Invalid Portal Appeal
Title of the Wayspot: Рыбки
Location: 50.509761,30.449509
City: Kyiv
Country: Ukraine
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Photos to support your claim:
Portal Рыбки is a painting on the inner wall of the balcony of a private apartment in a multi-storey residential building.
Agent MASTERKEY178 kindly provided proof of this on the local home FS - the mentioned drawing is located on his balcony.
Additional information: In the Portal Criteria https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/criteria there is no information that painting on the inner wall of the balcony of a private apartment in a multi-storey residential building can be a portal. This drawing can be easily erased, and no one will know anything about it - this is a private territory. Based on the above considerations, please remove portal Рыбки. Thank you.
Comments
It seems like this portal is on private properties. I should draw something on the balcony at home.
private apartmentS
Is no doubts this pic surely in private. Many thanks agent MASTERKEY178 to keep an eye!
It looks like a standard balcony in a residential complex, the portal clearly needs to be removed, since its presence is clearly contrary to the rules for placing waypoints from NIA.
I can confirm that this is a residential complex "Parkove Mistechko" and drawing is on the balcony. I surely must propose drawings on my walls as portals on this logic
Appeal Denied - Thanks for the appeal, Agent. We took another look at the Portal in question and decided that it does not meet our criteria for removal at this time.
Did that balcony a part of his room or not?
I see this as an interesting case, any 'personal' Wayspot not in single family property doesn't meet any removal criteria.
Yes, this is a really interesting case. But let's look at it this way: if the inner side of the balcony is repaired, or redesigned and this picture is erased - none of us will know about it, right? If someone wants to scan this portal (the balcony is on a high floor, possibly on the 15th, possibly higher) - it will be impossible to do, because only those living there can get to this balcony. In other words, according to the GaryExtrem-PGO , it possible to create a portal that does not comply the rules, but it is impossible to delete such portal. I do not quite understand this logic.
Thanks for your reply.
Can we use this case as precedent and submit some statues, pictures and so on located in our own apartments? From your reply it would sound logical.
Why was such a portal accepted at all? And why is Niantic refusing to delete it ?! That is a clear violation of the rules. I think that's a bad joke right now.
This decision to uphold portal appeal denial is an utter disgrace. Not only player in question openly admits in community chat that system had to be cheated in order to get this portal back, but he also flaunts that they would bring this portal back whenever it is removed. It's a limited access balcony inside multi-storey apartment, it might even be a personal balcony for what it's worth.
I was joking on this matter that everyone should get their own personal portal by submitting vinyl decals in an elevator or a stairway. Guess that after this decision this could be considered not a joke, and I'll personally encourage everyone to "enrich niantic network" with not-so-high-quality couch potato portals, because clearly that's the way we roll now.
[translation]
-- Sorry, what do you mean by "[they] helped bring Fishies back"?
-- (unrelated comment)
-- I'm probably young and naive, but are you talking about coordination in wayfarer to get "proper" outcome there?
-- We had an OPRation to bring back deleted portal that was created long before I started to play. I'm all for having more portals. Once I stop playing, there will be one less portal in the network. Not good!
Personally, I would have deleted that POI, but...
Niantic rules:
A POI would get removed if it is on private property
-> This POI is on a multi-family-complex (not private)
A POI would get removed if there is no pedestrian access
-> He can access the POI easily. As long as one person could access it once per 10000 years, its eligeble.
A POI would get removed if the property owner asks for it
-> You are not the property owner
A POI would get removed when the object is removed
-> It still exists
---> Valid POI
I know that this is trash. Like I told, this is definately not a good POI. But this is how Nia thinks about it....
@GaryExtrem-PGO Hi. Let me show you some statistics. You have earned 13 "disagree" on your profile by your decision in this appeal. This is 1/10th of all "disagree" you earn over time. Maybe its too many for one decision? At the same time, you have not earned no one "like" by this decision. Yes, I understand that you are a moderator and it is difficult to dispute your decisions. But can you honestly say yourself that you made the right decision in this case? Just imagine that players, using this your decision as a resolution, and start to create such "home portals" everywhere. Wouldn't that break the idea and spirit of the Ingress as a game? In my understanding, Ingress is movement and dynamic, not static. And in yours?
And a few words about how this portal was created in violation of rejection criteria
Translation: The drawing is a reference to the cult portal "Рыбки"
(which existed before and was removed)
I think it should probably be removed as well, but I can imagine that there could be a bit of a gray area here. While the photo provided does show that the mural is on a balcony, it doesn't quite prove that it's a private balcony. That said, I'm not sure how exactly you would prove that it is a private balcony...
If it is in the common area of the apartemen building, then it is perfectly valid. But there was no proof in the appeal showing that the mural is located inside the private area of a single apartment. Just claiming that it is part of a single apartment is not the same as providing proof.
I see where you're coming from, folks! I have flagged this to our team again to take another look and will follow-up with the final decision after I get to hear from them. Your understanding is appreciated until then.
Hi there folks, I have an update to share! We have reviewed this Wayspot again and have decided that it does not meet our removal criteria at the moment.
Our games are meant to augment reality, not replace it. If you're not certain you have the right to access a location or are not certain it is safe to access, please do not make any attempts to do so. As a player or any other member of the community, you must respect access restrictions, never trespass, or in any manner gain or attempt to gain access to any property or location where you do not have the right or permission to be. Please review and follow the Guidelines at all times while playing our games to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for everyone. Thanks!
This makes no sense, Niantic. This is where a reply NOT using a boiler plate template needs to be made.
There's so much emphasis on "single-family residential property" that I'm surprised the provisions do not extend to apartments and townhouses. From a planning perspective, they're residential attached homes (versus residential detached homes). If you want people to respect access restrictions, there shouldn't be these gray cases where it will be controversial to include the wayspots. I'm not even talking on legal terms but just the unnecessary drama. I've seen enough of these issues within Ingress in the many years.
That can only be a bad joke, right? I cannot understand this decision. This mural might no longer exist and no one would know - it might even never have existed and be a photo shop - and yet it is considered valid? From my point of view, there can be a few gray areas, but ... I can't take that seriously, this individual case is an absolute catastrophe.
But well, if that's legitimate ... are there certain colors or designs that are considered particularly acceptable? Then I would also paint a picture on my private balcony that no one but me would ever see. Of course, you wouldn't know if it really was there or is still there, but it's legitimate according to your statement. Nobody can scan it, nobody can take a new photo. The photo could also have been taken in a completely different location ... *irony off*
Im sorry but I had to:
It's nice to have this written by Niantic staff in their official forums, now everyone can request anything inside their homes (as long as you live in an apartment, don't dare to live in a single family house) and it's totally OK.
Come on guys, start firing those nominations right away, who doesn't want a portal/pokestop at home?
the decision is quite in the spirit of the existing criteria. if it is graffiti on a balcony in the common property of a limited number of people, then it does not have to be removed. as well as graffiti on the territory of commercial property, for example. the arguments "nobody can prove there is no graffiti" or "nobody can scan the portal" do not matter, as in the case of any graffiti in a restricted area. only one thing is important - is it prp or not
it is exactly like children's playgrounds in closed apartment buildings. the only difference is that there is a chance to see the playground from behind the fence or on a satellite image.
I personally may not like such objects, but from the point of view of the rules, everything is fine with them
Yes, it is very revealing :)
Yikes.
@Discordy-ING thanks for brief voice massage)) I will try to find some time for this 🧵 👹👹
good portal, take it)))
@NianticGiffard Hello.
FYI
1. someone is working on Рыбки location. I suspect toxic wayfarerism.
2. someone toxically changed location of Мавка з немовлям. This was my nomination. Original location is the correct one. I met painter while he was creating this masterpiece. And he gave the name for this wayspot.
3. @Mechanicuss-ING is working on removing specific Wayspots. I suspect lack of responsibility for such infantile behavior.