Renewal of removal criteria?

patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭✭✭

Since no one bring this to September 2021 AMA, let me ask for clarification from Niantic about this.

From the Wayfarer Help page > Requesting Modification or Removal:

"....

Ingress

Qualified Ingress players can submit Portal Edits or report invalid Wayspots through the Ingress app. Property owners can also request Portal modifications and removals via this webpage

Pokémon GO

Qualified players who’ve reached level 40 can suggest improvements to an in-game location’s title, description, real-world location, or photo directly from the Pokémon GO app. You can also report an invalid PokéStop that doesn’t meet our acceptance criteria. Property owners can also request modifications and removals via this webpage

...."

Now, the questions:

1. What kind of acceptance criteria written there? Is that just the same acceptance criteria for approving nominations (meet al least one of the eligibility criteria AND must not meet any rejection criteria), or actually well-known Niantic's Wayspot removal criteria? Why did the text for GO players slightly different from the one for Ingress'?

2. I was about to explain the removal criteria in this thread below, until I re-read the Help page and asking for more clarifications.

tl;dr 4 agents were arrested by security for trespassing into power plant which considered as restricted area.

Maybe Niantic will say there are workers who play in that area (it is, actually). Maybe Niantic will say it's their fault for disobeying the law and trespassing into a place they shouldn't into. Maybe @NianticGiffard will come and reject the appeal while saying the owner/director must request the removal instead. But, should the owner/director really care just for games like Ingress or GO (especially in this case, the power plant belongs to the Sri Lanka government under Ministry of Power)?

Under the circumstances like this (the same might also happened in military bases, too), should Niantic not to rely on direct requests from property owners and listen to the player base instead?


@NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat

Comments

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,222 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We have enough issues with "abusive" removal rejections from players, so allowing players to have a general "please remove this portal, I don't like it" facility will just result in more "abusive" removal requests.

    Niantic say that portals such as you describe - acessible only by employess and other authorised people are fine.

    Niantic also say "don't trespass".

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 308 ✭✭✭✭

    If players are stupid and choose to trespass, they accept the risks to do it, as well as the consequences. Getting arrested is the result of their choice and not a game. Why should Niantic remove a stop to cater to people with no self control, and punish the people who do have access to the area?

  • aleprj-INGaleprj-ING Posts: 562 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If I remember correctly, in that case they didn't even trespass. They just asked if they could access the portal, and things escalated in a very bad way very quickly (at least that's what they are claiming and I have no reason to doubt it).

    If it is so sensitive for the government it should be removed, although I totally agree it is against removal criteria and not in the usual procedure. I think Niantic should contact them about this matter in a more hands-on approach.

  • I think Niantic thanks you for being considerate for things like this. But I am also sure they have a legal team too. Also they do tell us to be aware or surroundings and not to trespass when logging into the games.


Sign In or Register to comment.