GAGB Guideline not met, cache denied?

[bobbinz]

I thought your videos were featured on the GC blog this week?

[Bear and Ragged]

I thought your videos were featured on the GC blog this week?

Groundspeak should Ban themselves for posting the same, and more, spoilers?

h34r:

[markandlynn]

vlogs were heavily promoted in the blog
Here without the spoiler warning on Sept 30th
http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/09/g...caching-media/

and here with a spoiler warning on October 7th

http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/10/g...-vlogs-part-2/

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

[Lord Boogie]

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

Why?

[markandlynn]

Why?

PM sent

[Lord Boogie]

I agree that the links in svens post should be deleted hmy: ... even though they are relevant and highlight a very worrying vendetta against him. That has also resulted in what I see as harassment by an organisation. They have an unfortunate consequence.

It may well be that we do not have ALL of the facts and facets but enough to see a worrying totalitarian attitude.

[Sven]

I do hewever believe the links in Sven's post above need to be removed

Wat?

I agree that the links in svens post should be deleted

Wat?

It may well be that we do not have ALL of the facts.

Wat?

Not sure what MarkandLynn might have told you that cannot be said publicly?. I've got nothing to hide, not sure what they have?

[markandlynn]

Wat?



Wat?



Wat?

Not sure what MarkandLynn might have told you that cannot be said publicly?. I've got nothing to hide, not sure what they have?

Identical PM sent to you as well Sven

[markandlynn]

vlogs were heavily promoted in the blog
Here without the spoiler warning on Sept 30th
http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/09/g...caching-media/

and here with a spoiler warning on October 7th

http://blog.geocaching.com/2011/10/g...-vlogs-part-2/

It appears that the link to Svens you tube account has been edited out of the blog post,
does anyone have an archive list of it ??

[Happy Humphrey]

I'm not sure, but I might have a link to one of the videos. Perhaps this is it? http://youtu.be/RjJkrd5ag3I or this: http://youtu.be/FixLh5RZ5rY or this: http://youtu.be/98_UaJbdh5E?
It's getting confusing with all those geocaching videos out there now. Perhaps a Groundspeak reviewer will know the correct account name as they seem to have been following him closely? I can only make assumptions.

[bobbinz]

Geocachespoilers is the account name. http://www.youtube.com/user/geocachespoilers

[Sven]

A reviewer Mancunian/Deci seems to be alluding to the fact that I'm hiding something.

I'm not.

Course he does it on a forum where I cannot defend myself and reply

[Happy Humphrey]

I made the point on the gc.com forum that if all we're aware of is "the tip of the iceberg" then the ban must be due to the other factors that we don't know about.

So I have to assume that the whole "geocache spoiler video" incident is pretty much irrelevant and something much bigger has taken place that we don't know about (i.e. the submerged iceberg!).

Unfortunately, Groundspeak seem happy to sit back and let us make fools of ourselves by feeding us the odd scrap of information and keeping the rest to themselves. Or so it appears.

[Sven]

I was banned on the same day I resolved all outstanding reviewer issues with my cache, the one discussed in this thread (which by the way still hasn't been authorised, the reviewer conveniently claims that Sandy - the person who banned me - also "locked" my unreviewed cache...)

Resolved all the issues, they've got nothing else to deny the cache on, so they ban me with some trumped up crap about youtube videos?

If I wear red socks whilst caching it should be no concern of groundspeaks.

If I decide to upload videos to youtube it shouldn't be neither.

[Lord Boogie]

If this were an employer employee situation there is a good case for constructive dismissal.

Under UK law there could be in breach of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 "to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress'." Not sure how that applies to companies especially overseas ones?

In any event, if what we are being told by Sven is the whole truth, and I do not have any reason to doubt that at this point, it is clear he is being stalked by representatives of a multinational company.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

If this were an employer employee situation there is a good case for constructive dismissal.

Under UK law there could be in breach of Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 "to cause someone 'harassment, alarm or distress'." Not sure how that applies to companies especially overseas ones?

In any event, if what we are being told by Sven is the whole truth, and I do not have any reason to doubt that at this point, it is clear he is being stalked by representatives of a multinational company.

When you become a Member of Groundspeak's Web Sites, you agree that the relevant laws which apply are those of Washington State USA. The TOU agreed to were written by a Lawyer, who also happens to be one of the Owners of Groundspeak.

Sven I have sent you a PM in reply to your Post, please do not quote any part of it to any other person. Without my prior permission, due to the fact I have replied to a comment you have made, the reply which is confidential.

For everyone's information the PM is not a attack, just factual comments!

Deci

[Sven]

Sven I have sent you a PM in reply to your Post, please do not quote any part of it to any other person. Without my prior permission, due to the fact I have replied to a comment you have made, the reply which is confidential.

Can I have your permission to quote it? You know, reveal this "iceberg"

[Happy Humphrey]

It sounds like it's subject to a police investigation, or at least that criminal charges may be forthcoming.

So perhaps we don't want to know what it's all about!

[Lord Boogie]

When you become a Member of Groundspeak's Web Sites, you agree that the relevant laws which apply are those of Washington State USA. The TOU agreed to were written by a Lawyer, who also happens to be one of the Owners of Groundspeak.

That doesn't frighten me! We live in the UK, have you ever read the phrase "This does not affect your statutory rights" ?. This is a clause that companies put in so not to fall foul of illegal contractual obligations in their TOU or T&C's. I guess groundspeak do not think UK law applies to them? Please point out to me where it states in the TOU that you agree to be stalked and harassed?

By your way of thinking a service you sign up to could, in a TOU, demand that you at any time submit to some sort of sexual act. Clearly this would be against the law to enforce, but you seem to think this would be OK!

Your statement just serves as a bully tactic.

[Sven]

I've been speaking at length with GS both Eric and Sandy both maintain the terms say that you're not allowed to upload spoilers without permission anywhere.

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

I read it quite differently.

Infact the paragraph preceding also states:

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (https://forums.groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize.

Although he did say the intention of the terms WAS to say that. Even if they do not now, and likely would be changed. However he also agreed that without giving a GC code how can my videos be spoilers? So he said that also needs clarifying.

On the positive Eric is a lovely gentleman, he supports what I do and thinks it's very good for the community. His parting words were he wants me "back online as soon as possible" but he's waiting for the legal eagle and owner Brian to get back off vacation, so it might take a couple of weeks.

[Happy Humphrey]

However he also agreed that without giving a GC code how can my videos be spoilers?

Good point. What's a spoiler?

In my view, a spoiler is a direct link between the geocaching.com website and a photo or video published (anywhere), where the link is intended to give away a particular geocache hide.

So if I log a cache and in the log I provide a link to a Youtube video which shows the cache retrieval then it's a spoiler. The same if there's a discussion about caches in the Groundspeak forum and I illustrate a post with a link to the Youtube video, and mention the name of the cache.

If the Youtube video isn't mentioned on a cache page, in logs or in a Groundspeak forum then I should be safe from retribution.

If I'd provided the link I couldn't claim that the giveaway was unintentional because it's obvious that I'd seen the video and therefore knew that it involved details of the cache retrieval, so providing the link was bound to turn it into a spoiler.

Where it gets more tricky is if the Youtube video is not referenced on any Groundspeak website; but I add text to the video which links it with the relevant cache listing (either by hyperlink, or GC code, or cache name and location). Is that a spoiler? I'm not sure. I don't think so, because you can search the Groundspeak web sites for all your worth and you won't find any help there. You'd have to do your research, and if you seek out spoiler information externally then perhaps you deserve to find it.

What I AM sure about is that if there's no link on gc.com to the video and the video contains no link or mention of the cache name or number then Groundspeak cannot possibly be justified in asking for its removal.

[Sven]

Video I made (not a spoiler vid) has entertained some good comments, I've introduced loads of people to the sport and put lots of money in groundspeak's pockets it seems.

How about alienating your biggest free advertisement?

Vid has only been up a few hours

#7 – Most Discussed (This Month) – Travel & Events
#1 – Most Discussed (Today) – Travel & Events
#11 – Most Discussed (Today) – Travel & Events – Global
#1 – Most Discussed (This Week) – Travel & Events
#47 – Most Discussed (This Week) – Travel & Events – Global
#19 – Top Favourited (Today) – Travel & Events
#69 – Top Favourited (This Week) – Travel & Events
#30 – Top Rated (This Month) – Travel & Events
#1 – Top Rated (Today) – Travel & Events
#22 – Top Rated (Today) – Travel & Events – Global
#4 – Top Rated (This Week) – Travel & Events

Someone also created a petition, 229 votes so far...For what it's worth

[The Gaggle]

+3 from me.

As I've said elsewhere these vids can only benefit geocaching by raising the game to new levels.

In my area there is a definite lack of imaginative hides. I recently put out some caches based on ideas gleaned (stolen/ripped off/adopted best practice) from Sven’s YouTube vids, they have been very well received and got loads of fav points.

How can that be a bad thing?

If mine made it to your channel I’d be proud and include a “as featured in........” in the description – if I’d be allowed

Cheers

[Palujia]

Fine - ignore them then ! This has become less of a debate and more of a Circus
The object of GAGB is to support and help UK cachers not act as vehicle for self advertisement and "wounded" chest beating. I do not see anywhere on this and other "like" threads anything of any help or support - or even anything other than very argumentative people who appear to be determined to drag us down into their own very limited and personal fights with this and other caching organisations - good luck to you - but please do not use GAGB as a platform for your "crusades"

[Happy Humphrey]

By officially stating that we shouldn't be discussing it here, you infer that the GAGB has deemed the discussion unnecessary, presumably because it's not seen as an issue. Or was this post simply aimed at the last posting by Sven? If so it hasn't been made clear because it also looks like it's a sharp dig aimed at anyone who has dared to post here.

Can you at least direct us to the GAGB's policy on spoilers and caching videos? The whole point is that most people are saying "fine - ignore them then" but the people with the power are warning us that they will take action against people who post what they term "spoilers", whether or not they are linked to their site. So for instance, if I was to link to one of Sven's videos in this post right here in the GAGB's own territory, I would probably have my Groundspeak account shut down.

And the reason that it seems like a "circus" is that the discussion has had to move about, due to Groundspeak wanting to close down the debate, and due to their action against one of your members. I would have been content to keep the details within the EMCache forum, but wider issues appeared which made it worth bringing to the notice of the gc.com members who might also be affected.

[Palujia]

I'm not officially stating anything - Are you the only ones allowed to have opinions ? I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !

[Sven]

when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

[The Hornet]

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

I was around when the GAGB was set up and even though at the time I did not join it I would argue that its purpose was generally what Palujia said. Since then I have been active on and off and have seen GAGB develop and change, not always necessarily in the direction I would like. But that's just me

However in this particular case I believe Sven has been badly treated and as he can no longer pursue his case on Groundspeak the GAGB forum is the logical place to go. GAGB itself has taken some flak recently for their involvement with Groundspeak so it is good to see this forum being the home of some criticism of Groundspeak. Not necessarily because I agree or disagree with the criticism, but because it shows a willingness to entertain alternative viewpoints without fear of censorship.

What concerns me about Sven's disagreement with Groundspeak is the lack of redress any regular cacher has if they are in dispute with Groundspeak or any of their employees/representatives. The oft quoted phrase is "well you can always report it to appeals@groundspeak.com". But all you are doing is appealing to the body with which you are in dispute. In normal business situations you can take your dispute to one of the many Ombudsmen or independent review bodies. Groundspeak customers do not have that sort of redress. We could really do with an independent Ofcache

Failing that, this forum has to continue to allow full expression of all points of view. It's all we have, so good on the GAGB for being our sounding board.

[Lord Boogie]

I'm not officially stating anything - Are you the only ones allowed to have opinions ? I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !

Thank you so much for your input. I fell better already :cheers:

[Lord Boogie]

If mine made it to your channel I’d be proud and include a “as featured in........” in the description – if I’d be allowed

Cheers

Probably get you banned

[Happy Humphrey]

(Committee member, as stated on post)
...
The object of GAGB is to support and help UK cachers not act as vehicle for self advertisement and "wounded" chest beating...
...but please do not use GAGB as a platform for your "crusades"
...

That looks to me like an official statement, that we shouldn't be discussing this matter here. If it's not, then perhaps you should put a Deceangi-style disclaimer on such posts to emphasise that it's not the Palujia (wearing GAGB committee hat ) speaking, just the Palujia (forum participant). And I'd advise against making commands on behalf of the GAGB if you're acting unofficially.

No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers - when all the organisation was set up to do was support cachers - if you want to hijack the organisation for your own purposes go ahead - I hope you can deal with the flak !

I don't see where I've called you such names in this thread (or anywhere, for that matter). But in the GAGB's enthusiasm to support this particular geocacher (and fellow GAGB member) it seems to have caused some confusion as to how it's actually helping. At least (I had hoped, like The Hornet) the GAGB provides an independent but influential and nationwide forum for people to air their opinions. If some opinions turn out to be unjustifiably critical of a geocaching organisation, then I'm sure that there will be posts that balance out the debate. Personally, I was interested in how Sven's ban relates to others who've posted Youtube videos of caches and where the boundary lines are / should be drawn. This is where the debate headed after getting away from the original topic.

Now, Groundspeak-forum style, is someone ready to start a nice, fluffy thread about your nicest caching day out? Perhaps with a video to illustrate the best cache you found (oops!).

I haven't seen any support Palujia, just a couple of confusingly rude messages?

edit: I'd really rather this thread didn't degenerate. Let's keep it on topic, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

Text carries no tone, I this was written with a smile.

I did contact you, nothing offensive, just an offer of help.

[Sven]

I did contact you, nothing offensive, just an offer of help.

Sorry I'm misunderstood, I meant there was no support only seemingly rude messages from Palujia.

Both yourself and DrDickandVick have been helpful, thanks. These comments baffle me though:

I have now had enough. No matter how hard we try to assist there are always going to be some people who take some sort of dislike to us - calling us "do gooders" and interferers

Not quite sure what warranted this, I see nobody and nothing in this thread...

Sorry I'm misunderstood, I meant there was no support only seemingly rude messages from Palujia.

Both yourself and DrDickandVick have been helpful, thanks. These comments baffle me though:



Not quite sure what warranted this, I see nobody and nothing in this thread...

Thanks for clarifying.

Perhaps we do need to be clear about posts that are personal opinions.

[Palujia]

As I have often stated my views are mine and not attributed to any one or any organisation. I am not intentionally "rude" - just putting things as I see them. If that offends you then so be it, I have felt offended often enough but have not said anything, but having read threads on other forums then spreading to this it has got to the point where I am seriously thinking of finding another hobby - or at least just using GS and not getting involved in futile exchanges on forums

[Happy Humphrey]

Remember - as is oft repeated - that there is geocaching and there are forums and the two things are quite separate worlds.

[Lord Boogie]

I am seriously thinking of finding another hobby - or at least just using GS and not getting involved in futile exchanges on forums

I may or may not speak for many when I say that would be a shame. It's also a shame you feel discussion is futile. I read lots of posts some comments I do not agree with, but as I do not feel strongly enough or have anything constructive to say I keep quite.

As for being rude, your posts do often come across with anger. Not a criticism just an observation.

[Lord Boogie]

I made the point on the gc.com forum that if all we're aware of is "the tip of the iceberg" then the ban must be due to the other factors that we don't know about.

So I have to assume that the whole "geocache spoiler video" incident is pretty much irrelevant and something much bigger has taken place that we don't know about (i.e. the submerged iceberg!).

Unfortunately, Groundspeak seem happy to sit back and let us make fools of ourselves by feeding us the odd scrap of information and keeping the rest to themselves. Or so it appears.

Well it seems that is all about the spoilers http://feedback.geocaching.com/forum...200f72cca14d2e

[martybartfast]

Today I've made a few responses to the thread over in the GC forum, I realise that Sven is unable to respond over there , but then again it wasn't my idea to start that thread following his ban. Anyway I don't intend to repost here what I've written, but if Sven want's to respond he has my permission to quote here anything I said overthere and I'll reply if appropriate.

[Lord Boogie]

There has been a reply from me also. I give my permission ect ect.opcorn:

[Ve8]

It seems Groundspeak have preformed a U turn regarding spoilers and will be rewriting the guidelines.

Sven has been given the OK to continue.

Details:
http://www.emcache.com/index.php?topic=1132

[Sven]

It seems Groundspeak have preformed a U turn regarding spoilers and will be rewriting the guidelines.

Sven has been given the OK to continue.

This is indeed true, and rightly so. Very glad I stuck firmly to my guns, a victory for common sense.

Although Eric did admit, bless him, he's got absolutely no idea how to ban or unban anyone....So is waiting for someone to come into the office but it will be done first thing in the morning.

CACHE ON!

[Betelgeuse]

Excellent news, common sense prevails!

[frosty68]

good news, sven. I'm new to all this, but read the threads both here and at groundspeak, and it seemed unfair that you were banned. So long as the cache owners had no objections to your videos (and were made aware out of politeness if nothing else) it's all good, and useful for someone new, like myself, to see some of the hides..it's not all tupperware