Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 132

Thread: Conflicts of Interest

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arborfield
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Chris and Maria's nominations raise an interesting point, which I know the founder members discussed after the problems when we were initially forming GAGB. The discussions resulted in us and Tim and June resigning as UK Admins on GC.com, and Moss T taking a step back from work with GAGB to remain a UK admin partly to avoid accusations of a conflict of interest.

    We perhaps should consider whether it should continue to be applied with nominations for the chairman and for any committee members. Should they be independant of other geocaching sites and/or organisations?

    Looking at the list, Moss T and DodgyDaveD are GC.com admins, so a conflict of interest could be argued there. Same is true of the nominations of TheCat and Teasel with regards to GC:UK.

    Richard

  2. #2
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    I think the only problem arises when we are dealing with cache APPROVERS rather than any other function. The forums here on GAGB are being run perfectly well by members of the self appoinetd ad-hoc committee.

    Likewise, Mark & Ian (Cat & Teasel) are one step removed from the approval process as G:UK is only providing a "support" service to UK caching.

    Moss T & DaveD (has he been "outed" now ) are continuing to do an excellent approval job and although I was one of those concerned about approvers setting THEMSELVES up as committee members, I have absolutely no problem with them being ELECTED.

    So as far as I'm concerned, let anybody be nominated and if the membership want them, let them be elected.

    Just my two penn'orth.

  3. #3
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Yeah what Hornet said

    As long as we know who people are where is the conflict of interest? If people vote for moderators to be on't comittee that's OK if that is what they want.

    If both mods are voted on then there may be some conflict, with getting approval, If the cache doesn't meet GAGB guidelines but is OK as far as GC.com then perhaps another non GAGB mod might be needed. But this presupposes the GAGB guidelines are vastly different from GC.COM as that is not the case at the moment lets not worry about it till it becomes an issue. The issue could easily be resolved by asking a non UK moderator to look at any caches that may fall in to this problem.

    I can't see any senario at the moment where a conflict of interest could happen by being involved with GC:UK. Can anyone enlighten me? :unsure:

    If we carry on along this route the only people we will be able to elect are people who have never ever done anything for the caching community

    Chris

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Arborfield
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by Chris n Maria@Jul 23 2003, 05:16 PM
    I can't see any senario at the moment where a conflict of interest could happen by being involved with GC:UK. Can anyone enlighten me? :unsure:


    The main issues I would see that could be a problem for some people is the same as if all the UK admins are on the committee. GC:UK has a relationship with Groundspeak by virtue of being a UK reseller of Geocaching merchandise, and also by making use of Groundspeak data to provide their files. Whilst this may be seen as an advantage, at the same time an accusation that was levelled at the founders of GAGB when we said we wanted it to be for all UK geocachers, was that because we were closely associated with GC.com we couldn't be fair. Having said that, the self same relationship will be seen as an advantage when looking at it from a different angle.

    If we carry on along this route the only people we will be able to elect are people who have never ever done anything for the caching community
    Indeed, there are only a limited number of people who would be willing to put themselves forward, and they are more than likely to be people who have volunteered or done things for geocaching in the past.

    I just felt that since the conflicts of interest were highlighted so vociferously in the past, that we should explore them again before we get to the point of electing a committee. I would hate for the new committee to come into existence, and then have to deal with a flame war being accused of conflicts of interest as we did before.

    Regards,

    Richard

  5. #5
    TheCat Guest

    Default

    Just one point about conflict of intrest. In the running of GC:UK I have no way of deciding what caches are or are not aproved in the UK. I feel that this might of been the reason for some of the unplesentness in the past. I have no problem with anyone standing for election. We should just leave it to the members to decide. Just my opinion.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    If there are any GAGB members who consider (rightly or wrongly) that there is a conflict of interest with an individual person getting elected then we have a problem - bad feelings set in and we won't all be pulling in the same direction with this association. It is already plainly clear that members feel quite strongly about this.

    The moderators/cache approvers of GC.COM and those directly involved with the development of G:UK should consider carefully whether getting themselves elected onto the GAGB comittee is a good thing for the association as a whole before agreeing to stand. I can see GAGB members leaving in both instances, and we need a solid membership to take things forward.

    Besides which, I would question whether either the GC approvers or the G:UK developers have the necessary time to make a good job of steering the association in its infancy days. I'm sure something would end up not getting the attention it requires.
    Rich

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Just to put my point over.. and those that know me will know I do not say much in public.

    I Am a founder member of GAGB.. It, no matter what anyone says or does.. will be a necessesity to caching in the future.. If you don't belive me.. look at the situation in US, Cache licences!!! .. or the do as we say or don't do in NZ, just two examples.

    To try and preempt this situation GAGB was formed.. and for those who thought it was months in the machinery.. wrong.

    I and the other founder members took a slating .. for what.. trying to make the hobby more accesible and easier to the masses.

    I came back as admin for one reason and one only.. to maintain the inroads made in the approving of caches perculiar to UK.

    I have been nominated for committee, I will not accept.. I do not actually approve caches on a great scale.. DD does that.. I do moderate the GC.com forum though.

    Just take it from me.. GAGB is needed.. it has a totally different area of concern than GC:UK.

    And I would hope that those who have signed up are here to promote cacheing in the uk as a sport/hobby and not to earn browny point for one side or another..

    Nuff said.
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  8. #8
    Paul G0TLG Guest

    Default

    As I've said before, I have quite a bit of experience of being on committees of various orgs (this is not a hint...I don't wish to be nominated )...

    My experience leads me to believe that the fewer rules we have about who can be on committee, the better.

    In one club I belong to, one of the hardest working club members cannot be on committee, because of a rule stopping husbands and wives from serving together. Meanwhile, another member who does little for the organisation gets elected year after year, because no-one stands against him.

    Let 'em all stand...come one, come all. If we don't want 'em, we won't elect 'em.
    If we elect 'em, we deserve 'em!

    Paul

  9. #9
    TheCat Guest

    Default

    I can not agree more with you Paul. Moss Troopper re consider and stand for election.

  10. #10
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Besides which, I would question whether either the GC approvers or the G:UK developers have the necessary time to make a good job of steering the association in its infancy days.
    Everyone must juggle their available time between different persuits, be they running a Scout troop, helping in the parish church, looking after a child, running a website or a million other possibilities. Indeed, personally I'd be reluctant to give my vote to someone who's not active in something else!

    It's up to everyone standing for any post on any committee to decide for themselves whether they can commit sufficient time to that post to do the best job they can. It's also up to them to convince the electorate that they have their priorities straight and can fulfil the requirements of that post. To single out four people (*) with visible roles in geocaching and suggest they have less time available to commit than anyone else... well, I can't see the basis of your assumptions.



    (*) there's a rule against being pedantic, so no complaints about the logical impossibility of singling out four people! :P

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel@Jul 24 2003, 01:50 PM
    To single out four people (*) with visible roles in geocaching and suggest they have less time available to commit than anyone else... well, I can't see the basis of your assumptions.
    I didn't suggest they had less time available. I actually said I would question whether they had the time available. Having the neccessary time is something anyone standing for election would have to convince me of before I voted for them.

    I certainly couldn't fit the work into my schedule regardless of how much I want to be involved, which is why I'm not standing.

    In essence, I think I am agreeing with you. Sorry if my initial post expressed it wrongly.
    Rich

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    117

    Default

    So after a couple of months of relative calm, up pops Moss Trooper to throw his cap back in the ring for committee membership. We are again in the position of having both the G:Com UK cache approvers standing for places on the committee of GAGB.

    This was one of the main things that caused disquiet and acrimony at the outset of GBGB. If we finish up with a situation where GAGB is chaired by Tim & June (no doubt in anyone's mind that they are right for the job and will be elected unopposed) and both UK cache approvers on the five person committee then we have a position where decisions made by the GAGB committee will pretty much automatically become policy for what can and can't be done by geocachers who wish to have their caches posted on the G.Com website.

    We already have a unilateral ban on glass containers OF ANY KIND, despite an overwhelming vote against such a blanket ban in the G.Com forum.

    After conciliatory moves in the right direction, GAGB seems now to be teetering towards what many had feared.

    Being on the committee of GAGB and being a UK G.Com cache approver is clearly a huge conflict of interest and should not be allowed under any future constitution to be agreed.

    I would like to nominate Icenians for committee. Only by having them on the committee can we be sure that the interests of those ordinary geocachers who just want to be left alone to find and hide caches are looked after.
    Muggle - One Voice - One Vote

  13. #13
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Muggle, I think you should stand for election yourself. You clearly are able to "talk the talk" of what one would expect from a committee type person. You also seem to know an awful lot about the ins and out of Geocaching.

    We do need diversity on this committee, but I'm not 100% sure about your suggestion of a conflict of interest statement re: GC.com approvers being on the committee. Both nominees seem to have a good handle on the needs of cachers and also (and this is the really important bit) seem, to myself at least, to be willing to take the "sport" forwards.

    I may have a unique voice on that one, I'm not always right!

    So anyway, Muggle, are you game? Of course, I would like to know more about you before I cast a vote in your direction, but I'm open to discussion.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    Now how do I answer the charges???

    Firstly.. I have been a cacher since march 2001 and UK admin of and on for 2 years. As one of the two who instigated GAGB I don't think I would be doing anything to harm it. I do not see any conflict of interests, on the contrary, if a decision is made by the committee with reference to GC.com.. would it not be better that a member of the GC.com UK Admin put forward the points raised to GC.com.

    Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

    Now to the point of popping up.. I t seems that you are the one who has popped up! You joined on 20th June, you have made one post.. that above.

    Omally said "You also seem to know an awful lot about the ins and out of Geocaching" which is fasinating as you don't even have a profile on GC.com or Navicache. Well a one under that name .. So can I please ask as I have explained my position you explain yours?

    I'm sure the rest of the members would love to hear it?
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  15. #15
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 30 2003, 08:30 PM
    Firstly.. I have been a cacher since march 2001 and UK admin of and on for 2 years. As one of the two who instigated GAGB I don't think I would be doing anything to harm it. I do not see any conflict of interests, on the contrary, if a decision is made by the committee with reference to GC.com.. would it not be better that a member of the GC.com UK Admin put forward the points raised to GC.com.

    Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.

    I see that a new members opion is worth less than a old hand.

    The guidelines of the HCC are guidelines for the HCC. Why should this now override the guidelines of GC.com just because you say so. I think that is exactly the point Muggle was making.

    As to you not harming the GAGB, I think Muggle was more concerned at you harming the game for GC.Com players that don't want to be organised by the GAGB.

    Caches on the GC.com site should be approved by the guidelines for GC.com NOT HCC. :angry:

  16. #16
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Muggle@Jul 30 2003, 06:20 PM


    I would like to nominate Icenians for committee.
    I forgot to mention (please forgive the lapse and hence the additional post):

    This is frankly laughable.
    To nominate someone who has archived all their caches from GC.com, as well as all logs of other cachers on those caches (which is the act of someone simply too childish to be considered for a position on a committee) is surely a waste of time?
    I don't wish to make deliberately contentious posts, but this must be considered by all voters when deciding who should represent them.
    Remember, Geocaching is a big thing, bigger than any one of us. The committee will be representing a small section of us cachers to the world at large (or at least our tiny part of it).
    We need serious representation.

  17. #17
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Omally+Jul 30 2003, 08:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omally @ Jul 30 2003, 08:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Muggle@Jul 30 2003, 06:20 PM


    I would like to nominate Icenians for committee.
    I forgot to mention (please forgive the lapse and hence the additional post):

    This is frankly laughable.
    To nominate someone who has archived all their caches from GC.com, as well as all logs of other cachers on those caches (which is the act of someone simply too childish to be considered for a position on a committee) is surely a waste of time?
    I don&#39;t wish to make deliberately contentious posts, but this must be considered by all voters when deciding who should represent them.
    Remember, Geocaching is a big thing, bigger than any one of us. The committee will be representing a small section of us cachers to the world at large (or at least our tiny part of it).
    We need serious representation. [/b][/quote]
    Now this is my biggest issue with the way GAGB is going. GC.Com is not the only geocaching site. My caches are still in place, apart from one that was trashed, and are logged on navicache.

    GAGB is not interested in promoting geocaching in the UK but geocaching.com.

    When you suggest serious representation you really mean representation that agrees with you.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Icenians

    The GAGB is a democracy, if the members feel that Moss Trooper should not be a committee member, then he will not be voted in.

    Many others can see that getting HCC to agree sensible guidelines was a major achievement, especially when they are so close to those guidelines already in use in the UK. The only additions have been minor, like not putting your cache in a poly bag, and parking responsibly. If the GAGB manage to get other major land owners to agree to those guidelines rather than imposing their own, stricter rules, we will have achieved the holy grail of geocaching. The important thing is, we need to be able to approach land owners and say "We have some guidelines already, which will protect your land".

    Now the members can read both sides of the story.

    Quite why you joined the GAGB, I&#39;m not sure, you caused so much trouble with your anti-GAGB posts on the geocaching.com forums that the entire UK admin for Geocaching.com resigned. We do not want a repetition of that trouble here. Please do not make inflammatory posts again.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  19. #19
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 30 2003, 09:42 PM
    Icenians

    The GAGB is a democracy, if the members feel that Moss Trooper should not be a committee member, then he will not be voted in.

    Many others can see that getting HCC to agree sensible guidelines was a major achievement, especially when they are so close to those guidelines already in use in the UK. The only additions have been minor, like not putting your cache in a poly bag, and parking responsibly. If the GAGB manage to get other major land owners to agree to those guidelines rather than imposing their own, stricter rules, we will have achieved the holy grail of geocaching. The important thing is, we need to be able to approach land owners and say "We have some guidelines already, which will protect your land".

    Now the members can read both sides of the story.

    Quite why you joined the GAGB, I&#39;m not sure, you caused so much trouble with your anti-GAGB posts on the geocaching.com forums that the entire UK admin for Geocaching.com resigned. We do not want a repetition of that trouble here. Please do not make inflammatory posts again.
    Now hold on a minute.

    I do not have a problem with guidelines nor that you have agreed them with HCC. I simply question that guidelines agreed with one landowner/manager being unilatrally adopted by the GC.com admin. This demonstrates a conflict of interest and I was only responding to someone else&#39;s post.

    If you want to have a go at someone over inflamatory posts, talk to O&#39;Mally&#33; No other person nominated for the committee has been attacked in such a way.

    I will try and make this very clear. I have not complained at ANYONE standing for any position.

  20. #20
    The Hornet Guest

    Default

    At the risk of possibly offending some people (that&#39;s really NOT my intention) I would like to say that I consider a couple of interesting points have been raised in previous postings.

    I know Icenians have some forthright views and have expressed them quite clearly in the past, much to the chagrin of some, they do raise what I consider an important point. GAGB was set up to represent the best interests of ALL UK geocachers. This must include those who prefer to use Navicache.COM and Geocachingworldwide.COM as well as the more popular Geocaching.COM. So to condemn someone who chooses not to use GC.COM is wrong in my book. Should I get elected to the committee I will try to represent users of the other sites as well as GC.COM

    As for Moss T & Eckington applying the HCC guidelines to all UK caches, that worries me as well. While much of what is set out on the Hampshire County Council site makes eminent sense I am concerned that we are being governed by a more restrictive set of rules than the rest of the geocaching world. I really don&#39;t remember us (GC.COM geocachers) being asked if that&#39;s what we wanted.

    With both approvers as potential committee members there could be questions asked as to whom we appeal should there be a dispute over the legitimacy of a cache. I personally would tend to favour a split of responsibilities.

    It has been suggested (in the previous thread about nominations) that committee candidates should submit a "manifesto" for the electorate to help them in their voting. Well I guess this outlines my thoughts. I suggest you bear this in mind when it comes to the voting.

    I truly hope no one has taken offence at my views but I feel honesty and openess are essential in the voting process for GAGB even if we don&#39;t get it from "professional politicians"

    .................................................. .was that my chances just flying out of the window??????

  21. #21
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 30 2003, 09:57 PM
    If you want to have a go at someone over inflamatory posts, talk to O&#39;Mally&#33; No other person nominated for the committee has been attacked in such a way.



    As I said, I was not trying to be deliberately contentious. I merely wished to highlight one very good reason for not voting for you. What happens if you get upset with Navicache? Will you do the same there? Now I&#39;m sure that is raking over old coals but it&#39;s still a valid point to be considered by anyone trying to decide who should represent them.

    Being democratic, we would need to see pros and cons for all nominees. There have been plenty of pros all round and a few cons.

    Icenians, Stand for election by all means.

    I apologise if you feel I was being personal, and having re-read my post, perhaps I could have worded it a bit better. One reason to not vote for me would indeed be lack of diplomacy&#33;

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,143

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 30 2003, 09:57 PM
    I simply question that guidelines agreed with one landowner/manager being unilatrally adopted by the GC.com admin. This demonstrates a conflict of interest ....
    I have to question this logic.

    GAGB are suggesting guidelines and not mandatory GC.com requirements. GAGB will have no control over GC.com Approvers, whether on the committee or not, so there is no conflict.

    Actually, I see an argument for the opposite case. Their involvement on the committee would be as part of a democratic organisation which would ensure their contact with the wishes of the majority through the polls being used here rather than those who speak loudest on forums.

    I have no doubts about the personal integrity of Moss Trooper and (through limited contact) have no reason to doubt Eckington. I believe we should leave their committee involvement to a democratic decision.

    Dave


    Caching since 2001
    Founder member of GAGB (2003)
    Committee (2003-2013)
    Chair of GAGB (2010-2012)
    Negotiator of 18 Landowner Agreements
    GAGB Friend

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    OK.. OK..

    I&#39;ve had enough..

    I have tried to do best for cacheing in UK.. and what do I get .. **** on..

    Iceians.. yer a blind fool

    I will leave .. I will never take part in geocaching again.. I have had enough..
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I would also add that I have contacted GC.com Admin, resigned and advised them, that as DD is on holiday they need an approver for UK..
    Moss The Boss... Sorta

  25. #25
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Jul 31 2003, 12:26 AM
    Iceians.. yer a blind fool
    I&#39;m niether blind nor a fool.

    I have never said you don&#39;t do a good job for geocaching. I don&#39;t understand how guidelines of the GAGB being used by GC.Com admin to approve caches of non gagb members is not a conflict. Non members that do not get to vote will then have GAGB guidelines forced on them. That is not democratic.

    I don&#39;t doubt anyones motives in any of this. But, my experience is that give it a couple of years, and different people on the committee there will be problems.

    I am just raising something that is a cause for concern for some members for which I am being attacked. If I cannot raise these points on thread titled &#39;Conflicts of interest&#39; calmly without being called all sorts I really don&#39;t see the point in having these forums. A committee is supposed to represent its members and that involves listening to them.

    I have not had a &#39;go&#39; at anyone in this, yet have been attacked for posting a reply to someone else having a go at a member.

    Kev (Icenians)

  26. #26
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by The Wombles@Jul 30 2003, 11:10 PM
    GAGB are suggesting guidelines and not mandatory GC.com requirements. GAGB will have no control over GC.com Approvers, whether on the committee or not, so there is no conflict.
    I quote from Moss Troopers earlier post. This has already happened. Cache approvals on GC.Com for the UK are being done as per GAGB guidelines and not GC.com.

    Moss Trooper
    Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guiedlines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches. I have informed all other approvers via the approvers forum that this is the case and if they get involved in approving UK caches to apply these guide lines.
    Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?

    As I said earlier, I don&#39;t have a problem with guidelines just that people elected by the membership should not be impossing their guidelines on people who do not wish to be members. This is clearly a conflict.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Unbelievable&#33; Can I ask what exactly were your motives for joining GAGB Icenians? You have been very anti-GAGB from the start, and are now winding people up to the extent that they are leaving.
    Rich

  28. #28
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by el10t@Jul 31 2003, 09:32 AM
    Unbelievable&#33; Can I ask what exactly were your motives for joining GAGB Icenians? You have been very anti-GAGB from the start, and are now winding people up to the extent that they are leaving.
    I&#39;m sorry but I am not going to take the wrap for this. If people choose to quit everytime someone questions them then they shouldn&#39;t be in the job.

    I have not had a go at Moss Trooper I mearly quoted what he said. This was started by others and not me.

    My reasons for joining the GAGB is to fight for the right to let people who do not want to be controlled in this hobby to be allowed to do so.

    I make no apology for Moss Trooper leaving that was his choice&#33;

    If members of a committee do not like to be questioned or critised then they should not be on a committee. It goes with the job.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Hampshire
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 09:50 AM
    I&#39;m sorry but I am not going to take the wrap for this.
    I&#39;m sorry but the fact remains that Moss has left following your posts.

    I am left wondering whether it is a coincidence that the bad feeling over on the GC.com forum died down after you stopped posting there but is suddenly apparent here within days of you joining.
    Rich

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?
    Obviously, if a land owner wanted something which was too restrictive, the committe would have to add this as an additional guideline. For example, if a land owner called "Megga Land Owning Commission" said "No caching on a Sunday" we would have to add this to the guidelines as "The Megga Land Owning Commission has said we cannot cache on their land on a Sunday".

    As I said earlier, I don&#39;t have a problem with guidelines just that people elected by the membership should not be impossing their guidelines on people who do not wish to be members. This is clearly a conflict.
    So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then &#33;

    The guidelines which have been adopted by HCC are almost word for word as those which were being proposed by Forest Enterprise/Forrestry Commission when they saw this thread where a very few cachers indicated that they were going to ignore the guidelines about putting alcohol and food in cachers. The result of Forest Enterprise reading that thread (throwing the proposal out) was reported in this thread

    The upshot of this is that if we cannot approach major land owners and say "we have a set of guidelines in place which work and will protect the land and heritage that you are responsible for", we will get absolutely nowhere.

    We need sensible guidelines to be adopted which work and can be seen to be working, otherwise land owners will create their own guidelines or (because it is less work) simply say, "No, we don&#39;t want geocaches on our land". We need them to listen to us.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  31. #31
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:20 AM
    So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then &#33;
    Hey, if MCL doesn&#39;t want to eat Marmite, then it seems a little unfair for the elected committee to try to force him to&#33;

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel+Jul 31 2003, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jul 31 2003, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 10:20 AM
    So I guess then, that having one person decide that he will not accept something (as per this thread is better than having a committee of elected persons decide. Ok then &#33;
    Hey, if MCL doesn&#39;t want to eat Marmite, then it seems a little unfair for the elected committee to try to force him to&#33; [/b][/quote]
    I take it that your post was intended to be a joke &#33;
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  33. #33
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Why does this keep becoming an issue about guidelines? Guidelines is the example. The issue is that elected GAGB members should not be able to impose their decisions onto the cachers that choose not to be members of the GAGB.

    The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.

    Please read this in the way it is intended. I am not deliberatly trying to wind people up or to start an arguement. As the line says at the top of the forum, &#39;Please do not be offended by the posts of others who might not agree with you 100%, they have a right to be heard also&#39;

    I am fed up with being blasted simply for posting something others have concerns about. I am obviously coming across in a very different way than I intend.
    Is that enough smilies to disarm?
    I would have put more but the message board won&#39;t allow it&#33;

    Kev (Icenians)

  34. #34
    Chris n Maria Guest

    Default

    Dear oh Dear oh Dear,


    It&#39;s only a game

    People please remember what we are actually talking about. The actual things that have been impossed are things like no caches in plastic bags and no caches in animal holes (most of the other guidelines about searching arn&#39;t inforcable just recommended).

    So you don&#39;t like the way things were done (conflicts of interest, points of principle etc.)? or you can&#39;t see a problem? or like me just stuck in the middle wondering if any of this is worth getting het up about.

    Now while the GAGB guidelines are so close to the GC.com guidelines that makes little difference. What happens when another landowner wants something else in the guidelines and the GAGB ones start to differ from the GC.Com ones?
    ....makes little difference - is where we are at now as far as I can see - so does it really matter then?
    What happens when ...... - can&#39;t we worry about that if and when it happens?

    <Sense of Perspective>
    Please remember folks - It&#39;s just a hunt for a lunchbox , everyone here is a cacher and (as far as I can see) trying to improve the game.
    Cache placement is not a moral issue.
    </Sense of Perspective>

    Just trying to get folks to see the tupperware for the trees.
    Chris

  35. #35
    Masher Guest

    Default

    Yeah, what Chris said.

    Can anyone remember the old days?
    We used to roam the countryside in search of Tupperware&#33;
    Ahhh... such happy times

  36. #36
    Teasel Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 12:49 PM
    The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.
    The problem there is that Jeremy, Elias et al would not, and I believe should not, start some sort of transatlantic negotiations with British landowners for the right to place caches on their soil&#33; The UK cache approvers could, I suppose, negotiate on Groundspeak&#39;s behalf, but they are unelected and may not have the desire, or the time, to speak to landowners.

    There&#39;s also the worry that a GC.com admin, on resigning from their post, would break off contact with the council (or other landowner) that they were dealing with, leaving the council in an awkward position. An independent organisation, such as GAGB, would be far better placed to quickly pick up where things left off.

    Finally, and back on-topic, while I see no great conflict of interest in a GC.com cache approver also negotiating with landowners on behalf of GAGB, I think that having negotiators who are an official representative of Groundspeak, rather than of GAGB is a step in the wrong direction. As a supporter of Navicache, I&#39;m surprised you&#39;re suggesting it&#33; So long as Navicache users can join GAGB and place caches under its guidelines, and so long as caches which conform to the GC.com/navicache/etc guidelines continue to be passed on the respective listing sites, even if they contravene the GAGB guidelines, then what&#39;s the problem?

  37. #37
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Teasel+Jul 31 2003, 01:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Jul 31 2003, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Jul 31 2003, 12:49 PM
    The HCC has negociated guidelines, sensible ones in my view, with GAGB. If they wanted to negociate with GC.Com then that is what should have been done.
    The problem there is that Jeremy, Elias et al would not, and I believe should not, start some sort of transatlantic negotiations with British landowners for the right to place caches on their soil&#33; The UK cache approvers could, I suppose, negotiate on Groundspeak&#39;s behalf, but they are unelected and may not have the desire, or the time, to speak to landowners.

    There&#39;s also the worry that a GC.com admin, on resigning from their post, would break off contact with the council (or other landowner) that they were dealing with, leaving the council in an awkward position. An independent organisation, such as GAGB, would be far better placed to quickly pick up where things left off.

    Finally, and back on-topic, while I see no great conflict of interest in a GC.com cache approver also negotiating with landowners on behalf of GAGB, I think that having negotiators who are an official representative of Groundspeak, rather than of GAGB is a step in the wrong direction. As a supporter of Navicache, I&#39;m surprised you&#39;re suggesting it&#33; So long as Navicache users can join GAGB and place caches under its guidelines, and so long as caches which conform to the GC.com/navicache/etc guidelines continue to be passed on the respective listing sites, even if they contravene the GAGB guidelines, then what&#39;s the problem? [/b][/quote]
    I think I lost the thread of that.

    I&#39;m going to suggest we agree to disagree on this. I had no intention of this getting to these proportions. Going around in circles as before will not help anyone. Just one thing though. To geocachers who choose not to be a member of GAGB, the committee are unelected on GC.Com as well.

    Muggle.
    Sorry, but I cannot accept your nomination as I have no idea of your motives for putting me forward. Thanks anyway.

    Kev

  38. #38
    BugznElm&#39;r Guest

    Default

    The problem as I see it is one of rules and guidelines. When users sign up on Geocaching.com they are presented with a few rules ad regulations that they agree to. When they want to submit a cache the user is again presented with guidelines to follow for a successful submission.

    No mention is made of regional variations to approving policy. No mention is further made of any other guidelines being utilized. Now, while we don&#39;t mind following the HCC guidelines for cache placement, others who didn&#39;t realize this might.

    I think that in the long run there are only a few solutions to this:

    - Change the wording on the GC site to reflect the fact that regional variations to these rules apply - having these rules listed would be handy.

    - The GAGB itself become a cache approving/listing body, separate to GC, with its own rules and guidelines that members sign up to right from the start.

    The guidelines that cachers have to follow have to be guidelines that they agree to follow when they choose to use a particular site. No website or association can remove all outlaws ... all they can do is just make sure that their members know the rules and agree to abide by them. Public web forums are a poor place for this. Set it into the membership guidelines form the start.

    We really do hope that things recover from this rocky patch shortly.

    Elm&#39;r

    Team BugznElm&#39;r

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    St Helens, Lancs, UK
    Posts
    90

    Default


    The things that happen when I leave my computor for a few hours - now Moss throws in the towel, worst news since Tim and June did. Do please reconsider Moss - your good sense and good humour are needed here. Not least you are one of the few survivors from before I got into this game&#33;
    I too have taken exception to some postings by others but if people have to be like that, well that is life, they may be spoiling it for others and seem to enjoy it.
    Enjoy your caching!

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    I have absolutely no probem at all with the HCC laying down rules for the placement of caches in Hampshire. The rule as I understand them are sensible.

    What I do have a problem with is approvers, appointed by geocaching.com, taking it upon themselves to apply these rules to ALL UK geocaches submitted for approval, irrespective of their location. This, to my mind, clearly exceeds their authority. They should be approving caches according to geocaching.com rules and no others. Until such a time that the HCC rules are incorporated into the geocaching.com rules, they are at best, a local variation and should under no circumstances be applied nationwide.
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  41. #41
    TheCat Guest

    Default

    I am sure that someone will flame me for this but what Pharisee has just said makes great sense.

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Originally posted by Pharisee@Jul 31 2003, 06:02 PM
    they are at best, a local variation and should under no circumstances be applied nationwide.
    Might I ask if there is anything amongst those guidelines which you feel is not worthy of, or should not be be implemented nationally ?

    As a by the way, Jeremy Irish has said that he was going to include regional variations on the GC.com site. The reason for that is that every state un the US has it&#39;s own variations, as does the rest of the World.

    The UK is in itself, unique because we are the only country in the World with historically established "Right&#39;s of Way". Scotland is different again in that there is no law of tresspass.

    Yes, we need our own regional guidelines.

    Finally, a quote from Jeremy himself

    We&#39;ll try to address regional requirements, laws, regulations, etc. in the new release of the site. It may not be one of the first items to add to the site.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  43. #43
    sonya :-) Guest

    Default

    Turn your back for 5 minutes and look what happens...

    I agree with Pharisee too.

    But do you know what - I don&#39;t feel very strongly about it. At least not so that it matters, I&#39;m fairly laid back about the whole thing really. I think it is because these are all little niggly things that one way or another, (whether that moderator is on this committee, or a G.com approver is a member of this group) probably won&#39;t make a great deal of difference to the way things work in the real world of tupperware searching. (I purely mean membership of this that and the other etc. not the actual guidlines themselves. I really think these are a step forward) - I&#39;ve got better things to argue over. (Well, nothing to argue over really, although I am a bit aggrieved about my height.)

    But just because at the moment the difference in guidelines is negligible does not mean that things shouldn&#39;t be done properly as a matter of principle (al?). And by that I don&#39;t mean high horses and morals. I do feel a bit strange about the UK G.com admins approving caches according to HCC guidlines. Not because I disagree with the guidelines or think they are detrimental, just because G.com hasn&#39;t put the seal of approval on the guidlenes. (I think) Is it well known to G.com users that the guidelines aren&#39;t the ones they think they are?

    What would happen if there was a G.com approver who wasn&#39;t a GAGB member? To which guidelines would the cache be approved? And would it make any difference anyway at the moment?

    Believe me, I am not trying to be awkward, and like I said, I am happy whatever.

    It&#39;s like someone offers you a green lolly and a blue lolly, telling you they taste the same anyway. You take the blue lolly coz you like blue better, give it a few licks and it&#39;s green underneath. Not what you expected, but they both taste the same and maybe you should be thankful you got a lolly in the first place&#33;

    I just thought I would air my opinion. And I feel better for it.

    I think these things seem like palavers because of the media we are required to use. I bet even the members with the most extreme views could quite easily have a nice conversation over a cup of tea and come to an agreement, or at least agree to disagree.

    I hate long posts.
    I like lollies.

  44. #44
    sonya :-) Guest

    Default

    That&#39;ll teach me. I just burned my pizza whilst considering the relative merits of lollies, blue and green.

    It&#39;s a sign.

  45. #45
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by sonya :-)@Jul 31 2003, 08:04 PM
    That&#39;ll teach me. I just burned my pizza whilst considering the relative merits of lollies, blue and green.

    It&#39;s a sign.
    Yeah, you forgot red lollies and yellow lollies.

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 06:26 PM
    Might I ask if there is anything amongst those guidelines which you feel is not worthy of, or should not be be implemented nationally ?

    Hi T& J
    No... to the best of my knowledge, the guidelines drawn up by the HCC are sensible and worthy. Whether they should be implemented nationally... who knows. What suits one county council may not be acceptable to another. Thats why I support your (among others) efforts in creating the GAGB. I will cheer and praise you every time you manage to get an agreement with another CC.
    Until that time, the guidelines should remain in Hampshire.

    As I&#39;ve said in other postings, I dont have a problem with the HCC guidelines. It&#39;s just the fact that they are being used &#39;instead of&#39; and not &#39;as well as&#39; the geocaching.com guidelines by the UK approvers.
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Is there nobody else out there who can see that we need to establish accepted guidelines for the UK so that land owners other than HCC will listen and therefore consider giving us blanket permission. HCC would not have even passed the time of day with us had we not gone to our first meeting with guidelines already in hand.

    This was not done in the USA and now each part of the States has different rules and they all have to be adhered to rigidy. In the parks of some state&#39;s you have to pay a licence which lasts 4 months, then the cache has to be lifted or another licence purchased. In others you have to apply in writing and wait for it to be okay&#39;d before you can place your cache. The list of different restrictions is frightening.

    The first website I looked at to use as an example is here. Look about halfway down the page at "Missouri Land Use Update"

    If the UK is to avoid that sort of problem we must be proactive, we must demonstrate to land owners that we are responsible and will follow our own guidelines.

    We had a number of meetings with Forest Enterprise who control the Forrestry Commission. We were at the final stages with our contact delivering his final proposal at head office when they saw posts on the GC.com forum indicating that cachers were ging to ignore the GC.com guidelines and would continue to place food and alcohol in caches. THe brass threw out the proposal and said that they were not going to listen to cachers. We lost the opportunity to get blanket permission on FC & FE land over the whole of the UK.

    Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

    The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  48. #48
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    T&J
    Nobody is saying the guidelines are a bad thing. Quite the opposite. But you cannot impose the rules from the GAGB on none members.

    If I wish to place a cache on HCC land and log it on Navicache I would respect the HCC wishes and keep within their rules. That doesn&#39;t mean I should use their rules to place a cache on my own land but, I should make sure the cache follows the rules of the site I am logging it on.

    To enforce the rules of an association on none members is simply wrong.

    I am trying to write this in a way that doesn&#39;t cause anyone to get wound up and I hope people will read it as calmly as I am typing it. If you get a different vibe from the one intended then I apologise in advance. It is not my wish to wind anyone up or recieve anymore abuse for simply holding an opinion.

    Kev

  49. #49
    Omally Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 08:46 PM
    <snip>

    Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

    The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.
    I would venture a suggestion here: we need to agree to disagree on certain things, vote on others and then try to settle down.

    Let&#39;s make this a nice place to be. I&#39;m not trying to be a purveyor of rose-tinted specs here, of course it&#39;s impossible for us all to agree on everything. The world would be pretty boring if that were the case, and progress would never be made.
    What I&#39;m referring to is a spot of self-moderation. Perhaps an unwritten rule of thinking twice before posting once could be implemented? I know I could do with following that sometimes: I&#39;ll readily put my hands up and admit to rashness. Hindsight gives you 20/20 vision in most cases.

    I reckon we can manage ourselves like sensible grown-ups if we put our minds to it. If we can manage that much, then I&#39;m sure we can resist the licensing thing among other threats.

    United we stand, divided we fall.

    Pardon the melodrama, but a saying becomes a cliche when it has an element of truth to it.

    Let&#39;s settle down now, eh? Please?

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Bedfordshire, UK
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Jul 31 2003, 08:46 PM
    Now, we have two options. Bury our heads in the sand and just hope that land owners look favouraby upon us, or we can act positively and promote ourselves as the good guys. Show the land owners that we mean business.

    The GAGB was started as a means to get approval and recognition. If nobody wants the GAGB, we might as well call it a day and save our energy.
    No... sorry... we only have one option. Burying your head in the sand can seriously damage your health

    I agree with you entirely that we have to deal with the landowners and show them the positive side of geocaching. You&#39;ve made an excellent start with the HCC but the guidelines were drawn up by Hampshire, for Hampshire, not for the whole of the UK. It may be that these guidelines WILL be acceptable to all the big land owners that&#39;s why we need you (GAGB)... to talk to them and find out. Until then, we&#39;re still playing to GC.com rules.
    John
    Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and ability.

Posting Permissions

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