Thanks Thanks:  6

View Poll Results: Who should host the rules and guidelines

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • The GAGB hold them and list them

    18 78.26%
  • The GAGB take them down and allow each listing site to host their own

    5 21.74%
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Guidelines rules

  1. #1
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default Guidelines rules

    Should the GAGB list guidelines and negotiate any more national arrangements or would it be better for groundspeak to host their own rules so that people have the option to discuss them on the listing site that uses them.

    Option A: the GAGB continue to hold and negotiate rules

    Option B: the GAGB no longer holds them and makes the listing site host their own.

  2. #2
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    May I suggest that this isn't an either/or question? Listing sites will, quite rightly, usually have their own requirements for listing a cache, regardless of whether GAGB has its own guidelines.

    Conversely, GAGB has no power to require listing sites to use GAGB guidelines.

    So perhaps the question is really "Should GAGB produce guidelines/recommendations/best practice?"

    I sense that there's an agenda behind the question which I regret I'm not quite seeing...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Much as I would like to I cannot vote on this proposition. GAGB claim not to have any RULES so the question doesn't arise.

    I am one of those of the opinion that GAGB should hold a Best Practice guide for caching in the UK and that individual listing sites are free to use the guide to create rules or guidelines (depending on each site's policy) for their own members.

    It does irk me that at least one listing site continues to maintain they have Guidelines when there is so little flexibility most of the time that they are de facto Rules. But that's a discussion topic for each individual site and not in this poll. I only mention it because it influences my thinking on the poll.

  4. #4
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    My view in this is that the gagb should cease to list guidelines because for too long one listing site has hidden behind them and used them as fixed rules, whilst being able to pass the blame onto the gagb.

    A detailed best practice guide can be written which clearly states that it should not be used by reviewers as a set of rules. This will educate and Inform and allow all listing sites the opportunity to debate their rules without passing the blame.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    571

    Default

    Can't vote either way on this as GAGB does not have rules.

    It has guidelines - and I would prefer our UK Reviewers for Geocaching.com to use these GUIDELINES than for Geocaching.com to invent their own which would be based on caching practice in the USofA.
    GAGB Member since 2009
    UK Mega West Mids Committee - Treasurer 2011 - 2013
    GAGB Committee - Treasurer 2016 -

  6. #6
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by border caz View Post
    Can't vote either way on this as GAGB does not have rules.

    It has guidelines - and I would prefer our UK Reviewers for Geocaching.com to use these GUIDELINES than for Geocaching.com to invent their own which would be based on caching practice in the USofA.
    I've obviously not explained myself properly.

    The gagb list guidelines which are taken by groundspeak reviewers to be rules. The end result Is that the gagb write the rules for groundspeak. People who are not happy get told that there's nothing the reviewers can do, speak to gagb. Then the gagb say that they're just guidelines . Catch 22.

    It is likely that non members will be unable to use the gagb forums soon. A move i think is sensible . This will generate more ill feeling because non members will be caught in a trap of the reviewers making.

    A solution could be, take down the guidelines and write a best practice guide that specifically states it should not be used as a set of rules.
    Then an open discussion can take place on the groundspeak forum regarding what rules to use. This worked with the urban rule, which should've been handled by groundspeak reviewers as I believe they received the request, or by a group with representatives from each listing site.

    Otherwise the gagb will continue to be berated regarding the rules....regardless of how many times someone corrects them and says guidelines.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    I've obviously not explained myself properly....

    In all the months that this argument about Rules<>Guidelines has been going on, that's the most concise and sensible explaination of the situation/problem I've seen !

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    I've obviously not explained myself properly.
    It is likely that non members will be unable to use the gagb forums soon. A move i think is sensible . This will generate more ill feeling because non members will be caught in a trap of the reviewers making.
    Hang on a minute...

    What?

    You're implying that if the GAGB Committee decide to make the GAGB forum "GAGB members only" non-members will be in some sort of reviewers' "trap"... what trap? If non-members choose to remain as non-members there are still plenty of places they can discuss/argue/mutter about geocaching to express their views.

  9. #9
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrs Blorenge View Post
    Hang on a minute...

    What?

    You're implying that if the GAGB Committee decide to make the GAGB forum "GAGB members only" non-members will be in some sort of reviewers' "trap"... what trap? If non-members choose to remain as non-members there are still plenty of places they can discuss/argue/mutter about geocaching to express their views.
    The trap I tried to explain in the rest of that post.

    The GAGB write a list of guidelines intending it to be A LIST OF GUIDELINES but the reviewers read it as A LIST OR RULES. Therefore the guidelines that the GAGB write are, to all intents and purposes, a set of rules used by groundspeak. If anyone who is not a member of the GAGB complains they are pretty much told that there is nothing that can be done because those are the local rules set by the GAGB. When that person speaks to the GAGB they are told that "it's only a set of guidelines" I think that pretty much makes them trapped. Very soon they wont even be able to discuss the guidelines if they choose to not be a member here. They have the right to not be a member here but still discuss the RULES that cover them. Those rules are now and will always be set by groundspeak.
    I may not disagree with a single rule neither may anyone else, but they should have the right to question them, at the moment they do not.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    The trap I tried to explain in the rest of that post.

    The GAGB write a list of guidelines intending it to be A LIST OF GUIDELINES but the reviewers read it as A LIST OR RULES. Therefore the guidelines that the GAGB write are, to all intents and purposes, a set of rules used by groundspeak. If anyone who is not a member of the GAGB complains they are pretty much told that there is nothing that can be done because those are the local rules set by the GAGB. When that person speaks to the GAGB they are told that "it's only a set of guidelines" I think that pretty much makes them trapped. Very soon they wont even be able to discuss the guidelines if they choose to not be a member here. They have the right to not be a member here but still discuss the RULES that cover them. Those rules are now and will always be set by groundspeak.
    I may not disagree with a single rule neither may anyone else, but they should have the right to question them, at the moment they do not.
    OK... I thought you were saying that "the trap" was being unable to use the GAGB forum and they'd be blaming the reviewers for that.

    Any geocacher has the right to question the Guidelines/Rules used by Groundspeak's reviewers but they can do that in the Geocaching.com forums as well as in this forum. In fact, if they're questioning a Groundspeak reviewer's interpretation of a Guideline/Rule then I would suggest that the Groundspeak forum would be the more appropriate place to do so.
    Alternatively, if a cacher feels that his cache is being knocked back by any Guideline/Rule and he feels that his circumstances require special/different consideration then he can make an appeal to Groundspeak to have it considered at the lackey level.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    So non members will be losing all access to the GAGB forums? Well that's just not cricket is it.

    (speaking of the groundspeak forum .. an off topic post like this would get the thread locked up sharpish which is kind of annoying if you have a small question about the on going discussion and also the reason I tend not to use them much any more).

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trampyjoe View Post
    So non members will be losing all access to the GAGB forums? Well that's just not cricket is it.
    Well you can vote on it here:

    http://gagb.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4579

    but it seems to be a bit of a landslide.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martybartfast View Post
    Well you can vote on it here:

    http://gagb.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=4579

    but it seems to be a bit of a landslide.
    Well, no there is a 'read only' clause in that vote (which I what I voted for) but it was being discussed as if all access will be gone (or that's how I read it).

  14. #14
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobbynobbs View Post
    They have the right to not be a member here but still discuss the RULES that cover them
    For me this is the key point. While it's true that GAGB used to make the rules for Groundspeak I see that now UK reviewers are able to make their own additions to Groundspeak's rules (see the parallel thread on Groundspeak).

    Nevertheless, GAGB continues to argue that its rules and agreements apply to all cachers not just GAGB members. If this principle is accepted then non-members have the right to discuss those rules and therefore need access to this forum. Conversely, if GAGB will say that its rules and agreements apply only to its members then non-members don't need to discuss them here.

    The current proposal is saying: "our rules apply to all cachers but only members are allowed to discuss them". That cannot be just.

Posting Permissions

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