One vote per? Family? Team? Person??

[paul.blitz]

I guess we all need to discuss it SOME time.....

Currently anyone can be a "member", but does that mean that every member should have a vote?

How do we feel about making the rule to be:

(i) one vote per MEMBER?
(ii) one vote per TEAM?
(iii) one vote per FAMILY?

What steps should we take to ensure that people (or teams or families) don't secretly have MORE than one vote? I can see 2 possibilities here: people wish to legitimately have a second account for simple anonymity (eg for forum moderation); Sock-Puppets.

Is it reasonable to insist that, if you wish to be a voting member, you should have to provide your REAL name, and your GC.com identity?


I'm looking for useful, helpful thoughts and ideas here. If you start to flame, then I'll simply start deleting the messages. Lets see how mature we can all be!



Paul Blitz (with his committee hat not actually ON, but nearby&#33

[Moss Trooper]

One vote per registered entry.. If that makes sence.. If a team registers as one.. then one vote.. if a team of three register individually then there are three votes.. problem comes when the three register individually and as a team !!!!!

[BugznElm'r]

My 2 cents is under the current structure of membership (unless a new one is being cooked up) one member, one vote.

Why? Simple. I can tell you my name is Tom Smith, Tom Jones or Tom Thumb and you wouldn't know otherwise. Also, if I were a sockpuppet, I have literally hundreds of GC account names to choose from (or they could set up a new one - how hard is that&#33 that I could use as an alias. I can't see how any enforcement that doesn't involve a paid for membership (which Tim seems to have ruled out in his post about transfer of the Website) is simple going to be a band aid over the problem.

[thecookiecrew]

This is a easy one for me to answer, I do all the posting (and for that matter reading out load!&#33 for the whole of the cookiecrew, we discuss all the issues that are raised, and tend to come to the same opinion, therefore 1 vote for 1 team, answers it for me.....

Mike
TheCookieCrew

[marinor]

I think that now we have voted for our committee we should have our voting rights removed,
why should we need to vote on anything else,

do we not trust them to do what we voted them in to do?
do we not trust them to add/replace future committee member requirements?
do we not trust them to further the interests of our sport in general?
if not, why vote for them in the first place?

we voted them in, let them get on with it

would leave us more time for caching/watching tv/walking dogs/and anything else that tickles your fancy..

then instead of all the sniping we could just say..ok, thanks for letting us know what you have done..

just my thoughts as a right of centre, freedom loving geordie.

stay safe

Bill

[seifer]

JM2C

For the purposes of simplicity and fairness I think that a one IP, one ote rule should be applied, simply because it's easy to enforce and check if people have violated it (at least I assume it is, I've never moderated an IPB before&#33. Yes, people have different usernames for accounts and by doing this I would be denying myself a vote, but If my dad had registered under the name "Team Blitz" would it be any different?

Another thing that needs to be looked at (sorry for going off topic a bit) is the fact that you can see who's in the lead and influence the votes of others.

All simply MHO

Mike

[BugznElm'r]

Some more thoughts ...

I think we need to be careful of witch hunts ... the more the GAGB does because of a distrust of the membership, the more problems there will be down the line. Personally, I think that the format of the last set of elections was fine - one member, one vote and you had to be a member for a fixed period of time prior to the elections to be eligible to vote.

One change I'd add is the timescale of the vote ... personally I think that the shorted the better - the longer the pols are open the greater the scope of trouble. I'd be happy with the voting being open for a weekend or a few days and if that wasn't good for someone, they should be allowed to cast a vote by email.

One possible change ... do the elections need to be secret? Why not open the logs and see who voted for who? I'd have no problems with that as long as it was screen names.

All MHO ...

[Paul G0TLG]

I'm the moderator of another IPB board, and I don't think I can see the IP addresses or identities of people who have voted...I could be wrong though.

One problem with the "one IP one vote" idea, is that I guess more than half of us will have multiple IPs, e.g. home and work, so we COULD set ourselves up with a spare account and still vote twice. Meanwhile genuine "second member on the same IP" members (e.g. Mike Blitz) would lose their vote.

Also, something I'm not sure of...how would that affect members who log in on, for example, a library or internet cafe computer?

I'm sorry if I'm raising issues rather than answering them, but I think before we have another vote (hopefully we've got until the next committee elections), we need to ensure that we can fairly enforce the "one 'voting entity', one vote" rule. Unless we can do that, deciding whether a voting entity is an individual, a team or a household is of secondary importance.

Paul

[Teasel]

I'd like to see "one active adult geocacher, one vote" (sorry Michael, nothing personal&#33. I would like to establish this by posting an individual membership card to named people at postal addresses. The cost of postage could be offset by requesting that enthusiastic members mail back a postage stamp or two to the committee on a voluntary basis.

I realise that the association knowing the names and addresses of its full members will not go down well with those who wish to remain their anonymity, but that does seem to be the way that 99% of associations out there work.

[Ashandes]

Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 9 2003, 02:15 PM
I'd like to see "one active adult geocacher, one vote" (sorry Michael, nothing personal&#33. I would like to establish this by posting an individual membership card to named people at postal addresses. The cost of postage could be offset by requesting that enthusiastic members mail back a postage stamp or two to the committee on a voluntary basis.

I agree with Teasel on this. One adult geocacher, one vote.

But with the option for younger geo-cachers, and team members who aren't that bothered about voting to be non-voting members if they wish.

[Teasel]

My expectation was that an "Associate Member" (ie someone who is either not yet 18, or has not yet given name and address, or who is an alias* of a full member, or simply who doesn't want to vote) would still have full rights to post on the forums, would still be able to use GAGB services (eg the phone message service), would still have their voices heard (except in elections), and would still very much be a valued member.


(*) I've said "alias", rather than "sock puppet" as there may be valid reasons why an individual would want to go under more than one name on the forum (moderators for example).

[Team Paradise]

Originally posted by seifer@Nov 8 2003, 11:32 PM
For the purposes of simplicity and fairness I think that a one IP, one ote rule should be applied, simply because it's easy to enforce and check if people have violated it

Not gonna work... Most folks have dymanic IP addresses allocated by their ISP, so the IP changes every time they dial-up (or get disconnected in the case of BTO Broadband).

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by marinor@Nov 8 2003, 10:11 PM
why should we need to vote on anything else,

An interesting question(and thank you for your trust in the committee&#33.

I can see times when, even if you trust the committee to get on with things, you still need a vote:

1) I'm sure you'd all like to express your opinion on who should be chairman
2) if the whole committee, en-bloc, should stand down, what would you do?
3) Some thing important / contentious will come up, sometime, and will need a vote.

In those cases, we just need to define who may vote, how we're gonna do it etc.

Not to mention that other members might like to feel that GAGB is being run democratically!


Paul Blitz

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by seifer@Nov 8 2003, 11:32 PM
Another thing that needs to be looked at (sorry for going off topic a bit) is the fact that you can see who's in the lead and influence the votes of others.

That aspect DID worry me and a few others: personally, I feel that if you are going to have a secret vote, it has to stay secret until the vote is announced.

I also like the idea of some sort of "visibility" of voting, but with a certain amount of "secrecy": one simple way is to make all voters give a "secret word". At the end of the election, and before the final result is announced, the returning officers lists (i) the names of those who voted; (ii) lists the "secret words" against who the votes were for. That way, everyone can be sure not only who voted, but that their vote went to the right candidate!


Paul Blitz

[Bill D (wwh)]

I like Teasel's suggestion of 'one active adult geocacher, one vote', and membership cards posted to a named individual. I don't want to publish my full name and address on the web, but I'm quite happy to let the committee have the information. Indeed, I feel that the committee should have that information - I don't like the idea of an association with anonymous voting members (even though that's effectively what we have at the moment).

Edit: changed to 'anonymous voting members'

[MCL]

I strongly disagree with the exclusion of young people and children from the right to vote. Sure, there must be an age I suppose where a line is drawn but I reckon it should be more like 10 not 18.

I would say that we could take the lead of the law of the land, where it says that persons under the age of 10 are not to be held responsible for their actions. This means that persons over the age of 10 are deemed in law to be able to be held responsible. (classic case: The Jamie Bulger murder) If the law says they can, then I think we can take their lead and say that anyone over the age of 10 who has their own account is a voting member, and capable of holding a valid and responsible opinion.

What possible reason could we have for deliberately blocking the voting of someone who is, say 14 years old?

I think the best solution is still one account, one vote, but we have to find a way of identifying which accounts are sockpuppet accounts and deleting them. In my book there is never an excuse for a sockpuppet. Not even moderators should have them. But thats my opinion, and I have always held it, even while I was a moderator in another forum.

However, this is not a showstopper, and if moderators have to have a sockpuppet account for moderating, then at least it will be labelled "moderator" so everyone will know.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I too feel that to set a age limit of 18 is wrong. As shown by Michael Blitz, teenagers can present adult views. I feel a age limit of 12, would be sufficient, with one proviso, members aged between 12-16yrs old have to get parental permission, provided by one of the parents sending a email to the committee,which provides a contact phone no which can be used if it is felt necessary. Phone no to be deleted from records once membership is granted. This measure I feel is necessary for the protection of both the child and the members of the committee, who represent this association. On the issue of voteing it should be one vote one membership, with teams having the choice of regstering, as individuals or as a team, but not both.Dave Palmer

[NattyBooshka]

Regardless of age limits... we feel one member one vote is the only acceptable way forward. We feel that other organisations such as the RA, refered to elsewhere, would not limit membership to one per household... and members of a household can hold differing views on subjects... we would not like to see a situation where we have to agree between us who to vote for.

[Paul G0TLG]

On reflection, I believe that my earlier post about votes only for adult geocachers was wrong: Good ideas aren't the sole province of the over 18s.

Instead, I fullly support the views of Mancunian two posts up.

Paul

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by MCL@Nov 10 2003, 01:42 AM
In my book there is never an excuse for a sockpuppet. Not even moderators should have them. But thats my opinion, and I have always held it, even while I was a moderator in another forum.

I thought that there was something I'd missed somewhere here about this ...MCL again hits the nail on the head as to the root of some of the problems.

I can't understand this ... Moderators setting up "sock puppet" accounts with some folks in the know and others guessing. Always seemed odd to me and I'm glad to see that the committee here are posting under their own names ... wven if they post under the Committee we still know who they are! I was disturbed when Moss set up the sock puppet DA here ... that was really bad form and did nothing but inflame an already delicate situation.

My belief is that anyone caught in possesion of a sock puppet should have posting priviliges taken away from them ... but I now digress!

[Teasel]

Only reason I suggested 18 is that I don't know the law well enough to know whether under-18s would be excluded from holding a committee post in a body of people calling itself an "Association". We have to draw the line somewhere and 18 seemed a safe number to hide behind!

I'd be happy to see minors being voting members, though as Mancunian points out, we may need extra safeguards. Problem is that if the committee hold eg Paul's personal details ('cos he's a full member) and know that eg Michael is a member (cos Paul vouched for him as Mancunian suggests), then we also know Michael's personal details. Many (most) teenaged cachers will be children of adult cachers, I expect.

Can I just be pedantic for a sec (yep, I know it's against the rules, sorry&#33 and clarify that the people saying "one member, one vote" are meaning "one geocaching person who falls within any age constraints, one vote"? Membership of GAGB, GC.com, Navicache etc is trivially easy to come by, even anonymously and even in multiple doses. What we're trying to define here is what qualifies for voting membership of GAGB, whether and how we ask for proof of entitlement to vote, and whether and how we record who our members are.

[marinor]

Originally posted by paul.blitz+Nov 9 2003, 08:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Nov 9 2003, 08:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--marinor@Nov 8 2003, 10:11 PM
why should we need to vote on anything else,

An interesting question(and thank you for your trust in the committee&#33.

I can see times when, even if you trust the committee to get on with things, you still need a vote:

1) I&#39;m sure you&#39;d all like to express your opinion on who should be chairman
2) if the whole committee, en-bloc, should stand down, what would you do?
3) Some thing important / contentious will come up, sometime, and will need a vote.

In those cases, we just need to define who may vote, how we&#39;re gonna do it etc.

Not to mention that other members might like to feel that GAGB is being run democratically&#33;


Paul Blitz[/b][/quote]
I like to look at things in perspective..

if the committee screw up how will it affect me?
financially..nope
quality of life..nope
any way at all..nope

so at the end of the day, all I have is thanks for the people who can find the time, and have the inclination to help the rest of us in furthering our sport.

as for the possibility of future votes.. I bow to your reasoning Paul and have my own thought to put forward.
with sock puppets etc a possibility/probability, why not give one vote to each member that has a minimum number of caches found
(say 10 cos that includes me, haven&#39;t found much time since I got home on leave, still trying to complete my wife&#39;s DIY lists)

surely anyone that sets up an account and then logs 10 finds just to play at sock puppet deserves an extra vote

stay safe

Bill

[MCL]

Originally posted by Mancunian@Nov 10 2003, 09:34 AM
As shown by Michael Blitz, teenagers can present adult views....

Hmm yerrrs, and this is one of the things that worries me.... Why should we expect teenagers to hold adult views? Why can&#39;t they hold teenager&#39;s views? What makes an adult view valid, but a teenager&#39;s one not-valid?

Why does the association have to only have adult views represented, when we could have a wonderful mix of adult, teenager, and children&#39;s views.

Other than that issue, I agree with the rest of Mancunian&#39;s argument, which is not surprising really, as he was kinda agreeing with me in the first place&#33;

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by marinor@Nov 10 2003, 10:05 PM
<snip>....have my own thought to put forward.
with sock puppets etc a possibility/probability, why not give one vote to each member that has a minimum number of caches found
(say 10 cos that includes me, haven&#39;t found much time since I got home on leave, still trying to complete my wife&#39;s DIY lists)

surely anyone that sets up an account and then logs 10 finds just to play at sock puppet deserves an extra vote
</snip>

<semi-serious sugestion>
How about you get a vote if you have placed a cache? After all GAGB is negotiating about cache placement and who are the interested parties in this but cache placers
</semi-serious sugestion>

Chris

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by Teasel@Nov 10 2003, 05:26 PM
Only reason I suggested 18 is that I don&#39;t know the law well enough to know whether under-18s would be excluded from holding a committee post in a body of people calling itself an "Association".

Unless we become a registered charity or a limited company, we can make our own rules, as far as membership age and voting age is concerned.

Many years ago I belonged to the local ice-skating club, which had two grades of membership: "Skating" member (adults and children...no minimum age, although there was a minimum competence level) and "non-skating" member (basically, the parents of skating children). Any member over18 (of either grade) could stand for committee, although no more than three NS members could be on committee at a time. All members had a vote, right down to the youngest, which in theory could be as young as six or less.

I&#39;m not saying that to mirror this would be desirable for GAGB, just that it&#39;s legal&#33;

Paul

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Nov 11 2003, 08:17 AM

<Semi-serious suggestion>
How about you get a vote if you have placed a cache? After all GAGB is negotiating about cache placement and who are the interested parties in this but cache placers
</Semi-serious suggestion>

Chris

The only problem with that is, getting permission to place a cache in the first place. I&#39;ve just spent 6 months tracking down the right person to ask for permission to place a cache, just awaiting for a answer now. That after numerous letters, phone calls and emails, to which I either received no reply or was informed I wasn&#39;t speaking to the right person, and they had no idea who was. Sorry to be so serious, but 6 months trying can be frustrating. In the end I posted out the geocache introduction document to the General Manager of the company which owns the site, and which is a SSSI, and final reached their land management officer. Who was very impressed with the CITO aspect of geocaching. Future news about the geocache introduction document, after several kind offers, it will be available from G:UK.COM, in the near future. Mark the Cat is very kindly working on it, before making it available( ie improving it a bit ), should be up soon after he&#39;s finished the CIN Fox Hunt. Dave Palmer.

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by Mancunian@Nov 11 2003, 08:42 AM
The only problem with that is, getting permission to place a cache in the first place. <snip>

So did you get permission in the end ?

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Permission is still pending, the Land management officer for the company involved only started to deal with my request on the 6th, after returning from leave. So fingers crossed, I should receive a reply within the next few days, if its a yes and there is no problems to iron out, the cache will be placed within 24hrs of permission, being received. The box is all ready waiting to go out. A second box is going out next week for a cache I&#39;ve adopted, and I&#39;m currently working on a third one. Got to keep busy . Dave Palmer. So keep a eye out for caches in Clwyd .

[seifer]

If I&#39;m brutally honest, then voting on the GAGB elections isn&#39;t really that high on my priorities list, yes it would be nice to vote, but I&#39;m really not that fussed&#33;

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by seifer@Nov 11 2003, 11:28 PM
If I&#39;m brutally honest, then voting on the GAGB elections isn&#39;t really that high on my priorities list, yes it would be nice to vote, but I&#39;m really not that fussed&#33;

Fair point Mike, but if we go with no "Second person on one IP" or "Under 18" voting (or any other category you fit into&#33 just because you don&#39;t mind, we automatically impose that on everyone else who fits that category.

It&#39;s important our committee get this right, so it&#39;s worth the time they&#39;re taking in thinking about it, and hopefully it&#39;s worth the time the rest of us are taking in telling our committee what we think&#33;

Paul

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 12 2003, 08:53 AM
but if we go with no "Second person on one IP" or ...

There are loads of folks out there with dynamically assigned IP addresses (AOL still do that) - I&#39;d suggest that that plan was abandoned.

[The Cuthberts]

Originally posted by Team Paradise+Nov 9 2003, 08:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Team Paradise @ Nov 9 2003, 08:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--seifer@Nov 8 2003, 11:32 PM
For the purposes of simplicity and fairness I think that a one IP, one ote rule should be applied, simply because it&#39;s easy to enforce and check if people have violated it

[/b][/quote]
And on the other hand, I know of two other caching teams that share the same fixed IP address from our company firewall so we would be a tad muted....... not that we browse the web from work at all

Andy

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by Paul G0TLG@Nov 11 2003, 08:41 AM
Unless we become a registered charity or a limited company, we can make our own rules, as far as membership age and voting age is concerned.

Many years ago I belonged to the local ice-skating club, which had two grades of membership: "Skating" member (adults and children...no minimum age, although there was a minimum competence level) and "non-skating" member (basically, the parents of skating children). Any member over18 (of either grade) could stand for committee, although no more than three NS members could be on committee at a time. All members had a vote, right down to the youngest, which in theory could be as young as six or less.

Thanks for that Paul: VERY useful information&#33;


Paul