Mass reported wayspots to gain back control of map

16 Ingress portals reported to oblivion to gain control of map.

  • Wayspot Title: Planta de generación híbrida de energía en localidades aisladas del Chaco Paraguayo
  • Location (lat/lon): -19.93046,-60.772377
  • City: Mayor Pablo Lagerenza
  • Country: Paraguay
  • Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
  • Additional Information (if any): AM14-PAPA-14 is a cell fiercely fought by both RES and ENL alike.It’s a fight for control that can get easily out of control, making routine travels to far towns many hours away. It is also partially located with territory in another country, making crossings extra difficult, so international coordination is key.
    In retaliation for being a strategic and hard-to-reach portal (many many hours drive needed), rival faction began mass reporting an important portal as being allegedly inside a military base (it’s not, see attached pictures). They took down 16 portals, out of a total of 20 so far. This is targetting not only an entire town worth of portals, including a small chappel (for reasons unknown) but messing with strategy by taking down an important anchor portal from wich we made a BAF just days ago. Now a fellow ENL agent can’t reach his Buried Memories badge in time with only 4 portals to work with.
    Targeting most portals of a strategic town in rural area constitutes an unloyal act, an unfair move by a faction that hurts not only the gameplay of a fellow agent but of the entire rival faction.

    Keys in other agents inventory

    Portal is clearly not in private property, outside the fence.

    The plaque is easily reachable from the street.

    Keys were distributed and highly valuable because of its strategic location, making it the ideal anchor.

    Aerial view, picture from Google Images, not our own. Even civilian drones can fly there, not forbidden airspace or anything.

No RES agents ever went there, deciding to report it instead, effectively taking it down and with it, blockers. If they went there, they’d see that they are completely safe to reach and not in some military base or private property.

47 Likes

Appears to be a theme where a faction can’t control an area and the only solution happens to be a malicious removal.

24 Likes

Uploading: IMG-20240428-WA0028.jpg…
Techo que Se suele hacer, La Ciudad está a varias Horas de Asunción y como no pueden hacer eso solicitaron la eliminación del portal legítimo

12 Likes

IMG_5639

1 Like

Some recent BAF with that anchor (it’s the top one, in case anyone wonders)


March 28th, we sent 2 agents to Brazil


Another one from the same BAF, March 28th. One of the biggest in the continent at the moment.

10 April 23rd
Almost a month after that (April 23rd) we sent an agent with keys from our Brazil incursion to the south of the country where he met other two local agents.

The portal is in a rural town up north, near the border with Bolivia. Many many hours drive from Asunción, the most densely populated area in the AM14-PAPA-14 cell. This is a malicius removal to avoid sending agents to take it down. A cheap way to try to equilise the scoreboard. And it’s working for them. We send agents under the risk of not being able to pull off the plan because of a sudden blocker, they report the portal from their couches. Totally unfair.

What’s worse, the didn’t just take down the portal we had the most keys of, but 16 portals out of 20. Our resident agent there is left with almost nothing to work with, affecting his gameplay and with frustration for (perhaps) not reaching his Buried Memories badge in time.

12 Likes

You have provided some information about the object which is the main concern.
You have to wait for Niantic staff to review this.

9 Likes

This is pretty sad. I’m a resistance agent and I do not agree with this unfair portal reporting. We to suffer here from that. We drive hours to another city to raise BAFs. Plan them, make previous clearance of machina and enlightened blocks where needed.

But we have some enlightened agents here that play from their couches, are lazy and watch live from home our operations being accomplished.

Just to tell after that we make fake operations, with suspicious gathered keys.

the cities are a bit far from our home, but are real, touristic and easy reachable places.

But the lack of character, laziness make these agents just report our accounts every time we raise another field above all existing ones, report legit portals, send unfair edits just to take down our BAFs.

It’s pretty sad NIA leaves this way and do not look up into Ingress as they should.

I feel sorry for you man, sorry for having resistance agents acting this way that is not the fair game play.

Hope you can achieve something with NIA, as we may need to use this as a base for our complaints too.

11 Likes

Yeah, this type of behaviour is faction independent. I felt hesitant for a moment to mention factions but in my narrative I needed a way to separate who does what (we travel, they report). I hope they find a way to resolve this type of exploits.

11 Likes

OK my Fellow ENL Agent NETkoholik, lets see what we can say about your post.

First of all , we can agree that Mayor Pablo Lagerenza is not a city, it’s barely a remote location, deep north on the Paraguayan Chaco where you don’t have first aid services, or even a police department.

I agree with you, but i don’t understand what are you implying saying this, maybe you can be more specific.

Wait, here you are talking about retaliation, but lets be fair; Are you saying that we (RESPY community) reported those portals 'cause you did a BAF with it a won a cycle? We dont mind losing a cycle or two my friend, we just try to come stronger on the next one. As mather of fact, you should be more honest with yourself and the wayfarer comunnity, so, why are you not telling the community that in this BAF that you so proudly make reference the RESPY community sent agents to your town Pilar (Paraguay deep south) and to Missal (Brasil)? you did’t lose any adventage, 'cause you had none.

That’s not our fault. The Agent that you metion here should’ve played the game more in his hometown before he went back to work on the barracks. As you can see in the image he had lots and lots of chances. But this have no relevance in the matter.

Again my friend, please be honest with the wayfarer community, you keep saying that was a strategic town… strategic maybe and you tooked adventage of that for years , but IS NOT a town and EVEN LESS a rural area. How could you try to misslead the community saying that this remote location is a rural area, having 40ºC 10 of 12 months in the year and the 2 months remaining raining heavyly? C’mon , you dont even have civilian people in the area in cuestion, and you guys know it, only infantery forces, and militar personal.
Help me with this, whats the profession of the Agent that goes for work to that remote location? let me help you , IT’S A MILITARY PERSONAL so you saw adventage on that and you took it.
There’s several reason to bring to NIA attention this batch of portals, not only for BEING IN A MILITARY AREA, they ARE NOT safe, there’s NO EVEN A PEDESTRIAN PATH , specially the portal that you mentioned in this post.
I really appreciate the photos that you shared, 'cause they are confirming that the portal is NEXT TO THE ENTRANCE OF A SOLAR POWER PLANT , another violation of criteria.
We can discuss all day about the safety, but there’s no way anyone should put they physical intyegrity in risk. I hardly believe that just having this discussion are a reason to keep those portals out of the network

My friend, again , you being dishonest with you and the community here, you know pretty well that we , the RESPY community sent agents on the remaining two anchors cities, you didn’t lose any blockers, you had none at that moment.
Having said all this, I’m open to all members of the community who would like to discuss this matter, of course with respect and valid arguments.

20 Likes

My friend , please, at least try to be intelectually honest with the community, there’s nothing malicius on our actions , we tried to bring to NIA attention our criteria.
We are not the one who tooked those portals out of the network, we just expose our criteria, and the results indicate that we were right. We do sent our agents to anchors too, sometimes far into our country , sometimes out of our country, trying to counter your Operations, and thats the game.
The matter here is trying to took adventage of specifics actions and you did it, and we play against that for years and you know it.

How this is a cheap way to equilise the scoreboard for us? you guys are the one who win cycles with those portals, we won despite that.
And again, lets be intellectually honest to ourself and the community, you guys did the exact same thing, you expose your criteria, you have you response , and thats it, and again, i’m sure you know all this things i’m saying to you.

18 Likes

Hello my Friend;
I invite you to read this reply, maybe will change your mind or at least will help you to have a full picture of the matter, so you can have a better understanding.
I’m sorry for the situation that you are having in your cell (Wich is?) We ,the RESPY community are open to help you in anything we can do to
bring to NIA attention your case.

Best regards.

13 Likes

Just a heads up, wayspots on a military site do fall under the appropriate category when reviewing, so long as they’re not in a location where base personnel or visitors shouldn’t be using their phones, and it’s somewhere that can safely be walked to by such people.

The Wayspot in the original post is far away from the road. Not everywhere has pavements or footpaths, and grass/sand/other forms of earth are generally safe surfaces to walk on if they’re not being used by traffic and not otherwise ineligible (due to things like being on private residential property or school property).

I have no desire to be involved in any faction fights or anything. I have not given any in depth attention to the removed wayspots or the area that they’re in. I just wanted to clear those two statements up because they show you may not understand what is and isn’t acceptable.

16 Likes

Hello Agent, thank you for giving your opinion in this case, i really appreciate it because it enriches the discussion, but let me disagree with you.
You saying that it falls under they appropriate category as long as certain conditions are given.
Let me tell you, we do have military agents too, that submited portals on military ground , where as a military personal he had access and Even as a visitor You could’ve been able to interact with the portals, were accepted so as a faction we did defensive plays from those portals.
As You can imagine those portals were reported ( by the ENL community) and deleted. The reason that NIA gave us was the following:

As You can see your criteria and conditions apparently does not Match with the NIA criteria, so i strongly believe that the portals should stay out of the network applying the same criteria that was given to us. And that My friend is fairplay.

Again , i’m not saying that You are wrong , maybe in your country or community you don’t have this kind of cases so it’s hard for You to understand the full picture, but i appreciate your point of view, maybe it will help our community to have better understanding of this things.

5 Likes

Niantic doesn’t always get things right. Also, all we have to go on there is an email from someone on the team and not really any other information about the nomination that they were being warned about. I’m not saying everything on military bases is eligible, like I said, there are some instances where they may not be eligible. As any of the Ambassadors could tell you though, when you review nominations, if you press the “i” button for the “Appropriate” category, you’ll see that military bases are listed as appropriate locations.

@trevoralanF was largely responsible for this change of stance by Niantic, as there was a time where they were mostly considered ineligible.

@elijustrying I believe you recently had a screenshot handy of the “Appropriate” tool tip?

7 Likes

Indeed I do have screenshot

7 Likes

Thanks for the appeal, Explorer. We have taken another look but stand by our decision to retire the Wayspot.

7 Likes

We had the same problem on a recent BAF of ours, two of the portals were successfully maliciously removed to take down parts of the BAF. We had agents then travel hours to them again and take evidence photos and had them reinstated after various communications.

It was too easy for players from 200km away to make bogus reports that were very rapidly accepted.

This remote malicious reporting needs to be addressed. Whoever is reviewing reports should at least look at the map for one and see the obvious purpose of the report.

2 Likes