Invalid Wayspot Appeal
errno666-ING
Posts: 53 ✭✭
Title of the Wayspot: Piaskownica na Osiedlu Europejskim
Location: 50.015686,19.890636
City: Kraków
Country: Poland
As per rejection criteria:
"Abusive location
Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group. Or location edits that attempt to move the Wayspot away from the object with which it's associated (for example, moving the Wayspot to a different city/country or moving it to a more convenient location)."
Ever since this wayspot became a portal in Ingress, it's been abusively used to permanently keep half of the city under a field giving advantage to one of the factions. The portal is located behind a gate and every time opposite faction agents try to get in, they need to be tailgating another person or vehicle. It's a home portal of 2 agents who are monitoring intel 24/7. Obviously the same faction agents are welcome to add their resonators in.
Each time a single XMP is fired against this portal, they are calling security, police and also threatening and harassing agents (in person or via comm). As a result, both RES and ENL can't play in this area, except of this small group of people (shrinking each day as apparently the other agents from their faction also don't like their style of playing).
Please retire this wayspot.
Comments
Is the object (the sandbox) at the correct location, though? If yes, the wayspot will not, and should not, be removed.
EDIT: you can press "disagree" all you like, wayspot removals don't work like this. So unless you can argue that the object meets some actual removal criteria, it will remain in the network.
@Nadiwereb-PGO i "liked" your post, but It's not about correct or incorrect location.
Its about: Abusive location -Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group"
New rules are clear.
Even the blue players try to stop it by making protopend lines, but they are also offended.
IMHO, rules that force/lead to braking the law are wrong and should be changed.
In this area there is no chance of a level playing fields for everyone without braking the law.
@errno666-ING wrote
"Each time a single XMP is fired against this portal, they are calling security, police and also threatening and harassing agents (in person or via comm). As a result, both RES and ENL can't play in this area, except of this small group of people (shrinking each day as apparently the other agents from their faction also don't like their style of playing)."
If it is not really special position this two agents in the game what is? Maybe you need some prove? Photos with police or security to remove this belonging to 2 people POI?
There is nothing abusive about a legitimate PoI that is only accessible to certain people. This has always been the case and this has been confirmed in the 2020 November AMA.
"Abusive location" in the rejection criteria refer to - and always have referred to - nominations where the location marker is placed away from the actual point of interest. I agree that it's not the clearest, but still. A legitimate wayspot is not, and never was, eligible for removal just because access is limited.
Portal is legit, but players are abusive.
They challenge us to burglars. They call the police and municipal police.
I don't tolerate the removal of portals, but this one is used to **** other players. If it hadn't been for that, I wouldn't have spoken
@Nadiwereb-PGO
You still missing the point about this appeal.
I don't like removing portals, but it's all about enjoying the game.
The "Owner" of the portal cannot play fair-play - he uses the portal to abuse others, so we report it.
But let's leave it to Niantic, they'll do whatever they want
Yes, I fully understand your appeal, I've seen tons of similar ones. I don't remember a single one that was successful unless the poster could actually, legitimately argue that the poI met removal criteria. As far as Wayfarer rules go, limited access is perfectly okay.
Screenshot of the Rejection Email:
Nadiwereb-PGO Yes I love portals with limited acces - like you.
But again, the point is about using the portal to abuse other players.
If it hadn't been for the abusive behavior, no one would have reported it.
I don't love wayspots with limited access, nor do I have any other kind of feeling towards them.
However, removing legitimate wayspots because someone is using them in a rude fashion would soon snowball into chaos and the destruction of large portions of the wayspot network. If you take a step back, you will see why.
@Nadiwereb-PGO
Yes - I know it perfectly well.
Maybe it's just a time when niantic should change the rules (and I think it changed because that's how I understand the new entry) to prevent the abuse of closed portals.
Besides, we do not demand the removal of all but one related to the abusive player.
I will repeat for the tenth time, it is about healthy competition.
November 2020 AMA:
Can you explain what “providing an advantage to a single player/collective group” means?
We definitely understand that there are some strategically placed Wayspots that are critical for competitive play in Niantic apps, including areas that have restricted or limited access. This doesn’t apply to those locations. This guideline is about curbing abuse by Explorers who are attempting to make their Niantic app of choice easier to play by submitting fake or misleading nominations. In general, follow the criteria and help your fellow player explore interesting real-world locations in your cities and you should be fine.
Also, this does not meet the criteria for removal, which is as follows:
For all other cases, Niantic will review the location if the (verified) property owner contacts them via the form provided in the Pokémon GO or Ingress Help centers. Simply being accessible to a limited group of players is not grounds for removal.
@TheFarix-PGO
This portal causes too much aggression among the players - that's why it is reported
"Be respectful - in the game and in real life
Playing with an opposing faction is one of the reasons why Ingress is such fun.
Remember that Portals are fair game for everyone and no player or faction has a special claim to any one Portal. Fighting to control a Portal is part of the fun, don't take it personally or become adversarial."
Alright, I'll say it out loud: I don't care about the "faction competition" within Ingress, not how healthy it is or how rude some people are. I don't play Ingress. All these things are completely meaningless to me, as they should always be on this forum, because this forum is for Wayfarer only.
(Just to be clear: I similarly don't care if a wayspot is a home Gym of a red player in Pokémon Go who doesn't allow either of the other two teams in the Gym. These things have zero effect on the eligibility or legitimacy of wayspots.)
The Wayspot is legitimate and shouldn't be removed. End of discussion on my side.
That's a player problem. That has nothing to do with whether the Wayspot is valid or meets the removal criteria (it doesn't). Niantic will not remove Wayspots just because a couple of players decided to be a-holes.
Edit: If a player is harassing others in game, the correct action is to report them through the help center. Having a valid Wayspot removed out of spite only creates more problems and compromises the integrate of the Wayfarer network.
@TheFarix-PGO
"And if other players are being too aggressive, offensive, overly protective of a Portal or simply making you feel uncomfortable while out in the field, leave the area and don’t engage with them."
If we are to follow the rules, the player or portal should disappear, because half of the city is blocked.
I think it is better to remove the problematic portal than the player.
We asked players who play under the field to comment on this thread, to say they are afraid of this player.
Where does it state in the removal criteria, which I posted above, that Wayspots where players are causing problems is a condition for removal? You are simply wanting a Wayspot removed out of spite, not because it meets any of the categories for an invalid Wayspot.
@HenryStackola-ING feeding us misleading information forever and ever
@minikom37-PGO yes i mismatch post, so i deleted - any problem with that?
The marker for the school is on a completely different building and when I look at both satellite and street views, the building that the playground is located as very much like an apartment building. Schools would not have balconies at regular intervals.
A Google user SV:
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.0158043,19.8905506,3a,75y,22.33h,86.81t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPCuxkTJNHpeXHMaHtni5cKfnOxq5Cd_qy1paQU!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPCuxkTJNHpeXHMaHtni5cKfnOxq5Cd_qy1paQU%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya50.9898-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352
All these posts are about the use of a gated community,
and law enforcement (police, municipal police) to gain an advantage or abuse other players.
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