Why does NIA give in to spoofers.

245

Comments

  • BrenninsBrennins ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    If I were you, I would ask people to chill the links until NIA have been given the chance to really look at what they have un-banned: an agent who travels in-explainable distances within 3,5 hours. It's not possible! I believe ENL on the SW coast of Norway have been quite honorable for a long time by not linking like crazy after a spoof, and rather wait. And that's why I didn't block RES from doing anything.

    As far as I have been told by reliable sources, also RES thinks this is spoof - not only ENL. So why is RES so eager to block Fair Isle? And why didn't the RES agent deploy on the portal?

    I'm very aware of the deal, since we have to take it into consideration EVERY single time a RES agent spoofs a portal of North Sea interest. I.E. Fair Isle, Rottumeroog or Skarvøy Lighthouse. And it's been a few haven't it?:)

    But I would call this a first-time occurance (spoofer banned and then un-banned). And therefore I stated that we should all have waited a little longer, instead of believing a "NIA un-ban" is the end of this matter and all links can fly. I'm pretty certain this matter is not closed yet.

    Also: sorry for the two posts by me which states almost the same. The first time I submitted it would not show. Also I have problems with replying to posts by using the "quote" button, as NIA thinks I'm posting a link.

  • Spoofers dont have a faction... But use the spoofers action to gain an advantage without thinking about agreements is something that makes it annoying.... And thats what happened at the northsee today...i hope the situation at your playfield in Italy will be solved with respect from both factions

  • @Brennins

    "I'm very aware of the deal, since we have to take it into consideration EVERY single time a RES agent spoofs a portal of North Sea interest. I.E. Fair Isle, Rottumeroog or Skarvøy Lighthouse. And it's been a few haven't it?:)"

    Lovely..... Just because RES isn't playing the blame game, doesn't mean there haven't been just as many green spoofs. I will refrain from posting the countless reports I've submitted in the past years and months, green and blue, but believe me: I could not say which COLOR is used more often....

    "But I would call this a first-time occurance"

    There will be many first time occurances. Zero situations are fully comparable. Out of curiosity: the ticket has been closed. Now you want to step into a grey zone and expect factions to obey.... so how many appeals, requests for waits, for coulances, for etc would you find acceptable? And for how many days? And if the faction involved is not happy after weeks, what to do next?

    (the deal was very black and white and thus worked!!).

    Interesting to see that where spoofers and possibily Niantic is to blame, you take it on to the other faction. The faction who took the initiative for a deal in the first place over the North Sea.

  • ChiisaiKumaChiisaiKuma ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @Sideshowback

    I see it is very difficult to understand that Resistance did in fact not "use the spoofers action to gain an advantage without thinking about agreements". Resistance stick to the agreements. It is ENL who isn't happy with the outcome and suddenly claims there were small letters attached to the deal.

    Blame spoofers, blame Niantic. But stop blaming the faction who has been fair about this deal from the start. Just like ENL has been fair untill today.

  • well, I can only speak for the playbox that concerns me (SW Norway, and anchors Rottumeroog and Fair Isle). And without keeping a statistical record of it I would bet a lot of money that the spoof is hurting ENL agents more than RES.

    If you wanna call that "blaming other faction", "Throwing tantrums", "playing blame game", be my guest. Free speech and all that. But it's cold hard facts that almost all spoofs are working for RES advantage, by killing hard to get anchors and killing ENL big fields to decrease MU for cycle wins.

    I have little interest, and even less time, to pay attention to whatever happens on the intel-map around the world regarding spoofing, so how many reports you've reported about spoofers is irrelevant. I've also made quite a few.

    But, I do care when it's concerning the time and money I've spent playing a game that in the end gets destroyed by spoofing. How many times have Fair Isle, Skarvøy and Rottumeroog been killed when there were big green fields involved? Isn't it odd that it always happens then?

    And the reason I suggest to "step into a grey zone" is that both RES and ENL agreed that this is a spoof, and impossible travel-time is the only evidence you need. Or maybe I've been told wrong.

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    first of all, resistance of the northsea (OCD) just gave the comment that the account of Beccylicious was supposedly Hijacked by someone and used to spoof the portal fair isle map to clear the whole north sea of enlightened fields and links.


    that will clearly awnser all questions if this action was legit or not and if Niantic should restore or not.

    I would now ask for restore of the portal and the links and fields that where on the not by now killed portals on the other side.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    Correction. RES linked after confirmation that the account was restored after a ban appeal, and as such the portal/link reset will not be actioned. Until then, all agreements were honoured, I believe.

  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    To summarize: RES, given then facts of the spoofer movement, knew it was a spoof even though NIA unbanned (because of hijacked account) and still gave go (or rather: request) to link... Shame on you.

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    nope still full in discussion with niantic and also with some RES agents, one RES agent who is in charge just said go. other RES agents who wanted to wait longer till there was an awnser what happened where ignored.

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    yes its from a local player...

    so nice to just yell first then ask the question.

  • SideshowbackSideshowback ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Since when is 'a hijacked account' a thing. Aren't we responsible for our own account / password management? And if not.. Are impossible actions legal in cases like this? I think that's odd....

    Or its hijacked for bad reasons which makes the action illegal but you give someone a warning. Or its an illegal action with an account from a playes which is a regular ban....

  • HendrikTovenaarHendrikTovenaar ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @roarex Above statement about what happened internally at RES is incorrect. Let me clarify.

    In this is an extraordinary situation, and like any other spoofing situation, we awaited Niantic's ruling before taking any action. The spoofed lanes remained open and no attempts were made to take advantage.

    After verifying the ticket is closed (2 times by different people) the general consensus was in favor of following the 'gentlemans agreement' to proceed. In the 'gentlemans agreement' it is stated to wait for Niantic to ban or restore. Now that there is no ban, there will not be a portal restore. As soon as 'no ban' is clear, the game is on, and so we acted on it.

    Agents mobilized heading towards their nearest coastal portals and links were made, including myself.

  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019
    1. RES knew the actions were spoofs
    2. RES knew the account was hijacked and that the agent was trying to get it unbanned

    ... still RES clings to claimed semantics of the agreement requiring the spoofer to be banned. Shame, Shame, SHAME!

  • GlenuendoGlenuendo ✭✭✭✭

    OK... As someone that really doesn't care what happened in another continent, this thread needs to be closed. I thought the idea of this community was to address issues without there being factional BS.


    Take this up on your XFAC chat where the drama doesn't have to be played out here.

  • BrenninsBrennins ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @Katth Should be pretty obvious if you have read anything in this thread. It's simple math and geography.

    RES has been eager to prove their conquers in the past, lastly the visit to Fair Isle by two RES agents, and the following request to get costs covered. I eagerly await a awesome sit-rep for the last visit. Also, again; why didn't the agent even capture the portal? Not that it proves or disproves anything concrete, but it adds a lot to the suspicion, which is as high as a kite already.



    @Vorticity

    ---"I've been involved with this game on a x-faction global scale for a quite bit now and one of my main observations is that for every RES whining about Niantic favouring ENL there's an ENL saying the opposite. Every ENL raging about RES being THE spoofers that ruin the game is mirrored by a RES arguing the opposite. Anyone who is including these arguments in whatever they are trying to prove, starts off with a major deficit for me.

    sounds reasonable. It's probably 50/50 RES / ENL blame on spoofer-actions worldwide. But, as I clearly stated in my post, I was speaking from a North Sea perspective, where it seems like spoofers by vast majority has hurt ENL player gameplay more than RES. And it's the spoofing of a North Sea portal that's being discussed.



    ---"I think it's awesome if factions come together and reach agreements on what not to do on obvious spoofs, but it will always be brittle rules. Not everyone will know about the more or less sub rosa rules and cases like this one will push the little (HUGE?) things we've accomplished to the brink."

    Having agreements not to cross spoofed lines is a good thing. If respected. Here we have a case where RES has stated (OCD North Sea group) that the agent Beccalicious was "hijacked" and used to do actions on Fair Isle. So, even if NIA has shown trust to the actual owner of the agent and un-banned, it's still 100% spoof - and the portal should therefore be restored by NIA and spoofed lines should be respected until this happens. Today, RES has thrown multiple links to block SW Norway ENL agents from securing the link lane (which actually could have been done without crossing spoofed links), and also RES has linked from Scotland to Shetland to prevent incoming links from both Norway and Iceland.



    ---"There are also rules for portal resets and this was a special case. It was discussed and the verdict was that, like it has been always before, only if there is a ban a portal can be reset. Just like NiaOPS does not reveal reasons for a ban, we do not get details on bans nor spoofs, the only way for us to find out whether a portal is eligible for a reset is by pinging accounts to see if they are banned."

    It seems to me that the rules should be revised. Just by claiming a account is "hijacked" will make it very easy to spoof without having a ticket with the verdict "banned", which triggers the restore. We should discuss how to prevent crossing spoofed lines when this "loophole" may be the future.



    ---"I agree, this was a suspicious take down of the portal (with the facts that made it suspicious obtained by even more suspicious means) but all of it kinda of mood since it seems legit players visited the portals on the other side of the links today."

    Care to clarify what you mean by "obtained by even more suspicious means"? How is the take down moot "since legit players visited portals on the other side"? RES could not have linked if Fair Isle was not spoofed. What's moot about it?



    ---"In the end, compared to two years ago we now have the ability to restore certain portals and links, which has been the result of building trust between players and Niantic, small steps with huge progress in the right direction. But as much as some might think Vanguards are some kind of mythical beings, in the end we are Ingress agents too. Hoping to get in a few links, fields, captures now and then too, being treated the same by NiaOPS as all other agents.

    The concerns have been noted. But for now, it's probably best to be happy with the resets of FIM that have been done so far, that would not have happened 2 years ago and work from there. No one, except a random idiot here and there, is happy with spoofing affecting this game, especially where it affects our wallets like in this case. But let's build upon the progress of the last years and not destroy the progress that has been made."

    It's great that NIA restores spoofed portals and links. But if it can be worked around by claiming Hijack there is no point in playing this game any more.

  • The account was banned because of the spoof = meets the requirement for portal reset.

    The fact that the account was unbanned because it was hijacked doesn't change the above.

  • HendrikTovenaarHendrikTovenaar ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @Kuleramme 

    You are incorrect in your earlier post. RES is following the ruling of Niantic, along with the 'gentlemand agreement' that both RES and ENL signed. As suggested many times above, if you want to make changes to the agreement please let us know. We really don't bite.

    While I understand emotions are involved and the discussion is heated, please refrain yourselves from directing your frustration at RES so blindly. The situation is escalating and there is nothing we can do against the ruling of Niantic. A good example is the RES ops today where every single portal that was linked to Fair Isle (before it was spoofed down) in the southern part of the Netherlands was cleared before linking. Yet agents involved are still receiving threats for participating.

    This topic was initially started to ask for a clarification on the actions that NiaOPS has taken against the account that took down Fair Isle. Vanguard @Vorticity has stated that decisions made by NiaOPS, like in any other scenario, are not shared with the public. He has also stated that the account has been unbanned and that the portal (and links) will not be restored.

    With the initial question answered and the topic continuing down the path of blaming RES, I'd like to propose to lock down the topic to prevent further escalations. Thank you.

  • BrenninsBrennins ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    I see no official answer from NIA here. Why should the thread be locked down?

    There is nothing we can do against the ruling of Niantic? I presume their ruling was that Beccalicious did illegal actions and therefore was banned. And by some miracle the account was unbanned - I guess because of declaring the account to be hijacked, as RES has admitted being the case.

    This still means that Fair Isle map should be restored, since all this bottoms down to the account being used for spoofing. It's pretty easy logic.


    NIAops: Please restore the portal and links. Then close this topic.

  • What is incorrect?

    Do you dispute the actions were spoofs?

    Do you dispute the account was banned?

    Do you dispute the unban was due to hijacking?

  • starwortstarwort ✭✭✭✭✭

    I am mildly amused that there are two simultaneous discussions on the Ingress Community Forum, one saying "Why doesn't Niantic ban those people" and the other saying "Why has Niantic banned these people?".

  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭

    Afaik the agreement states that NIA is the referee ( it wouldn't work if either of the factions would sit on that seat, because there is too much bias). NIA, like any referee in sports, made a bad decision. It's still a decision everyone has to live with, if you like it or not. Yes you can argue about the decision, but it's already made. You can't expect the other team to just sit still while hoping for the referee to reverse it. Also. this last part is also not part of the agreement or so I'm told.

    That said, there's an agreement, that has been in place for quite some time. That agreement is now in RES favour and all of a sudden the agreement doesn't matter anymore. Also people who were part of making that agreement are being kicked from XF collaberation chats against spoofers for honoring that agreement. In other words, everyone who doesn't agree with your faction bias is wrong by definition. There is a double standard here and and people don't see it because of their bias.



  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    I still fail to see any proof.

    If I put on green goggles it's a RES player doing it.

    If I put on blue goggles it's a ENL player doing it.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭


    Just a correction here, if I may.

    When the account was banned, a reset was logged.

    When the account appealed the ban, the reset was put aside pending the outcome of the appeal.

    The appeal was approved, and as such the reset was then removed.

    This is the current procedure, and has been in force for almost 2 years now.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nonsense. NIA needs to clarify. The ticket system is terrible and XFAC this can't be resolved. There is no other place to do this but on this platform.

  • @Azhreia

    You know the actions were spoofed actions and the account was banned for it.

    You know the appeal was successful because it was "hijacked" and I can understand it MAY happen. Still - it doesn't remove the fact that a hard-to-get portal was taken out by illegal actions. Those actions benefit RES so I can understand a number of RES now fight against a portal reset. Tells a lot about the moral of certain people.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    I actually don't know the appeal was successful because it was "hijacked". Ops doesn't reveal the reason for the ban nor the reason the account is reinstated. It's not public verifiable knowledge.

    And thus, we are yet again back to the decision by Ops to reinstate the account. Resets can only be actioned on banned account spoof actions.

    I can well agree it's frustrating. But we are bound by Ops's decision to reinstate the account. Speculation (because you do not have facts) will serve no-one.

  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @Azhreia Why not ask the agent? It is my understanding people have (either asked the agent or received some inside info), but you're just making excuses based on NIA's policies of not revealing information to pick the amoral side of this (give in to the spoofers).

Sign In or Register to comment.