Jump to content

Geo Court


Recommended Posts

One of the things Terracachers has been kicking around is the concept of a Geo-Court. I don’t like the name but don’t have anything better right now.

 

Any listing site has guidelines that will develop. Disagreements between cache owners and the listing site will arise as the rules are interpreted differently by each side. Obviously this already happens we hear it in the forums.

 

The idea is simple. Rather than slug it out in the forums, caches in dispute are referred to “Geo-Court” cachers local to the area sit on a panel. They hear both sides, consider the facts, issue an edict, and all decisions are final. Since local organizations are more knowledgeable about an area, the lowest level organization sponsors a court for their area. Thus city groups where possible, then state, etc. Members of the panel are local geocachers. Each panel member serves for a term and are chosen by their local geocachers for their experience, even keeled view etc.

 

The court serves all cachers and all listing sites. You may not always like the answer but at least it’s your peers or your customers, and you can move on.

Link to comment

I could see to easy of a chance of prejudices developing against certain cachers the court may not like. To much of a chance of an 'old boy' network developing.

 

Also, for a cacher like myself that isn't in an organization. If I place a cache that geocaching doesn't have a problem with why would I listen to an organization that I'm not a member of?

 

I personally don't want to see local organizations taking over something that they don't have the right to take over.

Edited by Eric K
Link to comment
One of the things Terracachers has been kicking around is the concept of a Geo-Court. I don’t like the name but don’t have anything better right now.

 

Any listing site has guidelines that will develop. Disagreements between cache owners and the listing site will arise as the rules are interpreted differently by each side. Obviously this already happens we hear it in the forums.

 

The idea is simple. Rather than slug it out in the forums, caches in dispute are referred to “Geo-Court” cachers local to the area sit on a panel. They hear both sides, consider the facts, issue an edict, and all decisions are final. Since local organizations are more knowledgeable about an area, the lowest level organization sponsors a court for their area. Thus city groups where possible, then state, etc. Members of the panel are local geocachers. Each panel member serves for a term and are chosen by their local geocachers for their experience, even keeled view etc.

 

The court serves all cachers and all listing sites. You may not always like the answer but at least it’s your peers or your customers, and you can move on.

You're kidding, right??! (geo-litagation..CRIPES!)

Link to comment

And, after BOTH sides agree to abide by "The Cachers' Court" with Judge Hootie...

The idea is simple. Rather than slug it out in the forums, caches in dispute are referred to “Geo-Court” cachers local to the area sit on a panel. They hear both sides, consider the facts, issue an edict,

The next rule is: "No Late Evidence." You can't hide the gated community until the last minute. All evidence not in the initial paperwork is not introducable.

 

...Or, we could all go cachin'!

Link to comment
I could see to easy of a chance of prejudices developing against certain cachers the court may not like. To much of a chance of an 'old boy' network developing.

 

...

 

I personally don't want to see local organizations taking over something that they don't have the right to take over.

What he said, double.

Link to comment
Solving issues with Geo-wrestling would be much more interesting.

I bid 3,000 Quatloos on the newcomer! <_<

 

SNOOG7.jpg

Sorry, I don't think cachers from ther planet Triskelion are represented.

Will my GPS work on Triskelion ??

Sorry, too far off topic for me. I wouldn't want to be accused of being a forum vulture coming here to tear apart RK's posting.

Link to comment
Solving issues with Geo-wrestling would be much more interesting.

I bid 3,000 Quatloos on the newcomer! :mad:

 

SNOOG7.jpg

Sorry, I don't think cachers from ther planet Triskelion are represented.

Will my GPS work on Triskelion ??

I'm sorry for partially derailing your thread RK. I just jump at the opportunity to use that line.

 

Back on topic:

 

I would likely moon a geo-court for having the audacity to think it had power over me. <_<

 

SNOOG9.jpg

Link to comment
...The court serves all cachers and all listing sites.

Isn't this about as probable as getting all the countries of the world to agree on banning the destruction of rain forests?

 

Like it or not, the listing sites will always have the final word.

 

I think the debates in the forums over unapproved caches are a train wreck.

On this point, I agree with you completely. Public discussion of these matters is akin to a media circus.

 

Criminal wrote:

Let whoever is unhappy with whoever work it out between themselves. If they can't work it out, they should agree to disagree.

 

This game needs less organization, not more.

 

This is the best solution. :mad:<_<

Link to comment

While not being one to encourage more rules and compliance issues, I do understand what RK is trying to do. I think it would be nice to have a way to resolve issues outside of the forums when a cachers has a problem. I think the GeoCourt name is an immediate turn off and many people can't get by that. But would it really be such a bad idea to have a review panel to help with dispute resolution? <_<

Link to comment
But would it really be such a bad idea to have a review panel to help with dispute resolution? <_<

Well it would definitely be nice to see a resolution or a discussion on topics without the usual chiming in of those out to derail the topics with their smartaleck remarks. Getting a straight, serious answer on anything by posting it in the forums is a futile attempt.

Link to comment

Eric K Said:

 

I could see to easy of a chance of prejudices developing against certain cachers the court may not like.  To much of a chance of an 'old boy' network developing.

 

We allready have that. It's not a unique problem to this idea or the present system that is developing.

 

Also, for a cacher like myself that isn't in an organization.  If I place a cache that geocaching doesn't have a problem with why would I listen to an organization that I'm not a member of?

 

Since there is no problem, and if there was you wouldn't use the services of your local organization, I'm not sure I see the issue? Both sides have to be willing to use the service.

 

I personally don't want to see local organizations taking over something that they don't have the right to take over.

 

Again, since you would have to agree to be willing to use the service in this case it's not an issue of rights. Caches would merely be dis-approved by the listing site and it would stay at that, or fought out in the forums, and as the majority of those remain dis-approved nothing would change. There are plenty of other issues that local cache organization will start taking over, over time but those are separate topics.

Link to comment

Don't see this idea ever working out. We already have a small disagreement among the local cachers. One solution was to create a second local group.

The next logical step would be that if the more established local group votes no/guilty/you can't hide that cache etc. the splinter group will vote yes/not guilty/go ahead and hide that cache just to be contradictory. <_<

Besides like Criminal said:

Let whoever is unhappy with whoever work it out between themselves. If they can't work it out, they should agree to disagree.

 

This game needs less organization, not more

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

Might this be a way to get 'both sides of the story' before it gets aired on the forums?

 

Used as a way for both sides to see how they are coming across in written word to the other & maybe resolving their 'war/difference of opinions' early on.

 

Then, If no one can make sense out of the situation...then bring the issue to the forums for 'GEO-Kangaroo Court' <_<

 

Personally, I hope we never have a need to open ourselves up for any of the commentary that seems to be in abundance when something comes up on the forums that is controversial. A number of the replies are always sarcastic or quick to yell, "guilty as charged" before weighing all of the 'actual' evidence.

 

RK's idea has a purpose I suppose....or not. It is a game after all is said & done, If it becomes 'NOT FUN', then go find something else that 'IS FUN'.

 

Keep it simple people.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment
I could see to easy of a chance of prejudices developing against certain cachers the court may not like. To much of a chance of an 'old boy' network developing.

 

Also, for a cacher like myself that isn't in an organization. If I place a cache that geocaching doesn't have a problem with why would I listen to an organization that I'm not a member of?

 

I personally don't want to see local organizations taking over something that they don't have the right to take over.

Maybe a nationwide panel of jurists would be better then?

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't want a jury of peers to lord over them has anything to say when they come to this website and abide by the GC.com guidelines for geocaching. What's the difference?

Link to comment

Perhaps another way to handle a disputed cache listing would be for the approver to hand it off to a different approver when things become heated. (Have a list of approvers and the one at the top of the list would be the lucky approver!) Then the 'new' approver would start from scratch with just the new cache application. He would then decide if more info is needed from the cache submitter. Or he could just approve or deny as he sees appropriate. His decision should be final.

 

Kind of like getting a second opinion from another doctor.

 

John

Link to comment
Perhaps another way to handle a disputed cache listing would be for the approver to hand it off to a different approver when things become heated. (Have a list of approvers and the one at the top of the list would be the lucky approver!) Then the  'new' approver would start from scratch with just the new cache application. He would then decide if more info is needed from the cache submitter. Or he could just approve or deny as he sees appropriate. His decision should be final.

 

Kind of like getting a second opinion from another doctor.

 

John

Sounds like a good plan to me. At least it falls within the realm of sanity! Perhaps you should suggest it to TPTB.

Edited by EraSeek
Link to comment

We already have a Geo-Court...most of us refer to them as TPTB. They are the Supreme Court. The lower courts are referred to as Amins, Mods, and Approvers. The lower court makes the first ruling, if you don't like that ruling you can appeal to the Supreme Court (TPTB). So far it works perfectly.

 

So RK, finally GC took one of your ideas and made it a reality. Congratulations!!! :P

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
We already have a Geo-Court...most of us refer to them as TPTB. They are the Supreme Court. The lower courts are referred to as Amins, Mods, and Approvers. The lower court makes the first ruling, if you don't like that ruling you can appeal to the Supreme Court (TPTB). So far it works perfectly.

 

Perfectly??? I seem to remember a flaw in the system back when there was an issue with a member, his unapproved cache and the Geocaching Memorial Plaque in Oregon.

 

Like I said, it's a great plan but getting it implemented when it needs to be and before action is taken seems to be a bigger issue.

Edited by PandyBat
Link to comment
One of the things Terracachers has been kicking around is the concept of a Geo-Court. I don’t like the name but don’t have anything better right now.

 

Any listing site has guidelines that will develop. Disagreements between cache owners and the listing site will arise as the rules are interpreted differently by each side. Obviously this already happens we hear it in the forums.

 

The idea is simple. Rather than slug it out in the forums, caches in dispute are referred to “Geo-Court” cachers local to the area sit on a panel. They hear both sides, consider the facts, issue an edict, and all decisions are final. Since local organizations are more knowledgeable about an area, the lowest level organization sponsors a court for their area. Thus city groups where possible, then state, etc. Members of the panel are local geocachers. Each panel member serves for a term and are chosen by their local geocachers for their experience, even keeled view etc.

 

The court serves all cachers and all listing sites. You may not always like the answer but at least it’s your peers or your customers, and you can move on.

I can tell you that the geocachers in the state of pennsylvania are very disorganized for the most part, and we're happy that way. (That's why there's no central organization, just loosely based organizations scattered around..

 

I think this might be cool, but I agree with everyone else, it would be a nightmare to set up and run...

Link to comment
We already have a Geo-Court...most of us refer to them as TPTB. They are the Supreme Court. The lower courts are referred to as Amins, Mods, and Approvers. The lower court makes the first ruling, if you don't like that ruling you can appeal to the Supreme Court (TPTB). So far it works perfectly.

 

Perfectly??? I seem to remember a flaw in the system back when there was an issue with a member, his unapproved cache and the Geocaching Memorial Plaque in Oregon.

 

Like I said, it's a great plan but getting it implemented when it needs to be and before action is taken seems to be a bigger issue.

Well let me rephrase that ...it's as perfect as you can get. Do you believe that RKs plan would be able to avoid the same issues that come up today when the current court makes a ruling? There would be even more complaints in the forums than we currently have.

 

The system isn't broke, so don't try to fix it.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Maybe a nationwide panel of jurists would be better then?

 

I don't see how anyone that doesn't want a jury of peers to lord over them has anything to say when they come to this website and abide by the GC.com guidelines for geocaching. What's the difference?

Geo-court:

Very interesting idea, but Would probably be a big mess to layout. And then you have to deal with the possiably that every time someone 'loses', which will be every case, they may claim that the judges were bias/uniformed/just plain morons/ etc.

Which may lead to the second problem, getting both sides to abide by the decision.

So unless you can get MOST of everyone to agree to it up front, you're wasting your time :P .

 

Panel:

I was thinking about about that as well, but you still have to insure they are not biased. And of course, what do persons from X Y Z know about caching somwhere else? Would you want to try and crash course them on the local background?

Perhaps, more importantly there is no way to enforce their reconmendation (which is all it would be).

Link to comment

I don't know that there's intrinsically more justice in a committee than an individual. I would certainly rather be ruled by a single individual I trust than a committee of individuals I don't.

 

And one participant/one vote doesn't work, either. It just means 51% of the users can make 49% miserable, if they choose. What's the old saying about democracy being two wolves and a lamb arguing over what's for lunch?

 

Bottom line in my experience, if you engage in a group activity, sooner or later you will have to acquiesce to a decision you don't like. It's not something I necessarily do gracefully, but I've never seen any way around it.

Link to comment
Sound like a train wreck, Get back to us in a year and let us know how its working out. Terraccahers is non-profit, isnt it?

I think the debates in the forums over unapproved caches are a train wreck.

 

Since CACHE would host in in CO, I'm not sure you read the topic.

Here is a thought. C.A.C.H.E. would NOT host in Colorado. C.A.C.H.E. wants nothing to do with such a ridiculous idea. Do NOT assume to speak for C.A.C.H.E. or any other state or local group. Take this as formal notice from the Colorado Association of Cache Hunting Enthusiasts that we want NOTHING to do with an idea such as this.

 

Michael LaPaglia

President C.A.C.H.E.

 

 

(all though we might be interested in housing the female prisoners)

Edited by Lapaglia
Link to comment
Perhaps another way to handle a disputed cache listing would be for the approver to hand it off to a different approver when things become heated. (Have a list of approvers and the one at the top of the list would be the lucky approver!) Then the  'new' approver would start from scratch with just the new cache application. He would then decide if more info is needed from the cache submitter. Or he could just approve or deny as he sees appropriate. His decision should be final.

 

Kind of like getting a second opinion from another doctor.

 

John

Sounds like a good plan to me. At least it falls within the realm of sanity! Perhaps you should suggest it to TPTB.

That does happen. I just did that recently myself with a cacher passed off to me.

 

One HUGE problem with this is getting all sites to comply with any decision. Already you have one new site that basically says right on its rules page that there are NO rules. If you can't get every site to comply then you are wasting your time.

 

...The court serves all cachers and all listing sites.

Isn't this about as probable as getting all the countries of the world to agree on banning the destruction of rain forests?

 

Like it or not, the listing sites will always have the final word.

 

I think the debates in the forums over unapproved caches are a train wreck.

On this point, I agree with you completely. Public discussion of these matters is akin to a media circus.

 

Criminal wrote:

Let whoever is unhappy with whoever work it out between themselves. If they can't work it out, they should agree to disagree.

 

This game needs less organization, not more.

 

This is the best solution. :P:P

The best post on this topic!

That includes everything from the quoted posters and from Sept1c_Tank.

All of that is golden and gospel.

Link to comment
Perhaps another way to handle a disputed cache listing would be for the approver to hand it off to a different approver when things become heated. (Have a list of approvers and the one at the top of the list would be the lucky approver!) Then the  'new' approver would start from scratch with just the new cache application. He would then decide if more info is needed from the cache submitter. Or he could just approve or deny as he sees appropriate. His decision should be final.

 

Kind of like getting a second opinion from another doctor.

 

John

We go one better, when we have a dispute we (the approvers) take the cache to our own forums and post all the information and ask for ideas and guidance from ALL the other reviewers. There has been more than one time when I took a cache to the group that I though should not be approved only to wind up approving it after getting input from the others and times when I had one I thought would work and was shown why it might not be a good idea.

Edited by Lapaglia
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...