An Open Letter

[+The Blorenges]

I’ve enjoyed the interaction on this thread so far – and the light-hearted humour.

I appreciate that MissJenn has got other matters to attend to (such as bunnies to blast) but while we have this opportunity for direct public dialogue I’d like her to consider the following:

 

Here in UK we have an annual, televised charity event which will be taking place tomorrow. Everyone knows about it. We’ve already noted the geocaching account which took the name of that charity and recently posted on this forum. My personal suspicion is that it was created for the sole purpose of causing a bit of friction here, because Groundspeak’s Guidelines state “no charity agendas”. Rather than using their main geocaching account and putting up a clear topic along the lines of “Let’s discuss Groundspeak’s policy regarding charitable agendas in caches and forum posts” someone tried to draw attention to it by this rather crafty method.

 

I know that some people do not like/understand/support Groundspeak’s stance regarding charitable agendas. They don’t like the Guideline. I’ve heard it said, “Why don’t they allow charity stuff? Surely supporting a charity is good?” Our local reviewers keep all charity-related information off cache pages, but some geocachers believe that this is a matter where the reviewers should be able to use their discretion and should be more lenient when checking cache listings, prior to publication.

 

Please could you give us some more background regarding this whole concern and explain why Groundspeak follow this policy?

 

MrsB

[+Simply Paul]

As there is a suggestion/rumour/accusation that I'm Children_in_Need out there, I just want to repeat that I'm not. I had my suspicions about that account and how it was being used, but with no proof, I thought I'd do the polite thing and reply to their questions. For all I knew/know, they are a genuine newbie cacher and they didn't get the warmest of receptions- something I tried to explain the reasons for in the thread in question. Without wanting to 'protest too much', I just wanted to get the facts straight. Thank you for your attention.

 

Edit: I note that account is now showing as a banned member- perhaps I should take that as proof of sock puppetness? If not, it must be some sort of short sharp shock moderation; I didn't think the questions they asked were that unreasonable! (Subtext: Be careful MrsB!)

Edited November 13, 2008 by Simply Paul

[+MissJenn]

... I know that some people do not like/understand/support Groundspeak's stance regarding charitable agendas. They don't like the Guideline. I've heard it said, "Why don't they allow charity stuff? Surely supporting a charity is good?" ...

 

The Forum Guidelines say:

8. Commerciality and postings with a larger agenda: It is Groundspeak's desire to maintain forums for the purpose of promoting the activity of geocaching and GPS usage. As a result, we intend to limit forum discussions that promote a commercial, social, political or charitable agenda insofar as the agenda does not reasonably relate to the activity of geocaching and GPS usage. Therefore, threads or posts perceived to have been made with the intent of promoting any of the above agendas will not be permitted. Please note that our Volunteer Forum Moderators are authorized to exercise their discretion in providing some reasonable latitude for forum discussion postings relating to local events and issues in local discussion forums. Notwithstanding the above, Groundspeak reserves the right to include or permit the inclusion of limited commercial content in this forum, in its sole discretion.

The Geocache guidelines say:

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.

To a very large degree, the entire set of answers to MrsB's question is already contained in the quoted sections above. However, many people remain confused or unclear on the reasons why. I understand that.

To a very large degree, the entire set of answers to MrsB's question is already contained in the quoted sections above. However, many people remain confused or unclear on the reasons why. I understand that.

 

I'll try to explain it a bit more. Groundspeak does not assess the merits of any charity. We want to focus on GPS gaming and need to leave charities and other agendas to other venues. There are many places in the world devoted to religious, political, charitable or social agendas. Ours is not the right place for them.

 

Certainly the [insert your favorite charity here] is among a group of organizations that are doing great work, for which they are worthy of both recognition and support. However, as you go down the list of organizations starting with those doing great work, and then those who are doing good work, and then those who are doing fair or so-so work, and on to those who are held in a negative light by nearly everyone, a serious problem becomes obvious. The problem is where do you draw the line, and who draws it? Some call that The Slippery Slope: once you start on the slope, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to avoid slipping beyond where you wanted to be. Therefore, we do not step on the slope at all.

 

 

Mind you, each individual lackey has their own views on various religious, political, charitable or social agendas. You ought to hear some of the vigorous conversations we sometimes have. Each individual volunteer has their own views. Each individual geocacher and forum poster has their own views. Can you imagine the effort it would take to manage those conversations and those personal passions in our many forums and in posted logs on cache pages? (None of which would relate to GPS gaming anymore.)

 

I hope you find this helpful.

[+MissJenn]

... I note that account is now showing as a banned member- perhaps I should take that as proof of sock puppetness? If not, it must be some sort of short sharp shock moderation; I didn't think the questions they asked were that unreasonable! (Subtext: Be careful MrsB!)

That account is indeed a sock puppet and it disappointed me greatly.

 

Why do you think that there would be any "sort of short sharp shock moderation" at all?

[+Simply Paul]

... I note that account is now showing as a banned member- perhaps I should take that as proof of sock puppetness? If not, it must be some sort of short sharp shock moderation; I didn't think the questions they asked were that unreasonable! (Subtext: Be careful MrsB!)

That account is indeed a sock puppet and it disappointed me greatly.

Why do you think that there would be any "sort of short sharp shock moderation" at all?

Disappointed? That's interesting...

Why do I think there would (could) be short sharp shock moderation? It wasn't a wholly serious suggestion in this case, but I have seen rough justice dealt out here, from both sides of the process. Not as rough as being banned for asking questions about a charity, but frankly, nothing would surprise me these days. Depressing, isn't it, but you did ask

[+MissJenn]

... I have seen rough justice dealt out here, from both sides of the process...

Fair enough.

Recall that it looks "rough" from your point of view and many times, (assuming it's not about you) you only see a partial picture.

[+purple_pineapple]

... I know that some people do not like/understand/support Groundspeak's stance regarding charitable agendas. They don't like the Guideline. I've heard it said, "Why don't they allow charity stuff? Surely supporting a charity is good?" ...

 

The Forum Guidelines say:

8. Commerciality and postings with a larger agenda: It is Groundspeak's desire to maintain forums for the purpose of promoting the activity of geocaching and GPS usage. As a result, we intend to limit forum discussions that promote a commercial, social, political or charitable agenda insofar as the agenda does not reasonably relate to the activity of geocaching and GPS usage. Therefore, threads or posts perceived to have been made with the intent of promoting any of the above agendas will not be permitted. Please note that our Volunteer Forum Moderators are authorized to exercise their discretion in providing some reasonable latitude for forum discussion postings relating to local events and issues in local discussion forums. Notwithstanding the above, Groundspeak reserves the right to include or permit the inclusion of limited commercial content in this forum, in its sole discretion.

The Geocache guidelines say:

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.

To a very large degree, the entire set of answers to MrsB's question is already contained in the quoted sections above. However, many people remain confused or unclear on the reasons why. I understand that.

To a very large degree, the entire set of answers to MrsB's question is already contained in the quoted sections above. However, many people remain confused or unclear on the reasons why. I understand that.

 

I'll try to explain it a bit more. Groundspeak does not assess the merits of any charity. We want to focus on GPS gaming and need to leave charities and other agendas to other venues. There are many places in the world devoted to religious, political, charitable or social agendas. Ours is not the right place for them.

 

Certainly the [insert your favorite charity here] is among a group of organizations that are doing great work, for which they are worthy of both recognition and support. However, as you go down the list of organizations starting with those doing great work, and then those who are doing good work, and then those who are doing fair or so-so work, and on to those who are held in a negative light by nearly everyone, a serious problem becomes obvious. The problem is where do you draw the line, and who draws it? Some call that The Slippery Slope: once you start on the slope, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to avoid slipping beyond where you wanted to be. Therefore, we do not step on the slope at all.

 

 

Mind you, each individual lackey has their own views on various religious, political, charitable or social agendas. You ought to hear some of the vigorous conversations we sometimes have. Each individual volunteer has their own views. Each individual geocacher and forum poster has their own views. Can you imagine the effort it would take to manage those conversations and those personal passions in our many forums and in posted logs on cache pages? (None of which would relate to GPS gaming anymore.)

 

I hope you find this helpful.

 

To be honest, harsh as it sometimes seems, I can see the reasoning behind this. I do have an honest question though. Are charities in the US regulated and required to register with a Charities Commission (or similar) in order to call themselves a charity? The UK has such a requirement and, as such, most of the charities are of the 'worthy and doing great work' type!

 

Having said that, although nobody (and I mean nobody!) could disagree that Children in Need wasn't anything but a worthy cause, even in the UK we have pro and anti abortion charities, pro and anti smoking charities, and so on, which may have a more conflicting views. And to be honest, I personally don;t want to be subjected to any anti-smoking agenda (yes, I smoke - ) in my other addiction!

 

I would say though that there might be the very occassional circumstance / disaster, of international interest, when GSP may declare a waiver - but that was in the past and who knows what might happen in the future...!

 

Right, where are those flame-proof socks?!

[+Simply Paul]

... I have seen rough justice dealt out here, from both sides of the process...

Fair enough.

Recall that it looks "rough" from your point of view and many times, (assuming it's now about you) you only see a partial picture.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What's about me? Partial picture of what, the rough justice? It either looks rough or it doesn't- that's just my personal opinion. Some times it's the perception that's important, rather than the details. There have been situations where I'm sure I have seen the whole picture- because it was happening to me. And if my experience isn't unique, it's not a leap of imagination to think other people's experiences can and have been similar. I have examples, if you'd like them. Anyway, as you assure me (us) that CiN was a sock puppet account, banning it isn't rough- it's standard forum practice.

 

Edit: Pro-smoking charities? Pressure groups, perhaps, but I doubt the Charities Commission would let Forest in... If you fall asleep smoking PP, you might want flame-proof pants to match the socks Anyway, I don't believe in a blanket ban, or a slippery slope. I believe in case-by-case consideration- which means we *can* hear about geocaching calendars from time to time. I suppose that's extra work for someone, but if it's all for the greater good..?

Edited November 13, 2008 by Simply Paul

[+MissJenn]

I meant to write NOT rather than NOW.

 

(assuming it's not about you)

[+purple_pineapple]

 

Edit: Pro-smoking charities? Pressure groups, perhaps, but I doubt the Charities Commission would let Forest in... If you fall asleep smoking PP, you might want flame-proof pants to match the socks Anyway, I don't believe in a blanket ban, or a slippery slope. I believe in case-by-case consideration- which means we *can* hear about geocaching calendars from time to time. I suppose that's extra work for someone, but if it's all for the greater good..?

 

fair point SP, although ASH is a charity, so my point about not wanting to see stuff about it here holds up anyway!

 

I agree that a case by case basis would be ideal (and I may be wrong, but I believe one can ask GSP and they can allow things that way? didn't Mandy get permission this way?) but I wonder who does the 'assessing' - for want of a better word. If its cache related, then I suppose the UK reviewers would be best, and in fact they would have to be regionalised assessments to work at all - can't expect GSP to know about all the UK charities and whether they are acceptable or not!

 

So yep, in an ideal world, but as you say, its extra work that would have to be done by UK folks. Dunno if they'd want to do this! I only said I can understand why they don't get involved with them! IMHO, we can live with it!

 

PS - if permission can be granted for occasional circumstances, has anyone asked/discussed CiN in this respect?

[+Simply Paul]

I meant to write NOT rather than NOW. (assuming it's not about you)

Ah! Yes, that makes much more sense. Thank you for the clarification. Naturally, you're right, but in a situation like... what happened to me and currykev last month (120 day ban -later dropped to 3- issued by Jeremy himself) for example, then I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine his experience was virtually identical to mine. The 'crime' and 'punishment' were identical, anyway. I wouldn't assume to know every detail of every warning and ban, but in a way, I don't have to; that's unless I've received 'special' treatment.

[+sTeamTraen]

Sometimes a good way to see if a rule or statement is right, is to consider what things would be like if the opposite were the case. If anyone were allowed to post charitable threads, there would be the potential issue which Jenn describes ("Geocachers for Jihad: raising money to get foreign troops out of Iraq the hard way"), but I think an even simpler problem would be the potentially unlimited number of threads. Children in Need, OK; Red Nose Day, probably OK; then World Aids day, breast cancer awareness week, etc etc. It's always somebody's day, week, or month, and I'm sure that for any given issue, there are people here who are directly concerned by it. How many threads of the "We're collecting geocoins for a raffle for our local dog's home" would people really want to read or ignore?

 

So at some point the moderators would have to be involved, and we're back to square one, except that /a/ they will be perceived to have imposed an arbitrary limit rather than zero, and /b/ they're volunteers; it's Groundspeak's job to take the flak. And as with other issues, the UK forum suffers from the fact that the Americans can understand every word (except perhaps "fortnight" and "Marmite" ), which means pressure to allow them to solicit for all of their good causes.

 

In this regard, although the charitable solicitations guidelines for the forums and caches are similar, the moderators have a much harder job than the reviewers. If a reviewer refuses a cacha page which solicits for charity, it's generally a one-to-one discussion. On the other hand, a moderator has a much tougher job because once the thread is up, the cat is out of the bag. Everyone's sensibilities have been touched by the thought of helping out children or cancer patients. The moderator has to appear to be 500 times as big a curmudgeon to close the thread, as the reviewer does to refuse the cache.

[+Budlaw]

My concentration waned to the point that I was 'speed reading' through this topic.

 

I must say I personally like MissJenn's style.

I do have a good as new 'naughty chair' I could be persuaded to donate if it would assist acceptable, albeit robust, discussion.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Budlaw

[+MissJenn]

...in a situation like... what happened to me and currykev last month (120 day ban -later dropped to 3- issued by Jeremy himself) ...

Oh yes, that. Allow me to comment:

Many times in various sections of forums, people have borrowed someone else's avatar and used it. I've done it myself, and done it as a friendly gesture. I was not punished - and I'll point out that I was neihter a volunteer nor a lackey at that time. In most cases when this happens, it is a private joke among close friends, or a public joke that everyone has joined in on. In some cases, it's just someone clueless and doesn't even realize what they are doing. I think in your case, it was outright taunting. It was done with disrespect. Someone here aptly likened it to poking a dog with a stick. What did you think would happen?

[+MissJenn]

... I must say I personally like MissJenn's style.

I do have a good as new 'naughty chair' I could be persuaded to donate if it would assist acceptable, albeit robust, discussion.

Thanks, Budlaw and to the others who have expressed a similar sentiment.

 

Does your naughty chair seat more than 1 at a time?

[+Simply Paul]

...in a situation like... what happened to me and currykev last month (120 day ban -later dropped to 3- issued by Jeremy himself) ...

Oh yes, that. Allow me to comment:

Many times in various sections of forums, people have borrowed someone else's avatar and used it. I've done it myself, and done it as a friendly gesture. I was not punished - and I'll point out that I was neihter a volunteer nor a lackey at that time. In most cases when this happens, it is a private joke among close friends, or a public joke that everyone has joined in on. In some cases, it's just someone clueless and doesn't even realize what they are doing. I think in your case, it was outright taunting. It was done with disrespect. Someone here aptly likened it to poking a dog with a stick. What did you think would happen?

Allow me to respond:

I think you've overestimated me, MissJenn. I'd be in the clueless group. I thought I was having some lighthearted fun- what should I have realised I was doing? Borrowing Jeremy's (or currykev's, as it was at that stage) avatar was all I actually *did*- anything else it *might* have been is just interpretation. It wasn't intended to come to Jeremy's attention (and thus would make a poor taunt), and I was planning to replace it after a day (the natural life-span of a jape of this sort) - I certainly wasn't expecting a ban of any length or even an official warning, especially when there was no negative comments on it from other forum users or moderators while it was up. I don't enjoy being banned; it lets people say whatever they like without giving me the opportunity to explain my actions, choices, thoughts or comments, to defend myself against strange accusations or, as in your case, assumptions and proclamations about my motivations which are gross misrepresentations. You say poking a dog (it was teasing a dog and poking a bear with a stick, but I take your point) - I say tickling a bear. And as I said before, it turns out the bear isn't ticklish. I won't be doing it again, you'll be pleased to hear, but what happened has resulted in my good will towards geocaching the business, rather than geocaching the game, in totally vanishing. A polite word from Jeremy, or better still, anyone else in authority, would have resolved the situation (resolved the situation- listen to me making it sound like some sort of crisis!) with no bad feelings. As it is, I've lost respect for Jeremy and I'm ignoring emails from the BBC about doing a feature on Geocaching for the Countryfile television programme again; I don't currently envisage doing any more TV or radio to promote 'caching. These things are going to happen when a man like Mr Irish who is, in my opinion, ill equipped for a customer-facing role treats a paying customer with contempt- a big stick, if you will. It's just not good business. The majority of my 180+ caches are going to be archived, if not over this particular matter, then with it in mind, in the near future. What more meaningful way do I have to express my dissatisfaction and disappointment with Groundspeak? I've also asked to cancel my Premium Membership and receive a partial refund, but there's been no response to this. It's been a month now... As I say, the customer service isn't what I'd wish for.

 

I'm also curious- what do you think currykev's motivation was, as it was his joke I joined in with. Or believed I was joining in with if your theory about darker intentions is correct?

 

Here's a little analogy. I once parked my car on a public road in front of a terraced house with no 'residents only' parking or yellow lines (parking restrictions) outside it. The owner of the house came out and shouted at me. She looked like a dear little old lady, but she had an attitude on her, and a half. She told me in no uncertain terms to move my car, and when I calmly pointed out it was a public street, and I could park here if I wished, I received a tirade of abuse. Eventually I had the chance to make this charming woman an offer; if she asked me nicely to move my car, I would. If she demanded I move it, I wouldn't- the road wasn't hers to make demands about. She never did say please, but I moved the car anyway, because I don't like upsetting little old ladies, even the nasty ones. The moral of this story is while it may be the case that if people behave well, you should treat them well, I'm 100% sure if you treat people well, they'll behave well.

 

Sorry to go off topic folks...

[+Simply Paul]

... I have seen rough justice dealt out here, from both sides of the process...

Fair enough.

Recall that it looks "rough" from your point of view and many times, (assuming it's not about you) you only see a partial picture.

Oh, that's clever. How does the forum let you change a post without showing that it's been edited? Is there a setting somewhere I've never found? Maybe it's not something general forum users are allowed, in case it gets 'misused'.

[+mtn-man]

I meant to write NOT rather than NOW.

 

(assuming it's not about you)

You... made... a typo? Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

(runs, hides, looks on eBay to see how much I am being sold for.)

[Keystone]

I have the power to change MissJenn's signature line to read "Queen of the Tpyo."

I have the discretion to know not to exercise that power. I don't want to be sold like mtn-man.

[+mtn-man]

... I have seen rough justice dealt out here, from both sides of the process...

Fair enough.

Recall that it looks "rough" from your point of view and many times, (assuming it's not about you) you only see a partial picture.

Oh, that's clever. How does the forum let you change a post without showing that it's been edited? Is there a setting somewhere I've never found? Maybe it's not something general forum users are allowed, in case it gets 'misused'.

"Group: Admin" only. Even we don't have that setting.

 

How much am I up to now?

[+Simply Paul]

Wow. I feel really out-numbered! Good night

[Alan White]

Therefore, we do not step on the slope at all.

I agree with Groundspeak's policy on mentioning charities on cache page and forums, for all the reasons mentioned in the quoted post.

 

However, the policy would carry greater weight if Groundspeak itself did not get involved in charities. Why produce Diabetes geocoins then say that Diabetes charities can't be mentioned?

 

Remind me: where does it so wisely say "Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." .

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

Wow. I feel really out-numbered!

 

What's up Paul?

 

Have you got an inferiority complex?

 

I wouldn't worry about it if I was you.

 

The chances are that you haven't got a complex at all....

 

 

 

It's probably that you're just inferior!

 

P

[+purple_pineapple]

Wow. I feel really out-numbered!

 

 

It's probably that you're just inferior!

 

P

 

or posterior

[+Haggis Hunter]

Snip...........it lets people say whatever they like without giving me the opportunity to explain my actions, choices, thoughts or comments, to defend myself against strange accusations or, ....................snip

Considering I was the main person that you quoted and only person you mentioned on the GAGB thread I would like to invite you to look back at my post and look at the last paragraph were I had taken it into consideration that you couldn't answer immediately.

If you think I am not going to post what I see as the whole story, just because you can't answer straight away, then you can think again!

 

Of course Paul you read into a post what you want it to read, as I am sure you will with this one?

[+dibbler69]

When does a thread become charity related. Does it have to be an official charity or can we push 'unofficial' ones.

To me there are always lots of auctions for coins that are to go to somebody's aid, illness, down on their luck, medical expenses etc.. Now to me these are charity cases.

[+Simply Paul]

It was more of a general thing HH. Perhaps if you ever get a ban, you'll also feel that you're unable to respond to other's posts... because you will be unable to respond to other's posts. As you may recall, I've also been banned for alleged profanity, which left me in just the same position, and also reading stuff I wanted to be able to rebut. It also means I don't dare mention the name of a cacher who attended my Dusk Til Dawn event; AsFastAs[something]. As an interesting experiment, have you ever tried putting rude words into the cache name search? It's educational as well as entertaining (when you're 14 ) Anyway, good to know Groundspeak remain consistent about such things...

 

Anyway, after my most recent three days standing in the corner with a pointy hat marked 'D' (who needs a naughty chair when you can ban?) I was able to respond to you -and others- and as you see in this post, I felt I'd redressed the balance and that was the end of that.

 

I don't have a complex, I am complex though- perhaps that's what you're thinking of Izzy Lizard King?

And on that note, I need to cover myself in fake blood and stagger about in an underpass- It's a long story. I'm not leaving because I'm outnumbered this time; you lot aren't that scary

 

Edited to take Izzy 'out of the frame'.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Simply Paul

[+sTeamTraen]

However, the policy would carry greater weight if Groundspeak itself did not get involved in charities. Why produce Diabetes geocoins then say that Diabetes charities can't be mentioned?

 

Groundspeak also gets involved in advertising (Jeep, Garmin coins, etc), and you aren't allowed to do that in the forums or on cache pages either. (I'm sure that part of the reason why charitable solicitations are not allowed is that they are also a form of advertising, and the bigger the charity, the more blurred the lines can become.)

 

Advertising and solicitations generally are not allowed unless Groundspeak has some editorial control and, in some (most?) cases, gets paid. Last time I checked, that was how businesses are run. It's no secret that the founders of Groundspeak met while working for a promotions company. One can take a cynical view of that; perhaps in ten years time the dominant worldwide geocache listing site will be an open-source foundation with a more relaxed attitude, supported by a mixture of volunteers providing their programming skills, occasional rich benefactors paying the bills for the servers and bandwidth, and a relaxed management board with no ideological issues. But the successful open-source initiatives like the Mozilla Foundation are run an awful lot like businesses these days...

 

I do think, though, that a sentence or two explaining the difference between "your advertising and charity solicitations" and "our promotional activities" would be a useful addition to the various guidelines.

 

(( Not that it's relevant, but the Diabetes promotions didn't ask you to donate anything, they were just there to "raise awareness". The original TB promotion was mainly publicity for the World Diabetes Foundation's attempt to get the UN to vote to create "World Diabetes Day". As it happened, the UN agreed to that a few days before the TBs were shipped, which sort of made the whole thing moot. But to this day it gets Groundspeak into trouble with the anti-United Nations tendency in the US, who point to the UNxxxx tracking numbers as "proof" that Groundspeak is an integral part of a UN-led, anti-American conspiracy - even though the UN wasn't remotely involved. Worth remembering next time there's one of those "Groundspeak are dumb Yanks bent on world domination" threads in here, perhaps. ))

 

To me there are always lots of auctions for coins that are to go to somebody's aid, illness, down on their luck, medical expenses etc.. Now to me these are charity cases.

 

The coin forums have specific rules. People are allowed to sell their own (trackable) coins for their personal benefit, and Groundspeak decided that it would be too complex to try and impose rules whereby you have to prove exactly where the money can go before you can post in that forum. (After all, you could claim to be selling them for yourself and have the charity bit hidden in a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" part of your Web page.) I'd like to see a pop-up when a user first enters the coin forum to explain this, as it is very poorly publicised at the moment (and nobody reads pinned threads).

 

In fact, here's a thought: it probably wouldn't be too difficult to get a Pudsey Bear coin made. It would probably sell in big numbers (everyone loves teddy bears, and you could probably sell quite a few to muggles), you could give the profits to a charity of your choice , and you might even get the moderators to look the other way if you posted a link from here to the coin forum thread where you were selling it.

[+Jacobite]

And on that note, I need to cover myself in fake blood and stagger about in an underpass- It's a long story.

 

Please tell us more Paul, I wouldn't happen to be anything to do with people under 16 that require stuff......eh?

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

I don't have a complex, I am complex though- perhaps that's what you're thinking of Izzy?

 

I take no responsibility for post #74 ~ I hardly ever post on here now. It was t'other 'alf (also named Paul) When the cats away and all that

Sorry, Paul

 

Izzy

 

(edited to add MY name)

Edited November 14, 2008 by Izzy and the Lizard King

[+Simply Paul]

And on that note, I need to cover myself in fake blood and stagger about in an underpass- It's a long story.

Please tell us more Paul, I wouldn't happen to be anything to do with people under 16 that require stuff......eh?

Very cryptic but no, the date isn't relevant. It's for A2 Film Studies. And the fake blood isn't washing off

 

Izzy, I've edited my post previous post. Your reputation remains spotless

[+Haggis Hunter]

Paul, thank you for your post (No. 78)

[+mtn-man]

Therefore, we do not step on the slope at all.

I agree with Groundspeak's policy on mentioning charities on cache page and forums, for all the reasons mentioned in the quoted post.

 

However, the policy would carry greater weight if Groundspeak itself did not get involved in charities. Why produce Diabetes geocoins then say that Diabetes charities can't be mentioned?

 

Remind me: where does it so wisely say "Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." .

Groundspeak did not produce the Diabetes geocoins. They were approached with an idea by a third party and they approved the production of the item and sold them tracking codes for the items. If you want to approach Groundspeak with an idea and then pay for production and pay for the tracking codes, you might also be approved for the promotion using some sort of geocoin or travel bug. Groundspeak has been clear that this form of promotion will be examined on a case by case basis and if they think it is OK they might approve of it. Have at it.

[+Jan and the Percey Boys]

Every time I leave these forums this happens!!!!

 

 

then I wonder why I come back - maybe I shouldn't

 

Bob

[Bryan]

It's no secret that the founders of Groundspeak met while working for a promotions company.

 

Actually, we met at a dotcom that sold men's clothing both online and in a retail store. Since people didn't really buy clothing online (at the time), the dotcom crashed and burned along with many of the other dotcoms. We all moved on together to work at the promotional product marketing company until we could generate enough revenue to hire ourselves to work fulltime at Groundspeak.

[+drdick&vick]

I could have sworn this thread was titled 'Let's all make this a friendlier place' well it seems to be going away from that idea already.

It seems that there are to many EP's on the forum.

I shall go take a break and come back in a week or so to see if it has change (for the better) and whether any of the EP's have settled.

[+careygang]

EP? What's one of those?

 

I agree it's drifting, but at least it remains civil and there are some interesting facts coming out

[+drdick&vick]

EGO PROBLEMS

[+careygang]

EGO PROBLEMS

 

Ahhh... certainly a few around, but things have calmed down a lot. Which is probably why this has drifted into a general discussion; so a few things can come out without the EP getting too prevalent.

[+puppymonster]

 

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Thanks for taking the time to spell things out as you see them Miss Jenn.

 

Personally, I can see why some of the folks get the hump here from time to time. That's not to say I condone all the activities, but some things do seem hard to understand, especially when guidelines or whatever the current buzz term is, do not appear to be universally applied.

 

For example; much has been made of various threads that apparently demonstrate "forum angst" and how this will deter newbies from coming and joining in, I agree, but if I was new here and asked a question and got an answer like RTFM (which when googled reveals a rather patronising and rude remark), I would certainly not be asking questions again. Yet, from the fact that the current thread that had this in was merely moved rather than moderated, I take that to be a tacit acceptance that it is ok to bat folk off in a more subtle, but no less rude way!

 

We are not all techno Gods and some of us struggle to get to grips with our technology and would prefer not to look like klutzes on a world stage.

 

I also find it hard to understand why some folks have been pulled up for having commercial links in their signature lines and others are free to advertise their own ventures.

 

Likewise, I find it hard to understand why the coin forums allow charitable ventures yet nowehere else is allowed to do so. It was IMO frankly weird that we were not, as a UK community allowed to raise funds for our own mega event via various means and alert folks to that here.

 

It riles me sometimes when a thread is opened here by someone and then it gets trotted off to the appropriate forum elsewhere. When I have had problems with my phone, laptop or GPSR, I have wanted to chat to a fellow Brit, someone who wouldn't mind me calling them to ask further questions etc. On more than one occasion, I have met someone in person to get my technology woes sorted out ... queries moved to the technology forum for example don't get the same Biritish readership.

 

There was a thread here a few weeks ago to encourage Brits to join in an international coin exchange, however, even though the current mod joined in, the thread was duly moved to the coin forum. I would have welcomed a little more opportunity to chat to Brits about the exchange, and would have happily helped any newcomers, who may well feel "in at the deep end" on the main thread.

 

I guess you are not going to please all of the folk all of the time, but it's not that long ago that many more folk were happy more of the time than they are now

[+sTeamTraen]

One reason why the rules don't always appear to be universally applied is that the mods don't read every post, or indeed even the majority of them. So a lot depends on what gets reported. If you ask a question and get a disrespectful answer like being told to RTFM, you should probably consider hitting the Report button.

 

On the "British" thing... it's inevitable that with this being Groundspeak's site, and them being from another continent, there's going to be "international" aspects to it, and "international" is in turn going to have a substantial chunk of "American" in it. In most cases this wider audience is to your advantage. But I'm sure that if you put "this question is in the hope that someone local can come and show me in person, please moderator don't move it", you would get a favourable response.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Every time I leave these forums this happens!!!!

 

 

then I wonder why I come back - maybe I shouldn't

 

Bob

Not directed at you personally, Bob, but this illustrates a general point. I feel that it's a pity that people will insist on commenting on a thread to say that they don't like it. It adds nothing to the discussion and merely aggravates. The thread has been interesting to those who are interested, has stayed safely within guidelines, and whilst I fully understand that plenty of people aren't keen on this topic: there are other threads to join in which might be more to your taste.

It's my opinion that it's not people like Simply Paul who cause forum "angst", it's those that post well-meant but ultimately provocative off-topic comments (hopefully, unlike this one! ) in a misguided attempt to close down the thread.

 

(I should add that there probably aren't people like Simply Paul, but you know what I meant).

[+mongoose39uk]

This thread has been fine no angst.

 

However if Bob feels like me and plenty of other people, then yeah there has been a lot of angst no matter how much you try and wrap it up as a discussion.

[+drdick&vick]

For 'angst' read EP

[+Mad H@ter]

For 'angst' read EP

Back so soon

[+PopUpPirate]

Thanks, MissJenn

[+Frank Broughton]

The older I get the more I realize - some people simply talk too much. Me included - but here - well only 2 posts in over a year - not so. I would not do too well in an international arena being a paradox - thus my silence!

 

As a long time administrator of first, BBS's in the 1980's and secondly the internet - I have had only three rules within my areas of authority:

 

1. Have fun

2. No "foul" language

3. Do not dish it out if you cannot take it

 

These simple rules have worked well for over 25 plus years. I suggest ignoring all the complexities of pages of rules and obey these and happy happy joy joy for all

 

Cache on brothers and sisters and do it more than you talk about doing it - that should be the motto for all.

 

Also using a real name sure helps with decorum!

 

Frank Broughton

NY - USA

[+Happy Humphrey]

This thread has been fine no angst.

 

However if Bob feels like me and plenty of other people, then yeah there has been a lot of angst no matter how much you try and wrap it up as a discussion.

I'm sure you're right, but it shouldn't matter if it stays within guidelines. Don't like it? Ignore it. There's always another thread.

[+the pooks]

I agree with Mr Humphrey (Posts #94 and #100). We are all adults (well most of the posters are) and we should be able to hold our own in a forum without having to resort to someone to come and help when it goes in a direction that we do not like or gets too lively.

 

Fact is that the "more contentious threads" tend to attract a lot of interest is posters and viewers (just by looking at the stats), which surely is a good thing.

 

I have also noticed that sweeping, general statements have a lot of potential of creating a perception that often tends to be largeley unfounded when examples are requested. One example was the "moderators closing threads without reason": when examples were asked for it was discovered that the statement held very little substance. Another is: "certain posters and certain posts have created a lot of angst on this forum" (I haven't worded it correctly) - when that is analysed there are also precious few posts that could be considered disruptive.

 

Some of the threads in the General Forum would make readers of this forum shudder. They tend to be quite aggressive there - to me a little too aggressive sometimes, but it goes to show, maybe we need to develop a thicker skin.