I’ve removed that this topic is marked solved so that it can be viewed as unresolved.
4 Likes
But the church services are not the main focus for this Wayspot, rather the social services provided daily to the homeless, displaced, and others in need. You can get a free meal there more often than there is mass, as meals are served almost everyday, while mass happens twice a week.
I would think the main function of a place would have higher weight than a very minor function. A social services organization that helps the homeless, and one that even provides free meals to those in need and other services that some may not always feel comfortable askiing for, would outweigh the very minor function of them have church services twice a week.
I think when others jumped on me about it being a church, they failed to see that’s a very minor function, yet I think because places of worship are almost always automatically accepted, this was rejected.
I’m not in a life place that I can double check, but last I looked, I was under the impression that there was no description of the Wayspot? In that case, then, how can you say with certainty what the main focus for this Wayspot is?
The replies I recall were offered to explicitly challenge your original statement,
which seemed contradicting to the website.
I’m not trying to argue or defend or go back to those posts. I’m trying to understand why Niantic decided what they did and how to move forward.
When you see homeless and displaced people hanging outside the building during the warmer months, I think it’s pretty clear as to what the main purpose of this place is. And yes, I do see this there often in the warmer months (I wouldn’t so much today, as it’s -20F with about a -30 wind chill).
I also believe this is an older Wayspot, as I believe the photo was over 9 years old, maybe 10, hence why it doesn’t have a description. Think it most likely was an Ingress import into PoGo, or another type of import.
I also want to know why, too, as I should get some sort of explanation as to why it wasn’t removed. Staff shouldn’t leave us hanging, especially if we can’t figure out why they made the decision they did.
Stinks that slow mode is still on…Oh well…
Irrelevant to my specific comments. I’m saying, it’s unclear what the purpose of the Wayspot is, not what the actual location is. There currently is no description. Maybe the original submitter was intending the Wayspot to be the shelter, maybe the church, maybe they were just driving by and thought it was the thrift store. We don’t know and it doesn’t matter, anymore.
Going back to the church/daycare example, if a person nominated a church and described it as “Church based daycare services” and only that, I would reject it. If a person nominated a church, described it as a church, but it happened to have a Sunday school service, I would consider the nomination for the church and approve. I’m saying that how the Wayspot is represented may matter in this thread. There are multiple ways this building may be represented - “unique architecture” (not literally saying in this case, just making something up), a faith based church organization, and a human services center. We agree the human services focus is ineligible, but maybe in this case the church as the primary focus is eligible.
Perhaps you can help give persons seeking help here a little dignity and a little virtual joy while spreading the church brand of this organization.
not sure I’ve yet had any theological debates relating to wayfarer before but this certainly could inspire one
1 Like
@tehstone I didn’t request removal due to any faith based reason, as that’s not something I would discriminate against. Also, I don’t think that type of discussion would be appropriate here.
There isn’t even a guarantee that a description edit would get accepted. I have one in voting right now for a cable company’s utility box, that they simply wrapped with their logo to make it less boring and easy to identify from the others nearby, and I suggested a description that accurately described it as so. I’ve rejected many of the other boxes this company has wrapped in our area. Wish I could request removal, but it doesn’t meet removal criteria at this time.
So, even if I update the description to accurately describe the main purpose of this location, it could still be rejected by ML or even the community.
BTW, this is how Google Maps has this location described: social service organization and food bank. The food bank there is part of a larger network of banks connected to the largest food bank in the state. There’s even a sign outside the front door advertising the free hot meals and when they are offered.
There is no guarantee the removal request will be granted, but you tried. There’s no guarantee any candidate you have ever attempted will be approved. I don’t know why this is suddenly a roadblock to trying? And if denied, you can always appeal and/or ask back here for more insight.
You do realize the image you shared also shows notice for the church worship, right?
I think you continue to miss the point I’m making that has been made since the beginning of the thread. There ARE church services here and the church aspect of the location meets criteria. Apparently, as I’m wondering, the building sharing function with providing social services is not enough to make the entire location meet criteria for removal, regardless of which is the primary use of the location.
I’ve given all the info needed as to the main purpose of this Wayspot: social service organization/food bank/soup kitchen for the homeless/displaced/in need. Secondary would be the church, as there are so many other churches in the area that others can attend.
I have never in my life seen the Salvation Army advertise themselves as a church first, social service organization second. It has always been a faith-based social service organization first and foremost, especially during the holidays with their big fundraiser, the Red Kettle campaign.
I’d just like an answer from staff at this point as to why it wasn’t removed, even after all the info that I’ve provided and is accessible online. It’s not really helpful to leave us in the dark and not explain why it wasn’t removed when we can’t fully figure it out ourselves. That’s all I want at this point, no further discussion, just a clearer answer from staff.
Main purpose / secondary purpose of the location does not invalid eligibility. To your comment “there are so many other churches in the area that others can attend” definitely holds no value to eligibility, either.
I hope we get an answer from staff, too. You know we are not always going to get one or like what we hear.
I’ve been pretty on the fence about this one and been unsure about the use of the church as a worship center, but the more I read about the religion the more sure I am of the eligibility of it and this location. I didn’t realize that they were an independent denomination. I always thought it was probably loosely associated with a non-denominational Christian church or more or less a social group without formal religious practice.
To prejudice against their faith because people actually go to them for human services and social support seems unfair. I find it intersting that they have a faith that practices servitude and is a cornerstone of their belief structure and that’s what has made us consider them to be ineligible.
Ok, then would you accept a social service organization that is run by another denomination, such as Catholic or Lutheran, and their services are run out of a building that may also have masses?
I’m more concerned about protecting the dignity of those going here to seek help, not making them feel badly for what they are doing. I don’t know how being a church is of higher value when we have also been told not to nominate placed where people in need may seek assistance and may not feel comfortable about seeking said assistance.
Again, I’m kind of done dicussing this, and just want to see if staff responses. I’m going to mute this and just check it from time to time to see if staff responds. I’m getting a little upset here.
It depends on the candidate and the nomination. As I said before, if the focus is on the social services part I’d likely reject, but if the focus was on the church as a place to socialize and/or explore I’d be likely to approve it.
You also know this can, theoretically, be an ineligible location but not meet removal criteria. This is something I’ll be interested if staff clarifies or chooses to let us practice our best judgement on.
The biggest point out of this is that TSA is, in fact, a church and there is, in fact, a church based out of this building.
You are, of course, under no obligation to continue replies. I’ve enjoyed learning a bit more tonight. Hopefully others have felt able to follow along, too.
Thanks for contributing.
1 Like
Just going to post this news article here:
Yep, churches often host meetings for volunteer response teams. Mine does. In fact, in my denomination, some of our main religious buildings host training schools to teach people basic construction trades, which will allow them to assist with building projects from disaster relief to constructing new religious buildings.