Hasta la vista baby

[GOF and Bacall]

Give me that $30,000. You'd be amazed at how flexible the guidelines can become.

 

Wow! Talk about inflation. I remember when a reviewer could be bought with a pound or three of mid grade chocolate.

[GOF and Bacall]

GRRR!! I hate it when this board does that!

Edited April 8, 2009 by GOF & Bacall

[the3gmen]

 

Go back and read my posts. I gave a perfect example.

 

I have a 9 stage 15 km hike that took a great deal of effort to create. It is both a puzzle and an amazing hike. I had an ALR that required the finders to supply a track log showing they visited all 9 stages instead of just hiking 500 meters to the final. And I know there are cachers that will do exactly that. They have done it to my caches in the past.

 

I am not going to spend hours creating challenging multis if someone can turn it into a simple traditional.

 

So I would support RK's comment about some creativity being squashed. At least hampered.

 

I really don't mean this to be a wise-a** comment, I'm just curious. Why don't you just make the final, the one that is at the furthest part of the hike ? That way even if someone did get the coordinates of the final from a friend, they'd still have to do the longer hike.

[+emmett]

.

 

In this particular case, I think it is accurate to say that the series may not conform with the written guidelines, but does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines. At any rate, I cannot recall the exact discussion I had with the reviewer, but clearly the end result was something she approved, then continued to approve five more times. Nothing had changed when the seventh cache was submitted for review. There had never been any communication from the reviewer expressing any concern. There had never been any logs or posts from cachers expressing concern. If the series had caused so much as one problem then I could understand some attention, and possibly its termination, but it did not.

Aha - so your reviewer essentially granted you six exceptions to the guidelines. My guess is they had second thoughts about extending this to other cachers. The old slippery slope of precedent - "he got an exception, why can't I?" It's hard to enforce the guidelines fairly when you start making exceptions here and there. And there are tons of people with denied caches who feel that, while perhaps their cache didn't "conform with the written guidelines, it does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines." Sounds like you caught a break for a while, but when you tried to extend this to other cachers, the reviewers decided it was time to enforce the guidelines as written.

 

The series was set up at the start with the intent of others adding to the series. That is why I worked carefully with the reviewer to be sure it was set up properly. There was no point in approving the first cache in the series if subsequent caches created in the same manner would not be allowed. It was not a case of making an exception several times and then deciding not to do so later on. Perhaps you could argue an exception was made to allow the series to start but I would argue a careful reading of the guideline suggests that no exception was ever needed.

 

Here is the relevant text:

 

1A - When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time.

 

1B - Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches") ... most likely will not be published.

 

The guideline is 1A, essentially stating that caches need to be permanent. The 1B wording merely attempts to illustrate types of things that would violate 1A.

 

Consequently, the series was intentionally set up to be sure that it did not violate 1A. Each cache published in the series was permanent. There was, and still is, a container and log book at each site. Therefore the series is in full conformance with the purpose of this guideline.

 

However, the original container used for the first cache was moved to be used as the container for the second cache. When the third cache was set up, the original container moved again and so on. Each time the original was moved, a new container was left behind in its place.

 

Therefore, while it was true that a container and its contents was moving, each cache was permanent because when the original container was moved it was replaced by a new container that is there to this day, unless the cache owner has since decided to swap it.

 

If someone wants to argue that this series of caches was in violation of the guidelines, then every other cache owner who has exchanged a container at a cache site is also in violation. As it is not at all uncommon for people to swap containers for any number of reasons, are we to ask the reviewer for permission to use the removed container later on?

 

At any rate, the fact remains that the series was approved and each new cache approved again and again and again. When someone from on high decided to shut it down, he did not even offer the courtesy of an explanation after all the work we did to build the series.

 

Set up carefully at the start, no complaints, no problems, no maintenance issues as it grew, then the sudden and unexpected axe.

 

There have been lots of people commenting, many saying I am not telling the truth, others insulting me for telling the story, some not even reading carefully what was written, a very interesting experience for sure. Not sure why I felt the need to vent it all out. Maybe I should get back on my meds.

 

.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wow, a long slow geocide. Kinda like bleeding yourself dry with a paper cut. Why put yourself through it?

 

Sounds like an interesting project. You should have gone the appeals rout. Guess now we may never know if you could have got it straightened out.

 

Someone do me a favor and snap a pic when he finally jumps. I forgot my camera.

[jholly]

I'm sorry, your just throwing up a red herring. Of course I should have expect it. First you post a strawman and now a red herring. You state

 

In this particular case, I think it is accurate to say that the series may not conform with the written guidelines, but does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines.

 

So you got a free pass.

 

Now you give us some mumble jumble about the physical container moves and the original is replaced with a new one, therefore it is not in compliance with the the guidelines. Really? No where in the guidelines does it address anything about the physical container other than maybe the size. Do you think we archive our hides and then publish a new one when one of our containers get muggled? Do you think GS or anyone gives dagumit?

 

Do all us a favor. Sit down, think about it for a while, write the story and then never change it or and new twists. Give answers that are congruent with the original story. Right now I think your trying a snow job and frankly I think your doing a bad job. I'm really starting to suspect that the problem with your communications with GS is one of constant changing stories, red herrings and strawmans. I think going back on your meds is a good idea.

 

Jim

[+fizzymagic]

It's simple economics. The free labor of a single reviewer is probably worth (conservatively) $30K a year on the open market; that means that losing a reviewer is approximately equal to losing 1,000 paying members.

Umm...how many reviewers out there are putting in 40 hour weeks?

Umm.. who said anything about a 40-hour week?

 

$30K cost to an employer probably translates to about $12-15K to the employee. For an employee of the quality that Groundspeak gets in the volunteer reviewers, that translates to about 4-6 hours a week.

[+fizzymagic]

1. I read and re-read the guideline changes several times and I still do not feel like I have to run out and hide boring urban micros.

You seem to be saying that I said that the guidelines somehow force you to hide urban micros.

 

My suggestion is that you may want to trouble yourself to actually read posts before responding. It makes you look like you actually want to engage in a conversation.

 

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

[Keystone]

It's simple economics. The free labor of a single reviewer is probably worth (conservatively) $30K a year on the open market; that means that losing a reviewer is approximately equal to losing 1,000 paying members.

Umm...how many reviewers out there are putting in 40 hour weeks?

Umm.. who said anything about a 40-hour week?

 

$30K cost to an employer probably translates to about $12-15K to the employee. For an employee of the quality that Groundspeak gets in the volunteer reviewers, that translates to about 4-6 hours a week.

Many of us spend 4-6 hours per DAY on our volunteer duties. I know I do. Now, where is my $94,000 - $105,000???

[jholly]

1. I read and re-read the guideline changes several times and I still do not feel like I have to run out and hide boring urban micros.

You seem to be saying that I said that the guidelines somehow force you to hide urban micros.

 

My suggestion is that you may want to trouble yourself to actually read posts before responding. It makes you look like you actually want to engage in a conversation.

 

Hope that helps. Have a nice day.

 

Perhaps you could give me an alternate way to parse this sentence.

The guidelines subliminally encourage the placement of boring urban caches.

 

Since I don't live in California I'm immune to nice days.

 

Jim

[+fizzymagic]

It's simple economics. The free labor of a single reviewer is probably worth (conservatively) $30K a year on the open market; that means that losing a reviewer is approximately equal to losing 1,000 paying members.

Umm...how many reviewers out there are putting in 40 hour weeks?

Umm.. who said anything about a 40-hour week?

 

$30K cost to an employer probably translates to about $12-15K to the employee. For an employee of the quality that Groundspeak gets in the volunteer reviewers, that translates to about 4-6 hours a week.

Many of us spend 4-6 hours per DAY on our volunteer duties. I know I do. Now, where is my $94,000 - $105,000???

My point exactly. Groundspeak is getting a great deal with you folks. I'm very grateful to you, as are most cachers I know. However, it's clear (to me at least) that your willingness to work so hard for free has a significant effect on Groundspeak's priorities when it comes to guidelines. Which is more valuable to them -- you or a single premium account?

[+fizzymagic]

Perhaps you could give me an alternate way to parse this sentence.

The guidelines subliminally encourage the placement of boring urban caches.

You could start by looking up any words you don't know in the dictionary.

 

In my dictionary, at least, "encourage" is not a synonym for "force."

[jholly]

Perhaps you could give me an alternate way to parse this sentence.

The guidelines subliminally encourage the placement of boring urban caches.

You could start by looking up any words you don't know in the dictionary.

 

In my dictionary, at least, "encourage" is not a synonym for "force."

 

whatever.

 

Have a nice day

[+sbell111]

If I understand your posts correctly, you had several caches is a series published. At a later date, someone submitted another cache in the same series and the reviewer did not publish it stating that it didn't meet the current guidelines. It was then determined that the earlier caches also failed to meet the guidelines that were in place at the time that they were submitted. These caches were then archived.

That is not correct. Sorry if I was not clear. The original six were not archived. It was the seventh that was denied, but in so doing, the purpose and effort that went into the six was squashed. The concept was killed then, just as the ALRs are dead now.

I fail to see how anyone did anything inappropriate, beyond the fact that you submitted caches for listing that did not meet the guidelines even though you checked the box that stated that they did meet the guidelines. Some would call this lying.

Before the first cache was published I worked with the reviewer to set it up in a way that would pass muster and cause no problems. ...

 

In this particular case, I think it is accurate to say that the series may not conform with the written guidelines, but does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines. At any rate, I cannot recall the exact discussion I had with the reviewer, but clearly the end result was something she approved, then continued to approve five more times. Nothing had changed when the seventh cache was submitted for review. There had never been any communication from the reviewer expressing any concern. There had never been any logs or posts from cachers expressing concern. If the series had caused so much as one problem then I could understand some attention, and possibly its termination, but it did not. ...

OK, I now understand. You worked with the reviewer to get one nonconforming cache listed. You then submitted five more similar caches and they were listed. Someone else then submitted a similar cache and it was not listed. Your caches were not archived.

 

That other person should appeal the decision if 1) he feels that his cache meets the guidelines or 2) he believes that the cache should be listed even though it doesn't meet the guidelines. It should be noted that his chances of success with #2 are slim and that he should have requested a variance prior to submitting the cache.

 

You have no right to appeal because it wasn't your cache. You should be happy that your nonconforming caches were not archived.

As I think about the evolution of GC.com, I note something telling. One cache owner can publish 50 parking lot light post caches that require virtually no time or energy and do little to build the GC brand in a positive way. Another cache owner will work hard to place 50 thoughtful caches that create the type of caching experience that is good for the GC brand. Which of these two types of cache owners is more likely to have difficulty in dealing with GC?

Put another way, one cache owner will submit 50 guidelines conforming caches. Another cache owner will submit 50 caches that don't follow the guidelines. Which of these two types of cache owners is more likely to have difficulty in dealing with GC?

Perhaps you could give me an alternate way to parse this sentence.

The guidelines subliminally encourage the placement of boring urban caches.

You could start by looking up any words you don't know in the dictionary.

 

In my dictionary, at least, "encourage" is not a synonym for "force."

Isn't that the very argument raging in the ALR threads?

[+WHO-DEY]

Emmett...stay, or go. Do one or the other...but do it. And you are going to need to understand that like The Dude, you need to ABIDE. Abide by the call made by a reviewer. This is a game, and is to be fun. Suck it, have some fun, or go away with all 75 of your precious caches. But this mess has gotta stop. Wow. I would hate to see what your employer must go though day to day with you if this is the norm.

 

STAY or GO

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Second, the frog exhibits some of the worst behaviors you might expect from a monopoly, making up new rules because it can, without full regard for the people who helped build the site - those who place and maintain caches. There is no small number of cache owners who have worked hard to place and maintain good caches, only to see the frog one day pull the plug on them for no good reason. I was directly involved in this myself this past year and it was an eye-opening experience, revealing to me that frog management needs an attitude adjustment.

 

Do you realise how unhinged you appear, referring to "the frog" and claiming Groundspeak has a monopoly on caching hobbies?

 

It really is for the best that if someone feel this way that they should stop playing immediately.

[Mr.Yuck]

Second, the frog exhibits some of the worst behaviors you might expect from a monopoly, making up new rules because it can, without full regard for the people who helped build the site - those who place and maintain caches. There is no small number of cache owners who have worked hard to place and maintain good caches, only to see the frog one day pull the plug on them for no good reason. I was directly involved in this myself this past year and it was an eye-opening experience, revealing to me that frog management needs an attitude adjustment.

 

Do you realise how unhinged you appear, referring to "the frog" and claiming Groundspeak has a monopoly on caching hobbies?

 

It really is for the best that if someone feel this way that they should stop playing immediately.

 

If that's unhinged, and whoever feels that way needs to stop playing immediately, there is going to be one really, really big mass-Geocide.

[+sbell111]

Second, the frog exhibits some of the worst behaviors you might expect from a monopoly, making up new rules because it can, without full regard for the people who helped build the site - those who place and maintain caches. There is no small number of cache owners who have worked hard to place and maintain good caches, only to see the frog one day pull the plug on them for no good reason. I was directly involved in this myself this past year and it was an eye-opening experience, revealing to me that frog management needs an attitude adjustment.

 

Do you realise how unhinged you appear, referring to "the frog" and claiming Groundspeak has a monopoly on caching hobbies?

 

It really is for the best that if someone feel this way that they should stop playing immediately.

 

If that's unhinged, and whoever feels that way needs to stop playing immediately, there is going to be one really, really big mass-Geocide.

I hope they all do it in the same thread. That would be a fun read.

[+Civic Doodie]

Many of us spend 4-6 hours per DAY on our volunteer duties. I know I do. Now, where is my $94,000 - $105,000???

 

I'll start passing around the tin cup. In time I should have that for you.

[Mr.Yuck]

Second, the frog exhibits some of the worst behaviors you might expect from a monopoly, making up new rules because it can, without full regard for the people who helped build the site - those who place and maintain caches. There is no small number of cache owners who have worked hard to place and maintain good caches, only to see the frog one day pull the plug on them for no good reason. I was directly involved in this myself this past year and it was an eye-opening experience, revealing to me that frog management needs an attitude adjustment.

 

Do you realise how unhinged you appear, referring to "the frog" and claiming Groundspeak has a monopoly on caching hobbies?

 

It really is for the best that if someone feel this way that they should stop playing immediately.

 

If that's unhinged, and whoever feels that way needs to stop playing immediately, there is going to be one really, really big mass-Geocide.

I hope they all do it in the same thread. That would be a fun read.

 

Well, I really mean anyone who has ever referred to Groundspeak, Inc. as "The Frog". Which would probably include everyone that works there, as well as thousands of others. Monopoly, we could debate. Not that there shouldn't be a pinned thread "commit Geocide here".

[jholly]

Not that there shouldn't be a pinned thread "commit Geocide here".

 

That would be the end of geocide as we know it. There is no drama in pinned threads, no one would read it and the geocidees would leave bitter because no one noticed. No, much better they do it in a public forum so they can get properly pilloried.

 

Jim

[+Userzero]

Thread of the week.

 

At least.

[+Scubasonic]

don't tell us your leaving.....JUST LEAVE.

 

SS

[+mtn-man]

You still here? Strangest geocide ever.

Geocide by infection. It takes awhile for it to work.

Yeah, that archiving of caches is really moving along too.

This is an advance notice to those who may be interested to know that I will be archiving my caches in the coming weeks, possibly months.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Second, the frog exhibits some of the worst behaviors you might expect from a monopoly, making up new rules because it can, without full regard for the people who helped build the site - those who place and maintain caches. There is no small number of cache owners who have worked hard to place and maintain good caches, only to see the frog one day pull the plug on them for no good reason. I was directly involved in this myself this past year and it was an eye-opening experience, revealing to me that frog management needs an attitude adjustment.

 

Do you realise how unhinged you appear, referring to "the frog" and claiming Groundspeak has a monopoly on caching hobbies?

 

It really is for the best that if someone feel this way that they should stop playing immediately.

 

If that's unhinged, and whoever feels that way needs to stop playing immediately, there is going to be one really, really big mass-Geocide.

I hope they all do it in the same thread. That would be a fun read.

 

Well, I really mean anyone who has ever referred to Groundspeak, Inc. as "The Frog". Which would probably include everyone that works there, as well as thousands of others. Monopoly, we could debate. Not that there shouldn't be a pinned thread "commit Geocide here".

 

It's a matter of context and intent. The context of referring to "the frog" is no different than trying to demonise the staff or a specific individual of the staff as being the fully responsible for not living up to the expectations of entitlement mongers. While I understand that referring to "the frog" can be a casual and affectionate thing, obviously that wasn't the context here. It's amazing how something that's fun in one context can be borderline psychotic in another context.

[+BrrrMo]

.

 

In this particular case, I think it is accurate to say that the series may not conform with the written guidelines, but does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines. At any rate, I cannot recall the exact discussion I had with the reviewer, but clearly the end result was something she approved, then continued to approve five more times. Nothing had changed when the seventh cache was submitted for review. There had never been any communication from the reviewer expressing any concern. There had never been any logs or posts from cachers expressing concern. If the series had caused so much as one problem then I could understand some attention, and possibly its termination, but it did not.

Aha - so your reviewer essentially granted you six exceptions to the guidelines. My guess is they had second thoughts about extending this to other cachers. The old slippery slope of precedent - "he got an exception, why can't I?" It's hard to enforce the guidelines fairly when you start making exceptions here and there. And there are tons of people with denied caches who feel that, while perhaps their cache didn't "conform with the written guidelines, it does conform with the spirit or intent of the guidelines." Sounds like you caught a break for a while, but when you tried to extend this to other cachers, the reviewers decided it was time to enforce the guidelines as written.

 

The series was set up at the start with the intent of others adding to the series. That is why I worked carefully with the reviewer to be sure it was set up properly. There was no point in approving the first cache in the series if subsequent caches created in the same manner would not be allowed. It was not a case of making an exception several times and then deciding not to do so later on. Perhaps you could argue an exception was made to allow the series to start but I would argue a careful reading of the guideline suggests that no exception was ever needed.

 

Here is the relevant text:

 

1A - When you report a cache on the Geocaching.com web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time.

 

1B - Therefore, caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches") ... most likely will not be published.

 

The guideline is 1A, essentially stating that caches need to be permanent. The 1B wording merely attempts to illustrate types of things that would violate 1A.

 

Consequently, the series was intentionally set up to be sure that it did not violate 1A. Each cache published in the series was permanent. There was, and still is, a container and log book at each site. Therefore the series is in full conformance with the purpose of this guideline.

 

However, the original container used for the first cache was moved to be used as the container for the second cache. When the third cache was set up, the original container moved again and so on. Each time the original was moved, a new container was left behind in its place.

 

Therefore, while it was true that a container and its contents was moving, each cache was permanent because when the original container was moved it was replaced by a new container that is there to this day, unless the cache owner has since decided to swap it.

 

If someone wants to argue that this series of caches was in violation of the guidelines, then every other cache owner who has exchanged a container at a cache site is also in violation. As it is not at all uncommon for people to swap containers for any number of reasons, are we to ask the reviewer for permission to use the removed container later on?

 

At any rate, the fact remains that the series was approved and each new cache approved again and again and again. When someone from on high decided to shut it down, he did not even offer the courtesy of an explanation after all the work we did to build the series.

 

Set up carefully at the start, no complaints, no problems, no maintenance issues as it grew, then the sudden and unexpected axe.

 

There have been lots of people commenting, many saying I am not telling the truth, others insulting me for telling the story, some not even reading carefully what was written, a very interesting experience for sure. Not sure why I felt the need to vent it all out. Maybe I should get back on my meds.

 

.

 

emmett;

At the risk of being banned forever all I can say is OMyGoD is Pres now. What do you expect?

[Clan Riffster]

At the risk of being banned forever all I can say is OMyGoD is Pres now. What do you expect?

Sorry. I'm not quite following this. Is OMyGoD a nickname for President Obama? If so, how does he being elected affect one person's sense of entitlement?

[+Sioneva]

 

emmett;

At the risk of being banned forever all I can say is OMyGoD is Pres now. What do you expect?

 

And the winner for irrelevant post of the decade goes to... BRRRMO!

[CoyoteRed]

The series was set up at the start with the intent of others adding to the series.

So, if I'm reading this right, the series is set up so the next person who wants to (not forced in order to log) add to the series simply replaces the last container in the series with a new container and move the old/original container to the new location?

 

Apart from the issue of the logbook moving from location to location, I don't see how this violates any guideline. Any owner in the series would know the original container would move on the very next additional so there shouldn't be an issue there. They might not know what container would be placed in "their" spot along with logbook and trinkets. The cache location is permanent. A know future change of container doesn't make the cache temporary. It's not as if they wouldn't know that going in, though.

 

I'm obviously missing something here. Maybe a reviewer can chime in on whatever I'm missing.

[+Sky King 36]

I have done a lot of organizational dynamics work, and have often thought of making this kind of pattern the subject of PhD work.

 

1. Group starts with very intimate roots

2. Grows into community, requiring that rules become more defined

3. Extensive, often intensely emotional debate occurs over whether each new rule enhances or detracts from the original "spirit" of the group's roots

4. The pragmatists argue for rules that reflect the reality on the ground and thus are more inclusive

5. The idelaists argue that this dilutes the purity of the game, and want to codify "ideal outcomes"

6. This argument becomes progressively more vitriolic over time

7. As the community grows, the influence of individuals at large declines

8. As the community grows, the influence of the governing body increases, and becomes more bureaucratic, less personal, less accountable, less responsive

9. The gravitas of the community shifts away from meritocracy (where influence is a result of contribution) and moves towards "smooth-waters-ocracy" (where influence is wielded by a central committee that can keep the masses quiet)

10. A strong contributor, unaware of the degree to which the smooth-water-ocracy now has influence over the vast masses, rebels, hopeful that his contributions give him political capital

11. A loss of innocence moment occurs, and feelings are hurt, when said strong contributor realizes that the masses are largely apathetic to the principle or value he was fighting for

 

My friends, this cycle repeats itself again and again. It is the story of every volunteer organization, every club, the US government, most churches... It is the way it is.

 

Many of us have been right where the OP is... Where we have put hundreds, even thousands of hours into something, building it, making it better... only to have that loss of innocence moment when we realize that our contributions have no lingering asset value. We make a contribution, we get a pat on the back, and that's it, we're square, we're settled up. And the idea that our contribution has built our reputation in a way that we can capitalize on later is an illusion. By the time we have enough reputation to expend in the form of influence, the community has already outgrown our ability to influence it.

 

I choose no sides here. The OP was wrong to think he had as mush sway as he did. And we are wrong to treat him as if he is the only one that has ever fallen victim to this. There are only two kinds of people in the world. The ones that it's already happened to, and the ones that it hasn't happened to yet.

[+edscott]

Well said and so true. Anyone that skimmed through needs to read it again. Put me into that first category.. more than a couple times over the years.

[+joukkusisu]

My friends, this cycle repeats itself again and again. It is the story of every volunteer organization, every club, the US government, most churches... It is the way it is.

 

Many of us have been right where the OP is... Where we have put hundreds, even thousands of hours into something, building it, making it better... only to have that loss of innocence moment when we realize that our contributions have no lingering asset value. We make a contribution, we get a pat on the back, and that's it, we're square, we're settled up. And the idea that our contribution has built our reputation in a way that we can capitalize on later is an illusion. By the time we have enough reputation to expend in the form of influence, the community has already outgrown our ability to influence it.

 

I choose no sides here. The OP was wrong to think he had as mush sway as he did. And we are wrong to treat him as if he is the only one that has ever fallen victim to this. There are only two kinds of people in the world. The ones that it's already happened to, and the ones that it hasn't happened to yet.

 

Interesting read, thanks for sharing. I can see how this is relates to many different small groups that grow big, and not just our little niche. That said, it doesn't bode well for GC. Does this mean GC will be like the government?

[Clan Riffster]

There are only two kinds of people in the world. The ones that it's already happened to, and the ones that it hasn't happened to yet.

A most accurate assessment. I'll have to go stand with the folks in the first category, as I had my "Loss of Innocence" moment when I was about 7 years old. Since then, I've tried to keep a handle on any budding feelings of entitlement, knocking them upside the head as they show themselves. I've found that, the more I am emotionally invested in something, the harder this becomes.

[+hydnsek]

I have done a lot of organizational dynamics work, and have often thought of making this kind of pattern the subject of PhD work.

 

1. Group starts with very intimate roots

2. Grows into community, requiring that rules become more defined

3. Extensive, often intensely emotional debate occurs over whether each new rule enhances or detracts from the original "spirit" of the group's roots

4. The pragmatists argue for rules that reflect the reality on the ground and thus are more inclusive

5. The idelaists argue that this dilutes the purity of the game, and want to codify "ideal outcomes"

6. This argument becomes progressively more vitriolic over time

7. As the community grows, the influence of individuals at large declines

8. As the community grows, the influence of the governing body increases, and becomes more bureaucratic, less personal, less accountable, less responsive

9. The gravitas of the community shifts away from meritocracy (where influence is a result of contribution) and moves towards "smooth-waters-ocracy" (where influence is wielded by a central committee that can keep the masses quiet)

10. A strong contributor, unaware of the degree to which the smooth-water-ocracy now has influence over the vast masses, rebels, hopeful that his contributions give him political capital

11. A loss of innocence moment occurs, and feelings are hurt, when said strong contributor realizes that the masses are largely apathetic to the principle or value he was fighting for

 

My friends, this cycle repeats itself again and again. It is the story of every volunteer organization, every club, the US government, most churches... It is the way it is.

 

Many of us have been right where the OP is... Where we have put hundreds, even thousands of hours into something, building it, making it better... only to have that loss of innocence moment when we realize that our contributions have no lingering asset value. We make a contribution, we get a pat on the back, and that's it, we're square, we're settled up. And the idea that our contribution has built our reputation in a way that we can capitalize on later is an illusion. By the time we have enough reputation to expend in the form of influence, the community has already outgrown our ability to influence it.

 

I choose no sides here. The OP was wrong to think he had as mush sway as he did. And we are wrong to treat him as if he is the only one that has ever fallen victim to this. There are only two kinds of people in the world. The ones that it's already happened to, and the ones that it hasn't happened to yet.

Excellent post, well said. Thanks for writing it.

[+nekom]

[+flask]

 

9. The gravitas of the community shifts away from meritocracy (where influence is a result of contribution) and moves towards "smooth-waters-ocracy" (where influence is wielded by a central committee that can keep the masses quiet)

 

 

i do not think this word gravitas means what you think it means.

 

i only mention it because you are clearly literate, and your points will be better made with care for proper word meaning.

[Swamp-Thing]

 

9. The gravitas of the community shifts away from meritocracy (where influence is a result of contribution) and moves towards "smooth-waters-ocracy" (where influence is wielded by a central committee that can keep the masses quiet)

 

 

i do not think this word gravitas means what you think it means.

 

i only mention it because you are clearly literate, and your points will be better made with care for proper word meaning.

 

Did you mean to quote Hydnsek? She wasn't the one that used that word, sky King 36 did.

 

What does gravitas mean to you?

[+flask]

sorry about the tag rupture.

 

as for "gravitas", i like the dictionary definition. while "gravity" and "gravitas" are related, they are not interchangeable.

 

it's silly to ask what a word does or does not mean to me since i or any other person could attach a nonstandard meaning to any word, but that wouldn't make it correct or intelligible.

 

for example, i might decide that for today i will use the word "gravitas" to mean "emphasis" and you might take it to mean "terminal velocity" and yet another person may decide to use it to represent the concept of the blueness of a thing. if we each chose to use words to suit our own personal meanings, there would be little benefit in sharing a language. no one would ever be certain of what anyone else meant and society, already in poor shape, would fall in short order.

[+BlueDeuce]

mmmm, blueness.

[+Sky King 36]

i do not think this word gravitas means what you think it means.

You are correct, I did over-extend the term gravitas (to have weight, to be worthy of being taken seriously), when I really meant the "center mass" or "gravitational center" of the community. That center may have gravitas, but it in not gravitas itself. Thanks for the clarification, I am one of those people who believes that communication is, generally, worth getting right.

 

i only mention it because you are clearly literate

On this point you are clearly incorrect, I am an illiterate stooge according to my wife, and on this there appears to be a consensus forming that includes my daughters.

[+Star*Hopper]

You've omitted the part where the contributor is demonized by the community for quitting because of the very things he stands for. His principles, while a participant, are noble aspirations for all......but seek independance or strike out on your own when their path is no longer headed towards where you want to be, is cause for damnation.

 

Frankly, the stench of burning witches reached overwhelming proportions some time ago....& too many are too eager to now flog the ashes.

"Don't hit a man when he's down. KICK him - it's easier!!"

 

Would a moderator PLEASE lock this thing, & let it slide off into eternity fer chrissakes?

~*

[+mtn-man]

Still hope you reconsider. I think the best thing to say at this point is...

 

Hasta la vista baby, Enough already

 

Topic closed.