Difference between revisions of "Talk:GCA vs GC"
m (→ok) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In the Pro's section for GC, the statement "You're supporting the building of consistency, rules and guidelines within geocaching." is false and possibly should be | + | In the Pro's section for GC, the statement "You're supporting the building of consistency, rules and guidelines within geocaching." is false and possibly should be changed, but I don't know to what. The rules as they stand are ONLY dictated by groundspeak without much community input, and by listing a cache there you are not "building consistency, rules or guidlines", merely acquiescing to groundspeaks polcies and guidelines. |
| + | |||
| + | I think the application of rules as GC do it (whether or not I agree with the particular rules) is a 'pro' that is offered by them & is in direct contrast to the GCA free-for-all (which also has positives). I thought it only fair that if GCA 'pros' include mention of developing a 'free and open caching system' then the contrasting position should be mentioned as a 'pro' for GC. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == ok == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ok, I see where you are coming at with it... I was looking at it from the context of "by using gc you will have some input into the rules" angle..thank for the clarification (CraigRat) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The addition of "based on overseas" to "You're supporting the application of consistency, based on overseas rules and guidelines, within geocaching." doesn't seem appropriate. It is adding a negative connotation to a line that is meant to be a pro. Whether or not gc.com rules are 'overseas' rules is purely a subjective opinion. The 'pro' that is trying to be established here is that it may be preferable to build consistency and rules - where those rules come from isn't the issue. I'm going to revert the change as it hardly seems to be a 'pro' statement any more. (The Garner Family) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | == Reversing the arguments == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I've reversed the listing of the Pros & Cons sections for both the GC and GCA subsections of this page. I think it is better to state the pros first rather than the cons as it helps the reader to build a positive mental picture with which to weigh the negatives against, rather than the opposite. Sort of like "gimme the good news, then the bad news" as it were. Feel free to change it back if you disagree... The Ginger Loon | ||
Latest revision as of 17:19, 11 April 2007
In the Pro's section for GC, the statement "You're supporting the building of consistency, rules and guidelines within geocaching." is false and possibly should be changed, but I don't know to what. The rules as they stand are ONLY dictated by groundspeak without much community input, and by listing a cache there you are not "building consistency, rules or guidlines", merely acquiescing to groundspeaks polcies and guidelines.
I think the application of rules as GC do it (whether or not I agree with the particular rules) is a 'pro' that is offered by them & is in direct contrast to the GCA free-for-all (which also has positives). I thought it only fair that if GCA 'pros' include mention of developing a 'free and open caching system' then the contrasting position should be mentioned as a 'pro' for GC.
ok
Ok, I see where you are coming at with it... I was looking at it from the context of "by using gc you will have some input into the rules" angle..thank for the clarification (CraigRat)
The addition of "based on overseas" to "You're supporting the application of consistency, based on overseas rules and guidelines, within geocaching." doesn't seem appropriate. It is adding a negative connotation to a line that is meant to be a pro. Whether or not gc.com rules are 'overseas' rules is purely a subjective opinion. The 'pro' that is trying to be established here is that it may be preferable to build consistency and rules - where those rules come from isn't the issue. I'm going to revert the change as it hardly seems to be a 'pro' statement any more. (The Garner Family)
Reversing the arguments
I've reversed the listing of the Pros & Cons sections for both the GC and GCA subsections of this page. I think it is better to state the pros first rather than the cons as it helps the reader to build a positive mental picture with which to weigh the negatives against, rather than the opposite. Sort of like "gimme the good news, then the bad news" as it were. Feel free to change it back if you disagree... The Ginger Loon
