Regional Cache Approvers (Pre-vote discussion)

[+Meriadoc]

In the thread "Time to move along" the idea of have regional cache approvers was raised. They would be responsible for approving caches, within their set areas. Or out with the their areas if the other regions approver is on holiday. The separate regions could be: Scotland, England (possibly split into multiple areas), Wales and Northern Ireland.

 

So in this thread let's discuss what we want from any prospective new cache approvers and the idea of having a set of regional approvers.

 

If this discussion goes well we can then have a poll to gauge the support for any different options that arise.

 

It would also be interesting to have more information on how cache approvers operate. Once we all know what’s expected of cache approvers by Groundspeak and once we have established what we (the UK Geocaching.com community) would expect of any new approvers then some kind of election to nominate cache approvers, should be called.

 

Tim & June always did an excellent job of approving caches, but now that they have resigned we need approvers that everyone can support (or that at least have a mandate from the community).

[+DerekReed]

My feeling is that the previous cache approvaal method was well-performed, without any problems, in the majority of cases.

 

Maybe the retired approvers could give us an idea of how best to go about it, and then see if there are any problems that need to be ironed out.

 

From the little I saw of it, the only reason they resigned was due to the outbursts here over the formation of GAGB, and were nothing to do with the previous UK cache approval methods, which only seemed to meet with praise from us UK'ish centric types.

 

Slightly OT: The same applies with the previous UK forum moderators, who did the job, under quite harsh amounts of criticism at times, without any major problems that I can see. (Normal levels of trolling, etc. not included.)

 

DerekReed

 

Will cache for food.

[dodgydaved]

Will cache for food.

 

I hope not, not un a UK cache anyway, see guidelines

 

dodgydaved

 

I'm NOT lost, I know exactly where I am, I'm here!

[+Team Paradise]

From everything else that I've read here lately, the conseusus would appear to be that they should be long standing and respected members of the UK geocaching community. From what I can see, that's exactly the folks that have volunteered and that's certainly good enough for me...

[+The Wombles]

As I understand it, the reason that GC.com allowed regional approvers for the UK was that UK cachers complained their caches were being rejected for including pubs. There were also a large volume of caches coming through.

 

There are approvers in other countries for reasons of language.

 

What are the reasons for further segregating approval now?

 

Dave

[+Meriadoc]

We may already have geocachers who have volunteered for the position but wouldn't it be better if we could all vote on which of these volunteers we want approving our caches.

 

We could then communicate the forums recommendation to Groundspeak. The formation of GAGB ran into the problems because it wasn't discussed from an early stage in this forum. Let's move slowly and discuss whom the new approvers are and how we would like to see them operate.

[Moss Trooper]

Just to put the record straight..

 

There was never any Regional cache apporovers..

 

The approvers covered, UK Northern Ireland, Scilly Isles, any other in close proximity, Gibraltar, then afer that europe, and then whats left..

 

When you take on the job it don't stop at the 12 mile limit..

 

Also the approvers are also forum admin.. bit of a hideing to nothing..

 

You had 3 admin cover everything..

 

Anyone still want the job?

 

Moss the Boss... Sorta

[+The Merman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Meriadoc:

We may already have geocachers who have volunteered for the position but wouldn't it be better if we could all vote on which of these volunteers we want approving our caches.

---

 

It is totally in the hands of Groundspeak to decide on who will moderate the forums and approve caches in the UK.

 

They may decide that it is better to approve from the USA until we get our act together.

 

Alternately they may decide to accept the services of our brave volunteers.

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!

[+Meriadoc]

quote:

---

It is totally in the hands of Groundspeak to decide on who will moderate the forums and approve caches in the UK.

---

 

I am sure Groundspeak would listen to this forum’s recommendation for approvers/moderators if we discuss the issue sensibly. They, like us, I am sure want to avoid a repeat of the mass resignation.

 

I could see this forum reaching a recommendation in a process like this:

 

1. The forum discusses what we would expect from the new moderators/approvers. We vote on any issues of contention.

 

2. We then seek volunteers. Who declare themselves openly within the forum, once the discussions in part (1) are over.

 

3. We can then discuss (in a grown up fashion) the merits of each possible moderator. Before finally voting on who the forum recommends.

 

If we can reach a recommendation within this forum on the new moderators/approvers then maybe we can revisit the issues surrounding GAGB in a constructive and open manner.

[+hydee]

I received a very nice email from a UK cacher about adding UK approvers. I do thank that cacher (name withheld) for emailing me, but I felt you all should know were I stand. Here is a copy of my response:

 

I appreciate your email. In time, I do plan to replace the UK approvers. But I will not do so until I see clearly what the issues are or the dust settles and issues work themselves out. I am not setting more approvers up for what the last 3 that volunteered to represent the UK went through.

 

I will be watching the UK forums as are some the other volunteers that assist Groundspeak. We are thinking about who would do a good job and appreciate the suggestions being made. But at this time I am not prepared to appoint new approvers.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

Happy Geocaching!

Heidi

 

hydee

[+Teasel]

quote:

---

the idea of have regional cache approvers was raised

---

The way I understand it, the admins are responsible for approving UK caches and moderating the UK forum (plus doing their share of caches in countries without their own admins). So long as caches get approved in good time and the forums are moderated in good faith, that's all that matters.

 

If the new admins feel that "first dibs" at approving a new cache should go to someone with local knowledge, then surely that's their decision?

 

I think we are bl**dy lucky that after all that's happened, these three teams are prepared to put themselves on the firing line to try to rebuild what's been lost over the last few days!

 

GeocacheUK - resources for the UK Geocaching community.

[Moss Trooper]

My opinion.. letting go for once

 

I can remember going back 9 - 10 months when through personal problems I had to quit a suk admin, went through a procedure of forwarding candidates, short listing, voting..

 

9 months later the same "Community put so mush pressure on the eventual winner that they quit"

 

Can the "Community" afford to go through this procedure time and time again"

 

My personal view is this.. There is no community.. there is a bunch of individuals... you all have different agendas, views, feelings.

 

It is about time that you decided what you want.. A hobby/sport on this cluster of islands, "Can't say UK, get flamed; GB, get flamed"

 

You can't even agree about where you actually abide.!!!

 

And .. last bit.. to cap it all.. (was brought up in a previous thread somewhere.) Arguing weather it should be "The Associacion" or "A Association" puts it into total context..

 

You will not be able to have a pre-vote..

 

Why because you will never agree..

 

When we set up the association and the yelling started.. I made a comment to my associates.. "they will spend that long arguing about a name it will never get off the ground"

 

Association, Society, Club.. whatever, you, "The Community" managed to drive away the basic core of UK Geocaching.. now you must reap the rewards..

 

Said my peace.. will now disappear into whatever..

 

Happy cacheing..

 

Moss the Boss... Sorta

[+Lance Ambu]

EDIT: composed in response to Meriadoc post of 01:03 BST. so read this after Meriadoc and before Hydee (she types so fast)

 

The story so far...

 

From the time to move along thread I passed on the names of three volunteers to GC.com. I asked GC.com to contact the volunteers and explain what the job entails. Either GC.com or one or all the volunteers may reconsider their position in light of this exchange of information.

 

Meriadoc believes we should debate what we want the moderators/approvers to do. I believe that GC.com will have primacy in this regard but that does not mean that Local ie UK concessions won/negotiated by the previous moderators should be abandoned nor forgotten.

 

At this point I would propose that we allow the volunteers and GC.com to exchange info and see what we then have. Allow 24/48 hours for positions to be considered. Let them have time to explore the issues already known to Moss, T&J, R&B. This is not denying anyone a voice but it will allow us to start putting the house in order ourselves.

 

As the approval of caches/moderating was relatively uncontentious we could then follow meriadocs action plan by discussing/agreeing what local(UK) issues we would like to raise with GC.com and how best to raise them.

 

This could help keep GC.com admin and forum moderating separate from representation of cachers, which appeared to be the spark at the start of this.

 

Lance

It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

 

[This message was edited by Lance Ambu on May 15, 2003 at 05:42 PM.]

[+Team Paradise]

Sorry but I just don't get this thread...

 

First we give our trusted, hardworking ex-Admins such a pile of abuse and crap that they wonder why the hell they ever bothered and resign. All they were doing was trying to help us and perhaps give us an insight in to the future direction that our hobby will need to take!

 

Then some new trusted and well respected folks put their hand up to fill the Admin void, probably against their own better judgement.

 

Now someone wants to debate and poll as to whether we want them or not too ? !!!

 

For heavens sake, get a grip!

 

Sorry but I've now had about as much of this gibberish as I can take.

 

I'm off to find a lunchbox or two and certainly won't be bothering with the forums for a while until the the radicals and childish factions have got bored and gone somewhere else.

 

Perhaps I'll move to New Zealand...

 

I think my tag line says it all.

 

Steve

 

If you can see the 'light at the end of the tunnel', it's usually a train coming !

 

[This message was edited by Team Paradise on May 16, 2003 at 06:43 AM.]

[+Meriadoc]

If we don't engage in some discussion or employ some procedure in selecting a moderator, then the next moderators may not last the length of 9 months.

 

If anything, in the course of the discussion we may come up with some recommendations for future U.K. moderators. It could be as negative as "Keep your head down, and don't get involved in anything, beyond what's required, or you'll be ripped apart on the forum". However I would hope that any recommendations would be more constructive.

[+Meriadoc]

I've just read Lance Ambu's post above. It makes perfect sense, so no more posts on this subject, from me for the next 24 (maybe 48, unless I'am provoked by further posts) hours.

[+Lance Ambu]

Nor me!

 

Cocoa and bed.

 

Night, night everyone.

 

Lance

It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses.

[+washboy]

Meriadoc: With respect, I think you may not appreciate some of the issues here.

 

#1: Admin of gc.com is not a democratic issue. Cachers don't elect approvers/moderators - gc.com does. It's gc.com's reputation, etc., that's at stake - if not their legal liability. They are unlikely to permit a group of relatively unknown but vocal local cachers to dictate the manner in which caches are approved and the forums (fora, if you must) moderated.

 

#2: gc.com has already stated (see Hydee's earlier post) that they are not willing to appoint new cache approvers, at least not yet. We will just have to be patient. Caches will still be approved and the UK forum will still be moderated.

 

#3: Approving/moderating is not relatively uncontentious (as Lance Ambu stated). Just ask the ex-admin about personal threats received from cache setters when their caches had been disapproved for perfectly good reasons.

 

#4: Being an approver/moderator means that your main responsibility is to gc.com, not the local caching community. You can seek to influence gc.com's policies, as they apply to your local community, but it's gc.com's web-site, etc., when all is said and done - not your's.

 

#5: As an approver/moderator, your public voice is somewhat compromised. How can you contribute candidly in the forum, on politically sensitive issues, if you're wearing your gc.com hat? Ideally, you ought to be unbiased except that, of course, you need to be biased in favour of gc.com's policies, etc. IMHO, this is one of the principal difficulties that the ex-crew had with the formation of the GAGB.

 

So, you see, as much as we'd all wish to have things back as they were a fortnight ago, it's not simply a case of 'Sorry to see you go but the show must go on. Volunteers for admin, anyone?'. As Hydee hinted, let's wait until the dust has settled. The dust won't settle until we stop running around.

 

Oh heck! While I was drafting this, Meriadoc posted again. Still, some of it is still worth saying so I'll let it stand.

 

=====

There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!

[+DerekReed]

Ahhh, listen... Peace and quiet at last.

 

Sleep well, and enjoy your cacheing tomorrow. The forum will probably still be here in a few days time.

 

G'night all.

 

DerekReed

GPS12XL fired up and ready to roll.

 

Will cache for food.

[+Meriadoc]

I've been provoked, point by point.....

 

 

I was going to respond to washboy's post point for point, however after mulling it over, I've come to the conclusion that it isn't necessary.

 

This thread is nearly exactly what I wanted it to be. We now have more information on how moderators / approvers work and details of when we can expect new moderators to be appointed.

 

I still think this forum must discuss the issues further. And some kind of meaningful poll should be taken. We can still make a democratic recommendation to Groundspeak, they may listen or they may not. If the discussion doesn’t descend into bickering and insults then it’ll be very therapeutic for this forum.

 

It would be useful to hear of the day-to-day (not GAGB) details / experiences from actual moderators (ex-moderators if they can control any outstanding bitterness ). So any would be volunteers would know what to expect.

 

This relatively unknown, local but vocal cacher is going to try counting some sheep, and thus hopefully he’ll be able to get some rest.

 

[This message was edited by Meriadoc on May 15, 2003 at 07:56 PM.]

[+washboy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Meriadoc:

This relatively unknown, local but vocal cacher is going to try counting some sheep, and thus hopefully he’ll be able to get some rest.

---

Oops! Sorry, I wasn't referring to you in particular (and I didn't mean it as a dig, anyway). Oooh! Ya gotta be soooo careful

 

Anyway, I'm pleased if my comments were at all helpful

 

=====

There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!

[+welch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moss Trooper:

Also the approvers are also forum admin.. bit of a hideing to nothing..

 

You had 3 admin cover everything..

Moss the Boss... Sorta

---

Hey, I was wondering...

What were/are the reasons that the approvers were also forum mods for the same?

 

!!Not trying to imply it should or shouldn't be changed!!

 

[+The Merman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by welch:

Hey, I was wondering...

What were/are the reasons that the approvers were also forum mods for the same?

 

_!!_Not trying to imply it should or shouldn't be changed_!!_

---

 

Maybe GC don't want too many chickens running round the coop?

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!

[+Chris n Maria]

I really cannot see the point in a regional split. Are local approvers ment to know more about their area? Strange but I know more about Yorkshire and the Lake district than I do about Hampshire.

 

The approvers job is to see whether the cache meets the guidlines as laid out by GC.com and any regional variations.

 

Without the regional variations caches could easily be approved by people in the US - which they were up until Jeremy allowed us our current variants on the rules.

 

That is it really - unless there are changes in the rules which are specific to a region then it dosn't matter where people are from.

 

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[AuntieMary]

Aha Chris&Maria! So I was nearly right about the North thing!!

 

Honestly, I do know Essex isn't in the North, but geography never really was my strong point!

Sorry anyway for the mistake. I'm still very happy to support your nomination - I remember very well being new and confused on these fora not so long ago, and getting some very welcome and friendly advice from you guys Helped me a lot, in a somewhat inpenetrable-looking forum, to find that there were decent people around who were willing to help a newbie out.

 

I do agree that there's not necessarily any need to make a geographical split for cache approvals, although it could be a reasonable starting point. Surely the approvers would be able to get some help and advice from the local community/other approvers if there was an area they didn't know so well?

 

I'll get me coat