Are you a GAGB Member ?

[StuartP]

As has been discussed in a previous thread, the membership of the GAGB could be views as no representative of cachers in the UK.

It would be helpful to understand why people are or are not members of the GAGB. Perhaps you could take the time to complete the following statement......

I [am / am not] a member of the GAGB because:



PS: you can check on your membership status here: https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/register.php

[keehotee]

I am a member of the GAGB because:

When I joined there was only one type of membership, as forum membership had not yet been introduced.
My membership should not, however, be seen as my acceptance of the guidelines or objectives of the GAGB, or the manner in which the GAGB is run (although if I had particular issue with either of these you would know ), any more than my membership of any other body would indicate that I was 100% in favour of every one of their policies.

[markandlynn]

I am a member of the GAGB because the alternative is being represented by a commercial organisation based in america also a UK organisation independent of the listing sites ensures should a UK issue arrise UK cachers with only the sport in mind can represent thier interests.

[uktim]

As has been discussed in a previous thread, the membership of the GAGB could be views as no representative of cachers in the UK.

It would be helpful to understand why people are or are not members of the GAGB. Perhaps you could take the time to complete the following statement......

I don't know if I'm counted as a member of the GAGB because of the rather haphazard way that membership was a default attribute of forum membership in the early days. I don't count myself as a member or see GAGB as representing my views. I find it rather hard to view an association where most (all?) of the committee hide behind false screen names as an open and transparent body. How can you vote for someone if you don't even know their name or address?

[markandlynn]

I don't know if I'm counted as a member of the GAGB because of the rather haphazard way that membership was a default attribute of forum membership in the early days. I don't count myself as a member or see GAGB as representing my views. I find it rather hard to view an association where most (all?) of the committee hide behind false screen names as an open and transparent body. How can you vote for someone if you don't even know their name or address?

I would be more suspicious of someone who did not reveal their caching identity being on the GAGB committee.
StuartP could be anyone anywhere but his geocaching profile of finds and hides is very visible to me and a much more important attribute than his real name (is it dave ?) and address.

Having been involved in the odd landowner negotiation i can uderstand the need to have a private area to discuss the finer points.

[Happy Humphrey]

I find it rather hard to view an association where most (all?) of the committee hide behind false screen names as an open and transparent body. How can you vote for someone if you don't even know their name or address?

To be fair, this isn't the case. See https://www.gagb.org.uk/index.php for a list of actual names. I wouldn't expect to see addresses on there; it would be a bit much to ask.

I imagine that, should you wish to contact a committee member using their real name and address, you could just e-mail them and ask for it.

[Just Roger]

As has been discussed in a previous thread, the membership of the GAGB could be views as no representative of cachers in the UK.

It would be helpful to understand why people are or are not members of the GAGB. Perhaps you could take the time to complete the following statement......

I [am / am not] a member of the GAGB because:

Like others, when I joined there was no separation of the forums from the rest of the site though, in practice, at that time (Jan 2005) the forums were pretty dead compared to now. The main reason I joined, at the time was the Landowner permissions database and the idea of having a local body in the UK.

[Happy Humphrey]

I am not a member of the GAGB because:
I don't have any burning reason to join.

As well as some misgivings about the GAGB attitude to cache permission and the perceived role of a geocaching association, there doesn't appear to be any clear benefit to actually joining.

This is partly selfish, of course, as the principle of a GB geocaching association is a good one and should receive some support; even if I personally don't see any direct gain in joining up.

I'm a member of several other organisations, but I can always recall joining because of some immediate benefit (e.g. insurance, membership perks, discount entry to something, quarterly magazines, social events). On top of which, I can almost completely agree with the organisation's motivation and approach.

Quite rightly, non-members can post on the GAGB forums, and the Land Agreements database is open to all. It's useful to the GAGB and the public that these are open and free. But what does that leave as a benefit?

By the nature of geocaching, which is essentially an individual and informal activity, an Association is not something you "need" as a cacher. You can place a cache almost anywhere without reference to anyone, and if you know the coordinates of a cache you can seek it; in which case you're geocaching. Forget cache listing sites and landowner agreements; they're only optional extras.

So if you're not sure that the GAGB is moving in the right direction, and you can't see any perks in joining up, it's easy to give it a miss.

I am not a member of the GAGB because:
I don't have any burning reason to join.

As well as some misgivings about the GAGB attitude to cache permission and the perceived role of a geocaching association, there doesn't appear to be any clear benefit to actually joining.

This is partly selfish, of course, as the principle of a GB geocaching association is a good one and should receive some support; even if I personally don't see any direct gain in joining up.

I'm a member of several other organisations, but I can always recall joining because of some immediate benefit (e.g. insurance, membership perks, discount entry to something, quarterly magazines, social events). On top of which, I can almost completely agree with the organisation's motivation and approach.

Quite rightly, non-members can post on the GAGB forums, and the Land Agreements database is open to all. It's useful to the GAGB and the public that these are open and free. But what does that leave as a benefit?

By the nature of geocaching, which is essentially an individual and informal activity, an Association is not something you "need" as a cacher. You can place a cache almost anywhere without reference to anyone, and if you know the coordinates of a cache you can seek it; in which case you're geocaching. Forget cache listing sites and landowner agreements; they're only optional extras.

So if you're not sure that the GAGB is moving in the right direction, and you can't see any perks in joining up, it's easy to give it a miss.

I can see your point about benefits, even as just an associated club, the climbing club I am a member of has a range of benefits from being members of the BMC, access to huts insurance etc.

[Mrs Blorenge]

I am a member of GAGB because, as HH says, I believe that

...the principle of a GB geocaching association is a good one and should receive some support; even if I personally don't see any direct gain in joining up.

As we are able to afford to put $30 a year across The Pond to have PM on Geocaching.com, I think we should at least support our national geocaching organisation too.

I have no problems with the various 'agreements' which have been negotiated by the GAGB over the years. However much we may like the idea of geocaching as a free-and-easy-anything-goes-anywhere type of activity, I believe such restrictions are going to become more and more prevalent in the future and I'm happy to trust the GAGB committee to try and find suitable solutions that will keep both sides relatively happy so that geocaching can maintain its good image as it continues to grow in popularity. When problems arise, as inevitably they will from time to time, I feel that the GAGB is a suitable body to mediate between landowners and reviewers and listing sites to try and resolve such matters.

The forum here is also important for discussion: I think it's good to have an alternative from the Groundspeak forums. Not everyone is happy with 'the forums over there' so it's good that this place provides somewhere else for talking about geocaching matters and Off Topic stuff.

If I think of other 'reasons to be happy' I'll add them later.

Oh, the Mahjong's pretty good too.

[Matrix]

As I am able to afford to put $30 a year across The Pond to have PM on Geocaching.com, I think we should at least support our national geocaching organisation too.

That is one of the reasons I support the GAGB .


[Shamless Plug]

I have also replied to Tony's post on the South Wales Geocachers forum

[/Shamless Plug]

[Happy Humphrey]

I have no problems with the various 'agreements' which have been negotiated by the GAGB over the years. However much we may like the idea of geocaching as a free-and-easy-anything-goes-anywhere type of activity, I believe such restrictions are going to become more and more prevalent in the future

I might not have explained it well enough, but the point is that, in many sports and pastimes you're actually reliant on the national or local association to allow you to play.

For instance, if you don't join a football club you can't play competitive football. If you don't join a golf club (of some sort) you don't get a handicap and you can't play in competitions. For others, you might need a licence or special equipment.

In geocaching you can play without joining any organisation.

So there is not the usual need to join an association or club just to get started. The only way to attract members is by offering some perks; and I don't see too much on offer (yet! - how about discounts at geocaching shops? ).

[sandvika]

I became a member of the GAGB because the I recognise the fundamental importance of obtaining landowner consent in what is not a clandestine pursuit. I want GAGB to become the de-facto focus of and representative for the UK caching community by extending its remit beyond consent agreements to embrace the community it serves and be its advocate to other organisations.

[*mouse*]

I'm a member of the GAGB because when I first found out about geocaching I joined various different web based organisations in order to find out about the hobby - no other reason.

Since then I have made regular use of the forum as the site is a way for me to chat and discuss issues with other UK cachers, but I have never really felt that the views of the GAGB represent my own.

[uktim]

As we are able to afford to put $30 a year across The Pond to have PM on Geocaching.com, I think we should at least support our national geocaching organisation too.

The $30 to GS is excellent value for money. At present the GAGB seems to be struggling to justify it's membership fee. It could be suggested that it seems to be a vehicle to allow a vocal and highly opinionated minority to stamp their authority on the game

Well observed

[Maple Leaf]

I am a member of the GAGB because: ....

.... initially, I came across the site in my early days of caching, when I was still finding out and learning things about caching, permissions etc

It had some useful advice - especially about contacting landowners. I was grateful for this and the fact that we had someone working on our behalf liaising with some of the more national landowners e.g. Forestry Commission and to find out if somebody else was, or had been, making contact in an area that I was interested in placing a cache.

Ok, there are probably things that I don't agree with (can't think of them off hand), but on the whole I think the GAGB are doing a grand job.

I was a lurker in the forums for some time .... before actually posting when I needed advice. From what I recall the response was quick and very helpful (although in those days there weren't that many of us in these forums).

[lost it]

The $30 to GS is excellent value for money. At present the GAGB seems to be struggling to justify it's membership fee. It could be suggested that it seems to be a vehicle to allow a vocal and highly opinionated minority to stamp their authority on the game

what fee would that be? GAGB is free!

oops someone doesn't know what they are talking about

[JackieC]

I am NOT a member of the GAGB because:

I've just checked an I'm only a forum member. I really did think I was a member of both, I probaly didn't press the correct button when I joined. I think I've pressed the correct one now, so hopefully I am NOW a member.

Although I don't post (this is my first) I do frequent the forum and site and use the resources available.

GAGB is a relatively young organisation and is still evolving and shaping the policies and procedures.

Sure, some of these policies and procedures will be disasters, some will be triumphs and most will go un-noticed by the majority; but this is all part of the process.

No organisation, however large or small has got everything spot on from day one. Personally (and this is my own personal opinion, feel free to laugh at me! :lol:: ) I'm happy to support the committee in my own little way, I've got faith that they're going in the right direction.

[Mrs Blorenge]

...and anyone from the un-opinionated majority can browse, unmolested, without being required to give their views... all totally free of charge!

[Bill D (wwh)]

I am NOT a member of the GAGB because:

I've just checked an I'm only a forum member. I really did think I was a member of both, I probaly didn't press the correct button when I joined. I think I've pressed the correct one now, so hopefully I am NOW a member.

Jackie, I've just checked using the form here and you're not showing as a member of GAGB. I've asked one of our webmasters to check the database - I suspect that you may actually be a member but the form's returning a false negative for some reason. We had a similar problem with another member's account recently.

[The Royles]

I am a member, and happy to be so.

I joined by default by registering for the forum, but have not seen anything done by GAGB that I disagree with - and a lot done/said that I do agree with.

I have also not voted in the elections (from the other thread) as I saw the list of candidates and was equally happy with them all.

Personally I would be happy to pay 5 to 10 times the current membership fee :

[keehotee]

what fee would that be? GAGB is free!

oops someone doesn't know what they are talking about

I think he was being ironic.........

[team clova]

I am a member, and happy to be so.

I joined by default by registering for the forum, but have not seen anything done by GAGB that I disagree with - and a lot done/said that I do agree with.

I have also not voted in the elections (from the other thread) as I saw the list of candidates and was equally happy with them all.

Personally I would be happy to pay 5 to 10 times the current membership fee :

My views exactly.

Also, ALL cachers have benefitted from the common-sense guidelines and code of conduct that the GAGB have developed which has brought the approval to set caches by huge land owners/managers and consequently smaller landowners.

Yes, the GAGB needs to continually develop and change (caching today is a lot different to what it was) but if it aint broke dont try and fix it!

[Graculus]

Putting my 'Reviewers' hat on for a moment.... the GAGB guidelines are one of the most important 'tools' I use when reviewing caches. I think without them caches would get placed where they shouldn't be, landowners would get a bit upset and the game of geocaching would probably be dragged into disrepute.

Taking my 'Reviewers' hat off now......
Of course it is only a very small self opinionated minority who enjoy criticising the GAGB and all the hard work they do... but you know the best thing about this small minority? You can just ignore them

Chris
Proud to be part of the GAGB and to work with them.

[Icenians]

Putting my 'Reviewers' hat on for a moment.... the GAGB guidelines are one of the most important 'tools' I use when reviewing caches. .

Of course this was EXACTLY why I've had so many issues on and off over the years with GAGB. It was promised that exactly what you do wouldn't happen.

I object to the term opiniated when used at people who dissagree. One could argue that the GAGB is in itself opiniated AND forcing those opinions, via reviewers, onto all the rest of us that do not wish to be a member.

Just becuse you agree with the GAGB doesn't mean you have no opinions! You just happen to agree with the GAGB that is the only difference.

From a reviewer on GC's point of view, the entire GAGB is the minority!!

When I signed up to GC I agreed to be bound by only the guidelines of the GC nothing in there said I must follow the GAGB guidelines.

Kev

[Happy Humphrey]

Taking my 'Reviewers' hat off now......
Of course it is only a very small self opinionated minority who enjoy criticising the GAGB and all the hard work they do... but you know the best thing about this small minority? You can just ignore them

I agree that you shouldn't get wound up about any criticism on here. But perhaps you didn't mean that you ignore all criticism? A healthy forum will have many opinions that you don't like, but once you separate the wheaf from the chaff you'll get a lot of useful feedback for the GAGB to consider. That is probably critical for the future.

[Graculus]

<snip>When I signed up to GC I agreed to be bound by only the guidelines of the GC nothing in there said I must follow the GAGB guidelines.
Kev

Well this bit in the GC guidelines refers you to local regulations and organisations, "In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations". I agree it doesn't say you must follow the GAGB guidelines but having this sentence in the Guidelines means it is a guideline in itself. So therefore we have 'local' guidelines which apply to cache placement in the UK.

Chris (Mr Blorenge)

[sandvika]

I realise this is slightly off topic however it is positive

Putting my 'Reviewers' hat on for a moment.... the GAGB guidelines are one of the most important 'tools' I use when reviewing caches. I think without them caches would get placed where they shouldn't be, landowners would get a bit upset and the game of geocaching would probably be dragged into disrepute.

The GAGB guidelines are also one of the most important resources that I use when placing caches irrespective of where they are listed. They are equally important to me in the peer review process on Terracaching.

I think it's GAGB's potential to transcend the "virtual" boundaries created by listing sites that can be an agent for good. Further, if all UK cachers on geocaching.com used the GAGB guidelines when placing their caches, I suspect the number of caches that you are unable to approve first time round would be reduced significantly.

[Graculus]

I agree that you shouldn't get wound up about any criticism on here. But perhaps you didn't mean that you ignore all criticism? A healthy forum will have many opinions that you don't like, but once you separate the wheaf from the chaff you'll get a lot of useful feedback for the GAGB to consider. That is probably critical for the future.

It is sometimes difficult not to get wound up particularly when things get personal (which has happened!). Of course constructive and healthy criticism is good but I'm really refering to times when changes/decisions are discussed and no matter that the majority say 'It is good', the small minority won't give up. That's the time I go into ignore mode!
Perhaps I should change my viewpoint on somethings and become part of the small minority . Problem with that idea is so far I've found the majority opinion to be better.

I'd better get back to work.....

Chris (Mr Blorenge)

[jacobite]

The GAGB guidelines are also one of the most important resources that I use when placing caches irrespective of where they are listed. They are equally important to me in the peer review process on Terracaching.

It's reassuring to hear that, Roderick.

[keehotee]

I realise this is slightly off topic however it is positive



The GAGB guidelines are also one of the most important resources that I use when placing caches irrespective of where they are listed. They are equally important to me in the peer review process on Terracaching.

I don't think that anybody here would argue that (with one small exception) the GAGB guidelines as they stand today aren't a good thing - has anybody even questioned that?
Regardless of whether they're called GAGB guidelines, or GC guidelines, or a set of rules that the reviewers follow, they're all common sense......

[Icenians]

It is sometimes difficult not to get wound up particularly when things get personal (which has happened!). Of course constructive and healthy criticism is good but I'm really refering to times when changes/decisions are discussed and no matter that the majority say 'It is good', the small minority won't give up. That's the time I go into ignore mode!
Perhaps I should change my viewpoint on somethings and become part of the small minority . Problem with that idea is so far I've found the majority opinion to be better.

I'd better get back to work.....

Chris (Mr Blorenge)

Well, apart from the fact that the GAGB is the minority when it comes to cachers. 500 is not a majority.

Where were the changes to NF placement changes discussed and agreed? When was the change to start forcing GAGB guidelines on all discussed and agreed? When was it agreed that the GAGB should conduct itself behind closed doors and never publish anything? When were all these things agreed?

Please can we bring this back on topic, if you wish to challenge peoples reasons please do so on another thread.

[t.a.folk]

Well, apart from the fact that the GAGB is the minority when it comes to cachers. 500 is not a majority.

Where were the changes to NF placement changes discussed and agreed? When was the change to start forcing GAGB guidelines on all discussed and agreed? When was it agreed that the GAGB should conduct itself behind closed doors and never publish anything? When were all these things agreed?

It's a puzzle to us ,in view of all you've written, why you recently chose to place a cache on N.F.F.C. managed land .

[Icenians]

It's a puzzle to us ,in view of all you've written, why you recently chose to place a cache on N.F.F.C. managed land .

Why shouldn't I? I followed the requirements? It's even in a plastic container with a 4 click locking lid! Are you saying I should only do that if I'm a gagb member?

I've said ,lord knows how often, I have no problem with a landowner setting caching requirements on their own land. It's thier land who am I to ignore those wishes? The landowner has placed the cache police responsiblity firmly o the GAGB and that is what they want. I'm sure Bill can confirm I've given the GAGB the location, albeit I got the coords wrong at first

The reason I placed one there was that I visit the area fairly frequently, or pass it, and I figured that at least one TC should be there before the 150 cache limit was taken up. It was just coincidental that I happen to be there at the time this all blew up.

Kev

[Icenians]

Please can we bring this back on topic, if you wish to challenge peoples reasons please do so on another thread.

Sorry, you're quite right.

Kev

As long as the requirements of the agreement are met then which site it is listed on makes no difference.

[uktim]

what fee would that be? GAGB is free!

oops someone doesn't know what they are talking about

I know exactly what I'm talking about, but seeing as you don't get it, GS is worth more than $30 whereas GAGB is worth nowt. It's not really as bad as that but how else can you put it over to someone who struggles with irony

[Bill D (wwh)]

As long as the requirements of the agreement are met then which site it is listed on makes no difference.

Kev has been in contact with me about this cache, and the requirements are indeed met. The FC has been notified, as is standard practice, but we've yet to hear back from them. They've never yet refused a cache in the Forest, though they have sometimes asked for minor changes.

[Alan White]

In response to a request from sandvika on another forum I'd already posted my views there before seeing this thread but I'm happy to copy them here.


You can probably guess my views on GAGB but for the record I'm happy to add to this thread. As I've explained my views a number of times in a few places I'll just summarise here.

Membership of the GAGB could be viewed as not representative of cachers in the UK.

Absolutely right: it isn't. To be fair, it doesn't claim to be. GAGB's home page says "This Association was established to provide an elected voice for its members in the United Kingdom." [my emphasis]. GAGB was set up by a handful of cachers to negotiate agreements with land managers. Several years on (I don't agree that GAGB is young) that's still all that it does, and it's still done by the same handful of cachers with the same blinkered views. As I don't believe that permission is the most important aspect of caching then I would think twice before joining an organisation where our views are so different. But it's much worse than that.

The likelihood of my joining GAGB has always been low but has moved even lower recently because of the New Forest "agreement". The terms of that "agreement" are contrary to the interests of cachers and caching, and GAGB has become authoritarian in thinking that it has the right to make caching law which affects cachers outside of its membership. To an extent GAGB has always thought this: the GAGB rules forbid caches in dry stone walls and those wrapped in plastic bags. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of those, it's only recently that Groundspeak has started to use GAGB rules as a reason not to publish caches. Just the other day Groundspeak refused to publish a cache because it was wrapped in a plastic bag. (Curiously, Groundspeak seem quite happy to publish caches in contravention of Groundspeak's own guidelines: just yesterday a cache was published only 100m from an existing cache.)

GAGB should move away from concentrating on land manager agreements and instead work on providing benefits which have the caching member at its heart. GAGB is the only hobby club I can think of which actively works against the interests of its members and the hobby in general. GAGB does absolutely nothing to represent the interests of cachers or caching. In fact, it actively works against cachers' interests as the New Forest situation so ably demonstrates. If that "agreement" were written with the cacher in mind it would be very different.

GAGB needs to distance itself from Groundspeak. Yes, there needs to be a good working relationship between GAGB and all listing sites, but the current situation - as the examples I give above show - is that GAGB (or more accurately the handful of cachers that run it) decide on a rule and then Groundspeak enforces it. This cosy reationship helps GB caching not one bit. To me it makes GAGB just a local arm of Groundspeak. Actually, I think GAGB is more authoritarian than Groundspeak, which is saying something.

To conclude: I am not a member of the GAGB because GAGB has shown that many things it does work against the best interests of the hobby.

[Alan White]

And some bits that weren't included in the previous post because I copied it from elsewhere...

A concern is that many cachers have commented here that they don't know whether they're members or not. There clearly needs to be a way of identifying this. GAGB must know otherwise no election or other members' vote could be meaningful (or, presumably, legal and within the constitution).

I'm surprised to see some members saying that their membership shouldn't be seen as acceptance of the guidelines or objectives of the GAGB, and that the views of the GAGB don't represent their own. I find this strange. If one doesn't agree with the objectives of an organisation then why join it? Moreover, the organisation will certainly see membership as approval of its objectives and will use that as an argument in its favour.

I recognise the fundamental importance of obtaining landowner consent in what is not a clandestine pursuit.

I'm sure you didn't say that in your election address. But now that you have I withdraw my virtual vote .

It was promised that exactly what you do wouldn't happen.

Exactly so. It's only the recent changes in Groundspeak reviewers that have caused GAGB rules to move from guidelines to become part of the requirement for listing. And that's happened as well as Groundspeak reviewers making up their own rules and, strangest of all, ignoring those of the organisation they work for.

One could argue that the GAGB is in itself opiniated AND forcing those opinions, via reviewers, onto all the rest of us that do not wish to be a member.

No argument required: that is exactly what happens.

[uktim]

It's a puzzle to us ,in view of all you've written, why you recently chose to place a cache on N.F.F.C. managed land .

Because an agreement by the GAGB should NEVER exclude others from placing caches?

[uktim]

Well this bit in the GC guidelines refers you to local regulations and organisations, "In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations". I agree it doesn't say you must follow the GAGB guidelines but having this sentence in the Guidelines means it is a guideline in itself. So therefore we have 'local' guidelines which apply to cache placement in the UK.

Chris (Mr Blorenge)

That says that cachers can seek help from local organisations in interpretting guidelines. It says nothing about reviewers adopting guidelines and rules. There's no leeway here for reviewers to take guidelines from self created associations as rules.

What would you do if someone set up a new association, recruited a tiny percentage of UK cachers as members and then made guidelines that were different to or even contradicted those already laid down by the GAGB?

Please keep on topic, if you want to discuss peoples reasons open another thread to do so.

[keehotee]

That says that cachers can seek help from local organisations in interpretting guidelines. It says nothing about reviewers adopting guidelines and rules. There's no leeway here for reviewers to take guidelines from self created associations as rules.

What would you do if someone set up a new association, recruited a tiny percentage of UK cachers as members and then made guidelines that were different to or even contradicted those already laid down by the GAGB?

Whether or not the reviewers choose to adopt the GAGB guidelines is entirely up to the reviewers, and if you have issues with what Groundspeak representatives are doing, dare I suggest you're raising them in the wrong forum......????

[uktim]

Whether or not the reviewers choose to adopt the GAGB guidelines is entirely up to the reviewers, and if you have issues with what Groundspeak representatives are doing, dare I suggest you're raising them in the wrong forum......????

It was in this forum that a reviewer suggested that they used the guidelines as hard and fast rules. Is it best to comment on it here where they can reply or run straight to their superiors telling tales?

[keehotee]

Is it best to comment on it here where they can reply or run straight to their superiors telling tales?

Reviewers don't have superiors - they are born perfect, like the Dalai Lama - and ascend to their calling only when there is a need for their special powers......

Anyone care to get back to answering Stuarts questions before I start moving posts?

This is the thiurd and last time of asking.

[Morton]

I am a member of the GAGB because I support the existence of the guidelines and the agreements database.