Passion Of The Rock Cache

[+Awsome Ev]

Dunno, Ev. Was Tennessee the original approver? nor not? Anyway, what side do you come down on Amish Geocacher?

Well Six Dog. I'm trying to stay neutral. But I can lean either way. I understand that there a specific guidelines and rules of conduct that have to be made and followed. But I also think that people should have the choise to pick and choose what caches they go after. I don't like taking sides. Maybe that is just me I don't like to be in the middle of things. Ma and I have been talking about this and I want to stay neuteral. I also think that if this type of problem has occoured before why was it approved in the first place. I realize that people are only humand and make mistakes. I make mistakes on a daily basis and I realize that. I would like to think that I am being neuteral. Any thoughts?

 

 

*gives patrick scratches*

[+SixDogTeam]

 

If you let one guideline be broken why not them all . Bring back Locationless , make it easier to get virtuals approved , heck why not even let people place caches directly on Railroad Tracks !

 

I think part of the controversy is whether or not this cache does indeed violate the guidelines, Star... and as for Locationless-Yes, bring them back! and virtuals! Maybe not the railroads, tho, have to get back to you on that....

[+Awsome Ev]

 

If you let one guideline be broken why not them all . Bring back Locationless , make it easier to get virtuals approved , heck why not even let people place caches directly on Railroad Tracks !

 

I think part of the controversy is whether or not this cache does indeed violate the guidelines, Star... and as for Locationless-Yes, bring them back! and virtuals! Maybe not the railroads, tho, have to get back to you on that....

True.

[+Team Tigger International]

 

If you let one guideline be broken why not them all . Bring back Locationless , make it easier to get virtuals approved , heck why not even let people place caches directly on Railroad Tracks !

 

I think part of the controversy is whether or not this cache does indeed violate the guidelines, Star... and as for Locationless-Yes, bring them back! and virtuals! Maybe not the railroads, tho, have to get back to you on that....

dang now I gotta go P !

[+SixDogTeam]

I would like to think that I am being neuteral. Any thoughts?

 

 

*gives patrick scratches*

Well, there is a bible verse, I don't know how to go about looking it up, about those who sit on a fence and don't come down on one side or the other, " I will spew them out of my mouth" or words to that effect... Patrick says hi!

[+hydee]

I have emailed the cache owner, we (the cache owner and I) will work together to determine the future of this listing. Thanks for your comments.

 

Now on to the topic of the current guidelines. The guidelines on Solicitations are written in a way that is not inclusive of any beliefs nor is it exclusive.

 

I am hearing a lot of users asking to have the guidelines clarified. That is a slippery slope indeed.

 

Say we add text stating that we allow religious themed caches. As suggested we could allow the use of text from a book but not allow propaganda to be distributed. Seems simple enough. BUT it is not.

 

What if the book is being quoted in a way that encourages discrimination based on race, sexual orientation etc. But it is just a themed cache right? Now is it still OK?

 

Where do we draw the line? We don't want to be in a position where we have to look at every cache and see if it meets our ethical or moral guidelines or someone else's ethical or moral guidelines and so it will stand as don't push an agenda. All things considered I do not feel that is a bad place to be.

[+Team Tigger International]

I am not one to say a cache should be archived ... In this case however it appears to be clearly Religious in nature. I think that perhaps the cache page itself if revised could be unarchived. The main statement on this cache that is offensive is the line ...

"If you don't know this one you should be ashamed" ........

 

No one needs to feel ashamed of not knowing a bible verse....

 

Why not just make it a simple ... go to cache instead of all the references to the bible ?

 

Might just make everyone happy that way . The cache lives , people can "find " it . Controversy Ends .

 

Star of Team Tigger International

[+vree]

SixDogTeam- I think this is what you're thinking of:

 

Revelations 3:16

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

 

and I agree with Team Tigger

Edited October 22, 2004 by vree13

[+The Puzzler]

Well, I don't know about majority rules. And, I don't know where exactly to draw the gray fuzzy line between acceptable and not.

 

BUT, I do know that I geocache for fun. I read these forums for fun. And, in honor of this thread I am going to hide a new cache for fun.

 

The new cache will be a puzzle multi-cache with each stage requiring decoding by using quotes from the primary text of as many different religions as there are stages in the multi-cache. Each stage will be some religious icon or site that is highly revieared by each religion who's text is being quoted. Each cache will start off containing matterial relavent to the religion who's text is being quoted.

 

Anyone in the Corvallis to Salem area of Oregon is weclome to help me out on this one.

 

Any thoughts on a good name?

 

Maybe something to do with passion and rocks since most religions seem to worship rocks in one form or another.

 

And, just to clear up any controversy. Of course there will be an agenda in hiding this cache. It will be fun. And, I will get a chance to learn about local regigious icons. And maybe, just maybe, I will even be able to offend somone along the way that is trying real hard to be offended.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Oh, what the heck, I'm in...

 

I have a lot of very strong opinions and a big mouth. I'm happy to butt in where not wanted and will happilly troll, offend, flame or annoy. I've been ticking people off on the internet for...twenty years next January.

 

But, see, geocaching is the most fun toy I've found in years. I love it. I intend to do my little part to preserve the cheerful purity of it. I'd hate to do anything, cache-wise, that would bum someone out, even if I thought the objection was stupid.

 

The very fact this thread was so combustible tells me this cache violates the spirit of the thing as I understand it (though archiving it probably could have been handled with more tact).

[+Awsome Ev]

 

And, just to clear up any controversy. Of course there will be an agenda in hiding this cache. It will be fun. And, I will get a chance to learn about local regigious icons. And maybe, just maybe, I will even be able to offend somone along the way that is trying real hard to be offended.

I try to make people mad. It can be a great thing. But then again I also get what comes to me like it or not. I suppose as long as people know that you are trying to upset them would be great and I would do it just because you were trying to make me upset. I'm like that though. LOL

[+The Puzzler]

The very fact this thread was so combustible tells me this cache violates the spirit of the thing as I understand it (though archiving it probably could have been handled with more tact).

I couldn't agree more or have said it better myself. Thanks. I think you probably speak for a lot of us.

[Pto]

After all that reading, this is all I have to add:

 

I couldn't agree more or have said it better myself. Thanks. I think you

probably speak for a lot of us.

 

Ditto-

 

edit to fix

Edited October 22, 2004 by Pto

[+WalruZ]

geez.

 

you know, it might be nice to have an 'appeals process' for caches that are archived.

[+SixDogTeam]

SixDogTeam- I think this is what you're thinking of:

 

Revelations 3:16

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

 

and I agree with Team Tigger

Yes, that's it, thanks--somehow I was thinking Old Testament, tho... Anyway, you won't go far wrong listening to Star and Ev-- a lot of wisdom in that little group. Just ask Earthdog Patrick. Still, we like the cache, with the Bibical references...

[+LSUFan]

you know, it might be nice to have an 'appeals process' for caches that are archived.

Now that's an idea that is definitely worthy of consideration. It might solve some future problems.

 

LSUFan

[+as77]

To me, it's pretty obvious that this cache is soliciting. Looking at the cache page, one can see that the solution of the puzzle requires searching the Bible for quotations that are usually used for proselytizing. The nature of the puzzle is such that it tries to make people read the Bible. The "you should be ashamed" part is telling, as well as the "study the POI" part. And reading the logs, it turns out that the cache is filled with bibles, free for the taking, nothing expected in return. So I think that this cache doesn't meet the guidelines.

[+Renegade Knight]

The passion portrayed in this thread in and of itself is exactly why this cache, and all caches like it, should be archived.

 

As an atheist, I say there is no god, therefore there should be no religious caches.

I got you covered. We will aslo ban all caches that don't have anything to do with God since athiesm is pretty much touted as the 'thinking mans' religion.

 

Of course that leaves the agnostics out in the cold but what can you do? We allready banned caching.

[Keystone]

Hello from your friendly forum moderator. I'm responding solely to the recent posts on having an appeals process for decisions made by a volunteer cache reviewer. Let's begin with what is already published on the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines page:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the approver and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines.  Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache.  If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local approver and/or Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and approvers are always interested in new ideas.  If, after exchanging emails with the approver, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, feel free to post a message in the General Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks.  If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and approvers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived.

 

There are two other avenues of appeal available. First, you can ask your reviewer to post the issue in our separate Reviewers' Forum for discussion. A new issue is presented for discussion just about every day. Sometimes it is the reviewer who will say to the cache owner "Gee, I am not sure what to do, please bear with me while I ask for opinions from the other volunteers." This is done so that we are acting as fairly and as consistently as possible.

 

The second appeal route is for use when you believe that the volunteer reviewer has abused their authority or otherwise misbehaved in their dealings with you, the cache owner. In such cases, write an e-mail to the special address provided for this purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com. Include links to the cache page(s), copies of relevant e-mails, etc. Your question will be looked at by Groundspeak rather than one or more of the volunteers.

 

I had thought that these appeal mechanisms were well-known but I am always happy to publicize them.

 

We are in the midst of an appeal right now.

[+LSUFan]

Thanks Keystone Approver for sharing this information with everyone. Even though it is published, I was unaware of it as I'm sure some of my other compatriots were. I think this is great and should help with this cache and similar future ones that have problems.

 

Thanks Again for taking the time to educate me----again

 

LSUFan

[Keystone]

You're quite welcome, LSUFan. Since I'm on a roll, I'll summarize and expand a bit. The "order of appeal" from where the reviewers sit goes like this:

 

1. E-mail back and forth with the reviewer. Typically we use a rule of thumb of two responses. If no new information or changes to the cache are offered by the owner, we politely suggest that the process is at an impasse.

 

2. Post the cache in the Reviewers' Forum for discussion. Within a few days, the regional volunteer will report back to the cache owner. "Sorry, but all of the reviewers felt that I correctly applied the XYZ guideline to your cache" or "I apologize... I was mistaken about my interpretation of the ABC guideline and my colleagues have set me straight."

 

3. If you feel that the reviewer did nothing *wrong* other than to just do their job in applying the guidelines -- but you still disagree with the results -- then bring the issue to the forums. Forum discussions sometimes lead to clarifications of the published guidelines, exceptions being made for a particular cache, or to changes in /additions to the guidelines.

 

4. If you feel that the reviewer acted inappropriately -- which is different from disagreeing with an adverse result -- then our preference would be for the owner to use the "approvers@" e-mail address, although, obviously, the forums are available for these issues as well.

[+southdeltan]

I have emailed the cache owner, we (the cache owner and I) will work together to determine the future of this listing. Thanks for your comments.

 

Now on to the topic of the current guidelines. The guidelines on Solicitations are written in a way that is not inclusive of any beliefs nor is it exclusive.

 

I am hearing a lot of users asking to have the guidelines clarified. That is a slippery slope indeed.

 

Say we add text stating that we allow religious themed caches. As suggested we could allow the use of text from a book but not allow propaganda to be distributed. Seems simple enough. BUT it is not.

 

What if the book is being quoted in a way that encourages discrimination based on race, sexual orientation etc. But it is just a themed cache right? Now is it still OK?

 

Where do we draw the line? We don't want to be in a position where we have to look at every cache and see if it meets our ethical or moral guidelines or someone else's ethical or moral guidelines and so it will stand as don't push an agenda. All things considered I do not feel that is a bad place to be.

I've said all along I understand the intent of the rule. However, the vagueness of the rule has (and likely will continue) to cause a lot of confusion. From the posts I've read on local forums (where people aren't afraid to post their feelings to their neighbors... which in itself is sad that people think they'll be banned from GC.com for speaking up) a lot of people take this as an attack on their religion. I know better - but as I've said before that's how it appears.

 

It is indeed a slippery slope - and I can't say that you haven't stepped out on it a bit by the vagueness of the rule... no by getting involved at all. Of course - I don't know that involvement could be avoided...

 

The biggest problem with this (and MANY problems that people have with GC.com) is a lack of communication. Rules aren't necessarily clear to all - and the appeals process that KA said he thought were well known are not. In this case - the cache owner posted it locally because he didn't know what to do (and his emails were not returned so he didn't know what to think) - so he wanted advice from the locals.

 

Changes are made to the website - wether it's a rule or code - and it's not publicized well enough. There are a lot of other issues. I know assumptions are bad but people are only human, ya know?

 

sd

[+southdeltan]

The passion portrayed in this thread in and of itself is exactly why this cache, and all caches like it, should be archived.

 

As an atheist, I say there is no god, therefore there should be no religious caches.

You don't like somebody putting their views on you....

 

but it's ok for you to do the same to them???

 

southdeltan

[bug and snake]

Since the question of 'having an agenda' seems to be pretty open to various definitions I would like to suggest that there is nothing wrong with having an agenda anyhow. Surely the thing is to avoid having a HIDDEN agenda.

I would not have any problem with visiting a cache full of anything legal and I would not be upset by that cache, provided that it's theme (or agenda - they are not so different in meaning) was announced beforehand. Come to think of it, if it was legal, I would have no problem with it in any case. It's all about freedom of speech, freedom of expression. I would be free to disagree with any sentiments expressed but I would dadgum sure support the right to have them expressed in the first place.

[+southdeltan]

You're quite welcome, LSUFan. Since I'm on a roll, I'll summarize and expand a bit. The "order of appeal" from where the reviewers sit goes like this:

 

1. E-mail back and forth with the reviewer. Typically we use a rule of thumb of two responses. If no new information or changes to the cache are offered by the owner, we politely suggest that the process is at an impasse.

 

2. Post the cache in the Reviewers' Forum for discussion. Within a few days, the regional volunteer will report back to the cache owner. "Sorry, but all of the reviewers felt that I correctly applied the XYZ guideline to your cache" or "I apologize... I was mistaken about my interpretation of the ABC guideline and my colleagues have set me straight."

 

3. If you feel that the reviewer did nothing *wrong* other than to just do their job in applying the guidelines -- but you still disagree with the results -- then bring the issue to the forums. Forum discussions sometimes lead to clarifications of the published guidelines, exceptions being made for a particular cache, or to changes in /additions to the guidelines.

 

4. If you feel that the reviewer acted inappropriately -- which is different from disagreeing with an adverse result -- then our preference would be for the owner to use the "approvers@" e-mail address, although, obviously, the forums are available for these issues as well.

KA, let me start by thanking you. You do a great job and I know you take a lot of crap for a wide variety of things.

 

However - I have to disagree that these are well known.

 

#1 - I didn't know there was a rule of thumb - I know you're supposed to email your approver and I know that's in the guidelines - but I've never heard the bit about "a few emails then we move on".

 

#2 - As a fairly devout forum follower, who also runs a website with forums, I am well aware there is a private "Reviewers Forum". I would wager most geocachers, and a majority of the non-forum readers (which would most likely be a majority of geocachers in general) are not aware of that and subsequently aren't aware of this option.

 

#3 - A lot of times geocachers do not understand the actions of the approver. I'd say in most cases they don't consider the forums. I've talked to dozens of cachers that have had a problem getting approval for various caches and they generally have a problem with the approver or the approval process. I'm sure that there is a real chance that there is also fear to post here, out of retribution (this is similar to what Jeremy says about people not wanting to be in controversial situations).

 

#4 - I don't think this is clear either.

 

---------

 

Now I know the GC.com staff can't read the rules/guidelines for everybody. I do think some improvements could be made. There's a lot of information on the website but not everybody knows where it is. There's also the lingering issue of poorly announced changes to the website... but I digress.

 

I'd suggest a NEW log option for cache OWNERS when their cache has been archived (this can be used no matter who archived the cache). "Request Unarchival". If the owner archived it, then the approver could quickly unarchive it if there are no problems and the original guidelines are still met. If the approvers/admin archived it - this would notify them to begin the review process.

 

southdeltan

[+southdeltan]

Since the question of 'having an agenda' seems to be pretty open to various definitions I would like to suggest that there is nothing wrong with having an agenda anyhow. Surely the thing is to avoid having a HIDDEN agenda.

I would not have any problem with visiting a cache full of anything legal and I would not be upset by that cache, provided that it's theme (or agenda - they are not so different in meaning) was announced beforehand. Come to think of it, if it was legal, I would have no problem with it in any case. It's all about freedom of speech, freedom of expression. I would be free to disagree with any sentiments expressed but I would dadgum sure support the right to have them expressed in the first place.

Very well said.

 

I am not offended by this cache - nor would I be offended by anything within normally accepted (and legal) behaviors even if I didn't agree with the view.

 

I would be upset if there was a cache with a vague name, very empty cache page - but you get to the cache and it's full of information demanding that you donate so much money to Televangelist Y or burn forever....

 

----------

 

sd

[CoyoteRed]

... since athiesm is pretty much touted as the 'thinking mans' religion.

I never got this "logic."

 

Because someone believes there is no God, they are worshiping the religion of "No God?"

 

What about a person who had never heard of God? Would they not inherently be an atheist? Or does an atheist have to acknowledge the concept of God and reject it? That would mean no matter your belief, you are worshipping something.

 

What if someone rejects the whole concept of the supernatural, which would include God, but doesn't deny the existence of God specifically? In other words, God can't exist because there isn't a mechanism for him to exist.

 

So, if you reject the whole concept of there being any kind of supernatural force and thus God can't exist, how does that make one's belief a religion? It's a belief, yes, but how is it a religion?

 

Hint, atheism is no more a religion than is the disbelief there really is a Starfleet.

 

This is why I don't get upset about religious based caches where some part of the theme is centered around some religous landmark. The line for me is drawn when the other person wants me to not just acknowledge it, but to walk it and talk it.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

CR, you better get back to work or get home and take me to dinner!

[+SixDogTeam]

.

 

the disbelief there really is a Starfleet.

 

Just what are you trying to imply here?

[+SixDogTeam]

I know assumptions are bad but people are only human, ya know?

 

And that's quite an assumption, itself...

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Archive 'em all, and let God (or deity of your choice, or no-one, if atheist) sort 'em out!

[+briansnat]

I intend to do my little part to preserve the cheerful purity of it. I'd hate to do anything, cache-wise, that would bum someone out, even if I thought the objection was stupid.

 

Unfortunately there will always be someone out there who is offended by somthing you do. There are people who go out of their way to find things to offend, or anger them.

[+Team Neos]

For what it is worth, I agree with everything that rjb43nh said. The cache is an obvious religious lesson, and not "just" a religious themed cache. And if I am not mistaken, the controversy that this has caused is exactly the reason not to allow caches of this nature.

 

And I respectfully disagree with what southdeltan said about wanting more specific rules. As a teacher, I have learned to make broad, general rules that appeal to common sense--knowing that if I get too specific, the little darlins will look for all the loopholes.

[+southdeltan]

For what it is worth, I agree with everything that rjb43nh said. The cache is an obvious religious lesson, and not "just" a religious themed cache. And if I am not mistaken, the controversy that this has caused is exactly the reason not to allow caches of this nature.

 

And I respectfully disagree with what southdeltan said about wanting more specific rules. As a teacher, I have learned to make broad, general rules that appeal to common sense--knowing that if I get too specific, the little darlins will look for all the loopholes.

Obvious religious lesson? Interesting. That's your interpretation but that wasn't the intent. (This is like figuring out what an author meant - if you want to know, ask him or her). Telling people who are religous they can't have religion because it's controversial is controversial... I think that's the most controversial thing. A lot of people are tired of being told "You can't mention religion because I don't agree and that offends me". Guess what, that's surely gonna offend a religious person. (I can have mine but you can't have yours).

 

As a teacher - I know that the cute little darlings will look for loopholes no matter what. If you say what you mean and mean what you say, you have a helluva lot less problems.

 

southdeltan

[+southdeltan]

I just spent the better part of an hour talking with Redleg1SG, the owner of the cache in question. Talking to him answered a lot of questions and verified my belief that he had no intent of "soliciting" anything with this cache.

 

I have exchanged a couple of emails with him and Hydee this afternoon.

 

I'll give a quick bit of background.

 

Redleg is currently deployed at Camp Shelby in southern Mississippi training soldiers who will be deployed to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His unit in Grenada, MS has been mobilized and he himself may be deployed oversease in the future. His time is limited and he said he's just not into getting into forum flame wars. He told me that he made one post to this (5 page) thread and it appeared to him that everybody was so busy arguing their various points it was overlooked. He also was amazed by the response and had no intention of creating any controversy. He did find it funny that some of the people who posted seemed to post just for posting's sake (he thought some would argue over anything wether they beleived it or not).

 

He is a military man. He has been trained to pay attention to detail and that's why his cache (which has been described as a very well done cache, regardless of the theme) is detailed as it is. The main point of the cache is the "POI" (point of interest) mentioned which is in fact a large rock painted like Jesus Christ - which is a unique sight. There aren't many large rocks in MS, especially not uniquely painted ones. (I'm not sure why "study the POI" was taken so literally - it's an expression around here - studying something can just mean observing it.)

 

He saw the cache and since he likes themed caches and puzzled caches he set out to create one the only way he knew how - detailed. That's why the cache has the quotes, that's why the cache container has crosses painted on it, and that's why the contents are appropriately themed.The bible was meant to be used as a reference, ntohting more. For the record included in the cache was information about the rock and how it came to be there.

 

He said that most of the pro-religion and anti-religion people would be disappointed in him - he is not a very religious man but he does have beleifs. They had nothing to do with the cache - he was not trying to convert anybody.

 

He said anybody that knows him would find that funny.

 

He had not intent to convert anybody.

 

He said the line concerning the last clue (John 3:16) was intended to be a Bible Belt joke - (and it seems that is sometimes the case with text and the internet in general it was taken literally).

 

I don't think he intended to convert or offend anybody. I got a kick out of the posts that said his comments were "telling". I guess so - very typical of somebody, religous or not, that grew up in the very religous South.

 

---

 

He said he had a problem with the lack of contact before his cache was archived. He wasn't sure how to go about getting it archived. He also had a problem with people trying to force a no-religion view on him when he wasn't even trying to force a religion on anybody.

 

However, he wasn't really bothered about it. He's not angry, he's not bitter.

 

He has also been in contact with Heidi and they are discussing the cache. With this being Friday, it may be Monday or later before anything is resolved. He told me that he said he'd make the changes to the cache required to not offend anybody if it didn't mess up the puzzle or require him to do away with the theme, since it is a themed cache.

 

---

 

Personally - I think that this was much ado about nothing - it got blown out of proportion and some people (for and against) tried to make it a bigger issue than it needed to be. I still say this was a lack of communication (on many fronts). I'm also not sure that the attempt to avoid controversy is going to ever be successful.

 

I am sorry if my post caused all of this. I was doing what TNGeocacher (and with all fairness to TNG - KA also said that the forums could be used in this manner. If that's not the case, based on Jeremy saying it might not have been the best way to bring this up - that needs to be clarified somewhere). suggested, although I wasn't trying to get guidelines changed - just get the cache unarchived.

 

I am going to lock this, because it has LONG since lived out it's useful life. The review process is underway. I have a good feeling that this particular cache may be unarchived. I will post an update when there is more news. Either way, I will again lock this thread after the final decision is made. The original intent of this thread was to get this cache unarchived and if it's not somebody else can start one on the guidelines if they wish to do so.

 

southdeltan

[+southdeltan]

I guess we won't have to wait until monday.

 

I just recieved a notice from Hydee.

 

The cache has been unarchived.

 

southdeltan