Who Is Responsible For The Content Of A Log?

[+Kai Team]

I personally find it despicable on the part of Groundspeak that they would stand in the way of a charity such as Toys For Tots.  If supporting this charity somehow violates the sacred guidelines, then they should make an exception in this case.  They have that abiltiy. 

The issue is not how worthy "Toys For Tots" or any charity may be. The issue is turning gc.com into a solicitation site. There are several good reasons to support this blanket policy, IMHO:

 

1) It is not consistent with the site owners' wishes (it's their site, and it isgeocaching.com, not geocaching.org). TPTB are not a tax exempt organization who hold out a charitable mission - they are free to choose what they allow on their website.

 

2) In the interest of not being perceived as "taking sides" or being "unfair", gc.com would either have to allow all charitable solicitations or no charitable solicitations. Making "exceptions" is just begging to be attacked and eviscerated by whoever is denied an exception ("You mean to say MY cause is not as worthy as Toys for Tots - you are despicable for taking that position...").

 

3) Allowing solicitations in cache descriptions or logs would result in a substantial number of solicitations. This would interfere with the primary purpose of gc.com, to the extent that both cache descriptions and logs would be replete with solicitations that make it harder to find the information you're looking for - information that helps you geocache.

 

4) (A corollary to #3): As a premium member, I don't pay to be solicited for anything, no matter how worthy, at gc.com. I'm already solicited (and give generously to what I personally consider worthy causes) at work and at home, via phone, email, snail mail, billboards, TV, radio, etc. I subscribe to gc.com because I want to geocache. Period. From my perspective, gc.com is providing a customer service by prohibiting solicitations on the site.

 

A fundamental precept of charity is to treat others as you would want to be treated. To call someone "despicable" simply because they disagree with you is not very charitable.

[+mtn-man]

I totally agree.  I want my "Guns For Osama" & "Support The KKK Granddragon" charity listed, too.  As Groundspeak allows Toys-For-Tots, surely, they should  be fair and allow me to have MY favorite charity?

That's pretty rich! Equating Toys For Tots with Osama Bin Laden and the KKK. That has to be the lamest excuse for impeding events supporting an extremely worthy charity. This is the second time in this thread that someone has attempted to link Toys for Tots with the KKK. Give your head a shake, folks. GC has the ability to make whatever exceptions they want to The Guidelines and they have done so in the past. To say that by supporting Toys For Tots Groundspeak is obliged to support terrorist organizations is ludicrous and naive.

 

Tell me, on a personal level, do you refuse to donate to any charity whatsoever because you feel that by doing so you might also be forced to support Osama and the KKK?

OK, maybe those were extreme examples, but tell me this.

 

Who on this list is not a worthy charity?

 

IRS Charity Search Page

Edited November 26, 2004 by mtn-man

[+RichardMoore]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about "if you accept one charity you have to accept all of them."

How do other companies do it? There must be a way because it's done all the time.

Kai Team said that he is solicited at work. As I'm sure most of us have been at some time. How was the charity selected? And why didn't your employer worry about other charities complaining?

There must be some sort of acceptable middle ground because businesses donate, or ask their employees to donate, on a regular basis.

[+SerenityNow]

I am surprised the powers that be in Groundspeak haven't addressed this issue yet. It is clear that Keystone has stuck to the rules and other appriovers have not. This just gives us all a reason to p*** and moan about fairness issues. Come on Groundspeak, stand up for your faithful approvers and hang the others out to dry. Oh and a word to the wise - don't offend people by using the "C" word this holiday season, instead tell them to have a happy RamaHanuKwanzMas.

[madratdan]

Wow, this is a classic case of double standards. I can't believe anyone would not allow a "Toys for Tots" gathering in the first place. I've been involved with setting up a toys for tots run in the past. I can assure you I never made a dime from doing it. In fact the only thing I did receive was a lifetime of memories and good karma for helping a few kids, by providing them some toys to play with on Christmas. 

 

The mods. keep talking about respect. Something I just lost for quite a few of you. I can see "not wanting to be involved" with listing charity events on this site. But come on people. We're talking "Toys for Tots" here!!!

 

Agreed! Toys for Tots should be on the "approved" charity solicitation event list even if it is the only one on the list. (I can't wait to see the comments with this sentence in quotes.)

 

It seems it's OK to still collect toys and give them to "tots" - we just have to make sure GC.com has deniability in case of a scandal e.g. The President of the local group absconds with the toys (denying the tots) and is later caught playing with them in an abandoned warehouse.... it could make the national news and give a big black eye to GC.com! </sarcasm>

 

I understand all the reasons, etc etc but can't we stop and use some JUDGEMENT in cases like this? Obviously (YES - to all!) Toys for Tots is a good idea and a great charity and the KKK is not. There may be some "charities" of a political nature that should be off limits but Tots for Tots? SHEESH!

 

Jim (speaking for myself only unless someone wants to give me an AMEN!)

 

I'll give you a big AMEN!

 

I too understand it but don't agree with it. (Shaking head in disbelief)

[+New England n00b]

I totally agree.  I want my "Guns For Osama" & "Support The KKK Granddragon" charity listed, too.  As Groundspeak allows Toys-For-Tots, surely, they should  be fair and allow me to have MY favorite charity?

That's pretty rich! Equating Toys For Tots with Osama Bin Laden and the KKK. That has to be the lamest excuse for impeding events supporting an extremely worthy charity. This is the second time in this thread that someone has attempted to link Toys for Tots with the KKK. Give your head a shake, folks. GC has the ability to make whatever exceptions they want to The Guidelines and they have done so in the past. To say that by supporting Toys For Tots Groundspeak is obliged to support terrorist organizations is ludicrous and naive.

 

Tell me, on a personal level, do you refuse to donate to any charity whatsoever because you feel that by doing so you might also be forced to support Osama and the KKK?

OK, maybe those were extreme examples, but tell me this.

 

Who on this list is not a worthy charity?

 

IRS Charity Search Page

Those examples were purposely absurd. And fictional, as far as I know. Evidently someone has chosen to miss the point.

 

In hindsight, I probably should have used less inflammatory examples, but the "send' button was already hit... Live and learn.

 

Well... some of us anyway.

[+The SuzyQs]

I too would like to hear from Jeremy or Hydee on this matter, not through the volunteer approvers, but straight from them why this whole thing is happening. Like it was said earlier in this thread, I think most everyone has been approached at work for one charity or another. All have been endorsed by the employers. But the only "Charity" that Groundspeak recognizes is CITO and that isn't a REAL Charity. Come on folks, Step up to the plate and speak out like I have seen you do it before.

[+Pork King]

That's pretty rich! Equating Toys For Tots with Osama Bin Laden and the KKK. That has to be the lamest excuse for impeding events supporting an extremely worthy charity. This is the second time in this thread that someone has attempted to link Toys for Tots with the KKK.

Tell me, on a personal level, do you refuse to donate to any charity whatsoever because you feel that by doing so you might also be forced to support Osama and the KKK?

They aren't equating toys for tots with the KKK, the simple argument is one of a slippery slope. If TPTB let toys for tots solicitaions in, then why not any other charity that wants to...So maybe the KKK is a bad example, but what about the NRA? Suppose I want to solicit donatons to the NRA through my "Kill Bambi" cache (not a real cache, deer lovers!) How many anti-NRA folks would get hot? No one is saying that anyone would mind the toys for tots charity, it's the charities that are unsavory to some people that would try to solicit under the case of "You let them do it...why not us? you are discriminating!!!"

 

Now my .02...NO SOLICITATIONS. I go to GC.com to geocache...If I wish, i will go to toysfortots.org or whatever to donate to charities. Wouldn't it be horrible for every website to solicit anything that any user wanted to? I mean, banner ads are already a pain! If you want to hold a toys for tot event, post fliers around town! You go to a geocaching event to meet geocachers...How many of you have gotten p'o'ed cause when you got out of wal-mart, there was a flyer touting some business on your windshield? "WHAT THE??? I came to wal-mart to SHOP, not be ADVERTISED to!!! I'm going to throw this flier away without even reading it!! "(litterbug!) Same thing, and don't say it's not, 'cause it is

Edited November 26, 2004 by Pork King

[+mtn-man]

Actually Pork King, it was Gorak that said that.

[+paintfiction]

If you go to their link Toys for Tots you will find that they are tied into a militant group. I'm sure there are people out there that would compare them to the KKK and Bin Ladin.

I agree! There ARE people who would make such a comparison...... there is a name for such people but the guidelines forbid me from stating it.

[+paintfiction]

Solution = approved list of charities whose purpose is to DIRECTLY help HUMANS with basic needs

 

Charities with a political agenda could be immediately banned from the approved list. e.g. NRA/Pro-Abortion/Pro-Life/Greenpeace/Sierra Club/etc. would not be on the list because they represent or advocate political issues. Charities such as Toys for Tots, blood banks. homeless shelters, etc. SHOULD be on such a list of approved charities. Who makes the cut? Somebody with guts at Groundspeak who is not afraid to make a judgement call and take a bit of heat from whiners.

 

BTW.... no offense intended in any of my posts to approvers. I understand you are doing your job as required by TPTB.

Edited November 26, 2004 by paintfiction

[+The Jester]

FEEL FREE TO BRING A NEW TOY TO BE DONATED TO CHARITY.

Unwrapped toys are welcome. These will be donated to "Toys For

Tots".

Wrapped toys will be given to a local women's shelter. These gifts

must be tagged with age and gender info.

 

This wording of the orginal note is not, IMO, a solicitation. If it had said "Please bring a toy..." that would be a solicitation, but "feel free..." just lets people know the OPTION is there. If that narrow a standard is to be used, then any event cache held at a resturant should be considered a 'commerical cache' as the option to buy food/drink is there (some even go farther and say 'meeting for dinner' a flat out instruction to buy at that resturant). But, of course, they aren't because buying food is optional - as is the donation of a toy where it is stated "feel free...".

 

Also, saying the OP was 'getting around' the stated rules is false, as he did not know about that requirement for the cache.

[+Gorak]

The issue is not how worthy "Toys For Tots" or any charity may be. The issue is turning gc.com into a solicitation site. There are several good reasons to support this blanket policy, IMHO: <snip>

I see no problem with people organizing cache events that support a charity as long as people are not obligated to contribute in order to attend the event. These events are not organized or endorsed by GC, they are organized by cachers for other cachers. If people disagree with the fact that a charity is mentioned they don’t have to go to the event. Likewise, if people want to attend the event but don’t agree with the charity they don’t have to contribute.

 

There has been a lot of chatter lately about the public image of caching. Cachers giving back to the community are portraying a much better image than the current image of a bunch of people who occasionally pick up litter when they’re not causing false security alarms by hiding suspicious boxes in public places.

 

Basically, I think GC should be a good corporate citizen and modify The Guidelines to allow cachers to list charitable cache events. I also think that it would be a frosty day in Tijuana before any of TPTB would ever agree.

 

Flame away…

[+New England n00b]

Solution = approved list of charities whose purpose is to DIRECTLY help HUMANS with basic needs

 

Charities with a political agenda could be immediately banned from the approved list. e.g. NRA/Pro-Abortion/Pro-Life/Greenpeace/Sierra Club/etc. would not be on the list because they represent or advocate political issues. Charities such as Toys for Tots, blood banks. homeless shelters, etc. SHOULD be on such a list of approved charities. Who makes the cut? Somebody with guts at Groundspeak who is not afraid to make a judgement call and take a bit of heat from whiners.

 

BTW.... no offense intended in any of my posts to approvers. I understand you are doing your job as required by TPTB.

Then TPTB will have to site and listen to people complaining that Pro-abortion *IS* helping people and "why-wont-you-list-my-helping-people-cache". It's better for everyone to not have it on GC space. It IS noted on their local webpage. Good for them, thats the way to do it to prevent people trying to push the envelope of what is clearly a subjective topic.

 

I see no problem with people organizing cache events that support a charity as long as people are not obligated to contribute in order to attend the event. These events are not organized or endorsed by GC, they are organized by cachers for other cachers. If people disagree with the fact that a charity is mentioned they don’t have to go to the event. Likewise, if people want to attend the event but don’t agree with the charity they don’t have to contribute.

 

Who wants to go to an event and tell 20 people "I didn't bring nuthin'."? Nice thought in theory but in practice someone is going to try an make them answer for why they didn't.

 

Anyway, they put it on their local web page, so I really don't see what you are whining about, other than the fact that you have some personal grudge against anything Groundspeak does. It seems to me your only purpose here is to be contrary every chance you get.

[+Gorak]

Anyway, they put it on their local web page, so I really don't see what you are whining about, other than the fact that you have some personal grudge against anything Groundspeak does.  It seems to me your only purpose here is to be contrary every chance you get.

Good rebuttal. Forum guidelines prevent me from responding in kind.

[+New England n00b]

Feel free to PM me if are unable to use words outside of the family friendly guidelines. I certainly didn't need to.

[+Robespierre]

NEO-GEO can't even mention the toys but it seems that NE Florida can? So why was GCM193 approved? Heck, the cache has the name Toys for Tots in the title?!?!?!?!?

 

I'm just curious. Their intentions are even more ambitious than ours.

 

Oops!

 

In school, Johnny's defense is always, "Well, Willie gets to." In which case, Willie gets shut down too. I still say there's a correct way to handle it and get the word out, and that allowing solicitation on a cache page will only lead to more problems. Good charities can be served without that.

Edited November 26, 2004 by Robespierre

[+RichardMoore]

Who wants to go to an event and tell 20 people "I didn't bring nuthin'."? Nice thought in theory but in practice someone is going to try an make them answer for why they didn't.

 

Anyway, they put it on their local web page,...

At this event last year, a large quantity of toys was collected, even though not everyone brought something. I don't think anyone knows who brought a donation and who didn't, but I do know that no one was asked to justify their choice.

 

As for posting it on the website, what about the geocachers that don't belong to the club? And what about the areas that don't have a local club yet?

[+Gorak]

Feel free to PM me if are unable to use words outside of the family friendly guidelines. I certainly didn't need to.

Sorry, but I have no intentions of swapping personal attacks or name calling with you regardless of how nicely they are worded.

[+Kai Team]

There seems to be a lot of discussion about "if you accept one charity you have to accept all of them."

How do other companies do it?  There must be a way because it's done all the time. 

Kai Team said that he is solicited at work.  As I'm sure most of us have been at some time.  How was the charity selected?  And why didn't your employer worry about other charities complaining?

At one point, my employer did have a problem with employees complaining that their charity wasn't represented. This was resolved when the United Way decided to allow "designations" to non-United Way chairities - i.e. you can contribute to the United Way through payroll deduction and instruct the United Way to forward your entire contribution to any registered charity anywhwere. My employer only supports United Way solicitations at work, but because of the United Way designation system, they effectively support any and all charities.

 

I'm sure the United Way, as good as they are, didn't decide to allow designation because they wanted to spend their limited resources collecting for charities that are not part of the United Way. They did it because they were pressured to do it by employers who were tired of fielding complaints about who was or wasn't included in the United Way and they feared that employers would simply stop supporting any charitable solicitations. Edit: By the way, I was a United Way volunteer at the time this decision was made and was part of those discussions, so I do know why it was done.

 

I believe this example demonstrates my point: allowing any solicitation eventually leads to having to allow all solicitations or take constant abuse from those whose favoriate cause is excluded. And allowing all solicitations interferes with the reason gc.com exists.

Edited November 26, 2004 by Kai Team

[+chstress53]

I whole heartily agree with NJ Admin, and following the no solicatation s whatsoever being on a cache page What I do not understand is the double standard that a cache was allowed in Florida that is clearly Toys for Tots. That is totally double standard What gives?

[+Kai Team]

I whole heartily agree with NJ Admin, and following the no solicatation s whatsoever being on a cache page  What I do not understand is the double standard that a cache was allowed in Florida that is clearly Toys for Tots. That is totally double standard  What gives?

I can't speak for gc.com, but my guess would be that reviewers are human beings and sometimes make mistakes, or bend the rules because they feel sympathy for the cause.

 

As Robespierre said,

In school, Johnny's defense is always, "Well, Willie gets to." In which case, Willie gets shut down too.

The mere fact that several people have pointed out that "Willie gets to" have his solicitation cache is further evidence of the problems that occur when you allow some charitable solicitations but not all. Hence the wisdom of the gc.com policy.

[+reveritt]

Having just spent numerous hours over the past few weeks building handcrafted wooden toys for needy kids this holiday season, I personally find it despicable on the part of Groundspeak that they would stand in the way of a charity such as Toys For Tots. If supporting this charity somehow violates the sacred guidelines, then they should make an exception in this case. They have that abiltiy.

"despicable?" That's pretty heavy rhetoric. Just because you support such a charity doesn't impose any obligation on anyone else.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak doesn't want to support a charity associated with a holiday belonging to one particular religion. Perhaps their anal-retentive lawyers have warned about some obscure liability. Maybe they feel resentful about getting coal in their stockings as children. What difference does it make?

 

It's their website, and they make the rules. We agree to the rules in order to have the privilege of using the web site to support our recreation (free of charge). If they say no solicitation for charities--even if we can see no harm--even if the rule is applied inconsistently--even if we can envision large-eyed tots going toyless on Christmas morning (whimper)--it's their show.

 

Why get your knickers in a twist over it? It may be inexplicable, but not despicable.

[+paintfiction]

I whole heartily agree with NJ Admin, and following the no solicatation s whatsoever being on a cache page  What I do not understand is the double standard that a cache was allowed in Florida that is clearly Toys for Tots. That is totally double standard  What gives?

I can't speak for gc.com, but my guess would be that reviewers are human beings and sometimes make mistakes, or bend the rules because they feel sympathy for the cause.

 

This would've been the 3rd Annual Toys for Tots event for the Northeast Florida area. We have since changed the cache page to remove references to Toys for Tots. The truth of the matter is we didn't realize accepting Toys for Tots donations was forbidden under the commercial/solicitation guideline. I don't believe our approver had any thought that we were violating or trying to skirt the guidelines. My personal opinion is that it still could (and should) be approved without being in violation of the guidelines. Toys for Tots is hardly a "social agenda" and most certainly is not religious or political. With that said, I will certainly abide by the determination made by Groundspeak on this matter regardless of my opinion.

 

Just to help folks understand what I THOUGHT the guidelines meant, I will provide some exaggerated and absurdly bogus (and hopefully humorous) examples of the types of caches I THOUGHT gc.com was trying to exclude:

 

Commercial cache:

Earn a Smiley by testdriving a new Jeep (GCJEEP) hidden by Schmo's Jeep Dealership

This is a roaming cache that will be placed in the back seat of a brand new vehicle and may only be logged after you have been suitably "wrangled" by our sales staff.

 

Solicitations:

Political:

Elect Schmo for President event cache hidden by The GreenNuke Party

This event cache is open to all who would like to attend regardless of political persuasion. Event cache log must be signed to earn your smiley. Event log will be at the bottom of the sheet marked: Sign here to donate your next paycheck to the cause"

 

Religious:

Convert to Islam Multicache hidden by Boston Mosque

All that is needed to earn your smiley on this cache is to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, renounce all other gods save Allah, (insert whatever steps are necessary to convert to Islam), and prepare to meet 70 virgins in heaven! WOO HOO!

 

Social Agenda

Cache for Change event cache hidden by PWNBTD

This event will start at a downtown park next to Kinko's where we will all pick up our event cache "pages" (please note the event cache pages will be made of heavy cardboard, aboiut 15'x20", will be attached to wooden stakes to make them easier to carry, and will have "event appropriate" wording [e.g. Pro-life, Pro-abortion, Pro-choice, Pro-homosexual, Pro-drug, Anti-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice, ant-homosexual, anti-drug, Save the Whales, Nuke the Whales - WHATEVER]). From there we will march en masse to the cache container which is hidden at city hall. After a bit of fun with the local police, we will all meet at the county jail for an evening meal of cold baloney sandwiches. Please shower before the event as the event won't end until the judge sets bail.

 

 

Disclaimer: The above mentioned example caches are not nitended to offend any particular group (or groups). They were designed to be offensive to all. If you were not offended, please drop me a line and I will attempt to accomodate you.

[+New England n00b]

Nuke the Whales? I'm offended - what a waste of perfectly good nukes!

 

Those examples are exactly the point I think many of us (and Groundspeak) want to make. It isn't that the concept of helping charities is bad, it is the trouble trying to defend allowing one charity, then denying another. FWIW, I think Toys-for-Tots is a great charity, and I'd like to thank this thread for reminding me of it.

[+Kai Team]

Those examples are exactly the point I think many of us (and Groundspeak) want to make. It isn't that the concept of helping charities is bad, it is the trouble trying to defend allowing one charity, then denying another.

Precisely!

[+vegasmoose]

Well, I'm gonna agree with CR that it appears you are just trying to circumvent the posted guidelines for listing a cache. I also think it's a gray area, but since this is still gc.com's website, they have the right to step in when people are posting logs that violate the rules of their site. I don't see it any different then if someone posted ponograhic/offensive images in a log, or racist remarks.

 

I personally don't have an issue with a charity like toys for tots, but it's that proverbial slippery slope that they must worry about. If one is ok, then all are ok, right? Who checks out each of these to make sure they are legit? And since "hiding" a cache is free, why not give it a shot? Maybe someone should host an event where everyone collects pull tabs to help pay for someone's cancer treatments? Or an event to raise money for BMACT (Buy Mopar A Cool Toy)?

How about "charities" that many people would find truly offensive or controversial ? An event to raise money for the KKK? An event to help pay for someone's abortion? Sure, you don't have to attend, but who wants to see an event raise funds for cross burnings every time they check for new caches?

 

There is a rule against soliciting, and in this case it sure looks like there was an organized effort to circumvent that rule.

Perhaps just eliminating the charities names? wording like "a local chapter of a national childrens assistance program"?

I dunno, butlet's not forget, many a $$$ is made by someone in "Non-Profit Orginizations", heck, Joe Kennedy used to bring down $1/4 Mil a year providing the elderly w/ low cost/free gas/oil/electric energy as part of a non-profit

have we forgotten the United Way fiasco already?

GC.COM is just adhering to the CYA principle of doing business

[+The SuzyQs]

I still don't understand why this is an issue. If someone feels that they can not support this charity, then don't attend. Smae principal as If you don't like micros, don't hunt them, if you don't like puzzle caches, don't hunt them. Sounds like a bunch of whiners that don't like the way things are done. And still no OFFICIAL RESPONSE from TPTB...

[+Mopar]

I still don't understand why this is an issue. If someone feels that they can not support this charity, then don't attend. Smae principal as If you don't like micros, don't hunt them, if you don't like puzzle caches, don't hunt them. Sounds like a bunch of whiners that don't like the way things are done. And still no OFFICIAL RESPONSE from TPTB...

No, it's not the same as hunting micros or puzzles. Those are allowed. Caches that solicit are not.

 

It's a holiday weekend, what kind of "official" answer do you expect?. I bet most people here haven't done much office work the last few days.

 

Besides, TPTB already DID post their position on caches that solicit; here.

[+RichardMoore]

It appears as though the main objections to having caches that mention donations to a charity are:

1) that it is against the rules

2) that if GC.com allows one charity they should allow them all, even the questionable ones. GC.com does not want to be put in a position of defending their views on what charities are acceptable and what are not.

 

I've requested that this thread be left open in an attempt to find a solution that would be acceptable to just about everyone.

Rules can be changed, so let's see if we can come up with a way that will help GC.com change the rule.

 

In the "Geocaching Banned" thread, Keystone Approver stated:

"A point of clarification: This is a listing site. We *list* geocaches that are owned by geocachers, we do not "approve" them in the sense of endorsing them as safe, legal, being placed with permission, etc. To the extent that the word "approved" is used, it means that the cache complies with the published listing guidelines. This is an important distinction.

Caches are listed here subject to the site's terms of use and the legal disclaimer that appears on each cache page."

 

So let's start from there.

Could charities be included in with the "etc." in his statement? Basically saying that GC.com does not endorse the charity.

Then some simple guidelines:

1) It must be part of an event, and secondary to the event. After all, an event must be related to geocaching, not collecting for charity.

2) You do not need to donate in order to attend or log the event.

3) There are no prizes given during the event for "biggest donation" etc.

4) The event organizer must have a disclaimer on the cache page accepting full responsibility for the donations, and stating that GC.com does not endorse that or any charity. In that way, any opposition to the charity would be directed at the event organizer, not GC.com.

 

Any other ideas?

[CoyoteRed]

How about:

 

"Must not be mentioned on the cache page. Provide a link to an offsite page mentioning the charities and organizations of your choice."

 

Considering most groups will have at least some ability to create an offsite page, this works and you don't have to get involved with the rest of items.

 

Unless you want to add, "May not be affiliated with any hate or terrorist group." There, KKK problem solved.

[+robert]

next time i post a note for an event saying I'm going to bring Hormel chili, I'll think twice.

 

 

It seems what we have here with the one group vs the others who got approved is similar to what we had happen here in DC/MD area. A cache was denied earlier this year by an approver, but the same cache (event) was approved last year by a different one. The guidelines said it shouldn't have been approved but it had been allowed for 2 years (IIRC) up until this one. With the wide range of approvers covering multiple areas, it's not too surprising that these things happen. Since there are so many approvers, there are bound to be some that slip through, while you have one instance with an approver that uses only the black-and-white, and doesn't see the grey like some others.

 

At least it was corrected, and the other groups pages modified to meet the guidelines. The thing we have to remember is we're all doing this for fun, even the approvers. Sometimes it's easy to forget that when something important to us gets questioned.

[+The SuzyQs]

So let's start from there.

Could charities be included in with the "etc." in his statement?  Basically saying that GC.com does not endorse the charity.

Then some simple guidelines:

1)  It must be part of an event, and secondary to the event.  After all, an event must be related to geocaching, not collecting for charity.

2)  You do not need to donate in order to attend or log the event.

3)  There are no prizes given during the event for "biggest donation" etc.

4)  The event organizer must have a disclaimer on the cache page accepting full responsibility for the donations, and stating that GC.com does not endorse that or any charity.  In that way, any opposition to the charity would be directed at the event organizer, not GC.com.

I like this...

[+Kai Team]

I still don't understand why this is an issue.

It's an issue for the reasons listed over and over and stated in multiple ways in the preceding posts! Anyone who "doesn't understand" why this is an issue either hasn't read the thread or doesn't want to understand! ("My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts")

 

Sounds like a bunch of whiners that don't like the way things are done.

Well, "the way things are done" is that solicitations are not allowed on gc.com, so I guess you're saying that the "whiners" are the people who think they should be allowed. So stop whining and let's get on with geocaching, which is why this site exists! Thank you!

[+Kai Team]

I've requested that this thread be left open in an attempt to find a solution that would be acceptable to just about everyone. Rules can be changed, so let's see if we can come up with a way that will help GC.com change the rule.

While I respect your effort to mediate, you're assuming that a rule change is desirable. A careful reading of the thread shows that many of those who've posted do not accept your assumption.

 

The rule is fine with many geocachers who don't want to be solicited on gc.com. You can't come up with "a solution that would be acceptable to just about everyone" when it's clear that many don't want to have the cache pages and logs cluttered with solicitations.

 

Beyond that, gc.com already offered a solution - link to another site, and post your solicitation there. That fact that people are unwilling to accept that solution suggest one of two things (or both):

1) people want their solicitations to be "in your face" (detracting from the primary purpose of the stie, which is to support geocaching).

2) people don't want to expend more than minimal effort supporting their favorite charity.

[+Pork King]

Having just spent numerous hours over the past few weeks building handcrafted wooden toys for needy kids this holiday season, I personally find it despicable on the part of Groundspeak that they would stand in the way of a charity such as Toys For Tots.  If supporting this charity somehow violates the sacred guidelines, then they should make an exception in this case.  They have that abiltiy. 

Gorak, no one is saying you can't give those handcrafted toys to the children, just not at a gc event!

 

A point was made earlier that I want to reiterate...I don't want to show up at a gc event and say "I didn't bring nuthin." because then you have 20+ people (possibly) looking "down" on you for not supporting the kiddies. I don't need that, my self esteem is already low enough. Should I be forced to buy a toy of a tot, even though its only a suggestion, just to save face? I think not!

[+Bjorn74]

Then you've got the other situation where someone doesn't click through to the non-GC site and they show up without something even though they would have had they known. Seems like as sticky a situation to me.

 

Our (COG) experience with a repeating monthly event has been that someone prints the page out and holds onto it for months before showing up. They don't click through, check for updates, or even read the page most times.

 

It seems to me that there needs to be an actual discussion involving the regional group leaders and the GC.com decision makers about this and a variety of related things. This was a topic on another site for such discussions over a month ago but the pre-empt wasn't chosen.

[+SherwoodForest]

 

Seems like a lot of strong feelings all around...

 

As 'owner' of the group account holding the Ohio Event (the controversial one), I guess I should throw in my two cents...

 

the cache took extra time to be approved (due to the considerations of solicitation (understandable)) and the event organizer modified the event so remove the questionable solicitation...

 

Notice about the charity was made on the local groups (as KA noted), but as some of my fellow NEOGeos have pointed out, even though the group reaches a large portion of active cachers in the area, it does not reach everyone that would look at the cache page...

 

The cache page is as always, the number one way to inform possible attendees with information in regards to the event...

 

and thus Richard's log to note the Toys for Tots...

 

I understand Groundspeaks reluctance to get involved with charitable organizations (and actually agree with the across the board decision to stay away from involvement).

 

But the question is about the content of the log, and the comment that was made that the cache would be archived because of the content of said log... that still seems a little heavy handed to me...

 

Can we agree on some way of letting the caching community know that there is a charitable collection going on without raising the ire of Groundspeak? I don't know...

 

And I certainly don't blame Keystone, he's doing his job based on what the guidelines say... it's just another of those bleary gray areas that TPTB just don't clarify...

 

Honestly wish this hadn't become such a mess... just want to have a nice little Seasonal Caching Get-Together (oops, almost said Holiday )

 

Cache well, and see you around the bend..

[+fly46]

For the record, do a search... Jeremy said point blank no to charity things on caches.... Renegade Knight and I had a thread going about saying any money that happened to be dropped into a cache would be taken for charity. The answer was that no matter what charity it was you couldn't do it, no matter how you did.

 

Whether or not we agree with that is beside the point.

 

With as many charities/causes/funds/etc out there, who's to decide whether or not one is acceptable or not? Who's to decide if Vaad L-Chizuk Kiyum Hamitzvoth is acceptable? Or what about Vagabond Ministries? All it takes is one or two with some bizarre name before some nutcase starts making things up, pretending they're charities, and making cache events for 'donations' which ultimately line people's pockets. Xarte Inc and Xaua Inc. are real charities so how would you know if Xaulte Inc was or wasn't? (It's not.. I made that up.. the other four I listed are all real) 'Oh, a cache event for Xaulte... here's $50 bucks' or four dollars... or twelve cents and pocket lint... It doesn't matter...

 

We're a system of checks and balances. Rather than have this be an issue every time (let's check, okay, it's legit and not political, we'll allow it... or.. it's too political we can't allow it and then have to explain why for twelve days), the powers that be have decided to not deal with the headache by not allowing it at all.

 

It's easier that way. You want to do something for charity, make it be a travel bug... The RK thread said those were allowed.

[+SherwoodForest]

i didn't really mean to get this topic getting all rehashed again, yaknow... let cooler heads prevail...

 

the issue is not about charities, it is quite clear that they are a no with regards to Groundspeak...

 

the issue was about the responsibility in re the content of the log...

 

if anyone can come up with a good way to make it so that the greater geocaching community can be made aware of charitable intent without violating the guidelines of gc.com, that would be great... but the cache page is the only way of getting information out to all cachers...

[Jeremy]

if anyone can come up with a good way to make it so that the greater geocaching community can be made aware of charitable intent without violating the guidelines of gc.com, that would be great... but the cache page is the only way of getting information out to all cachers...

Most orgs have their own web sites. If you wish to add charitable events you can do so there. You may have to build up your community a bit before you can effectively do this, but it is certainly doable.

[Jeremy]

But the only "Charity" that Groundspeak recognizes is CITO and that isn't a REAL Charity.

It isn't a charity at all. "Be Prepared" isn't a charity either. It's a motto and a designated day to convince people to go out and pick up trash.

 

I'm not sure exactly what TPTB need to respond to, specifically. Our usual stance on charity caches is no. Everything else is an exception.

[Jeremy]

You'll have to forgive me. This is the first time I looked at this topic. The topic name really didn't make me think I had to respond to it.

 

The only other point I don't think I've addressed is the accusation that TBTB hates Toys for Tots. I would like to announce that I have no opinion whatsoever on this or any other charitable effort. Unless Groundspeak as a company announces an affiliation with any organization we do not have any opinion of them.

 

(edit: rushed and messed up spelling)

Edited November 30, 2004 by Jeremy

[+E = Mc2]

Suppose I want to solicit donatons to the NRA through my "Kill Bambi" cache (not a real cache, deer lovers!) How many anti-NRA folks would get hot?

Ummm... How many NRA members would get hot?

[+ibycus]

if anyone can come up with a good way to make it so that the greater geocaching community can be made aware of charitable intent without violating the guidelines of gc.com, that would be great... but the cache page is the only way of getting information out to all cachers...

Two things to start:

1. Charitable intent? Hmmmm I think we just slipped a little there. If that is the intent behind the cache I would say nope. That someone would be willing to take "Toys for Tots" donations while your there is another issue. Is the purpose of the cache to raise donations for "Toys for Tots", or is it primarily a just to get together?

2. I think the only way Groundspeak would have anything to do with it, is with the click through option hosted offsite. Post a link on the cache page (make it big bold and flashing if you want), that there are more details for the cache posted on another page. If someone doesn't click through, well they are probably too apathetic to have donated anything anyways.

 

Now, as far as the logs go, I think Groundspeak has to have the final say there as well, even as far as archiving the cache if appropriate action isn't taken.

 

I can just imagine, person a, restaurant owner sets up a cache, person b, employee of the restaurant logs the cache to say that there are $1.99 specials on tuesdays, and bang you've got a commercial venture going. Every week, new logs from person b about what is going on at the restaurant. It benefits the restaurant, so they aren't going to delete any logs, or ask that it be stopped. You can't go to that cache page without being bombarded with ads for the restaurant.

 

Yeah, you can choose not to visit that cache, but you don't want to be bombarded with it in your pocket queries either, or taunting you on your list of closest not found caches. It is a slippery slope, and I think TPTB have to be very careful not to go down that road. (to be perfectly honest I probably wouldn't allow an offsite link to a page encouraging donations, but I'm just a real grinch . Its not that I don't agree that its a good cause, its just that were here to geocache, not to be asked for donations.

[+robert]

Suppose I want to solicit donatons to the NRA through my "Kill Bambi" cache (not a real cache, deer lovers!)  How many anti-NRA folks would get hot?

Ummm... How many NRA members would get hot?

ask and you shall receive

 

 

 

 

 

edited to remove link

Edited November 30, 2004 by CO Admin

[+RichardMoore]

You'll have to forgive me. This is the first time I looked at this topic.

You got in just in time.

 

To give everyone fair warning, I'm going to be closing this thread tomorrow morning.

If you have any last minute comments, or want to give a summation of your views, now would be the time.

[+SherwoodForest]

if anyone can come up with a good way to make it so that the greater geocaching community can be made aware of charitable intent without violating the guidelines of gc.com, that would be great...  but the cache page is the only way of getting information out to all cachers...

Most orgs have their own web sites. If you wish to add charitable events you can do so there. You may have to build up your community a bit before you can effectively do this, but it is certainly doable.

but you're still never gonna get hits to as many people as you will by having the information on the cache page... which is what precipitated the log in question...

[+SherwoodForest]

You'll have to forgive me. This is the first time I looked at this topic. The topic name really didn't make me think I had to respond to it.

 

The only other point I don't think I've addressed is the accusation that TBTB hates Toys for Tots. I would like to announce that I have no opinion whatsoever on this or any other charitable effort. Unless Groundspeak as a company announces an affiliation with any organization we do not have any opinion of them.

 

(edit: rushed and messed up spelling)

I certainly don't think you hate the charities... i said before that I agree with the reasoning behind the decision... it's just a frustrating situation to be in...

[+SherwoodForest]

Two things to start:

1. Charitable intent? Hmmmm I think we just slipped a little there. If that is the intent behind the cache I would say nope. That someone would be willing to take "Toys for Tots" donations while your there is another issue. Is the purpose of the cache to raise donations for "Toys for Tots", or is it primarily a just to get together?

2. I think the only way Groundspeak would have anything to do with it, is with the click through option hosted offsite. Post a link on the cache page (make it big bold and flashing if you want), that there are more details for the cache posted on another page. If someone doesn't click through, well they are probably too apathetic to have donated anything anyways.

 

Now, as far as the logs go, I think Groundspeak has to have the final say there as well, even as far as archiving the cache if appropriate action isn't taken.

 

I can just imagine, person a, restaurant owner sets up a cache, person b, employee of the restaurant logs the cache to say that there are $1.99 specials on tuesdays, and bang you've got a commercial venture going. Every week, new logs from person b about what is going on at the restaurant. It benefits the restaurant, so they aren't going to delete any logs, or ask that it be stopped. You can't go to that cache page without being bombarded with ads for the restaurant.

 

Yeah, you can choose not to visit that cache, but you don't want to be bombarded with it in your pocket queries either, or taunting you on your list of closest not found caches. It is a slippery slope, and I think TPTB have to be very careful not to go down that road. (to be perfectly honest I probably wouldn't allow an offsite link to a page encouraging donations, but I'm just a real grinch . Its not that I don't agree that its a good cause, its just that were here to geocache, not to be asked for donations.

in re: Point 1. No the primary focus of the event has always been to have a geocacher get-together... but some of our more civic minded members wanted to give something back to the community, which precipitated the whole charity issue... personally, i would have not involved that angle with the event at all, but I just manage the account, i did not set up the event...

 

point 2. As I've stated several times now, the clicklink to an external site is a poor option since i imagine two-thirds of cachers would never click a link that's in the cache page... (granted, I doubt that many more would read the will attend logs, but it at least is directly visible on the page). And all the bells and whistles, i doubt would help any...

 

in regards to your story equating the restaurant scenario... you're absolutely right... Seeing it like that really does point home the questionable nature...

 

but i do agree with richardmoore's assessment that it may have been more prudent to email him with regards to changing the log, so that he would be made aware of the concerns and be able to duly address them...

 

anyways, i hope the whole geocaching community can come to peace with the situation... we certainly (or I at least) didn't intend to stir the hornet's nest...

 

I was just looking forward to a nice gettogether with friends at a great park in a great park district and talking about caching...

 

that is what it's all about, right?