Reviewer

[+CanadianRockies]

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches?

Groundspeak is apparently concerned about CoI on multis and puzzles. If they were concerned about CoI on trads, they'd have made a policy about it when they did on multis and puzzles. Apparently GS didn't think there was enough ground to slap a policy on trads.

My point was that it isn't necessarily paranoid for an organization to enact Conflict of Interest policies that are proactive as well as reactive. As far as I know, Groundspeak created a policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multis and puzzles not because of what has happened but because of what could happen.

 

I suspect Groundspeak created its multi/puzzle CoI policy because the advantages reviewers could have with those types are obvious to many people. The advantages reviewers have with traditionals are less obvious and less significant, so fewer people are concerned about reviewers seeking FTFs on those types of caches.

[+TriciaG]

The advantages reviewers have with traditionals are less obvious and less significant, so fewer people are concerned about reviewers seeking FTFs on those types of caches.

Exactly. Fewer people are concerned about it, therefore it's not as big of an issue. The question is, how much of an issue does it need to be before any sort of policy (nod to toz: formal or informal policy) needs to be made? There are a bunch of practices in geocaching right now that could be considered "Conflict of Interest" or "inside advantage" but are not addressed. Do we have to build in policies about every probable scenario that could create an advantage, or do we use common sense?

 

Common sense suggests, IMHO, that there's little advantage reviewers have when publishing traditional caches. Therefore, it's not worth the hassle of setting up any sort of official policy to discourage it.

[+CanadianRockies]

The issue is different here because as part of the review process the final coordinates of puzzles and multicaches are known to reviewers....

 

The advantage on a traditional cache is very minor by comparison, and only of concern to FTF players.

If a reviewer pushes the "Publish" button while sitting in a coffee shop across the street from Ground Zero, then I'm not sure I would call that "very minor by comparison." And an unscrupulous reviewer actually could find the cache and sign the log before they even published the cache.

 

I think the reviewers' potential FTF advantages for traditionals are less obvious and less significant, but I don't think they are minor.

 

If they are reviewing from home, they might count to 10 after pressing "Publish" to allow the notification to be sent out to everyone before they leave to go after the cache.

Sometimes my fellow geocachers have received notifications about newly published caches several minutes or even over an hour before I received mine. That isn't something reviewers have control over. And I doubt they would know when Groundspeak sends out its last notification.

[+CanadianRockies]

Common sense suggests, IMHO, that there's little advantage reviewers have when publishing traditional caches. Therefore, it's not worth the hassle of setting up any sort of official policy to discourage it.

Should Groundspeak have a CoI policy specifically regarding FTFs on traditional caches? I don't have enough information to give an answer. It depends. How many FTF hounds have emailed Groundspeak complaining about the practice? How likely is it that people will complain in the future? How much of a disincentive would such a CoI policy be to retaining existing reviewers and recruiting new ones?

Edited October 30, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+wmpastor]

The issue is different here because as part of the review process the final coordinates of puzzles and multicaches are known to reviewers....

 

The advantage on a traditional cache is very minor by comparison, and only of concern to FTF players.

If a reviewer pushes the "Publish" button while sitting in a coffee shop across the street from Ground Zero, then I'm not sure I would call that "very minor by comparison." And an unscrupulous reviewer actually could find the cache and sign the log before they even published the cache.

 

I think the reviewers' potential FTF advantages for traditionals are less obvious and less significant, but I don't think they are minor.

 

If they are reviewing from home,they might count to 10 after pressing "Publish" to allow the notification to be sent out to everyone before they leave to go after the cache.

Sometimes my fellow geocachers have received notifications about newly published caches several minutes or even over an hour before I received mine. That isn't something reviewers have control over. And I doubt they would know when Groundspeak sends out its last notification.

Another idea is that, before leaving for the FTF hunt, the reviewer must sing the complete song, "100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"!

[Keystone]

We had a long forum thread discussion on this topic last month. Here is my answer, pasted from that discussion:

If you think about it, in a world with instant notifications sent instantly to cellphones, the reviewer who publishes a cache has very little advantage over anyone else, except perhaps to pack their kit and have car keys at the ready. Now, if the reviewer drove to the City Park and published the cache from their smartphone while parked 200 feet away, that would be different.

 

Reviewers refrain from being first to find on mystery/puzzle caches or multicaches that they publish, until enough time has gone by to give others a chance. By then, the reviewer has likely forgotten the details they studied while reviewing the listing.

Quoting myself to re-emphasize the applicable standards that reviewers follow. Yes, it's really that simple, although you're all welcome to continue respectful speculation above and beyond what reviewers have posted in this thread and the earlier one. I will add that "enough time has gone by" means "at least a week" if nobody has claimed an FTF on a puzzle or multicache that the reviewer published.

[+niraD]

Another idea is that, before leaving for the FTF hunt, the reviewer must sing the complete song, "100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall"!

And they must sing it in hexadecimal. And they must sing it in the original Klingon. And they must sing it while balancing on one foot. And...

[Clan Riffster]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

Most conflict of interest policies prohibit not just actions that have happened but also actions that could happen.

Speaking of paranoid...

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches? Do you think police officers should be allowed to accept bribes as long as it doesn't influence their actions? Should judges not recuse themselves from any case as long as they don't let their self-interests affect their decisions? Do you think legislators should be able to accept gifts from lobbyists as long as that doesn't affect their votes?

 

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

Me thinks anyone even remotely capable of equating the position of a signature on a scrap of paper with creating and enforcing the laws of the land has delved so deeply into the absurd that they wouldn't recognize reality if it bit them in the backside. Either that, or they have belatedly realized that they are arguing an indefensible position, and have grown rather desperate.

[+Don_J]

So, can anyone explain how I've abused any privilege?

You must repent! Remember, this issue is not about Reviewers actually abusing their status, since there has, to date, been no indication that this has ever happened, anywhere. Rather, it's about how you should change how you cache, to appease a tiny minority, of a tiny minority, specifically, those who are passionate about the informal and unofficial FTF side game. This minority of a minority is apparently populated by self entitled delusional paranoids who repeatedly stress silliness such as, "Well, sure, it hasn't happened. But it could!"

Most conflict of interest policies prohibit not just actions that have happened but also actions that could happen.

Speaking of paranoid...

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches? Do you think police officers should be allowed to accept bribes as long as it doesn't influence their actions? Should judges not recuse themselves from any case as long as they don't let their self-interests affect their decisions? Do you think legislators should be able to accept gifts from lobbyists as long as that doesn't affect their votes?

 

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

 

I wasn't aware that Groundspeak had any policies on FTFs.

 

A case could be made that finding any geocache could be a conflict of interest for any reviewer. Are they supposed to just stop geocaching?

[Clan Riffster]

But, if the feelings were precisely the same, as you seem to be inferring, then the Reviewer would be nabbing every single FTF that crossed their plate.

OK, I guess this is what you're missing. No, the reviewer wouldn't have to be getting every single FTF he could. He would only need to consider FTFs important and grab them frequently. Not every FTF fan is rabid, and any old FTF fan could be suspicious of a reviewer that often seems to beat him to the FTF.

OK, I guess this is what you're missing. With regards to the silliness known as the FTF game, the vast majority of players fall into one of three categories. First, are those who think the notion of chasing an FTF is ridiculous. If they happen across one, they may post something to that effect, or not. Folks in this group probably don't care who gets the FTF, and it would likely never cross their mind to be paranoid enough to think Reviewers might utilize their secret Ninja skills to obtain FTFs. Second, comes those who, if offered a chance to nab an FTF will grab it, and might celebrate the fact a little bit. Like the first group, they don't care enough about it to let it twist their judgement. Last, and probably least, are the rabid FTF hunters. Those folks who will drop everything just to place their name at the top of a log. They love the competition, and the camaraderie they get from beating other, like minded folks. Of this group, you might find a small percentage who are so fervid with their need to get FTFs, that they are willing to believe such nonsense as Reviewers using their insider information to get an advantage over other FTF hounds.

 

It takes a special kind of paranoid to even believe this could happen.

 

You probably won't find someone as deficient as that in the first two groups.

[+tozainamboku]

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

Me thinks anyone even remotely capable of equating the position of a signature on a scrap of paper with creating and enforcing the laws of the land has delved so deeply into the absurd that they wouldn't recognize reality if it bit them in the backside. Either that, or they have belatedly realized that they are arguing an indefensible position, and have grown rather desperate.

Me thinks that people can strecth anything to fit their point of view.

 

The closest "law of the land" analogy may be the 27th Ammendment to the US Constitution. Under it, Congress can set their own salaries but the new salary does not take effect until after the next election of US Representatives. So like Congress, reviewers can find caches but they should not be allowed to find them until after someone else is the FTF.

 

The interesting thing is that the 27th Ammendment was first proposed in 1789 along with the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until 1992 (over 202 years later). Perhaps if we propose a rule for reviewers getting FTF now, in another 200 years it might become the law of the land.

[+CanadianRockies]

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches? Do you think police officers should be allowed to accept bribes as long as it doesn't influence their actions? Should judges not recuse themselves from any case as long as they don't let their self-interests affect their decisions? Do you think legislators should be able to accept gifts from lobbyists as long as that doesn't affect their votes?

 

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

Me thinks anyone even remotely capable of equating the position of a signature on a scrap of paper with creating and enforcing the laws of the land has delved so deeply into the absurd that they wouldn't recognize reality if it bit them in the backside.

I don't know of anyone in this thread who has equated geocaching practices with the laws of the land. I certainly haven't done so.

 

What I did do was explain that many Conflict of Interest policies of all sorts are proactive as well as reactive. Then I provided some examples that might allow reasonable people to see why the proactive aspects of those policies could be important. One of those examples was even a Groundspeak policy.

 

I'm sorry you seem to have failed to grasp those underlying reasons.

[+NeverSummer]

So, do you think Groundspeak also is paranoid for its policy regarding reviewer FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches? Do you think police officers should be allowed to accept bribes as long as it doesn't influence their actions? Should judges not recuse themselves from any case as long as they don't let their self-interests affect their decisions? Do you think legislators should be able to accept gifts from lobbyists as long as that doesn't affect their votes?

 

Me thinks you don't have a good grasp of the reasons that underlie many conflict of interest policies.

Me thinks anyone even remotely capable of equating the position of a signature on a scrap of paper with creating and enforcing the laws of the land has delved so deeply into the absurd that they wouldn't recognize reality if it bit them in the backside.

I don't know of anyone in this thread who has equated geocaching practices with the laws of the land. I certainly haven't done so.

 

What I did do was explain that many Conflict of Interest policies of all sorts are proactive as well as reactive. Then I provided some examples that might allow reasonable people to see why the proactive aspects of those policies could be important. One of those examples was even a Groundspeak policy.

 

I'm sorry you seem to have failed to grasp those underlying reasons.

They are volunteers. CoI doesn't really apply in this case, but we see your point.

 

This thread has done little to sway my personal opinion that Vol Reviewers are cachers like the rest of us, and the FTF hunt is not an official part of this game. Guidelines exist in the thread of CoI with the no multi/unknown cheating for reviewers.

 

If there is a legitimate concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff. But the fact of the matter is it really doesn't matter. This is a game without winners.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know of anyone in this thread who has equated geocaching practices with the laws of the land.

I do. In fact, I'm responding to him right now.

Just in case your reading comprehension is as poor as you pretend it is, that would be you.

 

What I did do was...

What you did was construct strawmen. Poorly.

When building strawmen, you should try to make them less transparent.

 

I'm sorry you seem to have failed to grasp those underlying reasons.

Where your conflict of interest theory fails, miserably, is value. Having a law enforcement officer in your debt has specific value to your freedom. As does having a Judge in your debt. Having a legislator in your debt has specific value for your personal power and wealth. Having your name above mine on a scrap of paper only has significant value to a very tiny portion of our population.

 

I'm sorry you seem to have failed to grasp those simple concepts.

[+BruceS]

Please keep this discussion civil and refrain from bringing in personal attacks.

Edited October 31, 2013 by BruceS

[+CanadianRockies]

They are volunteers. CoI doesn't really apply in this case, but we see your point.

Simply because they are volunteers doesn't mean reviewers cannot take advantage of their positions to gain something they value (such as FTFs). Many, many organizations and governments have Conflict of Interest policies that apply to both paid and volunteer staff.

 

Why do you think Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers generally refrain from seeking FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches, at least for a week?

Edited October 31, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+MKFmly]

Frankly, if someone was inclined to believe reviewers have (and would) exploit their "insider" information with respect to a FTF on a traditional cache, no amount of conflict of interest direction, guidelines, policies, examples, or data will convince them otherwise; even if it was proactivly implimented.

[+dprovan]

Frankly, if someone was inclined to believe reviewers have (and would) exploit their "insider" information with respect to a FTF on a traditional cache, no amount of conflict of interest direction, guidelines, policies, examples, or data will convince them otherwise; even if it was proactivly implimented.

If a reviewer isn't regularly taking FTFs away from other FTF hunters, there's no need to convince anyone they wouldn't cheat to do so.

 

But I'm not suggesting a policy. I'm just suggesting that reviewers keep that in mind. Well, actually I think most if not all reviewers do already keep that in mind, but I'm arguing about it because other posters, including reviewers, seem to think it's controversial. There's no need for a policy unless a actual problem develops, and that seems unlikely.

[+dprovan]

If there is a legitimate concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff.

I've asked this before, but now I'll ask you: what would constitute "a legitimate concern"? As I've pointed out repeatedly, as far as I can see, the only information available to an arbitrary FTF hunter would be a reviewer being successful at FTF hunting. Is that sufficient for legitimate concern? If not, what other information would be required and how would the concerned individual get it?

 

No one putting forward the "report legitimate concern" argument ever seems to answer this.

 

But the fact of the matter is it really doesn't matter. This is a game without winners.

I know! Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

[+Don_J]

If there is a legitimate concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff.

I've asked this before, but now I'll ask you: what would constitute "a legitimate concern"? As I've pointed out repeatedly, as far as I can see, the only information available to an arbitrary FTF hunter would be a reviewer being successful at FTF hunting. Is that sufficient for legitimate concern? If not, what other information would be required and how would the concerned individual get it?

 

No one putting forward the "report legitimate concern" argument ever seems to answer this.

 

But the fact of the matter is it really doesn't matter. This is a game without winners.

I know! Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

 

A better way to word it would be: If there is a concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff, who will decide if it is legitimate. Obviously, a complaint is going to be legitimate from the complainers point of view.

[+larryc43230]

Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

For the same reason some others think the FTF game is worth all this arguing: It's fun.

 

I don't share that feeling, and this thread just reinforces my whole negative attitude about the FTF side game. Others, including some of my caching friends, disagree. Then again, not one of them thinks it's of sufficient importance to worry about what our reviewers are doing. Or not doing.

 

--Larry

[+dprovan]

A better way to word it would be: If there is a concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff, who will decide if it is legitimate.

Well, duh. My point all along is that reviewers probably want to avoid things coming to that, and there's an easy way for them to avoid it.

[+NeverSummer]

They are volunteers. CoI doesn't really apply in this case, but we see your point.

Simply because they are volunteers doesn't mean reviewers cannot take advantage of their positions to gain something they value (such as FTFs). Many, many organizations and governments have Conflict of Interest policies that apply to both paid and volunteer staff.

 

Why do you think Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers generally refrain from seeking FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches, at least for a week?

 

I addressed that boded part in my post. Clear the red outrage mist, and take a break from this thread--for your sake and ours.

 

FTF doesn't really pose a CoI, per se, as FTF races are not an official part of the game. But I am absolutely positive that there has been some discussion amongst Reviewers about find ettiquite related to their volunteer positions.

 

If there is legitimate concern about abuse of position, address it to Groundspeak personnel, not the forums.

 

...what's that? Oh, let me address that last part...

 

I've asked this before, but now I'll ask you: what would constitute "a legitimate concern"? As I've pointed out repeatedly, as far as I can see, the only information available to an arbitrary FTF hunter would be a reviewer being successful at FTF hunting. Is that sufficient for legitimate concern? If not, what other information would be required and how would the concerned individual get it?

 

No one putting forward the "report legitimate concern" argument ever seems to answer this.

 

Are you concerned? Do you have a case worth presenting to Groundspeak about that concern? Then it is legitimate. Gee wiz, take a breather!

 

If the OP sees it fit once they have all of the actual, factual information about guidelines applying to Reviewers and the caches they seek, then they can be the judge if there is a concern about abuse of position. The OP has the relevant information, so let this be. Situations like this are case-by-case. No matter how outraged you or anyone else becomes about being "cheated" of your FTF race, it's just silly. It's just a game, and we're talking about a non-sanctioned sub-game of this game without winners...

 

Or, more concisely:

If there is a concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff, who will decide if it is legitimate. Obviously, a complaint is going to be legitimate from the complainers point of view.

 

But the fact of the matter is it really doesn't matter. This is a game without winners.

I know! Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

 

I don't know, dprovan, maybe because Reviewers are cachers too. And we can go around and around on this, but so long as guidelines are being followed, and Reviewers are following directive "please wait for finds on multis/unknowns" guidance, the Reviewer isn't publishing the cache from the parking lot next to the new cache, or whatever silliness we can try to make up, there is nothing to talk about. If you have a concern, based on personal experience, about a Reviewer allegedly abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak. Just don't let your opinion of how this unsanctioned side game gets played cloud your judgement.

[+dprovan]

Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

For the same reason some others think the FTF game is worth all this arguing: It's fun.

 

I don't share that feeling, and this thread just reinforces my whole negative attitude about the FTF side game.

From my point of view, this seems to neatly capture the problem here. You don't care about the FTF game, so you start by imagining that the reviewer doesn't care about the FTF game, either, leaving the idea of the reviewer cheating to be successful at the FTF game a notion not worthy of consideration by anyone. But at the same time, you are forced to adopt the contradictory notion that the FTF game is fun and a reviewer might very well care about it, after all, and then you don't take into account that you've just changed the assumption you used in your initial evaluation.

 

This leads to what strikes me an an illogical position: the other cachers shouldn't care about the reviewer's actions because the FTF game can't be considered important, but at the same time the reviewer should feel free to consider the FTF game very important and pursue it relentlessly as long as he doesn't cheat.

 

If you don't like the FTF game, I'd think you'd rejoice at the idea that at least one group shouldn't engage in it. Instead, you use the suggestion as evidence of a further negative.

[+dprovan]

Are you concerned?

No, I'm not concerned in the slightest. I'm merely supporting my original statement:

 

The answer to the OP is, yes, reviewers can FTF caches they publish. There's no rule against it, nor should there be. But they should think twice about it, and they shouldn't make a habit of it. That would just look bad.

And, as far as I know, that's exactly what all reviewers do, even the two that seem to be protesting here to the contrary.

[+NeverSummer]

Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

For the same reason some others think the FTF game is worth all this arguing: It's fun.

 

I don't share that feeling, and this thread just reinforces my whole negative attitude about the FTF side game.

From my point of view, this seems to neatly capture the problem here. You don't care about the FTF game, so you start by imagining that the reviewer doesn't care about the FTF game, either, leaving the idea of the reviewer cheating to be successful at the FTF game a notion not worthy of consideration by anyone. But at the same time, you are forced to adopt the contradictory notion that the FTF game is fun and a reviewer might very well care about it, after all, and then you don't take into account that you've just changed the assumption you used in your initial evaluation.

 

This leads to what strikes me an an illogical position: the other cachers shouldn't care about the reviewer's actions because the FTF game can't be considered important, but at the same time the reviewer should feel free to consider the FTF game very important and pursue it relentlessly as long as he doesn't cheat.

 

If you don't like the FTF game, I'd think you'd rejoice at the idea that at least one group shouldn't engage in it. Instead, you use the suggestion as evidence of a further negative.

Oh, for the love...

 

So what's your bottom line? What are you suggesting? That geocachers not play the FTF side game? Because, by your arguement throughout, that's what you're saying about a portion of the geocaching community. Reviwers are geocachers.

 

Reviewers have already, through the cases of abuse known, been asked to not seek multi/unknown caches for a while after publication. All Reviewers I have met (and others who have chimed in here on the forums about this topic) all follow that guideline. Many don't bother with multi/unknown publications for so long, they forget all details of the hide. (And even still, other than the final coordinates, they have no idea how to solve a puzzle while signed in as a Reviewer.) Most Reviewers I have met cache under a different account. This means that they are looking up cache pages on an account which cannot access any additional information.

 

So, that said, what is your bottom line? That Reviewers abstain from ever being FTF? How long must they wait after publication for a FTF on a Traditional? 1 year? 1 month? 1 week? 1 day? 12 hours? 6 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes? 1 minute?

 

I mean, honestly, if a Reviewer is sitting in their car at the parking lot and publishing caches 300ft away, that's one thing. But if they are sitting in their home, reviewing a cache, (happen to enter the coordinates on a GPS before it's published), and hit publish, they gain what, 45 seconds of time with that early GPS coordinate entry? They still have to wait to hit publish before they go out the door.

 

I don't know about you, but I have received publication notices within 30 seconds of a Reviewer physically publishing a cache. No Reviewer is really getting that big of a jump. I've known a cache was getting published, wanted to shoot for a FTF on it, and sat at my computer with shoes and jacket on. I still had to get the notification and head out the door. And when it did get published, I was not FTF because I had stoplights on my way in and the other cacher didn't. We both lived near enough to the cache to call it equidistant, and both left as soon as it was published.

 

So, what's your suggestion here? What's your bottom line? No FTFs for Reviewers? A wait for FTF for Reviewers for all caches?

 

And when you have your ansewer, ask yourself why Groundspeak would really want to place more limits on any demographic of their customer base.

 

To me, Reviewers already have restrictions on what caches they can seek out right away. If they race for a FTF on a Traditional, so be it. If other cachers notice something of concern with how that cacher is abusing their position, talk to Groundspeak about it. (Support@Groundspeak.com) But really, FTF hunts are a side game of a game without a winner. Threads like this are a clear example of why Groundspeak doesn't formally sanction the FTF race as a part of the official game.

 

List it. Find it. Sign it. Log it online.

[+NeverSummer]

A better way to word it would be: If there is a concern that a Reviewer is abusing their position, take it up with Groundspeak staff, who will decide if it is legitimate.

Well, duh. My point all along is that reviewers probably want to avoid things coming to that, and there's an easy way for them to avoid it.

What's that? By not engaging in the FTF side game?

[+NeverSummer]

Aaand, I just noticed that the OP hasn't been back since asking their question. Their only forum post was answered in the next post after it.

 

Other than reading along until this is locked, I think we've covered the issue, and I'll duck out of the conversation for obvious reasons.

[+CanadianRockies]

They are volunteers. CoI doesn't really apply in this case, but we see your point.

Simply because they are volunteers doesn't mean reviewers cannot take advantage of their positions to gain something they value (such as FTFs). Many, many organizations and governments have Conflict of Interest policies that apply to both paid and volunteer staff.

 

Why do you think Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers generally refrain from seeking FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches, at least for a week?

I addressed that boded part in my post. Clear the red outrage mist, and take a break from this thread--for your sake and ours.

No outrage here. I've calmly and rationally explained my views on this subject. I'm not the one who asserted that Conflict of Interest principles don't apply to volunteers, even though they clearly do. Because of that, many organizations have CoI policies that apply to volunteers. Groundspeak is one of them.

 

FTF doesn't really pose a CoI, per se, as FTF races are not an official part of the game.

After realizing that CoI policies can apply to volunteers, you now assert that they don't apply to FTFs because FTFs are not an official part of geocaching. That notion is just as silly and for the same reason. Simply because FTFs are unofficial, that doesn't mean reviewers cannot take advantage of their positions to gain something they value (such as FTFs).

 

Perhaps an analogy will make this point clearer. Suppose I set up a contest in my local area where I will award a $500 GPSr to the person with the most new caches published in my region during the month of November. This contest isn't sanctioned by Groundspeak, which might even frown upon it. Geocache hider JohnQHider offers Volunteer Reviewer JaneQReviewer $250 if she facilitiates the publication of his caches, hinders the publication of other caches, and he ends up winning the contest.

 

It would be quite reasonable for Groundspeak to have a Conflict of Interest policy that prohibits JaneQReviewer from acting in this unscrupulous fashion, even though Jane is a volunteer and even though my cache-hiding contest is unofficial.

 

Oh, and Groundspeak already has a CoI policy covering the unofficial FTF side game. Reviewers generally refrain from seeking FTFs on multi-caches and puzzle caches for at least a week, even though these FTFs are part of an unofficial side game.

Edited October 31, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+larryc43230]

Why would a reviewer want to stick his nose into a game that doesn't matter and has no winners? He can't win!

For the same reason some others think the FTF game is worth all this arguing: It's fun.

 

I don't share that feeling, and this thread just reinforces my whole negative attitude about the FTF side game.

From my point of view, this seems to neatly capture the problem here. You don't care about the FTF game, so you start by imagining that the reviewer doesn't care about the FTF game, either, leaving the idea of the reviewer cheating to be successful at the FTF game a notion not worthy of consideration by anyone. But at the same time, you are forced to adopt the contradictory notion that the FTF game is fun and a reviewer might very well care about it, after all, and then you don't take into account that you've just changed the assumption you used in your initial evaluation.

 

This leads to what strikes me an an illogical position: the other cachers shouldn't care about the reviewer's actions because the FTF game can't be considered important, but at the same time the reviewer should feel free to consider the FTF game very important and pursue it relentlessly as long as he doesn't cheat.

 

If you don't like the FTF game, I'd think you'd rejoice at the idea that at least one group shouldn't engage in it. Instead, you use the suggestion as evidence of a further negative.

And you seem to have missed my point entirely, as well as the points of most others who've posted in this mostly-useless thread.

 

I would imagine that there are reviewers who take the FTF game fairly seriously. More power to them. I just happen to believe that the FTF "game" is insufficiently important to come up with rules, guidelines, or whatever that make it look as if we can't trust them to act ethically on their own. Especially in light of the fact that not one suspected case of a reviewer "cheating" has been produced.

 

Because of the nature of the reviewing job, we have to trust them in regard with multiple aspects of their work. Why pick on the FTF game in particular, when there are a whole lot of other ways reviewers could misbehave that would negatively affect a whole lot more geocachers?

 

Forcing reviewers to foreswear any and all attempts at FTF, just to placate a tiny minority of FTF chasers, would make it that much less likely that a cacher who's offered the already-thankless job of reviewer would turn the "offer" down. Is that what we really want?

 

I vote for not changing the "rules" of FTF a bit (oh, wait, there aren't any....) and trusting the reviewers not to take unfair advantage of their positions. If and when a concrete case of a reviewer "cheating" comes up, we can talk about it again.

 

--Larry

[Clan Riffster]

]

List it. Find it. Sign it. Log it online.

I just wanted to chime in, thanking you for being a voice of reason.

[+CanadianRockies]

Reviewers have already, through the cases of abuse known, been asked to not seek multi/unknown caches for a while after publication.

Do you know something that the rest of us don't? I'm not aware of any such cases of abuse. Or are you assuming that, just because you wouldn't be proactive about conflicts of interest, Groundspeak would never be proactive either?

 

Most Reviewers I have met cache under a different account. This means that they are looking up cache pages on an account which cannot access any additional information.

Just because reviewers cache under a different account, that doesn't mean they cannot access their reviewer account where that additional information can be found. A second account doesn't prevent the potential of abuse.

[+dprovan]

I vote for not changing the "rules" of FTF a bit (oh, wait, there aren't any....) and trusting the reviewers not to take unfair advantage of their positions.

Me, too! I've never said anything different, and I think I've been very clear on that.

 

Now I go on to say that it looks bad for a reviewer to regularly FTF the caches they publish. Do we have to keep fighting over that?

[+cheech gang]

I'm hiding behind a tree with a big club in my hand. I pity the first FTF Reviewer to happen by.

 

 

still waiting...

[Cascade Reviewer]

I have been watching this thread all day, and have come to the conclusion that it's getting a bit warm in here, and not in a good way. I'm going to close down the thread while I discuss with other mods if it should be opened again after a cooling off period.