The applicant has twisted the meaning from the original AMA. (Case at Sakai-City)
MagicalThorn-ING
Posts: 532 ✭✭✭
Hi, @NianticGiffard .
The object of the application is a stone statue called "Rokujizo", which is almost certainly erected at the entrance to a certain graveyard on the grounds of a Buddhist temple in Japan.
Please see the screen capture.
Google Street View
This object exists in the cemetery and is placed at the entrance to the temple cemetery, so it is not unique or special in the world.
Rokujizo is a very common .
Rather, the applicant is attempting to create a Wayspot in a cemetery, which in my opinion is a very sensitive case.
Of course, there are temples where this "Rokuzizo" is set up at a distance from the cemetery.
If it is some distance from the cemetery, I would not feel so evasive about making the Rokuzizo a Wayspot.
However, it is not only for these reasons that I have decided to send you a report on this matter.
There is a point that I think is more important.
This is the "supplementary information" described by the applicant.
Since they are written in Japanese, we will translate each of them into English.
Address:82-1 Kodera, Mihara Ward, Sakai-City, Osaka, Japan
Title:
六地蔵（小寺東）
Rokujizo(Kodera-Higashi)
*The name Rokujizo means six Jizo Bodhisattvas.
Description:
昔から地域を見守って来た、お地蔵さんです。六地蔵とは地蔵菩薩さまの六分身のことを言います。人が生まれ変わる六つの世界すべてを巡って救済を行うと考えられています。
This is the Jizo that has been watching over the community.
The Rokuzizo are the six alter egos of Jizo Bosatsu.
It is believed that they travel to all six realms where people are reborn to offer salvation.
Additional information:
●重複ではないです●西側にある六地蔵とは似ていますが別物です。
お間違いのないようお願い致します。地域の人々を見守ってきました。
集落やお墓などの入口にお地蔵様があるのは、魔が侵入するのを防ぐためといわれています。
車の通りがないので、子供達が安全にポケストップを回せます。
西側の六地蔵はナイアンの直接の認定ですので、こちらも基準を満たしていると思います。
360度ビューがありますので宜しくお願い致します。
●墓地というだけで否認される方がいますが、11月のナイアンのAMAに、
『個人の墓石や霊廟などの私的な弔いの場は、対象になりません。
ただし、墓地の中で公共の名所になった場所ならどこでも対象です。』と、あります。
つまり仏像やお地蔵さんなど、個人のもの以外は対象になるということです。
実際に墓地内でもナイアンによって仏像やお地蔵さんは多数承認されております。
一部の審査員はあまりにも基準を知らない方が多すぎます。やるのであればもっと審査基準を把握すべきだと思います。
また誤って否認された件については、ナイアンに直接申し立てできるように検討しているとのことです。
It's not a duplicate - it's similar to Rokujizo on the west side but different.
Please make sure you are correct. It has watched over the people of the area.
It is said that the reason why there is a Jizo at the entrance to the village and graves is to prevent evil from entering.
As there are no cars passing by, children can safely visit the Pokestops.
The Rokujizo on the west side is directly certified by NIANIC, so I believe it also meets the criteria.
There is a 360-degree Street View of the site.
Some people reject the application just because it is a cemetery.
However, in the November NIANTIC AMA:
"Private places of mourning, such as private headstones and mausoleums, are not covered.
However, any place in a cemetery that has become a public landmark is eligible. And so it goes.
This means that anything that is not a private own object, such as a statue of Buddha or a Jizo, is covered.
In fact, many Buddha statues and Jizo statues have been approved by NIANTIC in cemeteries.
Some of the judges are too ignorant of the criteria. If they are going to do this, they should be more aware of the criteria.
Also, they are considering allowing people to appeal directly to NIANTIC about wrongly rejected cases.
I was wondering, in the supplementary information the applicant quotes the so-called "November AMA".
The point is that he is calling on the jury to expand on that meaning with his own interpretation.
In his way of putting it, it deviates from the original meaning of the word.
"Anywhere that has become a public landmark" means that "you can apply for any object in a cemetery or a graveyard that is not a private grave", he says in Japanese.
If the question is raised as to whether the Rokujizo, which are almost always placed in front of temple cemeteries and cemeteries, are "very famous landmarks", a question mark comes to my mind.
Furthermore,Before that, I find it very evasive that the applicant thinks that he can get away with whatever he wants by describing the so-called "November AMA" in the supplementary information, and that he is appealing to the jury by twisting the meaning in the "November AMA" from its original meaning.
Could you please investigate this issue?
Comments
This is not abuse. You actually can apply for anything in a cemetery that's not objectively ineligible. The November AMA literally states the following:
"any locations in cemeteries that have become public attractions are eligible"
How eligible this specific nomination is, I do not know. It might be ineligible for being mass-produced, or it might be eligible for being a place of worship. But even if this was objectively ineligible, it would still not be abuse. If you think that this is ineligible, reject it. That's how the system works. But nominating something that's not eligible is not abuse. Also, the supporting statement might be obnoxious, but it is factually correct.
Unfortunately true.
True... No abuse at all, AMA is very clear.
Citing the AMA is very common because it seems a lot of reviewers didn't read it.
There's no issue to investigate, some of your abuse reports are great, others are total head scratchers.
Have you really read the report I have written?
The applicant didn't just quote the AMA.
He tried to mislead us by pretending to quote the AMA, then saying "This means that ..." and then going on to expand on the AMA and write in the "supplementary information" section something that is far outside the original meaning of the AMA.
As a result, from "This means that -" onwards,
I cannot accept the statement written by the applicant, because it deviates from what is described in the AMA by as much as heaven and earth.
That's why I wrote the report.
Applicant didn't just quote them.
Without reading that carefully, you said,
”It is legal to mention the AMA in the supplementary information!"
That is not the right thing to do.
Words are important.
By carefully following and examining the words, we should be able to see that falsehoods are being made and correct them.
Please stop, put your hand on your heart and think about what you have said.
The AMA is directly quoted, anything after that is clear that it is opinion and not abusive at all.
We took another look at the reported locations and decided that the Wayspots do not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
Hi, @NianticGiffard .
What I wanted to tell you is not that I want you to delete the waypoints that already exist.
The applicant has applied for a different "Roku-Jizos" in this same cemetery.
In the supplementary information to that application, he quoted the so-called "November AMA",
I thought the problem was that he tried to deceive the judges by pretending to quote it, and in the end he added words with a completely different meaning and said whatever he wanted.
That's why I gave you above report.
It's in supplementary information (in Japanese), This refers to the part where the applicant states
"つまり仏像やお地蔵さんなど、個人のもの以外は対象になるということです。(namely,This means that anything other than personal items, such as Buddha statues and Jizo, are eligible,all thing in the cemetary.)"
The applicant's attitude that as long as they bring up the words "November AMA", struck me as a very bad attempt to deceive the judges.
In fact it is your misinterpretation of a totally legitimate information in a nomination which is an attempt to deceive the Niantic staff to punish users for normal nominations. You are the abuser in this and other cases.
Can we please use the word nomination, submission or even submitted nomination(s) instead of application? I read application & get very confused. In the English language, application is the incorrect term. I’m not complaining, I just want to fully understand the topic at hand. 🙏 Thank you