Jump to content

Beg Cache


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say it’s not worthy, but I am sure a lot of other caches, including me, have had caches turned down because of the rules that state no begging. The rule is supposed to be adhered to, to prevent people from complaining that some charities get exposure but not others. Who gets to decide what is worthy and what isn’t? The rule is there and should be followed.

Link to comment

I think if one charity cache is allowed, they should all be allowed. Earlier this year I submitted one for a local American Cancer Society Relay for Life, and it was an actual cache. It was denied. I accepted the decision without complaint, because I assumed the guidelines were being applied fairly. A few months ago, there was one approved in Fl for a charity that created quite a stir here on the forums. At that point, I was irritated and sent an email to Groundspeak asking them to show me where mine differed from the one that was approved, as I didn't think it did. I did not get a reply or even an acknowledgement of my email. Okay, so I let that go, figuring one got by an approver and Groundspeak was too busy to answer me. Now this one is approved, and a virtual no less (and I like virtuals, if they are of something significant/historic).

 

While the cause is most laudible (I have made a donation through the International Red Cross), I think that this "cache" should not have been approved, or if it is, then has Groundspeak changed it's interpretation of the guidelines, in which case I will resubmit my cache for the American Cancer Society and expect it to be approved.

Link to comment
I think if one charity cache is allowed, they should all be allowed. Earlier this year I submitted one for a local American Cancer Society Relay for Life, and it was an actual cache. It was denied. .

Granted that is a great charity. However we are talking about one of the greatest disasters and loss of life in modern history. I know that really shouldn't make a difference....but don't you think that if an exception was going to be made it would be for this?

 

I remember 9-11 and the cache to donate blood. I remember that I couldn't donate blood so I donated to the Red Cross. I also remember wiping away the tears as I made that donation. It was the same when I donated to the Red Cross this time.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Yes, the guidelines do say that, and all I am asking for is consistency in applying the guidelines in this case. If they are going to approve one charity cache, then approve them all.

YES! Can I PLEASE have a donation cache for my favorite charity? Perhaps I can place it at the rod and gun club we belong to, and I can use it to solicite new members while I'm at it.

Link to comment

According to a note posted on the cache page, they did request permission from GC.com to bend the rules.

 

icon_note.gif January 4 by Team Piggy (400 found)

I have recieved some flak over this cache, so be it..

This cache was created with one purpose in my mind, to help the victims of this disaster.

I read the rules and then created it.

It is for a non profit orginisation, and Yes it is very borderline on solicitation, so I followed the rules and asked the Mods, in both Aust & the US for direction.

I thank Geo.com for finally granting approval for this cache, and also possibly for them having "slightly" flexed the rule book in this case.

I do not however want anyone to think that because this one made it through, that they can create a cache which breaks the rules and expect it to get by.

If anyone plans on using this cache as a stepping stone to argue other caches, I will remove this one without thought.

 

As a note, this was probably a tough decision for the approvers to let this cache through.

And another 70,000 people where declared dead whislt this took place..

Yes, 70,000, So please don't try telling me that this cache is wrong..

 

Thanks Geo.com and Aust approvers and all that are donating.

God Bless.

Edited by Stunod
Link to comment
I think if one charity cache is allowed, they should all be allowed.  Earlier this year I submitted one for a local American Cancer Society Relay for Life,  and it was an actual cache.  It was denied.  .

Granted that is a great charity. However we are talking about one of the greatest disasters and loss of life in modern history. I know that really shouldn't make a difference....but don't you think that if an exception was going to be made it would be for this?

 

I remember 9-11 and the cache to donate blood. I remember that I couldn't donate blood so I donated to the Red Cross. I also remember wiping away the tears as I made that donation. It was the same when I donated to the Red Cross this time.

 

El Diablo

We all agree it was a terrible disaster, but those disasters do happen all the time. It's still just logging a smiley to donate to the Red Cross. Why is the Red Cross allowed and Toys For Tots isn't?

Link to comment
According to a note posted on the cache page, they did request permission from GC.com to bend the rules.

So then Groundspeak DID give permission for this one?

Either that or they bent the truth when they posted the note. I hope it's not the latter.

 

I liked this post...it shows what giving really is about:

icon_note.gif January 4 by Team Canyonero (128 found)

I have donated to the Red Cross and have been prompted to do so because of this cache.

I am however not claiming a find as I believe the act of donating requires that you don't receive anything in return (or that becomes solicitation). A "find" on a cache is something in return.

 

Great idea piggy and I hope you exceed the 10K.

Edited by Stunod
Link to comment
Granted that is a great charity. However we are talking about one of the greatest disasters and loss of life in modern history. I know that really shouldn't make a difference....but don't you think that if an exception was going to be made it would be for this?

So only 50,000 people dying in the Iran earthquake almost one year earlier to the day is not worthy? Is there something in the guidelines about what the deathtoll must be to get it approved? Maybe any disasters over 100,000 dead are ok.

Or was it just that we don't care about the middle east as much as asia?

Link to comment

While I take no position on the merits of donating relief aid, I am quite surprised by the open-ended nature of this "cache." Although the Australian Red Cross is the recommended charity, the logging instructions clearly state that a receipt from any charity will do. I see logs with receipts for donations to UNICEF and Oxfam. I find the policies and money management practices of UNICEF appalling, along with most other things done by the United Nations and its agencies. And Oxfam's political leanings are quite offensive to me.

 

I will not say anything about the Australian Red Cross as I have not done the reading and research to say anything one way or the other. Hopefully it is not plagued by any of the management problems experienced in the recent past by the American Red Cross. I made up my mind about Oxfam and UNICEF a long time ago.

 

What does ANY of this have to do with geocaching? I go geocaching to forget temporarily about this and other problems in the world.

Link to comment

"I do not however want anyone to think that because this one made it through, that they can create a cache which breaks the rules and expect it to get by.

 

If anyone plans on using this cache as a stepping stone to argue other caches, I will remove this one without thought."

 

Wow. :angry:

Link to comment

"(AP) The World Health Organization raised its estimate of smoking-related deaths Friday, saying 4.9 million people die each year and warning that its projection of 10 million deaths annually by 2030 was too low."

 

How about a cache for the American Lung Association?

 

Is 4.9 million deaths a year enough?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am shocked at the horror of the tsunami deaths, it is a terrible thing. But we already know we should donate to help out, and we all know where to go to do it. It's noble to help out, but do we REALLY need a cache for this?

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment
According to a note posted on the cache page, they did request permission from GC.com to bend the rules.

So then Groundspeak DID give permission for this one?

Either that or they bent the truth when they posted the note. I hope it's not the latter.

 

I liked this post...it shows what giving really is about:

icon_note.gif January 4 by Team Canyonero (128 found)

I have donated to the Red Cross and have been prompted to do so because of this cache.

I am however not claiming a find as I believe the act of donating requires that you don't receive anything in return (or that becomes solicitation). A "find" on a cache is something in return.

 

Great idea piggy and I hope you exceed the 10K.

If TPTB allow this cache to remain, I agree that all the finds should be turned into notes. Otherwise finders are profiting from the death of all those people.

Link to comment
...If anyone plans on using this cache as a stepping stone to argue other caches, I will remove this one without thought."

 

Wow. :angry:

I like the 'very borderline solicitation' comment. That's an understatement at best. :angry:

 

His comment that he 'would remove this one without thought' (presumably by archiving the cache) bothers me a little. Is this issue so unimportant to him that he will archive it if people try to use it as an example?

Link to comment
If TPTB allow this cache to remain, I agree that all the finds should be turned into notes. Otherwise finders are profiting from the death of all those people.

ACK! That's a thought that's even more revolting then the thought of giving money to UNICEF to mismanage, but you are right. A pretty repugnant thought now that you put it that way.

Link to comment
If TPTB allow this cache to remain, I agree that all the finds should be turned into notes. Otherwise finders are profiting from the death of all those people

 

I don't think getting a smiley is profiting from the death of those people. It is a reward for making a cash contribution to help out the survivours.

I agree that this cache probably should not have been approved.

If Geocaching.com wanted to contribute they could have posted a link to contribute to a charity and kept a tally of money donated by geocachers. No smiley's involved.

Mike

Link to comment

Um, is this where I finally get to say it:

 

If you don't like the policies and decisions of Groundspeak/Geocaching.com then go somewhere else and stop your complaining here!!

 

:angry::angry::lol::lol::angry:

 

(obviously said tongue-in-cheek, since I've heard this often from some of the very same posters here)

 

PS - While I do not object to Groundspeak's decision to allow this cache, I am a little disappointed that this was the way that I found out about it. It would be nice to have some sort of announcements forum or something where special cache permissions like this could be brought to everyone's attention for donating/logging/looking at/whatever).

Link to comment

So, The Australian Red Cross gets a VIRTUAL cache, but a Toys for Tots EVENT cache is told to change it's name? I really do not understand the thinking behind this. Not only is this a Charity cache, it is a VIRTUAL. At least put out a container for all to find. Or make it a travel bug. i remember seeing one for 9/11. It was a box full of donation envelopes addressed to the Firemans Fund in NYC.

Link to comment
So, The Australian Red Cross gets a VIRTUAL cache, but a Toys for Tots EVENT cache is told to change it's name? I really do not understand the thinking behind this. Not only is this a Charity cache, it is a VIRTUAL. At least put out a container for all to find. Or make it a travel bug. i remember seeing one for 9/11. It was a box full of donation envelopes addressed to the Firemans Fund in NYC.

Ya know, you especially have every right to complain now.

Link to comment

"I agree that this cache probably should not have been approved.

If Geocaching.com wanted to contribute they could have posted a link to contribute to a charity and kept a tally of money donated by geocachers. No smiley's involved.

Mike"

 

That seems like a logical approach to me, and one that would be consistent with the guidelines inasmuch as no cache is involved. I would applaud TPTB for doing that.

 

Hank

Link to comment

I won't argue either way in this case. The deed is done and it should stand. And a good deed it is!

 

What I'd really like to see is this cache get the publicity and acknowledgment from the Groundspeak leadership that it deserves.

 

A large, active multinational group such as ourselves can make a difference by adding our voice to the choir of hope being delivered to the survivors of this great tragedy.

Link to comment
While the cause is most laudible (I have made a donation through the International Red Cross),  I think that this  "cache" should not have been approved, or if it is, then has Groundspeak changed it's interpretation of the guidelines, in which case I will resubmit my cache for the American Cancer Society and expect  it to be approved.

The guidlines also state that the approval of one cache doesn't not give basis for other cache approvals. Complain all you want, but I doubt you'll get it approved.

 

It seems very petty to whine so much about a game, if caching is so VERY important to you, go caching & quit bitching.

Link to comment
I won't argue either way in this case.  The deed is done and it should stand.  And a good deed it is!

 

What I'd really like to see is this cache get the publicity and acknowledgment from the Groundspeak leadership that it deserves.

 

A large, active multinational group such as ourselves can make a difference by adding our voice to the choir of hope being delivered to the survivors of this great tragedy.

Yes, but like the post above you says, it could have been done without pissing off every other cacher who's ever had a virtual or charity cache turned down. If TPTB wanted to, they could have just as easily have added a link to the front page and to the weekly notifications, then ALL cachers would know about not just ones that happened to notice a virtual 10,000 miles away. Perhaps they could have even done it via Amazon or something with referrers, this way we could get tally on how much money geocachers donated.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
The entire point is to make people think and encourage them to give where they may not otherwise give.

 

That's my take. I'm staying out of whether or not it should of gotten approved. It's approved, get over it.

I would really like to know how this one got through.

In other words, this topic is about something you say you want to stay out of. So why post?

Link to comment
It seems very petty to whine so much about a game, if caching is so VERY important to you, go caching & quit bitching.

 

It doesn't really seem like bitching just because a lot of people care about geocaching and want to see caches treated consistenly. Nobody said you shouldn't donate. It just seemed like a great opportunity for our group to make a huge donation to disaster relief. I think they could raise a lot more money if it was posted on the main page with a tote board.

So I guess if you don't like reading the "bitching" you can go...geocaching.

Mike

Link to comment
The entire point is to make people think and encourage them to give where they may not otherwise give.

 

That's my take.  I'm staying out of whether or not it should of gotten approved. It's approved, get over it.

I would really like to know how this one got through.

In other words, this topic is about something you say you want to stay out of. So why post?

You just misquoted him.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Wow!! I can't believe all the pettiness in here. 150,00 people are dead. Millions more are homless and we are going to bitch that a Toys for Tots cache wasn't approved?

 

Someone else mentioned rules. There are no rules...only guidelines.

 

El Diablo

Not to sound crass, but it's ONLY 150,000. In the grand scheme of things, its a drop in the bucket. Skipping Toys For Tots, there are plenty of other worthy charities that deal with problems that kill millions of people every year, but those charities were turned down. I think most people here just want to see some semblance of consistency. Why one charity and not the other? Why one virtual and not the other?

Link to comment
Wow!! I can't believe all the pettiness in here. 150,00 people are dead. Millions more are homless and we are going to bitch that a Toys for Tots cache wasn't approved?

 

Someone else mentioned rules. There are no rules...only guidelines.

 

El Diablo

Not to sound crass, but it's ONLY 150,000. In the grand scheme of things, its a drop in the bucket. Skipping Toys For Tots, there are plenty of other worthy charities that deal with problems that kill millions of people every year, but those charities were turned down. I think most people here just want to see some semblance of consistency. Why one charity and not the other? Why one virtual and not the other?

Understand That I have no problem with charity caches. I wish they were all approved. My question is why are all the advocates for charity caches try to sabotage this one? I would think that you would be happy that one got through.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Geocachers like to give. I remember when El Diablo had a raffle for Make a Wish many people were happy to contribute. Last week when a cacher was missing from her family many geocachers were ready to drop whatever they were doing to help. I think geocachers are a great group.

The problem arises when one charity event is allowed and others equal or greater oare denied. I have already sent money to this cause but if geocaching.com had a organized money raising effort I would contribute again just to show non geocacher what a great organization we belong too.

Mike

Link to comment

Yea, here come all the responses of:

 

"If you don't like this cache, you don't even care about the disaster"...

 

Nice try to spin it, you should really try writing smear campaigns for politicians...

 

One more thing: Did it really take a cache "find" with a smiley to get those people to donate?

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment
Yea, here come all the responses of:

 

"If you don't like this cache, you don't even care about the disaster"...

 

Nice try to spin it, you should really try writing smear campaigns for politicians...

 

One more thing: Did it really take a cache "find" with a smiley to get those people to donate?

Now where did you come up with that? So far I haven't heard anything like that mentioned.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment

Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Link to comment
Respect: Respect the guidelines for forum usage, and site usage. Respect Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, yourself, fellow community members, and guests on these boards. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they deserve the same respect.

 

Personal Attacks and Flames will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad, general attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

Sorry CO. and 360.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
The entire point is to make people think and encourage them to give where they may not otherwise give.

 

That's my take.  I'm staying out of whether or not it should of gotten approved. It's approved, get over it.

I would really like to know how this one got through.

In other words, this topic is about something you say you want to stay out of. So why post?

To answer the question of why it was approved with my own speculation.

 

Since it was approved apparently TPTB agree for either the reason the cache was posted or reasons of their own.

 

The debate over whether or not it should have been approved is the part I chose not to debate over. My specialty is caches that were not approved. :angry:

Link to comment

By DANIEL YEE, Associated Press Writer

 

ATLANTA - The unprecedented American outpouring of tsunami-relief donations has some charities fearing a phenomenon they saw after Sept. 11 — a drop-off in contributions for soup kitchens, shelters, museums and other ordinary needs closer to home.

 

 

"There's no question in my mind it will be impacted — we saw what happened in 9-11," said Paul Kane, an executive with United Jewish Appeal-Federation of New York, which helps the needy across the United States and saw donations fall $2 million below projections in 2001, which contributions poured in to Sept. 11 charities.

 

U.S.-based relief agencies have received more than $200 million in donations from individuals and corporations for victims of the tsunami disaster. Some charities say it is too early to see any effect on giving to organizations not involved in the relief effort, but they have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen, at least in the short term.

 

"If people are giving more and more to disaster relief, there is obviously fewer dollars that may be otherwise committed to other charitable organizations," said Philip Coltoff, chief executive of the Children's Aid Society of New York, which relies on donations for half its $75 million budget.

Link to comment

I find some of the opinions to this cache very interesting as far as "fairness" applies.

 

Say some other charity caches were allowed to be posted or everyone with the letter 'w' in their handle was free to place as many virtuals if they wished. What would the cachers do then?

 

For one, some would take it straight to the forums and have it discussed upon like it is. Then what?

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

...I guess we could make another anger filled thread about it but thats pretty much it.

 

When you make up a game, organize the site, and start playing I guess everyone technically in the end does play by your rules/decisions or they leave the game... However, if you wanted the game to be successful you'd include input of other cac... I mean people to make them want to stay.

 

Whats your breaking point? Is "fair" even a fair word to be using here?

Link to comment

In keeping with Groundspeak’s policy of not permitting charity caches or caches that promote agendas or platforms, effective immediately, the two caches created recently for the purpose of collecting money for Tsunami/Earth quake victims have been archived.

 

Our hearts go out to the victims of this terrible tragedy. However, although we understand that these caches were created with the best of intentions; the uproar from within the community regarding these caches has reinforced our position.

 

Questions like, “Why can’t I do a cache for my charity?” or “I don't like this organization, why can’t we create a Tsunami cache for a different organization” make a couple of things clear.

 

First, we do not want to have to admit/deny caches based upon our perceived merits of the specific agenda, position, organization or charitable cause. Most opinions vary when it comes to issues like these and we have no interest in hosting the battleground or becoming an arbiter.

 

Second, this web site is about geocaching and we do not wish to see it converted to a platform for issues, whether good, bad or otherwise.

 

There are plenty of ways to donate to charity and plenty of ways to help out. We encourage you to find them and participate to the extent you believe it is right. We certainly do.

 

Now, I realize that this post and action will most likely cause another uproar. Personally, I am sorry that we did not enforce this guideline sooner. The blame for this lies solely with Groundspeak and not the volunteers. As far as this web site is concerned, we plan to do our best to keep it related to geocaching and we hope you like it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Rothstafari

Groundspeak

www.geocaching.com

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...