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.