narcissa

We're expecting an addition to the family right in the middle of our usual geocaching season, so I'm going to have to keep my geocaching expectations low for 2017.

Just because it can't be an official event doesn't mean it isn't worth getting women geocachers together to go geocaching, or to just talk about shared interests, issues, and concerns. There are more of us than there used to be, but we're still often noticeably outnumbered (not a bad thing, it just is what it is). If you formed a group or club, you could host an open event for all geocachers and use the occasion to show everyone what your group does. I think there are a lot of topics that are of general interest to many geocachers of all genders, but may be more top-of-mind for women. I'm thinking of things like safety, finding good equipment that fits, geocaching with children, and so on. You could look at holding workshops on topics like that - just make sure the events are genuinely open to all people.

Sometimes hints like that are cryptic clues.

Yeah, Facebook and bumper stickers are where I learn anything that I know about people's politics. It's usually not a big deal, but there was one geo-dude I quietly unfollowed because his FB posts were really abrasive. I wasn't bothered by the fact of what he believed; his anger level was just not what I need to see on Facebook when I'm there to see cute pictures of people's kids and fun updates about people's travels etc. Too bad, because he seemed nice enough in person but I just don't feel comfortable around him now.

I have seen politics come up with geocachers on a couple of forums and on Facebook, but most geocachers seem to be respectful enough to leave politics aside in order to enjoy friendships within the game. From what I do know of people's general leanings, there seems to be quite a range but I haven't taken a poll. There's room in the game for everyone. I would be pretty uncomfortable if a geocaching acquaintance got pushy about this topic with me.

I did one last year where each puzzle was just a single question with a year as an answer. Then you put the year into one of those 3rd party "checker" sites and it would give you the coordinates.

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising. So you think it was for no reason then? Just for the lols?

I have dealt with this a couple of times. I decided to archive because I figured the people staying there had enough to worry about without geocachers traipsing through their stuff. I have an active cache that occasionally gets reports that make it sound like there's a shantytown next to it, but when I go to look it's like a piece of cardboard and a beer can on the ground. It's in a small wooded area next to a community centre and an apartment building near a major road, so while I wouldn't be shocked if someone slept there, a long-term camp set-up seems unlikely.

There are lots of things that can cause offense. "Offended" is a moving goal-post. I am concerned when people in this game act in a way that makes geocaching seem unwelcoming or unsafe to other geocachers, or to people who might be trying to join in. This game isn't unwelcoming or unsafe. It would be a real shame to see people leave with that impression. Imagine someone checking out the game for the first time. He or she clicks on a cache, scrolls down the cache page a bit, and sees some jerk shouting at the cache owner that his/her cache is GAY. What impression does that give about the people who play this game? The cost to avoid that? Absolutely nothing. The semantics aren't important. We can do better.

I'm not sure what your intention is with that "Note:", so I will just exit this discussion before any other misunderstandings occur on my part. I'll just quote Hanlon's Razor: "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding." Oh, my intention was just to be clear about why the quote was trimmed down to those sections. I try to avoid trimming or mashing people's words together. In this instance there was some objectionable content from a few users that I did not wish to perpetuate by quoting, so I wanted to be transparent about what I did. I like the quotation you've included, but again I have to wonder why neglect and misunderstanding should continue after they've been pointed out. We all make mistakes. Why not try to do better next time?

I have been disabled all my life. For the last 10 years or so, I have been in a wheelchair. You cannot get much more lame than me. And I realize that lame in the context of a cache is not the same as degrading me or any other disabled person. Unless you are disabled yourself, leave the being offended about being called lame to those of us actually affected by it. You'll probably find us to be a bit less offended than you think. While I'm glad that you're not personally offended by the language, I don't think that means we can't all try to do better to avoid hurting people who are affected by it. As I mentioned, my use of the word was pointed out to me by someone who does have a disability and does find it hurtful. Now that I know better, there's no reason not to change. I'm not hurting anyone by avoiding the word, but I'm potentially hurting some people if I do use it. So the easy choice is to not use it. It's a very simple thing to fix. The consequences of using another word are zero, as long as that word is chosen carefully. Note: I've edited out some portions of the original quotes because they contain deliberately provocative, vulgar and hurtful language that needn't be replicated in my own comments.

Helpful example of how it can be difficult for someone to appreciate the issue when he/she isn't directly affected by it. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but equating a poor geocaching experience with gay people is totally needless. As I've said, my concern is that it's something careless that contributes to an unwelcoming environment in the game. It's very easy to fix. And I agree with Dprovan, that since it could be interpreted by some in the manner as you and some others have, that it is probably not a bad idea to delete the log. However, the fact that it CAN be interpreted that way does not it was MEANT that way. And it also doesn't mean that those who point this fact out are homophobes. It just means that some of us realize the word can mean different things in different contexts. In the context of a geocache, it was probably mean as lame. But you'd have to ask the guy who wrote it if you want to be sure. I don't think careless use of a word makes anybody anything. We all make mistakes. I think it's the staunch refusal to do better that delineates mistakes and character.

Some of us just happen to know that kids use the term to mean lame, with no added hidden meaning of a sexual nature. Kids have been doing that with language for many years. It is often the case that people of all ages use these words carelessly, without appreciating the impact they have on people. That doesn't mean we should excuse or condone language that is known to be hurtful. I really don't want gay people to feel they're unwelcome in this game. If we carelessly leave these words around, that's the message we're sending. I guess some people don't care about that, and that's very disappointing.

Helpful example of how it can be difficult for someone to appreciate the issue when he/she isn't directly affected by it. It may not seem like a big deal to you, but equating a poor geocaching experience with gay people is totally needless. As I've said, my concern is that it's something careless that contributes to an unwelcoming environment in the game. It's very easy to fix.

Sorry you feel this way. Now that I'm caching with my phone, I file "More later" logs (worded differently) and fill them in when I get home to a keyboard. My logs are doubly-targeted: At the CO, to get whatever they choose to get from finds (I love reading logs for my hides), and Future seekers Therefore, they take some thought. I'm not going to stand out there single-fingering a rushed log, misspelling words and let auto-correct mess up what I'm writing. My logs take a little planning and consideration, and I'm not going to do that in the field. Alternatively, I'm not going to wait until I get home to log anything because then I'd have to keep a separate list of everything I found during the day. That's nuts. On my GPSr, I use Field Notes, which as we know automates everything except the actual log-text composition. On my phone, I use "More Later" logs. I'm sorry if I'm not fulfilling a CO's desire for instant gratification. If the problem is that some people never go back and fulfill their promise of "More Later", then shame on them. The point isn't to make you feel like you need to defend a benign practice that is within the rules. The point is that your benign logging practice isn't better or worse than someone else's equally benign, but different logging process.

I was coming from the perspective of what I would find offensive in a log as a cache owner. Before this thread, if I had a log on one of my caches saying it was "lame" I would simply think they didn't like it. It wouldn't register in my mind as offensive. Now when I see it, I will think of this thread, but will still not treat it as offensive. I.e. I wouldn't delete the log. I agree with you nicer words can be used, but it's not offensive in my view. And it's not a word I use myself. I think that is more of a generational thing. If someone logs my cache is "gay", I would find it offensive and want them to change it. There are other words which some people will find offensive and others not. Then there are those few words which most understand can't be used.. even if it is the name of an Austrian village. My main concern is that someone new will try out the game, see this careless language in logs, and figure that they're not welcome to play. In this regard, I think "gay" is probably far worse. For words like "lame," it's just a disappointment when someone knows a word is problematic but deliberately uses it anyway. It says a lot about a person's character when, given the choice between "it's my right to use whatever word I want" and "oh, I didn't think of it that way, I'll try to do better," they opt for the former. It's all fine and dandy to argue about semantics among people who aren't being hurt by these words, but when a person tells me "this word hurts; here's why," I know my best course of action is to believe what he/she has to say about it and try to do better. I don't have to be personally offended by a word to appreciate someone else's experience with it. For me, it took someone actually comparing the two for me to learn that I should try to use other words. I regret that I didn't have the sensitivity to figure that out on my own, so I am more careful now.

You can of course choose whichever words you wish, however using lame e.g. in the sense of a lame verse cannot be replaced by bad verse or anything else which means exactly the same. If someone feels hurt by this usage I guess it is because these people are not familiar with all the nuances of lame. When one uses the term "limping comparison" it's also anything else than disrespectful to people who limp or go lame. The problem with a one word log is of course that context is missing and context is very important in language usage. When the word in question is part of a long history of prejudice against a particular group of people, why defend it? We're not talking about individual people getting their feelings hurt. It's a bigger issue. The message, when use of these words is vigorously defended, is that certain people don't matter and geocaching doesn't care about making the game welcoming to people in certain groups. It shouldn't be controversial to care about these things.

Language evolves. I'm sure there are other words we use today which are accepted, but if you trace the origin of the word one could find it offensive. But I can't think of a good example. It also could be regional. But as I said before, I see a difference between lame and gay. If I use the Oxford Dictionary : For lame there are accepted definitions. Also, I don't see the word lame in common use to describe disabled people. It is more used for a short term condition or injury - e.g. "the horse stumbled and came up lame", or "The hike to the geocache was difficult for me, and with my bad knee I came up lame and had to be helped get down from the mountain". The negative use of "Gay" has also entered that same dictionary. You will see the definition "Light-hearted and carefree" is shown as "dated". While the definition "Foolish, stupid, or unimpressive" is listed as "informal, offensive". Personally I don't use either word in this way. But I find lame to be acceptable, and gay (used in the 3rd definition) to be indeed offensive. I didn't think lame was a big deal until it came up with someone who had good reason to feel hurt by it. I think it's hard for most of us to appreciate how these small things can really wear of people who are already downtrodden. It's such a small adjustment to avoid using a word that can easily be replaced with many other words.

"gay" and "lame" mean it's bad. They are real words in the English language with meanings. Contrary to your PC training, those meanings do not include "...and I hate completely unrelated PC declared victim X." Political correctness is a specific affliction of believing something because it's politically popular even though you can't actually justify it. It doesn't seem that my explanation of why this is hurtful is very popular. But it is illuminating to know that in some quarters, it's deliberate and not merely careless. It's so easy to switch to other words. I've used these words too, until it was pointed out to me by affected people that they were hurtful. I certainly have the freedom to keep using these words, but now that I know better, why would I?

When someone deliberately equates these words with negative meanings, the implication is that being gay or disabled is negative. That horse with a broken leg is lame. No problem! That person who enjoys romantic or sexual relationships with other people of the same gender is gay. No problem! I don't like your cache therefore it's lame. Not okay! It's used here to denote negativity, therefore implying that having a disability is negative. (It seems unlikely that a cache is physically disabled.) I don't like your cache therefore it's gay. Not okay! It's used here to denote negativity, therefore implying that being gay is negative. (It seems unlikely that a cache has romantic or sexual preferences.) If something is bad, say it's bad. If you don't like something, say you don't like it. Don't indicate that something is bad by equating it with groups of people who already face daily discrimination. Political correctness is a term that people pull out of their hat when they don't want to acknowledge that they've been careless with their language. We all make mistakes and hurt people without meaning to. Why not try to do better?

I'm the one arguing that they should do whatever they want. You are the one arguing that they shouldn't file the "FTF more later" log. Sheesh. I even said in the message you quoted that I wish they wouldn't do that even though I'll defend their right to do it. How could you possibly accuse me of insist they do something I prefer? I'm arguing that people shouldn't tell others what to do on the basis that it will mitigate potential abuse from poorly behaved people. That's bad advice even if the intention is good. I'm also arguing that it should not be suggested under the guise of being a courtesy to everyone, because it's only a courtesy to a small handful of people, and potentially a nuisance to others. If the quick and dirty FTF is part of someone's process, fine. If not, fine. It's a benign action that is not with or against the established parameters of geocaching. It's a matter of personal preference, not a gold standard for the game, nor an effective form of courtesy.

Actually many of the ideas brought along by cachers like CanadianRockies, theBruce and others in the early phase of the new rules seemed very much in the spirit of coming along with ideas for challenges they regarded as interesting and within the new guidelines but with each idea or attempt, the rules got further narrowed down (that happened back then sometimes several times a day). I still do not think that the majority of these restrictions took place due to the reviewer burden and they also would not have required any update of the site at all. 360° challenges, Delorme challenges and many more are now forbidden as well and I do not think that those caused major problems to reviewers. Many cachers who made an effort in the early phase to discuss issues here have given up. The experience that discussing details here rather leads to further restrictions than to a possible less strict set of rules did not help in this process. When you need to fear that the situation will even become worse, you will think very carefully what to discuss about and what to suggest. I'm curious to know why you think Groundspeak has been dishonest in their explanations for the decisions that have been made. I think it's hard to appreciate the volume of conflicting, highly emotional feedback they've had from different directions on this issue. It's been my impression that they are genuinely working to come to a compromise that is as good as it possibly can be. Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Neither do I but we had this disussion at lengths. The question is not how to make challenge caches less boring for those who regard the majority of the new ones as boring but rather whether there is something possible that GS would be willing to do. I don't really see what the harm is in bandying about ideas now that things have settled down a bit. The issues that led to the moratorium and the new rules seem to be under control, so what adjustments can be made to alleviate the new complaint that challenge caches are too boring now? I'm glad they've solved the problems that were occurring, but I don't think it needed to be entirely at the expense of all creativity and enjoyment that some people were getting from them. I see a lot of comments indicating that for many people, that's exactly what has happened. I'm not convinced that GS is resistant to new ideas, as long as they don't unearth the original problems. The problem with the forum is that it likes to suggest ideas that mainly consist of burdening the reviewers or massively overhauling the website, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen most of the time.

For a discussion on how to possibly adapt things we would need participants from all involved parties and this is not the case here. We could potentially have such a discussion and it might be helpful to have one, but it would require GS to participate. I don't need GS to be involved in order to chat in the forum about possible ways to make challenge caches less boring for the people complaining they are boring.

I do not think that not prohibiting challenge caches like 360 degree challenge caches or challenge caches that require a single cache find on February 29 did actually cause real headaches to the reviewers. In theory one could discuss about adjustments however most of the discussions here just led to the addition of additional rules. So the message was rather to not talk too much about details and hope that one or the other non standard challenge will get through. What happened in this forum with regard to challenge caches did not give me the feeling that HQ has some interest in trying to make challenge caches a bit more attractive while (understandedly) trying not to put additional burden on the reviewers. As those who liked challenge caches did that for different reasons (and the same applies to those who did not like them) it could not lead to a result making many happy that GS tried to take together all the concerns that have been mentioned. Some want them to be easy, some want them to be challenging, some hate if finding out whether one qualifies or what one still needs to do is tiresome while others enjoy the cache selection process and potentially required creativity. Etc So I take that as a no, we can't discuss how to proceed, and we have to stick to complaining about the moratorium that happened about two years ago now.