Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jomarac5

  1. The crux of this discussion is to determine what is acceptable behaviour of approvers. Let's look at that. The first thing that I see is that the approver is a front-line embassador for this site -- and as such his/her conduct must reflect the moral and ethical sense of fair play that the administration of this site see fit (hopefully those standards are high). To establish what those elements of fair play are, requires looking at a number of different scenarios -- some of which have recently been brought into the limelight. Discussions about FTFs, the 10th Mile rule, contacting other cachers politely, usernames being in the open, approvers approving thier own caches, and other concerns -- all play an important role because these are areas where abuse is taking place or abuse is facilitated because of them. I think the question that the administrators of this site need to ask themselves is "How do we want to be represented and what controls do we need to ensure that we are represented that way?" The rest of us need to discuss the areas where abuse is happening and methods of how it can be controlled and eliminated. Hopefully from this, the administrators can use some of the ideas to set up some guidelines. ***** Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.
  2. quote: Hydee wrote:The Volunteers for Groundspeak are doing an excellent job. We are proud of the job they do on a daily basis! The intent of this topic is to address concerns which have been voiced by a vocal minority of this community. This is an attempt to solicit feedback from the community and not, in any way, an indictment of the approvers. This is a time for you to voice your suggestions. If the community would like the topic to remain open for a community discussion then lets move it back in a proper direction. If not, it will be closed. No one is saying that the majority of the volunteers at Groundspeak are not doing a good job. We all know that the majority of them are and you should be proud of those approvers and admins. Whether the problems has been voiced by a minority or not does not have a place here -- a problem has been identified and it needs to be corrected. No one here appears to be indicting any approvers -- have any approvers or incidents been brought up here? No. In the end, I think it's obvious that we all just want to see fairness prevail. It is going in a proper direction now -- all aspects of creating a set of guidelines are being explored. I don't know why you think it necessary to threaten with closing this thread when the discussion is on topic. ***** Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.
  3. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:I think a day might be a little short (depends on the area). But otherwise I'm in agreement. Approvers are doing their job as volunteers. Why should they be penalized for it? They're not being penalized, they're being courteous by allowing newcomers to experience a First to Find. Consider that approvers are selected because they are experienced cachers -- which would probably indicate that they have already found a few First to Finds. As representatives of the site, they *should* step back and let someone have the experience of finding the cache first. Is that really too much to ask for? Sure would build a lot of respect for those approvers, wouldn't it? -- what with them being sensitive to newcomers and all. ***** Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.
  4. quote: Team Misguided wrote:Let's not get the cart before the horse. It's not. In order to implement, or even design a rule of any kind, there must be a way to make it accountable. There's no point in creating a rule if it is unenforcable. The rules and accountablity go hand in hand. ***** Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.
  5. quote: CO Admin wrote:you may comment all you like. You need to read that paragraph again. Our posts have not been about specific approvers or specific actions. They are about the question that has been asked and yet they are being censored. ***** Frogs taste like chicken, but fish is better for you.
  6. How can we possibly discuss something if we're not allowed to discuss all aspects that pertain to it? It seems that any post that has anything to do with accountablity is being deleted from this discussion. What's the point of guidelines if there is no accountablity? Unless this post is addressed instead of being deleted, this discussion is obviously a foregone conclusion -- and then it's not really a discussion, is it? Speaks volumes about the importance of integrity -- which IS what this discussion is about. *****
  7. quote: septi1c_tank wrote (in regard to approvers not logging FTFs:But in anonymity, they can anyway. (It has happened on one of my caches.) Besides, who cares? I care. In most cases I go out of my way to leave FTFs for those who are new to the activity. If a cache hasn't been picked up after 5 or 6 days of being listed -- then I might go and pick up an FTF. But generally I'll leave the FTF for someone new to the game. I've found a number of FTFs and it's no big deal anymore. I mean come on, after you've found say, 539 hides, it can't really be all that important to have yet another FTF, can it? But how to enforce this ruling? Easy. No more hidden approvers. Let them be recognized by the community for their position. They can be recognized separately from their cache logging identity (mtn-man) by having a second identity for approving with an easily identifiable username -- something like "mtn-man - approver". This way they can still keep their id's separate but not hidden. If they are fair and reasonable, I expect they will garner additional respect from their community, if they are not fair and reasonable, then they shouldn't be an approver. So two rules: 1. Approvers can not log First to Finds until a specified time has passed since the cache was posted. 2. Approvers must acknowledge to the community who they are. ***** edit: added "until a specified time..." [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on October 21, 2003 at 03:31 PM.]
  8. quote: Jeremy wrote:As far as I've looked within our extensive database of previous emails, we have received no complaints for Cache Advance and his/her reviewing exploits. This is not exclusively about the 'virtual' approver, Cache-Advance. It is about the person that is behind the name. I've had discussions about this issue with Hydee on the telephone as I'm sure you've been told, I doubt that this is as new to you as you make it out to be. You've also seen previous threads that even included e-mail quotes regarding this issue -- but you swept it away then as you are attempting to do now. We have a problem in our neighbourhood that involves a representative of this website -- are you going to do something about it or not? If so, what then? *****
  9. quote: Jeremy wrote:(who I've met personally and find to be a great guy) Lift carpet. Move broom. *****
  10. quote: Corp of Discovery wrote:Hope you do know I was just funnin with ya... No problem. I do have a sense of humor (see the pic on my profile page). *****
  11. quote: Corp of Discovery wrote (apparently because he could):things that make you go hmmmmmm...... And I did it just because *I* could. *****
  12. Seems that I can't vote for past approvers. In that case, I'd like to vote for Canadian approver Cache-Advance as my favourite. *****
  13. quote: CYBret wrote: I have to ask...why are we not hearing from other cachers in your area about this? Maybe because they are not online at the moment? It was being discussed by another cacher in this thread. Doesn't seem to be much point in discussing it any further here though as there is a complete lack of respect for the topic. Even by moderators and Admins. Guess we'll just let things fester some more... *****
  14. I guess this is the reason that nothing ever gets resolved in these forums. No one directly answers a question and if there's anything that NEEDS to be dealt with it's minimalized. Pretty mature Way to go people. You've sunk to an all new low. *****
  15. quote: BrianSnat wrote:Is he stealing and moving cache contents? Not that I'm aware of. But his caches have been going missing and he's falsely blaming some locals for it. *****
  16. quote: Keystone Approver wrote:El Diablo, I appreciate your generous offer. Perhaps instead of a vote, you might consider a writing contest? The approver who describes the most creative use for a hiking staff wins one. I have some thoughts. Now there's some good moderating. What do the forum guidelines have to say about this? *****
  17. It's quite something to see the way that serious problems are dealt with here. And we wonder why there are so many who are unsatisfied. Sheesh. *****
  18. quote: sranddboggny.us wrote:HEY! good for you dude. you realized its a game! now stop posting this cry baby crap in the forums and go out and enoy some geocaching while you enjoy the great outdoors and remember, ITS A G A M E! It's a game that is being ruined in my neighbourhood by a local cacher/approver. Perhaps if you knew what was going on, you wouldn't be so smug. Cry baby crap? Sounds like that's what you're doing instead of listening to what is going on here. As I mentioned, nothing surprises me anymore. *****
  19. Nothing surprises me anymore. Especially when it comes to the way this game is managed. *****
  20. quote: Jeremy wrote:Who is Jomarac5 ? Cute. It's your smart attitude that reflects a great many problems here. *****
  21. quote: TeamJiffy wrote:Perhaps it will be juvenile tactics - such as stealing JRandomCacher's caches. Now that sounds like something that IS happening in our area -- but I don't think it's got anything to do with the guy being an approver -- it's got everything to do with the guy being an egotistical maniac. This guy has gone on to accuse several cachers of stealing his caches -- accusations that are unfounded and untrue. And for the sake of arguement, if JRandomCacher doesn't cut it as an admin, people will let it go. But if JRandomCacher doesn't cut it as a person before becoming an approver, then where does it go? You see, the double edged sword now? What if the cacher has an attitude problem and is then made an approver? Hmmm... *****
  22. quote: El Diablo wrote:Just curious J5...is there anything about Geocaching that you like? I like the game just fine. I don't like all the inconsistencies that go with it though. You seem to think that this is about me. It's not. Why do the approvers need to hide behind an alias? *****
  23. quote: Bloencustoms wrote:This thread might be the perfect example of the sort of behavior they wish to protect themselves from. Good reply. You must have thought long and hard for that one. *****
  24. quote: BrianSnat wrote:Most of the newer ones have separate accounts and (I'm guessing) for some very good reasons. The cheif reason is probably so they can seperate their role as an approver, from being a geocacher. Do they really need to be accosted at social events, or while on the trail by some geocacher who has experienced a perceived sleight? That's a lame argument. Don't use bad manners as an excuse to do something that is unnecessary. Do you really think that an approver is going to be accosted at an event? Think about it -- if the approver is doing their job correctly and fairly, then there's no need for people to be upset. And further to this, if Groundspeak were to get rid of the problems associated with the poor approval process (i.e., an exorbitant number of subjective rules), then perhaps the number of people who are dissatisfied with the approval process would cease to be disatisfied as they would know what is an what is not allowed from the outset. ***** edit: typo
  • Create New...