Subjective delined Waymark

[+Tharandter]

Sorry for the spelling mistake in the headline!

 

Hey,

 

I have the following problem: For over six weeks, I'm trying to get approved a waymark in 'Devilish Locations', which is actually okay by category description.

 

1. It was declined because of a missing picture -> okay

2. The picture was uploaded but the waymark has been declined again -> wrong image -> okay

3. Then there is nothing happen for over a month and I wrote the officers (3 officers, only 1 active) why there is nothing happend?

4. After a week the waymark has been declined again for the same reason "wrong image", than I sent a mail with the question whether that should be a joke?

5. Now I returned this:

 

"After 3 requests, it finally looks like everything is in order for this waymark, but I do feel you've been unnecessarily rude to frivlas, the other officer that you were working with. You're right, this isn't kindergarten, so I can't send you to time-out. But as an adult I do expect a certain level of courtesy. As soon as frivlas receives a brief apology, she'll be happy to accept this waymark. Thanks, and have a great day. Lil Devil"

 

That notified "rudeness" was nothing like the question why I have to wait so long for an approval and why the image isn't correct?

Since then the waymark is constantly being declined! So what can I do?

 

I don't apologize for any nonsense that someone misunderstood! As an officer you have to decide objectively!

I can be the biggest a****** and still the waymark has to be approved if there is everything alright.

 

This is something I have never experienced!

Edited January 7, 2013 by Tharandter

[+silverquill]

It is always sad to hear these stories. But, I have a collection of my own. The truth is that we run into people in Waymarking that are just difficult to deal with. Rudeness is so difficult to determine through the internet, even with the use of emoticons. I have been accused of being rude when that was not my intention at all. And there have been times when I misunderstood someone's remark that seemed rude, but was not intended that way. So, we just need to give each other the benefit of the doubt, to use a good American idiom. It means we assume the best before assuming the worst about other people.

 

I've had to decline waymarks multiple times. Either the person didn't understand what needed to be changed, or they were unwilling to make changes. It can be frustrating. I've also had my waymarks declined without clear explanations, which is also frustrating, and have had to resubmit several times before satisfying a reviewer.

 

But, I have never declined a waymark because of these difficulties. It is not my right as an officer to decline a waymark because I feel the other person has not treated me right, or for any other reason, as long as the waymark is otherwise acceptable. IMHO, demanding an apology before doing what is right is not an adult response. I'm not sure what recourse you have, but clearly this is not an appropriate response. And, I'll probably catch flack for saying so.

[+Tharandter]

"I've also read through that entire document looking for something that says I must objectively approve your waymark even when you act like an a******. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you could enlighten me."

 

What can I say?

[+dprovan]

I don't apologize for any nonsense that someone misunderstood!

Well, there's your problem. Apologizing for perceived rudeness does not need to be an admission that the rudeness was intentional.

 

If your goal is to get the waymark approved, the easiest way is to apologize for the way the interchange turned out without trying to assign blame.

 

After that, you can use your interpersonal skills to help the reviewer do better in the future. And vice versa.

[+Lil Devil]

Oh I so love when someone tries to drag me into a public flogging but he doesn't get his facts straight.

 

On December 13, Tharandter submitted a new waymark to the "Devilish Locations" category. My my calculations, this was just over 3 weeks ago. A far cry from the 6 weeks claimed in the OP.

 

At that time, he submitted 5 nice pictures of the location, but forgot to include a picture of "a sign naming the location or object. If there is no sign, please include a picture of a map that shows the name." This is clearly spelled out in the description of the category.

 

One of the other officers of the group, frivlas, politely declined the submission with the message "I need you to include a photo of a sign or map showing this name at the location."

 

The next morning, the waymark was resubmitted, but still no picture of a sign. frivlas again declined it with the message "I am sorry, but I ha be to be consistent with this category. It needs to be a photo of a SIGN at the location. Or a MAP indicating that name at that location. Sorry."

 

Nothing happened for 3 full weeks. Then, at 11:30am on January 4, Tharandter resubmitted the waymark with a picture of a crinkled up brochure for the location. I didn't personally see this picture, as it has since been deleted, but from what I'm told it was only partially legible.

 

frivlas again denied it with the following message at 9:14am the next day "Ok, I am going to be picky on this. I asked for a photo of a map or a sign at that location, not photos of the brochure. It is a neat waymark, and it deserves to be done properly. Please remove the photos of the brochure and resubmit it once you have taken and included a photo of the sign that you have taken and uploaded yourself."

 

To which she received this email at 9:26am "So you're kidding me, right? The oictur of a sign at the gorge has already been uploaded!"

 

A little later, Tharandter apparently realized his mistake, and decided to take it out on frivlas by sending this email at 1:13pm: "There is a new picture online and now please approve my waymark, I don't want to wait another month!"

 

To which she replied at 2:11pm: "When you apologize for the rudeness of your last 2 emails i will consider approving it. I have asked for a photo of the sign from the beginning and you finally chose to upload it yesterday."

 

The demands started at 2:15pm "We are not in kindergarten so if there is everything alright with the waymark, then approve it!"

 

At that point I received a phone call from frivlas who was at this point quite upset for being harassed like that.

 

At 4:14pm I sent the email that was quoted in the OP, "After 3 requests, it finally looks like everything is in order for this waymark, but I do feel you've been unnecessarily rude to frivlas, the other officer that you were working with. You're right, this isn't kindergarten, so I can't send you to time-out. But as an adult I do expect a certain level of courtesy. As soon as frivlas receives a brief apology, she'll be happy to accept this waymark. Thanks, and have a great day. Lil Devil"

 

A few hours later I received these fireworks:

This is really incredible! As an officer you have to decide objectively! I can be the biggest a****** and yet you have to unlock my Waymark! If the Waymark is not enabled I will contact Groundspeak and I will become the new leader of this group, then you're no longer officer. Save yourself and finally do that what you are in this group. Something This is something I've never seen!

 

Wow.

 

Not to be content to wait until my morning, he sent this at 3:30am today:

I can not understand why you react so overdrawn and even less why you decline my Waymark! I have just asked why I have been waiting over a month for an approval and why one of the photos was not allowed. Imagine one of your geocaches would be denied because the relevant reviewer has a problem with you! What's that?

 

I will not apologize for any nonsense that you've misunderstood! I'm annoyed that my Waymark was declined again and again and again and I had to wait weeks for a response why!

 

My full response, since he chose to post only a small portion of it in post #3 above.

Hi Tharandter,

 

I am continually bewildered by your attitude. I must say I find your threat to have me removed as officer of my group particularly humorous in light of paragraph 4(a) of the Waymarking Terms Of Use which can be found here: http://www.Waymarking.com/guidelines/termsofuse.aspx

 

I've also read through that entire document looking for something that says I must objectively approve your waymark even when you act like an a******. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

 

For clarification, you have not been waiting a month. frivlas has been asking for explicit documentation for perhaps that long, but you had not supplied the required picture of a sign or map until 1/5/2013. But by that time you had become abusive towards her.

 

My request from my previous email still stands. As soon as that is fulfilled, your waymark will be published. Simple.

 

I won't decline your waymark again. I don't mind letting it sit in the cloud waiting for a positive response from you.

 

In light of paragraph 4(a), mentioned above, if you still feel you will get somewhere by contacting Groundspeak, please feel free. Make sure to include a copy of all previous dialogs, because frivlas and I certainly will.

 

But a simple "I'm sorry" will solve this much faster.

 

Regards,

Lil Devil

 

Are we having fun yet?

 

Notwithstanding his odd sense of time, this has been entirely overblown. I think this is a fine waymark, and I'd like to publish it and get this all behind us, but I still feel an apology is in order. Whether the rudeness was intended or not, it was certainly perceived, and it upset my co-officer. Are we wrong to stand our ground for that?

[+Max and 99]

My 2 cents: after reading what I assume is the entire context of the correspondence, I do not think it is appropriate for an officer to demand an apology in order for a waymark to be approved. Waymarks SHOULD be evaluated objectively. If an officer can't do that, he/she should step aside and let another officer review it instead.

 

We've had forum discussions about similar incidents before, and I remember poor Silverquil having to politely decline the same waymark over and over again.

[+Lil Devil]

It is not my right as an officer to decline a waymark because I feel the other person has not treated me right, or for any other reason, as long as the waymark is otherwise acceptable. IMHO, demanding an apology before doing what is right is not an adult response.

This attitude baffles me. Why should the submitter be allowed to act like a jerk, and that should be ignored if the waymark is otherwise acceptable?

[+Lil Devil]

... I do not think it is appropriate for an officer to demand an apology in order for a waymark to be approved. Waymarks SHOULD be evaluated objectively. ...

 

We've had forum discussions about similar incidents before, and I remember poor Silverquil having to politely decline the same waymark over and over again.

 

I'm having trouble making sense of this in light of the website Terms Of Use which state:

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

...

You and not Groundspeak, are entirely responsible for all content that you upload, post or otherwise transmit via the Site. You agree not to:

(a) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

 

The TOU doesn't say what should happen if you violate it, but certainly ignoring the transgression is not the right answer. My other officers and I should not have to be subjected to this, and then told "just publish the waymark and ignore him."

[+Tharandter]

The next morning, the waymark was resubmitted, but still no picture of a sign. frivlas again declined it with the message "I am sorry, but I ha be to be consistent with this category. It needs to be a photo of a SIGN at the location. Or a MAP indicating that name at that location. Sorry."

 

Nothing happened for 3 full weeks. Then, at 11:30am on January 4, Tharandter resubmitted the waymark with a picture of a crinkled up brochure for the location. I didn't personally see this picture, as it has since been deleted, but from what I'm told it was only partially legible.

 

frivlas again denied it with the following message at 9:14am the next day "Ok, I am going to be picky on this. I asked for a photo of a map or a sign at that location, not photos of the brochure. It is a neat waymark, and it deserves to be done properly. Please remove the photos of the brochure and resubmit it once you have taken and included a photo of the sign that you have taken and uploaded yourself."

 

To which she received this email at 9:26am "So you're kidding me, right? The oictur of a sign at the gorge has already been uploaded!"

 

A little later, Tharandter apparently realized his mistake, and decided to take it out on frivlas by sending this email at 1:13pm: "There is a new picture online and now please approve my waymark, I don't want to wait another month!"

 

THAT IS NOT CORRECT MY DEAR!!!

After uploading a new picture after the first decling, the waymark was declined again but the picture was NOT a brochure image! It was a picture of a sign at the entrance of the gorge! But that does not matter! Then I added another picture and did resubmit IMMEDIATELY!!! I was waiting for the 3 weeks until an officer had did something, not you! And that's a kind of frustrating if you wait and wait and wait and than the waymark is declined again and you have to wait weeks again! That's the reason why I has written "Are you kidding me?"

 

It starts to annoy me massively!!!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Tharandter

[+dprovan]

Notwithstanding his odd sense of time, this has been entirely overblown.

I agree. From your presentation, it strikes me that it's been and is still being overblown by all involved. And now everyone's carefully entrenched their positions to no one has any possible way to back down. Well done!

 

As an impartial observer, I'd say that none of the three sides is to blame for the current situation, and therefore all three are to blame for it continuing.

 

And I thought Waymarking was boring...

[+Tharandter]

I just want to have my waymark and there is no comprehensible reason for a denial, that's the point!

He has to approve it, that's his job as an Officer/Leader and he knows it!

 

That is not acceptable, that someone is declining a Waymark for personal reasons!?

Imagine the reviewer at Geocaching.com would act in that way what would be going on there!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Tharandter

[Keystone]

Imagine the reviewer at Geocaching.com would act in that way what would be going on there!

When volunteer cache reviewers encounter "geocachers with attitude," we frequently pass them along to the staff at Groundspeak. As volunteers it is no fun to deal with, so why not pass them off to someone who gets paid for the privilege? Volunteering, whether as a cache reviewer or a waymark category manager, is supposed to be fun.

 

Maybe a referral to Groundspeak would be a good solution to the situation unfolding in this thread.

[+Lil Devil]

Then I added another picture and did resubmit IMMEDIATELY!!! I was waiting for the 3 weeks until an officer had did something, not you!

Sorry, sweetheart, but that's not what I'm seeing. I got an email every time you submitted or resubmitted the waymark. The dates and times are as follows:

Dec 13, 2012 at 12:41 AM submit

Dec 13, 2012 at 4:53 AM resubmit

Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM resubmit

Dec 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM resubmit

Jan 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM resubmit

Jan 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM resubmit

Jan 6, 2013 at 10:33 PM resubmit

 

When I go online and look at the group's past activity, I see the waymark declined at the following times:

12/13/2012 4:40:00 AM declined

12/14/2012 9:03:00 AM declined

1/5/2013 9:14:00 AM declined

1/6/2013 4:14:00 PM declined

 

Now let's correlate those:

Dec 13, 2012 at 12:41 AM submit

12/13/2012 4:40:00 AM declined

Dec 13, 2012 at 4:53 AM resubmit

Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM resubmit

12/14/2012 9:03:00 AM declined

Dec 26, 2012 at 7:37 AM resubmit

Jan 4, 2013 at 11:30 AM resubmit

1/5/2013 9:14:00 AM declined

Jan 5, 2013 at 9:30 AM resubmit

1/6/2013 4:14:00 PM declined

Jan 6, 2013 at 10:33 PM resubmit

 

I see a 12 day period from Dec 14 to 26 where we were waiting on you, and a 9 day period from Dec 26 to Jan 4 where you were waiting on us. I don't see any "3 weeks" where anyone was waiting on anyone else. If you're going to cast accusations, please get your facts straight.

 

I don't think 9 or 12 days is excessive at all, especially over the Christmas and New Years Holidays.

 

I just want to have my waymark and there is no comprehensible reason for a denial, that's the point!

He has to approve it, that's his job as an Officer/Leader and he knows it!

That is not acceptable, that someone is declining a Waymark for personal reasons!?

I keep looking around the Waymarking website, and I cannot find anyplace where it says I must accept a waymark. As far as I can tell, if I simply didn't like your brand of aftershave, I could continually decline your waymark forever. Of course that's not the case; you're probably a nice guy, and I wouldn't mind having a beer with you. At this point I'm just amazed at how uptight you're getting about a game. I would actually love to accept your waymark, and even visit it myself - it looks like a cool place - but I cannot do so in clear conscience after the treatment that frivlas and I have received from you. Seriously, take a deep breath, and remind yourself it's only a game.

[+Tharandter]

I see a 12 day period from Dec 14 to 26 where we were waiting on you, and a 9 day period from Dec 26 to Jan 4 where you were waiting on us. I don't see any "3 weeks" where anyone was waiting on anyone else. If you're going to cast accusations, please get your facts straight.

 

I am HUNDRED percent sure that I've been waiting for an review in this period, 100 percent!

I do not know why this is not listed in the history but this long waiting time was the reason why I was annoyed after denying again!

 

The treatment that frivlas and you received from me??? My goodness, please stay on the ground!!!

A question why I have to look on an repeating rejection and the waiting time for an reliable answer for more than 12 days is not a "treatment" to you or anyone else!!!

 

I keep looking around the Waymarking website, and I cannot find anyplace where it says I must accept a waymark.

That's true but then you need not be an Officer!

 

I could continually decline your waymark forever.

Are you sure?

 

Seriously, take a deep breath, and remind yourself it's only a game.

This is a game that I pay for and then someone comes along which denied my posts just because it suits him so.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Tharandter

[+BruceS]

All, lets calm things down here. This has been referred to Groundspeak to resolve. It is not going to get resolved by exchanging jabs at each other in the forums. Let it rest until Groundspeak can resolve.

[+Lil Devil]

But we're having so much fun here!

[+dprovan]

I just want to have my waymark and there is no comprehensible reason for a denial, that's the point!

If you really and truly just want to have your waymark, send e-mail saying, "I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I got frustrated because I thought I'd satisfied the requirements. I think everything's in order now. Thanks!" In my reading, you can literally copy this directly, and even though the other parties are reading this and will know that's what you did, it will still be enough. Of course, sincerely looking at your actions and considering how you could have made this go more smoothly and commenting on that without worrying about what errors and slights the other parties might have committed would be more useful to you and your future marking, but you don't have to worry about that if all you want is this one waymark.

 

On the other hand, if you want to have a fight, keep doing what you're doing. Nothing insures that someone won't do what you want more surely than accusing them of malfeasance.

[+Tharandter]

But we're having so much fun here!

 

What a qualified comment!

 

@dprovan:

 

I feel not confident about this one Waymark, but the principle!

Obviously, it is absolutely arbitrary and anyone can make and reject what he wants, notwithstanding it's justified or not! Therefore I need no officers anymore and can review Waymarks for myself!

 

What would you say if someone is doing as if you had killed someone and demand an apology for NOTHING!

I can not see!

 

But BruceS is right! We will see what Groundspeak has to say about this.

 

I think I'm in an bad movie! That's really not nice!

 

By the way it's interesting that both that are of the opinion that I would overreact, obviously are not Waymarkers!

Edited January 8, 2013 by Tharandter

[+tmob]

I was reading the topic and a doubt came to my mind, was this the big offense Tharandter said?

 

"So you're kidding me, right? The oictur of a sign at the gorge has already been uploaded!"

[+Max and 99]

An officer once "suggested" that I not submit any waymarks to categories in which he/she is an officer.

In my opinion, if you can't keep your personal issues out of the reviewing process, you need to step down.

 

I truly do not see any rudeness on the part of the person submitting the waymark in question. Frustration, but not rudeness. The officers need to get thicker skin if they think they were subjected to abuse.

[+dprovan]

What would you say if someone is doing as if you had killed someone and demand an apology for NOTHING!

I can not see!

A perfect example of something being overblown. Being snitty about a requirement detail is absolutely nothing remotely like killing someone.

 

By the way it's interesting that both that are of the opinion that I would overreact, obviously are not Waymarkers!

Yeah, I've been wondering if this conversation says more about waymarkers in general than about just you three.

[+NicoleLackey]

I've contacted Tharandter and Lil Devil directly.

Please remember this is a game and report any inappropriate messages that violate the Terms of Use to contact@Waymarking.com.

Happy Waymarking!

[+Tharandter]

And the result is, that an officer is not required to approve waymarks, even if they are correct according to the guidlines!

 

I give up! Do whatever you want with the waymark! Maybe, decline it!

I just wanted to put a nice Waymark in a nice category. There would certainly have been no problem with our conversation, if you hadn't declined my waymark for personal reasons! The only point that I can not handle is that a personal condition is coupled on the review process of my Waymark. So I could apologize me but one day, a officer wants from me to dance for approving my waymark and he gets right. This is more than a clear gap in the guidlines. But when I send the question whether like someone is kidding me, that's called defaming!

 

Because of me, I'm sorry but for me the basic criticism of the thing is remaining.

 

I'm really sad about it! Meanwhile that really takes it out of me!

Edited January 9, 2013 by Tharandter

[+dprovan]

But when I send the question whether like someone is kidding me, that's called defaming!

To me, this is really what's so amazing about your role in this: it was such a minor infraction, I have no idea why you refuse to apologize for such a tiny failing. You're so completely focused on the very fact that they're making an inappropriate demand that you're completely overlooking what a little thing it is that they are asking for. They aren't demanding you physically come kiss their feet, they're just asking you to apologize for being a little incredulous. You should be able to recognize this as no big deal even if they can't.

 

Because of me, I'm sorry but for me the basic criticism of the thing is remaining.

Another thing you should realize is that your basic criticism stands no matter what you do. The question is what can you do that will make your criticism be more likely to be taken to heart? Being inflexible probably won't help.

[+lumbricus]

Please

[+Lil Devil]

The waymark has been approved. Nicole convinced me not to make an apology a condition of approval. But I would still like to see one. I'll even offer an apology for making that demand.

[+BruceS]

Problem has been resolved. Closing thread.