FlightRiskAK
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 66
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by FlightRiskAK on Aug 6, 2012 13:05:16 GMT -9
I came across this cache page GC3RTCC. It is funny but the potential fall out sucks. I didn't realize tribute caches were against the rules so I think I have a series that is in violation. I thought I would lighten things up a bit but please don't try this at home!
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Aug 6, 2012 14:28:09 GMT -9
What is it about a "tribute" cache that is against the rules? There are ton's of caches that were placed in honor of someone. I guess I can't see anything wrong with the referenced cache, nor why anyone would think it needs to be archived.
Maybe GLR can chime in on this one?
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Sept 9, 2012 19:34:40 GMT -9
Purple thongs, crazy town banana pants & a great one to envy... where does that woman FIND this stuff? It's published on the internet, so while it may not be gospel it must be reality. And... Signal the Frog has allowed it to persist to exist... despite to off-handed reference to betting on Canadian Hockey action. Truly, this one needs a hand from the Great Land man for us to understand...
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Sept 11, 2012 21:02:55 GMT -9
Maybe GLR can chime in on this one? There is nothing in the Groundspeak Guidelines that prohibits tributes caches. One will find them in just about any geocaching community. My alter ego, LBK, has been tributed in both a complementary and poked fun at sort way, but it's all been in good humor. As for the referenced cache page, neither the reviewer that published the cache, nor I, find anything about the cache page that violates the Guidelines. Heck, the aforementioned purple thong (besides, what's the big deal about purple footwear...my wife and kids call them flip-flops) wasn't even in the cache which is a whole lot better than the smiley face underwear and Slick Willie $6 bill I found here. (I'll let you all hunt up the photos.) Talk about objectionable material...
|
|
FlightRiskAK
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 66
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by FlightRiskAK on Sept 13, 2012 6:11:28 GMT -9
The cache page has had a LOT of logs deleted... Originally, just after publishing a cacher posted several "needs archived" logs with long diatribes about why she felt it need to be archived. In it she mentioned the "purple thong" not being family friendly, also that tribute caches were prohibited by groundspeak (I think she confused this with business caches), and that the cache page contained no historical reference to the location(seriously!). She posted some long orations on why these things mattered and the ensuing ruckus and "write notes" ended up being rebuttals with further arguments from her. These logs have all been deleted so my original post doesn't make much sense now but just imagine... a cacher determined to have the cache archived and posting some long notes about why and the ensuing rebuttals from the community. She apparently emailed the reviewer demanding to know why it was allowed... Sheesh! It was entertaining to an extent but I'm sure it was a nightmare for the reviewer just policing the notes and totally obnoxious to the cachers in the community.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Sept 15, 2012 12:36:11 GMT -9
Some reviewers are more tolerant than other about that kind of behavior. Dealing with snarky cachers is not in the Reviewer's job description, so once a cacher crosses the individual Reviewer's threshold for silliness/rudeness/terms of use violoations, the Reviewer refers the matter to the good folks who work in the Groundspeak Appeals department. At that point, a paid Lackey intervenes, usually with an e-mail to the offending cacher, and, if the poor behavior continues, the ultimate hammer of putting the cacher in "time out" by locking their account for a period of time.
In this particular case, the upset cacher was angry because a cache honoring a fallen soldier was not published while this tribute cache was published. Reasons for a cache not being published are many and I don't know the specifics of the unpublished cache. However, I will hazard a guess that the cache owner of the unpublished cache had content on their cache page that told people how to feel, told them to do something besides find the cache and sign the log (e.g. take a minute for reflection and give thans), presented an agenda, or had other issues that were guidelines violations.
Cachers can avoid cross threading with the guidelines by actually reading the guidelines and the accompanying Knowledge Books content, keeping the cache page factual, and letting cachers decide for themselves how they feel about something.
|
|
FlightRiskAK
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 66
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by FlightRiskAK on Sept 15, 2012 13:23:19 GMT -9
GR, that is good information to know! Personally, if a cache is not appealing to me, I just don't bother to look for it. It ends up on my ignore list which, thankfully is very short!
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Sept 16, 2012 19:07:12 GMT -9
Thanks for pointing out the usually-ignored Knowledge books and publishing guidelines once again, Greatland Reveiwer. This is an easy to play game if folks just stay inside the relatively tolerant boundaries allowed by the guidelines. Oh - and if they play nice too...
|
|