Closed posts

1.7k · 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.

2.2k · April 21, 2008

Please can you let us know what the score is asap boss before we go Tsunami again.

3k · April 21, 2008

Thanks Lacto

3.9k · 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.

2.2k · April 21, 2008

Indeed

April 21, 2008

Baffled. Cheers to Lacto and Co. keep up the good work.

Edited April 21, 2008 by pklong

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!!!!!

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!!!!!

2.2k · 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

April 21, 2008

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

3.9k · 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.

April 21, 2008

Wasn't the last time a mod stepped in was the closure of the Pub Quiz?

4.1k · 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?

2.2k · April 21, 2008

The Pitchforks aint out.

yet

3.9k · 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.

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?????

1.2k · 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....

1.7k · 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.

4.1k · April 21, 2008

That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJenn

I apologize if that came off as patronizing. Not my intention at all.

On the contrary, actually.

2.2k · April 21, 2008

That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJenn
I 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

3.9k · April 21, 2008

That is a quite patronising post in my opinion MissJenn
I 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?

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!!!

April 21, 2008

36 members on the uk forum of which 5 are mods is this a record?

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?

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3.1k · 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!!

1k · April 21, 2008

do CITO caches not have a social agenda?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

1.3k · 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?

1.7k · April 21, 2008

Chaps and chapesses - Chill . Please.

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.

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

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.

3.1k · 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...

April 21, 2008

Am I the only one who agrees with Groundspeak ?

(should I run for cover now)

April 21, 2008

I would Andy!!!!!

2.2k · 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?

1.8k · 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.

3.1k · 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!

1.2k · 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?

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.

1.7k · 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

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

6.1k · 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.

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.

April 21, 2008

...............................Jumping down peoples throats only makes it worse.

And you may lose your wellies

2.2k · 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.

Closed posts

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment