Totally agree.Cheesy pigs wrote: I'm getting tired of the "I hate nanos, and easy caches hidden under a tree" mentality. When did we start becoming exclusive, rather than inclusive?
Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
-
- 10000 or more caches found
- Posts: 578
- Joined: 25 January 10 9:35 pm
- Location: Lenah Valley
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
-
- Posts: 128
- Joined: 12 October 10 12:05 pm
- Location: Margate
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
I remember reading about this guy on GC's forums several weeks ago. My understanding was that he ignored a request from GC to remove his videos - they did warn him before banning so in that case I think he deserves what he got. IMHO
- Papa Bear_Left
- 800 or more hollow logs searched
- Posts: 2573
- Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
- Location: Kalamunda, WA
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
I suspect that he's achieved what he wanted. He used to be a nobody, now he's being mentioned in forums in Australia!
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
I voted no. Mainly on a principal. I don't think that Groundspeak should go any where near this and they have made a mistake.
The history of that clause is also suss. As has been pointed out the cacher in question has been putting up videos for months. The clause has only been in effect a short time due to complaints from cachers specifically regarding these videos. A change in a TOU is now used to force this specific cacher to drop a couple of videos.
Cache owners cannot and never will control the information distribution on the ineternet and nor should they try. Especially in terms like "in any media". Does that mean an e-mail clue as well.
I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
Spoilers exist they are out there and can be found by anyone willing to look. The introduction of this clause in the TOU and the subsequent banning will not change that. We can all cheer that one person has got their comeuppance but really, what has been achieved.
Edited to add. The TOU were updated 07/04/2011. That's 7th April.
The history of that clause is also suss. As has been pointed out the cacher in question has been putting up videos for months. The clause has only been in effect a short time due to complaints from cachers specifically regarding these videos. A change in a TOU is now used to force this specific cacher to drop a couple of videos.
Cache owners cannot and never will control the information distribution on the ineternet and nor should they try. Especially in terms like "in any media". Does that mean an e-mail clue as well.
I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
Spoilers exist they are out there and can be found by anyone willing to look. The introduction of this clause in the TOU and the subsequent banning will not change that. We can all cheer that one person has got their comeuppance but really, what has been achieved.
Edited to add. The TOU were updated 07/04/2011. That's 7th April.
- MtnLioness
- 2800 or more caches found
- Posts: 875
- Joined: 12 May 09 5:50 pm
- Location: Seaton, Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
I don't think there is ALWAYS a problem with caches in bushes, some are good. My person problem with them are if they are just plain crap, like for instance when there is simply no other reason you are rummaging through a random bush in the middle of a strange rather unparticular spot other than the fact that there is a container, or worse still, an eclipse tin in there.Cheesy pigs wrote:As an aside, when did it become the general consensus that a box hidden in the bush under a handful of twigs was an unworthy cache? I have seen this comment on a few threads here and don't understand the mentality behind it to be honest. Some cachers are incapable of solving the difficulty 5 cryptograms or identifying the fake street sign or whatever.
I'm getting tired of the "I hate nanos, and easy caches hidden under a tree" mentality. When did we start becoming exclusive, rather than inclusive?
But I think exciting curious containers are MUCH more appealing than the aforementioned style of hide.
I think this fellow should perhaps give in the videos, he is getting other peoples glory and bathing in it. He hasn't asked for permission and the actual owners aren't getting any of that glory either, so the only reason he is getting this severe action against him is because of his poor form!
-
- 10000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: 05 October 10 10:20 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
How did groundspeak link "geocachespoilers" with "Sven."?
Couldn't he create another account and continue?
Couldn't he create another account and continue?
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
Which app is this belken? The groundspeak app needs you to be logged-in to use and premium member caches don't exist as far as it is concern if you aren't one.belken wrote:
I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
I thought others using the API had to have the same kind of restrictions.
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
Sorry it was a product preloaded with caches that first caught my eye. Can't remember the name. But it did have an update kit that preloaded Australian caches. I think the number was up to 250,000. I was trying to find some of my old posts on the other forum as I was going to find out if turning my caches to PM only protected them only to find out that it did not.Damo. wrote:Which app is this belken? The groundspeak app needs you to be logged-in to use and premium member caches don't exist as far as it is concern if you aren't one.belken wrote:
I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
I thought others using the API had to have the same kind of restrictions.
I am sure in that discussion the people were saying an app loaded pm caches. There was also a trial version that gave you your nearest caches without the need for membership.
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
It might have been the Premium member 30 day free trial. This allowed members to sign up and load up all the pms for nothing making it virtually meaningless again.belken wrote:Sorry it was a product preloaded with caches that first caught my eye. Can't remember the name. But it did have an update kit that preloaded Australian caches. I think the number was up to 250,000. I was trying to find some of my old posts on the other forum as I was going to find out if turning my caches to PM only protected them only to find out that it did not.Damo. wrote:Which app is this belken? The groundspeak app needs you to be logged-in to use and premium member caches don't exist as far as it is concern if you aren't one.belken wrote:
I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
I thought others using the API had to have the same kind of restrictions.
I am sure in that discussion the people were saying an app loaded pm caches. There was also a trial version that gave you your nearest caches without the need for membership.
- Big Matt and Shell
- 6500 or more caches found
- Posts: 1905
- Joined: 11 February 07 9:53 pm
- Twitter: BigMattandShell
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
You really were though, we all agree to the TOU bfore we can get our caching login. In the TOU it covers the following.belken wrote:I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
3. License to Use Site; Restrictions
Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.
Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice."
This covers most of the examples given. I think the one thing this has shown is how few people read all the little boxes before they hit submit.
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17015
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
The only thing about what BelKen says that annoys me, is that they add "freebies" over time.
When I signed up there were no free premium membership trials. There was no GeoMate Jr. So when I signed up I believed that what they were doing with my data was OK.
I was comfortable with what they were doing when I signed up, but it appears my sign up also allowed them to do other things with my data which were not in existence at the time.
Adding more and more to the list of where they distribute my cache data annoyed me to the point where I stopped listing on that cache site.
This is only slightly off topic in that they change the TOU and we have little choice but to accept it or move to another listing site. The hoohaa over the OP was in existence prior to the new TOU, but they have taken action on items which existed prior to the TOU.
That's like creating a law that says driving over 0.0 is now against the law and if we sprung you with something over 0.0 in the past you will now suffer the consequence. Not exactly what I call fair.
I still believe the guy is a knob for doing what he does, but the fairness test has not been passed IMHO.
When I signed up there were no free premium membership trials. There was no GeoMate Jr. So when I signed up I believed that what they were doing with my data was OK.
I was comfortable with what they were doing when I signed up, but it appears my sign up also allowed them to do other things with my data which were not in existence at the time.
Adding more and more to the list of where they distribute my cache data annoyed me to the point where I stopped listing on that cache site.
This is only slightly off topic in that they change the TOU and we have little choice but to accept it or move to another listing site. The hoohaa over the OP was in existence prior to the new TOU, but they have taken action on items which existed prior to the TOU.
That's like creating a law that says driving over 0.0 is now against the law and if we sprung you with something over 0.0 in the past you will now suffer the consequence. Not exactly what I call fair.
I still believe the guy is a knob for doing what he does, but the fairness test has not been passed IMHO.
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
Yes they have covered themselves in legalese. Most of the stuff that concern me didn't exist when I hit the submit button as you say. As a matter of fact you didn't exist when I hit that button.Big Matt and Shell wrote:You really were though, we all agree to the TOU bfore we can get our caching login. In the TOU it covers the following.belken wrote:I was never asked in advance by Groundspeak whether I wanted the co-ordinates to my caches given freely to anyone downloading an app onto their phone(No membership required). This included Premium members caches.
3. License to Use Site; Restrictions
Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.
Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice."
This covers most of the examples given. I think the one thing this has shown is how few people read all the little boxes before they hit submit.
As I have said previously I know exactly what I sign up for when I use the Grounspeak site. They haven't written in the TOU that I have to like it. I haven't seen yet where I signed a non criticizing clause.
I might not have made myself clear in my first post. I don't care that Sven was banned. I just think cache owners who like/wanted this clause and Groundspeak have stepped well over the line.
Sven had a youtube channel called geocachespoilers. If you decided to watch any of his videos why would anyone be suprised they may give spoilers. There are bigger and more anonymous areas where spoiler information is traded. I don't know of any here but you can find the final locations to a fair few puzzles and multis in Europe.
-
- 1350 or more caches found
- Posts: 591
- Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
- Twitter: derfuzzel
- Location: Melbourne, VIC
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
Reread the paragraph and the answer to that question will reveal itselfPesky! wrote:Any form of media? My notebook in my cache bag would get me bannd if it fell into someones hands who knew what it was!
Yes. In your TOU you did sign up for alien abduction and scientific experiemnts. Everybody else's version of the TOU doesn't include that.Pesky! wrote:Do the TOU include giving up the right to Not have scientifc experiments performed on you?
Like in the Southpark centerpede episode?
scnr
- Devar
- 900 answers to the unknown mysteries of life
- Posts: 346
- Joined: 03 October 03 6:08 am
- Twitter: Devar
- Location: Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)
I fail to see how terms & conditions can apply to the entire internet. They just can't. Geocaching.com are not the internet police. He should not have been banned.