help with waymark

[+ripraff]

I have submitted a waymark which is clearly an old hitching post.

The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

I think you are not alone, ripraff. Was this an icon for you?

[+ripraff]

I have several hitching posts. Usually there is no problem. That was why I was surprised.

Edited March 10, 2017 by ripraff

[+Manville Possum]

I have submitted a waymark which is clearly an old hitching post.

The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative.

 

And you supplied no information that the hitching post was in it's orginal location and was NOT placed in that flower bed as a decoration.

I gave you a reason three different times, and you just keep submitting it, now you want to bring this to the forums?

 

So what are you asking for ripraff? Are you asking that Waywizard or someone over-ride my category to accept your waymark that I rejected because it's a decoration? The category is seeking old historic hitching posts, and you offered nothing but a flower bed? You got to be joking!

 

Can't wait to see where this public shaming thread goes.

[+Manville Possum]

I think you are not alone, ripraff. Was this an icon for you?

 

No, ripraff has other WM's in the category. I'm not looking for decorations in a flower bed with no information about the hitching post.

[+Manville Possum]

I have several hitching posts. Usually there is no problem. That was why I was surprised.

 

And that should have indicated that there was a problem with the WM. All I asked for was proof that it was not placed there as a decoration, maybe just a little research and a better write up in your long description. It don't look "typical" as you described it, in my opinion, and the way the chain is wrapped... after a little research of my own I believe it's from the Church yard next door.

 

The way you presented your WM made it only look like a decoration, and not what the category is about.

 

Sorry that you felt you had to make a public shaming post about me. Maybe we can get back on the topic of allowing category creators to lock theirs and let others recreate the category and run it their way.

[+ripraff]

This really takes the fun out of way marking.

So much for the effort it takes to take the trips and create the way marks. It is not about public shaming it is about feeling wronged.

The response felt arbitrary and wrong.

[+Manville Possum]

This really takes the fun out of way marking.

So much for the effort it takes to take the trips and create the way marks. It is not about public shaming it is about feeling wronged.

The response felt arbitrary and wrong.

 

How do you think that I feel? I created the category, it's clearly written that I'm not looking for decorations that have been relocated and repurposed and you offer "Hitching post with a flower bed" as the title and a long description of "This is a wide old stone hitching post of a typical style." I explained why I rejected your WM, and three times you made no changes and just resubmitted it. You were not willing to do any research, only that I should accept your WM even if it don't meet the category criteria. Then you post here, like I'm a bad person for rejecting your WM that you made little effort other than take a picture and a few words.

 

So, how do you think I feel? You wronged me when you posted here in the forums in an attempt to make me look bad. If you really wanted help with the WM, you should have worked with the category leader. No one here is going to over ride a category leader and force them to accept a WM that does not meet criteria.

 

I have rejected a few really nice hitching posts that actually have a documented history, because they have been relocated for public display.

 

Your hitching post is not typical, it's pretty much a one of a kind, I have not seen one like it. I'm guessing it was made in the 1880's, and was part of the Church next door, according to my research. If YOU had put more effort into creating the WM, and not naming it with flower bed in the title, it may have actually looked like it would fit the category. But as it stands, I took my time to review your WM and determined it was likely once part of the Church yard and was carted off to be the center piece of the flower bed. I'm sure that there is a category for Flower Beds that will accept your WM, and don't tell me about the effort it requires to take a picture from your automobile.

[+stinger503]

Ripraff did not publicly shame you.

"The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative. "

He didn't name you at all. The only public shaming going on here is coming from you being condescending to ripraff and rude.

[+Manville Possum]

Ripraff did not publicly shame you.

"The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative. "

He didn't name you at all. The only public shaming going on here is coming from you being condescending to ripraff and rude.

 

Well shame on me then. Maybe you should offer ripraff help with their WM?

 

I'm not accepting it to the category as written.

[MoonPie Mafia]

"The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative. "

 

 

That is not accurate. The reviewer asked for more information, ripraff refused to make any changes, knowing that decorations are not accepted.

[+T0SHEA]

Manville Possum created this category and remains the leader of the group. His vision for the category is clearly stated in the guidelines.

 

It is his call.

[+stinger503]

"The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative. "

 

 

That is not accurate. The reviewer asked for more information, ripraff refused to make any changes, knowing that decorations are not accepted.

 

Moonpie I was quoting ripraff and the public shaming that he apparently gave which Manville is crying about.

[+T0SHEA]

This is not the first time threads that express a grievance about a particular decline have surfaced on the forum.

 

It is not a matter of who shamed who or who is right or wrong. These type of threads only create animosity between waymarkers and reviewers.

 

Forum posts with the intent to rally support and express dissatisfaction about the outcome of a particular decline should not be brought to the forum.

 

These grievances should be handled through private email exchanges between the waymarker and the reviewer and/or leader.

 

As a reminder - "Forum Guidelines: 4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated."

[+Manville Possum]

"The reviewer based on no evidence other than there are flowers around it is claiming it is decorative. "

 

 

That is not accurate. The reviewer asked for more information, ripraff refused to make any changes, knowing that decorations are not accepted.

 

Moonpie I was quoting ripraff and the public shaming that he apparently gave which Manville is crying about.

 

MoonPie is my officer in that category and can see all the details that rifraff did not disclose. My last WM took me more than one attempt, but I did not call out the reviewer. I worked with them to publish my Waymark. Starting this thread was in bad form, now you join in. Go figure.

[+Manville Possum]

This is not the first time threads that express a grievance about a particular decline have surfaced on the forum.

 

It is not a matter of who shamed who or who is right or wrong. These type of threads only create animosity between waymarkers and reviewers.

 

Forum posts with the intent to rally support and express dissatisfaction about the outcome of a particular decline should not be brought to the forum.

 

These grievances should be handled through private email exchanges between the waymarker and the reviewer and/or leader.

 

As a reminder - "Forum Guidelines: 4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated."

 

Thank you.