Banned subjects

[+mcwomble]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

[+Simply Paul]

Perhaps it was the wording more than the actual memorial to the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa that was the problem? If you ask them why it was rejected, they should be able to tell you, and then you can amend the page to reflect their wishes. That's how it usually works, anyway. Going public may not help, as 'higher powers' have been known to hang out here, and block, archive and otherwise make it hard to get a cache listed. Good luck with it.

[+maxkim]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

I can't straight off, but would be surprised if you have not been given any reasons or guidence as to the reason. Have you asked them directly what the problem is? Cheers Mark

[+Von-Horst]

Can anyone see why a simple cache that mentions a 1985 memorial to the Sharpeville Massacre is regarded as soliciting whereas caches based around war memorials seem OK.

 

I can't but our local reviewers seem to take exception to it.

 

Any thoughts anyone?

 

Have you tried to open a dialogue by email with the reviewer in question before posting here on the forum?

 

In my experiance they are very approachable and reasonable people who generally will be able to propose a compromise solution. Be that as it may, since you asked;

 

Possibly the description of the proposed cache has (presumably unitentionally) been worded in such a way that it could be viewed as soliciting discussion or implying a judgement or 'editorial bias' on the event? Cache listings are not really the correct place to pursue 'an agenda' even if it done by accident/unitentionally...

 

Perhaps a very simple description ("The cache is near a memorial to the 'Sharpeville Massacre'. For more information see this Link") would be acceptable?

 

To refer to your example, in my experience caches near war memorials have descriptions that are, by and large, factual ("the cache is near the memorial of village 'x' to those that have fallen in war") and don't glorify or condemn war and can't be seen as promiting or extolling a particular polital/social commentary...

 

Hope this helps,

 

Mike

[+mcwomble]

Perhaps it was the wording more than the actual memorial to the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa that was the problem? If you ask them why it was rejected, they should be able to tell you, and then you can amend the page to reflect their wishes. That's how it usually works, anyway. Going public may not help, as 'higher powers' have been known to hang out here, and block, archive and otherwise make it hard to get a cache listed. Good luck with it.

 

I have and I'm still wating for a reply from both.

 

The last objection seemed to be mentioning that there was a memorial to the massacre which is why the council in their wisdom renamed the area Sharpeville.

I didn't put the memorial there but it's the whole point of where the cache is hidden - it's like using a war memorial but not being allowed to mention the war!

 

I wouldn't mind but the inspiration for the cache and the walk to it has been 2 local war memorial caches which have been happily published.

 

The exact wording was

"These hills were officially named "Sharpeville Hills" in 1985 by XXXXX council on the 25th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre and there is an inscribed memorial commemorating the event at the summit."

 

in amongst a whole paragraph describing the parkland. I've removed the struck out section in the hope this placates the reviewers.

 

How is this any different from a war memorial to the fallen of both world wars, which have been used on numerous other listings?

Is it because this is more modern history and therefore more fresh in peoples memories?

 

I just wonder what other venues I should be avoiding for other caches.

[+Von-Horst]

Perhaps the less emotive (and also used) "Sharpeville Shootings" would be OK?

[Deceangi]

The reasoning behind the request to remove the relevant parts was explained to the Cache Owner, this request was made after Alba15, Graculus and myself discused the cache page between ourselves and reached a consensus.

 

As to discussions about the actual cache description, as the cache has yet to be published the discussion is still on going between the Cache Owner and the UK Reviewers, as dialog has not reached the stage of impasse between us. Especially given the small amount of direct communication between us, has not allowed us to have a proper discussion with the Cache Owner.

 

 

Deceangi

[+Simply Paul]

Personally I see no problem with the original wording, if that's all there was to it and it's not been taken out of a wider, more 'political' or contentious context. As you say, little different from many other memorials to the fallen of all sorts of conflicts, from Indian uprisings to a selection of world wars or even the victims of terrorism (freedom fighter?) attacks. But I'm not a reviewer and my opinion counts for nothing

[+currykev]

I just "googled" the word "sharpeville".

No surprises what phrase popped up over and over again.

I'd say it's more than just the title that is causing concern.

Keep up the communication mcwomble.

[+mcwomble]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions - I've resubmitted and am awaiting the reviewers feedback.

 

Failing that I'll just have to remove the cache and archive and still to something less likely to offend anyones sensibilities like Star Trek

[+jerryo]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing. I guess my series of caches around churches, mosques, synagogues, cathedrals and kingdom halls entitled Fairytale Trails is going to run into trouble

[+careygang]

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions - I've resubmitted and am awaiting the reviewers feedback.

 

Failing that I'll just have to remove the cache and archive and still to something less likely to offend anyones sensibilities like Star Trek

 

I just wonder why you decided to open discussion in this forum rather than keep it private between yourself and the reviewer team.

Not exactly a smart move to make any negotiation of any type public, be it geocaching or any other subject. You're lucky that our reviewers are nice people and don't just dig their heals in.

[+mcwomble]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing. I guess my series of caches around churches, mosques, synagogues, cathedrals and kingdom halls entitled Fairytale Trails is going to run into trouble

 

In the case of the council memorial itself, it is typical of the loony behaviour of some councils in the mid 80's - lots of diatribe about solidarity with the oppressed masses and overthrowing corrupt regimes.

I deliberately avoided mentioning any of that (I don't perscribe to any of it) but I thought that mentioning an actual factual event nearly 50 years ago now was safe territory.

 

I wonder at what point in time does it become acceptable to mention that a historical atrocity took place?

 

Sorry this is getting a bit deep now.

[+Simply Paul]

...You're lucky that our reviewers are nice people and don't just dig their heals in.

TBC

[Deceangi]

...You're lucky that our reviewers are nice people and don't just dig their heals in.

TBC

 

Confirmed

[+mcwomble]

I just wonder why you decided to open discussion in this forum rather than keep it private between yourself and the reviewer team.

 

My decision to post was more aimed at when does a publicised event cease to be deemed to sensitive to be mentioned.

 

To my mind a memorial to 69 dead people is still a memorial whether it happened 10 years ago or 100 years ago. The motives behind erecting the memorial still don't change the event itself.

 

When do we stop being sensitive about a event?

[SlytherinAlex]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing.

Why???

[+Simply Paul]

When do we stop being sensitive about a event?

It's not reinvent when we stop being sensitive about an event, it's when they stop being sensitive about an event. Are there guidelines written down somewhere, and if so are they available to mere cachers rather than just reviewers, so no one need accidentally offer up a cache unsuitable for listing?

[+Simply Paul]

...You're lucky that our reviewers are nice people and don't just dig their heals in.

TBC

Confirmed

I'm not so sure. Well done on releasing it, but I see all reference to the nature of the memorial has been removed from the cache page. Sounds like heels were dug in to me, and the setter was obliged to change the wording, as they proposed above:

 

"Artificial mud hills created out of soil excavated in building the new housing estates dominate the north eastern side. These hills were officially named "Sharpeville Hills" by Basildon Council in 1985 and there is an inscribed memorial commemorating the event at the summit."

 

Good work by mcwomble, who with 200+ finds decided to place their first cache. I hope the convoluted experience hasn't put them off placing more.

[+mongoose39uk]

Without seeing the full original text I find it difficult to comment, however my gut feeling is this is a step too far.

 

There are lots of historical events that are mentioned in detail in cache listings.

 

Sorry but gotta throw my hands up and say I really don't understand.

 

Hope it aint put you off, probably would have been better to sort it of forum first though.

[+MartyBartfast]

but now it's been published the owner can edit the page and put in any text (s)he wants, the reviewers won't see it unless:

1. They move it more than 0.1 miles
   
2. Someone complains
   

[+mongoose39uk]

but now it's been published the owner can edit the page and put in any text (s)he wants, the reviewers won't see it unless:

1. They move it more than 0.1 miles
   
2. Someone complains
   

 

You can be pretty sure they will be watching it now

[+mcwomble]

but now it's been published the owner can edit the page and put in any text (s)he wants, the reviewers won't see it unless:

1. They move it more than 0.1 miles
   
2. Someone complains
   

 

You can be pretty sure they will be watching it now

 

I wont be changing it as I've not got an axe to grind.

 

To my mind it is a memorial that remembers the deaths of 69 people in South Africa and prior to my discovering it on a walk round the park, I knew little if anything about the pass law protests or that the massacre had even taken place.

My knowledge of South African politics stopped somewhere around the point of the general apartheid system, various sports boycotts and a little old man called Nelson Mandela being released from jail.

Since then I've read up on the incident and irrespective of their guilt or motives, the shootings were instrumental in bringing the whole mess to the attention of the world.

 

In that respect those sacrificed lives are no different to those lives sacrificed in either World War, but the latter seem to have a reserved apolitical status.

 

For those who make the trip it affords some nice views on a sunny autumn day, well as nice as you can get with Basildon.

[+mongoose39uk]

No axe to grind here either, just not sure if I agree with the decision.

[+jerryo]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing.

Why???

Because perhaps their remit is to be PC and they may be following guidelines of their own? You know what it's like here.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Like others here, I haven't a clue why there was a fuss about this cache.

 

After reading the final version of the cache description, I have to say that it doesn't make sense - and I don't think that is the fault of the cache owner. So I'm none the wiser, and could well fall foul of the same rule as I don't know what it is.

 

All I can glean from it is that Basildon Council made some artificial mud hills back in 1985, called them "Sharpeville" for some reason and erected a plaque at the top to mark their "achievement".

[Deceangi]

Like others here, I haven't a clue why there was a fuss about this cache.

 

After reading the final version of the cache description, I have to say that it doesn't make sense - and I don't think that is the fault of the cache owner. So I'm none the wiser, and could well fall foul of the same rule as I don't know what it is.

 

All I can glean from it is that Basildon Council made some artificial mud hills back in 1985, called them "Sharpeville" for some reason and erected a plaque at the top to mark their "achievement".

 

Simple solution to find out why Sharpeville, try googleing it.

[+Mad H@ter]

Like others here, I haven't a clue why there was a fuss about this cache.

 

After reading the final version of the cache description, I have to say that it doesn't make sense - and I don't think that is the fault of the cache owner. So I'm none the wiser, and could well fall foul of the same rule as I don't know what it is.

 

All I can glean from it is that Basildon Council made some artificial mud hills back in 1985, called them "Sharpeville" for some reason and erected a plaque at the top to mark their "achievement".

 

Simple solution to find out why Sharpeville, try googleing it.

Sorry, but I'm still none the wiser

That is unless the original listing steered away from just the facts of the event and was making some political point?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Simple solution to find out why Sharpeville, try googleing it.

I tried that when the thread was first started, but I'm still no nearer knowing what the problem is.

 

I should clarify that the cache description now reads

 

"Artificial mud hills created out of soil excavated in building the new housing estates dominate the north eastern side. These hills were officially named "Sharpeville Hills" by Basildon Council in 1985 and there is an inscribed memorial commemorating the event at the summit."

 

So it looks like the memorial commemorates the council's building of the hills. I'm not sure why that is controversial. Perhaps it requires local knowledge.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[SlytherinAlex]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing.

Why???

Because perhaps their remit is to be PC and they may be following guidelines of their own? You know what it's like here.

If there are guidelines, we need to know what they are.

[+drdick&vick]

The following is listed as the Aftermath in Wikipedia

<Quote>

Since 1994, 21 March has been commemorated as Human Rights Day in South Africa.

Sharpeville was the site selected by former President Nelson Mandela for the signing into law of the Constitution of South Africa, on December 10, 1996.

In 1998, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) found that the police actions constituted "gross human rights violations in that excessive force was unnecessarily used to stop a gathering of unarmed people."

<Quote ends>

 

Considering the amount of polotical interest worldwide in the Human Rights issue and the fact that Nelson Mandela is considered to be an international hero (Not my opinion) I can in all honesty see any reason why any informative facts should not be included on the cache site.

I have visited two sites, both of which are actually in an area relating to a battle of the English Civil War and they both contain information relating to the battle.

 

See the following cache pages for references to possible contraversial info.

Grateful Dead (mentions the slave word)

Last Battle gefore Tallin

The Battle of Athens

Battle of Blackroyd

Battle of Champions

 

If these references are ok then why not the Sharpville information.

 

THIS IS NOT, IN ANYWAY, A DIG AT OUR REVIEWERS WHO DO AN AMAZING JOB AS VOLUNTEERS.

Edited November 1, 2008 by DrDick&Vick

[Deceangi]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing.

Why???

Because perhaps their remit is to be PC and they may be following guidelines of their own? You know what it's like here.

If there are guidelines, we need to know what they are.

 

you must have missed this part of the Guidelines them

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

[dodgydaved]

Looks like a case of PCness. I don't blame the reviewers as they need to be very careful about this sort of thing.

Why???

Because perhaps their remit is to be PC and they may be following guidelines of their own? You know what it's like here.

If there are guidelines, we need to know what they are.

 

you must have missed this part of the Guidelines them

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

 

 

 

For goodness sake, Dave, can we not have a bit of transparency for a change and a straight answer to a straight question.

[+Graculus]

I would like to point out (as the reviewer who initially rejected this cache) that the only people who know what the cache description originally said are the cache owner and the reviewers - and this remains confidential between us. The full original description was never posted on this thread. Therefore no one here knows why my decision was made, so speculating on what was, or wasn't, said is rather pointless. I made the decision after consulting with my two colleagues and taking their advice. The guideline Deceangi referred to is absolutely correct, "At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.". These concerns were brought to the attention of the cache owner, the matter was resolved between us and the cache was published.

 

As reviewers, we are not obliged to discuss or justify our decisions relating to specific caches with anyone else other than the cache owner or Groundspeak.

 

If a cache owner is unhappy with the decisions of a reviewer they have the right of appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Graculus

[+Simply Paul]

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

Meaning when a cache meets the listing requirements, it can be listed. End of. But reviewers, as experienced cachers (but perhaps less experienced cachers than the setter) may see additional concerns the placer may not have noticed (in which case, their feedback would be helpful and constructive). As a courtesy they may bring concerns about the placement (not the cache description then, just where and how the box/es is/are hidden) to the placer's attention and offer suggestions (not insist on changes- that's not a 'suggestion') before posting. I can't see how this quote pertains to the situation in question, unless it means mcwomble's cache would have been listed with the original text and they only changed it in response to a courtesy suggestion from reviewers. Reading their comments above, this seems unlikely to me.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The difficulty seems to be that the reviewers are unable to make public what the problem is, nor even why they can't say. The effect is to drag the issue out unnecessarily (a bit like the Brand/Ross incident which the BBC managed to blow up out of proportion).

 

TBH I wasn't THAT interested until the cache problem took on this air of mystery! But it looks like we'll never know the truth.

[+Simply Paul]

I would like to point out (as the reviewer who initially rejected this cache) that the only people who know what the cache description originally said are the cache owner and the reviewers - and this remains confidential between us.

The exact wording was

"These hills were officially named "Sharpeville Hills" in 1985 by XXXXX council on the 25th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre and there is an inscribed memorial commemorating the event at the summit."

Are you suggesting mcwomble lied about their original cache page text?

The full original description was never posted on this thread. Therefore no one here knows why my decision was made, so speculating on what was, or wasn't, said is rather pointless.

I call on mcwomble to post the whole original text then. Unless it could never happen again, this isn't a pointless discussion.

I made the decision after consulting with my two colleagues and taking their advice. The guideline Deceangi referred to is absolutely correct, "At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.". These concerns were brought to the attention of the cache owner, the matter was resolved between us and the cache was published..

The cache owner was told to change the page or their first cache wouldn't be listed, and understandably (I think) they couldn't see the problem but capitulated to get their cache accepted.

As reviewers, we are not obliged to discuss or justify our decisions relating to specific caches with anyone else other than the cache owner or Groundspeak.

Being able to justify a decision publicly would be helpful though, lest one perceived as poor puts other people off setting caches.

If a cache owner is unhappy with the decisions of a reviewer they have the right of appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Graculus

This bit made me smile:

[SlytherinAlex]

you must have missed this part of the Guidelines them

 

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.

Carte Blanche to make it up as you go along. Nice.

[+careygang]

Back to my comment at Post #12.

 

If all this was being sorted through communication between the Reviewer and the Cache Owner, then why start this topic unless it was to get yet another wind-up session going?

 

If I was a Volunteer Reviewer and someone went and started a topic like this going, it certainly wouldn't be top of my list to publish...

 

SUPPORT YOUR REVIEWER TEAM!!!

[+Michael]

Well the guidelines do suggest that if your cache is not listed you can take it to the forums. You can also write to appeals@geocaching.com and have it reviewed on a higher level. There is no problem with bringing a refused cache to the forums.

 

Michael

[+Mad H@ter]

Well the guidelines do suggest that if your cache is not listed you can take it to the forums. You can also write to appeals@geocaching.com and have it reviewed on a higher level. There is no problem with bringing a refused cache to the forums.

 

Michael

Well now, that's a breath of fresh air.

Many thanks for your input Michael, I think many will have appreciated it .

[+Graculus]

Indeed a cacher can do both these things if a cache is not listed. However I must point out that the OP emailed me at 08:23 and at 11:25 posted in the forums as he 'was still waiting for a reply' to his emails! By all means bring it to the forums, but give the poor reviewer a chance to respond first . I was at work all day.

 

Chris

Graculus

[+Mad H@ter]

Indeed a cacher can do both these things if a cache is not listed. However I must point out that the OP emailed me at 08:23 and at 11:25 posted in the forums as he 'was still waiting for a reply' to his emails! By all means bring it to the forums, but give the poor reviewer a chance to respond first . I was at work all day.

 

Chris

Graculus

If that was the case then I think most would agree that the OP was a bit quick off of the mark.

 

That said I think that Michael's post was still very valid. It is getting to the point that if you have a valid comment that you wish to discuss on these forums, many people are getting to the point that they don't, for fear of being attacked for being critical of Groundspeak/moderators/reviewers. I personally feel that way after what I perceived was a personal attack on me by a reviewer on a thread several weeks ago. This place is certainly not as friendly or as nice a place as it was, surely you should be able to discus Geocaching matters on here without fear of being attacked or belittled for your views.

 

One of the purposes of these forums IMHO is to obtain clarification and transparency on the written/unwritten guidelines/rules, that just does not appear to be happening. As soon as a decision is challenged a wall seems to come down (as can be seen by this thread) and no one is any the wiser.

 

BTW, apologies for taking this a tiny bit off topic.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A post of sanity there from the Hatter (perhaps not so mad then).

 

Would people please stop taking this so seriously: it's even more trivial then looking for hidden tupperware, it's only talking about the finer points of caching etiquette. We should be allowed to discuss whatever we like (within the guidelines) without having self-appointed forum police jumping up and down. Sometimes there are going to be posts which are critical of the reviewers and/or moderators. And why not?

 

We're all aware that these are volunteers who spend a lot of their time endeavouring to keep our game running smoothly. Personally, I have great respect for them and wouldn't want to take on such a job myself. I might not always agree with their approach and yet I'm grateful for what they do.

 

But part of their job is being open and transparent about policies and decisions, and as a result taking some flak from time to time (because we're all human). If such flak turns into a personal attack it would be a breach of guidelines. If not, then lets discuss it and get everything out in the open even if it only results in an "agree to differ" situation.

 

Describing valid discussion as "bickering" and "angst" and attacking those who are trying to get these issues an airing is stifling this forum further. If you don't like a debate, take a cool pill, ignore the thread and step back out of the way. Open a nice fluffy thread to provide an antidote, if you like.

[Deceangi]

Just to clarify things here is the relevant section from the Guidelines about the order a cache submission should go through a extended Review process.

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived.

 

Notice that Archiving the cache is considered to be the end a normal review process, where the Reviewer and Cache Owner have not been able to work together to get it published.

 

The time line for the cache in question

 

Day 1 initial review

Day 2

email to initial reviewer

second review [no knowledge at this point of email to initial reviewer]

owner sends reviewer email

Owner posts to the forum

Owner posts to the forum

reviewer reads and replies to email

reviewer reads topic in forum

Owner emails reviewer

reviewer publishes cache.

 

As you can see from the time line, we weren't given a a full chance as per the guidelines to even discus the cache with the owner before the topic was posted to this forum. But we have been castigated for not being open about what happened and the reasons why.

 

As has been pointed out already in this forum, and at least one poster is fully aware off.

 

Reviewers are expected to retain confidentiality at all times.

 

And if anyone feels that any Reviewer/Moderator has made a personal attack through these forums please please make a Official complaint to reviewers(at)geocaching.com. Groundspeak take all complaints extremely seriously, and will take any appropriate action they feel is warranted.

 

And I'm sorry and this is not a personal attack, nor is it aimed at anyone specific!

 

But there currently seems to be a climate within the UK caching community, where if the cache submission is not published on initial review. The cache owner instead of working with the Reviewer to resolve the issues, and following the Guideline time line to allow a full and proper review of the cache. Is bringing it straight into these forums.

 

If people wish a full and open discussion about everything, Reviewers would not be keeping discussions from the numerous cachers who contact us about cache issues everyday confidential. So the majority of issues we deal with extremely quietly behind the scenes would not happen. In some cases this would have resulted in several areas being prohibited to cache placements.

 

We can not cherry pick what to keep confidential, and have to keep all non public discussions [cache submissions and email discussions and even personal conversations] confidential. Even though we know full well that non disclosure will lead to complaints and angst. For which I personally can only apolagise.

 

I've just recently made a personal apology to a cache owner, as trusted information was accidentally revealed. The owner graciously accepted that apology due to the fact that Reviewer Confidentiality had not been breached, but the accident was caused by a system bug. If I'd been in a situation where I revealed confidential information to allow a full discussion to take place about a cache issue in this forum, the cache owner in no way would have believed my apology was genuine. And I would have been left in a untenable situation!

 

So once again I personally must apolagise, but I have no intentions now or in the future to breach the confidentiality required of a Reviewer to allow me to perform my duties in the best way I am able to benefit the UK Caching community

 

Deceangi

[+Happy Humphrey]

I understand your difficulty and I don't expect (or want) to see transcripts of private correspondence and such like. But the example that started this thread is a case in point; several people appear completely baffled by the issues around this cache, and the air of mystery generated led to a protracted guessing game and some minor frustration (which some cachers take to be fierce personal attacks, bickering and extreme angst ).

 

All it would have taken is to make a general point about submitting caches with this specific type of problem (whatever it is), explain why the reviewers see it as a problem (no, we can't guess from the guidelines), and give advice on how to avoid falling into the same trap (if there is one). After all, the OP raised the question so if it causes a little embarrassment....

 

Should people then argue, it's sufficient to say "I've explained my decision, and you can see that it was made honestly so we'll have to agree to disagree".

[Alan White]

A post of sanity there from the Hatter (perhaps not so mad then).

Hear, hear. Well said, John.

 

We're all aware that these are volunteers

I do wish we wouldn't use the word "volunteer". The reviewers and moderators aren't volunteers, they're Groundspeak appointees.

[+kewfriend]

I suggest closing this discussion. I think everyone may have pontificated rather too fast and dug themselves into corners.

[+MartyBartfast]

I do wish we wouldn't use the word "volunteer". The reviewers and moderators aren't volunteers...

 

Wrong, they may be appointed but they are also volunteers, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

volunteer

 

See definition number 2

[Deceangi]

A post of sanity there from the Hatter (perhaps not so mad then).

Hear, hear. Well said, John.

 

We're all aware that these are volunteers

I do wish we wouldn't use the word "volunteer". The reviewers and moderators aren't volunteers, they're Groundspeak appointees.

 

Whilst Groundspeak might appoint us but when asked to become a site Volunteer we had a right to refuse without sanctions or angst by Groundspeak. So we are in fact volunteers, as we give our time freely and unpaid for the benefit of the community. We are not forced to Review caches or Moderate the forums. And the only Major sanction Groundspeak can apply against us is to remove us as site volunteers.

 

On the other hand if we were paid appointees Groundspeak would have a huge range of major sanctions that they could apply. Also You'd be paying in the hundreds of pounds per year to use this site, to cover the cost of the wages for all the work currently done by unpaid Volunteers.

 

I'm quite happy to drop the use of the Volunteer description, if your happy to cover the cost of paying me a fair wage for being a Groundspeak Appointee.

 

Oh and as a paid employee I'd have still been clearing out the backlog of cache submissions from April to August. Because as a non Volunteer but as a employee I'd have a fixed working week [a maximum of 48 hours per week], and as such could have refused to have worked the huge amount of hours per week to keep the turnaround to less than 24 hours. As a Volunteer providing my time for the benefit of the community, I happily put in the huge amount of hours per week.

 

Deceangi proud to use the description of Volunteer Uk Reviewer