Just to clarify, I don’t think this should be an automated system at all. Maybe partially automated? I don’t think the end state should be automated; I think any geo-fencing should be done by a human on an as-needed basis.
Take this situation for example, if I’ve reported 4 Wayspots on the grounds of a school, part of the process of removing them all should be geo-fencing the school so someone in that area can’t just get their band of cronies to vote them all back in a week later.
Where Abuse has been reported and staff have confirmed that the location is ineligible due to school grounds then the location is manually geo-fenced in the same way as “property owner requests”. This would prevent re-occurrences in the same location.
The only negative I can see is that the School closes but this would be much less likely and the nominator can report with evidence to get the geo-fence lifted.
IMO: ML approvals should never return. ML is always going to make mistakes.
Rejected in error can be appealed.
Accepted in error and it’s in the game.
A better option would be to change the Appeal process. Either…
Accepted appeals return the Appeal, no longer waiting the 15 days if accepted.
Appeals for ML Rejects not counted towards you 2 appeals.
This is trying to avoid players to go close to the school correct?
Is this really that big of a problem in the US? I mean im really sadden to read this. I get it but is just sad.
remember criteria states that you should be able to walk up to the waypoint, a game should not be encouraging anybody that shouldn’t be on school property to go on to school property anywhere in the world.
They then add the usual “including the boundary” for safe measure.
One quick thing this might be because they’re on the side of the road and it’s easier for folks to stand outside the areas, especially if there’s games or kids.
The spots were on the school grounds, it doesn’t matter how close they are to the road. It’s not allowed.
After I reported them the first time, 2 of them were back within a week. The individual was attempting to get a stop approved on the road, and would likely have succeeded given the voting that was happening in the area.
Am I positive it was abuse? No. Would I be absolutely shocked if it wasn’t? Yes.
In either case, the team looked at it and did what they felt was necessary.
Firstly, I am not from the US. Most areas around the world will have a boundary around School Property.
This does not change the Niantic Criteria that states that waypoints are not eligible on School Grounds.
If you can prove the areas are not school property just areas that are shared by the school and the rest of the community then you may have a case.
You don’t need to try and convince me, I will not be voting in your area. This will be mostly people from your area who will be aware of the local situation and they will make the decision.
You have to think, would the school be happy if 100 noisy Pokemon Go players turned up during school hours to do a Gigantamax Battle?
Our city does install public parks adjacent to schools, and the park areas are eligible. If you have evidence that the amenities are public and not part of the school property, they could be submitted.
It is black and white, Niantic Criteria states that waypoints are not allowed on School Property. If any are reported with evidence that they are on School Property they would be removed.
It is black and white, what you describe doesnt sound eligible, and if reported would probably get removed. (Just saw slimboy said the same thing but keeping this here just to reiterate).
