Jump to content

Does This Cross The Line?


Recommended Posts

Interesting, that some derogatory words are edited by the mods, but others...???

 

 

I think the difference is that "fag" has a number of different meanings, some of which are not derogatory. The others that were edited have no other meaning other than a derogatory one.

 

And the use of them added nothing to the discussion....speaking of which, is anything being added to this discussion?

Bret

 

Oh come on. The cache was placed in the US, not Britain, where the "other" meaning is used. I suppose the mods would have no problem then with a cache titled "A**hole Cache", because it could imply a cave in which donkeys are kept! :(

 

I'm not nearly as upset with the fact that these individuals are choosing to call themselves by this term, as I am that it was approved by persons representing Groundspeak. :(

That and in the case of DaveA's post, that his entire post was edited, including the words which put the other "objectionable" words in context.

 

"Especially interesting is that not just the derogatory words, which in this case were given as an example for comparison were edited, but the statements suporting the context in which they were used were edited as well. I thought DaveA made a very good point by his comparison. The words he used, especially the "N" word, were bandied about by the general public as acceptable for many years before people decided they had had enough, and would not abide the subjugation that such words, through the hatred implicit in them, inspired."

Link to comment

Gerbilmafia- Yes, this country has freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility! You think this is a small issue? Think again...

 

The typical H.S. student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. Consider that when you look at the following statistics.

 

In a study of 4,159 MA. H.S. students, 46% who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, had attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 8.8% of their peers, and 23% required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt compared to 3.3% of their peers.

 

These statistics show just how much words can hurt. People need to consider the effect their words can have on others.

 

Geocaching.com, I hope, will take a stand on this matter that will reflect the inclusive nature of geocaching as an activity that is enjoyed by all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.

 

edited for spelling.

 

A correlation is not necessarily causation. Those statistics tell us nothing about how "words can hurt".

 

In my experience, the five openly gay friends/acquaintences/coworkers I have had in my years have all had a much higher incidence of "drama queen" episodes than your average joe.

 

Suicide is the ultimate attention ploy.

 

Therefore, I posit that your statistics indicate that homosexuals, as a rule, are starved for attention.

 

:(

 

As for the original topic of the thread, I find it mildly humorous on a 7th grade level. Not worthy of the "firestorm" of controversy generated here in this thread.

 

Ohhhh... your experience of five people outweighs a study that compared thousands? Five, h'mmm... impressive! You've probably worked with more gay people than you know, who, for one reason or another chose not to let you know. You wouldn't be able to tell because, they, like most gay and lesbian people, do not display the stereotypes that people associate gay people with.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Just as any bigot who compares the few blacks they know to all being involved in crime, on drugs, or any of the other stereotypes perpetuated on them.

 

Teen suicide is no joking matter, but I would agree that it is worthy of a firestorm! :(

Link to comment

Um, do we even know that this was the cache title when it was listed for review? Cache owners can change cache titles without reviewer permission. It is possible that the cache had one title when it was reviewed, that the owner(s) changed it after it was published, and that once GC.com noticed the new name (through this thread), that they had the owners change the title.

 

I agree that the title was in VERY poor taste, but I'm willing to give the reviewer the benefit of the doubt.

Link to comment

I understand the whole family friendly aspect but really is it that bad? I see worse in the grafitti on the way to perfectly acceptable caches...

 

Just my opinion, but just because my kids friends are smoking crack doesn't mean it is ok for my kid to do it. Just like my son is my family, Geocaching is our family. Let's keep it family friendly.

 

erikwillke

Link to comment

What if there were a voluntary rating system where the cache owner could rate the cache similar to movie ratings. ie: G, PG13, R.

 

Then you could use that field in your pocket queries, or even restrict your membership so that if your kids sign on they'll never see the caches rated higher than you choose.

 

If other cachers find a cache which does not fit the rating it was given by the owner, then they would report it. Everyone would argue about it, and eventually standards would emerge for what kind of cache or cache page constituted what rating.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment

What if there were a voluntary rating system where the cache owner could rate the cache similar to movie ratings. ie: G, PG13, R.

 

Then you could use that field in your pocket queries, or even restrict your membership so that if your kids sign on they'll never see the caches rated higher than you choose.

 

If other cachers find a cache which does not fit the rating it was given by the owner, then they would report it. Everyone would argue about it, and eventually standards would emerge for what kind of cache or cache page constituted what rating.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think if someone wants to create a website that lists R rated caches, and even X rated caches, he is free to do so.

Link to comment

What if there were a voluntary rating system where the cache owner could rate the cache similar to movie ratings. ie: G, PG13, R.

 

Then you could use that field in your pocket queries, or even restrict your membership so that if your kids sign on they'll never see the caches rated higher than you choose.

 

If other cachers find a cache which does not fit the rating it was given by the owner, then they would report it. Everyone would argue about it, and eventually standards would emerge for what kind of cache or cache page constituted what rating.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think if someone wants to create a website that lists R rated caches, and even X rated caches, he is free to do so.

 

Well, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to promote porn caches. I'm just saying that if there is disagreement over what's appropriate, maybe a database field in the listings could be used to give people a heads up so they can choose what they want to hunt based on that. The same way we can say, "if you don't like micros/puzzles/etc... then don't hunt them", we could also say, "if you don't like G rated/R rated caches, don' hunt them."

 

Then you could easily filter out the ones you don't want to take your kids out looking for, and you'd know in advance what you were getting yourself into.

Link to comment

Well, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to promote porn caches. I'm just saying that if there is disagreement over what's appropriate, maybe a database field in the listings could be used to give people a heads up so they can choose what they want to hunt based on that. The same way we can say, "if you don't like micros/puzzles/etc... then don't hunt them", we could also say, "if you don't like G rated/R rated caches, don' hunt them."

 

Family Friendly seems to sum it up pretty well already. Although I concede that some families sit and watch porn together, but I think everyone is quite aware what family friendly means. I don't see a need for ratings, because the garbage won't be rated because it won't be on the site.

Link to comment

Gerbilmafia- Yes, this country has freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility! You think this is a small issue? Think again...

 

The typical H.S. student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. Consider that when you look at the following statistics.

 

In a study of 4,159 MA. H.S. students, 46% who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, had attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 8.8% of their peers, and 23% required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt compared to 3.3% of their peers.

 

These statistics show just how much words can hurt. People need to consider the effect their words can have on others.

 

Geocaching.com, I hope, will take a stand on this matter that will reflect the inclusive nature of geocaching as an activity that is enjoyed by all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.

 

edited for spelling.

 

I read somewhere once that 94.6% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot. :(

Link to comment

Why do we need "R" rated caches?

 

Why not?

 

As long as there were ways to avoid having your kids exposed to them, that is. It could just be a mystery cache with a violent or scarey theme.

 

And the muggle (perhaps child) that stumbles across that cache by accident would think what of us?

Link to comment

Gerbilmafia- Yes, this country has freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility! You think this is a small issue? Think again...

 

The typical H.S. student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. Consider that when you look at the following statistics.

 

In a study of 4,159 MA. H.S. students, 46% who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, had attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 8.8% of their peers, and 23% required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt compared to 3.3% of their peers.

 

These statistics show just how much words can hurt. People need to consider the effect their words can have on others.

 

Geocaching.com, I hope, will take a stand on this matter that will reflect the inclusive nature of geocaching as an activity that is enjoyed by all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.

 

edited for spelling.

 

I read somewhere once that 94.6% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot. :)

 

While I did catch the funny in your post, it makes an important point. If you're going to debate with statistics, it's a good idea to link the source. I've posted on a few political forums (much meaner than these forums), and thats generally how it works. It's still easy to get the stats to say what you want, but at least we can see what 'angle' the study had starting out.

 

OP: sorry for going off-topic, but this hot-button issue is there already, I'd say. To get back on topic, I'd say it (the cache) is too much. Any I'm a Christian, Republican, Active-duty military member. And 65% of surveys say that 85% of this demographic lives only to bash homosexuals, cut down redwoods, and ban abortion. But thats only 75% of the time. :)

Edited by NotNutts
Link to comment
Doesn't matter if it's the best cache ever put out in the history of caching. That's not the point. The title is offensive.

Here we stand, The United States of The Offended. God help us if we offend someone's delicate sensibilities with a cache title. If I were offended by your cache, titled "Fear This: Cynophobia", due to the tounge in cheek way you present the cache page, to whit;

"Growling, snarling beasts with massive jaws and gleaming yellow eyes, hackles raised as they wait for some flinch of weakness to attack. Cujo. The bane of postmen worldwide. This cache will bring you face to face with your fear. Be warned: you will see dogs. Quite possibly lots of them. All running loose and unrestrained. You may want to bring one of those little plastic bags to clean up after yourself.",

would you change the name?

 

I didn't think so.

 

I guess it's politically correct to make light of folks who fear dogs, but not politically correct to make fun of folks who practice an alternative lifestyle. Maybe we need more rules. Yeah, that's the ticket. More rules. :):)

Link to comment

Why do we need "R" rated caches?

 

Why not?

 

As long as there were ways to avoid having your kids exposed to them, that is. It could just be a mystery cache with a violent or scarey theme.

 

then we would need to verify age when an account is started. or we could just keep good taste a standard. [like community policeing, like we are doing already.]

 

edited to add what is in the [...]

Edited by erikwillke
Link to comment
Doesn't matter if it's the best cache ever put out in the history of caching. That's not the point. The title is offensive.

Here we stand, The United States of The Offended. God help us if we offend someone's delicate sensibilities with a cache title. If I were offended by your cache, titled "Fear This: Cynophobia", due to the tounge in cheek way you present the cache page, to whit;

"Growling, snarling beasts with massive jaws and gleaming yellow eyes, hackles raised as they wait for some flinch of weakness to attack. Cujo. The bane of postmen worldwide. This cache will bring you face to face with your fear. Be warned: you will see dogs. Quite possibly lots of them. All running loose and unrestrained. You may want to bring one of those little plastic bags to clean up after yourself.",

would you change the name?

 

I didn't think so.

 

I guess it's politically correct to make light of folks who fear dogs, but not politically correct to make fun of folks who practice an alternative lifestyle. Maybe we need more rules. Yeah, that's the ticket. More rules. :):)

Good post. And I agree, no more rules. I just don't want to explain to my 5 yr old the correlation between F.A.G.S. and sticking a stick in the back end of something--at least not on someone else's terms. I'd rather explain to my kids (which I have) about homosexuality at home. Granted, I could ignore the cache, but this is supposed to be a family thing. Aren't there enough R-rated activities? Let's keep Geocaching G rated, or at least PG-13.

Link to comment

 

I guess it's politically correct to make light of folks who fear dogs, but not politically correct to make fun of folks who practice an alternative lifestyle. Maybe we need more rules. Yeah, that's the ticket. More rules. :):)

Yes, you would be exactly correct, it's not politically correct to make fun of folks who practice an alternative lifestyle. And I have not one, but a series of seven phobia caches, each making light of a different phobia that challenges people to face their "fears". Thanks for the plug.

 

I hear all the arguments - freedom of speech, PC, I'm offended, I'm not offended, someone else may be offended, whatever. For me it gets down to this: Why are so many so quick to defend sinking to the lowest common denominator? What's wrong with striving for the highest common denominator?

 

Like I said before, I'm sure this was pretty funny as they sat around talking about it, but GC.com isn't the place for it. Trust me, it's not like my cheeks got red and I got all embarassed reading it. I just expect GC.com to uphold higher standards and was surprised it had been allowed to remain.

Link to comment

Maybe we need more rules. Yeah, that's the ticket. More rules. :):)

 

Yeah, it would be all too easy for TPTB to legislate this game right out of existence. They don't seem to be interested in doing that, and for that I applaud them.

 

I'm curious, though. Of those who think the name of this team should be disallowed, how many oppose the name because it's insulting to gays and how many simply oppose that lifestyle? I'm not really looking for an answer, just curious.

 

And while I'm wondering about things, is there any chance that the members of that team are, in fact, gay?

Link to comment

Gerbilmafia- Yes, this country has freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility! You think this is a small issue? Think again...

 

The typical H.S. student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. Consider that when you look at the following statistics.

 

In a study of 4,159 MA. H.S. students, 46% who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, had attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 8.8% of their peers, and 23% required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt compared to 3.3% of their peers.

 

These statistics show just how much words can hurt. People need to consider the effect their words can have on others.

 

Geocaching.com, I hope, will take a stand on this matter that will reflect the inclusive nature of geocaching as an activity that is enjoyed by all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.

 

edited for spelling.

 

A correlation is not necessarily causation. Those statistics tell us nothing about how "words can hurt".

 

In my experience, the five openly gay friends/acquaintences/coworkers I have had in my years have all had a much higher incidence of "drama queen" episodes than your average joe.

 

Suicide is the ultimate attention ploy.

 

Therefore, I posit that your statistics indicate that homosexuals, as a rule, are starved for attention.

 

:)

 

As for the original topic of the thread, I find it mildly humorous on a 7th grade level. Not worthy of the "firestorm" of controversy generated here in this thread.

 

Ohhhh... your experience of five people outweighs a study that compared thousands? Five, h'mmm... impressive! You've probably worked with more gay people than you know, who, for one reason or another chose not to let you know. You wouldn't be able to tell because, they, like most gay and lesbian people, do not display the stereotypes that people associate gay people with.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Just as any bigot who compares the few blacks they know to all being involved in crime, on drugs, or any of the other stereotypes perpetuated on them.

 

Teen suicide is no joking matter, but I would agree that it is worthy of a firestorm! :)

 

Your original post implied that teen homosexuals were killing themselves because of namecalling. I simply stated that a correlation does not imply a causation.

 

I'm sure I have known more gay people, that's why I clearly made the distinction of referring to OPENLY gay people. Perhaps you could tell me why those five persons all were such drama magnets?

 

I point out a flaw in your logic, and posit an equally rediculous (although certainly plausible) explanation, and rather than reply rationally or intellectually, you label me as a bigot.

 

I love it. A classic internet exchange.

Edited by Wandering Bears
Link to comment

I have a question. Is there a single individual or three at geocaching.com who owns the responsibility for making a final and binding decision on things such as this? If there is, then if no one else is willing to send this thread to them, just let me know and I'll be more than glad to do it. I'll be honest with you, I am quite surprised that a moderator hasn't already done this. Perhaps they have by now, if so good on them. Perhaps we'll learn someday what if anything was done. And the why's and why nots.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

When I was in high school, lots of people referred to cigarettes as "fags" and that was in the USA, right outside Chicago!

You can't make everybody happy. I had an African-American employee cross out the word "negro" on 48 boxes of black markers in my office. But he left the words black and noir even though all three meant the same thing.

Sometimes this "Political Correctness" gets a little ridiculous. If you can't laugh at yourself, don't laugh at others.

Link to comment

I have a question. Is there a single individual or three at geocaching.com who owns the responsibility for making a final and binding decision on things such as this? If there is, then if no one else is willing to send this thread to them, just let me know and I'll be more than glad to do it. I'll be honest with you, I am quite surprised that a moderator hasn't already done this. Perhaps they have by now, if so good on them. Perhaps we'll learn someday what if anything was done. And the why's and why nots.

Good question.

 

Keeping cache names "family friendly" is, in the first instance, part of the duties of the volunteer cache reviewers. Since the owner here has changed the name of the cache, that part of the debate is moot. Had the name remained, the reviewer's decision could have been complained about to the appeals address.

 

A ways back in this thread, I noted that complaints about usernames can be forwarded to the Groundspeak contact address. Volunteer cache reviewers have no jurisdiction over usernames. We review caches, not users. So the answer to your question is that Groundspeak "makes a final and binding decision on things such as this."

Link to comment

It was the combination of their geocaching name along with the title of the cache that made this suggestive. This wouldn't have been an issue if either one of them wasn't there in the first place, so my conclusion is that the F.A.G.S. team only did this to stir the pot so to speak and it was in bad taste to do that!

 

As far as their geocaching name goes, it's definitely not an acronym we would ever go for but i don't see anything wrong with someone else using it!

Link to comment

OK, I got bored with this thread after the 3rd page.... I just wanted to ask if this means I shoul be offened every time I take my exit at Joplin Missouri, because this place

has a sign right there??? I'll check back later to see if anyone has answered this....

 

PS I'm not trying to start anything.... Just think about it....

 

edited to add a PSS.... Google F.A.G Bearings... You'll find alot of interesting things....

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

It's a company. They can name it anything they want. If someone doesn't like it, they can choose not do business there. I'm sure if enough people were offended by it that their business was significantly impacted, they would quickly change the name. GC.com is smart enough to know that if too many people complain about something on their website they find offensive, they will change it.

Link to comment
It's a company. They can name it anything they want. If someone doesn't like it, they can choose not do business there. I'm sure if enough people were offended by it that their business was significantly impacted, they would quickly change the name. GC.com is smart enough to know that if too many people complain about something on their website they find offensive, they will change it.

 

It really doesn’t bother me, neither does the team or cache(s) everyone's talking about. Not everyone sees it as the rest. As been mentioned before, it's not any worse then they'd hear/learn in school. You ought to hear some of the things my 8yo has learned in 3rd grade this year. I have no problems explaining to either of my two children what F.A.G., Fag or anything of the such is. It may be a bit embarrassing at times, but really what's the big deal? Alot of children are non-the-wiser, some don't care, and alot don't know what it means. If You're asked tell then what it short for, not that it means gay. I mean really alot of ya'll have blown this WAY out of porportion. I really think too many it's inappropriate, but I also think in a way it's clever, maybe not original, but cleaver/funny in a way.

 

To me the immature thing was even starting this thread.

 

edited for spelling

Edited by wandat24
Link to comment

I'm not one for plolitical correctness, but I think this is an issue of appropriateness. They easily could have come up with a different acronym and cache name, but they deliberately chose one meant to provoke.

 

That was indeed it's sole purpose, and they succeeded. Why someone has to use the GC website as a forum for their deviancy just shows the wrongheadedness of it. Shame on the reviewer for letting it go this far, regardless of the note.

 

And for those of you offended by the word deviancy, here you go:

 

http://stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/Deviancy.html

 

Political correctness was never my strong suite anyway.

Link to comment

I'm not one for plolitical correctness, but I think this is an issue of appropriateness. They easily could have come up with a different acronym and cache name, but they deliberately chose one meant to provoke.

 

That was indeed it's sole purpose, and they succeeded. Why someone has to use the GC website as a forum for their deviancy just shows the wrongheadedness of it. Shame on the reviewer for letting it go this far, regardless of the note.

 

And for those of you offended by the word deviancy, here you go:

 

http://stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/Deviancy.html

 

Political correctness was never my strong suite anyway.

 

First off, being PC isnt me and personally i think it's gotten rediculously out of hand. But i too believe that they put this out just to stir things up. The acronym itself isn't anything anyone should get worked up about. It was the combinatin of their acronym and the cache's original title being used together that made this so distasteful, and in my mind, they put it out that way only to get a reaction.

 

Almost sounds like these individuals are starving for attention and they'll take any, even if it's negative!

Link to comment
Almost sounds like these individuals are starving for attention and they'll take any, even if it's negative!

 

Well, since TPTB must now be aware of the situation, I say lock this one down and let it die without furthering their cause....

Link to comment

Wow, I didn’t think this topic would generate this level of discussion. Since, I started it, I’ll try to clarify a few things that have come up, share my .02, and then I’ll close the thread later today.

 

The F.A.G.S consists of a few guys who got together for a road trip to find an A.P.E. cache. They came up with their team name as joke and had fun with it. I doubt they intended any harm or offense. They are full-grown adults and you’d have to ask their wives about their sexual orientation. While they were in town together for an event, they hid some caches.

 

As the caches appeared, I looked at them, and hit the ignore button. But, when I saw this particular cache come out, I posted a very brief note on the cache page and sent the owner an email saying that IMO, the title wasn’t appropriate. In my mind, the combination of the team name and the title crossed the line. I didn’t receive a response except what you see on the cache page. I posted here, because I was honestly curious about what the ‘community’ thought about the cache. I didn’t try to get the name changed or the cache archived. Thanks for your opinions.

 

My feeling is that the original cache name ‘F.A.G.S. Stick it in the rear’ isn’t appropriate for this site. I’m not a prude and was not shocked by the title; I just don’t think this is the place for it.

 

I know a great joke about a Mexican prostitute and a goat, but I don’t stand up and tell it at the PTA meeting. It bothers me that being considerate of others feelings gets you derogatorily labeled ‘PC.” While we have the freedom to say and write all sorts of things, most of us tailor our communications to the audience. I think it’s considerate and respectful of others to think about how my actions might affect them; being polite doesn’t chip away at my rights, or limit my ability to express myself and have fun.

Link to comment

{Sorry in advance for the long post}

 

I was the first person to "complain" about the title of this cache on the cache page.

 

Let me first say that the word "fag" actually doesn't offend me, but I know with 100% certainty that it offends MANY people in the world, both gay and straight. It is a derogatory word and that's just a fact, despite it's alternate meanings. When I was a kid, my friends and I all used the word - in a derogatory manner - but I grew up. In growing up, I don't think I necessarily became more PC, but I do think I became more respectful of others (and more mature).

 

What really shocks me is when reading this thread, I see a LOT of people who don't find the word offensive (fine), so they think that means no one should (not fine) and it should be ok for GC.com (ludicrous). There also seem to be people who seem to think that geocaching should have R rated caches, and I think that's ludicrous too. Would *I* hunt an R or even X rated or themed cache? Sure - I'm no prude... Far from it. But do I think GC.com is the place for such a cache? Or course not! This is supposed to be a family friendly game.

 

Lastly, for those of you who say kids hear things worse than this anyway, I think that is also a ridiculous argument. Kids hear the N word, kids know what a penis is, kids are aware of things like rape and pedophilia - does that mean we should start using those words (or themes) in our caches? Everyone will agree that using the N word is going too far - so much so in fact, that I have to write "the N word" here, because if I spell it out, the moderators will delete my entire post (see above examples). So clearly TPTB believe that racial slurs are not ok, but have no problems with insulting homosexuals. I find that very interesting.... I guess it's finally not cool to insult minorities based on race, but it's still ok to insult minorities based on their sexual preference. At least here in this forum and on GC.com.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Since we all agree that the N word is crossing the line, how about if I used the word rape? Would it be ok for me to make a profile called R.A.P.I.S.T.S. (maybe even with the acronym) and hide a cache called "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. doing it without permission" or "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. use force" or "R.A.P.I.S.T.S. stick it in when no one is looking"? Those words aren't even insulting to any one particular group of people, but surely you will agree that those are inappropriate names for geocaches, right? And mind you, this is a very weak example, just trying to prove a point. I could make much better examples using acronyms that start with the letters N, F, or even C. Use your imagination.

 

Living in the area of the cache in question, I can tell you that geocaching around here has been inching in a direction that a lot of people aren't happy about. Someone posts something questionable and then someone else one ups them and the process continues. People have been pushing the line inch by inch around here, and soon, we'll be well down the block. I think that's GREAT when it comes to placing high quality caches, but that's not at all what the latest trend is about. And that's why I wrote that first log on the cache page - because I wanted it known that I don't think it's ok for this to keep inching along in this direction. In the past WEEK, for example, we've had caches published here named "UR IN cache" "My Scruffy Balls" and of course the F.A.G.S. series. Individually, none of them are THAT bad (although "F.A.G.S. stick it in the rear end" goes way over the line, IMO), but you can see where things are heading. Is this the example we want to set for new and future cachers? I realize many of you don't care, but try to think about the game as a whole and what's good for it. Someone said it very well earlier - "Why are so many so quick to defend sinking to the lowest common denominator? What's wrong with striving for the highest common denominator?"

 

And to quickly answer a few of the questions that have popped up in this thread: The F.A.G.S. are not even from around here, but were here for an event last weekend and apparently decided to hide a number of caches while on their 95 cache finding spree (they cut and paste the same exact logs nearly 100 times - see May 5 on this cache page for an example of one). This was one such cache that the "group" placed... apparently with all the individuals names on the log sheet in advance, so as soon as it was published, they could all log it. That brings up discussion for another thread, so I'll leave it at that.

 

Anyway, as far as I know, none of them are gay, but I don't see how that matters. Whether they are pro or anti-gay, they aren't supposed to be using GC.com as a platform for their agenda. Quoting the Geocaching Guidelines: "Solicitations are also off-limits. For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda."

 

As for how this cache was approved - it WAS approved with it's original name (I saw it the moment it was published). This of course doesn't surprise me at all, since the local approver is good friends with the F.A.G.S. group. Go figure.

Link to comment

The F.A.G.S consists of a few guys who got together for a road trip to find an A.P.E. cache. They came up with their team name as joke and had fun with it. I doubt they intended any harm or offense. They are full-grown adults and you’d have to ask their wives about their sexual orientation. While they were in town together for an event, they hid some caches.

 

I posted a very brief note on the cache page and sent the owner an email

 

As I stated earlier, I don't care much for tattle threads. I usually don't respond to them.....

 

I also sent an email to F.A.G.S. with a link to this thread and got no response.

 

It's my opinion that if you want to provoke a response, then you should at least come and respond to your detractors, or really, what's the point?

 

Too bad this thread will be locked before they have a chance unless...... :(:(

 

I only continue to watch this thread to see if they will.

Link to comment
There also seem to be people who seem to think that geocaching should have R rated caches, and I think that's ludicrous too.

 

How is it that what I said gets interpreted this way? I never meant to suggest that we need more R rated caches. I meant only to suggest that if we had a rating system, then you could easily ignore those that you don't want your kids to see. It is obvious that people are pushing the limits. In addition to this thread's subject, there are caches with murder themes which have pictures of (simulated) corpses as "clues" to the "mystery". That might be considered an R rated cache.

 

I agree that caching should be family friendly. So why not be able to eliminate those caches which are "pushing the limits" from your searches so you can insulate your kids from them?

Link to comment
There also seem to be people who seem to think that geocaching should have R rated caches, and I think that's ludicrous too.

 

How is it that what I said gets interpreted this way? I never meant to suggest that we need more R rated caches. I meant only to suggest that if we had a rating system, then you could easily ignore those that you don't want your kids to see. It is obvious that people are pushing the limits. In addition to this thread's subject, there are caches with murder themes which have pictures of (simulated) corpses as "clues" to the "mystery". That might be considered an R rated cache.

 

I agree that caching should be family friendly. So why not be able to eliminate those caches which are "pushing the limits" from your searches so you can insulate your kids from them?

 

My apologies if I misinterpreted what you or anyone else was suggesting. I read through this thread exactly once, and quickly, and had a lot of things I wanted to address.... so that's what I did, without going back and rereading anything or quoting anyone.

 

I understand your suggestion now, but I think it would cause more harm (encouraging R rated caches) than good. All listed caches should be family friendly. If you have a problem with simulated corpses on a cache listing, you should contact GC.com - just like I did for this cache. No response yet, btw.

Link to comment
There also seem to be people who seem to think that geocaching should have R rated caches, and I think that's ludicrous too.

 

How is it that what I said gets interpreted this way? I never meant to suggest that we need more R rated caches. I meant only to suggest that if we had a rating system, then you could easily ignore those that you don't want your kids to see. It is obvious that people are pushing the limits. In addition to this thread's subject, there are caches with murder themes which have pictures of (simulated) corpses as "clues" to the "mystery". That might be considered an R rated cache.

 

I agree that caching should be family friendly. So why not be able to eliminate those caches which are "pushing the limits" from your searches so you can insulate your kids from them?

 

My apologies if I misinterpreted what you or anyone else was suggesting. I read through this thread exactly once, and quickly, and had a lot of things I wanted to address.... so that's what I did, without going back and rereading anything or quoting anyone.

 

I understand your suggestion now, but I think it would cause more harm (encouraging R rated caches) than good. All listed caches should be family friendly. If you have a problem with simulated corpses on a cache listing, you should contact GC.com - just like I did for this cache. No response yet, btw.

 

To be clear, you are not the only one who took my original comments that way. I'm not accusing you of mis-interpreting. Rather, I apparently should have been more clear in my first comments.

 

As for the corpse, I don't have a problem with that at all. But I can see how some people might. I'd hate to see it archived for that reason, but I also sympathize with folks who may not want their kids exposed to corpses (or F.A.G.s).

Link to comment

Completly ignoring the topic, but inspired by the debate I have a question.

 

People have the freedom to be rude crude and obnoxious. That is unquestionable.

 

People also have the freedom to be offended or not as they so choose by rude crude and obnoxious things.

 

People have the freedom to seek to avoid these things.

 

If they have the right to not see them, then I am now obligated to not be rude crude and obnoxious as defined by the law giving them the right.

 

The question is this: Does anyone have a right to not be exposed to rude crude and obnioxous things? Personally I say no. Because the right starts trumping the freedom.

A freedom is what I'm allowed to do within the limits of other peoples freedom. A right is an imposition on us all ideally for the benefit of us all. A right is stronger than a freedom and should be used in moderation. Too many rights will limit freedom.

 

On topic, because I don't think anyone really has the right to demand someone comply with their desire to not see a funky cache title this very debate means the title should stand.

 

If the discussion was universal condemnation, then it's crossed the line. That's not the case here.

 

The fact that the cache has been edited makes it a moot point.

Link to comment

Gosh, it's not like me to venture out of my forums, but I wanted to point out that geocaching.com is a netmom approved site, and yes, I think the original cache name, the current cache name, and the user name are over the line, especially considering the photo on the cache page. I wouldn't want to lose netmom's rating over something that could easily be changed.

 

mompie.gif

Link to comment

Gerbilmafia- Yes, this country has freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility! You think this is a small issue? Think again...

 

The typical H.S. student hears anti-gay slurs 25.5 times a day. Consider that when you look at the following statistics.

 

In a study of 4,159 MA. H.S. students, 46% who identify as gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual, had attempted suicide in the past year, compared to 8.8% of their peers, and 23% required medical attention as a result of a suicide attempt compared to 3.3% of their peers.

 

These statistics show just how much words can hurt. People need to consider the effect their words can have on others.

 

Geocaching.com, I hope, will take a stand on this matter that will reflect the inclusive nature of geocaching as an activity that is enjoyed by all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, etc.

 

edited for spelling.

 

A correlation is not necessarily causation. Those statistics tell us nothing about how "words can hurt".

 

In my experience, the five openly gay friends/acquaintences/coworkers I have had in my years have all had a much higher incidence of "drama queen" episodes than your average joe.

 

Suicide is the ultimate attention ploy.

 

Therefore, I posit that your statistics indicate that homosexuals, as a rule, are starved for attention.

 

:)

 

As for the original topic of the thread, I find it mildly humorous on a 7th grade level. Not worthy of the "firestorm" of controversy generated here in this thread.

 

Ohhhh... your experience of five people outweighs a study that compared thousands? Five, h'mmm... impressive! You've probably worked with more gay people than you know, who, for one reason or another chose not to let you know. You wouldn't be able to tell because, they, like most gay and lesbian people, do not display the stereotypes that people associate gay people with.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. Just as any bigot who compares the few blacks they know to all being involved in crime, on drugs, or any of the other stereotypes perpetuated on them.

 

Teen suicide is no joking matter, but I would agree that it is worthy of a firestorm! :blink:

 

Your original post implied that teen homosexuals were killing themselves because of namecalling. I simply stated that a correlation does not imply a causation.

 

I'm sure I have known more gay people, that's why I clearly made the distinction of referring to OPENLY gay people. Perhaps you could tell me why those five persons all were such drama magnets?

 

I point out a flaw in your logic, and posit an equally rediculous (although certainly plausible) explanation, and rather than reply rationally or intellectually, you label me as a bigot.

 

I love it. A classic internet exchange.

 

Wandering Bears- I never called you a bigot, I compared you to one.

I have no idea why those people were "drama magnets". Perhaps it is how some individuals react to the hostility around them? Why don't you ask them?

 

My sources for my statistics- A campaign to reduce youth suicide by addressing bias-based harassment

 

and PFLAG

 

Thank-you, Rogue23, for an enlightened post.

Link to comment

I, too, have noticed a general trend towards "adult" language on the site. My preference would be for geocaching (and Waymarking) to be "family friendly" sites.

 

As a customer and a Mom, you bet that I am watching how these types of issues are handled by Groundspeak. Their decisions will make a difference in how much access my children obtain to the site and printed cache listings. (And my decision will in turn, have an influence in the likelihood of them becoming Groundspeak customers)

 

I personally do not appreciate having to tolerate "crude" language in order to enjoy such a wonderful, healthful activity. There ARE ALTERNATIVES that will get me and my family outside - I just happen to like this one and would prefer to stay here. Yes, I could "just ignore it" but why should I have to when it does nothing to benefit geocaching? Groundspeak has a choice - I hope it chooses family friendly.

 

Just my opinion.

~J of TeamRJMK~

Link to comment

Gosh, it's not like me to venture out of my forums, but I wanted to point out that geocaching.com is a netmom approved site, and yes, I think the original cache name, the current cache name, and the user name are over the line, especially considering the photo on the cache page. I wouldn't want to lose netmom's rating over something that could easily be changed.

 

mompie.gif

 

What the heck is netmom? Is that our lowest common denominator? Do they set the tone for geocaching by incorporation into the Groundspeak charter?

 

Geocaching is a family activity. The world it takes place in isn't.

 

A long while back someone suggested a kids section to these forums. TPTB said "No" because they didn't want to be responsible for maintaining the standards it would take for a kids forum.

 

It wouldn't bother me or my family if netmom's support was pulled. We would still have fun caching. They have the freedom to do that.

 

Time to look up netmom.

 

Edit: Looked em up. I like their mission. I would not change geocaching.com to ensure compliance though.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...