Live in Wayfarer 3.1 is a new set of acceptance criteria! Please browse the information in this category with caution as it is in reference to the previous review guidelines. To learn more about the new criteria, see here: https://niantic.helpshift.com/a/wayfarer/

Scout and Guide Huts

In the UK, many Scout and Guide Groups own their own buildings (often called a 'hut') where the hold their meetings. Because these groups do not need to use the building all of the time, they often rent these out to other community groups such as dance classes, book clubs, fitness clubs, Women's Institute (WI) meetings etc.

Based on an old AMA question, these have been deemed as invalid submissions as "Schools (K-12)". However, if the building was a community centre featuring the same set of clubs (including Scouts/Guides) these are often accepted.

Should all Scout and Guide buildings be rejected if they are used for a wide selection of community clubs?

Tagged:

Best Answers

«1

Answers

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 277 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As I understand it if the buildings main use is for k12 age then it’s a 1*.

    so a scout hut which also occasionally rents it out for community use is k12 rejection but a community centre which the scouts rent out some evenings would be acceptable.

  • KMT138-PGOKMT138-PGO Posts: 2 ✭✭

    "occasionally rents it out for community use"

    In many of these cases the building is rented out to other clubs on a weekly basis - this is not for one-off events etc. You may find that the Scouts/Guides actually only use the building for one day a week and the rest of the week the facility is open to other organisations which are not in the k-12 age range.

  • Senmana-INGSenmana-ING Posts: 129 ✭✭✭

    If it can be proved the majority use is for other groups, a website or timetable for example, I may be ok to accept but I don't think many would, especially if the building has a scout logo on. It's just convincing reviewers the main use is for non k12 groups, most wouldn't get past the photo before rejecting.

    This also applies if there's one scout group a week for older scouts (I know some countries have groups for 18-25), but every other day it has groups under 18. Main use is k-12 and it shouldn't be approved.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    OMG. Teamwork makes dream work.

  • Rostwold-INGRostwold-ING Posts: 172 ✭✭✭✭

    The rejection mail needs to reflect this, or people will just resubmit with 'this is not a school' in the supporting info.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    Then you should continue marking them as abuse and eventually it will ban the accounts.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gabriel0322-PGO No they shouldn't be marked as abuse

    There's nothing in the submission guidelines to say dont submit Scout Huts, thats only been clarified for reviewers, the submission guide hasn't been updated so as far as submitters are aware they are potentially valid candidates.

    Submitters shouldn't have their nominations marked as abuse and potentially banned due to a lack of information on whats valid. In this particular instance the fault lies with Niantic and not the submitter.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    @Theisman-ING Last guidance says to report for me.

    August 2018 AMA.

    Q: Aiyub - Do you have any advice how to deal with fake portal submissions?

    A: Report them via the help center with the Portal title and location. Take a screenshot and attach that to your report. Also give them a one star rating in OPR.

    Q: kholman1 - When voting on military base portals are we supposed to vote 1* on new portals at bases? I was under the impression that grandfathered portals are fine but do not sumbit new ones? This topic has been a highly debated issue in the portal appeals threads lately. Just asking for clarification for the community.

    A: Yes. The current guidance is to one star all new Portals on military bases. This supersedes any sub-category of eligibility like gathering places, exercise equipment, etc.

    Q: agentBiker28 - What do you think about a punishment system for bad submits?

    A: It exists. People have and will continue to lose their ability to submit and review Portals and some have even been banned for submitting bad Portals.


    Just a few examples.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    December 2017

    Q73: In OPR I see more and more submission of scout camp or scout installations. Personnally I would tend to consider these as school as the scouts are mostly children between 6 and 18 years but I would like to know your and Niantic's point of view

    A73: We agree.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    June 2019.

    Q: Hydraulinski - Why we don't have yet a system in OPR to mark/flag a candidate as a "possible fake"? 

    A: You can one-star the candidate and choose either Portal Criteria >> Does Not Meet Criteria or Abuse to report these cases.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gabriel0322-PGO the current submission guidelines, viewable on both the ingress and pokemon go websites, do not state that scout huts are invalid, its been clarified via AMA's for reviewers that they are to be rejected.

    It is not a submitters responsibility to trawl through the AMA's to see it there is an update to reviewing guidlines to then apply that to their submissions. Everything they need to know should be made available to them on the relevant games help site.

    Statistically the number of players that would read the AMA's to see the clarification is very very low compared to the player base.

    Niantic should make this information available to all submitters via the Ingress and Pokemon Go websites, they have not done so.

    To mark peoples submissions as abuse, despite the fact the submitter has not done anything wrong as they have not been informed that scout huts are invalid, is not appropriate.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    @Theisman-ING is a fake submission just as bad as a bad submission to you?

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gabriel0322-PGO

    A fake submission is different to a bad submission.

    If someone makes a fake submission then they are knowingly breaking rules and should be reported as abuse.

    A bad submission, like a scout hut, can be done by people as they are not aware they have broken the rules, because they haven't been told such a rule exists.

    One is done intentionally and should be punished accordingly , the other is done due to lack of being given the correct information and so should not receive the same punishment.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    Would you mark a submission being on K-12 or would you report some for abuse?

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In what instance ?

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    During your reviews. If you see something that is a clear rejection that is abuse like on k-12 for scout camps and huts? What would you mark it?

    1. Doesn't Meet Criteria?
    2. k-12 Schools rejection?
    3. Abuse?
    4. Or would you vote on scout huts being allowed previously?
  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Gabriel0322-PGO

    As i have repeatedly told you, a Scout hut is not an abuse submission, so your quote of "If you see something that is a clear rejection that is abuse like on k-12 for scout camps and huts? " is not accurate.

    It can not be intentional abuse if the submitter has no idea they are doing anything wrong.

    For Scout Huts i would mark them as a K12 reject

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2020

    How do you think people learn as a bad submitter then? Bad submissions should be marked as abuse to inform submitters they are submitting something that is not allowed.

  • Theisman-INGTheisman-ING Posts: 894 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2020

    No, a standard bad submission should not be marked as abuse, that is not what the abuse function is there for.

    A standard bad sub should be rejected for the appropriate rejection reason i.e. generic business, low picture quality etc etc

    Submitters should then be able to infer from both the email and the relevant game website that it refers them to, what was wrong with their submission and learn from their mistake.

    A bad submission does not automatically mean it was done abusively and as such should not automatically be rejected as abuse.

    For an example

    A standard scout hut submission = k12 reject , as the submitter doesn't know they have done anything wrong

    A scout hut submission, but in the support statement they add the message " i know this is k12 but i really want this to be approved" would = Abuse reject, as they knowingly made an invalid submission, but still done it anyway.

  • YouLostAStar-INGYouLostAStar-ING Posts: 277 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it is wrong to mark scout huts as abuse unless they submit it multiple times, on the UK Facebook group we’ve had people who had rejections ask why it got marked as k12 and then people were able to inform them of the rule and others learnt of it by that post.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    A reviewers choice. I would rather bad submitters learn from their mistakes, but some aren't so maybe marking abuse is required. Inside of 40m of prp, i mark abuse. I don't care if it is a little free library in front of someones home, it is still abuse to me. K-12 is the same for me. EMS is the same for me.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 640 ✭✭✭✭✭

    In the previous incarnation of the Wayfarer forums, a certain specific individual got themselves BANNED from the forums. It was a person who repeatedly repeated themselves over and over again, constantly and repeatedly contradicting the crowd's wisdom. As in, "If I post last, this being the internet, I win!"

    The same pattern is happening here again @NianticCasey-ING We don't want another case of "Free @AgentB0ss-ING !" being necessary. We also see the same pattern of artificial "Insightful/Like" bumping, a small number of accounts inflating the forum scores of a small number of accounts.

    The wisdom of the community already says that there is an appropriate mechanism for evaluating a regular "this should not have been submitted" review: Give it 1*, pick a reason, and move on. Some things that some of us who have been submitting and reviewing for 2+ years know, because we've been paying strict attention to the rules. We passed a test for the reviews, and we read a lot of documentation and conversation. But a new submitter hasn't read any such information, they just see something new and cool and they get that hopeful "oh boy!" feeling.

    There is NO training for submission, beyond the few mobile screens during the submission process itself. And so they learn by way of the rejection emails, so long as the reviewers do their job correctly and apply a correct reason. (And, still sadly, so long as their preferred language is "English".) The "choose your own location" stage doesn't even tell you how to zoom in all the way on the map!

    The "abuse" is a different animal entirely, you're trying to flag to Niantic that somebody is intentionally trying to do forbidden things. This includes "hey look at me!" pictures of their own faces; attempts to use the gps-edit function to move a POI away from the actual location. A submission that is obviously not at the location, as seen by the overhead google satellite view, is more of an iffy problem, because you can't definitively assume that the submitter was trained well enough to place the pin correctly. But a reviewer that is lucky enough to be able to notice a specific pattern of repeated incorrect attempts may still cry "abuse".

    We're not the Niantic AR police. NIANTIC is the Niantic AR police. For normal bad submissions, just flag it as 1* and move on.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2020

    July 2019 AMA. (Less than a year ago)

    Q: nimbusparis - Since portal nominations is available in Prime, we see a lot more pogo players opening an Ingress account just to reach level 10 BY ALL MEANS. Here in Paris, we try to reports them, but it's like to empty the ocean with a spoon. Wouldn't it be possible to have à player validation in one to one, new player should meet irl an old player (with hight level, perhaps 14 or 16 or even, player who attended anomaly) to continue leveling up after level 2 (as it was the case with sms validation in old ingress time).

    A: Players are not required to interact with anyone or make themselves known publicly. Nor should there be any gatekeepers to playing Ingress or forcing functions for people to out themselves. In fact, if we are being honest, it was long-term veteran Agents that submitted less than desirable Portal candidates causing the Portal system to be clogged and resources being spent having to deal with those instead of processing valid Portal nominations. So I don’t think an Agent’s level or age of an account are, by themselves, indicators that the person would be qualified to pass judgement on others. 

    I also think that focusing on someone’s motivation for playing or their play style is unhealthy. Ingress can be played many different ways. Where do you draw the line? There are people who only like to do fields. There are Agents who only like to create missions. To get to level ten, the player had to take some sort of in-game actions. Those actions create AP opportunities for the other faction and help fortify Portals for the same faction. If your attempts to reach out to them have not been met with a reply, accept the fact they don’t want to play your style of Ingress and move on. If they are submitting Portal nominations once they reach level ten, that seems like a good opportunity to participate in OPR in that area to help ensure what they are submitting are quality nominations and to bolster the Portal network in your city. If you don’t like OPR and don’t want to participate in it, you don’t have to. But you shouldn’t stop others from doing so. Even if they have ulterior motives. Ultimately, you’ll benefit from their actions in some way. 


    Ingress agents are known for bad submissions it is even in a AMA. We should start policing ingress agents on their bad submissions. Bad submissions that are a clear violation should be marked as abuse.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    It is a reviewers choice to mark either doesn't meet criteria or abuse for submissions that are clear rejections.

  • Gabriel0322-PGOGabriel0322-PGO Posts: 817 ✭✭✭✭

    k-12 is a clear rejection.

  • 0X00FF00-ING0X00FF00-ING Posts: 640 ✭✭✭✭✭

    A meta-point:

    Abuse of the "report as abuse" function is ALSO considered by Niantic to be abuse. So maybe we're wrong, go ahead and report things as abuse that you should have only flagged as 1*. You do you.

This discussion has been closed.