Vent My Sleen

[Moss Trooper]

I was ridiculed for being persuaded to try for the committee of GAGB and being an approver for Geocaching.com at the same instance. I was left in no uncertain terms that I would have a conflict of interests between the two.

Now hear we are a few weeks down the line and polling started for GAGB committee and what do we have! A candidate who is standing for GAGB committee and is a central figure of GC:UK namely Teasle.. WHY?

You might call this sour grapes well I can assure you people that you are dead right. And please Iceians.. this is not in anyway a dig at you. If anything for once we are probably on the same side..

I approved caches nothing more.. here we have some one involved in and I quote “I have approached Peak District National Park rangers about getting permission to place a night cache on their land; I am trying to foster a more positive relationship between us and the Modern Antiquarians; and I am on the organizing committee for a major geocaching event next year (can't say more until it's been given the OK by the council!). I have also contacted English Heritage, who have agreed to send me a database of all the Scheduled Ancient Monuments in England”

I don’t see anything in there to say on behalf of GAGB.. I do note the comment about a NATIONAL event ?????? That does not seem to invole GAGB either.

Can Teasle categorically state that any comment/decision/finding/idea to do with GAGB will not influence his ways on GC:UK or Visa Versa, I THINK NOT.

Hypocrisy is bad enough in its simplest sense but when it jumps up and slaps you in the face it makes you positively sick.


Very :angry:

[Teasel]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Sep 9 2003, 07:58 PM
I don’t see anything in there to say on behalf of GAGB.. I do note the comment about a NATIONAL event ?????? That does not seem to invole GAGB either.
In general, when dealing with others, I tend to keep G:UK out of the correspondance wherever possible. The fact that I've written some C and PHP code which helps geocachers find caches near them, and interesting stats about themselves, doesn't seem very relevant when talking to National Park rangers or English Heritage. :) All of the above, especially the national event, do not involve either GAGB or G:UK, they're just things I'm doing because I think they're good for geocaching. Indeed, for the event, we're going to great lengths to avoid using G:UK resources wherever we can (though, admittedly, the committee discussion forum is temporarily hosted there while I set up a forum elsewhere).

Being able to say that I'm a committee member of GAGB would certainly help when talking to outside bodies (what better reason for having a national association other than to give a little more credibility to people negotiating with outside bodies?!) and you can be certain that it's not something I'd keep quiet!

Until GAGB has an elected committee with a mandate to take it forward and decide who speaks on its members' behalf, I believe it would indeed be hypocritical of me (or anyone else) to use the name of GAGB in order to boost my own credibility with those I'm speaking to.

I suppose in a way, from my perspective, GAGB begins its life at the end of these elections. It will then, and only then, have a committee which can claim to speak for its members. I would like to be a part of that committee and first said so on the day that GAGB was announced on the GC.com forums. I do realise that at least four of the seven founder members hold strong feelings against G:UK (partly, I'm sure, due to my trigpoint logging system, but partly still unexplained - what exactly have we done to upset you?!). But of those four, only T&J stood for election to the committee and I have already expressed in my manifesto my optimism that we can work together constructively.

[TheCat]

Well It would of been good if Moss had added the last bit of the paragraph to his post, ie: (no point in GAGB having rules unless we can be confident that they're being followed!). I am afraid that I feel that this is getting stupid. If you want GC:UK to pack in then tell us why, what are we doing to so upset you? Paul Blitz in his manifesto states:
I furthermore believe that GAGB should become Geocaching.Com's UK
representative (but that should not preclude them also chosing to represent
OTHER international caching web sites as well), in the same way that other
countries & many states within the USA have geocaching organisations that
are Geocaching.Com's local representative. I believe, perhaps in the longer
term, that GAGB should take on the task of approving UK caches for
Geocaching.Com (and possibly other sites too....) - again, in the same way
that other local caching associations already do.
Does that not deserve a comment. That will be a conflict of intrest will it not. I have tried to get on with GAGB but it would seem that it is not to be. I am getting to the stage where I will just call it quits and do something else with my time. But I will not do that as I feel that the services we provide for the caching community are services they want. If this was not the case they would not keep returning to the site. It was me that asked Teasel to stand for election as I have quite enough to do at the moment. I just hope that he will continue to stand though I will understand if he does not wish to. The fact the we are helping to organise a national event in 2004 is not a detraction from GAGB. In fact when the location etc for the event is sorted there will be full and public discussion on a new site that we have set up for the event, that does not even mention GC:UK. This event will be hosted by a council and will be open to everyome.

What gives GAGB the right to have control over geocaching in the UK. As far as I am aware we have a democracy in this country and not a dictatorship. I am not saying tjhat GAGB is trying to do that but the post by one of the founder members above gives me great cause for concern. GAGB does not speak for all geocachers in the UK and I dont think it ever will. The diferance between GC:UK and GAGB is that we have never claimed to do so. We are not trying to run the sport we just provide services to the community.

For the sake of geocaching lets get on if we dont then geocaching will be the loser.

[Teasel]

Can Teasle categorically state that any comment/decision/finding/idea to do with GAGB will not influence his ways on GC:UK or Visa Versa, I THINK NOT.
Well it would make sense to use, with Mark's permission, the G:UK database on Lunarpages to allow cache approvers (be they GC.com, GAGB or whoever) to check for proximity to SAMs, simply because it already contains the necessary data (and permission to scrape this data from GC.com isn't easy to come by!!!). I would, of course, be prepared to host such applications away from G:UK servers if there was no politically acceptable alternative, but this would mean more work (and therefore time lost from other tasks).

Other than that, I can't really see any overlap between GAGB and G:UK. I run a cache database and a trigpoint logging system; Mark runs a links database, forum, free homepages, photo gallery etc, and also sells merchandise (at close to break-even and certainly less than the site running costs). Why do you see us as significant to GAGB, let alone a threat?

[Moss Trooper]

At least you were given the option.. I was not.. Conflict of interests.. remember.. I approved caches.. nothing more.. I could not speak for Geocaching.com. You have more association with GC:UK than I ever would have with Geocaching.com.. yet you can still sit there and say you will be totally independant..

All I ever wanted was to take Geocaching in UK forward.. but seems others have other ideas..

I will not let this lie..

You can't be party to two sites.. has to be one or other.. Thats what I was pushed into.. so I decided neither

Call me a looser.. wimp.. whatever.. least I won't have to put up with the carp yer conna get being on committee..

And belive me You will .. if elected conform to this member or I w ill want to know why..

[TheCat]

Here is a copy of a post I have just made on the GC.com forums.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to a post by Moss Trooper in these forums entitled Vent My Spleen and his posting on GC.com the Children in Need event this year will not be taking place as I am getting fed up of the sniping GC:UK continues to get. Have no fear the CIN Charity will be getting a donation from a non geocaching event I will organize here in Yorkshire. This is not a descision I have taken lightley but I have taken it. I will inform the BBC in the morning that the event is off and will archive the cache now.If you like fox hunting then please try to visit the one being run by Team Tate as this is the last time the telemetrics unit I have will be loaned out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have taken the action in the above post and will not change my mind.

I am now out of here to get a life. Oh have no fear GC:UK will not be closing down.

[minstrelcat]

:( :(

It makes me very sad knowing all this has started up again. Why oh why can't everyone live and let live?


Note: I'm not getting at anyone in particular here

[Moss Trooper]

Originally posted by TheCat@Sep 9 2003, 09:55 PM
It was me that asked Teasel to stand for election as I have quite enough to do at the moment.

You asked him to stand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was asked by umpteen membes of the geocaching community.. Not the leader of GC:UK..

I was still told.. Conflict of Interest.. You can't.. how can you be independant..

[Chris n Maria]

ignore this

[Moss Trooper]

Originally posted by TheCat@Sep 9 2003, 10:21 PM
Here is a copy of a post I have just made on the GC.com forums.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to a post by Moss Trooper in these forums entitled Vent My Spleen and his posting on GC.com the Children in Need event this year will not be taking place as I am getting fed up of the sniping GC:UK continues to get. Have no fear the CIN Charity will be getting a donation from a non geocaching event I will organize here in Yorkshire. This is not a descision I have taken lightley but I have taken it. I will inform the BBC in the morning that the event is off and will archive the cache now.If you like fox hunting then please try to visit the one being run by Team Tate as this is the last time the telemetrics unit I have will be loaned out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have taken the action in the above post and will not change my mind.

I am now out of here to get a life. Oh have no fear GC:UK will not be closing down.
Now who is getting childish.. this is about who should be elected to a committee to represent GC in UK.. Those already associated to another site or not..

I was excluded..

[TheCat]

Quite simple realey I had been asked to stand by quite a few people and was not able to do so due to other commitments.
Oh by the way I am not the leader of GC:UK.com I just pay all the bills.

As for independance did you not say that you where approving caches to GAGB Guidelines. At that time GAGB was a group of founder members. What gave you that right you where a GC.com approver.Do you not feel you over stepped the mark. We dont approve caches.

No Moss it is about the constant slagging off GC:UK.com is getting. I have put alot into this sport as well as many others but it would seem that Teasel and I are the ones that keep getting it in the neck. If it continues I will pull the plug on GC:UK.com amd leave caching for good. I said when I started this sport that I would continue in it till it was no longer fun. Well it is getting to no longer be fun.

I am not going to carry on this conversation any more as it is getting nowhere.

Please Please give it a rest and let us agree to disagree before I do something I will live to regret.

[Moss Trooper]

C n M..

This is about conflict of interests.. Nothing more..

I was told I shouldn't be on committee as I was with Geocaching.com as approver.. so I shouldn't stand for committee..

Then some one in association with GC:UK stands and nothing is said..
wouldn't you feel a little peeved!!

Then for Teasle to say in his manifesto he cant see a problem with conflict.. well I ask you..!!

[Muggle]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Sep 9 2003, 10:50 PM

Then for Teasle to say in his manifesto he cant see a problem with conflict.. well I ask you..!!
Perhaps if I could play Devil's Advocate here for a moment, it seems to me that the Moss Trooper GC:COM v GAGB conflict is a little different from the perceived Teasel G:UK v GAGB conflict..

Whilst G:UK appears to be nothing more than a repository for useful geocaching stats and utilities, GAGB was set up with the intention of setting out rules and guidelines for geocaching in the UK.. There were those who saw the prospect of having both UK G:COM cache approvers (Moss Trooper and Eckington) standing for committee positions with GAGB as a conflict of interest.. This notion was hardly helped by Moss Tropper's own admission that he was already using GAGB guidelines to approve or disapprove caches submitted to G:COM despite those guidelines being formulated by an unelected and unrepresentative quasi-committee..

Teasel on the other hand merely provides the programming genius behind the G:UK site.. He is unelected but represents no one.. There are no need for elections in G:UK, they do not formulate policy.. They make no rules, they don't have guidelines.. They merely provide at their own expense a valuable service to the UK geocaching community.. A service that anyone can take or leave..

[jmn20]

I don't understand Moss Trooper here. He says he is suffering from sour grapes; he wanted to stand for election to the GAGB committee, but was told (by whom?) that this would be inappropriate due to his responsibilities to G.com in approving new caches.
Why do you not vent your anger at the person / people who dissuaded you from standing rather than someone who is doing what you wanted to.

In relation to Teasel's manifesto :....
I have approached Peak District National Park rangers about getting
permission to place a night cache on their land; I am trying to foster a
more positive relationship between us and the Modern Antiquarians; and I am
on the organizing committee for a major geocaching event next year (can't
say more until it's been given the OK by the council!). I have also
contacted English Heritage, who have agreed to send me a database of all
the Scheduled Ancient Monuments in England
.... and the GAGB homepage.....
This Association was established to provide an elected voice for its members in the United Kingdom.
Its aims are to establish good practice, provide a focal point for public liaison and support the growth and enjoyment of Geocaching in harmony with the law and environment.
....and Moss trooper.
I don’t see anything in there to say on behalf of GAGB.. I do note the comment about a NATIONAL event ?????? That does not seem to invole GAGB either.

1) Are all geocaching events now to be held under the umbrella of GAGB. ie are we not going to allow people to organise their own events without the GAGB 'Big Brother' involvment?

2) Will cachers only be allowed to approach local land owners, councils, park authorities with the permission and blessing of GAGB?

If the answer to either of these is yes, then GAGB is going well beyond it's published aims, and IMHO going to create a stiflling and oppressive level of red tape and resentment in the UK caching community. In any case, you will not stop 'unblessed' events and caches and probably make them more common.

Personally I take my hat off to anyone who is willing to put the time and energy into organising large scale events and approaching authrorities with a view to harbering better relations. Why can't you see you are both on the same side - that of embracing and promoting caching in the UK?

[Pharisee]

Either I’m totally missing something here or I’m going (prematurely, I hope) senile.

Moss was appointed ‘Approver’ by Geocaching.com, the governing body of geocaching world wide. OK… I know there are other sites but to all intents and purposes they are insignificant (flame me if you like but they are). Geocaching.com approve our new caches, it’s their site we log our finds (or not) on. They are the head honchos.

The GAGB is local. Its purpose… to promote peace and harmony for geocaching and geocachers in the UK. Much as some would like it to be so, it is NOT a subsidiary of Goecaching.com and it has no power to do anything, much less approve caches. Moss’s conflict of interest was clearly stated in his earlier post when he told us that he was only going to approve caches to GAGB/HCC guidelines. That was clear and irrevocable.

Geocacheuk.com is a data base, fer crissake… It holds data, nothing else, and presents it in the best way for us to make use of it. To the best of my knowledge, it has no interest what so ever in approving or administering caches and we sure as hell don’t log our finds there. For the life of me, I can’t see any conflict of interest in Teasel being part of G:UK and a member of the GAGB committee.

To my way of thinking, the closer GAGB and G:UK are, the better for all of us here in the UK. They are both working (or will be, I hope) for the good of us all and I, for one, fully support them both.

John

[Teasel]

You can't be party to two sites.. has to be one or other..
G:UK is not a listing site; it's a copy of the Groundspeak cache info with a rather whizzy interactive map (if I do say so myself!). Would Chris n Maria be accused of a conflict of interest because they have a rather whizzy interactive tube map (and the mother of all waypoint spreadsheets!)?

You and DDD responded to the accusations of conflict of interest by withdrawing from the election. I do not feel that providing, among other things, a ranking of who's deflowered the most virgin caches should constitute a conflict of interest. That's a difference of opinion, not hypocrisy! Personally, I think both you and DDD should have let the voters decide (but then again I wasn't on the receiving end of all that grief, just for wanting to help geocaching, so I understand your decision).

I really don't see why you're attacking me. I can find only two posts where I've addressed your suitability for the GAGB committee. In the first (https://www.gagb.org.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=110&st=0), I challenged el10t for appearing to suggest that you and I didn't have enough spare time to be on the committee. And in the second (http://ubbx.groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=6616058331&m=51860047&r=88560147#88560147), I said that you'd have had my vote for a place on the committee! Please, you're barking up the wrong tree!

[Paul G0TLG]

Originally posted by Moss Trooper@Sep 9 2003, 10:36 PM

I was still told.. Conflict of Interest.. You can't.. how can you be independant..
Moss, by whom were you told this? I had a scan through the forum last night and couldn't find the thread.

If you were told this by Teasel then you have a fair gripe, and I'd be angry too: If he wasn't any part of it, then have a go at the people who were, not him.

Personally I'd have preferred you to have stood, and let the membership decide in a fair vote whether there's a conflict of interest or not (and if there is one, whether we're prepared to put up with it for the sake of having you on committee). I'd have voted for you.

Having said that, I've served on enough committees to understand that anyone who takes that much flak before the vote even starts, has good reason for not wanting to serve.

Paul

[Chris n Maria]

<A slightly more reasoned post than earlier (thats what happens when you post drinking Scruttocks Old Derigible :blink: >

I really just wanted to echo Pharisee&#39;s (and Others) comments.
Having nominated both Moss and Teasel I feel the whole conflict of interest thing is getting rather silly.

Moss had a potential conflict of interest in that he was approving caches and part of GAGB - the conflict being that he could (potentially) have refused caches that met GC.com guidelines because they did not meet GAGB guidelines. Many people felt in principle that this was wrong, In practice it would have made virtually no difference to the game and I (and I am sure many others) know that Moss is a very sensible chap who would only do the best for us. That is why, if Moss was still standing, I would have voted for him.

As for Teasel, sorry but I can&#39;t see where the conflict of interest would occur - except perhaps in a bias towards GC.com rater than other sites (and most of us are guilty of that one). Unless anyone can enlighten me otherwise? In the mean time he has done shed loads of good work for cachers in the UK and has a strong working relationship with GC.com. As far as I can see teasel has every right to stand - if we carry on like this, we in danger of filling every comittee place with people who have never done anything for the comunity.

Having said that if you think there is a problem dont vote for Teasel.
In the same way that if you don&#39;t like Paul Blitz statement: perhaps in the longer term, that GAGB should take on the task of approving UK caches for Geocaching.Com then dont vote for him.
If you think Real Ale drinkers have a conflict of interest; "What shall I do today pub? cache?...pub it is then :D " dont vote for phaisee
etc. etc.

This is a democratic election - vote for the people you think would do a good job and dont vote for those who you think wont. Thats about it really.

Remember - Its just a hunt for a lunchbox
All of the above was typed in a calm and rational voice - please read in the same way
Chris

[Geoff &amp; Bonnie]

Yes, what Pharisee said. Also, Teasel got my vote.
Geoff

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by TheCat@Sep 9 2003, 09:55 PM
Paul Blitz in his manifesto states: ......

I should point out that what I said is MY feelings, which may or may not be the feelings of others in the GAGB / other candidates for the Committee... certainly, AT THE MOMENT, there is nothing on GAGB that says any of that.


Paul

[John Stead]

Being a reader of only one forum at a time, I haven&#39;t followed the thread on this forum till now but see that others have already expressed here what I said this morning in the other place:-

"I am afraid that I don&#39;t see G:UK as an organization with members but a resource which we can use or not use as we choose. I don&#39;t see therefore that involvement with G:UK precludes service to GAGB. Yes I am aware that actions of individuals both in G:UK and GAGB have caused offence to others and that there is some animosity, but I don&#39;t see that as a valid reason to challenge an individual&#39;s suitability for the committee.

Surely better for differences to be aired and resolved in a committee than in public especially as I believe that some of the ill feeling that exists results from failures of communication in the past."

Now Moss has apologised if he has caused offence to individuals for heaven&#39;s sake let us get on with selecting the right people, whoever we may now think they are. Of course we won&#39;t all vote for the same people - that&#39;s what it&#39;s all about, getting a representative balance. The lists are closed and we can vote.

[BugznElm&#39;r]

Yep ... we get an apology ... shame about the damage caused :o

Although it&#39;s to be expected here now. :( :angry:

[MCL]

I&#39;m afraid, to answer the question above about who rasied the point about conflict of interest, I have to put my hand up and say that I was at least one person to post saying that cache approvers would in my view have a CoI.

I had hoped that I had laid out a reasoned argument (I can&#39;t be bothered to find the link to it now, nor can I recall which forum it was on, GC, GUK, or GAGB) in the post, but just in case I didn&#39;t let me summarise my reasons why I think there is a difference between Moss&#39;s position, and Teasel&#39;s.

Now, I have met Moss, and a finer and more charming chap one could not wish to meet, and my theory about CoI has nothing whatever to do with the personalities involved. Indeed, if the two main characters were reversed, and Teasel ws the approver and Moss was the programmer, I would be suggesting that Teasel should be the one to not stand.

The difference between Moss&#39;s position (a GC.COM approver and forum moderator) and Teasel&#39;s (a programmer for a personal website) is that GC.COM has power over the sport, and Moss has (or at least had at the time) power over the sport and the way we play it. If he chose not to approve a cache then we couldn&#39;t do that cache. That is real power, excercised on a daily basis, with decisions affecting potentially thousands of cachers worldwide.

Not only that, but as a forum moderator for the same powerful and pivotal organisation (GC.COM) he excercised power over what gets said on the biggest forum in the sport. He has terminated threads and gagged posters as part of his duties, and thus excercised real power over the people who play the sport and their communication between each other.

Teasel, on the other hand, has no power, approves no caches, imposes no guidelines, and locks no threads on any discussion forum.


As I said this is nothing personal to Moss, it&#39;s just that at that time he was the only approver about. Now we have Eckington, and by the same reasoning I would not be happy about him standing for the GAGB committee.

To keep the balance, and show that my argument is really unbiased, I would also not wish to see Washboy stand for committee, since he is a forum moderator (On GUK) with real power to censor people&#39;s speech (although I know he has never yet exercised that power).

THAT is the essence of my argument, and I still stand by it. This time, it is Moss who was "persuaded" to stand down, but it might just as easily have been someone else. I would not wish, for example the approvers from Navicache to stand for committee either.

The alternative scenario that I *would* be happy with, is that, if we have one approver on the comittee, then we must also have an approver from each of the other existing and future listing sites on the committee, just so we cannot be accused of bias by anyone. I *would* be happy with that, but the problem with that solution is that it implies that there is an approver from each site that is willing to serve, and I doubt there is. So, in the absence of that, I believed, and still believe that we should exclude approvers of all listing sites, and moderators of all caching forums.

Now I can see someone with their hand up at the back....yes? ... whats that?..Tim and June?...ah yes, I see what you mean. Let me just deal with that one:

Tim and June it has been suggested by the lady in the fifth row, are the moderators of *this* forum, yet they are on the committee. There are two things I would like to say in this situation.
- As far as I am aware, "Admin" moderates this forum, and for all I know they are not the same people as "Tim and June". They may be, but I am not sure.
- Even if they are the same person, my CoI point hinges on representatives of listing sites bringing bias into the committee. This *is* the GAGB forum, and as such it is naturally biased towards the GAGB, and GAGB is allowed to be biased towards *it*. The others aren&#39;t. Simple as that. Nevertheless, I will still be urging Tim and June, as the GAGB finds it&#39;s feet, to make sure they do NOT have any day-to-day control over moderating this forum. They should be "ordinary" posters here just like the rest of us. Mark (TheCat) has put himself in a similar position over on GUK, in that although he is the site owner and publisher (and I have seen his penthouse office with the solid marble flooring and the fine Cuban cigars he smokes all day long) he bows completely to the decisions and censorship of his moderator (Washboy).

[dodgydaved]

As far as I can see MCL is to be thanked for a well reasoned and well stated argument.

I think it puts the crux of the CoI situation in a nutshell.

Perhaps we can vote...........

[thecookiecrew]

Can I for one suggest that as we seem to have covered off all the ORIGINAL issues with CoI with regards Moss, and given that he has now resigned his post as GC approver that we allow him to be added to the Candidates for election to the comittee (should he wish to be of course&#33;&#33;).

In my opinion he has been a strong representative of the sport in the past, giving his time freely to the thankless task of approving caches, settling desputes within the forum, OK sometimes starting them, but more often than not resoving, and I am guessing was one of the original founding members of GAGB (Of course I am guessing as I cannot find any evidence either way.)

However a little bridge building would, again in my opinion, be required with Thecat and Teasel....... Maybe a pint ?

[Teasel]

Originally posted by thecookiecrew@Sep 11 2003, 12:31 PM
Maybe a pint ?
Already sorted - I&#39;m up Moss&#39;s way on holiday next week and we&#39;ve arranged to meet up at a local hostelry while I&#39;m there. :) We can swap the debates over the direction of geocaching with a debate over who gets to buy the first round&#33; :D (Much more pleasant, and lots of incentive for a fast and amicable solution...)

[Moss Trooper]

I will buy the first.. I owe you that :D

after that slowest to thee wallet wins :wacko: