Action Required: Niantic must update criteria to clarify no candidates within military bases
tehstone-ING
Posts: 1,008 Ambassador
Ok let's start with the back story.
November 2019, NianticCasey says:
Unfortunately Military Bases aren't as straightforward as the other two questions: not considering wayspots on bases is a legacy decision that was recently revised. We haven't been reactively removing wayspots that are on bases unless requested to do so by a commanding officer of the base but no new wayspots should be approved if they're on a military base. As Andrew mentioned in the AMA, any wayspot on a military base should automatically receive a 1* review, surpassing any other potentially eligibility notes.
I'm working to get this clarified on the help content as I can see how this is confusing based on how the emergency services note is worded. The intention there is for wayspots located near a base that would otherwise interfere with their regular activity (e.g. a statue at the front gate that blocks access to the base).
No such clarification has ever been made.
June 2021-present. At least 3 different threads have been created on this forum to ask about this. Most specifically focusing on the residential portions of bases.
September 2021 AMA. I asked specifically about this, the question was in the top 15, Niantic ignored it.
October 2021: NianticGiffard restates that nothing has changed since Casey's comments 2 years ago
<https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/121658/#Comment_121658>
TWICE
<https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/122596/#Comment_122596>
And yet, every day I review at least 1 or 2 candidates within a military base. Nearly all of them are within the residential portion of the base, nearly all of them end up being approved.
@NianticTintino @NianticTintino @NianticDanbocat You must take action.
It is not acceptable for those of us who put the most effort into knowing the criteria to continually receiving disagreements for these candidates. Post publicly that they are to be rejected. Make a discussion post here and pin it. Make a banner on the Wayfarer page. Send an email to Wayfarers. Two years is absurd. Clarify this.
Additionally it is unacceptable that these waypoints will not be removed when reported.
It's one thing to say "well the rules have changed, but we're not going to remove things that no longer meet criteria but did several years ago when they were approved."
It's another thing entirely to allow explicitly ineligible waypoints to go live today due to your inaction and then wave your hands and say nothing can be done about them.
I will be replying to this thread with every candidate I review that is located within a military base and tagging each of you until this is resolved.
This is just one of many ways that you disregard and disrespect those of us who put in the work and it's unacceptable. Do. Better.
Comments
This is one I voted on just a couple days ago and it was approved: Holloman Dog Park Tire Sculpture 32.834392,-106.086936
Agreed, it’s ridiculous that nominations that explicitly include in their text that they are on base go live and people who follow the criteria get disagreements for them.
No. I am tired of earning disagreements for following the criteria while others ignore it and earn agreements.
As much as I disagree with the "no bases" rule. Tehstone is correct this is ridiculous and rude. Why does Niantic expect us to follow criteria if Niantic isn't going to inform about that criteria or inforce it?
I've reviewed military base nominations from 4 different countries by now. Most if not all of them get accepted, and/or have already existing wayspots around them. Every time I reject a nomination, I know I'm likely to get a disagreement for that. It's definitely a ridiculous situation.
However I will also note that it's not exclusive to military base nominations. There are a bunch of other cases where I review in accordance to the guidelines (whether those posted here on the forum, or the "regular" ones from the website) while knowing that the community will vote otherwise, earning me with disagreements again and again. The main cause of this is that Niantic's removal criteria do not match the ineligibility criteria. So people - not individuals, but the community as a whole - know there will be no repercussions to them creating wayspots out of graffiti tags, waste bins, or indeed stuff on military base grounds.
I'm starting to think it's Niantic's way to (try to) make everyone happy.
State that it's forbidden, so the legal team does not freak out.
Pretend they don't notice wayspots being added, to make families that live in militaries base happy and not lose a lot of players.
Remove any spots that military commanders request, so no complaint is actually escalated. If the wayspots don't cause any trouble, let them be.
Run from any questions regarding this (such as the AMA).
So you all know my stance. But yes I would like clearer clarification on the questions that @tehstone-ING posed here.
Of course sure, if they just say flat out nope not eligible I wont be happy, since how does a children's playground or basketball court or church or tennis court etc interfere with operations in any way shape or form? Those should be common sense...
As @Telbourn-PGO said all the folks who keep advocating for ALL military base POIs to be removed and a flat out ban seems like an attack...
Of course I'll get drowned in "disagrees" for any post I make about bases, but it just seems people are bellyaching over their precious agreements (which aren't getting 100% effecting by JUST military bases, how many other random junk do you see still get approved somehow????) And overall people not understanding what a military base is. Because again, does anyone here seriously think a children's playground or a sports court is dangerous/breach of security/secret/idk you tell me what the reasoning is I can't fathom it...
Yeah... you might be right.
Because on the other side (another comment I got TONS of "disagrees" for) I said well you all want to single out military communities and have ALL their wayspots removed because it "hurts" your agreements when voting... Then why aren't we all losing our minds about graveyards/cemeteries and housing complex signs and aerator fountains (and whatever else which is grandfathered in)...
Because you should be advocating then for ALL those to be removed to save your agreements/upgrades not just an attack on the military bases. Am I thinking incorrectly?
A problem I have when reviewing is that it's not always obvious in the US when something is on a military base. As has been pointed out many times, most large bases have significant residential areas, and even when it's clear that the general area contains a base, its boundaries aren't always obvious. I try to respect the guidelines, but would also hate to penalize the surrounding areas for being in the vicinity of the base. So, many people who approve stuff on bases might still do so unwittingly, even if the rules were much clearer and properly promulgated.
If i looked through my review history and saw a large number of candidates in cemeteries, aerator fountains, neighborhood signs, etc that had been approved despite me rejecting them I would do the same. Additionally, this particular aspect of criteria seems to be less clearly defined and we were promised action two years ago.
If Niantic wants to change track and say that nominations within residential portions of bases are ok then great, I will happily start accepting them. Either way, action is required.
They do advocate for them to be removed, but the perspective is different.
People do put requests in to get them removed and then appeals if they are rejected.
You just don't see it happening as removal requests go through in game as per procedure, where as you're trying to get something aproved against policy so you're making your voice heard on the forums.
POIs on military bases don't need to be removed. They are valid POIs. These are housing areas, neighborhoods, and parks. We don't need to punish people who are unfortunate enough to live on a base just because some reviewers didn't get a fraction of a percent toward an upgrade that only gets you a chance at a speedier review for your own POI. There are so many things to review other than the small number of base nominations, so it's strange that there's such a fixation just because you aren't getting a paltry number of agreements. Not sure why this warrants nuking military bases? 😂 If that's where this whole thing is headed, that is unquestionably discrimination. No other gated community is treated that way.
Yeah why bother following criteria, it's just a few things here and there.
And it's about much more than the disagreements. It's about a pattern of broken and forgotten promises from Niantic which demonstrate a complete disregard and lack of respect for those of us spending our free time helping them out.
Go troll somewhere else please, and take your victim complex with you.
Instead of "whatabouting", why don't y'all go make your own threads to voice your concerns.
I'm focused on one thing right now and I'm making a thread about it, at other times I focus on other things. And other folks are free to focus on whatever they like. Bringing up a laundry list of other things that aren't related is intentional sidetracking and I suspect it's intended to get this thread close.
The issue is that Niantic has said that anything on a military base is to be rejected. By their own criteria, they are invalid POIs. If they wanted to allow for nuance and say that nominations in military housing areas that would be eligible at any non-military base location are to be judged as eligible (which I would be perfectly fine with), they could have done so. But they have a blanket "reject" guidance without enforcing it in the system in any way, so reviewers that either a) don't care that it's on a military base or b) cannot tell (and I sympathize with people in this group--it's not always obvious) vote to approve, and a new Wayspot is created where Niantic says none should be. It seems to be a big flaw in the system.
If it's about a pattern of broken promises and not disagreements, why are you focusing on those that will hurt entire communities of people who already struggle to play, and not something that's a bigger and more relevant issue?
Niantic grandfathering in POIs approved by older criteria isn't new. And just because POIs don't meet new criteria doesn't mean they should all be removed.
Waypoints added this month that clearly violate a strict criteria should be removed.
"hurting communities". it's a game. and there already are no spawns in these areas so this isn't even a stretch.
Not only that, but this isn't just a general "doesn't meet criteria" removal. Military bases are in the "obstructs EMS" rejection category which in all other cases is a clear cut removal.
What is the point in having a rule that applies only to the input of the system? If anything that manages to sneak through is just A-OK forever then that will create massive amounts of abuse.
Niantic. DO SOMETHING.
This is actually incorrect. The criteria specifics POIs that obstruct operation of bases, which most POIs you see from a base don't do because they're in residential and recreation areas. The entire base is not in any such category.
Nope. Casey themself clarified this.
Just because something is in rejection criteria does not mean its the same for removal. In the case of removal on base you need the base commander’s approval to do so. And trust me when I say they have way much more important things to do then worry about removing a pokestop from a game.
Idk why this subject keeps coming up when niantic has made there stance explicitly clear. Base stops are ineligible.
Coming from someone who actually is military we aren’t stuck on a base. You can literally go into town to play. Is it nicer to have stops on base. Sure. But its not necessary and it seems the only people complaining about it aren’t even military to begin with 😂. Can we move on now?
Did you read my post? I'm continually reviewing this **** every day and it's getting approved. Forum posts are insufficient action on this topic.
The only "clarification" seems to be that Niantic doesn't want new POIs on a base. I don't see anything that files an entire base under emergency services.
Please stop and think about what was actually said in the original post. Stone used bases as an example and yes the fact that they aren't eligible sucks. I am a military spouse so I get it. I don't want to see bases nuked but the criteria we are supposed to be following isn't being followed by Niantic and that is what we are trying to get. A clarification that is supposed to be there and then all reviewers and nominators educated so the criteria is followed. Once we get it here there are other topics we will move on to but this one has become an issue that needs addressed.
no new wayspots should be approved if they're on a military base. As Andrew mentioned in the AMA, any wayspot on a military base should automatically receive a 1* review, surpassing any other potentially eligibility notes.I'm working to get this clarified on the help content as I can see how this is confusing based on how the emergency services note is worded.
guess this clarification promised 2 years ago would be helpful then huh? which is the point of this thread.
I'd like to reiterate that I'm really not asking for Niantic to "nuke" any set of way points. However, I am requesting that removal criteria be brought more inline with rejection criteria. In conjunction with making a real effort at educating reviewers will stem this problem.
If niantic cared, they would review everything themselves. No one here is getting paid to do there work. So why is everyone getting so up in arms over things they come across the review screen. Look at the criteria “does it obstruct military operations” no? Ok review it accordingly. Now we have specification saying to reject. so do so! Lets all just move on already 😂
In this case, Niantic should use the same geofences that they use to prevent spawns in military areas to automatically reject any nomination in those places, send back an email static that the location is ineligible and that way no one would have to review such candidates any more. This is an automated check that they should apply also to K12 schools or any other item that can be automated.
If you're going to ignore the purpose of this thread, don't post in it any more please.