisy that I often sense from HQ.

 

I don't see inconsistency or hypocrisy. The context is entirely different. One is guidelines for geocacher-placed events, which doesn't apply to special periodic promotional campaigns run by the host company that runs the entire website, and I already went into detail about why and how the contexts are vastly different.

I give you the argument that "encourage" is grammatically vague when taken without any other contextual definition or clarity.  But I don't see the Groundspeak-run "Creation Celebration" theme and campaign content and promotion as contradictory or hypocritical in light of the guidelines against certain content in an event listing.

 

(to wit: I'd love to see if any officially approved creation celebration events had any direct call to action to place more geocaches as a part of the event - it doesn't negate the argument, since TPTB can make exceptions, especially in the context of a special event period, but it would be interesting to see and analyze)

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 3

×
×
  • Create New...