GAGB forums

[Alan White]

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.

[frosty68]

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.

[Alan White]

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.

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.

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.

[Predictable Bob]

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

[DrDick&Vick]

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?

[border caz]

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.