Live animal in picture, even though it is not the subject matter --> auto rejection?

A user seems to have suggested quite a few amazign wayspots... HOWEVER in every single one (i had 3 so far) he put his dog in the picture as well. I know it's the same person, because I can recognize the dog.

A cute dog, not gonna lie, but the picture alsways shows a live animal, which is a rejection criteria, HOWEVER the criteria is defined as follows: "Use for nominations where the photo and the nomination information FOCUSES on a live animal instead of a specific object."

The person clearly tries to submit the trailmarker, which is really beautiful, unique and a great wayspot. And the dog is not the sugested wayspot. I had people submitting photos of theior cats as waysports before, which are clear rejections, but with this person I am unsure.

Is any nomination an auto reject if a animal is in frame (not talking about single birds or maybe a cat in the background)

Or should I reject it due to privacy reasons? The dog and espoecially the leash is pretty recognizable. Is it a privacy issue if I allow something like that?

The first one I rejected, the second one I skipped, now I ask, because I expect more of them coming.


Comments

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    Hnnn. I think it's a non-issue as in cases of someone (or something) simply moving through the scene and you couldn't avoid taking a photo with people. But there's a pretty strong push to avoid people if you at all can. Certainly if you had someone posing next to the POI, it would be rejected, and I think that's the right line to take for someone clearly posing their pet in the photo.

    It's not like it's a photo of a dog park with unavoidable dogs running through it. This is clear and deliberate, and the person obviously wants their personal mark on the POIs he's submitting. He could have so easily taken a second photo without the dog to submit. He didn't.

    I would reject it.

  • Stephyypooke-INGStephyypooke-ING Posts: 344 ✭✭✭✭

    Yeah, if that is the main photo I would definitely be rejecting. They specifically took the photo with the dog posed in it, maybe the dog isn’t what they are nominating but it’s definitely one of the subjects in the photo.

    I think both the Live Animal or Submitter Identifiable rejections work here.

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    Oh, and I think it's 50/50 whether you reject for privacy reasons or the live animal. I probably wouldn't have thought of privacy reasons and just gone with the live animal, or even a bad photo, but you make a good point. All those are valid and they touch on different aspects of why: "it's a poor photo because you purposely took it with a live animal that is potentially identifiable back to you."

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If you see the dog once, 1* live animal.

    If you see the same dog more than twice, possibly 1* submitter identifiable.

  • Darkai-PGODarkai-PGO Posts: 5 ✭✭

    The problem is that it IS the subject matter, even if not entirely. It's taking almost as much space in the photograph as the main subject, it was clearly and purposely put there to pose and it takes away significantly from the main thing being posted here.

    Had it been a case where an animal was sitting in the background, hardly visible, I'd say it's perfectly fine to keep it. As it is, I'd 1* it, and as the user above me said, if you've seen it several times, I'd report it as submitter identifiable. It could also be a dog whistle(pun intended) to his friends in regard to his submissions

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 346 ✭✭✭

    Someone is trying to make it obvious which are their nominations. You said you know who it is because you know the dog. They could be counting on that - maybe alerting their faction to vote for anything with this dog. It's not different from the nominators putting their initials in every nominations.

    If you see the dog once, 1* live animal.

    If you see the same dog more than twice, possibly 1* ABUSE

  • BigBaerAndi-PGOBigBaerAndi-PGO Posts: 16 ✭✭

    I don't know WHO he is. I just recognize the dog from different nominations. Again this si the 3rd time I have seen the dog while reviewing, I don't know that dog personally.

    And I don't want to suggest he (the player) is having bad intentions, I firmly believe this person is a good spirited person, that just doesn't know the rules and thinks his dog is cute.

    I guess I would still go with live animal, since abuse would mean that I have any evidence that this person is abusing the system, which they might not.

Sign In or Register to comment.