Memorials to Unborn Children
GearGlider-ING
Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭✭✭
Would Memorials, Monuments, etc to Children who died while in the womb be valid Wayspots?
Examples I came across while reviewing:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6032079/uploads/M4S59T88YV1L/image.png
https://us.v-cdn.net/6032079/uploads/RQX9MHRPIF8K/image.png
I know not all memorials to individuals are valid but I wanted to know about these specifically since it appears to be for a group of people and often appear at religious gathering spots.
Tagged:
Comments
Personally my feelings on memorials of this sort are very split, and the location is a factor in my thinking.
If the memorial was at say in the grounds of a Hospital, I would reject it, however if it was in the grounds of a church I may decide to accept it.
I understand that may not make much sense, but my view is that the one in a hospital ground is going to be of a more "intimate/personal" nature than say one at church which is more open to the public.
Speaking as a person who lost their child before they were born, I can personally say that visting a memorial on the hospital grounds where everything happened is much more likely to be emotional, intense and feel personal than visting a similar memorial at a church.
Such hospital sites are very likely to be frequented by recently bereaved parents and as such I dont believe intruding on their grief just for the sake of having access to an additional wayspot is warranted.
Personally, I'd say they look like grave headstones, I know they technically arent, but it gives me the same feeling. I dont have the full context for the second one but the first one is in a graveyard by the looks of it, so personally I would be against accepting g them
I would more than likely reject it if I saw it in the my reviewing window. Mainly because memorials if historic or for a person with cultural significance is eligible. I dont see how they are either historic or any of the children who have passed would be culturally significant to the town/city. That added to the fact the one is in a graveyard (sensitive location).
Personally, as someone that has lost a child whilst they were in the womb, I find nominating these memorials to be incredibly distasteful.
Sorry to hear that, but surely these memorials are in honor and pay respects to those who had this happen to them. Are you going to your town hall/government ordering to take them down because they are distasteful too? If something is allowed in the real world, why shouldn't it be a POI?
Like a tombstone, a loss memorial exists in the real world, but is too sensitive to serve as a gathering place for people playing a game.
Wrong. Famous people's memorials are valid POIs. So is this a case of labeling people because of their importance to history?
But the memorial isn't paying respects to the person whos had it happen to them, its dedicated to the unborn child. It's a subtle distinction but a very important one.
Rightly or wrongly people always view the d e a t h of a child, differently to the d e a t h of an adult. There is usually a more acute feeling of loss, a life unfulfilled etc.
With the d e a t h of a child those emotions are usually very very raw and very very close to the surface.
As I said above , there's no need to have a POI where there is likely to be highly emotionally distraught parents.
Even without taking the parents into consideration, can you imagine the negative press should even just one person complain that they feel the memorial to their dead child has been desecrated by people playing a game.
I know we don't take things like that into consideration when reviewing, but I can't see Niantic thinking that anyone who aproves such a memorial was acting in their best interests should their name be attached to what will be toxic publicity
Yes.
There are some places that people go to visit in real life, and others that are memorials and people playing around would be a sign of disrespect.
So visiting a famous person's memorial and playing around wouldn't be a sign of disrespect? Literally, either allow all tombstones/graves, or ban them all. Since you speak so much of respect, surely any type of playing on any graveyard should go completely against what you believe.
Not everything in live is white or black. But to ease your mind, I don't go to play to the cemetery.
The rules were written such that monuments for large groups are always allowed. Memorials for long-dead famous people to be publicly visited are also allowed. Places where a private person’s (c)remains are interred are not eligible. These memorials serve the same cultural purpose as the latter.
The private interests of grieving families outweigh the desire of a handful of game players, who can simply nominate a different spot.
Now you are straight up avoiding my question. But i don't blame you, i blame the vague guidelines that are clearly made for America and ignore the rest of the world.
Most of these memorials to historically relevant people are probably outside a Graveyard, which would remove most of the "core issue" of respect for grieving families. However, we have a GY here who is famous for having these memorials of important people. Result? This GY alone has more POIs than most rural villages or small cities, and opens the door to having people "disrespect" the grieving families there (There are personal graves there, not just famous people).
Now, you could just say "Well common sense would surely tell you that playing in a Graveyard isn't adequate.". Yet common sense would also tell you not to clog the queue with garbage submissions, yet here we are.
Do you see now why some things must be Black or White? Take IOS for example: No user access to edit anything on the OS = No complaints from users inadvertently bricking their phones. And there's no better way to end the subjectivity arguments that run rampant on this forum than making the rules Black or White. It's either Eligible, or Not.
None in my town, so not really something I've ever considered.
There's a difference between a memorial being used a memorial and being used in a game. Given the attitudes of (some) players from any of NIA's games, I just don't think it's right having a memorial for stillborn children or miscarriages as wayspots. I feel the same way around famous people's graves if they still have relatives/friends that are alive since there's a difference between fans visiting to pay their respects and people doing raids at it or destroying the resonators on a portal at it or whatever happens in the Harry Potter and Catan games.
Yes, of course that I'm avoiding your question because it doesn't make sense that I reply to it.
If I say that every tombstone should be forbidden then places like the Pyramids of Egypt wouldn't be valid wayspots despite being one of the biggest PoI worldwide.
It would go also against Niantic's guidelines.
If I claim that you can play in every cemetery then that would go against the respect that millions of people expect around the tombs of their loved ones.
And it would go also against Niantic's guidelines.
So just follow Niantic's guidelines. If everything was black and white then the whole process would be automated without human intervention. A soul-less machine, like iOS.
It's not that it doesn't make sense to reply to it, it's the simple fact that you can't. Because your opinion is formulated based on guidelines, and the guidelines don't have an entry for what i just asked, hence your inability to process the question at hand.
You speak of respect, and how playing in a Graveyard is not showing respect. That is absolutely correct, and we both agree on that. Then you turn around and say that famous people's memorials in a graveyard are valid POI's, according to Niantic's Guidelines. So if these memorials are in a graveyard, and you need to enter it to acess the POI, aren't you throwing your own respect argument out of the window because "these are great POI's"? This is the double standard that i'm getting to here, because i can think outside of guidelines. It's there to guide, not dictate.
As for rules being black and white turning a process automated, once again, that is wrong (Starting to become a trend here). I know guidelines don't mention this, but when you go to a place that says "No smoking", you know you can't smoke there. Because the rules are explicit. No entry means exactly that: No entry. Surely at your job you also have some black and white rules that you must follow. And you do. Why is it that a concept that is so rooted into our real world is mindboggling and confuses you so much? Especially when said concept would actually resolve a lot of arguments on whether something is eligible or not? Is it because if guidelines and criteria become black and white, you can't enforce your subjectivity in order to accept or deny something? Since you like the guidelines and criteria so much, we can play a little game:
I, as the submitter, find a local hotspot in my country (Portugal). I nominate it, because in my small town, it's the most popular hotspot, it doesn't have any michelin stars, no articles about it online, it's a LOCAL (keyword) hotspot where most of the population gathers and one that got crowdfunded by the local community when the owner was in some financial issues (Thus indicating it's importance to the locals). I write that on my supporting info, with limited resources and LOCAL knowledge. You, as the Reviewer, stumble upon this submission. How would you rate it? (EDIT: Forgot to add, for this exercise, please assume that Title and Description are both correct, the photo is well taken and not third party/watermarked/doesn't show live animals/license plates/ain't tilted, the supporting photo is also correct and the location pin is at the correct place.)
Please answer the question above so i can show you just how much of an issue Subjectivity is. The question is not made in any tone of sarcasm or demeanor, it's a valid question and i'm not questioning your reviewing capabilities or anything of the sort. I just want an honest answer.
You stated it clearly: You want to play a game, and I won't get into that trap.
If you have questions about a nomination, post it in the nomination improvement section and people might provide you their feedback.
With regards to the original question, I'd find a PoI on a spot like that poor in taste. Even the presentation of the first one looks rushed and not well thought out. This is specific to PoGo: I would not want to send a gift from a stop like this and unintentionally cause someone distress.
In my mind, the examples for acceptable nominations were quite clear, so I am struggling to understand why this is an issue now. It isn't an 'American' issue as well. Passage of time plus the importance of the person can transform a site into a tourist attraction. Niantic's example used to be Elvis Presley's grave; I'd add Jim Morrison's grave in Paris. Some sites document cultural history, which is the distinguishing feature. Other interesting sites that transcend being a place for mourning are e.g. the Estrucian burials in Italy.
So some famous peoples memorials are just that a memorial. A gravestone is much different than a memorial. To me a memorial is a place meant for many people to come and pay respects or learn about the people in question. Tombstones/graves on the other hand are generally personal and aren’t meant to be gathering points of people other than close friends and family members. Generally if I see a nomination in a cemetery I reject it for sensitive location. If I see a memorial, depending on what it is I generally accept it. An example of some I’d accept are :war memorials, memorials for certain historic events as they are one a spot where people can learn about the history of battles and wars. Also they can learn about other events. Where as gravestone and tombs not so much
Yes, i fully agree with you that Memorials for war and historic events and even famous people offer not only a chance to pay respects but also to learn about those people/events in question. The cultural side of it can't be ignored, neither am i ignoring it: They are good POI's.
My issue was with @WheelTrekker-ING and his double standards, after i mentioned that in my country, most if not all of these memorials are inside Graveyards. They are good poi's, but they are in a sensitive location. Those two concepts cannot coexist, or shouldn't. Yet Niantic's guidelines are so vague and so Americanized that the rest of the world isn't taken into account (Just like PRP). And that vagueness leads to confusion, which then leads to subjectivity, disagreement and draconian rules composed of opinions rather than facts.
The guidelines becoming clear, or Black and White, would solve most of this issue. But people like @WheelTrekker-ING do not want that, because once their power to enforce subjectivity into dictating what is eligible or not is gone, they're left without a semblance of power over which they can base their opinions on. That's my gripe.
Well prp guidelines are what I call a “blanket policy” basically to cover everything around the world. But thats a different discussion lol. So if the memorial is in a graveyard it may be eligible. If its in a graveyard it just makes it harder to pass and you need a really good candidate to pass it.
All the guidelines are subjective for a reason so that people can use there own interpretation for it. Where I live; in Canada; generally cemeteries are for mourning so its a sensitive location. In other parts of the world people have said they find playgrounds and other things its more of a park than what a cemetery is for myself. So thats where the subjective and interpretation of the rules come in.
But essential if its in a cemetery it may be eligible but you’ll need a great candidate to get it approved, and that depends on your local community since I don’t vote on stuff outside Canada
I didn't really browse all the replies here and I am new but I really got to say that that is a really heavy and personal subject to be putting as a stop on a game. Actually writing this I find it slightly insulting.
I will refrain from posting personal experiences on here but a baby dying in utero is a lot different than a adult that committed suicide or got sick and died. All sad but totally different.
I seen they are monuments and not actual burial places.
I would personally reject them.
Pokemon Go stopped being a kid game a long time ago.
"All the guidelines are subjective for a reason so that people can use there own interpretation for it."
This is not a good thing, trust me.
Personally I wouldn't approve them, should I come across one reviewing, as I don't think it's fair on grieving parents/families to be disturbed by people playing a game. I've seen PoI in cemeteries removed due to the lack of respect shown by players.
Cemeteries/graveyards and things within them have traditionally been very complicated and contentious among Wayfarers. That is because until the refresh and the November 2020 AMA that followed, Niantic's guidelines have been super unclear. I don't think they are unclear now, but actual guidelines on cemeteries and graveyards are now divided between two places, which still makes it hard to know the rules are.
As of the refresh, from the rejection criteria page:
Sensitive locations like gravestones (not associated with a significant/historical figure) and cemeteries
However, the November 2020 AMA establishes an easy to understand exception to this rule (exception language bolded for clarity):
Private places of mourning such as individual gravestones or mausoleums are generally too sensitive to be eligible. However, any locations in cemeteries that have become public attractions are eligible. This would include memorials for famous individuals, historical chapels, and government historical markers.
So yes, cemeteries and individual gravestones are out unless an argument can be made that they are public attractions. This includes "memorials for famous individuals, historical chapels, and government historical markers" but is not limited to just these examples (note the use of "any locations").
This allows for valid exceptions that @BleedBoss-PGO says cannot exist while still providing very clear guidelines on what is appropriate and makes it as close to black and white as we are going to get.
I'll give a concrete example from my city. Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Toronto is very clearly a public attraction. There are two public trails that run through the cemetery. The Cemetery offers guided tours. The Cemetery is home to the Mount Pleasant Arboretum, one of the largest and most unique collections of trees in North America. Not only that, but the Cemetery actively publishes running routes on it's website (scroll to the bottom of the webpage linked above). The Cemetery is a great place for exercise and exploration. This means things like the entrance signs are eligible because the cemetery itself is an attraction.
It does not mean that every single gravestone is eligible. The hard rule of "no gravestones" still applies. But memorials, and there are many, that have any historical significance or that could be "public attractions" could still be eligible. Trail markers, trees that are labeled as part of the Arboretum, unique art and statues, and similar that are within the grounds of the cemetery are also valid because they are public attractions. Glenn Gould, world renowned pianist and writer is interred in the cemetery (not yet a Wayspot). Canadian Prime William Lyon Mackenzie King is interred in the cemeteries (is already a Wayspot). These are famous individuals whose individual gravestones (they are much more elaborate than your typical headstone or grave marker) are also exceptions to the rule.
Yes, many cemeteries and graveyards are quiet places of contemplation where public visitation beyond visiting the grave of a friend or relative would be very much frowned upon. Others are open to the public and are great places to explore and get exercise. In order to be approved, submitters should focus on Wayspots that are public attractions and avoid individual gravestones for non-famous/historical people. Likewise, reviewers need to understand that graveyards and cemeteries are not an automatic 1* and that public attractions within cemeteries should be considered on their merits.
Since your first message it's clear that you have something against me, you are calling me names and saying that I have double standards. You want me to fall into your trap but as you can see, other people are stating similar opinions that it's not possible to make hard stances.
With hard stances you end up with the PRP situation that you hate so much.
It seems that most of your posts in this forum are searching for a fight, an abusive tone with anyone that disagrees with your points of view and that's why I rejected to reply to your fake questions because it was clear as water what you wanted.
I am nobody, I have no power nor any will to have it. I'm a plain user in these forums and I just provide my point of view, if you disagree with my point of view you can't call me hypocrite, that I have double standards or that I am searching for power to control anyone.
You should relax before posting, most of us here are simple users and try to help to each others. Your tone has caused several problems in the forums and it scares away people with good will.
I really don't. I hold nothing against anyone on this forum, hence why i even gave you detailed and elaborate responses to counter your arguments. The problem i have is with double standards. And this is not limited only to you, don't consider yourself that special. It's against anyone who has them. In our local WF community we've had many of these cases of preaching A but doing B, and it's a personal gripe because it's dishonest. That's it. Nothing else.
This isn't a crusade, a demeaning post, and it certainly isn't "abusive towards those who disagree with me". I'm sorry if you took it that way, but all i did was read your arguments, and then attempt to counter them. That's called a debate, or a discussion. I have no problem with being wrong: We're all wrong at one time or another. But my beliefs won't be moved by opinions (Which are just individual beliefs from individual people), but rather by facts. I tried to provide you with a practical example of why vague rules are problematic. You assumed i was luring you into a trap (What is this, Yu-Gi-Oh?) and refused to answer a simple question, to which i even added:
"Please answer the question above so i can show you just how much of an issue Subjectivity is. The question is not made in any tone of sarcasm or demeanor, it's a valid question and i'm not questioning your reviewing capabilities or anything of the sort. I just want an honest answer."
It's literally on the post i made. It was a practical example to show you how subjectivity has impacted not only my community, but other communities. But if you don't think that's a problem, why don't you go explain to the posts that are made nearly daily that ouline this exact same problem? Someone took subjectivity from the Temporary rejection criteria to justify ANYTHING being temporary as long as they can blow it up with a missile. Sounds ridiculous? It does, but it negatively impacted the poster of said thread. If it was one person doing it, sure, it's 1 reject vs 100 good ratings, it won't make a difference. But once that spreads, you can have problems with people saying "I only accept religious tiles that are X wide and Y large", "This picnic site only has 1 table and 2 benches, it's not a picnic site, it's a table and two benches", etc. This is the problem that requires tackling, and one that you insist is non-existant for some reason.
I tried my best to try to provide you with a valid argument. You assumed i was looking for a fight with you, which i'm not. You then go on to say that i'm attacking you. I'm not, you're doing that to yourself with your own arguments. What do you call someone who preaches in favor of employees being better paid, but then does everything in his power to pay his own employees minimum wage? Exactly what i called you. And that is exactly what you did. Not sure why you'd expect a different outcome, but if my statement of facts based on your own posts offended you, then i'm truly sorry.
I think your going kind of sideways for this type of topic tbh. Things being subjective is a good thing in certain spots. Yes memorials can be eligible. But the reason why the guidelines are subject instead of yes and no is to allow some wiggle room for different cultural aspects. Some cultures cemeteries are places of gathering and celebration where others are for mourning. Subjectively memorials are great poi’s but depending what they are. One for deceased/stillborns would be highly sensitive where as one for war memorials are for teaching points and learning about ones history. The guidelines need to be subjective in certain areas to allow for us to make a proper decision. Niantic could say “all memorials are ineligible” which would make important history pieces not eligible anymore but they can be key pieces of culture in some areas.
Really there is no yes or no answer to 99% of submissions. And when you want a yes or no answer you kind of miss the point of what the new criteria is all about. Niantic can come in and say certain things can be eligible but they will never go out and say “this should 100% be accepted no matter what”. You have to use a little logic and critical thinking to see wether certain spots meet criteria or not. Or else why would we have a reviewing system of peers.
@WheelTrekker-ING above wont give a black and white answer because honestly some things are not black and white with the criteria and THATS OK! Things that have been made black and white by niantic are still argued over and over because people refuse to accept what they have ruled for them (great example is private residential property). Other example that is very black and white is nothing on school property, daycares k-12.
In the end its you that has to make the judgment call on what YOU think is an acceptable poi and what is not. Niantic can help guide us in the direction they want to see but for most cases they dont want to pigeon hole themselves with endless criteria changes (hence the new criteria overhaul!!!).
Well, you are correct. In the end it's me that has to make the judgement call on POI's. So clearly, anything that's not missile proof, in my judgement, is to be deemed temporary. Thank you for the excellent advice and sorry for the confusion this topic may have caused!
Just got another one recently.
@NianticDanbocat @NianticTintino @NianticGiffard would any of you mind weighing in on this?
These memorials can often be politically and emotionally charged. But putting that aside, the closest analogue I can think of is it being similar to memorials to non-notable individuals, which I normally rate low or reject.