Good Bye Utah Admin

[+sbell111]

Does it matter?

[+Celticwulf]

In the great grand scheme of things, probably not...I just feel it would be nice to know.

 

Right at the moment, I'm actually on Groundspeak's side because basically what happened is refered too in other types of buisness as insider trading. I'm not saying I agree with the new policies, or that I think that having the other forum is bad, I'm just stating that if I were in Groundspeak's shoe's and I had someone with prior information taking advantage of the situation before things happened, I would be pissed.

 

Personally, I'm actually not that thrilled with the whole geocoin thing even though I'm not into the trading or anything yet, but I do understand their position right now. It would just be nice to know what they would do if, instead of using the information prior to the policy it happened afterwards, would they still fire him. And I'd actually accept a "we don't know, we'd have to discuss it" because that is a valid response.

 

Celticwulf

[+Kilted Cacher]

After sitting on the sidelines and watching the foray, I have a few questions and/or opinions (yay, I know opinions are like *****). No disrespect toward Utah, but is a volunteer position with Groundspeak a lifetime appointment? Should they have the right to dismiss any volunteer regardless of reason? It is unfortunate that the whole situation was aired out and, unfortunately, many hard feelings will be kept as a result.

[ju66l3r]

Does it matter?

To you? I guess that's a personal decision.

 

To me? Yes or I wouldn't have asked it.

 

I see a very important distinction between removing someone because they broke trust or removing someone due to actions not related to their role.

 

I am not implying that Groundspeak had no grounds in either instance, but I appreciate knowing how this company (founded on the hard work of not only itself but the rest of the community as well) treats its volunteers.

 

Numerous times, the reviewers have spoken out to remind us all that their work for this company is for the benefit of the community and not directly for Groundspeak. People, myself included, have claimed at times that they serve Groundspeak first and the community second. I don't feel so strongly about that idea as I once had (and I hope it shows). But here we find ourselves amid a situation where a volunteer reviewer (albeit against trust by using admin-level information) actually did something to directly benefit the community and by the same action undermine Groundspeak.

 

If UtahAdmin was terminated solely because they opened the forum too soon, then Groundspeak can still maintain that others in their service are allowed to act in benefit of the community and against their own financial interest and that is not a problem for them (i.e. where they have chosen to more narrowly confine discussion to only those Geocoins that pay them for trackability and a volunteer reviewer hoped to supplant their restrictive rules with an open forum elsewhere for the central point of trade/sales/etc).

 

If instead, UtahAdmin was terminated in part or whole because of their actions undermining Groundspeak's Geocoin Forum policy, then Groundspeak admits that reviewers must act in benefit of Groundspeak or they will be released. It also means that as a reviewer, your *other* activities are being monitored for potential problems against Groundspeak and that those can be grounds for removal. I believe that may be a shock to some volunteer reviewers, but it's only fair that they know what they are being asked to do.

 

Yet, to admit that the sole reason was because the forum was opened based on a breach of trust means that Groundspeak must also admit that it did not properly inform UtahAdmin of its reason to terminate their position (the letter from Bryan made *no* mention of the trust issue, only of a "conflict of interest").

 

EDIT: clarity

Edited January 19, 2006 by ju66l3r

[+Cach-U-Nuts]

From The Caching Place Team:

 

Our decision to create an alternate forum for the discussion of geocoins was made solely on what has been happening in the geocoin forums over the past several weeks. There has been much discussion about NOT being able to say EBAY, talk about charity auctions, etc as well as many threads being locked by moderators because of commercial links.

 

Because of this we decided at The Caching Place that it might be a benefit for folks to have an 'open' forum where these types of discussions could be freely talked about, and so our letter was sent to "our" existing "newsletter subscribers" offering this alternative.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak is 'assuming' too much here.....

 

In no way was there a "breach of trust" and for that matter, the termination of Craig was totally unexpected and came out of the blue. There was NO mention at anytime that they were concerned with his actions. The offer for him to resign was unacceptable - why would Craig say he was resigning, when he had done nothing wrong?

 

The reason we published the email from Bryan in the UTAG forums was to inform the Utah cachers of the termination and because we felt it was unjustified. Afterall, Craig has been a member of this caching family for 4 years - and over 3 years as the local approver..

 

The management at The Caching Place stands by their decision to create this alternate forum and welcome cachers to discuss freely the hobby that we all enjoy. We are saddend by the actions and the accusations made by Bryan and Jeremy.

[Jeremy]

But here we find ourselves amid a situation where a volunteer reviewer (albeit against trust by using admin-level information) actually did something to directly benefit the community and by the same action undermine Groundspeak.

I find fault with your statement. By being involved in the discussion about the crafting of the policy he would have directly benefitted the community. If anything a poorly crafted policy would benefit him which would be unseemly. (I'm not saying he did this, just providing a counter argument).

 

Even if the policy was released and he sent the email then, it would have no effect regarding your percieved benefit compared to using confidential information to do it earlier.

 

Yet, to admit that the sole reason was because the forum was opened based on a breach of trust means that Groundspeak must also admit that it did not properly inform UtahAdmin of its reason to terminate their position (the letter from Bryan made *no* mention of the trust issue, only of a "conflict of interest").

 

A personal email to Bryan would have been sufficient to clarify why his access was revoked if he was unaware as to the specifics. You don't tell someone you are firing them at the same time leaving wide open their ability to cause damage to the site in retaliation. Again, this is not what I expected to happen but it is considered good procedure.

[Jeremy]

In no way was there a "breach of trust" and for that matter, the termination of Craig was totally unexpected and came out of the blue. There was NO mention at anytime that they were concerned with his actions. The offer for him to resign was unacceptable - why would Craig say he was resigning, when he had done nothing wrong?

Of course it was a breach of trust. The information that isn't public shouldn't me manipulated to your own benefit.

 

Again, private correspondence really would have helped here instead of a knee-jerk reaction of posting the email in the forums. It is really poor etiquette to put it mildly.

[+The Leprechauns]

If instead, UtahAdmin was terminated in part or whole because of their actions undermining Groundspeak's Geocoin Forum policy, then Groundspeak admits that reviewers must act in benefit of Groundspeak or they will be released. It also means that as a reviewer, your *other* activities are being monitored for potential problems against Groundspeak and that those can be grounds for removal. I believe that may be a shock to some volunteer reviewers, but it's only fair that they know what they are being asked to do.

I am a site volunteer but I am posting this in my personal capacity as a geocacher. In that capacity, I am entitled to my own personal opinions and I am entitled to pursue my own interests. If I wanted to open a store to sell geocaching-related gear, I am free to do so.

 

We have clear standards of conduct for the volunteer group. I understand exactly what the balance is between my duties as a Groundspeak volunteer vs. my rights to do as I want outside of that role. I am free to leave the volunteer job at any time, and Groundspeak is free to remove me at any time.

 

So, no, I am not "shocked" at all. What has happened simply validates that these standards of conduct have meaning and are enforced when necessary. Under the circumstances, I would have been far more "shocked" if the conduct at issue had simply been overlooked.

[+GBOTS]

I am appalled at the tone grounspeak has taken here.

You guys know that you are wrong and chose to try to turn the matter around and make it Utahadmin's fault.

I never thought I would agree with him (no offense geopooch ) it, But the "sock puppet" is right.

[ju66l3r]

We have clear standards of conduct for the volunteer group. I understand exactly what the balance is between my duties as a Groundspeak volunteer vs. my rights to do as I want outside of that role. I am free to leave the volunteer job at any time, and Groundspeak is free to remove me at any time.

Yes, but Lep, would you be willing to act in a way that would potentially jeopardize your administrative status with Groundspeak if it would be of greater benefit to the community to do so? Do you (and I'm not singling you out) put the community before Groundspeak or the company before the geocachers when it comes to a situation like this one where acting in deference to one prevents your benefitting the other?

 

I think that defines whether the volunteer reviewers are acting in interest of the community, in or out of their role as volunteer reviewer.

 

I believe UtahAdmin acted in the benefit of the community (albeit unfortunate timing it would seem) and the result of that action was to lose their administrative status. I can see that both sides have good reason for their actions. I haven't disagreed with the results; I've only questioned the motivations.

 

It's also a loss (especially for the region(s) UtahAdmin reviewed) that there is too much intertwined between the "Watering Hole" and their cache review duties to keep them as a reviewer (seperate from anything Geocoin-related).

[+I.R. Geonut]

the discussion of a yet-unfinished policy was used to recruit members to a commercial website. It was immediately realized from the content of UtahAdmin's email that this information was leveraged outside of the Admin Only Forum for the benefit of his commercial web site. Not only was Groundspeak upset by this, but other moderators were offended by this breach of trust.

Bryan, you air a very serious accusation. Now that you've brought it from the depth of the Secret Cabal Lounge and into the public light, would you mind substantiating it?

I doubt he would bother replying to a sock puppet.

Ouch.

[ju66l3r]

By being involved in the discussion about the crafting of the policy he would have directly benefitted the community. If anything a poorly crafted policy would benefit him which would be unseemly. (I'm not saying he did this, just providing a counter argument).

 

Even if the policy was released and he sent the email then, it would have no effect regarding your percieved benefit compared to using confidential information to do it earlier.

Are you suggesting that had the reviewers all (or even just UtahAdmin) refuted and raised concern against the new rules to limit the Geocoin Forum to GC.com-trackables only that Groundspeak would have bent to leaving the forum in its previous state?

 

Unless his input would have had any influence on what appears to be the biggest problem that has cause the community to seek other options, then your counter-argument is voided. He wouldn't have directly benefitted the community through his involvement in the discussion, because the benefit (leaving the GC.com-approval/tracking restrictions out of the new rules) never would have been possible and his action of opening a new forum to counteract these changes for the benefit of the community would have been inevitable, regardless of when the forum was opened.

 

If you are busting him for a "breach of trust" based on confidentiality, then it is entirely dependent on when the policy was released and his e-mail was sent out. Once the policy was made public, it would seem he has every right to react as any other geocacher might (even if he had worked to engineer the policy) and there is no confidentiality since the policy is privvy to all at that point. Unless, you are suggesting that any actions that a site volunteer takes must be always made in witness of and reference to the information/decisions that they were at any time privvy to and influential on in the Admin Forum.

 

If their ability to shape policy/decisions means that they are not allowed to act in a manner against those policies in any way, then Lep, I hope your store doesn't sell anything you heard Groundspeak say that it would be a waste of time to market...even if you later come to think it in the interest of the community. If Groundspeak turns its back on something (like personal untracked geocoin sales) and someone else, including a site volunteer, is willing to accomodate it elsewhere, then I don't agree to that reason for termination unless there's a clear coercion from that person to persuade Groundspeak's actions to their own benefit...and as you said, I don't think that is this situation at all.

 

EDIT: clarity

Edited January 19, 2006 by ju66l3r

[salmoned]

Yes, it appears to reduce to timing and a "perception of breach of trust". Even if the timing issue fails to resolve, the perception among peers is sufficient to foment dismissal in this volunteer situation.

[+Recdiver]

Yes, it appears to reduce to timing and a "perception of breach of trust". Even if the timing issue fails to resolve, the perception among peers is sufficient to foment dismissal in this volunteer situation.

Just to throw in my $.02. It ultimately is a perception issue, right or wrong, if the company perceives that it can no longer trust a reviewer in their private forum then yes they would have to go.

And from what I’ve read it appears that their perceptions were correct.

[+StarBrand]

Just add my slightly off-topic comment....

 

Thanks for the quick approvals on my Wyoming caches!! Good Luck!

[+Utahbill]

I am appalled at the lack of appreciation shown for all of the voluntary service Utahadmin has provided. I will be doing my discussion of coins some where else from now on.

 

Utahbill

[salmoned]

I am appalled at the lack of appreciation shown for all of the voluntary service Utahadmin has provided. I will be doing my discussion of coins some where else from now on.

 

Utahbill

I am appalled anyone could see any lack of appreciation in this discussion. Appreciation has been enumerated many times. It was good while it lasted, time to go...

[+Davispak]

I think Utahadmin is just having sour grapes. He is upset that he is no longer a reviewer and has decided to air his dirt laundry on the forums. Bad form

[+sbell111]

Yes, but Lep, would you be willing to act in a way that would potentially jeopardize your administrative status with Groundspeak if it would be of greater benefit to the community to do so?  Do you (and I'm not singling you out) put the community before Groundspeak or the company before the geocachers when it comes to a situation like this one where acting in deference to one prevents your benefitting the other? ...

I think you are outlining a decision most people have to make at some point in their lives. In almost all cases, the decision boils down to whether one keeps his present position, or make a stand. It is typically not possible to do both.

Edited January 19, 2006 by sbell111

[+Elde]

When being terminated for cause, employees are generally offered the option of resigning to avoid subsequent legal issues.  Rarely is it done for the specific purpose of sparing the employee any embarassment.    The face-saving aspect is simply a side benefit.

If it's structured as a voluntary termination - then the company can be off the hook for a variety of obligations, benefits, etc... If you are ever fired, look real close before accepting 'voluntary termination'. (Here in WA State, if you fire too many people - your unemployment taxes go up, whereas 'voluntary' departures don't count against you. Reasonable, since a large proportion of people fired ends up at least temporarily on the dole.)

 

My wife was once 'voluntarily terminated' - resulting in a loss of medical benefits (instead of continuing for 90 days at company expense as per contract) and an inability to get full unemployment compensation. Happily she had a new job within two days.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

It really sucks that so many of you have forced me to agree with Jeremy on the resigning or firing discussion.

 

Hey if they want to get rid of anybody for any reason I don't see a problem at all with gc offering to allow the person to resign and that they would leave it that. GC has plenty of faults but I think if a person were to choose the resign option that gc would only ever say that the person resigned -- end of story.

 

Also the person has the choice to accept or not accept the offer and whatever they choose is up to them and it is their business. They need to decide based on whatever -- that is all good.

 

I would also say that unless the person "goes public" with what happened that gc would never really discuss it. But once a person opens that door then gc is certainly free to open their mouth and comment on it as they wish. I would guess that UtahAdmin understands how that game is played out and made a decision to go down that road. His decision and that is all OK as well.

 

Perhaps UtahAdmin wanted to bring this all to a head. I don't know just a guess. Again his choice.

 

As far as conflict of interest, yes or no, what was the real reason, who was right, who was wrong. I don't know I suspect there is more to the story then what I have seen here, there usually is.

 

Just please stop saying things that are going to make me agree with Jeremy, I am trying to hold up what few standards I have left.

[+Ambrosia]

It really sucks that so many of you have forced me to agree with Jeremy on the resigning or firing discussion.

 

Hey if they want to get rid of anybody for any reason I don't see a problem at all with gc offering to allow the person to resign and that they would leave it that. GC has plenty of faults but I think if a person were to choose the resign option that gc would only ever say that the person resigned -- end of story.

 

Also the person has the choice to accept or not accept the offer and whatever they choose is up to them and it is their business. They need to decide based on whatever -- that is all good.

 

I would also say that unless the person "goes public" with what happened that gc would never really discuss it. But once a person opens that door then gc is certainly free to open their mouth and comment on it as they wish. I would guess that UtahAdmin understands how that game is played out and made a decision to go down that road. His decision and that is all OK as well.

 

Perhaps UtahAdmin wanted to bring this all to a head. I don't know just a guess. Again his choice.

 

As far as conflict of interest, yes or no, what was the real reason, who was right, who was wrong. I don't know I suspect there is more to the story then what I have seen here, there usually is.

 

Just please stop saying things that are going to make me agree with Jeremy, I am trying to hold up what few standards I have left.

This is true.

 

How many of us truly know both sides of this? Without that, it just ends up being gossip on our part.

 

I'm sorry for the people who are sad to see thier reviewer go. But if you truly have problems, please take it to the people you have the problems with. Involving us just makes us all angsty, and we don't even know anything about it. Without proof of major wrongdoings on Groundspeak's part, this is innapropriate to talk about here.

[+Thorn Cachers]

Perhaps those outside of Utah Admin’s area cannot understand what those of us in his area feel. Picture it this way. You have a nearby restaurant that is “pretty good.” However, one server provides outstanding service. When you walk in, you are seated right away. Every time you realize you need something, that server is there already to take care of you. Frankly, you go to the “pretty good” restaurant all the time because the server makes it so much better than any of the rest.

 

This is essentially what we’ve had with Utah Admin. We see the problems and the gripes others have had around the country, and we see how we have been treated. Frankly, if we had a cache wait a whole day to be approved, we would worry about whether someone was sick. Craig has made geocaching.com much more appealing to us because of his great service.

 

Do I know if the “trust breached” was enough to be worth this? No. Do I know if there is something more to make it clear that Groundspeak wasn’t just overreacting? No.

 

But what I do know is that I wish someone could have worked this out. I understand that Craig took over as a favor after one of those periodic bomb threat stupidities. He has given a lot to Groundspeak, and to all of us. His site is a compliment to Groundspeak. It seams like things could have been handled better to make this work for everyone. Something before the resign or be fired stage.

 

Regardless, I feel really sorry for the person who tries to take over for Utah Admin. Whoever you are, you have a lot to live up to.

[+briansnat]

Perhaps those outside of Utah Admin’s area cannot understand what those of us in his area feel. Picture it this way. You have a nearby restaurant that is “pretty good.” However, one server provides outstanding service. When you walk in, you are seated right away. Every time you realize you need something, that server is there already to take care of you. Frankly, you go to the “pretty good” restaurant all the time because the server makes it so much better than any of the rest

 

I frequent a pub while on assignment here in Va and one of the bartenders there was extremely popular. Personable, smart, efficient and a great all around guy. He was fired two weeks ago and people still come and ask where he is. The staff gets a funny look on their faces when people ask for him (he was well regarded by them as well), and they just say he left to spend more time with his family (he's a schoolteacher in his day job).

 

I do know he was very liberal with giving out free drinks which I'm sure was part of the reason for his popularity. It was also the reason he was let go. Giving out free drinks was against company policy.

 

The customers liked him and he probably brought in some business just by his being there, but in the end he flouted company policy and had to go.

 

I think something like that is working here.

[+Renegade Knight]

I got the original email that caused the entire issue. At the time there was some angst in the Geocoin section over eBay links to certain coins up for auction that were being modded.

 

After reading it again I still think it's in responce to the orginal angst. The timing is good though because it matches this latest angst cycle.

[+olbluesguy]

[

I do know he was very liberal with giving out free drinks which I'm sure was part of the reason for his popularity. It was also the reason he was let go. Giving out free drinks was against company policy.

 

Hey.. I was that guy.

I got another bartending job and took enough coustomers with me that the guy replaacing me sat all night watching television by himself.

[Sadie]

[

I do know he was very liberal with giving out free drinks which I'm sure was part  of the reason for his popularity. It was also the reason he was let go. Giving out free drinks was against company policy. 

 

Hey.. I was that guy.

I got another bartending job and took enough coustomers with me that the guy replaacing me sat all night watching television by himself.

So, if UtahAdmin becomes a reviewer with a competeing geocache listing site, most of the Utah and Wyoming cachers would list thier cachers there? Sounds a bit familiar.

[+olbluesguy]

[so, if UtahAdmin becomes a reviewer with a competeing geocache listing site, most of the Utah and Wyoming cachers would list thier cachers there? Sounds a bit familiar.

I didn't say that.

I was talking about when I was a bartender, and how if you took care of good customers who spent a few bucks everytime they showed up You would be remembered.

There's another geo site? say it aint so.

[+briansnat]

There's another geo site? say it aint so.

 

Sort of. The only problem is that they don't have any cache listings.

[+zoltig]

There's another geo site? say it aint so.

 

Sort of. The only problem is that they don't have any cache listings.

[+Redwing_dave]

In no way was there a "breach of trust" and for that matter, the termination of Craig was totally unexpected and came out of the blue. There was NO mention at anytime that they were concerned with his actions. The offer for him to resign was unacceptable - why would Craig say he was resigning, when he had done nothing wrong?

Of course it was a breach of trust. The information that isn't public shouldn't me manipulated to your own benefit.

 

Again, private correspondence really would have helped here instead of a knee-jerk reaction of posting the email in the forums. It is really poor etiquette to put it mildly.

The letter that was posted was in the UTAG forums. As far as I know, the far-reaching Oligarchy of Groundspeak does not infiltrate or govern what happens in UTAG. Since Craig had already been fired, I don't see why he was under any obligation to save face for Groundspeak and keep this atrocity behind closed doors. I feel like he was within the bounds of good taste, and showed respect for his local cachers by letting us know of the situation Groundspeak chose to put him in. Craig didn't bring this topic to the global community by posting it in the GC forums, that was another Utah cacher, and I congratulate DeViDe for bringing it into the public eye. I am not shocked at the defensive and combative tone that the GC group has taken in this forum thread. I have found that when people are in the wrong, they tend to get defensive. I'm also not surprised to see Lep portraying GC as the knight in shining armor that came in and rescued us poor, mindless cachers from the conflict of interest involved in creating something so evil as an OPEN forum, since he has obviously played a key role in creating the need for an OPEN forum by effectually shutting down open geocoin discussions here at GC (under an assumed name of course).

 

As a Utah cacher I am very displeased with this decision. We have had the luxury of working with an Admin that in most cases reviewed our cache listings well within 24 hours. Now that has been taken from us, and we are obviously displeased, and with good reason. I would hate to see the cache review process become as lenghty and preferential as it is in places like West Pennsylvania.

[+The Leprechauns]

Yeah, doesn't it suck that in Western Pennsylvania, people actually are held to the listing guidelines when they submit caches. That can cause delays at times while the issues are solved. Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack, but I'm quite accustomed to them.

[+AtlantaGal]

In this situation, the discussion of a yet-unfinished policy was used to recruit members to a commercial website. It was immediately realized from the content of UtahAdmin's email that this information was leveraged outside of the Admin Only Forum for the benefit of his commercial web site. Not only was Groundspeak upset by this, but other moderators were offended by this breach of trust.

 

I received the email you refer to here. It wasn't received until AFTER Groundspeak's new policy was announced to the public in the geocoin forums. So perhaps someone tainted the copy you received?

[ParentsofSAM]

In this situation, the discussion of a yet-unfinished policy was used to recruit members to a commercial website. It was immediately realized from the content of UtahAdmin's email that this information was leveraged outside of the Admin Only Forum for the benefit of his commercial web site. Not only was Groundspeak upset by this, but other moderators were offended by this breach of trust.

 

I received the email you refer to here. It wasn't received until AFTER Groundspeak's new policy was announced to the public in the geocoin forums. So perhaps someone tainted the copy you received?

Well there ya go. Now what is the reason he was terminated since you can not use the fact that he "breached trust". Even if the letter was sent before the new policy was posted there has been strife in the geocoins coins for some time now.

 

I agree that there is more to this story and everyone has heard from both sides but maybe not all of the story from both sides.

 

IMO this reflects badly on Groundspeak as it stands right now.

 

 

BTW -- The reveiwers here in Georgia approve our caches VERY fast ususally with in 24 hours and they do not sacrifice any of the listing guidelines to get it done that fast either.

 

edit:darn spelling

Edited January 20, 2006 by ParentsofSAM

[+briansnat]

...keep this atrocity behind closed doors.

 

Atrocity? Lets not get into hyperbole here.

 

I have found that when people are in the wrong, they tend to get defensive.

 

And people who are right tend to defend their actions from gratuitous attacks.

Edited January 20, 2006 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with Groundspeak's actions. It was decided to replace a reviewer. The reviewer was notified and given the opportunity to structure it as a resignation. No one from Groundspeak made anything about it public until after it was made public in UTAG's forums and brought to this forum. At that point, it was totally appropriate for them to discuss specifics.

 

Does it really matter why they let him go? Not really. It's their company.

Is it really a problem that they offered to let him resign? Not really. Lots of people get that choice. It can help a person save face.

Should they be forced to keep a reviewer that they don't feel that they can trust? Of course not. Again, its their company.

Shouldn't they be able to have reviewers that can tow the company line? Of course they should. They're volunteers, but the company should be able to choose volunteers who agree with them. If a volunteer can't make that commitment, they should be able to find someone who can.

[+Redwing_dave]

Yeah, doesn't it suck that in Western Pennsylvania, people actually are held to the listing guidelines when they submit caches.  That can cause delays at times while the issues are solved.  Thanks for the gratuitous personal attack, but I'm quite accustomed to them.

I'm not surprised that you've become accustomed to personal attacks. Somepeople just seem to attract them for some reason. I wonder why that is.

 

If you're implying that people weren't held to the guidelines by our previous UtahAdmin, I have to disagree. I had a couple caches that were denied when I first started caching because I didn't understand the guidelines very well. The UtahAdmin worked with me to resolve the issues, and make sure that all of the guidelines were upheld. This did cause a delay of a few days, not a few WEEKS. From what I understand, from multiple credible sources, reviews in your neck of the woods tend to take at least several days-to-weeks as the norm. Certainly you don't have enough guideline infractions to make that the norm do you? Maybe you're just too busy trying to dictate everything that happens in the forums to be able to review caches in a timely manner. Maybe that is a conflict of interest......

[+sbell111]

... I am not shocked at the defensive and combative tone that the GC group has taken in this forum thread. I have found that when people are in the wrong, they tend to get defensive. ...

I've found that when people are attacked, they fight back. When people are attacked after they try to do the right thing, they fight harder.

I'm also not surprised to see Lep portraying GC as the knight in shining armor that came in and rescued us poor, mindless cachers from the conflict of interest ...

See, that's where you are wrong. A company doesn't protect its customers from a conflict, It protects itself from a conflict. That is what was done. Its probably time to start getting over it.

...involved in creating something so evil as an OPEN forum, since he has obviously played a key role in creating the need for an OPEN forum by effectually shutting down open geocoin discussions here at GC (under an assumed name of course).

I'm not sure what you are going with here.

I would hate to see the cache review process become as lenghty and preferential as it is in places like West Pennsylvania.

I don't live in Lep's area, so he hasn't reviewed my caches. However, I have had contact with him in and out of the forums and I can't imagine why you are leveling this attack against him.

[str8jckt]

or a "breach of trust"!

[+Recdiver]

In this situation, the discussion of a yet-unfinished policy was used to recruit members to a commercial website. It was immediately realized from the content of UtahAdmin's email that this information was leveraged outside of the Admin Only Forum for the benefit of his commercial web site. Not only was Groundspeak upset by this, but other moderators were offended by this breach of trust.

 

I received the email you refer to here. It wasn't received until AFTER Groundspeak's new policy was announced to the public in the geocoin forums. So perhaps someone tainted the copy you received?

Well there ya go. Now what is the reason he was terminated since you can not use the fact that he "breached trust". Even if the letter was sent before the new policy was posted there has been strife in the geocoins coins for some time now.

 

I agree that there is more to this story and everyone has heard from both sides but maybe not all of the story from both sides.

 

IMO this reflects badly on Groundspeak as it stands right now.

 

 

BTW -- The reveiwers here in Georgia approve our caches VERY fast ususally with in 24 hours and they do not sacrifice any of the listing guidelines to get it done that fast either.

 

edit:darn spelling

I don't agree, however you have the right to your opinion.

As I've said before, if Groundspeak feels that it can no longer discuss confidential matters in their restricted forum because of its perceived mistrust of a reviewer then it is their right to ask that reviewer to step down. It doesn't really matter if the mistrust was warranted or not. If you and I worked together and I had the perception that you Might repeat something I told you in confidence then I wouldn’t feel comfortable discussing confidential matters with you and that would be a detriment to us working together.

Is it fair, that to is a matter of perception.

[+sbell111]

... From what I understand, from multiple credible sources, reviews in your neck of the woods tend to take at least several days-to-weeks as the norm. Certainly you don't have enough guideline infractions to make that the norm do you? Maybe you're just too busy trying to dictate everything that happens in the forums to be able to review caches in a timely manner. Maybe that is a conflict of interest......

I'm sorry, but I have to call 'Shenanigans!' on you.

 

Just for giggles, I took a brief look at caches in Lep's area. I pulled a list of caches around Pittsburgh and pulled up the cache page for caches listed since they started adding the 'published' note. I looked at the first fifteen caches on the list that had the 'published' note and compared the 'published' date to the 'hidden' date.

 

Of these fifteen, seven were published the same day as they were entered. five were published after one day, two after two days and one after nine days. This gave an average approval time of 1.2 days. Therefore, I find your attack to be baseless.

Edited January 20, 2006 by sbell111

[+AtoZ]

There is a BIG differance in someone being ask to leave a volunteer position and firing them. Some people think that resigning is better, but is is only better for the company as now they do not have to provide unemployment insurance this is a big thing. No company can call another and ask why a person left or under what circumstance the lawyers have a field day with this if the firing company tells. So it is GC.com making it seem like it is more then it is. UtahAdmin was doing something that for what ever reason GC.com thought was wrong and so his volunteer status was revoked. Maybe he can now have fun. And the rest of us can get on with our lives.

I am sorry to hear him go but now maybe he can have fun.

cheers

[+Moose Mob]

As much as we need to vent about this topic, it does need to remain civil, on topic, and void of personal attacks.

 

Please stick to the issues at hand or this topic will be closed.

 

Thank you.

 

Edit: add emphasis

Edited January 20, 2006 by Moose Mob

[+sbell111]

There is a BIG differance in someone being ask to leave a volunteer position and firing them. Some people think that resigning is better, but is is only better for the company as now they do not have to provide unemployment insurance this is a big thing. No company can call another and ask why a person left or under what circumstance the lawyers have a field day with this if the firing company tells. ...

Two things...

 

An individual is not due unemployment pay if the firing was for cause and the issue was well documented. Nor would this cause the company's unemployment payments to increase.

 

Every time I consider hiring someone, I call his/her prior employers. I always ask for the circumstances of the person's departure. Some conmpanies give no information, some give all the dirty laundry, some just give you a little hint.

[+AtoZ]

There is a BIG differance in someone being ask to leave a volunteer position and firing them.  Some people think that resigning is better, but is is only better for the company as now they do not have to provide unemployment insurance this is a big thing.  No company can call another and ask why a person left or under what circumstance the lawyers have a field day with this if the firing company tells. ...

Two things...

 

An individual is not due unemployment pay if the firing was for cause and the issue was well documented. Nor would this cause the company's unemployment payments to increase.

 

Every time I consider hiring someone, I call his/her prior employers. I always ask for the circumstances of the person's departure. Some conmpanies give no information, some give all the dirty laundry, some just give you a little hint.

Well I hope some of these people find out because it VIOLATES emplyment practices. But firing always entitles you to unemployment pay. Yes it does not cause insurance to increase, but companies find some reason to drive people away rather then fire them. I have seen it numerous times. The same is true for employee injury I have seen many companies spin it so that the injuries do not reflect the companies true injury rate.

 

Your lucky you have your own business.

 

Cheers

[+briansnat]

... From what I understand, from multiple credible sources, reviews in your neck of the woods tend to take at least several days-to-weeks as the norm. Certainly you don't have enough guideline infractions to make that the norm do you? Maybe you're just too busy trying to dictate everything that happens in the forums to be able to review caches in a timely manner. Maybe that is a conflict of interest......

I'm sorry, but I have to call 'Shenanigans!' on you.

 

Just for giggles, I took a brief look at caches in Lep's area. I pulled a list of caches around Pittsburgh and pulled up the cache page for caches listed since they started adding the 'published' note. I looked at the first fifteen caches on the list that had the 'published' note and compared the 'published' date to the 'hidden' date.

 

Of these fifteen, seven were published the same day as they were entered. five were published after one day, two after two days and one after nine days. This gave an average approval time of 1.2 days. Therefore, I find your attack to be baseless.

I would also think that someone who reviews for PA and Ohio might have a slightly larger workload than someone who is reviewing for Utah.

[+El Diablo]

[i'm not surprised that you've become accustomed to personal attacks. Somepeople just seem to attract them for some reason. I wonder why that is.

 

I had a couple caches that were denied when I first started caching because I didn't understand the guidelines very well.

Apparently you still don't understand the guidelines. If you go back and read them you will see that they don't permit personal attacks on these fourms.

 

If you are unable to locate the above mentioned guideline I'll be happy to provide you a link.

 

El Diablo

[+Redwing_dave]

To avoid any further issuance of Personal Attacks, I'm stepping out of this thread. Y'all have fun here.

 

On Topic:

Craig, thanks for all your hard work, and great service as a reviewer in Utah.

I wish Groundspeak good luck in finding a replacement for this region. It will be hard to find someone that is as respected and easy to work with as Craig has been. Recent events have left a bitter taste in the mouths of the active cachers in the area, so I don't expect to see anyone jumping up and down to accept a volunteer position.

 

Signing out

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Been watching this from the outside for a while now, but I'm kind of compelled to bring this up...

 

Of course, all of this would be a moot point if Groundspeak got out of the business of tracking and using it's software to promote the tracking of "geocoins" in the first place. What this has to do with Geocaching is still a mystery to me.

 

Wasn't there a lot of hullabaloo around here recently about the spinning off of virtuals and locationless because GC was "getting back to it's roots" and virtuals and locationless really didn't have anything to do with geocaching? Wasn't that often cited as the reason for the birth of Waymarking.com?

 

Wasn't there much strife recently about the whole concept of "virtual" TB's and the silliness thereof? Is there really that much of a difference between the frivolity of using GC.com to track virtual TB's and using GC.com to keep track of your personal coin collection, most (or all) of which have never seen the inside of a geocache in their entire existence?

 

[NON-PC]

NB: I wonder if the hundreds or thousands of waymarks could come back to GC.com as virtuals if they were on a pay-per-listing basis? [/NON-PC]

[+sbell111]

Well I hope some of these people find out because it VIOLATES emplyment practices.  But firing always entitles you to unemployment pay.  Yes it does not cause insurance to increase, but companies find some reason to drive people away rather then fire them.  I have seen it numerous times.  The same is true for employee injury I have seen many companies spin it so that the injuries do not reflect the companies true injury rate. 

 

Your lucky you have your own business.

 

Cheers

I don't have my own business. Currently, I work for the gubmint.

 

You are incorrect about automatically getting unemployment. I have testified at several unemployment hearings. I have always come prepared and the fired individuals have not collected unemployment.

 

Also, unemployment premiums go up or down based on the number of people who have been granted unemployment benefits after leaving a company.

 

Further, giving information about the leaving of a past employee does not violate any employment practices (laws). Many companies do not give this information for fear of being sued for libel.

Edited January 20, 2006 by sbell111