Cache NOT on school grounds

[+GeoBain]

At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.

 

There is a difference between describing someone as a paranoid busy body here and calling them one when speaking to them.

 

I have a lot to say about some of the idiocy I encounter with my clients when speaking with other techs. But I am the nicest, most understanding guy you could meet when speaking with my clients.

[+MKFmly]

At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.

Also with greatest respect, any person in municipal government will confirm that every community has a couple of "paranoid busy-bodies" that no amount of dialogue and education will alleviate their concerns or cause them to change their views. It’s likely you could already identify who they are in your community...

[+Team Microdot]

At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.

 

There is a difference between describing someone as a paranoid busy body here and calling them one when speaking to them.

 

Only so long as they don't find out about it

 

And the sentiment that is broadcast to other forum users - that it's OK to brand anyone who raises a geocaching related concern a paranoid busybody remains the same.

 

Wouldn't it be better to promote a genuinely open, positive attitude from the outset? Encourage friendly, open dialogue intended to dispel myths and fears rather than fuel them? Doesn't that sound like a more pleasant experience all round?

 

Quite often, genuine concerns turn out to be based on a lack of information or even misinformation - and that's very easily addressed with a friendly chat. Name calling on the other hand, whether face-to-face or in an online forum just isn't a good foundation for positive outcomes - and a bit pointless really.

[+Team Microdot]

At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.

Also with greatest respect, any person in municipal government will confirm that every community has a couple of "paranoid busy-bodies" that no amount of dialogue and education will alleviate their concerns or cause them to change their views. It’s likely you could already identify who they are in your community...

 

I don't have sufficient access to every person in muncipal government to facilitate sufficient research to make that judgement about every community but even if there are individuals such as you describe who simply cannot be appeased I still can't see how referring to them as paranoid busy-bodies will yield anything useful at all.

 

YMMV.

[+MKFmly]

I don't have sufficient access to every person in muncipal government to facilitate sufficient research to make that judgement about every community but even if there are individuals such as you describe who simply cannot be appeased I still can't see how referring to them as paranoid busy-bodies will yield anything useful at all.

TMD, I certainly agree that not labeling people and respectful discussion may go a long way to facilitate positive outcomes. Highlighting that unreachable (and unreasonable) people exist and may not be appeased no matter the amount of respectful dialogue and education is also a valid outcome and equally won't yield anything useful at all.

 

Based on my experiences you encounter the later more often than the former, in situations like described above.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't have sufficient access to every person in muncipal government to facilitate sufficient research to make that judgement about every community but even if there are individuals such as you describe who simply cannot be appeased I still can't see how referring to them as paranoid busy-bodies will yield anything useful at all.

TMD, I certainly agree that not labeling people and respectful discussion may go a long way to facilitate positive outcomes. Highlighting that unreachable (and unreasonable) people exist and may not be appeased no matter the amount of respectful dialogue and education is also a valid outcome and equally won't yield anything useful at all.

 

Based on my experiences you encounter the later more often than the former, in situations like described above.

 

Sorry - I've read the above several times in a bid to properly understand what you're getting at with this latest post - but I'm just not getting it

 

I'll try to explain a little better why I believe name calling not only has not a shred of benefit to offer but is actually more likely to cause genuine harm to the game and public perception of it.

 

This may be a long post - apologies in advance

 

Real-world-example #1:

 

A local cacher places a cache on private land, close to a public footpath. Not actually on the footpath though - on the wrong side of a barbed-wire fence close to a building that's undergoing renovation.

 

The landowner - who has already challenged individuals using the Public Footpath is told innocently by one cacher that they are on their way to find a geocache.

 

Landowner then gets himself a free geocaching account - finds the cache on his land and also sees logs on it which are very critical of him and his behaviour and promptly contacts Groundspeak - resulting in a mass cull of caches in the surrounding area and a permanent exclusion zone.

 

Real-world-example #2:

 

A very big local land owner, happy in the knowledge that there are droves of caches on their land, sees logs which demonstrate that an area of that land on which public access is prohibited asks for a small exclusion zone which results in some quite old caches having to be archived.

 

The owners of the archived caches quietly accept the request and archive their caches - but other cachers post derogatory comments about the landowner in cache logs / online forums / FB pages.*

 

Due to an oversight / breakdown in communication / change of local reviewer, the requested exclusion zone is never put in place - and new caches are published inside that zone.

 

This very, very large landowner now refuses to give permission for any new caches on their land, citing the apparent failure to apply the exclusion zone but, in particular, the numerous derogatory postings in online forums / cache logs / FB pages that demonstrate a very poor attitude toward them from the geocaching community.

 

It might have been possible to apologise for the exclusion zone oversight and re-open negotiations but once combined with all those negative online posts the landowner had all the justification they needed for refusing to budge an inch.

 

In simple terms, name calling handed the bullets to the landowners for them to fire and it was game over.

 

*Which demonstrates that the argument that name calling in person and name calling online are different things doesn't really hold a great deal of water - given that access to the online information is a trivial matter for anyone with access to the Internet and a little time to kill - especially those who are already single-mindedly looking to rid a location of geocache(s).

 

In example #1 there was probably nothing that could be done at that point - this landowner was determined to remove any trace of caching and cachers from his land but the fact remains that the name calling yielded absolutely nothing of value - but probably went a long way to driving the final nail into that particular coffin.

 

In example #2 we have a landowner originally open to caching on their vast swathes of land who now flatly refuses permission for any more - thanks in a significant part to the online name calling.

 

And it's examples like these (there are more) that leave me with no doubt at all that the only way forward, regardless of the mindset of those who voice concerns about caching - is to listen to them, be polite, answer their questions and hopefully provide enough information to prove to them that they've no need to be concerned. There's no guarantee that this approach will yield a win/win every time - but if there's a better approach, I can't think of it.

[+NanCycle]

At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.

Also with greatest respect, any person in municipal government will confirm that every community has a couple of "paranoid busy-bodies" that no amount of dialogue and education will alleviate their concerns or cause them to change their views. It’s likely you could already identify who they are in your community...

 

Yeah, I'm the "paranoid busy-body" who called 911 when I saw a couple guys breaking into my neighbor's house.