Time to out the socks

[sockpuppet]

I keep getting deleted. Let's out all the active sock puppets! We know that TPTB know who they are. Hell, we know some of them ARE TPTB! Let's stop messing about and have it all open. Also let us know just how fair these elections were, and tell us HOW MANY SOCK PUPPETS HAVE VOTED?!

[Tim and June]

As you seem to know so much, perhaps you would enlighten us.

[sockpuppet]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Oct 31 2003, 03:36 PM
As you seem to know so much, perhaps you would enlighten us.
Well we have so many socks here today. So I have to ask the question. How many voted? I think I read correctly that at least one voted in round one of the elections. I also know that "admin" whether one person or a group of people can tell who most of the sock puppets are. I am a case in point, I assume admin can out me, and I do not care if they do. If this was a real election there would be a serious enquiry. Too many suspicions have been aired. No smoke without fire.

Please note I am not making any accusations against individuals, but I feel that if most of the electorate either are socks, or are people untrusting of the process, we have no association or comittee of worth. This is a shame as I feel the GAGB could be a good thing.

I do hope that this post isn't deleted :rolleyes:

[Teasel]

So I have to ask the question. How many voted? I think I read correctly that at least one voted in round one of the elections.
If Piggly is a member of GAGB and voted in round one, then that's OK, assuming that he was the only one of ???'s personas who voted. If both Piggly and Muggle voted in the same round however then, from what I hear, I'd be concerned. From what I hear, if landranger were a member of GAGB, then it would also be concerning if they were to vote. The question is, though, how to identify sock puppets?

For day-to-day forum stuff, I'd favour a more heavy-handed moderation policy. So, if "Moss Trooper" posts a suggestion that geocachers lobby the FC to get all letterboxes removed from the NF, then fine. But if a new account pops up out of nowhere and posts something contentious, it gets sumarily deleted. False positives wouldn't cause me to lose any sleep - if they are genuinely a new cacher, let them post a few constructive comments before getting contentious! Or would that be too censorial, getting us spiraling down in debates about who polices the police?

Of course, we're on much thinner ice when it comes to deciding whether suspected sock puppets get to vote...

Now that Ian has declared DA to be a sock puppet, I assume that DA won't be allowed to vote in future elections? But what if he'd not "come clean"? Should admin be allowed to block someone from voting on the grounds of a matching IP address? Should "one team one vote" degenerate into "one dialup account, one vote"?


if most of the electorate either are socks, or are people untrusting of the process, we have no association or comittee of worth
The problem is well understood by all, the solution is less clear. What do you suggest?

[Gavotteers]

How about this way out once a member joins the group the following rule applies

1 New members are not allowed to post to the forum for 2 weeks from joining.

2 New members are not allowed to vote for 4 weeks from joining.

Might solve some problems

Mel :D

[sockpuppet]

As stated, I have no problem with any of the comittee members elected, regardless of how. I do though feel that all known sock puppets should be non-voting. We have the situation right now where most people's sock puppets can vote yet new members can not. Can this be right? I hope that by next year(?) we get to the situation where all socks are non-voting. If two people can be chairman, for example, then they would have accepted that that meant that they have one vote. So, why not one team one vote? That way, one IP address, one vote would get rid of most of the socks. Looking at the different rounds of elections, there were some happenings that were surprising. IF socks had been voting it would have made more sense than if they were individuals votes. I do not wish to accuse anybody of anything, it could be all straight up. However, I for one am thinking that maybe things were not as they should have been. I know that I'm not the only one. If the small proportion of members who think that the voting was not fair and square are right, then we have two problems. Firstly we have an even smaller number of members actually voting than we thought we did (and it is low enough already) Secondly one or two people could have enough puppets to decide the entire comittee makeup. It does not help that I could claim that my team had 6 people in it, and so was entitled to six votes under 6 approved identities. I could just be a lone cacher with six votes. Sometimes my caching name represents more people than at other times. Solutions? Well, apart from charging a small fee for membership I don't know. At least if we paid most people would be deterred from registering several accounts.

If we are to repeat this farce of an election next time, we may as well not bother. We members were never offically told that there was a poll. Those who don't check on here often wouldn't have known for a while. Maybe we have some members who still don't know that there is an election. It would have been nice to have been informed, afterall the GAGB has all of our e-mail addresses so how hard could it have been to give us all this common curtesy?

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by sockpuppet@Nov 1 2003, 07:49 PM
As stated, I have no problem with any of the comittee members elected, regardless of how. I do though feel that all known sock puppets should be non-voting. We have the situation right now where most people's sock puppets can vote yet new members can not. Can this be right? I hope that by next year(?) we get to the situation where all socks are non-voting. If two people can be chairman, for example, then they would have accepted that that meant that they have one vote. So, why not one team one vote? That way, one IP address, one vote would get rid of most of the socks. Looking at the different rounds of elections, there were some happenings that were surprising. IF socks had been voting it would have made more sense than if they were individuals votes. I do not wish to accuse anybody of anything, it could be all straight up. However, I for one am thinking that maybe things were not as they should have been. I know that I'm not the only one. If the small proportion of members who think that the voting was not fair and square are right, then we have two problems. Firstly we have an even smaller number of members actually voting than we thought we did (and it is low enough already) Secondly one or two people could have enough puppets to decide the entire comittee makeup. It does not help that I could claim that my team had 6 people in it, and so was entitled to six votes under 6 approved identities. I could just be a lone cacher with six votes. Sometimes my caching name represents more people than at other times. Solutions? Well, apart from charging a small fee for membership I don't know. At least if we paid most people would be deterred from registering several accounts.

If we are to repeat this farce of an election next time, we may as well not bother. We members were never offically told that there was a poll. Those who don't check on here often wouldn't have known for a while. Maybe we have some members who still don't know that there is an election. It would have been nice to have been informed, afterall the GAGB has all of our e-mail addresses so how hard could it have been to give us all this common curtesy?
Actually, an email was sent out in July about elections.

It's a compromise between too many emails and too few.

[Tim and June]

TIME TO END THIS FARCE.

This servivce is provided for the purpose of furthering geocaching in the UK NOT for the purpose of arguing.

We (T&J) pay for the bandwidth, registered the domain name, designed and created the website, and the copyright has not been assigned to anybody else.

IN SHORT, IF THIS BICKERING CONTINUES I WILL PULL THE PLUG AND THOSE DETRACTORS WHO WANTED TO STRANGLE THE GAGB AT BIRTH WILL HAVE THEIR WISH AND THE LANDOWNERS WILL HAVE NOBODY TO NEGOTIATE WITH.

WE WILL NOT HAVE OUR SERVICES ABUSED IN THIS MANNER.

[The Wombles]

It really is time to bring this to an end.

We all know that what we've got is less than perfect but continuing these interminable debates will not help. All these comments are noted for the future and will be debated in committee at the appropriate time; we'll be grateful for helpful suggestions about better solutions to be mailed to us.

However, what we've got is about as good as it's going to get for the immediate future.

[sockpuppet]

Originally posted by The Wombles@Nov 1 2003, 08:52 PM
It really is time to bring this to an end.

We all know that what we've got is less than perfect but continuing these interminable debates will not help. All these comments are noted for the future and will be debated in committee at the appropriate time; we'll be grateful for helpful suggestions about better solutions to be mailed to us.

However, what we've got is about as good as it's going to get for the immediate future.
Sure. For the record I never got any e-mail notification of any elections, proposals, etc.

As for having nobody to negotiate without the GAGB, get real! Negotiations have and will be carried out with and without the GAGB. The GAGB will make it easier to get some agreements, but a lack of GAGB would not mean ceasing or even a less effective negotiations, as recent events have shown, sometimes the individual can get results.

I am not trying to destroy or detract from the GAGB, I would just like to know how many sock puppets have voted as this is of interest to the membership, especially when it comes to trusting people here. We haven't had the chance to meet everyone, so we're voting on those internet images projected. Surely knowing how many sock puppets voted in each round would be helpful. I'm sure that admin has that information at present, and that the comittee will have it as soon as they are formed. It would be nice if they could reassure us that this election was actually honest.

[BugznElm'r]

Originally posted by Tim and June@Nov 1 2003, 08:26 PM
TIME TO END THIS FARCE.

This servivce is provided for the purpose of furthering geocaching in the UK NOT for the purpose of arguing.

We (T&J) pay for the bandwidth, registered the domain name, designed and created the website, and the copyright has not been assigned to anybody else.

IN SHORT, IF THIS BICKERING CONTINUES I WILL PULL THE PLUG AND THOSE DETRACTORS WHO WANTED TO STRANGLE THE GAGB AT BIRTH WILL HAVE THEIR WISH AND THE LANDOWNERS WILL HAVE NOBODY TO NEGOTIATE WITH.

WE WILL NOT HAVE OUR SERVICES ABUSED IN THIS MANNER.
I have to agree with Tim on this point here ... there is no such thing as a free lunch and this service is actually costing somebody and unless Tim is a sockpuppet of Bill Gates, they're not made of money! Currently, this still is his BBQ (even if he has resigned) and everyone needs to respect that ...

However, this does raise an issue. If the GAGB is to be a credible organization, its website cannot/should not be under this form of pressure/whim from one person (sorry Tim if that sounds unkind. I don't mean it that way.). Months ago I and a few others said that pretty much the only way for the GAGB to go would be to become subscription based and raise funds (I know that the Cat and Teasel run GeocacheUK.com for free but I think that is different). I would urge the committee to seriously consider this, no matter if things change and the waters calm down the line, if this is going to work. Membership would also take away all sockpuppet issues as only paying members could vote. What's the point of all of this if the plug can be pulled at any moment (OK, the plug hasn't been pulled but that doesn't matter ... how can the ordinary geocacher respect the organization and take it seriously when issues like that being raised).

In the interim, perhaps Tim could outline the costs for the next 3, 6 or 12 months and members could raise this money for a guaranteed service for that period of time.

I hope no one is offended by this and that the committee will consider it in due course.

[Brenin Tegeingl]

As just a ordinary member, I for one can confirm that I personally received a email informing me of the elections.
Oh! And just to be open and for the record, user name here and on GUK.COM as Mancunian, user name on GC.com as Mancunian Pyrocacher, changed from Mancunian. Real name Dave Palmer! So come on sockpuppet why don't you just reveal your real identity yourself! If you have genuine opinions why hide behind the Troll account, stand up and say what you mean under your own name! And I for one have vote in all votes, just once in each vote using the one membership of this association! And as to why I've keept to a user name up to now, I felt there was no need to reveal my name to take part in and hopefully help geocaching forward, Now because of people like you, I feel a need for everyone to take part in this association using their own name and not hide behind a user name.
Dave Palmer

[BugznElm'r]

Monikers have formed the basis of geocaching at GC.com since the beginning (not to mention the web as a whole!) and I don't see a witch hunt on monikers solving anything.

[Chris n Maria]

Originally posted by BugznElm'r@Nov 2 2003, 12:41 PM
Monikers have formed the basis of geocaching at GC.com since the beginning (not to mention the web as a whole!) and I don't see a witch hunt on monikers solving anything.
I agree - also if we did away with them it would reduce Friends to only 5 charecters and I am sure that would ruin some of the scripts :D :D :D

[marinor]

I think I must apaologise, this is all my fault, when I first joined geocaching, Tim & June resigned, now a few months later, I return home on leave and Tim & June resign again. I am obviously a Jinx, and therefore now declare that if Tim & June start again, I will just watch and say nuttin at all, sign nuttin and take no photos. As for now, I am purrfectly willing to cough up a few quid now and then for something that has given me pleasures that will remain with me for life. Off topic..probably, Rambling...definately, Fun...always :D

stay safe :)

[Muggle]

Originally posted by Chris n Maria+Nov 2 2003, 06:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chris n Maria @ Nov 2 2003, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--BugznElm&#39;r@Nov 2 2003, 12:41 PM
Monikers have formed the basis of geocaching at GC.com since the beginning (not to mention the web as a whole&#33;) and I don&#39;t see a witch hunt on monikers solving anything.
I agree - also if we did away with them it would reduce Friends to only 5 charecters and I am sure that would ruin some of the scripts :D :D :D [/b][/quote]
Chris, you will be happy to know that it took me 18 hours to work out what you were talking about :D :D :D

[Omally]

Hi Marinor, welcome back&#33; :D

[paul.blitz]

Originally posted by sockpuppet@Nov 1 2003, 09:00 PM
For the record I never got any e-mail notification of any elections, proposals, etc.
I wonder if the email about the vote went out only to those eligible to vote? If you joined AFTER the start of voting (which was mid-september, I think) then it would make sense. (Actually, I think the "cutoff date" was a little before then....)

As I don&#39;t know who you really are, and when you joined GAGB, I can&#39;t help much more.

I know I was registered before the cutoff, and I DID get an email


Paul

[NattyBooshka]

Originally posted by paul.blitz+Nov 4 2003, 07:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (paul.blitz @ Nov 4 2003, 07:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sockpuppet@Nov 1 2003, 09:00 PM
For the record I never got any e-mail notification of any elections, proposals, etc.
I wonder if the email about the vote went out only to those eligible to vote? If you joined AFTER the start of voting (which was mid-september, I think) then it would make sense. (Actually, I think the "cutoff date" was a little before then....)

As I don&#39;t know who you really are, and when you joined GAGB, I can&#39;t help much more.

I know I was registered before the cutoff, and I DID get an email


Paul [/b][/quote]
Well... seems most others have come clean so we will now too.

We joined June 6th and are voting members, so not sure what happened there. Also we tried subscribing to the polls forum so we wouldn&#39;t miss one again, but we got nothing when new polls were put up... maybe there&#39;s a bug somewhere?