Lactodorum Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Would people stop posting messages that could be construed as being charity related for the moment. Although these have been allowed here for a long time it seems there is now a problem. I am trying to get to the bottom of it right now. Thanks, Lactodorum. Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Please can you let us know what the score is asap boss before we go Tsunami again. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I'd just like to take this opportunity to express my support to the UK reviewer team. I'm sure the rest of the community is behind them. Quote Link to comment
+pklong Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) Baffled. Cheers to Lacto and Co. keep up the good work. Edited April 21, 2008 by pklong Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Seems like there is not much that can be done about this matter so a mail to contact@geocaching.com would not go amiss from certain members, you know who you all are...... Some of you can prob remember the last time US based mod stepped in on the uk forum!!!!! Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Seems like there is not much that can be done about this matter so a mail to contact@geocaching.com would not go amiss from certain members, you know who you all are...... Some of you can prob remember the last time US based mod stepped in on the uk forum!!!!! Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Seems like there is not much that can be done about this matter so a mail to contact@geocaching.com would not go amiss from certain members, you know who you all are...... Some of you can prob remember the last time US based mod stepped in on the uk forum!!!!! Would that involve very nearly loosing two volunteer reviewers and people getting forum bans by any chance Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) You remember it well then Tony? Wonder how many will get bans this time????? Edited to say it would have gone down alot better if one of the uk mods had done this and it would not have been so blunt from our reviewers! Edited April 21, 2008 by davy boy Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Yeah, that'd be the time, over three years ago now, bad times. For the newer members, there were "only" two volunteer reviewers then, Lactodorum and Eckington, who have stuck with it since. Quote Link to comment
Edgemaster Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Wasn't the last time a mod stepped in was the closure of the Pub Quiz? Quote Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Thank you to you, Lactodorum, Eckington and Deceangi, for helping Groundspeak moderate this forum. I personally very much apprecaite it --- as do the other lackeys here at the Groundspeak HQ. This appreciation is evident also among the people in the community you serve. Groundspeak does not want to take a stand for or against any of the topics that fall under the "solicitation" or "agenda" guideline. Charitable donations are a form of social agenda. We also do not want reviewers or forum moderators to have to take a stand in such cases. This has always been Groundspeak's wish. Nothing new. We have taken a stand for geocaching as an engaging hobby that takes you outdoors. It's meant to be a fun and light activity - about using GPS to search for hidden containers. These forums are supposed to be about that. Give us a bit of time, everyone, to sort through it. Please put away your pitchforks as there is no need for it. OK? Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 The Pitchforks aint out. yet Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJenn; especially after your recent support for an agenda right here in the UK section of the forum. My concern is mainly the hypocrisy of the situation. Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 My concern is why the us mods intervened when it could have been sorted by one of our uk mods???????? Perhaps someone could answer that????? Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 The two threads were closed as they were soliciting for charitable purposes. I checked the meaning of the word in an American Dictionary. solicits - To petition persistently; importune: solicited the neighbors for donations. Whilst fully accepting that I'd be asking friends and colleagues to sponsor me as part of this activity - as far as I can see no cacher was soliciting in either thread for donations. So now we can't even mention we're doing a charitable sponsored event - A group of Cachers are mad enough to attempt a 3 mile run/walk/waddle through loads of mud/water etc - and we can't even talk about it.... Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted April 21, 2008 Author Share Posted April 21, 2008 My concern is why the us mods intervened when it could have been sorted by one of our uk mods???????? Perhaps someone could answer that????? Miss Jenn is a Groundspeak employee and has a legitimate role in ensuring Groundspeak's policies and guidelines are adhered to. The same applies to Michael who has removed some other similar threads from this forum. Quote Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJennI apologize if that came off as patronizing. Not my intention at all.On the contrary, actually. Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJennI apologize if that came off as patronizing. Not my intention at all.On the contrary, actually. Good to know. I think its better that it does not become a clash of personalities. I do hope this can be resolved quickly Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJennI apologize if that came off as patronizing. Not my intention at all.On the contrary, actually. Apology accepted. The written word can be a blunt instrument, most of us here have fallen foul of that Now, about the hypocrisy? Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 My concern is why the us mods intervened when it could have been sorted by one of our uk mods???????? Perhaps someone could answer that????? Miss Jenn is a Groundspeak employee and has a legitimate role in ensuring Groundspeak's policies and guidelines are adhered to. The same applies to Michael who has removed some other similar threads from this forum. It still does not answer the question though does it? Also it would be nice to get an answer from Groundspeak us about this!!! Quote Link to comment
+Jan and the Percey Boys Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 36 members on the uk forum of which 5 are mods is this a record? Quote Link to comment
+davy boy Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Come on then USA we would like to know why you and not the UK reviewers locked these threads,perhaps Jeremy would like to comment? Quote Link to comment
+Molinnis Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Fully agree with you on this Dave, I just cannot see what has been done wrong. I take it any event cache organised on the 11th October near woodbury common musn't mention running through mud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Bloomin 'eck... usually we can't get anyone in Groundspeak or the US for that matter to come in here and listen to OUR feelings about caching, the forums or anything else for that matter... Now we're overrun.... hmmmmmmm... If only more GS bods would come in here when it mattered, instead of over us watching 7 or 8 Devonians running through mud!! Quote Link to comment
+Munkeh Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 do CITO caches not have a social agenda? Quote Link to comment
+FollowMeChaps Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 The reference to pitch forks was not just patronising - it was racist! In the UK we have laws about this. I second the requirement for Groundspeak to explain - they are a commercial organisation so if push comes to shove we can withold our premium memberships fees. Quote Link to comment
+scottpa100 Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 ..."they are a commercial organisation so if push comes to shove we can withold our premium memberships fees. Yes they are - and to which end they can tell us what they will allow on their computers. Whether we like it or not... The best analogy I can think of is... 'If you don't like Tesco.... don't shop at Tesco.' I'd suggest that we just wait and see what how things pan out. Quote Link to comment
+third-degree-witch Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 (edited) Would people stop posting messages that could be construed as being charity related for the moment. Although these have been allowed here for a long time it seems there is now a problem. I am trying to get to the bottom of it right now. Thanks, Lactodorum. Would it not be prudent to give the UK Mods time to sort this out BEFORE we reach for our 'Pitchforks'.... MISSJenn...I didnt find your febble attempt at humour very amusing,and find your manner rather impolite.Dont think youve started a fan club. Edited April 21, 2008 by third-degree-witch Quote Link to comment
+Jan and the Percey Boys Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 ..."they are a commercial organisation so if push comes to shove we can withold our premium memberships fees. Yes they are - and to which end they can tell us what they will allow on their computers. Whether we like it or not... The best analogy I can think of is... 'If you don't like Tesco.... don't shop at Tesco.' I'd suggest that we just wait and see what how things pan out. as to your tesco idea sometimes this happens asda tesco Quote Link to comment
+PopUpPirate Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 The reference to pitch forks was not just patronising - it was racist! Do we REALLY have to play the race card here? Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted April 21, 2008 Author Share Posted April 21, 2008 Chaps and chapesses - Chill . Please. Quote Link to comment
+Jaz666 Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I would imagine the closure of the threads mentioning a charity by Groundspeak has confused a few people. Over the last few months, Groundspeak have been putting more enforcement into the already existing Guidelines on Commercial caches, and caches that solicit. I believe this has been discussed at length within the private reviewers forum, and it is the website volunteers who have been asked to enforce the guidelines more rigidly. Our reviewers are famously very accommodating, which is possibly why this has only just reared it's head in the UK forum; but over in the US-centric parts of the Groundspeak forums, quite a fuss has been made over the last few weeks. Here's some light reading ------------------- Event not initially published due to link to commercial website http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190245 Another example http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190625 And more http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191208 Caches that have an agenda http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=189866 ------------------- Whilst it may be very therapeutic to debate the issues amoungst ourselves, we might have to accept it's Groundspeak's website, and they are unlikely to make exceptions for the UK for these particular issues. I should add that it is in no way the fault of Lacto, Ecky or Deci that these enforcements haven't been communicated to us all sooner - there does appear to have been widespread confusion all round. Quote Link to comment
+third-degree-witch Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I would imagine the closure of the threads mentioning a charity by Groundspeak has confused a few people. Over the last few months, Groundspeak have been putting more enforcement into the already existing Guidelines on Commercial caches, and caches that solicit. I believe this has been discussed at length within the private reviewers forum, and it is the website volunteers who have been asked to enforce the guidelines more rigidly. Our reviewers are famously very accommodating, which is possibly why this has only just reared it's head in the UK forum; but over in the US-centric parts of the Groundspeak forums, quite a fuss has been made over the last few weeks. Here's some light reading ------------------- Event not initially published due to link to commercial website http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190245 Another example http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=190625 And more http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=191208 Caches that have an agenda http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=189866 ------------------- Whilst it may be very therapeutic to debate the issues amoungst ourselves, we might have to accept it's Groundspeak's website, and they are unlikely to make exceptions for the UK for these particular issues. I should add that it is in no way the fault of Lacto, Ecky or Deci that these enforcements haven't been communicated to us all sooner - there does appear to have been widespread confusion all round. I think Groundspeak need to remember that,without us they wouldnt have a site..plus...as a paying member i expect a level of service...old fashioined i know,but hey,there u go Quote Link to comment
+louiethebeak Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I'm more than happy to sponser these ppl..... leave the uk reviewers to it,, they do a good job . you might own the site but u wont get far with no members. Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Instead of "chill" and other unhelpful comments, can one of OUR reviewers please tell us what is happening, in simple to understand language? I know what's happening, but there's lots who have no idea what's going on, and if there are newbies around, it hardly makes for a welcomming environment... <and breathe> Quote Link to comment
The Royles Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now) Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now) About what was done or how it was done? Quote Link to comment
+John Stead Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now) No you are not alone. I am still not sure what this is all about but think we should let our reviewers represent our views rather than stir the pot ourselves. Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now) No you are not alone. I am still not sure what this is all about but think we should let our reviewers represent our views rather than stir the pot ourselves. But how can they represent our views when we can't make them known cos not everybody knows what's going on! Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 I'm lost and confused... is this in some way deep, dark and mysterious? or have the powers that be just closed a pile of threads that mention Charities? or am I missing something? Quote Link to comment
The Royles Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 About what was done or how it was done? Both. What was done: threads closed which breach GS rules - fine. How it was done: a non-UK person did it - fine, they work for/represent GS and have the necessary permissions to do that. It MAY be that our mods feel their toes were stepped on, but they can deal with that without us going off half-cocked. Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted April 21, 2008 Author Share Posted April 21, 2008 Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ? (should I run for cover now) No you are not alone. I am still not sure what this is all about but think we should let our reviewers represent our views rather than stir the pot ourselves. But how can they represent our views when we can't make them known cos not everybody knows what's going on! Hazel, and others, please understand that certain discussions must take place in private. Any outcome will be made known in due course so please let things run their course. I would also urge anyone contemplating adding to this discussion to think logically and do not resort to cheap insults (no I'm not pointing any fingers yet so don't read anything in to that which isn't there). I'll leave the thread running to allow for rational debate but I will not hesitate to close it myself or request another moderator, from elsewhere if necessary, to do so if it degenerates. Many thanks, Lactodorum Quote Link to comment
The Royles Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 So, we can see that Lacto is on the case, so I suggest we let him get on with it. Why not take the thread off topic and post our support for the UK/Ireland reviewers and mods. I am sure we would all like to say that you are all (puts on high heels and big hair) Simply the best Better than all the rest Quote Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 What was done: threads closed which breach GS rules - fine. How it was done: a non-UK person did it - fine, they work for/represent GS and have the necessary permissions to do that. It MAY be that our mods feel their toes were stepped on, but they can deal with that without us going off half-cocked. While I didn't initially see the 2 posts as solicitations for charity they did have a charity component, as GC has a rule covering this I don't disagree with what was done. The only way such a rule can work is to apply it consistently in every case. As for it being done by a lackey, I think that's preferable to having our regular mods do it, after all the lackey doesn't have to 'live here' afterwards so it doesn't matter if people have the hump with her. Quote Link to comment
+Acidmouse Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Why do these forums have so much drama? I get the impression certain people making something out of the smallest problems and creating them into huge issues. I don't claim to know the history, background or issues on these forums but to me MissJenn has atleast come on here and tried to explain her side/views in a polite manner. For that she has got s*** from people who should know better. Let them sort it out and report back to you like they say. Jumping down peoples throats only makes it worse. Quote Link to comment
The Royles Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 ...............................Jumping down peoples throats only makes it worse. And you may lose your wellies Quote Link to comment
+mongoose39uk Posted April 21, 2008 Share Posted April 21, 2008 Why do these forums have so much drama? I get the impression certain people making something out of the smallest problems and creating them into huge issues. I don't claim to know the history, background or issues on these forums but to me MissJenn has atleast come on here and tried to explain her side/views in a polite manner. For that she has got s*** from people who should know better. Let them sort it out and report back to you like they say. Jumping down peoples throats only makes it worse. Like you say, you probably don't know the history so please don't make assumptions. I am sure most people are more than happy for this to be sorted out privately and look forward to a satisfactory conclusion. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.