Sensitive and Restricted Location: The Shanghai Ship Electronic Equipment Research Institute is a defense-related facility, likely involved in sensitive maritime technology research. Niantic prohibits Portals in such areas due to security concerns. The institute’s enclosed nature, with strict access controls (e.g., employee-only entry), further limits public accessibility, making the Portal ineligible. https://hanghai.nwpu.edu.cn/info/1616/10678.htm
I am sorry to hear this. Personally i also hate this kind of gameplay but Niantic ald stated gated community is eligible. Niantic wont remove the object because of this nor spoofer gameplay. U may want to remove all game accusition because its not wayfarer related.
You might want to emphasis on other stuff like sensitive location or the object itself.
The ERC determined to add Institute, CSSC 726th Research Institute to the Entity List for acquiring and attempting to acquire U.S.-origin items in support of programs for the People’s Liberation Army. These activities are contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR.
On December 18, 2020, Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross released a statement
regarding the Federal Register Notice which names 77 Additions to the Entity List. These
additions are:
China State Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited (CSSC) 726th Research Institute
Simultaneously, webpages in Mandarin and published by Chinese gov for recruitment also clearly stated that CSSC 726th Research Institute “is a key scientific research institution of Chinese national defense industry” with the first sentences. For example:
That said, I agree that sensitive structures belonging to an institude added to U.S. Entity List should not be launched as portals. Niantic and Niantic Spatial complies with U.S. federal regulations, right? This is irrelevant to Wayfarer guidelines.
@luvletter
Please ensure your appeals focus solely on the legitimacy of the wayspot in terms of criteria.
Any and all references to gameplay will be removed as they are not relevant to the appeal and create a poor atmosphere.
which has the same building as background as the portal mentioned here 31.074215, 121.359114, and proves that these portals are exactly within the area of CSSC 726th Research Institute that has been added to the Entity List by U.S. gov.
Partially correct. IMO before talking about Wayfarer criteria, federal regulations are the first thing to be considered.
As I quote in previous replies, this or these portals are belonging to an institute on “The Entity List”.
Under § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) of the EAR, entities for which there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that the entities have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and those acting on behalf of such entities, may be added to the Entity List.
I’m not agreeing with the fact it’s on the list, just saying that as it’s still on the list, it’s improper for the portals to be portals for the time being because
These activities are contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR
Just to be clear, there are no criteria that imply that being on a US “Entity” list has an influence on Wayfarer eligibility, so I am not sure why you would want to draw that equivalence, especially on someone else’s appeal. Let’s please stay on topic.
I have reported the location spoofing behavior of the relevant players, and these players have already been banned, as stated in the original text. I want to emphasize that these two banned players indirectly prove that this Portal is difficult to access normally. This also demonstrates that these players deliberately exploited the Portal’s restricted accessibility. Additionally, why has information about removing other Portals within the scope of this defense research facility been repeatedly deleted? This remains part of the Wayspot issue. If it continues to be removed, I will file complaints through other channels.
In fact, I’ve been fully focusing on providing reasons I think this portal should be removed which is aligned with the appeal for this topic. I feel uncomfortable about your “someone else’s appeals” saying. This does not sound like a warm reply as suggested by Wayfarer forum guideline.
While you are using our Services, please be aware of your surroundings, and play and communicate safely. You agree that your use of the Services is at your own risk, and that you will not use the Services to violate any applicable law, regulation
Not many other portal appeals will be involved in rare case about regulation and potential unlawful act under jurisdiction of the states like this. What I would do is providing as much relevant information as possible for Niantic staff to make decision. Please leave it to Niantic staff to decide whether that should also be taken into consideration, or still consider Wayfarer criteria only.
As a reminder from the Clarification Collection, items on military bases or similar locations can be eligible.
This information will factor in with information shared from the appeal. I have not had the time to review this in detail, but am sharing for those following along and reading the thread.
And 3.2 Safe and Appropriate Use in Niantic Terms of Service has asked user not to violate any applicable law, regulation.
Here is the question, as these portals belongs to an institute that is temporaily listed in The Entity List
Players’ interaction with and the launching of these portals may be activities contrary to national security and foreign policy interests under Section 744.11(b) of the EAR of the states.
Are they still good to be Wayspots for Niantic and Scopely? It’s probably not a simple “Wayfarer criteria allows it” thing.
This institution is listed on the U.S. Entity List, which highlights its sensitivity and restricted access.
Additionally, looking at the institution’s recruitment materials, political ideology screening and political background checks are mentioned twice, which further indicates the sensitivity of the location. Can a place that requires political screening for access really be considered acceptable? Clearly, accessing this site carries significant legal risks and the consequences could be very serious.
Finally, while the relevant ambassador repeatedly emphasized that gameplay considerations are not part of the criteria, the assertive tone and hasty conclusion seem biased and unfair.
As a reminder no one should ever trespass to play any game. Niantic has been very good at stating that in all their games.
They also understand that not every player will have access to all places with eligible items. So be it a commercial company headquarters with a museum, a gated community with pools and playgrounds, an amusement park, or eligible items on a larger military facility — there will be people that can access these things safely and appropriately.
Which means Niantic Terms of Service is indeed taken into consideration here, apart from Wayfarer Criteria.
Then it goes back to the question:
Portals belonging to institutes on The Entity List makes it illegal for players to interact with them. Otherwise players are violating U.S. regulations.
Shouldn’t these portal be removed for the time being? That’s a much more important thing to be discussed as a reminder.
Just because certain wayspot is not accesible to everyone , doesnt means it should be removed. Ur appeal should highlight why its sensitive area or why the object is ineligible. Restricted access doesnt means ineligible. Wayfarer wont remove wayspot simply because certain people cant access certain wayspot. I am sorry to said this. But your best bet is report abuse in game. Because the main problem is the spoofer. Even though you succesfully remove this, spoofer will find another gated community for linkstar anchor.
This is not a simple “I can’t access this Wayspot and thus I want to remove it” case. Everyone can see it.
The author of this post and I have fully explained what the case is.
Niantic staff can see very clearly that this is a special case and very likely the only 1 special case that involves latest U.S. regulations and consider beyond traditional criteria and dive deep into the Niantic ToS to decide the legitimacy of the portals.
