Conflicts of Interest

[MCL]

Originally posted by Kouros@Aug 5 2003, 06:29 PM

The local "branch" of "The Major Land Owner Company" has a "tin God" attitude. We discovered that when we first made contact with them. "Mr Bloggs said "We know that the XXXX acres of land is for public access, but we don't even want dog walkers there". Yes this was actually said.

Nowt as queer as folk, I guess.

Damn right. I can't imagine anything more silly that the sight of a man walking like a dog...

[Teasel]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 5 2003, 06:18 PM
As long as it's a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But it seems that where more than one option is sensible, it is always the most restrictive that is included into the global guidelines. Choosing to keep the more permissive option in the GAGB rules, and acknowledge that local restrictions also apply would, IMHO, be a better approach.

For example, as I understand it, the proposed guidelines that T&J et al initially drew up for HCC did not discourage night caching. However, HCC would prefer that, on their land, caching was confined to the hours of daylight. I'm a little unhappy that, as a result of the HCCs position, night caching will now be discouraged over the whole of the country!

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 5 2003, 06:18 PM
As long as it's a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

I would want these kinds of decisions to be carried out in a very transparent way indeed. I would also like to see any proposed expansion to the guidelines put to the membership before anything further is agreed to by the GAGB.

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by Teasel+Aug 6 2003, 12:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Teasel @ Aug 6 2003, 12:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 5 2003, 06:18 PM
As long as it&#39;s a "sensible" rule (and that would have to be decided by the democratically elected committee) and could sensibly fit into the standard guidelines, then I think that is the better option, as it gives one set of guidelines.

But it seems that where more than one option is sensible, it is always the most restrictive that is included into the global guidelines. Choosing to keep the more permissive option in the GAGB rules, and acknowledge that local restrictions also apply would, IMHO, be a better approach.

For example, as I understand it, the proposed guidelines that T&J et al initially drew up for HCC did not discourage night caching. However, HCC would prefer that, on their land, caching was confined to the hours of daylight. I&#39;m a little unhappy that, as a result of the HCCs position, night caching will now be discouraged over the whole of the country&#33; [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s been the problem all along. No mater what good came from the HCC guidelines/negotiations they were negotiated on behalf of all UK Geocachers before the association was set up and now being thrust on the membership. That was not democracy at work.

The GAGB MUST make sure that that kind of mistake is never allowed to happen again.

[Tim and June]

I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?

The guidelines say

For reasons of safety and security Hampshire County Council discourage geocaching on their land during the hours of darkness.

Please note that I have added the emphasis in red to ensure that nobody misses those words.

What caused HCC to include this was that they were reading logs and the GC.com forums. One of the managers read a cacher recommend that a certain cache be visited at night. The cache in question had a warning about safety because of dangerous drops&#33;

The immediate reaction was to cover backside and totally BAN caching on their land during the hours of darkness. We were able to argue the point and turn this decision around. HCC have been immensely hospitable and open to suggestions and input from us. Therefore, we have to afford them the same courtesy.

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 12:58 PM
I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?

Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.

Nobody is saying the landowner shouldn&#39;t set whatever rules they like, just that they shouldn&#39;t automatically become country wide as a result.

It is a matter of FACT that HCC guidelines are/have been the ones GC.com are using.

Kev

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 12:58 PM
I would venture to ask where does it say that geocaching at night is "discouraged over the whole of the country" ?

OK, the HCC discourages night caching ... two questions ...

1 - How do they do that?
2 - Does the GAGB encourage or discourage it?

[Pharisee]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 01:28 PM
OK, the HCC discourages night caching...

They can &#39;discourage&#39; all they like but until they place an outright &#39;ban&#39; nightcaching (&#39;rules&#39; and &#39;guidelines&#39; again?) there is absolutely nothing to stop anyone going out to search for a cache on HCC land at night.

As for the GAGB... why should they be concerned if I want to cache at night. It has nothing what so ever to do with them. Providing I&#39;m not breaking any local by-laws I&#39;m free do so so if I wish. Even if I do chose to ignore any local bylaws, that still has nothing to do with them.

I really think it&#39;s time that we stopped all this confusing tip-toeing around.

RULES are RULES... they MUST be obeyed.

GUIDELINES mean NOTHING. They are for GUIDANCE... ADVICE... you are free to take it OR NOT as pleases you.

Sorry to shout but I&#39;m getting just a little fed up with people talking about &#39;guidelines&#39; when they actually mean &#39;rules&#39;. If caches submitted for approval are not approved becaues they contravine a &#39;guideline&#39; then it ceases to be a guideline and becomes a rule.

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.

YES &#33;

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat &#33;

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko:

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Pharisee@Aug 6 2003, 02:04 PM
Sorry to shout but I&#39;m getting just a little fed up with people talking about &#39;guidelines&#39; when they actually mean &#39;rules&#39;. If caches submitted for approval are not approved becaues they contravine a &#39;guideline&#39; then it ceases to be a guideline and becomes a rule.

Absolutely ... I&#39;m also feeling the same. We&#39;re seeing a lot of this recently ... they&#39;re not rules, they&#39;re guidelines ... they&#39;re not guidelines, they just discourage it.

Let&#39;s start hiving some clarity and straight answers to valid questions.

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 01:28 PM
OK, the HCC discourages night caching ... two questions ...

1 - How do they do that?
2 - Does the GAGB encourage or discourage it?

1. By posting it as a guideline.
2. Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

I guess that once the GAGB has an established committee, we will have to have some sort of disclaimer.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.

YES &#33;

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat &#33;

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 02:18 PM
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :

Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

:angry:

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 01:23 PM
Moss Thimself said in this very thread that the HCC guidelines where the ones they were approving caches by.

YES &#33;

Across the whole of the UK and in fact, around the whole WORLD,

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL discourage caching ON THEIR LAND which as far as I know, is only in Hampshire.

NOTICE THE WORD HAMPSHIRE the use of which does regionalise it somewhat &#33;

Just as I was beginning to think that you were not deliberately stirring it up, I again begin to wonder. :wacko: [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not trying to stir anything up. I was answering your question.

I also see the point you are making that the guideline regarding night caching on HCC land would only apply to HCC land. You are right on that.

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by Icenians@Aug 6 2003, 02:22 PM
I also see the point you are making that the guideline regarding night caching on HCC land would only apply to HCC land. You are right on that.

Thank heavens for that. I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining.

And that last comment is not directed solely at you, Icenians.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 02:18 PM
So does the GAGB DISCOURAGE night caching too? :

Neither. Each cacher is able to make up his/her own mind as to whether or not they deem the risk of night caching acceptable or otherwise.

:angry: [/b][/quote]
Glad we go that clear ... I was beginning to feel that the closer the elections were coming the fewer straight answers we were getting to straight questions.

Isn&#39;t it better to say then that the night-caching part should be better integrated in the the HCC guidelines as a disclaimer/footnote?

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 02:28 PM
Thank heavens for that. I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining.

And that last comment is not directed solely at you, Icenians.

Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?

What also bothers me is the range on answers with respect to guideline clarification ... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why? :unsure:

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 02:37 PM
... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why?

Not sure I follow you, care to quote some examples.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June+Aug 6 2003, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tim and June @ Aug 6 2003, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 02:37 PM
... they seem to range from dismissive to aggressive. Why?

Not sure I follow you, care to quote some examples. [/b][/quote]
OK, I&#39;ll bite with an example ... a few posts above you state:

" I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining."

Complaining? Are we complainint? Or asking for clarification/guidance?

However, I&#39;m willing to let this pass (it&#39;s hard when someone appears to criticize someone else&#39;s work ) as I think there are better issues ... such as ...

Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?

[Tim and June]

Originally posted by BugznElm&#39;r@Aug 6 2003, 02:52 PM
OK, I&#39;ll bite with an example ... a few posts above you state:

" I do wish that people would read the guidelines properly before complaining."

Complaining? Are we complainint? Or asking for clarification/guidance?

However, I&#39;m willing to let this pass (it&#39;s hard when someone appears to criticize someone else&#39;s work ) as I think there are better issues ... such as ...

Might it not also be the case that the guidelines are somewhat ambiguous. Might it not seem to some geocachers that night caching on HCC land would bring geocaching into disrepute in the eyes of the HCC?

OK, I apologise for the use of the word "complaining", I do think that the guideline could not be clearer, therefore I have got very fed up with with what has seemed to me to have decended to pedantic nit-picking of a very minor issue.

You are right about the criticism, we seem to be in a position of "damned if you do, damned if you dont".

As far as disrepute with HCC is concerned, yes, I guess caching on HCC land at night would tend to bring caching into disrepute with the guys who have worked hard to get these guidelines through. Would ignoring their request not be just a little disrespectul ?

But, last time I used big letters it worked, so I&#39;ll try it again.

HCC are trying to protect themselves against legal action should somebody get injured whist caching at night

These guidelines have been on the site for a couple of months giving ample opportunity to air opinions, why suddenly all the aggro about them now ?

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 03:17 PM
As far as disrepute with HCC is concerned, yes, I guess caching on HCC land at night would tend to bring caching into disrepute with the guys who have worked hard to get these guidelines through. Would ignoring their request not be just a little disrespectul ?

Thanks, that clarifies it for me.

[The Hornet]

It could be the heat, it could be my old age but whatever it is I&#39;m genuinely uncertain as to the status of the HCC guidelines as outlined elsewhere on this site. I&#39;d prefer to have started a new thread but the discussion is going on in this one so here goes.

I&#39;ll explain but first of let me say I am absolutely happy that any caches placed on HCC land MUST adhere to the current guidelines. If it&#39;s their land, THEY set the agenda. No argument so please no criticism OK? <_< <_< <_< <_<

I&#39;ll also state that I think they form a very sensible framework for caching generally ( I don&#39;t totally agree with everything stated but overall they are eminently sensible).

What bothers me, having read and re-read them just now is that in 14 of the 16 statements words and phrases such as "caches must" and "caches must not" and "should be" are used. To my mind then, these constitute RULES. There is no ambiguity in them, you must or must not do things. The other two use words like "onus" and "discourage" and therefore fall in the GUIDELINE camp.

The stated aims of GAGB on the same page say that "We would like all other land owners to adopt these guidelines ". Fair enough. Also these statements are now forming the basis of cache approval in the whole of the UK. I would like to suggest that we stop pussy footing around and call them what they are - RULES. Then there can be no argument, there can be no "I don&#39;t agree with this guideline and as it&#39;s only a recommendation I&#39;ll see fit to ignore it". I know full well that approach exists, and I&#39;ve been criticised personally for saying exactly that

If you don&#39;t like the RULES then fight to get them changed but until they are changed, abide by them. Also it&#39;s all very well saying "but these RULES only apply to GAGB". Well yes to a certain extent but as we have seen, all new caches are being approved using them so they are starting to become the de facto GC.COM RULES for the UK. As I said before if you don&#39;t like the situation fight to change the RULES but while they are as they are, abide by them.

My suggestion therefore is to change their title from "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK" to something like "Rules for Geocaching in the UK" This would clarify the situation and hopefully help aged old buffers like me understand where we stand.

[Lost in Space]

A RULE can only be called a RULE if there is a means of enforcing it and punishing those who "Break the Rules".

At the moment the only RULE that can apply is that for cache approval and is totally dependant on how much information the "planter" puts in his/her description.

Let&#39;s stick to guidelines.

[Muggle]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Aug 6 2003, 03:17 PM
These guidelines have been on the site for a couple of months giving ample opportunity to air opinions, why suddenly all the aggro about them now ?

I think you will find that most people were quite comfortable with the GGC/GAGB guidelines until 30th July when Moss Trooper said this: "Case in point the HCC guidelines. These are now the guidelines that I and the other UK approver use to approve caches"
It was when he then did an about turn and announced his intention to stand for the GABG committee that prompted much of the heated exchanges in this thread.

[Team Paradise]

I&#39;m confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who&#39;s guidelines say what, it&#39;s got nowt to do with cache approval &#33;

[Icenians]

Originally posted by Team Paradise@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
I&#39;m confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who&#39;s guidelines say what, it&#39;s got nowt to do with cache approval &#33;

I think it wandered way off topic somewhere along the line.

[The Hornet]

Originally posted by Icenians+Aug 6 2003, 07:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Icenians @ Aug 6 2003, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Team Paradise@Aug 6 2003, 07:24 PM
I&#39;m confused by the fuss... What the heck has cache placement approval got to do with anyone approving or disapproving of the act of night caching ?... Surely night caching is in the finding of the cache, not the approving of it, so no matter who&#39;s guidelines say what, it&#39;s got nowt to do with cache approval &#33;

I think it wandered way off topic somewhere along the line. [/b][/quote]
I was trying to work out what was a rule and what was a guideline.

This discussion has certainly wandered off the topic of "Conflict of Interest" so I&#39;m saying no more and am planning for a caching expedition with Grandad tomorrow. Night night&#33;

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by The Hornet@Aug 6 2003, 04:02 PM
My suggestion therefore is to change their title from "Geocaching Guidelines for the UK" to something like "Rules for Geocaching in the UK" This would clarify the situation and hopefully help aged old buffers like me understand where we stand.

"Rules are made to be broken"

If you call something a rule, then it is likely to rigidly enforced, good or bad.

Having them as "guidelines" allows them to be interpreted better.


Here&#39;s a hypotetical for you:

I create a cache, that HAS to be done at night. It involves looking at some sort of light display, which then leads to a microcache. The whole thing is in a safe, and well lit area.

It is 99.9% probable that the above cache (a) would only work at night; (B) is quite safe to do at night.

But if there is a "night caches not PERMITTED" rule, you&#39;re not allowed it. If there is a "night caches not encouraged" guideline then you will be allowed to place it, as long as it is otherwise deemed "sensible".

And I&#39;m sure we could all come up with other possible caches that, with rigidly applied rules you&#39;d just not be allowed to have, but common sense say would actually be quite suitable (and don&#39;t anyone dare mention Marmite jars again&#33;&#33;&#33.


Paul

[Team Paradise]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 6 2003, 09:30 PM
Here&#39;s a hypotetical for you:

I create a cache, that HAS to be done at night. It involves looking at some sort of light display, which then leads to a microcache.

That&#39;s all just a tad too &#39;hypothetical&#39; for me Paul

[MCL]

Originally posted by Team Paradise+Aug 7 2003, 01:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Team Paradise @ Aug 7 2003, 01:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--paul.blitz@Aug 6 2003, 09:30 PM
Here&#39;s a hypotetical for you:

I create a cache, that HAS to be done at night. It involves looking at some sort of light display, which then leads to a microcache.

That&#39;s all just a tad too &#39;hypothetical&#39; for me Paul [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t say that for goodness sake, or Paul will go and set one&#33;

Don&#39;t forget his creative use of a doorbell in a certain night cache... :P

[MCL]

Originally posted by paul.blitz@Aug 6 2003, 10:30 PM
don&#39;t anyone dare mention Marmite jars again&#33;&#33;&#33.


Paul

eh..wot..? did someone say Marmite?

Do you know what they make that stuff out of....

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Originally posted by Lost in Space@Aug 6 2003, 04:22 PM
A RULE can only be called a RULE if there is a means of enforcing it and punishing those who "Break the Rules".

Like revoking caching privileges on their land perhaps?