Geocacher banned on unfair terms (IMO anyway)

[noikmeister]

Here is my take on it, for what it is worth, and a point that hasn't been made so far.

Firstly I think them changing the TOU to react to situation retroactively is bull***t. Not the right way to approach it if it is true.

I've watched one of the guy's videos before this and it appeared to be presented in a way that celebrated the hide and the hider and wasn't presented as a resource to degrade the difficulty of a cache.

Now if the guy received a polite request from a CO to take down a spoiler and didn't then he is a douche. But it also could be the case that he was abused by a CO straight off the bat and may have taken offence. None of us know what the circumstances were and judging the situation in the absence of facts is bad, 'mkay?

So now onto my point. Even if people were able to work out what cache it was for and short-circuit the wonder and satisfaction of finding a novel cache, then they are only spoiling it for themselves and not anyone else. If it were for one of my caches I think I would be flattered that he thought it was good enough to make a special mention. I think the majority of cachers would attempt NOT to be spoiled,

Banning someone from something on the Internet?!?! Seriously? What a joke.

[budgietas]

Firstly, let me note that this is in no way having a shot at any local reviewer or umpire. I believe the ump and co do an excellent job reviewing and protecting us (from ourselves at times).

It seems this issue has blown way out of control, and has the potential to get more out of control. From what I have read it seems to be badly handled, The first step in managing a problem like this is to firstly prevent the problem from spreading. There actions have certainly not acheived this.

Given that this has happened, groundspeak should be looking to fix this issue quickly and get back to serving the geocaching community. At the end of the day if groundspeak fail to serve the community they will lose "market share" to the growing number of other sites that are developing to serve the community.

It's like the Nano Rant's, Puzzle Compliants, and other things that people complain about. To Each there Own. Live and Let live. If somebody hides a Nano, and you don't like Nano's then ignore it, etc....

If somebody wants to trawl the internet to find the key to a certain hide, the good on them. I know I have looked at youtube geocaching video's about hides, searching for ideas for a hide that would be unique to my local area.

I commend the idea of sharing great hides so we can learn and improve our own hides

[caughtatwork]

Sharing should only be done by those who own the cache. That's why he's a dick.

[MtnLioness]

Sharing should only be done by those who own the cache. That's why he's a dick.

I agree....
If someone videoed a cache of mine without first asking me I would feel a mixture of feeling honoured and special but at the same time, feeling like I have been jipped, used even.
Because he has not asked permission, or at least published that he asked for permission, he is a douche.

[lemmykc]

This is a comment on the video.

This is an awesome channel. Sadly, the website you are referring to is getting too big for their own britches. Their lackeys are arrogant. I've found the forums to be snarky. They have competition now and maybe it is time for a mass exodus. I get the feeling many people hang in there just "for the numbers" . I really don't know if I will renew my premium membership and circumstances such as this just push me more to the "No Way" side. Your videos have inspired me. Thank you so much!

[Big Matt and Shell]

Can anyone else see the irony in this thread?

Nope. Couldn't spot it. I've checked for hidden text, converted text to numbers, performed a frequency analysis on the text looking for encryption or steganography, and checked the EXIF tags on the images. It's well hidden - what's the difficulty rating on this puzzle?

Not so well hidden really. One of those things that is right in front of you that you probably just never think of.

We have a thread relating to a person being “persecuted” because they either did or didn’t breach the TOU. What I’m referring to is that the person who raised the thread is in breach of the TOU themselves. (from the information I can see anyway)

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

From lemmykc’s profile,

Age: 13
Occupation: Student

Imagine how many cachers that would affect?

[caughtatwork]

Grandfathered in.
http://web.archive.org/web/201106040732 ... ofuse.aspx

As of 4-Jun-2011, the age restriction was 13.
They cannot change the rules arbitrarily, especially if they are accepting money from people.

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 13 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

[FarmerFrentzen]

Grandfathered in.
http://web.archive.org/web/201106040732 ... ofuse.aspx

A little off topic I know but........."The Wayback Machine".......What an interesting page website this is. I had no idea that records were kept like this!

[Big Matt and Shell]

Grandfathered in.
http://web.archive.org/web/201106040732 ... ofuse.aspx

As of 4-Jun-2011, the age restriction was 13.
They cannot change the rules arbitrarily, especially if they are accepting money from people.

By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 13 years of age or older. If we believe that you are under 13 years of age, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning.

I'm sure that is a relief for some people!

Cool website too.

[Laighside Legends]

Just curious...
Does GCA have a TOU? If so where is it? - I can't find it...

[caughtatwork]

Nope. We act arbitrarily depending on mood and time of day (and you're off topic).

[winterdragon]

Nope. We act arbitrarily depending on mood and time of day (and you're off topic).

At least you're consistent in your arbitrariness. And we're still off topic.

[belken]

A quote from a Groundspeak Lackey

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:


Quote

You agree not to:
(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.



(Change is highlighted in green)

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

Edited to dd the green.

[noikmeister]

A quote from a Groundspeak Lackey

In the coming days we will announce a change to the Terms of Use, Section 4 paragraph (m) which states:


Quote

You agree not to:
(m) Publish, on any Groundspeak owned web property, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.



(Change is highlighted in green)

We feel this change is necessary in light of the fact that it is simply not possible to police the internet as a whole for spoilers, and to attempt to do so would have the unintended consequence of occasionally stifling creativity and innovation.

Groundspeak will no longer pursue complaints of spoilers outside of properties under our direct control. We can and will, however, ensure that Geocaching.com and the forums remain spoiler-free to guarantee a challenging experience and to protect the hard work made by cache placers. Elsewhere we urge everyone to operate with consideration for their fellow cacher's feelings and to resolve issues privately and in a cooperative, respectful manner.

I hasten to add that past interventions of this nature were undertaken with a genuine spirit of cooperation and service to the community, however misguided the policy ultimately turned out to be on the whole. We believe our strength is in our willingness to admit when we got it wrong, and in taking steps to right the wrong. We're a work in progress just like geocaching itself.

KBLAST, if you would like clarification on how this change affects your specific situation please re-open your support ticket and someone from the team will help you directly.

Edited to dd the green.

Bravo!

[toy hunters]

Just an update that I found this afternoon!

The geocacher has now acually been "unbanned" from Geocaching.com. Here is my proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYTPf-VnSnA