Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: Camping Event controversy

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default Camping Event controversy

    For those that have followed the latest "hot topic" on the UK Forum, there has been a temporary ban on posting on this subject. I'm not exactly clear why, as the discussion seemed to be very well-mannered but had not really covered all the issues fully.

    It seems relevant to the GAGB forum too, so why not continue here?

    As it happens, I was ready with a posting but did a final check just before submitting, and discovered that I was no longer allowed to discuss this topic there.
    I have some opinions which I'd like to air (and I don't want to waste all that text I have sitting waiting to post! ).

    So here goes: and like a camping event, you can simply choose to ignore it if you like!

    I've no idea of the logic behind closing the original thread. After reading the thread, despite some excellent posts I've no idea what "open to all" means any more in relation to the guidelines.

    Key to the discussion is that an event venue has to be a suitable gathering place for geocachers. As far as I can see, this could be a campsite, a pub, a hotel, a car park, a clearing in a forest, a mountain top...lots of alternatives.

    In my opinion, the venue should be essentially "open to all". What this means is not that everyone in the whole world will be able to sign the "attended" log without any trouble or expense. It simply means that the vast majority of geocachers will not be automatically excluded.

    So the other key point is that of "exclusivity". Why is that a problem?

    Common sense tells me that certain events should be disallowed if they're designed to be exclusive: e.g. only war veterans are allowed. The logic being that there's a suspicion that it's really a meeting of war veterans, and the "event" doesn't exist: the meeting might well take place anyway, and the limitation is designed to discourage all but a certain crowd from joining in.

    If the only limiting factor is the venue or activity, then this shouldn't necessarily be regarded as being "exclusive". So discussions about whether non-campers have to be allowed to attend, or whether you have to take part in the fox hunt shouldn't really enter in to it. The reviewer would be satisfied at this stage that the basic function of the meeting is for geocachers to meet, and it's unlikely to go ahead without the geocaching.com listing being published. That's what really counts.

    If camping, or the fox hunt, is central to the event then it seems fair enough to expect attendees to either take part or not turn up. Should someone want to sign the log but not take part: well, let them if they can find the log book but make it clear that there will be no special effort to make the book accessible to "outsiders" or non-participants.

    Where would I draw the line? The instant that there's an indication that the event is somehow piggy-backing on something that may already be arranged without the event listing. That's why if too much exclusivity seems to exist for no apparent reason, it may point to an attempt to keep people out who are not wanted at the event.

    An obvious example is if I decide that the next monthly climbing club pub meet can be designated an "event cache": two others in the club are cachers so they can "log" it. But I wouldn't want the inconvenience of having to deal with non-members trying to join in, so I designate it open to climbing club members only. Job done: but it's never a geocaching event.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    all good points there...

    what I was going to ask is whether the topic title can be altered. My personal opinion is that, although this issue came to light regarding camping events, I feel it affects lots of events where some kind of 'activity' is required beyond merely turning up at some point. So whether that is climbing snowdon, joining in on a boat trip, pitching a tent, or driving manically around yorkshire, the principal is the same. Should we be able to require participation in the activity in order to log the event? IMO, yes (within reason, and as HH says, as long as it isn't designed to exlude people per se) but merely not wanting to camp, or not being fit enough to walk, or even having a fear of boats shouldn't mean they have a right to be accomodated in some way if that devalues the event itself.

    discuss!

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Good thinking HH

    I thought pooks summed it up perfectly in his/her posting on the thread with "I get the impression that Groundspeak/Reviewers have got themselves into an unneccessary hole with too many rules, which somehow deviates from the spontenaeity of the game." Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to say so because the thread was closed down before I'd even read the posting.

    Personally I do not feel the reasons given for closing the thread were valid or have done anything to prevent the same thing occurring in the future.

    People should be able to voice their opinions without fear of being targetted with hate mail - presumably the person/persons could not respond in the way they did on the forums for fear of being banned. If their identities are known, they should receive a ban anyway.

    I do hope that all the rules/guidelines, established or ever-evolving, will not cause people to think twice about organising events. I've attended some really good ones this year, and hope I will be able to next year.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cache Hoppers View Post
    Good thinking HH
    Personally I do not feel the reasons given for closing the thread were valid or have done anything to prevent the same thing occurring in the future.
    Same here! There's nothing stopping the abusive emailer from targeting another post by the "victim" (on another thread), what's going to happen in that event? are all the threads they post in going to be closed? That's just nuts!

    I was enjoying that debate. I thought it had a lot of merit, and folks were getting their point across. Well done for bringing it over here, HH.
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I know that this isn't limited to Camping events, but the topic title is merely to suggest a link with the original topic so it's probably better to leave it.
    I agree with everything that's been posted here! Pooks's post was also a very good one.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    "Exclusive/non exclusive, allowed/not allowed to log"..........

    I thought geocaching was not about the numbers but just about visiting nice sites/meeting interesting people............

  7. #7
    sTeamTraen Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cache Hoppers View Post
    I thought pooks summed it up perfectly in his/her posting on the thread with "I get the impression that Groundspeak/Reviewers have got themselves into an unneccessary hole with too many rules, which somehow deviates from the spontenaeity of the game."
    If anyone has got themselves in a "hole" over this - and if they have, it's not a very deep one - then I suppose it would be the UK reviewers when they decided that "open to all" was not compatible with a "must camp overnight" requirement. I sympathise with the intention, but I think it's impossible to make an event truly "open to all" anyway. If it's on a Saturday night you're probably excluding most orthodox Jews, for example.

    My interpretation of "open to all" is that there should be no preconditions such as "no men allowed" (yes, such an event was submitted, and rejected, in the US), or "everyone is welcome except cacher X" (this happened not so very far from the UK a month or so ago); and that costs should be reasonable (a $5 cover charge at an event location is about the maximum that goes through on the nod).

    On the other hand, I wish that people wouldn't come up with such rigid requirements, either for events or strange additional logging requirements for caches. Perhaps the event owner could just say, "All are welcome, but please don't log this event as 'Attended' unless you camp overnight". Smileys are free, and if someone really really really decides that they're entitled to one for showing up for ten minutes at sundown, well, that's their lookout - and anyway, they can just log another event twice if they want the smiley.

    Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sTeamTraen View Post
    Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.
    Hurrah! Agree entirely.

    (But won't we all miss the flame wars from those to whom numbers, and smileys, mean everything?)

    N

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Reading, Berkshire
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sTeamTraen View Post
    Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds.
    Nah, sorry, that's just plain dumb Before we know it we will have an argument against trads, multis, puzzles - and before you know it, there will be nothing to log!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Cache Hoppers View Post
    Nah, sorry, that's just plain dumb Before we know it we will have an argument against trads, multis, puzzles - and before you know it, there will be nothing to log!
    Actually that could be the basis of an interesting proposal:- Do away with GS keeping, and publishing, "found" totals.

    It would certainly put an end to the rivalry, mundane and flame war postings.........

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    26

    Default

    A couple of years back, when this debate first started I suggested that camping events could be listed but not loggable. Was told no by the reviewers.

    I have to say that the angst shown by people who feel deprived of a smiley is very surprising.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sTeamTraen View Post
    On the other hand, I wish that people wouldn't come up with such rigid requirements, either for events or strange additional logging requirements for caches. Perhaps the event owner could just say, "All are welcome, but please don't log this event as 'Attended' unless you camp overnight". Smileys are free, and if someone really really really decides that they're entitled to one for showing up for ten minutes at sundown, well, that's their lookout - and anyway, they can just log another event twice if they want the smiley.
    Agreed. My original post here was merely to point out that (in principle) an event should be allowed as long as it's clearly a genuine event arranged for geocachers.
    Quote Originally Posted by sTeamTraen View Post
    Personally I hope this incident will bring closer the day when event attendance logs no longer count towards your finds. Without that, I guess the whole sorry mess would never have happened.
    I think it would have been better from the start had events not been set up as "caches", but had their own separate category. Perhaps one day they will be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    Actually that could be the basis of an interesting proposal:- Do away with GS keeping, and publishing, "found" totals.

    It would certainly put an end to the rivalry, mundane and flame war postings.........
    That would be merely pandering to a small minority who take it all much too seriously. I believe that the majority don't see an event as simply a way of gaining a smiley and wouldn't be that bothered if they didn't get one. But whilst not taking it too seriously I like to see the running totals of goecaches found, and I think that quite a significant proportion of cachers also like it. To do away with it just to confound those who get a bit carried away seems rather sledgehammer-and-nut.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    If anyone has got themselves in a "hole" over this - and if they have, it's not a very deep one - then I suppose it would be the UK reviewers when they decided that "open to all" was not compatible with a "must camp overnight" requirement. I sympathise with the intention, but I think it's impossible to make an event truly "open to all" anyway. If it's on a Saturday night you're probably excluding most orthodox Jews, for example.
    To be honest I resent accusations that the UK Reviewers dug themselves into a Hole! We have local Reviewers to take account of local situations, the Open to All element for Camping events here in the UK being part of that. The situation in France is different to that in the UK.

    If you wish to accuse any one of digging themselves into a hole I'd suggest you have a look at a rigid application of the Power Trail Guideline something the UK has not been on the end of. Especially as I've yet to see a proper definition of what one is. At least the Open to All element is clear, and the reason goes back to a camping event organised by the person who brought up the topic on GC. Who is incorrect in his assumption that just a single non UK cacher complained.

    Oh and there is no Controversy as suggested by the title. The persons who made the abusive emails did so in a way which they could not be directly ID by Groundspeak. As GC was used as a way to gain access to make contact to harass the recipient, and the Camping Topic was the reason for that harassment. I took the decision to close the topic. And I was completely open about why I'd closed it!

    As a Reviewer/Moderator I personally expect to be the recipient of abuse, but I will not allow abuse of Members by members. If I upset but not abuse other members doing this so be it. It's easy to criticise decisions when your not the person making them! By closing the Topic I removed a subject over which a member was abused, I upset other members but they can in no way say they were abused!
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  14. #14
    sTeamTraen Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    To be honest I resent accusations that the UK Reviewers dug themselves into a Hole!
    Dave, I probably wasn't clear enough... I, at least, was trying to say that there basically isn't a hole. You and the other reviewers made a decision which deserved respect from the community. Had you made the opposite decision, someone else would probably have made a major issue out of that. We all make a small dent in the ground whenever we take any decision of principle; if people choose to call it a hole, regardless of its depth, then that's up to them.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    At least the Open to All element is clear, and the reason goes back to a camping event organised by the person who brought up the topic on GC. Who is incorrect in his assumption that just a single non UK cacher complained.
    The open to all element is indeed clear, and is being applied correctly everywhere else apart from the UK. Open to all is taken to mean that no one is excluded, it is not taken to mean that there can be no requirement to be met to attend.

    By the way, am I getting my events confused or was the issue with GCWDHD which was The Ollies event.

    edit to add: What is the difference between an event in France and the same one in the UK ?
    Last edited by The Royles; 26th September 2008 at 12:55 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •