Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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.

The original wording was quoted in the original thread, along with the proposed change and the final version.

Link to comment

 

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? :D

 

Thats a fair point and also a good idea. Maybe they could set up a thread where people can go to moan/bicker/debate/point score etc etc. Instead of it being brought into other threads started for different reasons. :D

Link to comment
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.
The original wording was quoted in the original thread, along with the proposed change and the final version.
mcwomble has said there was an earlier version of the cache page, which hasn't been publicised, but was rejected. What you (and I, on the other thread) have been calling the 'original' text is, in fact, what mcwomble calls the watered-down version. After a second rejection he removed the mention of the Sharpeville Massacre all together, and it's that third version which passed scrutiny. It's not a big deal, even to mcwomble. What it is though, is unexpected. If this was standard operating procedure, it would have received 'that's how it's done' comments on his thread. It seems curious because, as mcwomble says, lots of similar memorials have been used, without comment. I myself have a cache based around a Boer War monument; it was never queried. Unsurprisingly people are perceiving this apparent change in guideline interpretation as a new rule, or at least a(n excessive?) tightening of an old one. Those of us who aren't privy to the whole story and complete facts are left to work on the information which is given and while this can lead to misunderstandings, I've not seen a reviewer deny they asked for the mention of the massacre to be removed. Again, it's not a big deal, but it does pose the question; is this not a bit OTT? And if it is, will there be more OTT decision made in the future? It's that which has got some folk interested - me included.

 

Edied to agree with the post below.

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

I've found the following post the most interesting on this thread, and as I believe much of it may reflect the feelings of many more users (the silent majority I keep hearing from- Oxymoron?) I think it's well worth a closer look...

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.
It certainly isn't a democracy, but people who've paid their $30 (and users who haven't- it's their game too) should be allowed to express their opinions without being told to go elsewhere. Yes they're Groundspeak's rules, but the site only exists because people hide things for other people to find; Groundspeak are 'only' the middleman in the process. If enough people took your advice this lucrative web business would soon find itself short of users and advertisers. Better the boat is patched and saved than the lifeboats launched and the ship goes down, I think. Mind, I'm already wearing a lifejacket and am eyeing the emergency exit signs.
Then the few people who actually agree with you would have somewhere to list their caches. Don't forget you will need at least two dedicated servers with someone who's good at databases to run them for you you wont need any revewers or mods because there won't be any rules. The only problem is that after about 12 months caching would be banned in the UK or all of us would be spotting fast food locationless caches (no flames I liked locationless)
Imagine, for a moment, that an alternative to geocaching.com existed (several do) - They need reviewers and mods, because they also have rules. Perhaps ones that are more appropriate to the UK and British cachers than the (needlessly?) restrictive ones passed down to us from the US. If vituals were allowed, for example, there would be less friction with land owners (royal parks management?) not more, and perhaps the game would be blooming with renewed interest in 12 month's time? Fast food outlets sort of highlights why I'm not a keen waymarker, as many cachers aren't.
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
Every cache page says 'by using this site you agree to its Ts&Cs'. But with so many wide open to interpretation, or apparently unwritten all together, it has become hard for users to know quite what they're agreeing to. Yes again, it's Groundspeak's site, but if the goodwill of its users is eroded like mine has been (bans, warnings and 'oh good, another cache next to a smelly bit of canal' being the vaguest of outlines in my personal case) by changes which don't seem to be adding to the game, only taking away from it then is it any surprise that there have been several cases of mass archiving recently? It's their site, but it's our game. Their business, our entertainment.
The UK volunteers do a thankless job very well, I would think when they took the (JOB??) that they agreed they would follow the R&G set down (or not) and it's not their fault if the goal posts keep moving. They are human and do there best. So why when they make a little mistake or, without proof, someone thinks they have do a few moaning minis leap on their backs demanding THEY change the R&G

If it's YOUR cache they won't review complain to Groundspeak

I hope you're right. I'm not sure how much pressure from above was applied on recent 'high profile' situations but I've no doubt reviewers and mods do receive mandates from Groundspeak which they may find difficult to implement; certainly 'the last lot' did; that's why they resigned. They couldn't get what they believed to be the best interests of UK caching to peacefully co-exist with what they were being ordered (not too strong a word, I hope) to do by Groundspeak. The new team felt they could and I hope they continue to believe this as finding fresh ones would be a bore. Given there seems little point in having local people applying global rules, I can foresee the UK not getting its own reviewers/mods again, should the undesirable happen. As for making mistakes, everyone does, and it's good when the wrong decisions are reversed, especially ones under the spotlight. I think there's a growing perception that this isn't happening; positions are becoming entrenched and communication breaking down. I've had questions here and requests via email go unresponded to, leading me to feel my efforts aren't appreciated; trying to adopt a historic cache recently archived, for example. I was told there would be a peer review on it and heard nothing. Just an example, but I've no reason to think my experience is unique (I don't listen to people who claim there's a vendetta against me- I'm not that paranoid). I've complained to Groundspeak before, and know others have too- it hasn't been worth the time or effort thus far. That's personal experience speaking.
If you get your wrist slapped on the forum and you think it's wrong complain to Groundspeak

If you think you should have been offered the (job) and didn't get over it it was Groundspeak who made the final choice

120 day ban (later reduced to 3 days 'on appeal') for some gentle fun with the bosses avatar sort of wrist slapping? When the CEO slaps your wrist, who at his company is going to overturn his decision? I don't think people's reaction to this and other curious forum behaviour by TPTB has anything to do with wishing they were in charge; it's more to do with hoping to see appropriate action (when to ban, what for, when to close a thread, what for, when to gently suggest a change of direction...) in a measured, predictable way.
And finaly get off their backs ...thank them for the 100s of caches they review and not the one of two which they can't pass because THEY are only trying to follow the R&G. This forum is a great place sometimes spoiled by a very few people trying to score points over others

<rant /off>

Given the fallout from Peter and David's abdication back in April, I would have thought they knew it wouldn't be an easy ride. As I've said elsewhere, they're doing a difficult job, made harder -I feel- by some guidelines so wide open to interpretation as to be useless, and others (rules) which Groundspeak appear to be tightening; what counted as a commercial cache and forum posting changing from one month to the next caught me out personally, as an example. When you say the forum is being spoiled by a few people, you don't mean the management, do you? :D

 

Edited to add a '. I'm a perfectionist; it's a terrible thing really, leading me to find fault in most things, but as George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (Also unreasonable ladies.)

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

I've been watching a few of these Forum Angst threads recently. :D

At least its not descended to the depths of the Westmorland Gazette forums, where someone's opinion is deemed to be invalid on the basis of their username! I kid you not!!! :D Maybe that's more of an example of an unmoderated forum though.

 

Personally, I think the mods get it about right, despite some threads being quite obviously personally aimed at them. I applaud Mandarin's stance on this thread - I think The Duckie would have been perfectly correct to lock the thread. As someone else said - Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!

 

Not wanting to pour petrol on the bonfire :D, a little research on 'Sharpeville Hills' in Basildon will bring up what is more than likely the original (or very close to original!?) wording of McWomble's cache. I'm basing that on the rest of the description being pretty close. Hopefully I'm not over-stepping the mark - I've deliberately NOT posted a link.

 

While we can all discuss the rights or wrongs of regimes, surely caches and these forums aren't the appropriate places. Whether McWomble intended to make a poilitical comment is debatable - I suspect not. They clearly weren't too fussed with the change in the end, otherwise we might have heard more.

 

A while ago (I guess it must have been late September last year!), I thought about a series to commemorate the demolition of cooling towers at Calder Hall and Chapelcross. After a quick post on here, it was suggested by the mods/reviewers that the cache page would need to be extremely carefully written to not be seen to be going one way or the other. In the end, I didn't do them, as I wasn't willing to put up with hassle. I think a similar attitude has been taken in this instance. However, with the current ill feeling, its got blown out of all proportion.

 

If the wording is as I found elsewhere, then I can fully understand the reviewers' discomfort!

 

Can I just add...

 

She turned me into a newt. :D

 

I got better though :D

 

Right, now everybody stop. Go for a long walk and find some tupperware containing soggy paper under a bush. B)

Link to comment

I've been watching a few of these Forum Angst threads recently. :D

At least its not descended to the depths of the Westmorland Gazette forums, where someone's opinion is deemed to be invalid on the basis of their username! I kid you not!!! :D Maybe that's more of an example of an unmoderated forum though.

 

Personally, I think the mods get it about right, despite some threads being quite obviously personally aimed at them. I applaud Mandarin's stance on this thread - I think The Duckie would have been perfectly correct to lock the thread. As someone else said - Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK!

 

Not wanting to pour petrol on the bonfire :D, a little research on 'Sharpeville Hills' in Basildon will bring up what is more than likely the original (or very close to original!?) wording of McWomble's cache. I'm basing that on the rest of the description being pretty close. Hopefully I'm not over-stepping the mark - I've deliberately NOT posted a link.

 

While we can all discuss the rights or wrongs of regimes, surely caches and these forums aren't the appropriate places. Whether McWomble intended to make a poilitical comment is debatable - I suspect not. They clearly weren't too fussed with the change in the end, otherwise we might have heard more.

 

A while ago (I guess it must have been late September last year!), I thought about a series to commemorate the demolition of cooling towers at Calder Hall and Chapelcross. After a quick post on here, it was suggested by the mods/reviewers that the cache page would need to be extremely carefully written to not be seen to be going one way or the other. In the end, I didn't do them, as I wasn't willing to put up with hassle. I think a similar attitude has been taken in this instance. However, with the current ill feeling, its got blown out of all proportion.

 

If the wording is as I found elsewhere, then I can fully understand the reviewers' discomfort!

 

Can I just add...

 

She turned me into a newt. :D

 

I got better though :D

 

Right, now everybody stop. Go for a long walk and find some tupperware containing soggy paper under a bush. :ph34r:

 

interesting B) I must admit, I'm not going to try and search for the sharpesville reference, as no doubt the trust firewall won't let me on to the site, but at the end of the day, your's is an educated guess as to the contents. You may be right, but we may never know (which I think is a shame).

 

I don't recall the details of the cooling tower question last year, but I would hope that a cache page which simply gave undeniable facts regarding their demolition should be fine. You obviously decided not to bother, which is enitely your choice, but it would be useful for cachers in the future to know what aspects were problematic, so we can all avoid them in other potentially contentious caches. All I (anyone?) wants is some clarity as to what the problems were. If the mere fact that the cache was to commemorate (used without any positive or negative connotations) an event was enough to have it blocked, then any war memorial cache in the world would be unallowable, and I'm sure that's not the intention!

 

Finally, I'd love to go caching, but I'm at work, working hard - can't you tell!

Link to comment

If vituals were allowed, for example, there would be less friction with land owners (royal parks management?) not more, and perhaps the game would be blooming with renewed interest in 12 month's time? Fast food outlets sort of highlights why I'm not a keen waymarker, as many cachers aren't

It was problems with land management that precipitated the end of virtuals. Landowners can say "we only allow virtual caches: all physical caches are banned".

Fast food outlets (and all sorts of stuff) are in Waymarking but can be deleted very easily leaving the ones you might be interested in. Virtuals/locationless around London (for instance Coal Tax Posts) are now separated by having a different name and web address (even though they're the same thing) and so handily protect geocaches from the landowner "virtual option" problem.

 

Back closer to topic, the only Sharpeville Hills reference which looked like it might be relevant was one from "Basildon History", which if I was setting the cache I might have borrowed for the cache description but would have changed a sentence which looks badly written and could lead to misunderstandings. I wonder if that was the issue?

Link to comment

 

Back closer to topic, the only Sharpeville Hills reference which looked like it might be relevant was one from "Basildon History", which if I was setting the cache I might have borrowed for the cache description but would have changed a sentence which looks badly written and could lead to misunderstandings. I wonder if that was the issue?

If that's what the problem was, all that was needed was to delete the words "racially motivated" and everything should have been fine.

 

No one else seems to want to post the URL. don't see any reason why not.

 

Basildon History

Link to comment

I've found the following post the most interesting on this thread, and as I believe much of it may reflect the feelings of many more users (the silent majority I keep hearing from- Oxymoron?) I think it's well worth a closer look..

 

Thanks SP you make most of my points better than I did My whole post was trying to shake people into the fact that the 'volunteers' are UK cachers too and the points can be discussed here and not in such a way that TPTB get involved by accusing them of changing the rules when all they are doing is interpreting them to suit the UK.. something the forum has been asking for for quite a while

I don't aleays agree with your 'methods' but thanks for trying to hold together Geocaching UK It's all I wanted

Thanks again

Dave

Link to comment

It does look like mcwomble's very first offering was a copy and paste from that site. While the details are solidly established history, I can see why the full text was originally rejected - assuming I'm correct about what was originally offered:

These hills were officially named Sharpeville in 1985, to mark the 25th anniversary of a racially motivated massacre of innocent protesting blacks in the township in South Africa on March 26th 1960, during the years of apartheid and white rule. An inscribed memorial to the event stands at the summit.
That is a tad political for geocaching.com as I remember it, although I would personally have no problem with the wording. However, I'd have expected something close to...
These hills were officially named Sharpeville in 1985, to mark the 25th anniversary of the massacre in the South African township of the same name. An inscribed memorial to the event stands at the summit.
...to pass. To me, this is little if at all different from saying 'This cache brings you to a memorial to those brave souls from the village who fell in the Great War of 1914-1919.' I'd hate to imagine the difference was the dead of one were white and the others black- I don't regard geocaching.com as having racist overtones.
Link to comment
Back closer to topic, the only Sharpeville Hills reference which looked like it might be relevant was one from "Basildon History", which if I was setting the cache I might have borrowed for the cache description but would have changed a sentence which looks badly written and could lead to misunderstandings. I wonder if that was the issue?

 

Closer to topic ? :D

Link to comment

It does look like mcwomble's very first offering was a copy and paste from that site. While the details are solidly established history, I can see why the full text was originally rejected - assuming I'm correct about what was originally offered:

These hills were officially named Sharpeville in 1985, to mark the 25th anniversary of a racially motivated massacre of innocent protesting blacks in the township in South Africa on March 26th 1960, during the years of apartheid and white rule. An inscribed memorial to the event stands at the summit.
That is a tad political for geocaching.com as I remember it, although I would personally have no problem with the wording. However, I'd have expected something close to...
These hills were officially named Sharpeville in 1985, to mark the 25th anniversary of the massacre in the South African township of the same name. An inscribed memorial to the event stands at the summit.
...to pass. To me, this is little if at all different from saying 'This cache brings you to a memorial to those brave souls from the village who fell in the Great War of 1914-1919.' I'd hate to imagine the difference was the dead of one were white and the others black- I don't regard geocaching.com as having racist overtones.

 

well said, and completely agree. If our assumptions were correct, then a re-word would appear to be in order.

 

Incidentally, is it just me that thinks if this had been made clear right at the beginning, then we wouldn't be questioning our reviewer's reasons and we would have one less angtsy (I'm syarting to like that word!) thread? I suppose this is what I meant by transparency...

Link to comment
It does look like mcwomble's very first offering was a copy and paste from that site.
Ignoring the racial/political issues, if the text was a copy & paste from the Basildon History website, the it was in breach of copyright.
Not wanting to take this off topic, you could be right. Although the cache page as it is now isn't word-for-word the same, you can see lots of similarities. I need to retract the suggestion mcwomble lifted the text wholesale- I've no proof of that. Sorry to him for the implication. But, as it's only promoting the area, as the original web site does, I wouldn't have thought Basildon History Online would be too offended. That said, they do have quite a strong copyright notice on that page... :D
Link to comment

 

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..

 

I have to agree with this. It can be annoying when you want to post a pertinent answer to a thread just to find it has been closed because the OP has wanted it to be.

 

Threads should only be closed when they are breaking the rules.

 

Given that this thread has gone completely off the intended topic, it was meant as praise to the reviewers not to question them. So if the OP asked for this thread to be closed as it is now off topic, it would cause an uproar (not from me I may add). Mainly because there is a lot of activity on it.

 

So my vote goes to changing your policy on this particular point.

Link to comment

... So if the OP asked for this thread to be closed as it is now off topic, it would cause an uproar (not from me I may add)...

 

You know, I seriously thought about this earlier today as I originally posted trying to stop the never ending posts on the other thread.

 

It seems some people just like to argue.

 

As I said at the start, Live with it, move on..................if you don't like it go elsewhere.

Edited by Lost in Space
Link to comment
... So if the OP asked for this thread to be closed as it is now off topic, it would cause an uproar (not from me I may add)...
You know, I seriously thought about this earlier today as I originally posted trying to stop the never ending posts on the other thread.

 

It seems some people just like to argue.

 

As I said at the start, Live with it, move on..................if you don't like it go elsewhere.

I'd call this a discussion, not an argument. Just because I take a contrary view to you (as I just did) or anyone else doesn't automatically make it an argument. If I wanted one of those, I'd just quote Third Degree Witch and add a pithy comment about being given the benefit of the doubt, keeping an open mind or judge-me-on-my-performance at the end.

 

Live with it = put up with it. Move on = give up. Elsewhere = ...did you have somewhere specific in mind?

Link to comment
... So if the OP asked for this thread to be closed as it is now off topic, it would cause an uproar (not from me I may add)...
You know, I seriously thought about this earlier today as I originally posted trying to stop the never ending posts on the other thread.

 

It seems some people just like to argue.

 

As I said at the start, Live with it, move on..................if you don't like it go elsewhere.

I'd call this a discussion, not an argument. Just because I take a contrary view to you (as I just did) or anyone else doesn't automatically make it an argument. If I wanted one of those, I'd just quote Third Degree Witch and add a pithy comment about being given the benefit of the doubt, keeping an open mind or judge-me-on-my-performance at the end.

 

Live with it = put up with it. Move on = give up. Elsewhere = ...did you have somewhere specific in mind?

 

Elsewhere could be on the gagb forums as this is where the arguements/discussions usually seem to be moved. If in knew how to I'd do a linky but I thnk SP has a link by his name after the "hero" bit

Link to comment

When a thread is closed by the owner's request there is nothing stopping someone from creating a new thread to continue the discussion. As long as that thread stays civil it can remain open until that owner wants to close it.

 

Isn't that just a little pointless? It's a bit like starting a conversation in the pub, others joining it, then announcing as the starter of the conversation that all should stop talking about it at this table but feel free to move along to the next table and start the conversation again.

 

Why not just let the conversation continue where it is. The OP can always wander off to other conversations when they have had enough.

Edited by Icenians
Link to comment

When a thread is closed by the owner's request there is nothing stopping someone from creating a new thread to continue the discussion. As long as that thread stays civil it can remain open until that owner wants to close it.

 

Can you explain why the Groundspeak forums are the only forums I've ever encountered that follow the absurd policy of allowing the OP to terminate a thread.

 

All contributors have an equal stake in an active ongoing thread. It makes no sense at all to allow one person to dictate that a polite civil thread is closed. The OP does not "own" the thread IMO.

 

Surely it makes more sense to allow a thread to evolve rather than hope that all folks contributing to that thread find a newly created thread?

Link to comment

 

Can you explain why the Groundspeak forums are the only forums I've ever encountered that follow the absurd policy of allowing the OP to terminate a thread.

 

All contributors have an equal stake in an active ongoing thread. It makes no sense at all to allow one person to dictate that a polite civil thread is closed. The OP does not "own" the thread IMO.

 

Surely it makes more sense to allow a thread to evolve rather than hope that all folks contributing to that thread find a newly created thread?

If I remember correctly, this was changed some time ago so that the OP couldn't terminate a thread. The convention seems to be, however, that if the OP requests the thread to be terminated then it always happens: so your question is still valid. Perhaps Lost in Space, Careygang or other mods could explain? :):(

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I do not think the ability of the OP to terminate the thread was removed to stop threads being closed, just to stop them being reopened (the functions are linked in the forum software).

 

Being able to reopen a thread caused problems when a mod closed a thread for guideline breaches and the OP reopened it.

 

The suggestion that you can open a new thread to carry on a topic makes things difficult as you no longer have all the debate/discussion/bickering/arguement * in one place. I think requesting a thread be locked just because the original question was answered is a British thing, you rarely see a locked thread on the general fora.

 

*delete as appropriate :)

Link to comment

Good morning Forum posters :)

 

Regarding all these comments about closing topics at the request of the OP - I asked in an earlier post what you thought about this and I thank you for your specific comments on this matter.

 

The convention of closing a post if the OP requests this action is one that I adopted when I took over as one of the Mods 3 months ago. This was the way that I understood it should be done. However, having read the views expressed here, I'm going to be looking into Mandarin's Manual of Moderation which was issued to me at that time to see whether this procedure is set in stone, or writ in illuminated script anywhere.

 

At the same time, I'll also be looking in to the recommendations it contains on 'good practice' regarding where certain topics get placed within the Groundspeak forums, as this was brought up earlier by The Royle's post.

 

I'll get back to you when I've found out more details.

 

mandarin

Link to comment

Good morning Forum posters :(

 

Regarding all these comments about closing topics at the request of the OP - I asked in an earlier post what you thought about this and I thank you for your specific comments on this matter.

 

The convention of closing a post if the OP requests this action is one that I adopted when I took over as one of the Mods 3 months ago. This was the way that I understood it should be done. However, having read the views expressed here, I'm going to be looking into Mandarin's Manual of Moderation which was issued to me at that time to see whether this procedure is set in stone, or writ in illuminated script anywhere.

 

At the same time, I'll also be looking in to the recommendations it contains on 'good practice' regarding where certain topics get placed within the Groundspeak forums, as this was brought up earlier by The Royle's post.

 

I'll get back to you when I've found out more details.

 

mandarin

 

quack! (duck language for great post!)

 

I'm also in favour of allowing threads to run their course, so long as they stay within the usual forum rules, and not to be closed at the OP request. Threads where folks have said what they want to will obviously drift off the bottom eventually anyway.

 

As it happens, I think this is the way it has been done for a while, (as in, closed at OP request) and I'm sure the less attractive mods we had before you did the same as well :) Plus ca change, as some folks say!

Link to comment

I for one feel that the "right" in here for the OP to request topic closure and for it to take place without question is daft.

 

Having used internet forums and before that usenet and before THAT BBSs, this is the first forum where that has happened. (with the exception of "for sale" type sections)

Edited by rutson
Link to comment
And some of the posts in this topic have got to be just soooo long, whilst trying to dissect something that is, in the great scheme of things, 'A butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon...' :)
...leads to a tornado in Idaho. It isn't the size of the thing, it is its wider consequences. Nice to hear from mandarin on a couple of other points, but the question, the big one of what was wrong with the last little bit dropped from mcwombles cache page to get it listed, isn't being answered. It is only a tiny detail, but the issue of what is ok and what isn't ok to refer to on a cache page is a far larger deal.
Link to comment
And some of the posts in this topic have got to be just soooo long, whilst trying to dissect something that is, in the great scheme of things, 'A butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon...' :)
...leads to a tornado in Idaho. It isn't the size of the thing, it is its wider consequences. Nice to hear from mandarin on a couple of other points, but the question, the big one of what was wrong with the last little bit dropped from mcwombles cache page to get it listed, isn't being answered. It is only a tiny detail, but the issue of what is ok and what isn't ok to refer to on a cache page is a far larger deal.

 

is it a matter of life and death, are you going to curl up and die if you don't get to know (god forbid as I guess that may upset a lot of people round here :( )

 

are you ever going to repeat the exact same words on a cache page - doubt it

 

surely if something is not alright to be on a cache page when it comes to the reviewing process you'd be told what it is and the reason - are you not just grinding your teeth for the sake of chewing on your own vomit?

Link to comment
is it a matter of life and death, are you going to curl up and die if you don't get to know (god forbid as I guess that may upset a lot of people round here :P )
I've no plans to die, but you never know what's around the corner- a friend of mine just lost her young mum to cancer. Anyway, no it's not a matter of life and death; like football, it's far more important than that :(
are you ever going to repeat the exact same words on a cache page - doubt it
Almost sounds like a challenge. Let me find a local monument to Sharpeville (not many in Bucks, being a conservative sort of a place) and I'll see what I can do. :)
surely if something is not alright to be on a cache page when it comes to the reviewing process you'd be told what it is and the reason - are you not just grinding your teeth for the sake of chewing on your own vomit?

Given that we know a series of caches didn't get set because of the political implications of talking about the demolition of some cooling towers, quite apart from mcwomble's cache, I don't think it's just teeth grinding. Ideally if there's a problem with a cache page you're told what the reason is -and it makes perfect sense- you amend it, and thus the cache is approved. Contrast with what happened to me, as another example; a cache page mentioning an optional activity in the area is rejected and archived (stopping it from being edited) for being commercial before you've heard a word about any required changes. I can still taste the bile from that, but not the vomit. :)
Link to comment

If I understand from above, the cache was rejected by Reviewer A, modified to conform to Reviewer A objection and resubmitted, only to be rejected by Reviewer B!

 

Should resubmissions only be vetted by the original viewer?

 

Although all reviewers have the same guide / rule book, each seems to interpretate differently.

 

Whilst I appreciate the confidentiality aspect, it would be good if both parties were able to waive this right for certain information to be released into the public domain, so us nosey folk can get the full story :(:P:) .

 

Ivanidea

Link to comment
And some of the posts in this topic have got to be just soooo long, whilst trying to dissect something that is, in the great scheme of things, 'A butterfly flapping it's wings in the Amazon...' :)
...leads to a tornado in Idaho. It isn't the size of the thing, it is its wider consequences. Nice to hear from mandarin on a couple of other points, but the question, the big one of what was wrong with the last little bit dropped from mcwombles cache page to get it listed, isn't being answered. It is only a tiny detail, but the issue of what is ok and what isn't ok to refer to on a cache page is a far larger deal.

Deceangi has explained why he isn't answering.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3699084

 

You might disagree with the reason, but you should at least acknowledge and respect it.

 

Here's an analogy. If you ask a doctor to explain why they'd prescribe a particular drug, they could happily reel off a few "guidelines"... but if you ask the same doctor why they prescribed me that drug, there's no way they'll answer the question. Personalizing it with a specific example changes the context completely, and once you've personalized, there's no way back.

 

Now I do realise that what we're discussing here is nowhere near as sensitive as my medical records, but it's still true that - if I were a cache setter whose cache had been rejected by a reviewer - I wouldn't want them to discuss the situation in public.

 

Let's not mistake discretion for censorship: it's been made clear the cache setter can reveal the dialogue if they want to. Mcwomble chose not to do that, so the reviewers are sticking to their principle of confidentiality. I think that's the position they have to take - even for this storm-in-a-teacup example - or the demands in this forum would just grow more and more strident, and there'd be no way ever to draw the line again.

 

For what it's worth, I also think it's a principled and honourable position; and one that's been maintained in the face of a hostile, sometimes even nasty, debate. So with due respect to you, Simply Paul - and while agreeing that you have considerable reason to be upset with Groundspeak more generally - I find myself feeling it's the reviewers who are "standing up for traditional values" this time round.

 

Regards

Richard

 

(One of the silent majority... or is it a minority? There's no way to tell. Either way, I've watched some of what's been said - not by Simply Paul - with increasing horror, and I've realised that if I'm to be true to my values, I can't be silent any more.)

Link to comment

I've realised that if I'm to be true to my values, I can't be silent any more.)

Richard,

Perhaps if you'd joined in earlier you'd realise that we've been over all of these points already (even the "doctor" analogy")! :)

The weakness of your main argument is that the guideline interpretation in this case could have been clarified on day 1 without breaching confidentiality and this would have nipped the whole debate in the bud.

Link to comment

I’ve been out caching :( and was interested to see how the discussion has developed. Some interesting points, and I see some possible welcome relaxation on the moderating side. Thanks for that.

 

I’ve picked some specific points I want to comment on but as the thread is rather long I’ve simplified things for myself by not attributing them. They are direct quotes, however, so it should be easy to associate them.

 

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?

I also think that this should be changed. This is a discussion forum not a question and answer session. Well done to mandarin for listening to the views of the forum users.

 

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.

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.

That misses the point entirely. It doesn’t only matter whether the cache owner is satisfied: it also matters that the decision is documented and published so that no other cacher makes the same “mistake”. Yesterday I placed a cache. As far as I’m aware it complies with all Groundspeak’s guidelines. Placing the cache and preparing the cache page took four hours (it’s a complex puzzle). I would be extremely miffed if a reviewer then rejected it on the basis that it contravened a rule that I didn’t know about because it wasn’t published or, if it were published, that the reviewer’s interpretation of it was unusual. Now do you see why transparency in the decision-making process is important?

 

(Yes, the cache was published; within minutes of submission. Thanks and well done to Deceangi :) )

 

And if you think that your post may sound confrontational then why not re-word it before you post? A reviewer, above all, should know how best to present him/herself on this forum.

 

The archival log may have been slightly misleading
I suggest that it wasn’t misleading but rather intended to hide the real reason because of this perception for a need for confidentiality.

 

I thought about a series to commemorate the demolition of cooling towers at Calder Hall and Chapelcross
I’ll add nuclear power to the list of banned subjects. Perhaps someone could advise whether it’s OK to mention wind power? Or landfill sites?

 

Deceangi has explained why he isn't answering.
He’s explained why he isn’t answering but the reasoning behind the explanation is flawed. It’s perfectly possible to explain what the rule is and why the rule is without breaching any confidence.

 

Finally, for those asking for examples of the “raft of GB-specific rules”, please see this thread on GAGB.

Link to comment

Richard,

Perhaps if you'd joined in earlier you'd realise that we've been over all of these points already (even the "doctor" analogy")! :)

Hello, and thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

"Not posting" isn't the same as "not reading". I assure you I've been following avidly, as I suspect many more are doing still.

 

That said, there have been a LOT of threads recently - so if I have indeed posted exactly the same as someone else, feel free to count it as a "me too". Just so long as I'm counted somehow!

 

The weakness of your main argument is that the guideline interpretation in this case could have been clarified on day 1 without breaching confidentiality and this would have nipped the whole debate in the bud.

I don't honestly see how that would have worked. At risk of stretching the analogy till it breaks, it would be like speculating loudly in front of my GP about why I might be taking Prozac, than asking my GP to outline a few common reasons why they prescribe Prozac. If the GP had any sense they wouldn't get involved.

 

In your thoughtful post http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3699111 you acknowledged the possibility of "causing a little embarrassment", and pointed out, to put it crudely, that it would be the cache setter's fault. To an extent I agree, but there have been cases lately of people using the forums to challenge reviewer decisions about caches they didn't set. So - while it might have killed that one discussion - as I said in my previous post, I would only see the general clamour getting greater and greater.

 

It is a fine judgement, though, and I wouldn't for a moment suggest everyone should agree with the reviewers' decision. The main point of posting was to say that not everyone disagrees with them, either.

 

Thanks again

Richard

Link to comment

 

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.

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.

That misses the point entirely. It doesn’t only matter whether the cache owner is satisfied: it also matters that the decision is documented and published so that no other cacher makes the same “mistake”.

How many times does this need to be said? The CO used wording that was perceived to be an agenda and was asked to re-word it. It was and the cache was published. No new rules or guidelines there at all and nothing for anyone to get all worked up about.

 

Yesterday I placed a cache. As far as I’m aware it complies with all Groundspeak’s guidelines. Placing the cache and preparing the cache page took four hours (it’s a complex puzzle). I would be extremely miffed if a reviewer then rejected it on the basis that it contravened a rule that I didn’t know about because it wasn’t published or, if it were published, that the reviewer’s interpretation of it was unusual. Now do you see why transparency in the decision-making process is important?

If you ever believe you have been unfairly treated then this section of the guidelines deals with it:

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

And before anyone jumps in I have seen quite a few times when a reviewer's decision is overturned by others or by a GS Lackey.

 

And if you think that your post may sound confrontational then why not re-word it before you post? A reviewer, above all, should know how best to present him/herself on this forum.

I meant exactly what I said. I wanted the other poster to realise that it wasn't a personal attack but still wanted to get my point across in as clear a way as possible. He didn't take any offence at that so I don't see why you should?

Link to comment
If you ever believe you have been unfairly treated then this section of the guidelines deals with it:
Another of the things I wish would stop happening around here is every issue being answered by a reviewer with a quote from the guidelines. When it's the guidelines which are under discussion quoting the guidelines really isn't very helpful.
Link to comment

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.......... :anibad:

Can I make another sugestion .

Can the UK forum be closed until after Christmas so that everyone can go away , take a beep breath and do a little tupperware hunting.

In my humble opinion the last few weeks in here has been nothing but back biting ,arguementitive,moderator and reviewer baiting, thinly and poorly covered up as "discussion".

Discussion in a forum is about helping each other to come to a civilised outcome where most if not all of the participants reach an agreement.

Some of the recent threads have decended into what looks and feels like spoilt children stamping their feet and screaming "I'm right " "No I'm right"

The people who are involved in this do the sport of geocaching in the UK no good and in my opinion show all of us in a bad light .

The last line from me is harsh and won't win me any friends but I really dont care I think this needs to be said -

Grow up and stop acting like children. If you don't like the rules and regulations then clear off ,set up your own listing site and see how you get on.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...