Thanks Thanks:  32
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 61

Thread: GAGB forums

  1. #1
    Alan White Guest

    Default GAGB forums

    I understand from elsewhere that GAGB is proposing removing forum access from those who aren't GAGB members. As a person who had some influence in the GAGB hosting a discussion forum for all GB cachers I'm surprised at this proposal.

    The service was provided at a time when relations between GB cachers and Groundspeak were at an all-time low and the point was to provide a national forum where discussions could take place without being censored by Groundspeak. It would be a great shame for GB cachers if the service were removed.

    Removal would also be unhelpful to GAGB, which is already accused of being an unrepresentative organisation managed by a handful of cachers. The proposal would reinforce this belief.

    From the post on Groundspeak it seems to me that the proposal is based on technical grounds rather than anything else, and that's not a good reason.

    I understand that GAGB is polling its members to see if the service should remain: non-members cannot vote. In other words, only those unaffected by the proposal may vote; those affected, who would then be denied a voice, cannot.

    It would be helpful if GAGB would say if they believe that it's right that non-members should be denied a GB-specific forum and, if so, what has changed since the service was introduced as clearly they believed it to be right at that time.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Halifax, uk
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    From the post on Groundspeak it seems to me that the proposal is based on technical grounds rather than anything else, and that's not a good reason.
    I suspect that people finding out that although they have been active forum members/contributors for some time, they aren't eligible to vote in GAGB elections is also a factor, and one I find more important as technical issues cab be resolved behind the scenes, being counter-intuitive is a much harder hurdle to jump. Bear in mind that although some understand the distinction between being a forum member and a GAGB member, a sizeable number will not, and so won't recognise some posts/posters dislike/distrust/dis(insert verb of choice here) of what the GAGB (whos forums they're posting on) represent.
    I can think of no other group that I belong to that insists upon 2 separate logins for full access.

    Perhaps there was a need for a place for cachers to communicate without being under the "official" banner of groundspeak, I have absolutely no idea if you, or others feel such a situation still exists, though, perhaps, if you feel it does may I suggest there are plenty of free forum software packages, free hosting exists, and, for a couple of quid you could register "UK Independent Geocachers" or similar, so the vast majority, with neither knowledge nor care for the politics behind this debate, could have their lives just a tiny bit less complicated.

  3. #3
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    I can think of no other group that I belong to that insists upon 2 separate logins for full access.
    I agree that sounds strange, but it is nevertheless a technical issue and therefore should not be the reason for removing the only national, neutral caching forum which GB cachers have.

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    Perhaps there was a need for a place for cachers to communicate without being under the "official" banner of groundspeak, I have absolutely no idea if you, or others feel such a situation still exists,
    It did exist; it has always existed; it will always exist. There are matters affecting GB cachers which are best discussed on a platform which is not owned or managed by listing sites.

    Quote Originally Posted by frosty68 View Post
    may I suggest there are plenty of free forum software packages
    Ah, the "if you don't like it go elsewhere" argument. It's rarely productive, and fragmentation of the GB caching community wouldn't help cachers and would simply demonstrate that GAGB really isn't representative of GB cachers.

  4. Default



    As a comparitive newbie to Geocaching and the GAGB I find it rather odd that people have an expectation that the GAGB should fund a forum for non members to air their views !

    I've no interest in past politics (and precious little in the current ones either) but the choice seems obvious to me - either join the GAGB (and change it from the inside if it's not to your liking) or do your own thing elsewhere







    Life is too important to take seriously !

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    One phrase often pops up: The GAGB does not represent all cachers in the UK.

    but then we have "All cachers in the UK should be allowed access and to post in the GAGB forums"
    and the only national, neutral caching forum which GB cachers have.


    The GAGB website and forums survives on donations from it's membership, tell me why should they have to fund it for all the rest?
    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 27th March 2012 at 12:37 PM.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    563

    Default

    I really don't understand why there is so much rumpus over this issue.

    When I joined the forum I automatically joined GAGB as well - I thought it a little strange that I had to join twice, but don't understand why anyone who wants to post on the forum doesn't join - it's not as if they have to pay a membership fee or anything.

    It doesn't make sense for people to be able to make use of the GAGB forum if they are not GAGB members.

    Can anyone think of any other association that provides a forum for use by non-members?

    Non-members are saying it's not fair that they can't vote on the issue - well why don't they join then they could! If they can't even be bothered to tap a few computer keys to join up then why on earth should they be given the right to vote.

    Some say they won't join the GAGB because it only represents a minority of cachers - well of course it will if everybody thinks like that.
    GAGB Member since 2009
    UK Mega West Mids Committee - Treasurer 2011 - 2013
    GAGB Committee - Treasurer 2016 -

  7. #7
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    I've tried to find the original discussions on the issue but failed on here (forums changes?) and on Groundspeak (search limited to previous year) but as I recall it was GAGB which offered to provide the platform which we now enjoy. In other words, no-one is "demanding" that GAGB provide a forum for non-members but I for one am very grateful that it does.

    Aside from the benefit of a national, neutral forum, there's an important reason why GAGB should have a non-members forum. GAGB makes rules and agreements which it claims apply to all GB cachers whether or not they're members of GAGB. So long as it does this then GAGB must allow non-members to discuss those rules and agreements.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    The GAGB do not make guidlines that apply to all cachers in the UK, it is the Groundspeak reviewers that actually apply these guidelines to all UK cachers. Their choice but they are not required to do so by the GAGB.

    The aggrements are held in a database that can be viewed by all, not just members.
    The Landowner Agreements are there to safe cache hiders from aproaching landowners all the time, they are not restrictive agreements mor like helpful.

    I would suggest that you turn the rule 'flame' off as it is getting very boring.
    Once again I remember why I resigned
    Last edited by DrDick&Vick; 27th March 2012 at 02:51 PM.

  9. #9
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    The GAGB do not make guidlines that apply to all cachers in the UK
    Indeed it doesn't - it just claims that it does. It is of course true that the rules can only be enforced by the listing sites.

    There have been many occasions when GAGB has stated that it believes its rules and agreements apply to all cachers. If GAGB will publicly state that its rules and agreements apply only to its members then I'll withdraw my opposition to the removal of the non-members forum as I'll no longer have an interest in the activities of GAGB.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    There it is again that RULE word!
    You really can get your words and meanings mixed up at times. They are GUIDELINES and not rules. Look them up in the dictionary if you really have trouble understanding their meanings.
    If the rest of the caching community do not want to make use of the agreements that have been negotiated and listed in the GLAD then I am sure that they are quite free to approach each and every landowner every time they wish to hide a cache.

  11. #11
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    They are GUIDELINES and not rules
    Oh, please, we've been round this discussion many times over the years: what used to be guidelines are now rules. Try getting a cache published on a listing site where that site (which means Groundspeak as the others are less bureaucratic and not at all symbiotic) uses GAGB's rules.

    "the GAGB guidelines are one of the most important 'tools' I use when reviewing caches."
    A reviewer, 20 Jan 2009

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    as I have said, if the reviewers decide to use the guidelines as their rules that is their choice, they were/are written as guidelines. Take it up with Groundspeak and the reviewers.

  13. #13
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrDick&Vick View Post
    as I have said, if the reviewers decide to use the guidelines as their rules that is their choice, they were/are written as guidelines. Take it up with Groundspeak and the reviewers.
    Sigh. We've been around this argument so many times that I'm not sure I can be bothered. However, for the sake of completeness, here are a few quotes:
    "No cache should be placed in or on a dry stone wall."
    "should not be placed" [multiple occurences]
    "Caches should not be buried."
    There is no way that any of these can be considered as anything other than rules.

    As an aside, just to show the foolishness of many of these rules, I was amused by this:
    "Physical caches or physical cache stages should not be placed within the boundary of Network Rail railway stations, associated car parks, footbridges or immediately adjacent public spaces."
    So a cache cannot be placed in a park which is next to a railway station?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,538

    Default

    I think that you will find that the Guidelines are being re-written at this time, why not wait and see what comes out of the re-write.
    :wacko:

  15. #15

    Default

    Forgive me if I am wrong here but

    SHOULD NOT is a guideline

    MUST NOT is a rule.

    I haven't seen the GAGB saying MUST NOT in anything that I have read.

Posting Permissions

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