Relocated structures

[+Ariberna]

Can someone explain to me why in this category they deny a tympanum and columns (from church of a Pazo) , transeferred 10 km to a house in the city because of debate and "it is too small" with more than two meters, and a statue of five feet (WM14CHE) Is approved?

Edited September 11, 2021 by Ariberna

[+fi67]

The denial was correct, but not the reason (or at least poorly worded).

In my opinion, size does not matter, but a structure is the complete thing. A part of a building does not count.

[+Ariberna]

And a stone of a fountain WM14EA4  or Coats of arms of a gate WM14E44 ?

 

Thanks for all

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Ariberna

[+fi67]

1 hour ago, Ariberna said:

And a stone of a fountain WM14EA4  or Coats of arms of a gate WM14E44 ?

 

Thanks for all

 

These are borderline cases maybe worth some deeper research. But as far as I can see at the moment, both objects have never been part of a larger structure (although the probably were intended to be), so they qualify in my opinion. However, I am not an officer in this category. Just sharing my thoughts.

[+Torgut]

Ariberna, it is what is it, some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody. When I face atitudes like that one you described I just add the category to my ignore list and make sure they will never again receive anything from me. However, if there is a clausule in the category rules saying a part of the originally structure cannot be considered, than, it's ruled, you will have to accept. By the way, although I understand the impulse - and I have done it myself - perhaps pointing examples in this context is not a good idea... after all, you can't kill someone because others did it. A past wrong doing from someone else shouldn't be a reason for a second wrong doing.

[+Ariberna]

1 hour ago, Torgut said:

Ariberna, it is what is it, some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody. When I face atitudes like that one you described I just add the category to my ignore list and make sure they will never again receive anything from me. However, if there is a clausule in the category rules saying a part of the originally structure cannot be considered, than, it's ruled, you will have to accept. By the way, although I understand the impulse - and I have done it myself - perhaps pointing examples in this context is not a good idea... after all, you can't kill someone because others did it. A past wrong doing from someone else shouldn't be a reason for a second wrong doing.

Hi there. The above examples are not past mistakes, they are voting results. I think I remember that when the angel I said was approved, I sent a private and someone answered that was the result of a vote. That clause does not appear. The note is "NOTE: Modular buildings, sheds, portable stages, or other items that are designed to be transported do not qualify. If it can (relatively) be moved easily, it does NOT qualify!" As fi67 said, he is not an officer of the category and he gave his opinion. The blacklist, :-), not this category, other categories yes, but there is a reviewer that you cannot escape because it is in many. After all, it's just one WM ... and I have 4000

[+PISA-caching]

As far as I understand it, the Coat of Arms have always been just a Coat of Arms ("near Gate 1", not part of the gate!) and the parts of the fountain have always been all that existed of that fountain, but the columns of that church are just a small part of the church. What, if they would ever deconstruct a church and everybody can buy a piece of it and include it in their private homes. Hundreds of Relocated structures? 

[+PISA-caching]

2 hours ago, Torgut said:

Ariberna, it is what is it, some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody. When I face atitudes like that one you described I just add the category to my ignore list and make sure they will never again receive anything from me. However, if there is a clausule in the category rules saying a part of the originally structure cannot be considered, than, it's ruled, you will have to accept. By the way, although I understand the impulse - and I have done it myself - perhaps pointing examples in this context is not a good idea... after all, you can't kill someone because others did it. A past wrong doing from someone else shouldn't be a reason for a second wrong doing.

 

There are people, who say that or something similar, if the officers follow the rules (in their opinion) too strict, and there are also people who complain about other officers if they "approve everything". We all have had such decisions on one or more of our own waymarks. I myself have a different view since I started to be an officer in a few categories. One thing is for sure: I had to decline several waymarks already and never did I "like to make things hard to everybody" and I doubt that there are such officers who do. There may be some that are very strict and others who are more flexible. But as a waymark owner noone should believe that a decline is a personal vendeta or that an entire category is full of strict officers. Just go back one step and try to think about it objectively.

[+Torgut]

24 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

As far as I understand it, the Coat of Arms have always been just a Coat of Arms ("near Gate 1", not part of the gate!) and the parts of the fountain have always been all that existed of that fountain, but the columns of that church are just a small part of the church. What, if they would ever deconstruct a church and everybody can buy a piece of it and include it in their private homes. Hundreds of Relocated structures? 

 

It comes down to "the law". If it is says in the rules that can't be, then it can't be. But by Aribena words I suspect he his dealing with an officer who has his own rules which apparently overrule the categories rules as I saw it happening with me. Or perhaps I am just wrong.......

[+Torgut]

29 minutes ago, PISA-caching said:

 

"I doubt that there are such officers who do. There may be some that are very strict and others who are more flexible. But as a waymark owner noone should believe that a decline is a personal vendeta or that an entire category is full of strict officers. Just go back one step and try to think about it objectively.

 

 

1) You may even doubt the Earth is a globe, but it is. And some officers like to make things hard to waymarkers. It's easy: it happens anytime a WM is declined based not in a category rules but in the "private" rules of an officer. Nobody has (or should have) the power to decide at his own discretion. That's the pilar of any set of rules. The same way a judge can't decide as he like, overlooking the law. But it happens, over and over. So, shortly, yes, some officers like to make things hard, because there is no need for it. 

 

2) I don't expect flexibility. None. Either a WM follows the requirements or not. If not, a declination should follow. 

 

There is no way of being more objective. Along the years I collected quite a few examples, most of them described in these forums. They speak for theirselves. 

 

By the way... I wonder who wrote this:

"I've had similar experiences in another category. The answer was something like "Just because it is called a xxxxxx memorial, doesn't mean that it is a xxxxxx memorial" and when I asked the officer per private note for an explanation, the answer was .... nothing. :-( Fortunately, I have waymarks in that category already and from now on I pass on taking photos for that category, writing a description in local language plus English, just to have another waymark declined for reasons that only the officer (if at all) understands."

Oh but then, nothing wrong here, right, just a strict, and fairly so, officer, right? :-)

Edited September 11, 2021 by Torgut

[+PISA-caching]

You're comparing apples with firetrucks. The category is called "Relocated Structures", not "Relocated Parts of a Structure". In one case the (as far as I understand it) stand-alone Coat of Arms was moved, in the other case all the parts of an unfinished fountain have been moved and in Ariberna's WM two columns of an entire church have been moved. From my point of view, there is much difference with these WMs. And if you don't want any flexibility, then try to understand WHY the officer declined it, and don't pour oil into the fire by saying that "some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody".

 

Discussion closed - at least for me. :-(

[+Torgut]

Oh yes, I think there were two topics developing in paralel. About this specific case, as far as I am concerned, I started by saying it would be up to the rules of the category and that was it.

 

Then you started daydreaming with a Waymarking where there aren't officers with a bad atitude focused in making things harder to the submitters, and that became an off topic. Of course, it was OK for you to express similar criticism two years ago... 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Torgut

[+Ariberna]

The truth is that I still do not understand, the difference between a shield of something, a part of a fountain and a TYMPANE with columns, not just columns. If portico de la gloria of Santiago will be moved to Madrid wuoldn't it accepted?

 

Anyway, it will be better to leave the subject because some are going to continue doing whatever they want.

15 hours ago, Torgut said:

Ariberna, it is what is it, some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody. When I face atitudes like that one you described I just add the category to my ignore list and make sure they will never again receive anything from me. However, if there is a clausule in the category rules saying a part of the originally structure cannot be considered, than, it's ruled, you will have to accept. By the way, although I understand the impulse - and I have done it myself - perhaps pointing examples in this context is not a good idea... after all, you can't kill someone because others did it. A past wrong doing from someone else shouldn't be a reason for a second wrong doing.

Hi there. The above examples are not past mistakes, they are voting results. I think I remember that when the angel I said was approved, I sent a private and someone answered that was the result of a vote. That clause does not appear. The note is "NOTE: Modular buildings, sheds, portable stages, or other items that are designed to be transported do not qualify. If it can (relatively) be moved easily, it does NOT qualify!" As fi67 said, he is not an officer of the category and he gave his opinion. The blacklist, :-), not this category, other categories yes, but there is a reviewer that you cannot escape because it is in many. After all, it's just one WM ... and I have 4000the truth is that I still do not understand, the difference between a shield of something, a part of a fountain and a TYMPANE with columns, not just columns

[+Ariberna]

And now has been locked the WM because they said that was too small, not removible and resubmit three times  :-))))))

 

Wayfrog, please, close the forum.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Ariberna

[+Max and 99]

12 minutes ago, Ariberna said:

And now has been locked the WM because they said that was too small :-))))))

How can any officer justify locking a waymark that is not even approved in their category? Locking a waymark should be an extremely rare occurrence.

Ego. 

[+Ariberna]

Yes, it is silly because you can create a new one...

Edited September 13, 2021 by Ariberna

[wayfrog]

Locked as requested.