Stay Away From This Geocache

[+southdeltan]

It's fairly clear that the people hosting this event did not intend to discriminate - they just picked a really poor way of saying they didn't have enough space.

 

Hopefully they'll learn to be a bit more tactful in the future.

 

However - some of the people in this thread are being just as distasteful.

 

2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

(But 3 lefts do).

 

southdeltan

[+Dagg]

told 'sorry, we don' want your kind'

 

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

 

It's time that all of you STOP trying to make Coast look like an uncaring person. NOWHERE DID Coast2Coast2Coast say this.

 

PUT IT TO REST PEOPLE ...GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!

Yup

I agree.

[geotrouvetout]

I think some may want to organize private parties. I have seen a private geocaching event around Paris where the owner was charging 110 euros per player (about 137$ !!!). However, I also think that Groundspeak should have a special section for this type of events (free or not) so nobody gets confused, and in no way the caches waypoints should be published on geocaching.com then. As long as the rules are clear to everybody from start it will avoid getting on each other nerves.

[+Divine]

"I'm sorry neighbor, but you didn't RSVP in time, some dude 200 miles away snagged my last slot" isn't better than "I'm sorry but you don't live in the area I'm trying to draw cachers from".

Yes it is. The former, when the cache is listed early enough before the actual event will take place, will give everyone browsing the GC.com website an equal chance to send the RSVP, no matter where they happen to live. The latter just discriminates those who don't happen to live in the right area. Yes, if the event size is an issue, someone will eventually be left out. A clearly informed RSVP system just doesn't leave anyone out based on their origin or something equally unessential.

 

IMO it was originally clearly visible, and like southdeltan and some others have said, C2C2C meant all good, but maybe didn't think it properly through.

[+briansnat]

Thanks for wanting to come out but you don't Live in the right area

That is what was actually said. That seems a lot like ...

 

sorry, we don't want your kind

Either way it's discriminatory in my personal opinion.

My point exactly. Not sure why he thinks he is being accused of bigotry.

[CoyoteRed]

I find it fascinating that folks who have nothing to do with something, wouldn't even have participated, and even though they weren't invited doesn't affect them in the least would raise should a stink over pretty much nothing.

 

Anyone care to show me this event was against the laws of the land or against the guidelines of this site?

 

Only then can you even think about claiming to be right.

Edited October 25, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Prime Suspect]

Anyone care to show me this event was against the laws of the land or against the guidelines of this site?

There's a big difference between what's legal and illegal, and what's right and wrong.

[WH]

Anyone care to show me this event was against the laws of the land or against the guidelines of this site?

There's a big difference between what's legal and illegal, and what's right and wrong.

I agree completely.

 

While discriminatory and totally reprehensible, it would be perfectly "LEGAL" for me to host an event that only allows men, or only allows Christians to attend. I would be labeled a bigot and quickly become very disliked among the rest of the GC community.

 

Now, while the event does not discriminate by way of race, color, gender or religion, it does bar a group of people based solely on their geography.

 

Like it or not, thats discrimination.

[+Renegade Knight]

"I'm sorry neighbor, but you didn't RSVP in time, some dude 200 miles away snagged my last slot"  isn't better than "I'm sorry but you don't live in the area I'm trying to draw cachers from".

Yes it is. The former, when the cache is listed early enough before the actual event will take place, will give everyone browsing the GC.com website an equal chance to send the RSVP, no matter where they happen to live. The latter just discriminates those who don't happen to live in the right area. Yes, if the event size is an issue, someone will eventually be left out. A clearly informed RSVP system just doesn't leave anyone out based on their origin or something equally unessential.

 

IMO it was originally clearly visible, and like southdeltan and some others have said, C2C2C meant all good, but maybe didn't think it properly through.

All methods rule someone out.

 

If you limit to the first 100 RSVP's the guy on vacation is screwed. If you pick an area the guy outside the area is screwed. If you give short notice the guy who made other plans is screwed. If you give huge amounts of notice (ignoring they archive your event cache page on you) the guy who is forgetful is screwed. If you charge admission and take all comers, the guy who is short that week is screwed. If you draw straws from all who would like to attend, everyone with a short straw is screwed. And so on. Yet every last one of these methods is ok because none of them target individuals.

 

I wasn't kidding when I said the success of one event killed it. The sponsors spent a heck of a log of money on it, and so many people showed up that it just wasn't fun. Cut the numbers in half and it would of been a success all around (it was a success from the attendees standpoint) Individualy that cacher likes each and every person who atteneed. With the numbers it was was overwhealming. That event will morph into something else if it ever is held again.

 

C2C2C's event was fine as described.

[+Renegade Knight]

...it does bar a group of people based solely on their geography.

 

Like it or not, thats discrimination.

We are not talking gerrymandering here, where they drew their lines based on, politics, religion, race, creed, sex, drugs, and rock n roll. It was a simple boundary to capture that elusive breed of cacher called "Local".

 

But you are right. It's Discrimination. It's a catagorical act of choosing a specific set of people out of the total pool of people available who would attend the event. I challenge you to concieve a method of culling the numbers that is not in some fashon discrimination.

[WH]

Make it first come first serve.

 

Everyone gets an equal chance at attending.

[+El Diablo]

But you are right. It's Discrimination. It's a catagorical act of choosing a specific set of people out of the total pool of people available who would attend the event. I challenge you to concieve a method of culling the numbers that is not in some fashon discrimination.

No where that I saw on the original cache page was it mentioned that there was a limit on the numbers. The email that was sent to the outsider that wanted to attend is what started this whole thing. Had the email said they were limited to numbers and locals were being given first chance, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

Now that being said and reading the responses of the cache owner, I do believe that we have probably made this into more than was needed. Even I admit to having a knee jerk reaction. I'm looking for a program that will lock my keyboard for a specified period of time after reading a post before I can reply.

 

El Diablo

[+Renegade Knight]

Make it first come first serve.

 

Everyone gets an equal chance at attending.

Only people who know the event is there can RSVP in time. Those who check new caches (FTF hog style) can ensure attendance. Then word of mouth, then the one who gets the weekly cache notification. The casual user who checks the site once a month and plans a couple caches is left out. The people on vaction or who are moving across town, also left out.

 

In essence you shift who you are effectively inviting from locals to people quick on the computer.

[CoyoteRed]

There's a big difference between what's legal and illegal, and what's right and wrong.

What's wrong is a group forcing it's will on another--especially when the two groups have nothing to do with each other.

 

While I understand the event was in Canada, here in the US we have a standard of which we can associate ourselves with whom ever we choose. This does include being able to disassociate ourselves from whom ever we choose. Heck, it's a basic freedom long recognized by the courts guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

Of course, there are limits to which you can disassociate yourself, but by in large I've not ever seen where one could forcibly insert themselves into a group based on region. Gender, yes. Race, yes. Heck, if the Boy Scouts--the paragon of the US along with Mom, baseball, and apple pie--exclude gays. And the courts has said they are perfectly within their rights to do so. Why? Because a private group shouldn't have to accept anyone they choose not to.

 

If you want to take it to an extreme, even Nazis and the KKK are within their rights to have their meetings and march. Why? Because it is a basic freedom, a basic right. (Not that I'm trying to equate this group with the KKK, just illustrating a point.)

 

I'm not saying what was done was done perfectly. What I'm saying is those who saying they can't have a private event are more in the wrong than this event would have been. Who are you to deny them that?

[+D-cachers]

Its amazing how there are so many folks in these forums who are so quick to criticize and seemingly look for ways to state how things could always be done a better way (usually their way). We are talking about geocaching...lets keep it in perspective.

 

The bottom line is that C2C2C was concerned about having too many people (thereby threatening the quality of the event) and also wanted to get local caching families together. To meet these goals, he chose to limit attendance to a geographical area. I assume that all cachers in that area...white, black, male, female, young, old, rich, poor...would be welcome. IMO thats where the rubber meets the road when people talk about discrimination...

 

This forum thread...and the associated pot-stirring angst... is one of those that makes me wonder if the majority of my fellow cachers have the same stresses in life as I do...or see on the news the same tragedies, both local and across the world...

 

RK...I really respect the way you have consistently stated your position on this...

 

Real news: Our soldiers are in harms way every day...and unfortunately, some die while serving their country. (Now thats worth your attention)

 

C2C2C stated his intent and that should be good enough...

[CoyoteRed]

... only allows Christians to attend. I would be labeled a bigot and quickly become very disliked among the rest of the GC community.

Hardly. You might even be called a "good" Christian.

[+Renegade Knight]

But you are right.  It's Discrimination.  It's a catagorical act of choosing a specific set of people out of the total pool of people available who would attend the event.  I challenge you to concieve a method of culling the numbers that is not in some fashon discrimination.

No where that I saw on the original cache page was it mentioned that there was a limit on the numbers. The email that was sent to the outsider that wanted to attend is what started this whole thing. Had the email said they were limited to numbers and locals were being given first chance, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

Now that being said and reading the responses of the cache owner, I do believe that we have probably made this into more than was needed. Even I admit to having a knee jerk reaction. I'm looking for a program that will lock my keyboard for a specified period of time after reading a post before I can reply.

 

El Diablo

What you saw on the cache page was the limitation on numbers in the form of an area. What I did to limit numbers on my event cache was to provide short notice. What will probably happen to the cache event I mentioned earler that grew into too much is that it will be held in a campground which by definition have a limited number of spaces.

 

Had C2C2C said "we only want X many people to come" someone else might have started a thread "yeah but cache events should be open to all" which is one of the arguments brought up in this thread.

 

The issue of numbers will only get worse over time. TPTB need to ponder this thread and either rule one of two things.

 

1) All event caches we will list will be open to all cachers regardless.

or

2) We undersand the growth of caching can overwhelm any one event sponsor. Provided that you do not discriminate on an individual or prohibited basis you may incorporate some means of limiting the numbers of attendees to your event.

 

Or something similar.

[CoyoteRed]

You know, it's kind of funny watching the naysayers come up with solutions to back their argument when the limit imposed just happened to fall right in line with the parameters of the event--to draw local cachers.

 

What better way to limit the crowd? One has yet come up with a better solution.

 

EDIT: ieSpell is nice...If you use!

Edited October 26, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[WH]

Good point.

 

A well defined and approved method for limiting event attendance where space is tight would avoid similar disagreements in the future.

[Kermode]

The reason I started this thread was because I thought that it could have been handled differently.

The subject may not have come to light at all if the person who placed the cache had worded his reply to the perspective attendee, in a different fashion.

 

I do agree with many others that maybe the person who was planning this cache should have not put it on the Geocaching site where the rest of the world would see it. Maybe an ad in his local newspaper under "Coming Events" would have sent the message out just to the locals.

 

I saw a comment here about someone going to a cahe event in Canada and travelling to it from Kansas.

 

The fact of the whole thing is that the person who was originally told that they didnt live in the right area in fact he lives only 30miles away from the prescribed area.(which wasnt posted on the cache page) Thats a little different than 1000miles from Kansas. Its only about a 40 minute drive from the original person's area. Big Deal.

 

Its an Island and basically everyone lives within a 3 hour drive of everyone else. Except for the far north.

 

I would also like to ad that there was a cahing event in Bellingham Wa. the otherday and everyone was welcome. See link below.

 

http://www.bcgeocaching.com/modules.php?na...=article&sid=31

 

Maybe the nanaimo cachers could ask the Bellingham people for advice on staging an event and get their input on how it went and how they were prepared for it.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Kermode

[+Mudfrog]

If i throw a party at my house then i can invite whoever i want. The same goes with a cache event. As per your reasons, theres not a thing wrong with this. Where the problem lies is that this event was listed on the Geocaching site and as a legitimate cache, should be available to anyone that wants to make the find.

 

Make it a private getogether (send out invites to who you want to attend) and have fun, case closed!!!

[+xTerraCacher]

Coyote Red posted Oct 24, 2004 at 5:35 AM

I think a few people are feeling a little smug about getting the event shut down.

 

not me...believe it or not....

 

here is a cut and paste of an email i received this afternoon from the original poster and author of the email sent to me "unwelcoming" me to the event. The quoted posting that follows can be found here: VIGPS

 

here's the posting:

 

i notice that the cache ( mid-island 2nd annual ) has been archived and upon reading the last few logs, apparently the organizers cancelled it.

 

this is indeed unfortunate, and i would like to share an email and my responses which were emailed back to the sender. The original senders name/alias is listed as ????????????? and my replies are interspersed with their text:

 

Quote:

 

--This message was sent through the Geocaching.com web site--

 

-- Copy of email sent to ?????????? --

???????????? wrote:

 

>>You know, you could have emailed me directly.

 

well, not much point to that. you made it clear in your email whether i was welcome or not. i was interested in the opinions of *others* on whether a select group invite should be issued in public through gc.com.

 

????????????? wrote:

 

>>I could have tried to tell you what I was

>>trying to do. and this whole mess would

>>never of happened.

 

i read the gc.com posting and knew what you were trying to do. you were trying to host an event for a select group of people.

 

??????????????? wrote:

 

>>This turned out way to nasty. I was

>>being called names by people I don't>

>>even know and people who didn't know me.

 

i make no apologies for others actions as i have no control over the actions of others. i asked nobody to do anything of the kind and i didn't do anything like that myself.

 

????????????? wrote:

>>I really didn't deserve that.

 

i agree, and again, i didn't do anything of the sort.

 

however, i do resent you saying that i started all of those actions. i didn't, i asked the opinions of others.

if you choose to no longer post/host events and/or caches because of the uncalled-for and inappropriate actions of those ignorant few (especially cachemaniac), nobody will lose except you.

 

my advice (take it or leave it) is not to let others control you...if everyone would treat others as they would like to be treated, i would not have been excluded, you would not have been subjected to things that you shouldn't have...

 

hopefully, all will be welcomed at all caches and geocaching "can be all that it can be"

 

 

Generally, i believe that most would now agree that unless all are welcome, do not post in public (gc.com)

 

thanx for all your input ( and i do mean ALL )

 

see you out there! be safe!

[+coast2coast2coast]

guess I wont be sending him any more "personal" emails. he would rather do this in public so that everyone can see.

[+coast2coast2coast]

How about if we put this thing to bed.

If and when I hold another event you bet your booties I won't to it the same way!

 

Now if we could all get back to this Hobby we all love and have devoted so much time and effort into making it what it is today.

 

Edited (my smilies were not working)

Edited October 26, 2004 by coast2coast2coast

[+Renegade Knight]

...Generally, i believe that most would now agree that unless all are welcome, do not post in public (gc.com)...

Alas no. I would no sooner hold you hostage to the unlimited bleeding of your wallet than anyone else. You don't have to use any method discussed to limit the numbers of people who attend an event you might choose to hold. However my time was spent in this thread to work towards you at least having the option.

 

Diplomatic skill vary from person to person. That's a different issue than if you can limit a cache event to locals, the first 100 RSVP's, or any other method if limiting the number of people attending your event to your own personal level of comfort, or ability.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+xTerraCacher]

Coast2Coast2Coast wrote:

 

guess I wont be sending him any more "personal" emails. he would rather do this in public so that everyone can see.

 

actually, i thought by posting your event on a public page, all could be public

 

my posting quotes from emails were not to lay blame or call anyone right or wrong and i'm sorry if you see it that way

 

my aim was to present to all both sides of the argument, and to prevent "i said - i didn't say" contests

 

and i agree...this can probably be put to bed

 

c u "out there" and be safe!

[+Divine]

All methods rule someone out.

Yes, I guess we all can agree on this. There are, however differences how it discriminates fellow cachers.

 

If you limit to the first 100 RSVP's the guy on vacation is screwed.

He's still invited.

 

If you pick an area the guy outside the area is screwed.

He's not invited.

 

If you give short notice the guy who made other plans is screwed.

He's still invited.

 

If you give huge amounts of notice (ignoring they archive your event cache page on you) the guy who is forgetful is screwed.

He's still invited.

 

If you charge admission and take all comers, the guy who is short that week is screwed.

He's still invited. (No, I wouldn't attend a 100 € event either.)

 

If you draw straws from all who would like to attend, everyone with a short straw is screwed.

Everyone's still invited and have an equal chance to draw a long straw.

 

And so on. Yet every last one of these methods is ok because none of them target individuals.

One of them is significantly different from others. All others give everyone an equal chance to try to fit in.

 

I'm not against cutting down the attendee numbers. There is a number of good reasons to do it already mentioned in this thread. It's just that if everyone is given an equal chance to come, whether it was drawing straws or having RSVPs sent on long notice, it'll be equally 'unfair' for those who get ruled out. Ruling people out because of their place of residence is not equal.

[+Go Play Outside]

Anyone that knows Coast2Coast2Coast & family know they are GREAT people!

 

There isn't anything anyone can say that will make us think other wise.

[CoyoteRed]

One of them is significantly different from others. All others give everyone an equal chance to try to fit in.

All the other methods of limiting attendence has failed to address one thing. If an event was meant to be for locals only then some of the other methods would be giving up slots to non-locals, thus excluding those it was meant for.

[CoyoteRed]

The reason I started this thread was because I thought that it could have been handled differently.

Well, that was obvious.

 

What was also obvious was your bias and tone set the stage for this flame fest. Take a look at your opening post and tell me otherwise. "If you are not happy about fellow Geocachers treating others in this fashion then visit the cache page and log a note to inform the owners of the cache what you think." Isn't that basically an invitation to flame someone? I notice you didn't invite those who think it okay to post a note. Why is that?

 

No, you had a hair where the Sun don't shine and you wanted someone to pay.

[CoyoteRed]

Generally, i believe that most would now agree that unless all are welcome, do not post in public (gc.com)

No. I see no one has refuted my suggestion that posting the cache to gc.com is the best way to get the message out. I've detailed this above.

 

The basic concept behind how it was done is the best way to invite any and all cachers in a limited area, known and unknown, to a local event.

[+briansnat]

What I'm saying is those who saying they can't have a private event are more in the wrong than this event would have been. Who are you to deny them that?

 

 

I don't think that anybody is saying they couldn't have a private event. What people are having an issue with is that they posted it as a public event, then told a certain segment of the population they weren't welcome.

[+Renegade Knight]

....One of them is significantly different from others. All others give everyone an equal chance to try to fit in.

 

I'm not against cutting down the attendee numbers. There is a number of good reasons to do it already mentioned in this thread. It's just that if everyone is given an equal chance to come, whether it was drawing straws or having RSVPs sent on long notice, it'll be equally 'unfair' for those who get ruled out. Ruling people out because of their place of residence is not equal.

Divine,

 

I see the distinction you are making. Where we disagree is on the means to "Disinvite" people. All methods do not single out any one individual. They are arbitary and that's what I've been trying to get at.

 

In each case you are effectivly inviting only a certain pool of people. You are being selective. "Locals only" is different from "Everyone but you"

 

In other words, I don't think it makes any difference how you limit numbers so long as you are fair about it. Locals only is fair.

 

As for your list, if they don't make the cut, they are not invited. That everyone had a chance is only a theory. Take a camping event. You have 34 spaces, a call to your 10 best caching friends "Hey I'm doing to do an event on the 24th at the campground, better make your reservations before I list!" That's less fair than Locals only. On the surface "everyone is invited" but it has the potential for more abuse than locals only.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think that anybody is saying they couldn't have a private event. What people are having an issue with is that they posted it as a public event, then told a certain segment of the population they weren't welcome.

Actually, I believe it said right on the cache page who was expected to attend. It was public to the population of a general region, not just a segment of that population.

 

The arguments have been about it either being private on a public site--ironically one solution was to post the event in the local public paper--or it's flat out discriminatory.

 

Either way, the arguments fall short.

[WH]

I wonder if he would have been turned away if he just showed up at the event?

[+Sparrowhawk]

If the challenge was in limiting the number of folks to an event, there are really cool classy ways to handle it.

 

Here in PDX, some local cachers wanted to throw an amazing Halloween bash, but there was not much space in the house. So they created a limited amount of "Golden Tickets". Starting a few weeks before, they posted online a puzzle around every other day as to where a golden ticket would be. Folks would solve the puzzle and make a mad dash. It was a riot to read the posts of the folks on the hunt for these tickets!

 

The resulting party was a HUGE success... seems there is something about earning your way to being there this way that really added to the fun.

 

The interesting thing was... if the goal had been to make sure that only locals attended, well, this would have made that possible with no fuss. Only folks living nearby the secret local places where the tickets were hidden could find the things in time.

Edited October 26, 2004 by Sparrowhawk

[+xTerraCacher]

Coast2coast2coast wrote:

guess I wont be sending him any more "personal" emails. he would rather do this in public so that everyone can see.

 

at all times i protected the identity of the sender. if the sender responded in public in such a way that the identity was obvious, that was beyond my control.

[+Dagg]

You are all welcome to attend

[+briansnat]

Actually, I believe it said right on the cache page who was expected to attend. It was public to the population of a general region, not just a segment of that population

 

So when the NY Metro Area Geocachers Assn, or the Maryland Geocaching Society hold an event should anybody who does not live in those areas assume they are not welcome?

[CoyoteRed]

So when the NY Metro Area Geocachers Assn, or the Maryland Geocaching Society hold an event should anybody who does not live in those areas assume they are not welcome?

Depends on how the invitation is worded.

 

"We would like to invite Cachers and thier families from Campbell River to Naniamo for..." tells you right there who is invited.

 

Who holds the event does not automatically tell anyone who is welcome.

 

If the NY Metro Area Geocachers Assn held an event and posted "we would like to invite cachers and their families from the NY Metro area" then it would be limiting the scope for whom the event is intended. Just like the SCGA doesn't limit who can attend our meetings--if you are interested in caching in SC, meeting SC cachers, or other cachers while in SC, then come on. Of course, I can't think of any other reason to come to a meeting unless it's "what are these fools over here doing?"

Edited October 26, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+Renegade Knight]

This event thread has lasted longer than the event would.

[ju66l3r]

Solution:

 

"If you live between points A and B, you are invited to this event cache. There will be cake and pie at my house. If you do not live between points A and B, you are welcome to come and stare at my front yard. If you stare at my front yard, feel free to give yourself a smilie for the event. Please do not expect cake and pie in my front yard. Thanks."

 

A public event, with a private reception.

[+Dagg]

Solution:

 

"If you live between points A and B, you are invited to this event cache. There will be cake and pie at my house. If you do not live between points A and B, you are welcome to come and stare at my front yard. If you stare at my front yard, feel free to give yourself a smilie for the event. Please do not expect cake and pie in my front yard. Thanks."

 

A public event, with a private reception.

what kind of pie?

[+GPSKitty]

Solution:

 

"If you live between points A and B, you are invited to this event cache.  There will be cake and pie at my house.  If you do not live between points A and B, you are welcome to come and stare at my front yard.  If you stare at my front yard, feel free to give yourself a smilie for the event.  Please do not expect cake and pie in my front yard.  Thanks."

 

A public event, with a private reception.

what kind of pie?

How nice is your yard? Will I be staring at a patch of weeds or are we talking nice landscaping?

[+Hemlock]

Can we turn on the hose and get a drink of water?

[+TotemLake]

Oooops sorry. I made a wrong turn and ended up in this useless thread. I'll leave now.

Edited October 26, 2004 by TotemLake

[ju66l3r]

Oooops sorry. I made a wrong turn and ended up in this useless thread. I'll leave now.

There are no wrong turns; simply 1/3 of a right one.

 

The pie is humble.

 

Leave my hose alone, you hooligans.

 

and

 

I'd have a better lawn for you to look at, but the neighborhood kids keep messing with my hose.

[koz]

while we're on the topic (and this thread seems to be petering out), is anyone else just a bit miffed w/the members only caches?...i understand that your $30 gets you uploads and ot forums, but thought idea was to have free access to caches....(i know, i know...$30 isn't that much and there are plenty of non-member caches; just seems a little elitist for no apparent reason)

[Keystone]

Hello,

 

The event cache that's being discussed in this topic was not a members only cache. If you wish to discuss members only caches, please post to one of the many topics on that issue, or start a new one. Specific to the topic of event caches, please see this thread, where a members only event cache was debated quite thoroughly over a two-week period beginning less than a month ago.

 

Thanks.