What Are We Allowed To Discuss?

[Keystone]

SFABobby03, I would invite you to go find a couple of puzzle caches or multicaches, like the "Blood and Guts" cache mentioned in several posts to the topic about "National Treasure." Had you actually found a few, why then I'd hope you'd see the connection between the movie and geocaching like SouthDeltan did in the above post. Apparently the producers of the movie and the owners of Groundspeak saw enough of a connection that the movie is advertised here on the Geocaching.com website, and there's a link to geocaching.com from the movie's website. Given that, I'm not about to say that a thread discussing the parallels is off topic. However, for anyone having trouble seeing this, I've added a clarifying post to the thread. About 50% of the posts are more about reviewing the movie and criticizing its star, rather than discussing the geocaching analogy. I thought from ju66l3r's and GrizzlyJohn's posts above that I was *NOT* supposed to close a topic if only some of the posts were taking it off-topic, instead dealing with just those posts. The National Treasure thread is an example of restraint in moderation, not an example of tolerating a totally off-topic thread.

[SFABobby03]

SFABobby03, I would invite you to go find a couple of puzzle caches or multicaches, like the "Blood and Guts" cache mentioned in several posts to the topic about "National Treasure." Had you actually found a few, why then I'd hope you'd see the connection between the movie and geocaching like SouthDeltan did in the above post. Apparently the producers of the movie and the owners of Groundspeak saw enough of a connection that the movie is advertised here on the Geocaching.com website, and there's a link to geocaching.com from the movie's website. Given that, I'm not about to say that a thread discussing the parallels is off topic. However, for anyone having trouble seeing this, I've added a clarifying post to the thread. About 50% of the posts are more about reviewing the movie and criticizing its star, rather than discussing the geocaching analogy. I thought from ju66l3r's and GrizzlyJohn's posts above that I was *NOT* supposed to close a topic if only some of the posts were taking it off-topic, instead dealing with just those posts. The National Treasure thread is an example of restraint in moderation, not an example of tolerating a totally off-topic thread.

So what you are saying is that if a company has ad's that pay the site money those are okay and on topic but those that don't aren't. Glad you clarified that to me. As for the Osama thing, it was DIRECTLY related to geocaching and there might have been ONE OR TWO comments that were not but we were talking about PLACING A CACHE at OSAMA'S HOUSE. THAT IS ON TOPIC! The thread was shut down because someone got political, not EVERYONE. See, now if we were going by what you just said the conversation would not have been shut down, but since we go by what company gives you money (i.e. the movie company) we obviously don't get an even playing field....

[+LaPaglia]

So what you are saying is that if a company has ad's that pay the site money those are okay and on topic but those that don't aren't

Now thats just silly. KA didn't say that at all. But if thats what you read I suggest you take another look. Its pretty easy to skew things your way when it suits a purpose. Try rereading what he said and replying again, if you feel you need to. At least get the facts straight.

[Jeremy]

Where did you get the idea that they gave us money? You have a receipt or something?

 

What a horrible waste of time. Page 2 even.

[ju66l3r]

I haven't read SFABobby's posts to say "please close National Treasure" but more to the point of saying "if a post like osama's house is closed, national treasure should be as well by the same criteria". How that relates to GJ and myself is that we'd rather neither be closed.

 

I actually found it interesting to see that a journalist was publishing coordinates to terrorist cells. It's too bad more couldn't have been expanded on in that thread. The "potential for a flame war" (aka a political source or background to a geocaching topic) should not be the grounds for closing a thread. If "potential" (and not "observation") are the grounds for closing discussions before the thoughts have been actually put to screen then we border eerily on the edge of 'Newspeak' and that is 'doubleplusungood'.

Edited November 30, 2004 by ju66l3r

[+southdeltan]

This isn't at all what the forums have to do with geocaching and I am not the one at issue here. I say that very respectfully to you as you have given some very valid points. But when threads are closed around here it is always said, off topic or whatever. Now, that movie doesn't have ANYTHING to do with Geocaching. The thread about Osama did have something to do with geocaching. Thats my point. Its a blatant Double Standard. Now having said that they do have a right to do whatever they want with their website as I have the right to say whatever I please about it so that it isn't obscene or anything like that and in turn they have the right to ban me or whatever if they see fit. It doesn't really matter to me at this point. I've just noticed this holier than though attitude around here with some people and this double standard shows it to be true.

You appeared to say you were going to quit geocaching because of the forums. That concerns me, because it's totally unnecessary. That's the issue.

 

I personally think that movie has just as much to do with geocaching as does some post about the waypoint to one of OBL's hideouts. I definetly can see how a post concerning such a controversial figure could end up creating lots of problems. It's totally within their rights to prevent that from happening.

 

If you have a problem with the forums, stop using them. But don't stop geocaching.

 

You can find thousands of caches without ever reading the forums (much less posting to them).

 

sd

[Fudd]

Wow

 

Didn't mean to start all this junk. I'm a noob to these forums and I have no political agenda here believe me. I'm the originator of the now notorious Osama thread. The original post had nothing political in it and was simply paraphrasing an article I found in the National Geographic, a pretty good print magazine if you guys ever get up from your pcs. I did think the modding was a little like the thought police in "1984" but I also know you need mods to keep things from spiralling out of control (like this thread :-D) Basically I'm trying defend my post and my name but I want nothing to do with a flame war (I think they're ubergay) Ooops sorry was that political?

[SFABobby03]

I haven't read SFABobby's posts to say "please close National Treasure" but more to the point of saying "if a post like osama's house is closed, national treasure should be as well by the same criteria". How that relates to GJ and myself is that we'd rather neither be closed.

 

I actually found it interesting to see that a journalist was publishing coordinates to terrorist cells. It's too bad more couldn't have been expanded on in that thread. The "potential for a flame war" (aka a political topic) should not be the grounds for closing a thread. If "potential" (and not "observation") are the grounds for closing discussions before the thoughts have been actually put to screen then we border eerily on the edge of 'Newspeak' and that is 'doubleplusungood'.

This is exactly my point. Thats why I brought up a sponsor (whether they are or not). While both have little to do with actual geocaching, they both can be "construed" to have something to do with it. The fact that one gets cancelled and one doesn't is a Double Standard. Thats a fact. Both should either be there or not. I personally see where Keystone was coming from saying the movie had somethign to do with geocaching but I would say the Osama thing had at least as much to do with it and probably more. I am complaining that he said he didn't kill that post because about half of it was about geocaching. The Osama post got killed because maybe one or two comments. That is a DOUBLE STANDARD.

[SFABobby03]

I will say this thread is now getting out of control. I have made my point and spoke my peace. Killing one of the threads for far less "off topicness" and not the one that was admitedly 50% off topic is a double standard and sucks. Now, Ban me or whatever you want, I could care less. I speak my mind and that is that. If you want to act like you are going to moderate things fairly, then do it, don't pretend like in this case.

[Keystone]

Look at the controversy that Nicholas Cage engendered in the National Treasure thread. Apparently he is an actor despised by many. But not enough to warrant closing a thread that's related to geocaching. It is a *fact* that new caches based on the movie are already popping up in the review queue. OBL, on the other hand, is a terrorist despised by hopefully many more people than the anti-Cage crowd. It is the strong sentiments that his name evokes which led to a fairly swift closing of that thread. When an actual cache is placed near one of OBL's hideouts, perhaps I'll second guess my moderating judgments.

 

Now I'll ask you to please quit labelling me as "pretending to be fair" and so forth. I do the best I can on the meager salary Jeremy pays me. It is barely enough to keep me in Mountain Dew and Pop Tarts.

[+tirediron]

The answer to the question is quite simply: whatever they allow us to. It's Jeremy's sandbox, we are only guests. For good or bad, thats the situation. You can either work within the system or go your own way. The choice is up to each one of us as to what we do.

Exact-ickly! All of the arguments about censorship and so on are fine for society at large, but the GC.com forums are a private enterprise! If TPTB don't want any posts with the word "gronkenschlief" in them, that's their perogative. That being the case, there are, as I see it, three options:

 

1. Leave the forums and go elsewhere

 

2. Commit ritual geocide

 

3. Stop sweating the small stuff and enjoy the place.

[Jeremy]

Now, Ban me or whatever you want, I could care less. I speak my mind and that is that.

I don't think there's a policy for banning people who are overly dramatic. Just don't repeat the name of That Famous Play here.

[uperdooper]

Wow

 

Didn't mean to start all this junk. I'm a noob to these forums and I have no political agenda here believe me. I'm the originator of the now notorious Osama thread. The original post had nothing political in it and was simply paraphrasing an article I found in the National Geographic, a pretty good print magazine if you guys ever get up from your pcs. I did think the modding was a little like the thought police in "1984" but I also know you need mods to keep things from spiralling out of control (like this thread :-D) Basically I'm trying defend my post and my name but I want nothing to do with a flame war (I think they're ubergay) Ooops sorry was that political?

if you don't want to flame people, what makes you think we know nothing about national geographic magazine, and we spend all of our time in front of our pcs?

[+planetrobert]

It is the strong sentiments that his name evokes which led to a fairly swift closing of that thread.

sorry about my remark in that thread...

 

ALSO good job KA ... cool under fire

[+Mopar]

If nothing else, this shows exactly why you can't allow some charities and not others .

[uperdooper]

I will say this thread is now getting out of control. I have made my point and spoke my peace. Killing one of the threads for far less "off topicness" and not the one that was admitedly 50% off topic is a double standard and sucks. Now, Ban me or whatever you want, I could care less. I speak my mind and that is that. If you want to act like you are going to moderate things fairly, then do it, don't pretend like in this case.

KA is the fairest and most unbiased mod in any of these forums. he is a gentleman and doesn't deserve to be treated so shabbily.

[SFABobby03]

Look at the controversy that Nicholas Cage engendered in the National Treasure thread. Apparently he is an actor despised by many. But not enough to warrant closing a thread that's related to geocaching. It is a *fact* that new caches based on the movie are already popping up in the review queue. OBL, on the other hand, is a terrorist despised by hopefully many more people than the anti-Cage crowd. It is the strong sentiments that his name evokes which led to a fairly swift closing of that thread. When an actual cache is placed near one of OBL's hideouts, perhaps I'll second guess my moderating judgments.

 

Now I'll ask you to please quit labelling me as "pretending to be fair" and so forth. I do the best I can on the meager salary Jeremy pays me. It is barely enough to keep me in Mountain Dew and Pop Tarts.

I will not change my stance on you prentending to be fair. That is what you are doing in my viewpoint and I have laid out the evidence that you have. Your last statement to me is purely opinion. BOTH THREADS have equally as much to do with caching as the other. Wait, people use cars for caching, maybe I can start a thread about the New Mustang or something like that.

[SFABobby03]

Wow

 

Didn't mean to start all this junk.  I'm a noob to these forums and I have no political agenda here believe me.  I'm the originator of the now notorious Osama thread.  The original post had nothing political in it and was simply paraphrasing an article I found in the National Geographic, a pretty good print magazine if you guys ever get up from your pcs.  I did think the modding was a little like the thought police in "1984" but I also know you need mods to keep things from spiralling out of control (like this thread :-D)  Basically I'm trying defend my post and my name but I want nothing to do with a flame war (I think they're ubergay) Ooops sorry was that political?

if you don't want to flame people, what makes you think we know nothing about national geographic magazine, and we spend all of our time in front of our pcs?

It has been noted that speaking of something in National Geographics is against the rules.... Beter close this one down to.

[SFABobby03]

I will say this thread is now getting out of control. I have made my point and spoke my peace. Killing one of the threads for far less "off topicness" and not the one that was admitedly 50% off topic is a double standard and sucks. Now, Ban me or whatever you want, I could care less. I speak my mind and that is that. If you want to act like you are going to moderate things fairly, then do it, don't pretend like in this case.

KA is the fairest and most unbiased mod in any of these forums. he is a gentleman and doesn't deserve to be treated so shabbily.

I disagree. What he did was unfair. The thread doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but I argue that the National Geographics article about Osama had relevance and it did. He disagrees but says a Hollywood movie is relevant. If one is relavent they both are.

[Jeremy]

Looks like the thread has been reopened. Not exactly sure what anyone can add to the post since it was more or less a comment and not a topic starter, but you seem to be itching to provide more exciting details.

[SFABobby03]

Looks like the thread has been reopened. Not exactly sure what anyone can add to the post since it was more or less a comment and not a topic starter, but you seem to be itching to provide more exciting details.

It is all about double standards man. I think that moderating forums is great and needs to be done, but if you are going to claim that you are doing it fairly, then do it fairly. Don't shut down one forum for a comment about body bags and then leave one open when 50% of the comments are off topic. It doesnt' make sense and thats my point. I've been reading this forum for a long time and only recently joined to voice my opinion. Its been going on for a long time. Now, this isn't my website and thats fine. Do what you want. I just felt like I needed to voice my opinion about an injustice. I meant no personal offense to anyone but those that do what they do and have power need to be told when they become unfair. This isn't a democracy and I realize that but in every group of people there are people who voice their opinions as I have done.

[Keystone]

Wait, people use cars for caching, maybe I can start a thread about the New Mustang or something like that.

Is that you, TEAM 360???

 

I regret that you continue to view my actions as unfair. I do try my best. At some point we'll have to disagree on what is on-topic and what is off-topic. For now, Groundspeak has put that power in my hands. I exercise it as thoughtfully as possible with the goal of being fair and serving the community by providing a good discussion forum. If Groundspeak felt that I had crappy judgment, I'm sure they would quit sending me Mountain Dew and Pop-tarts.

[Fudd]

Once again good has triumphed! No really, no hard feelings here. Like Jeremy said it was more of a comment than a topic starter anyways. Now everybody's reading the thread now I'll bet lol.

[SFABobby03]

Wait, people use cars for caching, maybe I can start a thread about the New Mustang or something like that.

Is that you, TEAM 360???

 

I regret that you continue to view my actions as unfair. I do try my best. At some point we'll have to disagree on what is on-topic and what is off-topic. For now, Groundspeak has put that power in my hands. I exercise it as thoughtfully as possible with the goal of being fair and serving the community by providing a good discussion forum. If Groundspeak felt that I had crappy judgment, I'm sure they would quit sending me Mountain Dew and Pop-tarts.

I never said Groundspeak should remove you and I wouldn't say that. But as long as there are open forums such as these, I will voice my opinion when it is warranted as I feel it was in this case....

[+tirediron]

Now, Ban me or whatever you want, I could care less. I speak my mind and that is that.

I don't think there's a policy for banning people who are overly dramatic. Just don't repeat the name of That Famous Play here.

I am weak... I cannot resist... must stop... can't.... Macbeth!

[+briansnat]

But as long as there are open forums such as these, I will voice my opinion when it is warranted as I feel it was in this case....

 

But your complaint is that they are not open .

[+clearpath]

But as long as there are open forums such as these, I will voice my opinion when it is warranted as I feel it was in this case....

And aren't we lucky ...

[SFABobby03]

But as long as there are open forums such as these, I will voice my opinion when it is warranted as I feel it was in this case....

 

But your complaint is that they are not open .

No, my complaint is that they are not always moderated fairly and consistently.

[Jeremy]

No, my complaint is that they are not always moderated fairly and consistently.

What was that complaint again?

[SFABobby03]

No, my complaint is that they are not always moderated fairly and consistently.

What was that complaint again?

I take this as a cheap shot. But I kinda figured it would end up that way.

[Jeremy]

I take this as a cheap shot. But I kinda figured it would end up that way.

You're a lot of fun. Stick around.

[SFABobby03]

I take this as a cheap shot. But I kinda figured it would end up that way.

You're a lot of fun. Stick around.

I might. I got to voice my opinion, which I kinda didnt' think would happen.

[uperdooper]

go find some caches. sheesh!

[+Cache Viking]

What is allowed for discussion here? I am so confused. After just noticing that Admin closed a thread that was kinda joking about a cache being put at Osama's house because it is in someway political I am confused as this seems silly. I might get kicked outta here or banned or whatever for this but it seems so silly. I mean we aren't in the 1st grade. I don't even see how that could be seen as political. I thought I would enjoy Geocaching and I was fixing to subscribe but after looking at these forums and the Communist rule of them, I am done with it. I ain't gonna come back and I think a great sport has been ruined. Sure hope people here change in the future and maybe then it could be fun.

It was once best said that "Failure is a hard pill to swallow until you realize the only failure you can really have in this sport is the failure to enjoy yourself."

 

SFABobby03, sorry you can't enjoy yourself.

Edited November 30, 2004 by Cache Viking

[uperdooper]

[+briansnat]

I take this as a cheap shot. But I kinda figured it would end up that way.

You're a lot of fun. Stick around.

Hey in a year he'll probably be a moderator. We all remember UMC's inital foray into the forums was not exactly smooth.

 

On the other hand, he could be the new Duane . Scary thought. I hope he turns into another UMC.

[+woof n lulu]

I find it amusing that someone who has no finds, and has been a geocacher for 17 days is actually being argued with to this extent.......it would seem to me that someone who has these well formed opinions, in such little time, of the workings of this website has had prior experience here, and most likely with the moderators.

 

The Groundspeak Forums don't have to be fair, they don't even have to exist...

If you can't see the advantage to the huge amount of information and experience shared on these threads, then the option is simple.......leave or just lurk.

 

Just my opinion, and I have a right to them......you have a right to disagree....but you must do it nicely.

[SFABobby03]

I find it amusing that someone who has no finds, and has been a geocacher for 17 days is actually being argued with to this extent.......it would seem to me that someone who has these well formed opinions, in such little time, of the workings of this website has had prior experience here, and most likely with the moderators.

 

The Groundspeak Forums don't have to be fair, they don't even have to exist...

If you can't see the advantage to the huge amount of information and experience shared on these threads, then the option is simple.......leave or just lurk.

 

Just my opinion, and I have a right to them......you have a right to disagree....but you must do it nicely.

I have several finds (around 10) already. I chose not to join and log them as I was just doing it for fun and didn't think I would get that far into it. I have also done several more with a friend and they are logged by him. Thanks for the advice, but I have my own options and your two are not included in them.

[Jeremy]

I have several finds (around 10) already. I chose not to join and log them as I was just doing it for fun and didn't think I would get that far into it.

That's too bad. For the hard work the geocachers put into placing those caches for you to find, it would be nice for you to reciprocate with an online log entry to provide feedback. All kidding aside, if you want to in some way contribute to the betterment of the community, you should start there.

[SFABobby03]

I have several finds (around 10) already. I chose not to join and log them as I was just doing it for fun and didn't think I would get that far into it.

That's too bad. For the hard work the geocachers put into placing those caches for you to find, it would be nice for you to reciprocate with an online log entry to provide feedback. All kidding aside, if you want to in some way contribute to the betterment of the community, you should start there.

All kidding aside, I see more of a problem here. Not there.

[+southdeltan]

I have several finds (around 10) already. I chose not to join and log them as I was just doing it for fun and didn't think I would get that far into it.

That's too bad. For the hard work the geocachers put into placing those caches for you to find, it would be nice for you to reciprocate with an online log entry to provide feedback. All kidding aside, if you want to in some way contribute to the betterment of the community, you should start there.

All kidding aside, I see more of a problem here. Not there.

???

 

Again I'll repeat, the forums have very little to do with geocaching, and for many GEOCACHERS, they have nothing to do with the forums.

 

As a cache hider, I do very much appreciate hunters logging their finds and dnf's. You really should consider logging those.

 

As for the forums - I really think you need to lighten up. You're going to give yourself an ulcer.

 

southdeltan

[Jeremy]

All kidding aside, I see more of a problem here. Not there.

I think there's a big problem with your priorities then.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

snip <lighten up.>snip

Sgt. Hulka, is that you?

[+Kealia]

So, like, what happened to you leaving?

 

The opening post was your fond farewell, but you've posted back here um.......how many times now?

 

You're not leaving and everybody knows it.

You're just the latest in the long line of people who want to mouth off and be heard.

 

Congrats on your 15 minutes......

[SFABobby03]

All kidding aside, I see more of a problem here. Not there.

I think there's a big problem with your priorities then.

And that is your biased opinion.

[+Kealia]

Trollin' trollin' trollin'...

[+Ambrosia]

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

[SFABobby03]

So, like, what happened to you leaving?

 

The opening post was your fond farewell, but you've posted back here um.......how many times now?

 

You're not leaving and everybody knows it.

You're just the latest in the long line of people who want to mouth off and be heard.

 

Congrats on your 15 minutes......

Ahh but I was leaving and might still. Who knows. I wasn't looking for 15 minutes. I was pointing out an unfair issue. I'd say i got my point across. Now unless I get slammed by someone else's comments I will be leaving it at this. Just kinda depends on what anyone else says about me at this point.

[Jeremy]

"You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Yes. But you know what catches the most flies...

[Jeremy]

Just kinda depends on what anyone else says about me at this point.

So are you going to log your finds? I'm sure the geocachers who were nice enough to create an experience for you are looking forward to reading about your finds.