Portal Takedown Appeal: Vogelwachtershuis Griend

PolderPiraatPolderPiraat ✭✭✭
edited June 2019 in Invalid Portal Report

Category: Invalid Portal Takedown

Title of the Portal: Vogelwachtershuis Griend

Location , Intel link : www_ingress_com/intel?ll=53.251771,5.249938&z=15&pll=53.251771,5.249938

City: Harlingen

Country: Netherlands

Screenshot of the Rejection Email: [Required if you are appealing an invalid Portal report or an edit]

Photos to support your claim:

It's a strategic portal. There have been lots of edits in opr and also removal requests and appeals, but the portal has always been confirmed valid. It's only hard to reach, but there are yearly excursions. Can you restore this portal please?

Post edited by PolderPiraat on
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭

    This portal has been in the game since September 2015. It's a hard to reach portal, sure, which makes it an interesting anchor to have for your faction. Both factions have booked small plane flights to fly-over the portal and flip/capture/destroy it, which makes for interesting battles. Being hard to reach has never been a reason to have the portal removed. RES have had control over the portal for a long period of time and also actively fielded from it. Recently ENL has had the upper hand in terms of portal control.

    Today, this portal was removed from the game. RES is telling people it's because "Natuurmonumenten" requested it. They can't have permanent control of it, and they tried to:

    • rename the portal
    • move the portal (so links would fall off)
    • get it removed

    4 years of battling over the portal, and they now have their "victory", the portal is removed. Flying over the portal isn't the only way to get access, there are excursions to the portal (you go by boat to get close, you walk the rest through water/mud, in dutch they call it Wadlopen) and in breeding season, the island is off-limits. Whatever reason, I would argue that if this portal is indeed invalid (and please NIA, give us the real and clear reason why this is the case) then several other portals have to go. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Baken Willemsduin
    • Rottumeroog Tower
    • Staatsbosbeheer Shelter

    The portals above are also either on islands that are protected during breeding season, or islands that are only accessible through excursions (wadlopen) same as Vogelwachtershuis Griend. RES has also made a few of those excursions last year (to Rottumeroog and even requested a new portal 'Staatsbosbeheer Shelter'), and I have wanted to do one of those personally ever since.

    • Herdenkingsmonument UNIFIL

    This portal is on military grounds. You can only access it if you are in service of the military. There is only one agent that works on the base, and he has "monopoly" of the portal. We can't book a flight to fly over it either. Should this portal also be removed?

    This all is very demotivating. I personally really would like to know why this happened, details will make us help to understand this and appeal portals like it. Right now it feels like this is done because RES can't keep the portal (they've tried, during anomaly Amsterdam they flipped the portal and were quite proud of themselves) and NIA removing the portal feels like injustice.

  • LhuthLhuth ✭✭
    edited June 2019

    I don't want to get into a factional argument, but this is the response I give locally to portals in similar positions:

    If it was accessed once a year on planned excursions, that would be great. But the portal changes hands far more regularly than that. Access is clearly not limited to the expected times. It's not about the ethics of trespassing, it's about whether the actions of ingress players damage wildlife. I'd imagine flying planes over breeding bird sites to flip portals is disruptive, as is accessing it by boat and then foot.

    I don't want portal removal to be done as a consequence of disruption at that location - that's a really dangerous precedent to set. However, if the portal was removed because of disruption to an important wildlife area, I would support this removal, and others similar to it. Looking after nature has to come before the game. A portal being legitimate doesn't mean it should practically be there.

  • LhuthLhuth ✭✭

    I'd be interested in the reasoning as well. Other than that, I think we actually just agreed with eachother. If it's disruptive, it's an issue. It would be good to see if this is the reason it was removed or if this conversation is not relevant.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 2019

    You're right. That's a bit of frustration and feeling of injustice from my end. Apologies. My (quite long) post is hanging on approval. I hope once it gets through and NIA responds, we'll have some clarity.

  • ntzzntzz ✭✭✭

    Hope @NIA_casey @RedSoloCup or others check that Flags in a takedown appeal.

  • M1chaeIM1chaeI ✭✭✭

    My belief is that Resistance does not want to spend the resources to recapture the portal (a flight or a trip to the island when its open one time per year) and therefore takes this portal away from the Enlightened. In the past it has been heavily Enlightened controlled, because the Enlightened do spend the resources to get there, and it has been used as an anchor many times.

  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭

    Right now Zorglubxx's post is flagged more than the OP. Something something about true colors.

  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭

    @Jo0Lz Both sides do it, both sides will continue to do so because they think each new strategic portal removal validates revenge. A vicious circle. It only takes one person to do a report.

    Now with my faction biased glasses on: If RES had the majority of control of that portal it would have been gone years ago. Just like many other strategical portals over the past few years.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭

    Well, I don't know who did that as it doesn't show, but someone rescinded their flag on the OP's post, otherwise they would be on even keel.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭

    I don't know of any examples the other way around, but sure, they would happen. We appeal it and would like to know from NIA why it was removed. RES had majority control of that portal years ago, so if what you're saying is true, it would have been removed by now, same goes for several other pita's RES holds control over. (They're still standing)

  • Kevinsky86Kevinsky86 ✭✭✭
    edited June 2019

    If we start removing these kinds of portals, all portals that aren't PUBLICLY accessible in the absolutely broadest possible sense of the word should be removed.

    Make this game nice and stale.

  • @Jo0Lz @Kevinsky86 add to the list Kijfhoek which was reported by ENL and removed.

    Anyway, portals that are in nature reserves should not be part of the game. Period.

    And regarding another comment above, I don't think Ingress should be pay to win.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭

    So you guys arranged removal of the nature reserve portals in your control as well?

    Right. Of course you didn't.

  • Hi folks, I appreciate the friendly and lively discussion here, a great example of cross-faction respect for the most part. Friendly reminder that abuse of the flag function can result in your Community account being suspended. Please only use it in the case of actual abuse or spam.

  • For me personally these kind of portals that take you to places you would otherwise never even have thought of going to are actually motivating reasons to keep playing this game. The current battles between both factions over removing exactly these kind of portals is therefore killing part of my fun.

    Whether a portal is hard to reach or not should in my view NEVER be the reason for removal.

    Whether or not it is LEGAL should be.

    Looking at this portal in particular: personally I would volunteer to take part in cleaning this beautiful place just for helping to preserve it!

    Capuring a hard to reach portal while doing that would be a nice bonus.

    My point being that in my view having a portal there would bebeneficial to nature more than it would be destructive.

    I will welcome any comments from Niantic on th8s point of view!

Sign In or Register to comment.