Unwritten Guidelines and Policies

[+TrailGators]

This was an individual decision made years ago and the prior individual policy has since been corrected to fit better with the listing guidelines and Groundspeak's directions to the volunteer cache reviewers.

If that's the case, then the OP's question has been answered.

[+the hermit crabs]

This was an individual decision made years ago and the prior individual policy has since been corrected to fit better with the listing guidelines and Groundspeak's directions to the volunteer cache reviewers.

Back when I had a job which required the use of my brain, I was often involved in some complicated projects that required a lot of in-depth discussions about issues or problems that were complex, ambiguous or subtle. The discussions often took place in group emails among anywhere from 5 to 12 people.

 

Unfortunately some of the people involved in these projects had the attention span of a gnat, and would not / could not read anything more complicated than a simple two-sentence black/white yes/no email.

 

Some of us ended up composing our contributions to the discussions in two parts: the Short Version and the Long Version. The short version had some critical details left out; it was basically a pat on the head for the dimwitted members of the group saying "Here, this is all you have to read, don't worry about the long paragraphs and the scary sentences with 'howevers' and semicolons below."

 

The only useful piece was the long version, in which the more responsible members of the group took pains to try to hash out as many of the complex details as we could.

 

This method worked out for everybody.

 

We have seen several references to some sort of list of directives that Groundspeak has given to its reviewers. These directives, while not visible to cache hiders, include unpublished guidelines that can prevent an otherwise valid-seeming cache from being published.

 

So ... would it be possible to leave the current "short version" guidelines just as they are, as a futile token to those who aren't going to read them anyway, and to also publish (on a separate page) a list of those Groundspeak reviewers' directives for those of us who do care and who will read them?

 

This would seem to satisfy those who say that the guidelines are already long enough as they are and who don't want to see them cluttered up with additions. And it would also satisfy those of us who are not afraid of reading extra paragraphs and who would like to know what the real guidelines are, regardless of how long or complicated they might be. Or is there some reason that these directives must remain hidden?