Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 132

Thread: Conflicts of Interest

  1. #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.

  2. #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.

  3. #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>

  4. #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.

  5. #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??????

  6. #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;

  7. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chippenham, Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,142

    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

  8. #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

  9. #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

  10. #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)

  11. #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.

  12. #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

  13. #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.

  14. #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

  15. #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>

Posting Permissions

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