Who Is Responsible For The Content Of A Log?

[+RichardMoore]

I may have misunderstood, but I was under the impression that the content of cache logs was between the cache owner and the cacher who is writing the log. At least that’s what it says in the guidelines. With the exception of “Should be archived”, the approvers and moderators have nothing to do with the logs.

Recently, however, an approver threatened to archive an event cache if I did not change my log.

 

Here’s what happened:

The local geocaching group is having a Christmas potluck. It was suggested that during the event we collect toys to donate to a local charity, as we did at last year’s event.

When the event organizer submitted it, the approver told her that he would not approve the cache unless she removed the part about collecting for a charity. I can almost understand this. Since the cache page would have to be approved by a representative of geocaching.com, it may appear that gc.com is promoting one charity over another.

However, since a log on the cache listing is placed by an individual, and not a representative of any group or company, I did not see any problem with logging a note on the cache, as follows:

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.

 

A few days later, the approver logged this note on the cache:

If the cache page continues to be used as a solicitation for a charity, I am afraid I would have no choice but to archive the cache. I'd be grateful if folks could edit their logs accordingly.

 

In order to keep the event from being archived, I edited the content of my note. I also changed the date of the note to keep it near the approver’s note

 

Now, the guidelines state:

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

(I consider “stated requirements” to be, for example, the proof of finding a virtual cache.)

 

And, in a recent thread about logging multi-caches, Hydee posted:

It is up to the cache owner to decide what is acceptable or not acceptable on a cache they are responsible to maintain.

 

The organizer of the event did not have a problem with my note.

 

The approver did not contact me to discuss a problem with my log. Nor did he edit or delete the log on his own, as a forum moderator does with a post that they find objectionable.

 

I e-mailed Hydee four days ago, when this occurred, and have not received a response.

 

So I am presenting this in the forums to see if others feel as I do.

Was I mistaken in my opinion that the cache listing and the logs are different?

Or, was the approver overstepping his authority in demanding that my log be edited?

[CoyoteRed]

Bit of a grey area. The note you posted is not a requirement to find or log the event. I guess it could be considered off topic for the event by a bit of a stretch. It could be considered trying to circumvent the site's cache listing guidelines.

 

However, it appears to me to be little different than placing a cache near a business you own. Clearly, just skirting the commercial cache issue.

 

Maybe re-wording your note? "There will be facilities for dropping off unwrapped toys for the 'Toys for Tots' campaign. Also available is the dropping off of wrapped gifts for the local women's shelter which are marked with the appropriate age and gender." (Of course, re-word it to your liking. )

 

This would be little different--no, in fact less of a solicitation--than "we're meeting at XYZ Bar & Grill."

[+KoosKoos]

I think it may be overstepping a bit, but like CR said, just edit your log enough to get under the guidelines.

 

Somewhat OT, I don't understand why TPTB have such a problem with charity cache events or caches...I fully understand and agree with the guidelines against commercial caches, but what is so wrong about encouraging (NOT REQUIRING) charity donations as part of our activities???

 

We already promote CITO events and try to encourage cachers to be good stewards of the land that we're using for our game. What is the problem with taking that a step further and saying "here's xyz event, at this restaurant (bar, picnic site, campground), where we'll discuss caching (per the event guidelines) and if you'd like to donate cash (toys, clothes, etc.), we'll have a drop box. " There's no obligation to donate anything, but for those cachers who would like to give to whatever cause, then they can.

 

Just like there are types caches I may not want to seek, there are charities I don't want to support....so I can choose not to do so, but could attend the event if I wanted (or skip the whole thing).

 

To me, this is just one more area where Geocaching can gain positive PR..."Local caching group donates $500 to (insert your favorite charity here)". We should be promoting a positive image whenever we can in the community - not just to the parks department (though this should always be the primary target of course).

[+Mopar]

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.

[+Mopar]

To me, this is just one more area where Geocaching can gain positive PR..."Local caching group donates $500 to (insert your favorite charity here)".

Or negative PR.

Can't ya just see some local reporter publishing an article about how geocaching supports the KKK?

 

Sure, that's taking things to extremes, but we've seen time and time again that someone will always push the limits to those extremes.

[+KoosKoos]

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?

 

Agreed that this could become an issue...but who checks out each cache location to know if it's in the middle of a needle-infested crack park? Or that the cache isn't located 10' outside of a school?

 

The approvers apply the general guidelines, but cachers ultimately make the decision to a) seek the cache or just skip it and b ) report it via an SBA log if there's something wrong that the approver didn't catch or couldn't know beforehand.

 

To me, this is one of those community standard issues that cachers will keep under control for the most part.

Edited November 24, 2004 by KoosKoos

[+carleenp]

Somewhat OT, I don't understand why TPTB have such a problem with charity cache events or caches...I fully understand and agree with the guidelines against commercial caches, but what is so wrong about encouraging (NOT REQUIRING) charity donations as part of our activities???

 

As has already been stated, the problem is the appearance that a log is used to circumvent the guidelines. I don't have anything to add to that.

 

As for the charity events question, Groundspeak has decided that it does not want to be blanketly used as a platform for such things. The most practical way to avoid the appearance of supporting various charities or agendas is to say "no" to all of them unless the event gets prior permission. The guidelines address this as follows:

 

Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas may not be listed. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.

 

If someone wants to hold a caching event for charity, the best thing to do is either seek permission from Groundspeak to list it first or promote it through local forums etc and don't list it as an event. There is no reason why a local group couldn't hold a charity event. It is just that Groundspeak should not be put in the position of appearing to support certain charities through use of its listing service. So have a charity event but don't list it. Or perhaps it can be listed and treated as a general event, with any charitable activities on the side planned and discussed only in local forums and not through the use of the event page.

Edited November 24, 2004 by carleenp

[+LaPaglia]

When this event cache was first submitted it was referred to Groundspeak by the local reviewer for consideration because of the commercial aspects of the event. Groundspeak said the cache could be approved if the donation requests were handled on an off site web page and not addressed in the cache page.

 

To place the request in a note on the cache page goes against the conditions Groundspeak setup for this cache to be approved.

 

Each commercial cache is considered on its own merit and conditions. The person who sent the request to Groundspeak was given the conditions that needed to met for this event to be listed. Keystone was simply following the conditions stated by Groundspeak.

 

The conditions Groundspeak set up for this cache would be stated requirements.

Edited November 24, 2004 by Lapaglia

[+RichardMoore]

To place the request in a note on the cache page goes against the conditions Groundspeak setup for this cache to be approved.

If the note had been placed by the cache owner, I might agree.

But it was not. It was placed by me, and you will not find my name connected with organizing the event.

The cache owner has followed the requirements, the decision to log the note was mine.

Let's ignore the charity aspect of the discussion. If a log on a cache recommended a restaurant near the cache, would an approver threaten to archive the cache? That would be considered to be soliciting business, wouldn't it?

Once again...

Does an approver have the right to determine if a log, not a cache, is acceptable? Not according to the guidelines. The guidelines leave it up to the cache owner.

Edited November 24, 2004 by RichardMoore

[+mtn-man]

A couple of thing that stick out to me right away when I look at the cache page. One of them is this:

I'll be there. And I don't see the problem with what else is going on. We need to contact Groundspeak.

 

I also see a couple of modified logs, one of which is yours Richard. All it now says is "Deleted". Since we cannot see the original content it is hard to give a fair assessment of the situation regarding the logs.

 

"What else is going on" should have been discussed with Groundspeak *before* the solicitations began to appear on the cache page. Since the logs have been modified you cannot tell in what light those solicitations were painted. Any current explanation of those logs would be conjecture and one sided. (In other words, please don't try to reconstruct what was said because it is no longer fact but is now hearsay.)

 

I know you have local forums just like our GGA group does. We currently have drives going to help some local groups. We did not need a cache page to make it happen. Some money has been collected at event caches that goes toward these efforts. I would challenge anyone to find even a glimmer of this activity on any of our cache pages or in those logs for the last several months. We are doing it in our forums. That is where this solicitation activity belongs.

 

I applaud your efforts toward charitable organizations. I think you went about it in the wrong way though. After asking to have it on the cache page and then being told it doesn't belong there and then putting the solicitation in the logs does have the appearance of circumventing the guidelines. You should have emailed Hydee first, not after the fact.

[+LaPaglia]

As you stated:

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

The conditions Groundspeak placed on the cache for listing fall under and become "stated requirements" for that cache listing.

 

The reviewer did not edit your log, He asked that they be edited.

 

Since, as you stated, "<snip> you will not find my name connected with organizing the event." It is clear that you were not privy to the conditions stated for the listing of this cache. The note from the reviewer was a way to make others aware of the requirements.

Edited November 24, 2004 by Lapaglia

[+carleenp]

To place the request in a note on the cache page goes against the conditions Groundspeak setup for this cache to be approved.

If the note had been placed by the cache owner, I might agree.

But it was not. It was placed by me, and you will not find my name connected with organizing the event.

The cache owner has followed the requirements, the decision to log the note was mine.

Let's ignore the charity aspect of the discussion. If a log on a cache recommended a restaurant near the cache, would an approver threaten to archive the cache? That would be considered to be soliciting business, wouldn't it?

Once again...

Does an approver have the right to determine if a log, not a cache, is acceptable? Not according to the guidelines. The guidelines leave it up to the cache owner.

I think that right should be there when the log threatens to affect the nature of the cache. Otherwise it would be too easy for a commercial cache or event cache that solicits to be set up without that apparent from the page and then advertise it as such through the use of logs.

 

In most cases, I bet it does not come up, or as in your case comes up innocently, but the logs have to be considered or else the rule can be circumvented. I note that you said the reviewer did not actually edit your log or contact you about it to tell you to change it. Instead he or she posted a warning of sorts about the issue. That seems like a good response to me since it points out the problem without being too heavy handed over what was to all appearances an unintended consquence of the log.

Edited November 24, 2004 by carleenp

[+mtn-man]

Does an approver have the right to determine if a log, not a cache, is acceptable? Not according to the guidelines. The guidelines leave it up to the cache owner.

Actually, the answer to that is yes.

 

I have edited logs before but not for content. If someone cusses on a log I have edited it before. I have deleted logs from non-cachers that find and trash a cache and then post on the cache page about what they did to ruin the cache (I'm sure you can imagine some of what has been written).

 

My feelings regarding the actions on this cache page are above. No need to reiterate them.

[+Robespierre]

I don't see a gray area. The purpose was solicitation. That is in violation. Now, it seems real harsh when it's Toys for Tots, however, imagine the possibilities. I am sure that gc needs to be careful about what one thing leads to what other thing, but I'm also betting that there could be legal complications. COG is having a similar event, and I may get there, and I may take a toy...just 'cause I often carry things around to keep my hands busy, I guess. (The message can get out without causing the approvers to be stuck "in the middle.")

[+Gorak]

Or negative PR.

Can't ya just see some local reporter publishing an article about how geocaching supports the KKK?

Can't ya just see some local reporter publishing an article about how Geocaching.com is anti-charity and put the brakes on a toy drive? I'm sure that is not a public image that Groudspeak would like to portray. Or perhaps it is?

[+RichardMoore]

I note that you said the reviewer did not actually edit your log or contact you about it to tell you to change it. Instead he or she posted a warning of sorts about the issue. That seems like a good response to me since it points out the problem without being too heavy handed over what was to all appearances an unintended consquence of the log.

The "a warning of sorts", I took as a threat. So I do consider the approver to have been heavy-handed.

Since the approver didn't contact me about my log, and I didn't have the cache on my watch list, I didn't even know about his demand until someone complained about it on a local bulletin board. What would he have done if I hadn't edited my log because I didn't see his note?

 

Mtn-man: I had to edit my note. I couldn't take a chance on the cache being archived while I waited to see what would happen. Although I don't recall seeing any other note that mentioned a charity, if there were they would have been edited for the same reason.

On the logs that you edited as an approver, did you inform the person who wrote the log? Also, the examples that you gave were situations that would clearly have been offensive to most people, I don't believe this is the case.

[+carleenp]

I note that you said the reviewer did not actually edit your log or contact you about it to tell you to change it. Instead he or she posted a warning of sorts about the issue. That seems like a good response to me since it points out the problem without being too heavy handed over what was to all appearances an unintended consquence of the log.

The "a warning of sorts", I took as a threat. So I do consider the approver to have been heavy-handed.

Since the approver didn't contact me about my log, and I didn't have the cache on my watch list, I didn't even know about his demand until someone complained about it on a local bulletin board. What would he have done if I hadn't edited my log because I didn't see his note?

 

My guess is he would have then contacted you. Regardless, I think logs should not be used to circumvent the rules against events that solicit. When they are, the reviewers should be able to take action. Otherwise the rule becomes meaningless.

 

So in your case, I think the reviewer could have simply just edited or deleted your log besides issuing a warning of sorts. He could have even archived the page. But instead, he went a lighter route and left a note to tell others there was an issue. Since you did see the note and changed your log apparently that worked. Now you and others who read the event page know of the issue and can avoid further problems.

[+RichardMoore]

Or negative PR.

Can't ya just see some local reporter publishing an article about how geocaching supports the KKK?

Can't ya just see some local reporter publishing an article about how Geocaching.com is anti-charity and put the brakes on a toy drive? I'm sure that is not a public image that Groudspeak would like to portray. Or perhaps it is?

Actually, as I said in my opening post, I can agree with GC.com's position with a cache listing. They have other things to consider.

But I do not believe that a individual cacher's log should be included in that the official position. When I log a cache or post a note, I am giving my opinion, which does not necessarily reflect that of GC.com.

It would be the same as calling in to a radio talk show. The radio station can't be held responsible for what a caller says, with the exception of editing out the words or phrases that are considered to be objectionable to most of society (per the FCC).

[+carleenp]

It would be the same as calling in to a radio talk show. The radio station can't be held responsible for what a caller says, with the exception of editing out the words or phrases that are considered to be objectionable to most of society (per the FCC).

But the station could record the show and edit the caller's comments at will to avoid any remote chance that it might be held responsible. The caller doesn't necessarily have any sort of right to have all the comments included.

[+Robespierre]

So in your case, I think the reviewer could have simply just edited or deleted your log besides issuing a warning of sorts. He could have even archived the page. But instead, he went a lighter route and left a note to tell others there was an issue. Since you did see the note and changed your log apparently that worked. Now you and others who read the event page know of the issue and can avoid further problems.

I think you should consider one other thing. The way it was handled, and I saw it because I was checking-out the event, was a way of letting others know about the toy plans while still performing his role as mod. In other words, "Hey, everyone, bring a toy, please, I just have to say something officially." He cooperated.

[+RichardMoore]

It would be the same as calling in to a radio talk show.  The radio station can't be held responsible for what a caller says, with the exception of editing out the words or phrases that are considered to be objectionable to most of society (per the FCC).

But the station could record the show and edit the caller's comments at will to avoid any remote chance that it might be held responsible. The caller doesn't necessarily have any sort of right to have all the comments included.

Okay, let's say that the person writing the log is the caller, the cache owner is the radio station, and GC.com is the FCC.

Both the FCC and GC.com say, basically, keep it family-friendly.

But the radio station has a choice in what else to edit. Shouldn't the cache owner have that same choice?

[CoyoteRed]

When this event cache was first submitted it was referred to Groundspeak by the local reviewer for consideration because of the commercial aspects of the event. Groundspeak said the cache could be approved if the donation requests were handled on an off site web page and not addressed in the cache page.

As I see it, they provided an out right there.

 

All of the ISPs that I know of give you a bit of free webspace. It would be near nothing for an off site page be set up. You can have your event and solicit for the toys.

 

Seems perfectly acceptable to me.

[+Mopar]

It would be the same as calling in to a radio talk show. The radio station can't be held responsible for what a caller says, with the exception of editing out the words or phrases that are considered to be objectionable to most of society (per the FCC).

Actually, since most radio stations (at least here in the USA) are private companies, this is a pretty good analogy. Do you really think a call in talk show lets anyone who calls say whatever they feel like as long as it's not against the law? No way! First, they have call screeners who interview you first, so they only put on the ones that they think will say what they want. Then, if you convince them you're gonna say what they want to hear and get on the air, there is a long enough delay between you and the transmitter that they can and will dump you as soon as you stray from their agenda.

[+RichardMoore]

So in your case, I think the reviewer could have simply just edited or deleted your log besides issuing a warning of sorts. He could have even archived the page. But instead, he went a lighter route and left a note to tell others there was an issue. Since you did see the note and changed your log apparently that worked. Now you and others who read the event page know of the issue and can avoid further problems.

I think you should consider one other thing. The way it was handled, and I saw it because I was checking-out the event, was a way of letting others know about the toy plans while still performing his role as mod. In other words, "Hey, everyone, bring a toy, please, I just have to say something officially." He cooperated.

But the approver didn't mention bringing toys. All that he said was:

"If the cache page continues to be used as a solicitation for a charity, I am afraid I would have no choice but to archive the cache. I'd be grateful if folks could edit their logs accordingly."

[+mtn-man]

On the logs that you edited as an approver, did you inform the person who wrote the log? Also, the examples that you gave were situations that would clearly have been offensive to most people, I don't believe this is the case.

Yes, I do write to the cachers regarding the cuss words. I let them know about the family friendly aspects of our site. I always get a nice "oops" reply back with an apology. As it relates to the cache trashers, they usually get banned since their intent is malicious anyway. I don't write them, I write the contact address for action.

 

I still think this should have been handled in your yahoo group. Maybe one log on the cache page would have been OK. It looks like there were at least three.

 

Do this. Turn this into a positive thing. Bring it up in your discussion group. Focus on the positive and not the negative. NeoGeo is a great organization. You folks can still make it happen.

[+RichardMoore]

Yes, I do write to the cachers regarding the cuss words. I let them know about the family friendly aspects of our site. I always get a nice "oops" reply back with an apology. As it relates to the cache trashers, they usually get banned since their intent is malicious anyway. I don't write them, I write the contact address for action.

 

I still think this should have been handled in your yahoo group. Maybe one log on the cache page would have been OK. It looks like there were at least three.

 

Do this. Turn this into a positive thing. Bring it up in your discussion group. Focus on the positive and not the negative. NeoGeo is a great organization. You folks can still make it happen.

This is one reason that I waited for four days before starting the thread. I was giving the approver a chance to contact me.

 

Oh, and the donation to charity is going to happen.

Once again, placing the note was my idea, my choice and my responsibility. Although the charity has been mentioned in the NEOGeo posts, I know of several cachers who don't get the messages, and not all of the cachers in the area belong to NEOGeo. My logging a note was an attempt to get the word out to a larger audience.

[Keystone]

I received an e-mail from the "NeoGeo" account, stating that Richard Moore's log had been edited as requested. I know Richard Moore to be an active member of the NeoGeo group. Thus, with that piece of correspondence, I regarded the matter as resolved, and felt no need to write to him.

 

In posting to the cache page, I did so with the knowledge that utilizing a note or notes -- the date for which would be "bumped" up to the top of the cache page -- was discussed as an option in at least one Ohio Geocaching group forum after the event sponsor expressed regret about the appeal being turned down by Groundspeak. Several people took part in those discussions, including the event organizer. There are additional facts that have not come to light in this thread.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

This thread made me curious . . . What about charity caches like this one of mine or this one where the cache owner is offering to make the charitable donation? If requiring or even encouraging charitable donations is discouraged, then are cache owners who offer to make donations based on cache visits also running afoul of guidelines?

Edited November 24, 2004 by WascoZooKeeper

[+Runaround]

Using the same guidelines that were applied here, wouldn't a CITO event that was held for a privately funded nature preserve or a not-for-profit park district also be illegal? The organization is receiving a donation of time and services that has a financial value. Unlike the toys, which were purely voluntary, the donation of time at a CITO would be mandatory in order to get a smiley.

[+RichardMoore]

In posting to the cache page, I did so with the knowledge that utilizing a note or notes -- the date for which would be "bumped" up to the top of the cache page -- was discussed as an option in at least one Ohio Geocaching group forum after the event sponsor expressed regret about the appeal being turned down by Groundspeak. Several people took part in those discussions, including the event organizer. There are additional facts that have not come to light in this thread.

The note was placed within a few minutes of the discussion between myself and one other person. This was not something that was discussed in meetings between several people.

Once again, it was my idea, and my decision to post the note. No one else is responsible for that decision.

I chose to log the note because of my belief, and I still believe this, that the logs are not part of the cache page, and therefore should not have to follow the same guidelines as the cache page. The cache page is reviewed and approved by a representative of GC.com, and thus represents GC.com. The logs are not, they express the view of one individual. Approvers should react to logs only in extraordinary circumstances, which this was not.

 

And thank you for indicating that my log was the only one that mentioned the charity, and was edited because of it. Mtn-man was concerned about that.

[+Sputnik 57]

Does Cleveland have a local org with a web site? Most local events around here are posted not only on Groundspeak's site as an event, but also in the local forums for TXGA. The local forum posts could invite people to bring toys, etc.

[Keystone]

Using the same guidelines that were applied here, wouldn't a CITO event that was held for a privately funded nature preserve or a not-for-profit park district also be illegal?  The organization is receiving a donation of time and services that has a financial value.  Unlike the toys, which were purely voluntary, the donation of time at a CITO would be mandatory in order to get a smiley.

 

No, because CITO is the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause." As has been noted previously, it is an exception to the "no charitable solicitations" rule. The site owners have chosen to endorse this cause. I hope that clarifies this issue for you.

 

Does Cleveland have a local org with a web site? Most local events around here are posted not only on Groundspeak's site as an event, but also in the local forums for TXGA. The local forum posts could invite people to bring toys, etc.

 

Yes indeed they do, as does Central Ohio and Northwest PA. The event ought to draw from all three organizations' territories, and I hope it's a big success and everyone has a nice holiday potluck. In fact, the event has been publicized in all three of these groups' forums, INCLUDING the toy donation angle. I recommended that approach when I first questioned the cache prior to its being listed. There is no problem with handling the charity portion offsite.

[+Milbank]

 

Maybe re-wording your note? "There will be facilities for dropping off unwrapped toys for the 'Toys for Tots' campaign. Also available is the dropping off of wrapped gifts for the local women's shelter which are marked with the appropriate age and gender." (Of course, re-word it to your liking. )

 

Are you by chance a attorney?

 

It does seem to be a gray area.

But being it's not our website what can we do about it?

[+Runaround]

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.

[+Runaround]

Looked a little further. There are also upcoming event caches in Alabama and New Jersey that were allowed to mention Toys for Tots.

[+Runaround]

Doh. How did I miss this cache as well.

 

And while this event doesn't mention toys, there is a collection for a food bank.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Runaround

[+RichardMoore]

I was prepared to close this topic this morning, under my personal "let it run for 24 hours" rule.

But in light of the information in Runaround's posts, I decided to leave it open for awhile longer.

 

It appears as though an approver threatened to archive a cache because I "attempted to circumvent" the requirements that I was unaware of and that were unequally applied to the cache.

 

Although the original topic of this thread was control of the log content, several posters have focused on the charity aspect. I am willing to let the discussion continue along those lines.

I request that the moderators not close this thread for being "off-topic".

[+Cool Librarian]

Bah humbug.

I get it, shouldn't have tried to circumnavigate the page content with the logs.

I get it, no solicitation.

I get it, slippery slope...

 

Richard, I hope gobs of people show up, and that gobs of kids are happier Christmas/Chanukah/Kwanza/WHATEVER morning because of the generosity of the attendees.

 

And, I really do understand, I really do get IT, I just don't like IT.

 

Happy Holidays to EVERYONE!

 

-CL

[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!!!

[the federation]

Since it seems our Cache Page was out of line with posted GC.Com Guidleines we have modified the page appropiately. We will still be holding a Toys for Tots event since we feel strongly about being involved in our communites as well as our Parks but we will list that information on our web site.

[+Evil Chicken]

Looked a little further.  There are also upcoming event caches in <snip> New Jersey that were allowed to mention Toys for Tots.

As the listing was unintentionally out of line with posted GC.com guidelines, we were made aware of the problem by NJAdmin this morning and the cache page was edited appropriately.

 

We, like NEFGA, will still collect the toys "since we feel strongly about being involved in our communities as well as our parks..." and have made our members aware that they should not mention the toy donations in their notes on the cache page from this point on. We will continue to promote it on our website and hope that all of the geo-organizations who are collecting toys have a successful campaign.

[+paintfiction]

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!)

[Keystone]

If I used my judgment and allowed Toys for Tots solicitations on cache pages, then we'd have forum threads on all the other fine charities who are "excluded." Take your pick... those of you who will argue in any event will be happy either way.

 

In the past month I've also turned down or required modification of a cache promoting breast cancer research and a cache at a local blood bank. The blood bank and the Toys for Tots issues both were appealed to Groundspeak. In each case, Groundspeak said "no." That tells me that (1) I am properly doing the job they asked me to do, and (2) that there is no room for judgment on my part... only on Groundspeak's part, because it is their site and they have not authorized me to pick and choose charities on their behalf. I happen to think all three of these are nice causes... but someone else might disagree. My favorite charity is the Boy Scouts, but I *know* people disagree with that organization's goals. So, I don't set up cache pages that promote them.

 

As is stated in the listing guidelines, Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity... not a platform for an agenda. If the paragraph about commercial caches and caches that solicit were not in the guidelines, imagine what your search results would look like.

[+Gorak]

No, because CITO is the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause."  As has been noted previously, it is an exception to the "no charitable solicitations" rule.  The site owners have chosen to endorse this cause.  I hope that clarifies this issue for you.

Has it occured to anyone that the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause" is not even a real registered charity?

 

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.

[+Runaround]

Has it occured to anyone that the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause" is not even a real registered charity?

I had the same thought. CITO is an activity, not a charity. The beneficiary of that activity could be a for-profit nature center/preserve.

 

My apologies to the other cache owners who were ordered to change their events. That wasn't my intent. I tried to point out Groundspeaks inconsistancies and promote more discussion. Instead, the Borg approach was used. I've gained a new appreciation for some of the people that I thought were forum "cranks" always griping about the rules.

[+New England n00b]

No, because CITO is the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause."  As has been noted previously, it is an exception to the "no charitable solicitations" rule.  The site owners have chosen to endorse this cause.  I hope that clarifies this issue for you.

Has it occured to anyone that the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause" is not even a real registered charity?

 

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.

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?

 

Has it occured to you that the official Groundspeak-endorsed "charitable cause" is not even a real registered charity? And that Keystone put it in quotes for a reason? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

 

 

(innocent bystanders - 'twas sarcasm. My apologies if offense taken - none intended. Well, to you anyway...)

[+Gorak]

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?

[madratdan]

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.

[+Gorak]

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 suppose you could characterize the US Marines as a militant group although I think military group would be more accurate.

[the federation]

Rest assured I was not ordered, threatened or contacted by GC.Com to change our Cache page. When I read this thread and saw that others felt that we were in violation of the Guidelines I "voluntarily" changed my cache event page. I just didn't want anyone to think that we were told to change our event or were pressured in any way.

 

I have never knowingly tried to circumvent the listing guidelines associted with GC.Com nor did I see this as being outside those boundaries. As soon as I realized that GC.Com had a different opinion in regards to this event I changed the Cache page to meet the guidelines.