Thanks Thanks:  9
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62

Thread: Clarification please

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default Clarification please

    1. I was led to believe that any person/geocacher was eligible to be elected to the GAGB committee. People who disagree with the way GAGB is run, or the guidelines it creates, have an equal right to be elected to the committee and affect, democratically, any decisions the committee makes. I also believe the advent of the election, and proposal of candidates, was advertised sufficiently in advance to allow anyone with an interest in GB geocaching to get themselves to be proposed for election to the committee.

    Why then all the angst, post election, from those who disagree with the direction and policies of the GAGB? Why did they not attempt to get elected to the committee and try to change things? (If they thought it was a waste of time, why complain now?)

    2. As an original member of GAGB why am I now only a Forum member?

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I think there was a problem with the membership database when servers were transferred. It is being worked on at the moment.

  3. #3
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Is it not right that any elected body come under some sort of scrutiny during it's term in office?

  4. #4
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    1. I was led to believe that any person/geocacher was eligible to be elected to the GAGB committee.
    Then I suggest that you were misled. Clauses F & G of the constitution say to me that the committee must consist of [GAGB] members.

    However, as with some other members you miss the point of why I and others "disagree with the direction and policies of the GAGB". If that direction and those policies affected only members of the GAGB then I wouldn't give two hoots about them. But GAGB and Groundspeak think that all GB cachers are bound by GAGB's rules. Rules which, let's remember, have been formulated by a handful of GAGB members and approved by not many more. I say that GAGB is not representative of GB cachers and non-members are not bound by GAGB's rules.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post

    As an original member of GAGB why am I now only a Forum member?
    As Tony's said, there's a technical problem. You are a member of GAGB, but if the online form for checking is telling you that you're not, it's because, probably as a result of the recent move to new servers, a bug has reared its ugly head, and some people are getting false positives or false negatives. As our webmasters are restructuring the membership database anyway the matter will hopefully get sorted of its own accord.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    ... I say that GAGB is not representative of GB cachers and non-members are not bound by GAGB's rules....
    Fine, why then do you visit this forum? If you, as a non member, are not bound by GAGB's guidelines, (not rules), what are you trying to achieve?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    Fine, why then do you visit this forum? If you, as a non member, are not bound by GAGB's guidelines, (not rules), what are you trying to achieve?
    Sorry if I'm wrong, but you seem to infer that you'd rather Alan didn't visit the forum. I remind you that this forum was offered as a free and easy alternative to the increasingly restricted discussions on the Groundspeak one.

    Perhaps you should clarify your motives first, before demanding that people justify their motivation for discussing their hobby with others?

    Personally I welcome all and sundry to offer their views on here, whether I agree with them or not. A bit of healthy debate shows that there are people that care about the game.
    But I'm starting to think that the only happy forum is an empty one!

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Then I suggest that you were misled. Clauses F & G of the constitution say to me that the committee must consist of [GAGB] members.

    However, as with some other members you miss the point of why I and others "disagree with the direction and policies of the GAGB". If that direction and those policies affected only members of the GAGB then I wouldn't give two hoots about them. But GAGB and Groundspeak think that all GB cachers are bound by GAGB's rules. Rules which, let's remember, have been formulated by a handful of GAGB members and approved by not many more. I say that GAGB is not representative of GB cachers and non-members are not bound by GAGB's rules.
    GAGB Guidelines are guidelines and not rules. Since you oppose them so vehemently and consistently, then I am confident that you can formulate better ones with more than a handful of non-members and get them approved by many more.

    I would welcome the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss your guidelines and moreover when it is clear that your guidelines have greater merit and applicability than the current ones, I think you will find GAGB perfectly willing to adopt them.

    I am convinced that GAGB and its committee are motivated purely in support of our pursuit; the committee considers and takes on board views of non-members as well as members and makes appropriate changes accordingly.

    What it cannot do, however, is please everyone, when there is no consensus to follow. If a pragmatic and expedient solution agreed at local level with those directly affected does not meet with your approval then we'll disagree on that specific instance, however one swallow does not make a summer. I don't think that amounts to "direction and policies".

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    GAGB Guidelines are guidelines and not rules. Since you oppose them so vehemently and consistently, then I am confident that you can formulate better ones with more than a handful of non-members and get them approved by many more.

    I would welcome the opportunity to scrutinise and discuss your guidelines and moreover when it is clear that your guidelines have greater merit and applicability than the current ones, I think you will find GAGB perfectly willing to adopt them.

    I am convinced that GAGB and its committee are motivated purely in support of our pursuit; the committee considers and takes on board views of non-members as well as members and makes appropriate changes accordingly.

    What it cannot do, however, is please everyone, when there is no consensus to follow. If a pragmatic and expedient solution agreed at local level with those directly affected does not meet with your approval then we'll disagree on that specific instance, however one swallow does not make a summer. I don't think that amounts to "direction and policies".
    See next year, I'm voting for you...............................twice
    I'm just going outside, and may be some time!

    www.jacobitecaching.co.uk

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashbourne, Derbyshire
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    2. As an original member of GAGB why am I now only a Forum member?
    Rectified, we are sorting out the problems on several accounts, your post here bumped you to the top of my priority list. :coffee:
    "I Cache, therefore I am"

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stevenage, Herts
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by studlyone View Post
    Rectified, we are sorting out the problems on several accounts, your post here bumped you to the top of my priority list. :coffee:
    Many thanks, and my vote goes to................:wacko:

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    To aid clarification, everyone who joined before 3rd May 2008 is a GAGB member. Those who joined on or after 3rd May 2008 are initially forum users only. You can check the status of your membership here: http://gagb.co.uk/gagb/membership/

    If you are not shown as a GAGB member you can join on the form.

    If you are shown as a GAGB member and you think this is in error, please contact the committee.

    What is showing currently on the forum is a glitch due to the forum migration and this as Ian says, is work in progress.

  13. #13
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lost in Space View Post
    Fine, why then do you visit this forum? If you, as a non member, are not bound by GAGB's guidelines, (not rules), what are you trying to achieve?
    I am trying to get GAGB (and Groundspeak) to confirm that I am not bound by GAGB's rules. At the moment both organisations think that I am.

  14. #14
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    GAGB Guidelines are guidelines and not rules.
    Ah, not that old chestnut. We all know what they're called: they're just not treated as such. For example, to pick one close to your own heart, the "guideline" on SSSIs is interpreted as a blanket ban even though the GAGB guideline merely says "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance...". To pick another: Groundspeak are now refusing to publish caches in plastic bags. Still think they're just guidelines?


    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    I am confident that you can formulate better ones with more than a handful of non-members and get them approved by many more.
    I don't need to, as I wouldn't expect anyone - let alone all GB cachers - to abide by any guidelines I come up with. I have my own personal standards of sensible ways to place and seek caches which, not incidentally, don't include encouraging cachers to climb monuments.

    But since you ask, yes, I can see a way forward whereby the GAGB guidelines could be toned down to an extent where Groundspeak would be able to cease using them as a stick to beat cachers with, whilst still maintaining the intention of the guideline.

    For example, the plastic bags one could be reworded as: "It is best not to place caches in plastic bags as they trap water and thereby cause moisture problems for the cache and also attract snails etc thus making the experience unpleasant for cache seekers. Also, the bag will disintegrate over time thus causing litter and potential problems for wildlife. If you need to camouflage your cache, consider using duct tape or suitable exterior paint.". Worded this way, as a recommendation rather than a prohibition, prevents the guideline being interpreted as a rule and also explains the reason for it.

    Contrary to what you may think, I do actually believe that GAGB's guidelines are good in essence. The principal problem seems to be that, after many years of saying they wouldn't, Groundspeak are now using GAGB's guidelines as hard and fast rules. If that can be prevented then things will get a lot easier.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    I am trying to get GAGB (and Groundspeak) to confirm that I am not bound by GAGB's rules. At the moment both organisations think that I am.
    Of course you're not bound by our rules. Unless, of course, you choose to place or seek a cache on land owned by a body which permits caching on its land only if the participants abide by our rules.

    I've deliberately used the word "rules". Our guidelines are, in themselves, just that - guidelines. But obviously if a landowner chooses to make abiding by them a condition of caching on their land, then in that particular instance the guidelines do become rules.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


Posting Permissions

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