It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
What you don't seem to want to understand either: You think this is about a game? "Ingress - It's not what it seems, it's NOT a Game!"
Have you ever heard of it? To you, this really just seems like a game and not a lifestyle.
Besides, this is really not about a game. It's a database of points of interest, it doesn't matter what impact it has on Ingress.
Repeating my question from earlier, what evidence is there that this Wayspot provides an advantage to a single player? If it were “strategically placed” as you say, why would it be close enough to the parking lot for you to attack in Ingress?
Approximately 600-700 people have access to the Wayspot every day not including the large tour groups that regularly pass through. And unlike the cemeteries of which you are so fond, the facility is open 24/7. Take the tour if you are skeptical of its real world existence.
Requesting removal of a Wayspot because spoofers might abuse it is... absurd to say the least.
it seems that this section concern the creation and edit location to abuse the system.
I don't really like those type of POI as one is ruining my cell score but they are legit by niantic
It is not absurd. It is a reality, as the spoofer has two resonators on the portal and he fielded off of it at 19:49 on 2/24/2021.
Then why is there an Or?
Because a wayspot does not necessarily have to be fake AND wrongly placed at the same time. It can also be real and misplaced.
It is absurd since this is a discussion about the validity of a Wayspot. Whether or not a spoofer has used or may in the future use the Wayspot is irrelevant to the discussion.
To state it in no uncertain terms, this Wayspot is valid and should remain because it meets the criteria under “A great place for exploration”
“ [...] Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.”
Furthermore, access to the Wayspot is acceptable because anyone can gain access by taking the tour of the facility or becoming employed there. (This is comparable to obtaining access to something like a national park for example, where often times one is required to obtain access to the area by purchasing a ticket.) When accessed properly, there is safe pedestrian access to the facility via a crosswalk which is visible from satellite view.
The Wayspot is a preserved US flag and a plaque which is transcribed into the Wayspot description. It has hung on the wall outside of the offices for 17 years now and its existence does not obstruct the operations of the facility in any way.
Whether or not spoofers will use a Wayspot in any game should not be a factor when considering the Wayspot’s legitimacy.
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).
That's not what it says.
Incorrect location is only one side of an Or. I've added a new line for clarity.
The other side is locations that give one player or group an advantage.
As long as the actual item exists (photos or portal scan can verify), then this qualifies as a valid POI. There are thousands of portals on closed corporate campuses nationwide, and that's all part of the game. Statues, gazebos, sculptures, historical memorabilia, etc.
Stop and ask yourself, "would I still be complaining about this portal if my own faction controlled it?" Chances are the answer is no. Which means your issue is not about the validity of the portal itself, but about the way the other faction is using it.
That does not qualify for removal of the portal.
I'm not seeing evidence here that this portal is intentionally placed in a false location for strategic purposes. All I'm seeing is, "we can't get it so therefore we can't verify it exists so therefore it's fake."
If the portal was at the front of the building and moved to the back for "strategery", to paraphrase GWB, then request a portal move. But again, no evidence here that this doesn't exist or is badly placed.
Why are so many here fixated on the fencing? There are more aggressive fences at zoos all around the nation and that doesn't disqualify the portals inside. Appearances don't disqualify a portal.
If you think a scary fence is a reason to get rid of a portal then I'd like to immediately file for removal of NOAA...
A spoofer interacting with a portal does not mean the portal itself is invalid. You're all over the place here. First it is that you cannot reach the portal. Then, it is that the portal isn't "safe". Then, oh it's not a valid portal because we cannot even verify it exists so it must be fake! Now, a spoofer threw a field from it so therefore it is misplaced for strat abuse.
None of the above are true. This whole thread is literally just, "We don't like how the other faction uses this portal, so let's remove it."
And Bront, I know you're not this stupid, so quit being obtuse and toeing the party line. It's not a good look.
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
A spoofer fielding from an unaccessible portal is not the reason to retire the portal.
A spoofer fielding from an unaccessible portal is a reason why the new Niantic policy, pertaining to abusive locations, is a good policy that should be enforced. The bottom line is that spoofers who use hard to access or inaccessible portals to construct control fields effectively removes territory from the playing field.
This portal is also on a loading dock. If the barbed wire fence didn't restrict access, an area with active movement of tractor-trailers backing into a loading dock is inherently unsafe and prone to obstructing the safe operation of the facility.
This portal needs to be retired.
This portal is neither safe nor publicly accessible by pedestrians.
This portal is on a loading dock, where players would interfere with the operation of an industrial site.
This portal was placed to provide advantage to a single player, a UPS employee who has routine access to a portal that is unaccessible to the rest of the players who are not able to get past a barbed wire fence. UPS placed that barbed wire fence to obstruct their loading docks for a good reason, as they clearly don't want people wandering onto their campus, standing around where they are attempting to move tractor-trailers full of packages.
This portal appears to be a flag in a display case, with a small plaque describing it. I would assume that someone can walk up and read the plaque without interfering with anything; it'd be rather silly, otherwise. A reasonable person would walk through the building to wherever this display is, not play a game of dodge-the-truck while wandering around the docks outside.
It is like every other Portal with "restricted access / not open 24/7 / I personally can't get to it" access. If employees, and by the sounds of it visitors and tour groups and reach it without trespassing then it counts as a valid POI. "Public access" does not require access for anybody and everybody. Niantic have made a decision and that is to retain the portal.
@MeekayCat-ING Since you are still unable to read and understand, I will give you one more chance:
1.) Wayspots do NOT have to be publicly accessible. They only need to be accessible on foot - if employees can, that's perfectly fine. Even if no one can achieve it because no one works there who also plays, it doesn't matter at all.
2) Whether the company is hindered at work does not matter. UPS is not an ambulance service! This only applies to ambulances, fire brigades, the military and sometimes the police. NOT on companies.
3) "Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player" - Now please listen carefully, because again I won't explain it to you! This ONLY applies to fake wayspots - and / or (it does NOT have to apply both at the same time!) To wayspots that have been placed in the wrong location so that one of the games can benefit from them. For example, moving a wayspot to the wrong location so that it appears in Pokémon Go due to the cells. That is what is meant by it - and nothing else. Niantic has already explained this several times.
You just look for the facts that interpret the case the way you want it. Life is not a pony farm - and Ingress is not a game. Find a job there or stop complaining. The portal is legit. As you can see, Niantic has rejected your Appeal. Good Job, you played yourself.
"Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player" - Now please listen carefully, because again I won't explain it to you! This ONLY applies to fake wayspots - and / or (it does NOT have to apply both at the same time!) To wayspots that have been placed in the wrong location so that one of the games can benefit from them. For example, moving a wayspot to the wrong location so that it appears in Pokémon Go due to the cells. That is what is meant by it - and nothing else. Niantic has already explained this several times.
Do you, or anyone else, happen to have links to posts with Niantic's clarifications here? I'd like to have that information handy for future reference. (I haven't been keeping up with each and every change to the criteria.)
You said it yourself that you haven't been able to go access the portal, so, how do you know it isn't? Answer is, you don't.
Perhaps you may consider avoiding insults when making your arguments.
Let me point you to the verbatim text of the rejection criteria:
• Location obstructs the driveways of emergency services or may interfere with the operations of fire stations, police stations, hospitals, military bases, industrial sites, power plants, or air traffic control towers
The portal doesn't need to obstruct or interfere with emergency services. The current language includes industrial sites.
As for the abusive location, the text does state, "Locations that are intentionally and strategically placed to provide advantage to a single player or collective group." This sentence does not state the abuse is moving a portal from a previous acceptable location, so it includes portals that are placed intentionally and strategically to provide advantage to a single player. If I am nominating a portal that I can reach by virtue of my employment, that nobody else (with the exception of a spoofer) can access, it is certainly intentional and strategic and, as such, disqualifying.
Sorry, I'm giving up. Some people are resistant to advice.
This appeal has been denied: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/comment/68155/#Comment_68155.
That suggests to me that Niantic did not find the arguments for removal sufficiently persuasive. Repeating those same arguments over and over again seems unlikely to change that. If you have additional information or other considerations that deserve attention, perhaps bring those up instead?
From the November 2020 AMA:
Q: Can you explain what “providing an advantage to a single player/collective group” means?
A: 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.