Jump to content

Keyword: Mold


Recommended Posts

It seems that the reviewers have a keyword search that brings up cache logs with words like: moldy.

 

As there's been no response to my earlier note, I am forced to archive this listing.

If you wish to repair/replace the cache sometime in the future, just contact me email, including the GC Code, and assuming it meets the guidelines, we'll be happy to unarchive it.

 

This cache is being disabled because of keyword mold. I read the logs and it appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

It is possible I missed that it was fixed; if so, just do an owner maintenance and thank you!

 

Found it 10/17/2016

Needs some TLC getting very moldy inside! :) Adventure on

 

Only log mentioning 'mold'. From a cacher with four finds.

 

Cache hidden in 2002. A great cache with 283 finds. Yes. The CO passed on several years ago. And is no longer doing maintenance. One mention of 'mold' by a newbie was enough to archive the cache. If it were on my watch list, I would have gone out and scrubbed it.

Very sad to see this cache archived. It was a great old cache.

Link to comment

If there was mold, there was mold - the logger's find count has nothing to do with it.

 

It's a shame a good, old cache has been archived, but until GS allows post-mortem adoptions, I don't expect that to change.

And therein lies the problem. The accusation by the newbie is accepted at fact. Actually, specks of dirt can easily resemble mold. I would not go as far as to say that mold is a universally-recognized substance.

 

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Link to comment

Interesting. I put the entire 2nd quote in google and it came up with 3 other caches that were Temp Disabled because an earlier log mentioned 'mold'. They all happened from the same Reviewer on the same date, so not sure if it's something used regularly or if it was a one-time test?

I did a word search for mold in the Forum and came up with 37 pages of topics related to moldy caches. Apparently this isn't a new annoyance for some people.

Link to comment

It sounds like you maybe want to ban reviewers from using GSAK to do searches of log content. If so, I'd be happy to move your thread to the correct forum section.

I don't know what the OP was suggesting, and I certainly have no problem with reviewers searching anywhere for whatever they want. But I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache.

Link to comment

I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache.

 

Mold was just the trigger for investigation. The cache wasn't archived because it was moldy. The cache was archived because the reviewer disabled the cache, and since there is no CO to take care of the cache anymore, the 30-day window elapsed without action, and the reviewer took the inevitable next step.

 

The late CO owns eight other active caches; unfortunately, same thing's likely going to end up happening to all of them at some point unless someone with access to the account (like the daughter who hid his last cache posthumously) adopts them out. Clearly they knew how to hide a good, lasting cache, though, as it's been over a decade since he passed, yet eight of his caches are still issue-free.

 

Although I did find the cache in question, I didn't really learn anything that wasn't already in this thread. Maybe next time read a little more before responding to an issue that didn't exist.

Link to comment

If there was mold, there was mold - the logger's find count has nothing to do with it.

 

It's a shame a good, old cache has been archived, but until GS allows post-mortem adoptions, I don't expect that to change.

I'd think that many (who knew these folks) just thought that the family was still fixing things. :)

Was done for some time too...

- But now the "Last Visit" was late '16.

 

After past issues, adoptions without a CO aren't happening.

Link to comment

I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache.

Mold was just the trigger for investigation. The cache wasn't archived because it was moldy. The cache was archived because the reviewer disabled the cache, and since there is no CO to take care of the cache anymore, the 30-day window elapsed without action, and the reviewer took the inevitable next step.

You think there was an investigation? I see that the temp disable says the reviewer read the logs, but that single log is the only indication of trouble. It's not even enough to say that there's a problem at all, let alone a problem that couldn't be solved by someone dropping a fresh log into the cache. Indeed, the log is a find log, so it's actually proof that the cache is still viable even with this minor flaw.

 

Although I did find the cache in question, I didn't really learn anything that wasn't already in this thread. Maybe next time read a little more before responding to an issue that didn't exist.

Are you talking to me? I made a general comment, I didn't respond to an issue.

Link to comment

I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache.

Mold was just the trigger for investigation. The cache wasn't archived because it was moldy. The cache was archived because the reviewer disabled the cache, and since there is no CO to take care of the cache anymore, the 30-day window elapsed without action, and the reviewer took the inevitable next step.

You think there was an investigation? I see that the temp disable says the reviewer read the logs, but that single log is the only indication of trouble. It's not even enough to say that there's a problem at all, let alone a problem that couldn't be solved by someone dropping a fresh log into the cache. Indeed, the log is a find log, so it's actually proof that the cache is still viable even with this minor flaw.

 

I see the same reviewer tagged three moldy caches the same day, per noncentric's post, so yes, I think they were looking for moldy caches.

 

Although I did find the cache in question, I didn't really learn anything that wasn't already in this thread. Maybe next time read a little more before responding to an issue that didn't exist.

Are you talking to me? I made a general comment, I didn't respond to an issue.

I was, specifically referring to your comment above that you "think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache." Because that isn't what happened. The reviewer thought mold was cause to temporarily disable the cache, not to archive it. The reviewer thought the owner's subsequent failure to respond to the disabling within thirty days was cause for archival, which is par for the course and has been for years.

 

If you were speaking generally and not specifically referring to this instance, then I misunderstood you.

Link to comment

I see the same reviewer tagged three moldy caches the same day, per noncentric's post, so yes, I think they were looking for moldy caches.

Actually, that's what suggested to me that the reviewer ran an automated process based on an arbitrary term and didn't even look at the caches to see if disabling them was warranted.

 

I was, specifically referring to your comment above that you "think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache."

I worded what you've quoted to be a general statement that doesn't depend on whether that's what happened in this specific case.

 

Because that isn't what happened. The reviewer thought mold was cause to temporarily disable the cache, not to archive it. The reviewer thought the owner's subsequent failure to respond to the disabling within thirty days was cause for archival, which is par for the course and has been for years.

First, let's make clear that the reviewer did in fact conclude that the word "moldy" was cause enough to archive the cache. The fact that he first disabled it doesn't change that.

 

And temporarily disabling to see if anything happens is an investigation into whether the owner will react, not into whether the cache has a problem. The investigation into whether the cache has a problem is much simpler than that: if he'd looked at the log, he would have seen that "moldy" was a single word in a single log of a successful finder with very little experience, which should have told him there's nothing to worry about yet.

Link to comment

Now that there's a cache Health Score, couldn't a fix for "moldy" cache issues start with a keyword search on "wet" or "damp" , catching it before it becomes a Health problem ?

- There's more than a couple roads fulla them. :)

Ha ha, I can see it now, a cache pinged, disabled and archived because someone logged "the track was wet after all the recent rain, making our feet damp by the time we got to GZ".

Link to comment

The reviewer thought mold was cause to temporarily disable the cache, not to archive it. The reviewer thought the owner's subsequent failure to respond to the disabling within thirty days was cause for archival, which is par for the course and has been for years.

First, let's make clear that the reviewer did in fact conclude that the word "moldy" was cause enough to archive the cache. The fact that he first disabled it doesn't change that.

 

And temporarily disabling to see if anything happens is an investigation into whether the owner will react, not into whether the cache has a problem. The investigation into whether the cache has a problem is much simpler than that: if he'd looked at the log, he would have seen that "moldy" was a single word in a single log of a successful finder with very little experience, which should have told him there's nothing to worry about yet.

 

I disagree with your characterization of the reviewer's motives. Your assumption is yours alone and is not a "clear" representation of the facts.

 

It's a CO's responsibility to respond to reviewers and maintain their caches. It's a volunteer reviewer's role to flag caches that need attention and prompt the owner to investigate, either by disabling the cache or by some other means. There are nearly 14,000 active caches in New Jersey, at least 1,000 of which are currently are tagged as needing maintenance. The onus on investigating each of those caches is not on any one reviewer, it's on each of those cache's owners. And remember, this is not an automatic 30-day "death clock" for a cache. If an owner responds, then everyone wins: the CO fixes their cache, people get to find a maintained cache, and the reviewer doesn't have to archive a listing and leave an ammo can to be abandoned in the woods somewhere, moldering away. But if an owner can't or won't maintain their cache after a reviewer gets involved, the cache gets archived.

 

If you feel it's an abuse of discretion for a reviewer to look for new ways to avoid people finding moldy caches, then you're welcome to that opinion, but I disagree. As a cacher, I like finding caches in good shape, and I do not enjoy finding moldy caches. As a cache owner, I maintain my hides. I can't think of any instance over the last ten years where a reviewer has had to disable any of our caches.

Link to comment

I disagree with your characterization of the reviewer's motives.

I did not intend to imply anything about anyone's motives. I apologize if I did.

 

It's a CO's responsibility to respond to reviewers and maintain their caches.

It's true that a CO has responsibilities, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with "moldy".

 

If you feel it's an abuse of discretion for a reviewer to look for new ways to avoid people finding moldy caches, then you're welcome to that opinion, but I disagree. As a cacher, I like finding caches in good shape, and I do not enjoy finding moldy caches. As a cache owner, I maintain my hides. I can't think of any instance over the last ten years where a reviewer has had to disable any of our caches.

First, I'm not saying it's an abuse, I just don't think it's a good policy.

 

As to the rest, my position has always been that if the community doesn't report moldy caches, we should respect their wishes to have moldy caches. Your personal opinion about moldy caches -- or, in this case, caches where someone one time used the word "moldy" in a log, which is entirely different -- shouldn't trump everyone else's opinion. You're free to file an NM on moldy caches when you find them yourself.

 

Yes, it's a shame that some communities seem less capable of using NMs than most people would like, and it's a shame that reviewers have to go to the effort of tracking down caches that should have been reported by people that actually have some experience with the cache. I'd prefer that reviewers weren't driven in that direction, but I accept that they are. Even in light of that, searching logs for a single word that might possibly indicate a problem is over the top. As we discussed, he found a handful of caches; that doesn't sound like a plague that there's any need to stomp out.

Link to comment

Even in light of that, searching logs for a single word that might possibly indicate a problem is over the top. As we discussed, he found a handful of caches; that doesn't sound like a plague that there's any need to stomp out.

I was curious as to how many other caches got the "keyword mold" treatment. I plugged this search term into Google

 

This cache is being disabled because of keyword mold site:geocaching.com

 

and came up with ten caches, all disabled by the same reviewer on the same day in January 2017. Seven of the caches that were tagged got an owner maintenance visit to clean things up. The log on the eighth cache had just been replaced, and the owner re-enabled the cache with an explanation. The remaining two were both archived after the respective COs didn't respond to their caches being disabled; the finder who reported mold on the other cache had over 1,000 finds, and a subsequent finder confirmed that the old log was soaked and even a later replacement was getting wet.

 

At the end of the day, unless someone goes back out to the cache and cracks it open, we're left with the last finder's word on its condition. I'd like to think that one doesn't need to have hundreds of finds to be qualified to say whether something is moldy or not, but I'm not going to look the guy up to audit his experience, nor am I driving 400 miles to take a look myself.

 

Even if we assume that the newbie was talking out of his fourth point of contact, that's 1 potential false positive out of 10. I'm not concerned about that for now, but I reserve the right to change my mind if this turns out to be something more than a one-time experiment by one volunteer reviewer.

Link to comment

At the end of the day, unless someone goes back out to the cache and cracks it open, we're left with the last finder's word on its condition.

But we're also left with the last finder's decision that it wasn't worth requesting maintenance. For some reason, you (and the reviewer) consider last finder's passing reference to be definitive, and the fact that he decided it wasn't a serious problem is irrelevant.

Link to comment

At the end of the day, unless someone goes back out to the cache and cracks it open, we're left with the last finder's word on its condition.

But we're also left with the last finder's decision that it wasn't worth requesting maintenance. For some reason, you (and the reviewer) consider last finder's passing reference to be definitive, and the fact that he decided it wasn't a serious problem is irrelevant.

I was hoping we were coming closer to agreeing on something, but I guess not. If I read this right, you don't trust that someone with five finds has sufficient experience to detect and describe mold, but you do expect them to know how and when to leave a needs maintenance log? I don't quite follow.

Link to comment

I was hoping we were coming closer to agreeing on something, but I guess not. If I read this right, you don't trust that someone with five finds has sufficient experience to detect and describe mold, but you do expect them to know how and when to leave a needs maintenance log? I don't quite follow.

Either trust them, or don't trust them. Trust them: there's mold, but it's not a problem. Don't trust them: there's no mold. You have to really squint hard to decide they're absolutely right that there's mold and absolutely wrong about it not being a problem.

 

The 5 finds isn't that important, it just adds possibilities such as that most caches in that area have a little mold, and after a few more finds, they're realize it's not even worth mentioning.

Link to comment

It sounds like you maybe want to ban reviewers from using GSAK to do searches of log content. If so, I'd be happy to move your thread to the correct forum section.

I don't know what the OP was suggesting, and I certainly have no problem with reviewers searching anywhere for whatever they want. But I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache.

 

I doubt it was just the mold. The OP says the cache no longer had an owner.

Link to comment

At the end of the day, unless someone goes back out to the cache and cracks it open, we're left with the last finder's word on its condition.

But we're also left with the last finder's decision that it wasn't worth requesting maintenance. For some reason, you (and the reviewer) consider last finder's passing reference to be definitive, and the fact that he decided it wasn't a serious problem is irrelevant.

 

Too many people won't log an NM/NA. It seems reviewers realize this and are stepping up, since probably 95% of finders won't.

Link to comment

I doubt it was just the mold. The OP says the cache no longer had an owner.

Are you suggesting the reviewer targeted the cache because he knew it no longer had an owner?

 

Too many people won't log an NM/NA. It seems reviewers realize this and are stepping up, since probably 95% of finders won't.

If a seeker had looked at that log, saw that log entry, and posted an NM on the cache, I assume most people would consider that a serious mistake. Is it reasonable for a reviewer with the same information to take the even more drastic action of, in effective, posting an NA?

Link to comment

I doubt it was just the mold. The OP says the cache no longer had an owner.

Are you suggesting the reviewer targeted the cache because he knew it no longer had an owner?

 

I was responding to this part of your statement:

"But I do think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache."

He may have discovered the cache because of a single word, but archived for reasons that went beyond the word 'mold'.

Link to comment

He may have discovered the cache because of a single word, but archived for reasons that went beyond the word 'mold'.

This isn't really debatable: he decided the cache needs archiving at the beginning of the process. The fact that the CO didn't do anything to change his mind is immaterial to the question of what he decided based on the word "mold".

 

Saying what you're saying is like saying that when I post an NA on a cache, I haven't really decided it should be archived until later when the reviewer actually gets around to archiving it.

Link to comment

If there was mold, there was mold - the logger's find count has nothing to do with it.

 

It's a shame a good, old cache has been archived, but until GS allows post-mortem adoptions, I don't expect that to change.

And therein lies the problem. The accusation by the newbie is accepted at fact. Actually, specks of dirt can easily resemble mold. I would not go as far as to say that mold is a universally-recognized substance.

 

What happened to the presumption of innocence?

 

I think that argument was lost as soon as you hinted that the newbie was lying :laughing:

 

Does anybody think this discussion will conclude with anything useful?

Link to comment

I don't think mold by itself merits a cache being archived any more than a full log does. Yes, both are maintenance issues that should be taken care of. But the cache is still intact and findable without a serious issue. Archiving it turns a temporary issue into abandoned trash.

 

I contrast this to a broken/melted container or a cache full of water (or worse). At that point the cache is still in place, but has been degraded to the point that it effectively is trash.

 

Moldy logs are practically epidemic down here in FL due to the rain and humidity. Usually it's an unpleasant nuisance, but no worse than that.

Link to comment

This topic opens up a serious legal can of worms, which could get Groundspeak into a world of hurt.

 

gc.com is a listing service; that is, it lists the location of geocaches. It does not own the geocaches and it does not have any control of how the caches are maintained. If the cache is no longer there, or is placed illegally, then de-listing the cache makes perfect sense. Where and how gc.com gets the information that the cache is no longer present is not particularly relevant, so it can use DNFs or reviewers or whatever with no problems.

 

However, when gc.com starts deciding to de-list caches based not on existence but on some perceived "quality" of the container, the judgment has changed to being a matter of company policy. And having the reviewers implement company policy is illegal.

 

Here is the relevant statement:

 

Under the FLSA, employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers.

 

If the reviewers are implementing gc.com policy on behalf of gc.com, they are now employees and gc.com is not legally allowed to accept their volunteer services. They must be paid at least minimum wage, and they represent gc.com, which must now also accept liability for their actions as employees.

 

To date, gc.com's claim is that the volunteer reviewers are acting "on behalf of the community" instead of being employees. That claim is at least arguably true as long as the issues addressed by reviewers are facts, like whether the cache is there or not. But as soon as the issues start to reflect policy, such as whether the condition of the cache meets some minimum standard, then the reviewers are no longer acting on behalf of the community but are instead acting on behalf of gc.com.

 

Adding to the problem is that gc.com's so-called "community volunteers" are chosen by gc.com, not the community.

 

In other words, the reviewers are chosen by gc.com, implement gc.com policies on behalf of the for-profit entity, and are not paid. That is a big, huge, flashing no-no.

 

My recommendation for gc.com is to not use reviewers to implement any policy on cache quality, because it is nearly certain to become a very serious legal issue.

 

***Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All of the above is my opinion, and only an opinion based on a layman's reading of the law. ***

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

If the reviewers are implementing gc.com policy on behalf of gc.com, they are now employees and gc.com is not legally allowed to accept their volunteer services. They must be paid at least minimum wage, and they represent gc.com, which must now also accept liability for their actions as employees.

My assumption is that reviewers are doing this because they (mistakenly) think it's a good idea. I doubt there's anything that could be considered specific instructions from GS, and I doubt whatever encouragement they might be providing crosses any line.

Link to comment

I find this one amusing https://coord.info/GC3WQTG

 

The only log mentioning mold was a DNF! Saying

 

"I looked at all the obvious spots. Lots of moldy logs and skeeters. Thanks anyway."

 

So the logs in the woods nearby where moldy....

 

An honest mistake, but it shows keyword searches will come up with false positives.

 

So what if a reviewer did a keyword search on "missing". Yes, it would likely lead to some false positives, but it might be a tool a reviewer could use to identify caches which might need maintenance, put them on a list and periodically review the list to address caches that are, in fact, missing and the CO hasn't done anything about it.

 

To me, it's not the use of a keyword search that is a problem, but how the reviewer is responding when a cache is on the results of that search. False positives aren't a problem unless they're treated the same as true positives.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1493370942[/url]' post='5650714']

I find this one amusing https://coord.info/GC3WQTG

 

The only log mentioning mold was a DNF! Saying

 

"I looked at all the obvious spots. Lots of moldy logs and skeeters. Thanks anyway."

 

So the logs in the woods nearby where moldy....

 

An honest mistake, but it shows keyword searches will come up with false positives.

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I see the same reviewer tagged three moldy caches the same day, per noncentric's post, so yes, I think they were looking for moldy caches.

Actually, that's what suggested to me that the reviewer ran an automated process based on an arbitrary term and didn't even look at the caches to see if disabling them was warranted.

 

I was, specifically referring to your comment above that you "think there's a problem if a reviewer thinks the presence of a single word a cache log is cause enough to archive a cache."

I worded what you've quoted to be a general statement that doesn't depend on whether that's what happened in this specific case.

 

Because that isn't what happened. The reviewer thought mold was cause to temporarily disable the cache, not to archive it. The reviewer thought the owner's subsequent failure to respond to the disabling within thirty days was cause for archival, which is par for the course and has been for years.

First, let's make clear that the reviewer did in fact conclude that the word "moldy" was cause enough to archive the cache. The fact that he first disabled it doesn't change that.

 

And temporarily disabling to see if anything happens is an investigation into whether the owner will react, not into whether the cache has a problem. The investigation into whether the cache has a problem is much simpler than that: if he'd looked at the log, he would have seen that "moldy" was a single word in a single log of a successful finder with very little experience, which should have told him there's nothing to worry about yet.

 

A response by the cache owner would have settled the issue. Unfortunately, in this case, that was not going to happen. So instead of allowing an ownerless cache to continue being propped up the reviewer opted to deal with the issue now rather than later.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

Link to comment

I found an ammo can cache last weekend where the entire logbook (spiral pad) was covered with black mold.

I logged as such, recommending that the owner replace the logbook. Placed a NM as well. Mold is unhealthy and makes finding the cach less fun.

COs need to keep on top of their caches' conditions.

If someone logs that there's mold in mine I'd certainly check and repair. If I didn't, then I'd deserve a NA...

The problem with NAs and non responsive COs is that the cache remains in place and becomes trash...

Link to comment

This topic opens up a serious legal can of worms, which could get Groundspeak into a world of hurt.

...

If the reviewers are implementing gc.com policy on behalf of gc.com, they are now employees and gc.com is not legally allowed to accept their volunteer services. They must be paid at least minimum wage, and they represent gc.com, which must now also accept liability for their actions as employees.

No, it doesn't; and no, they are not.

 

***Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All of the above is my opinion, and only an opinion based on a layman's reading of the law. ***

No offense, but that's clear.

 

Allow me to respond, and yes, I am a lawyer.

 

The FLSA volunteer services prohibition prevents companies from requiring paid employees to render services without benefit of compensation.

 

If the volunteer services prohibition applied to volunteer reviewers, it would have done so from day one, as volunteer reviewers have always applied and enforced the geocache hiding guidelines, which are policies established by Groundspeak. Asking the volunteers to follow a change in policy would not automatically create an employment contract.

 

Groundspeak can't make a lackey do something without compensation, because the lackeys are under contracts for hire, and Groundspeak can dictate the terms and conditions of their employment. But if Groundspeak doesn't like how a volunteer reviewer (or volunteer forum moderator, for that matter) is doing things, all they can do is either ask them to change their ways or tell them that their volunteer services are no longer welcome (and revoke whatever extra system access that volunteer was provided).

 

The FLSA doesn't change the rules on agency and liability that already apply to volunteers. A volunteer can be an agent of a company, and therefore invoke liability on behalf of the company, without being an "employee."

Edited by hzoi
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

The FLSA doesn't change the rules on agency and liability that already apply to volunteers. A volunteer can be an agent of a company, and therefore invoke liability on behalf of the company, without being an "employee."

 

Generally true at my workplace as well. Like Groundspeak, my workplace depends a great deal on its volunteers, without whom, it would be very difficult (and costly) to complete their mission in the community. The volunteers at my work undergo the same training that I do in terms of policies and safety. They are also held accountable to the same standard that I am.

Link to comment

This topic opens up a serious legal can of worms, which could get Groundspeak into a world of hurt.

...

If the reviewers are implementing gc.com policy on behalf of gc.com, they are now employees and gc.com is not legally allowed to accept their volunteer services. They must be paid at least minimum wage, and they represent gc.com, which must now also accept liability for their actions as employees.

No, it doesn't; and no, they are not.

 

***Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. All of the above is my opinion, and only an opinion based on a layman's reading of the law. ***

No offense, but that's clear.

 

Allow me to respond, and yes, I am a lawyer.

 

The FLSA volunteer services prohibition prevents companies from requiring paid employees to render services without benefit of compensation.

 

If the volunteer services prohibition applied to volunteer reviewers, it would have done so from day one, as volunteer reviewers have always applied and enforced the geocache hiding guidelines, which are policies established by Groundspeak. Asking the volunteers to follow a change in policy would not automatically create an employment contract.

 

Groundspeak can't make a lackey do something without compensation, because the lackeys are under contracts for hire, and Groundspeak can dictate the terms and conditions of their employment. But if Groundspeak doesn't like how a volunteer reviewer (or volunteer forum moderator, for that matter) is doing things, all they can do is either ask them to change their ways or tell them that their volunteer services are no longer welcome (and revoke whatever extra system access that volunteer was provided).

 

The FLSA doesn't change the rules on agency and liability that already apply to volunteers. A volunteer can be an agent of a company, and therefore invoke liability on behalf of the company, without being an "employee."

I am both a lawyer AND a Groundspeak Volunteer. I endorse this summary, except for one fine point: Community Volunteers cannot be fired, and they cannot retire. They can only be sold.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

Allow me to respond, and yes, I am a lawyer.

I am both a lawyer AND a Groundspeak Volunteer. I endorse this summary, except for one fine point: Community Volunteers cannot be fired, and they cannot retire. They can only be sold.

I did not know this thing. [tips hat]

Link to comment

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

 

We don't know if there was or was not. The mold reference was not about the cache.

Link to comment

 

I looked at the previous logs. All the way back to 2014 people left found logs that said the cache had water in it, the log was wet, and the cache needed maintenance. After the reviewer disable the owners said they replaced the cache. Then the next finder found a wet ball of logsheet in a bagggie (no container).

 

But there wasn't any mold.

 

Given that a large number of caches get wet at some point, searching for any keyword (eg. "dry") may find caches which need attention. That isn't the point.

 

How do you know there wasn't mold? Given that the cache was frequently wet for years, there's an excellent chance that there was mold.

 

We don't know if there was or was not. The mold reference was not about the cache.

 

Oh right, I did forget that the wet cache was never referred to as moldy. But stilll it brought to attention a cache in rough shape. The cache did actually need maintenance. Unfortunately although the owner said he had replaced the whole cache, when the next finder (a well respected cacher with more then a decade of geocaching) went there all he found was a wet grey ball of a log in a baggie. He left a photo.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I am both a lawyer AND a Groundspeak Volunteer.

 

There has to be a joke in there. Which position receives less love?

 

A lawyer and a Groundspeak Reviewer walk into a bar.

 

They see a dog lying in the corner licking himself. The reviewer turns to the lawyer and says, "Boy, I wish I could do that."

 

The lawyer replies, “You’d better try petting him first.”

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...