I for one..........

[+Pharisee]

An Idea.... If you dont like Groundspeak's rules and guidelines or the way they are used by the reviewers/ moderators.... don't used the site... dont use the cache listings.

That's been said many times recently and it's just as foolish now as it was the first time. If you care about a game and can see that it's becoming flawed and corrupted, you do your best to change it. You don't just walk away. If folk followed your advise, football would still be played by a howling mob, rampaging through the streets chasing an inflated pigs bladder.... Ok... so that's maybe a bad example as football still seems to be played that way sometimes but I'm sure you get the idea.

 

The only problem is that after about 12 months caching would be banned in the UK

How do you works that out? No-one is suggesting that caches be hidden any differently. The critisicm is about the way the game is currently being 'enforced' in the UK.

When you joined this site you agreed to the rules and guidelines as laid down by Groundspeak if you don't like them don't play their game. If they want to they can change the rules, hide the rules, or make them up as they go along ITS THEIR SITE

Yes, I did. In the 6 years that I've been playing, the rules have changed considerably. In just about any other game I know of, rule changes are generally brought about in a reasonable and informed manner; usually after some discussion with those that play the game. In general, Groundspeak works that way. My criticism is with the way that 3 non-elected 'officials' secretly dream up new rules and regulations, with no discussion or consultation with the geocaching community and implement them in a manner that smacks of a non-benevolent dictatorship.

....and it's not their fault if the goal posts keep moving.

Yes it is.... they're the ones that keep moving the goalposts!!

 

This forum is a great place sometimes spoiled by a very few people trying to score points over others

<rant /off>

A forum is a place for debate and discussion. It's not a social networking site. There are plenty of other sites you can go to if you want a warm, fluffy place to chat in. Edited November 3, 2008 by Pharisee

[+purple_pineapple]

There are plenty of other sites you can go to if you want a warm, fluffy place to chat in.

 

But the forums are a warm and fluffy place! (Then again, so is my belly button )

[SlytherinAlex]

An Idea.... If you dont like Groundspeak's rules and guidelines or the way they are used by the reviewers/ moderators.... don't used the site... dont use the cache listings. Put your $30 towards your own listing site.

I'd like to propose an extension to Godwin's Law called Alex's Law.

 

If the best you can come up with on a discussion forum is along the lines of " if you don't like the way things are then push off somewhere else" then you have lost the argument.

 

I've never like that kind of attitude in an walk of life. Just because its your ball, you make the rules and you decide where the goal posts are on any particular day. If the world worked on those kind of lines then children would still be going up chimneys and women would not be voting. Hold on a minute.... that's not a bad idea !!

Edited November 3, 2008 by SlytherinAlex

[+FuzzyBears]

Pharisee in reply to your clipping my quotes to make your point my thoughts were

1 dont use this site.... start your own but you removed that bit

 

2 12 months no caches . I was trying to make a point that no rules would lead to wholesale cache removals

 

3 you rejoin every year thus agreeing to the R&G again.. back to point 1

 

4 yet to be proved and if you can prove it report them because you are making a serious claim that should be investigated or you should appologise

 

5 yes a forum is a place of debate and discussion but both of these require give and take and not a place to call someones ideas foolish just becaue you don't agree

 

I'm off to a warm and fluffy place where things are discussed and debated without insults andput-downs

[+FuzzyBears]

An Idea.... If you dont like Groundspeak's rules and guidelines or the way they are used by the reviewers/ moderators.... don't used the site... dont use the cache listings. Put your $30 towards your own listing site.

I'd like to propose an extension to Godwin's Law called Alex's Law.

 

If the best you can come up with on a discussion forum is along the lines of " if you don't like the way things are then push off somewhere else" then you have lost the argument.

 

I've never like that kind of attitude in an walk of life. Just because its your ball, you make the rules and you decide where the goal posts are on any particular day. If the world worked on those kind of lines then children would still be going up chimneys and women would not be voting. Hold on a minute.... that's not a bad idea !!

You should also propose a change to Groundspeaks rules that say thou shal not post anything of a commercial nature as well then........ a sig is part of your post...

[SlytherinAlex]

You should also propose a change to Groundspeaks rules that say thou shal not post anything of a commercial nature as well then........ a sig is part of your post...

Pardon?

[+Mad H@ter]

You should also propose a change to Groundspeaks rules that say thou shal not post anything of a commercial nature as well then........ a sig is part of your post...

And that has what relevance to this discussion ?

[+FuzzyBears]

You should also propose a change to Groundspeaks rules that say thou shal not post anything of a commercial nature as well then........ a sig is part of your post...

Pardon?

OK I apologise for saying your sig breaks the rules.... it gets round them quite nicely

[+FuzzyBears]

You should also propose a change to Groundspeaks rules that say thou shal not post anything of a commercial nature as well then........ a sig is part of your post...

And that has what relevance to this discussion ?

The same relevance as yours!!

[+Pharisee]

Pharisee in reply to your clipping my quotes to make your point my thoughts were

1 dont use this site.... start your own but you removed that bit

 

2 12 months no caches . I was trying to make a point that no rules would lead to wholesale cache removals

 

3 you rejoin every year thus agreeing to the R&G again.. back to point 1

 

4 yet to be proved and if you can prove it report them because you are making a serious claim that should be investigated or you should appologise

 

5 yes a forum is a place of debate and discussion but both of these require give and take and not a place to call someones ideas foolish just becaue you don't agree

 

I'm off to a warm and fluffy place where things are discussed and debated without insults andput-downs

 

 

1... Are you really, seriously putting that forward as a viable alternative?

 

 

2... "12 months no caches". Not sure what you're getting at here as I've both found and set caches in the last twelve months. Anyway... coming from someone who has yet to hide their first cache......

 

 

3... Yes and I'll continue to do so. I will abide by Groundspeak's rules. It's some of the the non-Groundspeak rules; the ones made up by our reviewers that I object to.

 

 

4...

 

The reasoning behind the request to remove the relevant parts was explained to the Cache Owner, this request was made after Alba15, Graculus and myself discused the cache page between ourselves and reached a consensus.

 

Need I say more? No apology required.

 

 

5... If 'foolish' is the worst some of your ideas ever get called, you'll be doing very well indeed. Welcome to the real world.

[+Simply Paul]

As an unappointed, untrained non-forum-mod can I ask for some cooling off here? It's in danger of getting personal and I'd hate to see anyone get in trouble.

 

Edited for speeling

Edited November 3, 2008 by Simply Paul

[SlytherinAlex]

 

OK I apologise for saying your sig breaks the rules.... it gets round them quite nicely

Apology accepted.

 

Moderators, please close my part of this thread.

Edited November 3, 2008 by SlytherinAlex

[+Mad H@ter]

As an un appointed, untrained non-forum-mod can I ask for some cooling off here? It's in danger of getting personal and I'd hate to see anyone get in trouble.

Agreed

 

Now we wouldn't want a good discussion locked due to bad behaviour would we ?

 

Or perhaps that's the intention

[+FuzzyBears]

I apologise to the forum for dragging the thread off sideways.... My post was supposed to make the point that this is the only viable site we have and blaming the 'volunteers' for GSP's rule re-writing does not look good to any one new coming into Geocaching and to this forum But my way of putting it didn't work The forum is and I hope always will be a good place for geocaching information...

My final point in this.... Please read your post twice before you press the Add Reply

Edited November 3, 2008 by fuzzybears

[+Munkeh]

oh dear

Edited November 3, 2008 by Munkeh

[+Simply Paul]

As an un appointed, untrained non-forum-mod can I ask for some cooling off here? It's in danger of getting personal and I'd hate to see anyone get in trouble.

Agreed

Now we wouldn't want a good discussion locked due to bad behaviour would we ?

Or perhaps that's the intention

It wasn't my intention, and I don't think it's anyone elses. I hope not, anyway. I think we've established there's two general points of view here: We're lucky to have UK reviewers/mods at all, so we should be nice to them (which I agree with) and just because they're not paid it doesn't follow that we can't question their decisions (which I also agree with). Sigs aren't on topic- that's a whole other subject.

[mandarin]

Right <deep breath>

 

This topic is being closed until 2100hrs this evening.

 

After that time the UK Moderators will step back from moderating this particular Topic and we will get one of the Global Moderators to do so instead. As there has been implied criticism of the moderators and reviewers and also because I'm married to one who, it has been suggested, may be a non-benevolent dictator, it is no longer possible for Deceangi or myself to moderate this Topic in a totally impartial manner. In taking this course of action both Deceangi and myself feel that we are following correct procedures for moderating a Topic where we feel we are being directly criticised.

 

We thank you for your patience until this Topic is re-opened at 2100hrs.

 

mandarin

[+Michael]

This post is open again. As long as the respect guidelines are followed it will remain open.

[Alan White]

Well done to mandarin for temporarily closing the thread and moving its moderation to an impartial moderator. I’ve taken that to mean that I can express my views on the GB moderators/reviewers. I do this in the hope that they will regard what I have to say as constructive comment and act appropriately.

 

Firstly I have to say, in case it be in any doubt, that I think the GB moderators and reviewers do a tremendous job. I can think of no hobby which relies so much on unpaid workers yet those workers work for a commercial company. The amount of their own time that the GB reviewers put into caching is unreasonable, and I’m grateful that they do so.

 

But no-one doing any task should consider themselves immune from comments from those who are affected by those tasks. Too often the response to any inferred criticism of the reviewers is an immediate brick wall: the “I am free to make up any rule I like and I don’t have to explain or justify it” response. That attitude is out of place in any organisation, and the more so in one which relies on flexible interpretation of guidelines and the goodwill of the members to uphold those guidelines.

 

Few will deny that the guidelines need to be updated from time to time as new situations develop. As far as I’m aware, Groundspeak has internal mechanisms for discussing changes to the guidelines, and we’ve all seen the results of that over the years. Some of the changes we’ll agree with, some we won’t. But we know that there’s been a measured process of discussion and revision before - and this is a key point - the new guidelines are documented and then published on this website and we can all see them, ask questions about them, comment on them, and so understand them.

 

But what has happened in recent months is that the GB reviewers have introduced a raft of new rules. These rules are specific to GB (or possibly UK, I don’t know); they are not documented in an accessible way; and they are not published. Worse, any attempt to discuss new rules is met with truculent responses along the lines of “I don’t have to justify myself to you”. That may be a true statement, but the reason why people ask the question is so that they can understand and so apply the new rule to their own situations. Asking the question is not a criticism of the reviewers: it’s a need to understand because we are all affected.

 

So what’s to be done? The guidelines need to evolve; the key is how they evolve and that, having done so, they are properly published so that everyone knows what they are. Having local reviewers imposing their own local rules and then keeping them unwritten and unpublished is hardly fostering the kind of global harmony that in April Groundspeak said it was so keen to have.

 

Now, about this forum. A forum is a place for discussion: in this case about caching in the UK. I can’t be the only one who has noticed that in the last few months there have probably been more threads closed than in the last few years. The volume of posts has decreased, and people have moved to other forums. We should ask ourselves why that is and why it’s important that it doesn’t continue.

 

For better or for worse Groundspeak is currently the dominant player in cache listing sites, and anyone starting caching in the UK will come to Groundspeak and then to this forum. It does a disservice to Groundspeak and to UK caching when one of the threads the newcomer finds is this one.

 

So how can that be changed? Simple: reduce the level of moderation. Providing the discussion is civil and about UK caching then any thread in this forum should be allowed to run to its natural conclusion. If the thread is critical of Groundspeak or its reviewers then closing it aggravates the problem because members feel that their voice isn’t being listened to. Then more threads are opened, closed, and eventually people get banned. This is not good for Groundspeak or caching. Always remember: this is a forum for discussing caching in the UK.

 

When long-standing respected cachers like Pharisee, Mad H@ter, and Simply Paul comment en masse that things are not right then we should be sure that things are not right and whoever has the power to change things for the better should use it.

 

[Edited to add all the text. Dunno what happened to the rest of the copy-n-paste ]

Edited November 3, 2008 by Alan White

[+third-degree-witch]

Hopefully hell will freeze over first

I take it I can't rely on your vote then?

 

You guess correctly.I dont think i need air my views here.well documented.

[+Jaz666]

But what has happened in recent months is that the GB reviewers have introduced a raft of new rules.

 

I'm sorry, but please can someone post what these "new rules" that have been introduced, and give some examples?

 

I am aware of the new guidelines on UK specific issues such as churchyards and train stations, but I don't recall anything else "new".

[+Happy Humphrey]

So how can that be changed? Simple: reduce the level of moderation.

Also: reduce the number of moderators to the ones who have been appointed (rather than self-appointed!)!

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm sorry, but please can someone post what these "new rules" that have been introduced, and give some examples?

That's exactly what Alan (and me, and others) are asking for!

[Edgemaster]

I'm sorry, but please can someone post what these "new rules" that have been introduced, and give some examples?

That's exactly what Alan (and me, and others) are asking for!

All the recent examples I have read of have been fully justified by the existing Groundspeak guidelines.

[+Pharisee]

Well done to mandarin for temporarily closing the thread... <SNIP> ...to change things for the better should use it.

 

Eloquently put, Alan.

[The Royles]

All the recent examples I have read of have been fully justified by the existing Groundspeak guidelines.

 

The "Banned subjects" thread was closed without an answer to why the watered down statement was deemed unacceptable.

[mandarin]

I'd like to thank Michael for stepping in to moderate on this Topic.

 

This gives me the opportunity to directly comment, or express views, in this discussion which is generating some degree of robust debate.

 

Although the Topic refers to "Reviewer bashing" I hope it won't be considered "off topic" if I make a brief response to Alan White's comments regarding the recent moderating of this forum.

 

 

<snip>Now, about this forum. A forum is a place for discussion: in this case about caching in the UK. I can’t be the only one who has noticed that in the last few months there have probably been more threads closed than in the last few years. The volume of posts has decreased, and people have moved to other forums. We should ask ourselves why that is and why it’s important that it doesn’t continue...

 

...So how can that be changed? Simple: reduce the level of moderation. Providing the discussion is civil and about UK caching then any thread in this forum should be allowed to run to its natural conclusion... <snip>

 

 

It's always interesting to read views about how heavy or light the moderation should be and I've come across varying degrees of opinion in the PMs which have come through to me over the last 3 months. Finding a level of response that pleases everyone is (I have discovered) impossible, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be up for discussion.

 

Forum Guideline #3 states (in part) "If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad".

 

I would like to ask Alan White, or anyone else who cares to respond, to give some individual examples of which Topics they feel should not have been closed (despite whatever reason I gave at the time) and to give their reason as to why they believe the particular topic should have remained open.

 

Looking back over the last 3 pages of forum posts it appears to me that nearly all have been closed at the request of the OP - Do forum users believe this particular moderating principle should be changed?

 

Thanks

Edited November 3, 2008 by mandarin

[+Mr Hedgehog]

I feel that Alan White has put it a lot more eloquently than I could have done.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

 

So how can that be changed? Simple: reduce the level of moderation. Providing the discussion is civil and about UK caching then any thread in this forum should be allowed to run to its natural conclusion. If the thread is critical of Groundspeak or its reviewers then closing it aggravates the problem because members feel that their voice isn’t being listened to. Then more threads are opened, closed, and eventually people get banned. This is not good for Groundspeak or caching. Always remember: this is a forum for discussing caching in the UK.

 

When long-standing respected cachers like Pharisee, Mad H@ter, and Simply Paul comment en masse that things are not right then we should be sure that things are not right and whoever has the power to change things for the better should use it.

 

 

Very well put Mr White, I totally agree and put much better than I could have done, especially the last part

 

M

[+Us 4 and Jess]

As there has been implied criticism of the moderators and reviewers and also because I'm married to one who, it has been suggested, may be a non-benevolent dictator, it is no longer possible for Deceangi or myself to moderate this Topic in a totally impartial manner.

 

mandarin

 

I do not wish to elaborate, but this actually speak volumes

 

M

[+dino-irl]

Well done to mandarin for temporarily closing the thread... <SNIP> ...to change things for the better should use it.

 

Eloquently put, Alan.

Well-written it may have been but it's very short on detailed facts.

 

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves and also I'd like to see a response to mandarin's request for specific examples of threads that were handled badly. If this thread is to criticise the actions of moderators/reviewers then I think they deserve the decency of specific examples rather than general accusations.

[+dino-irl]

As there has been implied criticism of the moderators and reviewers and also because I'm married to one who, it has been suggested, may be a non-benevolent dictator, it is no longer possible for Deceangi or myself to moderate this Topic in a totally impartial manner.

 

mandarin

 

I do not wish to elaborate, but this actually speak volumes

I'm sorry Mandy but unless you do elaborate that statement sits there like a nasty, spiteful comment. IMO it's verging on a personal attack unless you qualify it!

[The Royles]

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves and also I'd like to see a response to mandarin's request for specific examples of threads that were handled badly. If this thread is to criticise the actions of moderators/reviewers then I think they deserve the decency of specific examples rather than general accusations.

 

OK, I will bite

 

Reviewers APPARENTLY making up rules

 

"This is not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. I am therefore archiving it."

 

was the note left when archiving a cache. Oh and before gracky comes wading in again with his accusations I now realise that this statement was (for want of a better term) ecconomical with the facts so was misleading.

 

Threads handled badly:

 

Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left

Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread

Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods

[+dino-irl]

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves and also I'd like to see a response to mandarin's request for specific examples of threads that were handled badly. If this thread is to criticise the actions of moderators/reviewers then I think they deserve the decency of specific examples rather than general accusations.

 

OK, I will bite

 

Reviewers APPARENTLY making up rules

 

"This is not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. I am therefore archiving it."

 

was the note left when archiving a cache. Oh and before gracky comes wading in again with his accusations I now realise that this statement was (for want of a better term) ecconomical with the facts so was misleading.

I've looked at that cache and I can see why it was archived and why that statement was made. All other reviewers and the Cache Owner will also know as the full story is available only if you are one of the two. I fully support Graculus's stance not to talk about the details as the issue has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CO. I suggest you contact him/her if you want more information. However, it was nothing to do with the 3 possibilities you initially suggested.

 

The archival log may have been slightly misleading in this case but it's hardly changing the rules!

 

Threads handled badly:

 

Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left

Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread

Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods

I've no real opinion on these except to say that the third example was requested to be closed by the OP IIRC

[+Happy Humphrey]

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves ...

Like The Royles, I wonder whether this is a trap! Anyway, apart from the Royles' example you only have to go to the Sharpeville Cache thread to see the problem. Despite various polite requests for enlightenment, we were never told what rule was applied when this cache was originally refused, not even to give a general indication of what to avoid when submitting a cache. The closest we got was a guideline which gives the reviewer the power to suggest changes to a cache description before publication, and this clarified nothing.

 

Not a big deal in itself, but rather puzzling.

 

Forum moderation seems a bit heavy-handed at times and I get the feeling that this is to appease various ultra-sensitive people who take it all too seriously. They should be reminded that all we're talking about is the finer points of geocaching: and lives are not at stake. Nor should they take it as a personal attack any time someone disagrees with them. You can disagree with someone and be the best of friends, you know!

 

I'd prefer the forum to change to somewhere that we can freely discuss issues to do with UK Geocaching, and the mods to rein in those who insist on topics being kept to the "social networking" level.

[+Michael]

The pups thread had a software download. It was moved to the proper forum. This is a multi forum system Somethings belong here and some belong elsewhere. No single forum is designed to be stand alone. They exist to work together. This system is designed to be used as a multi forum board. In the case of the pups thread, the forum for hardware and software is where it belongs. If you feel there are others that should be moved send me an email with the thread URL's and I will be happy to look at them. None of us are perfect and it is possible that some were missed.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Michael

[mandarin]

 

Threads handled badly:

 

Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left

Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread

Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods

 

Thank you to The Royles for offering these examples, I will address each comment in turn:

 

1. "Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left."

 

It has been my impression that over past years very few Topics that fell into the "GPS and Technology" category were actually moved over into that Forum. Since I've been modding, I've tried to have some balance by leaving those "techie" topics that appear to have some broader, or more general interest, in the UK Forum. Also, these Forums can be a rather daunting place to put up a Topic if you're a new cacher asking the perenniel favourite "Which GPS should I buy?" or similar question and to have it immediately moved off into another section may seem a little "heavy-handed" and disheartening for a new contributor.

However, in future I will apply this moderation in a heavier manner to ensure that all such technical Topics get moved across. Please put this one down to the fact that I am not a "techie" person and I find it difficult to judge sometimes just how "techie" something actually is. In future, if you feel that one of these GPS and Technology topics is sitting in the UK forum when it would be better off in the other one then please simply PM me the link, mention why you feel it should be moved and (after checking with my colleagues who know more about such things!) it will be dealt with appropriately.

 

Incidentally, when I moved PUP's Topic across, I emailed him about it and received a perfectly reasonable response, without complaint.

 

2. "Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread."

 

This Topic was closed at the request of the Mad H@ter. "Could the next passing duck please lock this thread as I think it has run its course and seems unlikely to develop further." Your own post in that thread (#164) appears to suggest that you were in agreement with his sentiment at that time.

 

3. "Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods."

 

Once again, this topic was closed at the suggestion of the OP, mcwomble. (I actually double-checked with him that he did mean it to be closed, and he confirmed that he agreed with my action.)

As to "no answer given by the mods" (I assume you meant "no answer given by the reviewers", as they are not all mods, just as not both mods are reviewers) - I saw responses from the reviewers but if they were not what you wanted to hear then it's up to them to comment further, if they feel they need to.

 

Just three other points, I'd like to mention here:

 

Referring to items 2 and 3 above, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the mods work on the principle that if the OP requests that their Topic should be closed then we follow that wish.

 

In moderating this forum we are not required to read every post, nor are we expected to monitor it 24/7. If we are sent a PM or email about some matter we will give it our attention as soon as possible. If we happen to read it 'immediately' then we try and respond swiftly. If, however, we're engaged in real life activities then it may be several hours before you get a response (if we feel action is required). If it's a rather more complicated matter then we may need some time to discuss what suitable response (if any) may be appropriate.

 

Finally, everyone has a choice whether they participate in this Forum, or not. No one is obliged to reply/respond/participate in any way. As we know, many geocachers do not choose to interact through these Forums for whatever reasons. Those who do choose to interact here do so of their own free will and are all welcome to do so as long as the Forum Guidelines are being followed.

 

Again, thank you for making a clear and specific criticism which I have tried to answer, rather than vague accusations which are always difficult to refute.

 

mandarin

[+dino-irl]

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves ...

Like The Royles, I wonder whether this is a trap! Anyway, apart from the Royles' example you only have to go to the Sharpeville Cache thread to see the problem. Despite various polite requests for enlightenment, we were never told what rule was applied when this cache was originally refused, not even to give a general indication of what to avoid when submitting a cache. The closest we got was a guideline which gives the reviewer the power to suggest changes to a cache description before publication, and this clarified nothing.

The original explanation you refer to was given prior to the CO's statement on that thread so I guess it's ok for me to expand on it a bit.

 

There is a section of the guidelines that covers this (Link):

 

Caches that Solicit

 

Solicitations are off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda.

The section I highlighted is probably why this cache was originally denied. Once again an interpretation of the guidelines and not new rules.

 

Forum moderation seems a bit heavy-handed at times and I get the feeling that this is to appease various ultra-sensitive people who take it all too seriously. They should be reminded that all we're talking about is the finer points of geocaching: and lives are not at stake. Nor should they take it as a personal attack any time someone disagrees with them. You can disagree with someone and be the best of friends, you know!

 

I'd prefer the forum to change to somewhere that we can freely discuss issues to do with UK Geocaching, and the mods to rein in those who insist on topics being kept to the "social networking" level.

As far as I can tell that is what mandarin has being doing. She has been attempting to keep all discussions relevant to geocaching only and topics relevant to the UK. Possibly I'm missing what you are referring to so why don't you give some specific examples?

[+uktim]

 

When long-standing respected cachers like Pharisee, Mad H@ter, and Simply Paul comment en masse that things are not right then we should be sure that things are not right and whoever has the power to change things for the better should use it.

 

[Edited to add all the text. Dunno what happened to the rest of the copy-n-paste ]

 

Sorry that just doesn't stack up. There is a huge silent and happy majority of cachers just getting on with things. There's no way that a few vocal old timers should be able hold so much influence over the rest of the active cachers out there.

[+purple_pineapple]

I would love to see some examples of where reviewers are apparently making up the rules themselves and also I'd like to see a response to mandarin's request for specific examples of threads that were handled badly. If this thread is to criticise the actions of moderators/reviewers then I think they deserve the decency of specific examples rather than general accusations.

 

OK, I will bite

 

Reviewers APPARENTLY making up rules

 

"This is not a new cache, but the original one (archived) with original container and logbook. I am therefore archiving it."

 

was the note left when archiving a cache. Oh and before gracky comes wading in again with his accusations I now realise that this statement was (for want of a better term) ecconomical with the facts so was misleading.

I've looked at that cache and I can see why it was archived and why that statement was made. All other reviewers and the Cache Owner will also know as the full story is available only if you are one of the two. I fully support Graculus's stance not to talk about the details as the issue has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CO. I suggest you contact him/her if you want more information. However, it was nothing to do with the 3 possibilities you initially suggested.

 

The archival log may have been slightly misleading in this case but it's hardly changing the rules!

 

OK, so if we accept that no new rules have been imposed here, surely you can see how frustrating it is for us non-priveledged cachers to not know the reasons. You can surely understand how people would mis-interpret the archive log, and who's to say whether other cache setters might fall foul of the same issue. As it happens, I actually trust the UK reviewers when they say it was archived for a valid reason that isn't based on some new rules, but to not say what the reason was is to very much put that trust to the test.

 

regarding the Sharpesville cache, again, we only have the very sketchy facts from the forum. Apparently, these are not complete, but again we are asked to accept that the reviewers have made the correct decisions, and we can't know all the details.

 

Now the reviwers have always freely admitted that mistakes happen, after all, they're only human, and in the past we have all generally laughed at them and taken the pi... mickey! I believe that is because there has been transparency in the review process, so we can all see that mistakes are mistakes, and not some kind of consipracy. Without that transparency, an awful lot of reliance is being put on our trust in the reviewers, and with the situation with TPTB, our trust may be being pushed a bit too far.

[+Lost in Space]

....if you're a new cacher asking the perenniel favourite "Which GPS should I buy?" or similar question and to have it immediately moved off into another section may seem a little "heavy-handed" and disheartening for a new contributor.

 

Together with "What PDA", it is a question raised monthly and to me in particular, as a forum user for 7 yrs or so it is getting "old hat".

 

I have long requested that the above topics be given individual topic status in the pinned topic section in the UK forum, not hidden under the "Multiple pinned topics" title - it is obvious that no-one new to this forum ever goes there.

 

Perhaps we should also have a "UK specific technology/software" pinned topic.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Lost in Space

[+uktim]

 

Looking back over the last 3 pages of forum posts it appears to me that nearly all have been closed at the request of the OP - Do forum users believe this particular moderating principle should be changed?

 

 

Personally I believe that this practice shouldn't be used at all. Some pretty interesting threads with valid ongoing discussion seem to get closed because the OP has got the answer that they want or maybe even because the discussion isn't developing in the way they want. In the interests of open discussion I believe that threads should only be closed if they become to heated or drift into non-geocaching related social chit chat. As long as the subject is still to do with caching I don't see thread drift as anissue or a vaild reason to close a topic..

[+dino-irl]

OK, so if we accept that no new rules have been imposed here, surely you can see how frustrating it is for us non-priveledged cachers to not know the reasons. You can surely understand how people would mis-interpret the archive log, and who's to say whether other cache setters might fall foul of the same issue. As it happens, I actually trust the UK reviewers when they say it was archived for a valid reason that isn't based on some new rules, but to not say what the reason was is to very much put that trust to the test.

To be blatantly honest the reason the cache was archived is none of your business as you aren't the CO. I'm sorry if that appears confrontational but it's not intended to be. The CO hasn't come forward to say they want it discussed in public so nobody is able to do so. If you want more details I suggest (again) that you contact the CO and ask them. If they want to volunteer the information then that is up to them.

 

regarding the Sharpesville cache, again, we only have the very sketchy facts from the forum. Apparently, these are not complete, but again we are asked to accept that the reviewers have made the correct decisions, and we can't know all the details.

The CO outlined the reasons why it was denied and I gave reference to the specific guideline. What details are missing now?

 

Now the reviwers have always freely admitted that mistakes happen, after all, they're only human, and in the past we have all generally laughed at them and taken the pi... mickey! I believe that is because there has been transparency in the review process, so we can all see that mistakes are mistakes, and not some kind of consipracy. Without that transparency, an awful lot of reliance is being put on our trust in the reviewers, and with the situation with TPTB, our trust may be being pushed a bit too far.

I really don't see your point here. I don't think the review process has changed at all, just the people administrating it. The guidelines are the same and they are being interpreted in much the same way. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see how it can be made any more transparent bearing in mind that 99% of the cache discussion happens between the CO and reviewer in private and is deleted prior to publication. Surely you're not suggesting that all of this remains on public view post-publication or that we discuss in an open forum every cache that may appear to fall on the wrong side of the guidelines?

 

It also appears to me that there are only two caches (both discussed ad naseum here recently) that are being flagged as problems. It doesn't do much to support the theory that there is a new set of rules out there

[+uktim]

 

Together with "What PDA", it is a question raised monthly and to me in particular, as a forum user for 7 yrs or so it is getting "old hat".

 

I have long requested that the above topics be given individual topic status in the pinned topic section in the UK forum, not hidden under the "Multiple pinned topics" title - it is obvious that no-one new to this forum ever goes there.

 

Perhaps we should also have a "UK specific technology/software" pinned topic.

 

I tend to favour a system that keeps topics in the correct forums within a nice simple forum framework. One single technology/software forum should be adequate and make it nice and easy for those who wish to filter what they wish to view. to do so. The software and gadget market is pretty much a global market these days so there should be few location specific issues, if such issues do exist then careful title selection for the topics would be the best way of highlighting them in an iternational forum IMO.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The original explanation you refer to was given prior to the CO's statement on that thread so I guess it's ok for me to expand on it a bit.

 

The section I highlighted is probably why this cache was originally denied. Once again an interpretation of the guidelines and not new rules.

My take on it then, is that the interpretation was so off-centre that we couldn't even see what it had to do with the cache and guideline, so no wonder we thought that it was a new rule. I think that what you're saying is that the cache was deemed to have been set up specifically to make a political point about the Sharpeville incident. Although that was clearly erroneous (IMO) it was the reviewer's opinion, so it fell under the guidelines you quote. Why has it taken so long to get this clarified?

 

There are several other examples of where we appear to be only told "what we need to know", which only starts a long debate. Perhaps I'll dig them out if necessary but I don't have enough spare time right now.

As far as I can tell that is what mandarin has being doing. She has been attempting to keep all discussions relevant to geocaching only and topics relevant to the UK. Possibly I'm missing what you are referring to so why don't you give some specific examples?

I don't have a big issue with the level of moderation, but it seems that the balance is too much in favour of stopping discussion that is a little "vigorous". Sadly, I don't have time at the moment to search for examples.

[The Royles]

Thank you to The Royles for offering these examples, I will address each comment in turn:

 

1. "Pups thread being moved with lots of others of a similar nature left."

 

It has been my impression that over past years very few Topics that fell into the "GPS and Technology" category were actually moved over into that Forum. Since I've been modding, I've tried to have some balance by leaving those "techie" topics that appear to have some broader, or more general interest, in the UK Forum. Also, these Forums can be a rather daunting place to put up a Topic if you're a new cacher asking the perenniel favourite "Which GPS should I buy?" or similar question and to have it immediately moved off into another section may seem a little "heavy-handed" and disheartening for a new contributor.

However, in future I will apply this moderation in a heavier manner to ensure that all such technical Topics get moved across. Please put this one down to the fact that I am not a "techie" person and I find it difficult to judge sometimes just how "techie" something actually is. In future, if you feel that one of these GPS and Technology topics is sitting in the UK forum when it would be better off in the other one then please simply PM me the link, mention why you feel it should be moved and (after checking with my colleagues who know more about such things!) it will be dealt with appropriately.

 

Incidentally, when I moved PUP's Topic across, I emailed him about it and received a perfectly reasonable response, without complaint.

 

2. "Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread."

 

This Topic was closed at the request of the Mad H@ter. "Could the next passing duck please lock this thread as I think it has run its course and seems unlikely to develop further." Your own post in that thread (#164) appears to suggest that you were in agreement with his sentiment at that time.

 

3. "Banned subjects thread now locked with no answer given by the mods."

 

Once again, this topic was closed at the suggestion of the OP, mcwomble. (I actually double-checked with him that he did mean it to be closed, and he confirmed that he agreed with my action.)

As to "no answer given by the mods" (I assume you meant "no answer given by the reviewers", as they are not all mods, just as not both mods are reviewers) - I saw responses from the reviewers but if they were not what you wanted to hear then it's up to them to comment further, if they feel they need to.

 

Just three other points, I'd like to mention here:

 

Referring to items 2 and 3 above, as I pointed out in my earlier post, the mods work on the principle that if the OP requests that their Topic should be closed then we follow that wish.

 

In moderating this forum we are not required to read every post, nor are we expected to monitor it 24/7. If we are sent a PM or email about some matter we will give it our attention as soon as possible. If we happen to read it 'immediately' then we try and respond swiftly. If, however, we're engaged in real life activities then it may be several hours before you get a response (if we feel action is required). If it's a rather more complicated matter then we may need some time to discuss what suitable response (if any) may be appropriate.

 

Finally, everyone has a choice whether they participate in this Forum, or not. No one is obliged to reply/respond/participate in any way. As we know, many geocachers do not choose to interact through these Forums for whatever reasons. Those who do choose to interact here do so of their own free will and are all welcome to do so as long as the Forum Guidelines are being followed.

 

Again, thank you for making a clear and specific criticism which I have tried to answer, rather than vague accusations which are always difficult to refute.

 

mandarin

 

Thanks for the lucid and considered response, it is that kind of interaction which will get this forum a good name

 

To clarify a few points:

 

1. Re Pups thread part of your reply was:

 

"In future, if you feel that one of these GPS and Technology topics is sitting in the UK forum when it would be better off in the other one then please simply PM me the link, mention why you feel it should be moved and (after checking with my colleagues who know more about such things!) it will be dealt with appropriately."

 

Now I do not feel that this or any of the other threads should be moved, so I will politely decline the offer.

 

2. "Camping thread locked because of mails sent outside of the thread."

 

I was referring to the locking at post #83 as an example of over moderation, not when the OP requested the locking.

 

I accept your answers and do understand that you lock threads when requested by the OP, but I am more aligned with uktim in that just because the OP has their answer it does not mean that the thread is "complete".

 

Once again, thanks for the answers.

[+purple_pineapple]

OK, so if we accept that no new rules have been imposed here, surely you can see how frustrating it is for us non-priveledged cachers to not know the reasons. You can surely understand how people would mis-interpret the archive log, and who's to say whether other cache setters might fall foul of the same issue. As it happens, I actually trust the UK reviewers when they say it was archived for a valid reason that isn't based on some new rules, but to not say what the reason was is to very much put that trust to the test.

To be blatantly honest the reason the cache was archived is none of your business as you aren't the CO. I'm sorry if that appears confrontational but it's not intended to be. The CO hasn't come forward to say they want it discussed in public so nobody is able to do so. If you want more details I suggest (again) that you contact the CO and ask them. If they want to volunteer the information then that is up to them.

 

regarding the Sharpesville cache, again, we only have the very sketchy facts from the forum. Apparently, these are not complete, but again we are asked to accept that the reviewers have made the correct decisions, and we can't know all the details.

The CO outlined the reasons why it was denied and I gave reference to the specific guideline. What details are missing now?

 

Now the reviwers have always freely admitted that mistakes happen, after all, they're only human, and in the past we have all generally laughed at them and taken the pi... mickey! I believe that is because there has been transparency in the review process, so we can all see that mistakes are mistakes, and not some kind of consipracy. Without that transparency, an awful lot of reliance is being put on our trust in the reviewers, and with the situation with TPTB, our trust may be being pushed a bit too far.

I really don't see your point here. I don't think the review process has changed at all, just the people administrating it. The guidelines are the same and they are being interpreted in much the same way. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't see how it can be made any more transparent bearing in mind that 99% of the cache discussion happens between the CO and reviewer in private and is deleted prior to publication. Surely you're not suggesting that all of this remains on public view post-publication or that we discuss in an open forum every cache that may appear to fall on the wrong side of the guidelines?

 

It also appears to me that there are only two caches (both discussed ad naseum here recently) that are being flagged as problems. It doesn't do much to support the theory that there is a new set of rules out there

 

I can't be bothered (or really know how) to intersperse my replies, so sorry if this doesn't scan nicely!

 

I'll take your comment as being non-confrontational, as you intended! However, I do disagree! To flick to your last point, I did say that I don't believe any new rules are being imposed, but with the archive log (which I know has been agreed as being un-intentionally misleading) all we have to go on, it did suggest some new rule.

 

I do firmly believe that, once an issue has come to light, then it would be helpful if all the facts could be provided. If, for example, the cache was orignally archived because of land permission issues, then that could be stated, and everyone would be happy that there was a valid reason. End of discussion and these caches wouldn't then have been discussed ad nauseum! The fact that so many people are interested in these caches also suggests that if we all e-mailed the cache owner, he/she might get somewhat cheesed off! Surely, thats what the forums are for! (BTW, I'm not and never have suggested that all archives should be discussed on the forum, but the CO raised it, and it would be helpful for the community if it could be discussed with all the facts and then put to rest qithout going round in circles!)

 

Concerning Sharpesville, the guideline used is a very generic one. I have no problem with its existanmce, and have always thought it is there to a) deal with 'best practice' such as the avoidance of placcy bags round cache boxes and, to allow for specific local issues such as Dry Stone Walls and recently churchyard and sidetracked caches. (Both of which are local rules, generally well-notified, and again, I have no problem with). Now unless I missed something, the original cache was rejected for some unknown reason to do with the wording. Nobody has ever seen the original wording, so again, we don't know the problem.

 

Finally, I've never suggested that our new reviewers are using different guidelines, or even different interpretations (or when they have, these new local guidelines are open). I also don't suggest that the reviewer notes on caches should be left on show. My comment about transparency (and yes, it does only concern two caches that I know of at the present) is that no specific reason has ever been given, we are simply referred to a guideline. I must confess that I'm not sure how confidential discussions need to be (as someone said, we're not talkign medical hstories here) but, to give an example, if the first cache archived due to permission issues, then that's a transparent and open reason that isn't subject to debate, and if the second one edited due to a perceived religious, political, charitable or social agenda, then it would be helpful if the offending statement could be given. We may not agree with the perception, but at least we would be able to see what that perception is based on.

 

Anyway, we appear to be going somewhat round in circles and also hogging the thread! I really eed to get on with some work!

[+The Maggot Drowner]

I for one am getting pretty cheesed off with all the posts seemingly posted to rile the current UK reviewers.

 

Lacto and Ecky have gone. Much as we regret their departure, they are gone and will not be returning.

Live with it, move on.

 

The current reviewers had no involvement in their departure but it appears that they are becoming the butt of everyone's angst.

 

Give them a break - cease the antagonistic posts - please..........

 

It was a long time ago that this post started so I thought that everyone might need reminding about what it was all about.

 

I know I'm a relative newbie but I must say that I am disappointed with all the bickering that goes on here, you may like to call it "debate" but to me it just seems like you keep going on about the same topics over and over again which then decends into what seems like a slanging match with various members trying not to enhance the game/forums but to score points off each other or attepting to assert some non-existing authority.

 

Have you realised that this may be the reason things are going stale. What newcomer would want to become involved in what usually turns out to be an arguement which has little to do with enhancing the game or an individuals enjoyment.

[+dino-irl]

I think that what you're saying is that the cache was deemed to have been set up specifically to make a political point about the Sharpeville incident.

No. The cache page wording may have suggested that the CO was implying support one way or another on what could still be construed as a political matter. The wording has been changed now so not even I can tell what that may have been. I doubt if even Dave or Chris remember the exact wording at this stage.

 

Although that was clearly erroneous (IMO) it was the reviewer's opinion, so it fell under the guidelines you quote. Why has it taken so long to get this clarified?

I'm only able to talk about it now as the CO has outlined him/herself what the problem was and explain it to the forum in terms of the guidelines.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I know I'm a relative newbie but I must say that I am disappointed with all the bickering that goes on here, you may like to call it "debate" but to me it just seems like you keep going on about the same topics over and over again which then decends into what seems like a slanging match with various members trying not to enhance the game/forums but to score points off each other or attepting to assert some non-existing authority.

Sometimes what I call a "debate" others will see as "bickering". That's fine, but why don't those who see it as bickering simply ignore the thread and let those who want to debate ad nauseum just quietly get on with it in their little corner? If the thread is tedious and repetitive it will die through lack of interest, and if slanging starts it will be closed rapidly by the mods.

 

I haven't really noticed the points-scoring, although there may be examples from time to time, people being people.