Why does NIA give in to spoofers.

135

Comments

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    It's hardly an excuse. It's a simple fact.

    The very fact that the account was reinstated after an appeal invalidates the reset. Reset criteria doesn't have a clause to say "If account is not banned but has been spoofing, reset is still valid".

    • Account must be banned
    • Takedown action no older than 30 days (ie, still verifiable on comms)
    • Portal must be remote/difficult to get to/little to no signal etc


  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    The account was banned for the offence even though it was unbanned for being hijacked. If you choose to take the biased reading of that first sentence and read it as if the word "permanently" was in it then that's on you. I guess this will then be about the common sense understanding of a 4-word sentence or get it revised ASAP so people don't make unjust decisions from biased readings of it.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is no room for interpretation of a decision by Ops, regarding resets. I'm merely telling you what the criteria is and that it will be upheld. I won't go into the reasons for the ban and reinstate, as it has no bearing on the ultimate result. Account is active, reset is cancelled. Should Ops decide otherwise and inform us, then that's another matter. But speculating on our side on the validity of the request is moot.

    The last say lies with Ops.

  • Well, I think you are well aware you are giving in to the spoofers based litteral reading of some short sentence. This time it benefits your faction... big surprise. I think NIA also is aware the actions are spoofs. I don't know who decides in the end if something is eligible for a portal reset but why don't we see if we can agree that hijacked accounts used for spoofing SHOULD warrant a portal reset?

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    And how do you, a player, determine beyond a shadow of a doubt that an account from another player was hijacked? It opens up a world of he said/she said, and I for one do not want to be in a position to have to make a decision on the matter.

    I'd open myself up to attacks from the faction being disadvantaged. No.

    Decision is with Ops. I'll leave it there.

    We Vanguards have criteria to adhere to regarding resets. I'm not about to put that at risk on opinions and speculations by the player base. I'll defer to Ops, thank you very much.

  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Please re-read the topic of this discussion. If policies of NIA are so that spoofers now have a loophole of using hijacked accounts then they have given in to the spoofers and I see you're fighting fiercely FOR that...

    If policies are wrong, having such loopholes uncovered, you should fight to both change them and to read them in a morally justifiable way. Shame on you.

  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    I think you have to re-read everything @Azhreia has posted. She has said over and over again that NIAOPS decides what gets reinstated and what not. NIAOPS has set requirements for that to happen. In this specific case one of the requirements wasn't met, so there is no reinstatement. How hard is that to understand?

    The playerbase can agree and disagree on every policy there is, but the fact remains that it's NIAOPS that decides when or how these policies are changed and not the playerbase.

    And throwing around the shame on you is pretty pathetic. NIA dropped the ball here and you are blaming all and everyone except NIA. Shame on you. Vanguards like Azhreia are working very hard to make this game more fair for everyone.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    See it this way. Even IF there is a reliable way for Ops to determine an account has been hacked, who's to say that hack wasn't orchestrated with that very account holder in order to clear same-faction blockers, claim hijack, and have the portal reset again? It opens the system up for abuse, and provides a known loophole that can be exploited.

    So. What do we do then?

    Unless Ops decides to allow the reset, we can argue this all week long and still be no further than day one. And as there is no indication of a change in decision, nor even a timeline IF such a decision is even being contemplated, you cannot expect North Sea RES to maintain lanes indefinitely. The game must go on.

    So my suggestion is, work around it. Find new anchors. Make a new plan. Adapt to the situation, shitty as it is, and try to make the best of it.

  • KulerammeKuleramme ✭✭
    edited August 2019

    And the argument here is that based on that hard requirement NIA is giving in to spoofers. There is a loophole and I see a few RES here fiercly defending an abuse of that loophole. The loophole must be closed.

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    In closing, should Ops give the go-ahead that this portal can be reset with an exception to the reset rule, I will happily sign it off and call it a day.

    And I will say again. There is no timeline nor indication that this decision may be overturned. Gameplay should not be halted to wait on an eventuality that may never occur.

  • I closing, I wish you would put more effort into fighting for a change/clarification of NIA policies to close this apparent loophole allowing spoofing with hijacked accounts instead of defending unjust actions that benefit your faction based on flawed policy. Behave like a vanguard... not a regular RES player.

  • ChiisaiKumaChiisaiKuma ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    @Kuleramme Wow so much of what you write is based on your fantasy and assumptions. Such a negative and ugly picture you paint of this situation....

    Why not try to stick to posting stuff you actually have correct info about instead of trying to offend Resistance, individual agents and vanguards based on your personal depressing and incorrect perspective on reality?

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭


    Then stop holding your hands above the account and actions the account did!

  • @roarex i never did that.

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭

    Fair isle report

    portal: Fair Isle Map

    https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=59.537733,-1.603716&z=17&pll=59.537733,-1.603716

    first of all the portal was already killed and left undeployed on the 28th of july by kunmp and restored

    portal was killed and left undeployed on the 30st of july by DocMeow87 and restored

    and on the 1st of august the portal was killed and left undeployed by Beccylicious


    this report will clarify that it's impossible to do this **** after account was seen and recorded being actively fielding in Trondheim (norway)

    first let's start with the distance between the 2 portals of the two actions.



    distance between two portals is 737km


    account Beccylicious was seen linking and capping in Trondheim:

    on the first of august at 17:21 CET



    then at 20:42 CET the account was spotted killing the portal at fair isle map:

    https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=59.537733,-1.603716&z=17&pll=59.537733,-1.603716


    (picture provided by UK player who is on CET -1)


    account used is Resistance account Beccylicious L11



    timings:


    portal actively **** links from in Trondheim:

    Hotell Phoenix Historie

    https://intel.ingress.com/intel?pll=63.304136,9.754724&ll=63.304136,9.754724

    google map location: 63.304136,9.754724


    from there to the airport is roughly an hour.

    then check-in, security and the time you should be at the airport in order to take the flight will add at least one hour.

    then in order to go to the second portal at fair isle map the plane must fly in an access of 650km/h to make the 3h10m between the 2 actions.

    this all if the agent kills the portal from the plane.


    if the agent landed on fair isle and wanted to go to the portal it would be minimal a 23min hike uphill:


    this must be added to the already 2 hour spent getting towards the airfield,

    this gives only 45min left to fly from Trondheim airport to fair isle airport

    750km/h will give a 1000km/h needed speed for the airplane.


    No commercial flights are going from norway to fair isle airport all go via orkney and all are in excess of 24h needed with all transfers of different carriers.

    A private plane will still be 1 hour to the airport in trondheim and also 1 hour for preflight checks and clearance to depart. this will give same speed needed as commercial aviation.

    If agent could directly take off then there would be 2 hours time between the portals subtracting the hour needed to go to the airport, giving a speed of around 375km/h needed to reach the portal.

    No airplane with those specifics can **** the portal without flipping the portal.


    Private planes smaller that you can use to **** portals lack the speed and the range to reach the portal at fair isle map.



    reaction of the account


    account played in germany the day before it played in Norway and agent was playing again in germany the next day.

  • The original post from @roarex was to clarify what had happened in regards to FI spoofing, account being banned and then un-banned - and that NIA needs to do something to not let spoofers win.

    The original post was made on 3rd of august, and there are 20 something posts discussing the spoofing, Until this point there was no discussion about "crossing of spoofed links" until @katth mentioned something about it on the 4th of august. Probably because RES started to link blockers, and not notifying ENL about it at all.

    After that it's been a split discussion about how to respect the agreement and it's function, and a discussion about the actual spoofing (how it's not possible) and what NIA haven't done.

    Again, the point of this discussion isn't about what to do, and what not to do, regarding crossing spoofed links. It's about NIA not restoring the portal due to some loophole. We demand that the Fair Isle portal is restored, as it clearly should be without any doubt and discussion.

    And I hope and believe that also RES agrees that the portal should be restored, since it's clearly been spoofed.

  • So what I'm seeing/reading here is..

    -niantic can't prove the 'hijack'

    -because the hijack it can't be proved either way the ban was reversed.

    -because the ban was reversed so was the portal reset.


    This will now have to be the precedent moving forward. From that, what im understanding from this message from niantic is:

    - niantic understands the portal was spoofed

    - niantic is looking after their 'hijacked customer' by reinstating their account

    - spoofers now have a way to spoof without their accounts being banned

    - everyone's legit account is potentially now a spoofer.


    Now time for all agents to increase their security otherwise your account could end up anywhere.


    Final thought : what would now happen if [Agent name] accidentally posts their password and agent Id in comm (or anywhere else publicly) and then spoofs.. niantic will always reverse the ban?

  • @katth

    "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."


    uhh, what? This is a discussion about a ENL portal being spoofed. I don't really care who did the spoof. I have only stated that it's an odd coincidence that most spoofs hurt ENL more than RES. The RES seems be offended over this statement, but it's the truth. And RES seems to be crying about it, and caring only about that. I don't directly blame RES, I just state that it always seems to work in their favour. How can you object to that really?

    The whole point of this topic is that the portal should be restored. Do you have a remotely good explanation to how an agent can travel from Trondheim city center to Fair Isle portal in 3,5 hours? Please explain, so I can use the same means of travel:)

    The proof of spoof is that the account was banned. The proof of spoof is that the agent traveled an impossible distance.

    The only thing stopping a restore is that NIA, for some reason, have un-banned the agent. The discussion is now about trying to get NIA to realise they need to look into this matter.

  • KatthKatth ✭✭✭
    edited August 2019

    Your previous statement proof otherwise. You do care who spoofed the portal and you do blame RES directly, because you said it was RES doing it. It was basic math after all. You have no way of knowing who or what was behind it. Nobody denies that the spoof hurt ENL more than it did RES. I don't think anyone here has stated otherwise.

    "Most spoofs hurt ENL more than RES" & "It always seems to work in their favour" Just another biased opinion with your faction goggles. You have no idea of knowing this, because odds are you are only aware of those spoofs that puts your faction at a disadvantage. On top of that those also have more value to you and are more easily reminded.

    And as I have said earlier, nobody here is denying the spoof and nobody is denying that NIA exposed a huge flaw. Several people on each side of the fence have worked for years together to get spoofers banned as fast as possible. Fact remains that NIAOPS has created a set of rules that need the be complied with before a portal can be reinstated. Now you can argue with NIAOPS that it needs to change, but you can stop playing the blame game on the players. The only thing it does is create even more bad blood than there already is.

  • @Vorticity "The portal reset program is a product of many small steps taken by RES, ENL, Andrew and Niantic over the last two years. Only months ago the ability to restore links was added. 'Demanding' stuff, saying 'If this does not get restored there's no reason to play Ingress anymore' are way over the top in my opinion. For years we've been able to play it without resetting portals, let alone restoring links.

    Sure, the program is not perfect and this case shows one of the fallacies. The change needed in this case is quite a big one and I think that's why the ruling for now is 'treat it as if the account was not banned'."

    Do you really believe that the player base who spends most of their time and money in game by "playing the North Sea" will continue to spend their time and money when all the work gets destroyed by spoofers? How is this "way over the top"? What's the point of sending agents to remote, expensive portals when the portal won't get restored WHEN spoofed. It's not "IF" anymore....

    Spoofing has been a flaw in the game since day one. I bet a lot of agents have thrown in the towl during the years due to spoofing. Adding the restore of spoofed portals is nothing but good. Nobody is denying it in this thread. Nobody is crying about the restore option being available.

    But, we're suprised and disappointed that NIA doesn't seem to be willing to restore a obvious spoofed portal due to loopholes in their own rules. As you said, a change is needed. And this is the whole point of this topic. I'm sorry if I've contributed to off-topic derailments in this topic, but clarification to dispute RES own interpretations of things seemed to be needed.

    And, "demanding" a change or fix is something I hope NIA will look into and give an official statement about, so we don't waste our time playing a game that's broken.


    @Katth What statements prove otherwise? "That RES can't win without spoofers"? I didn't say RES performed the spoof. But they clearly took advantage of the spoof, by boxing in Fair Isle by throwing links on both sides of the portal - denying ENL links from anywhere. Basic math after all? what? It's OK that RES concluded that the sea is open for linking. But why wait to inform ENL?:)

    Yeah, It might be a biased opinion to state that spoofs work in RES favor, but I'm not speaking generally. As I've said 2 times in this thread: I speak from the viewpoint of my playbox. I really have no time to observe what's going on in Italy, Africa or elsewhere. I've also agreed to someone here who said it's probably 50/50 worldwide.

    I also stated that it's an odd coincidence that local RES stopped visiting to clean high-MU fields after doing it for several days in a row, and then suddenly the fields were spoofed down the night after. If this is to have "faction goggles", I don't even know how to discuss stuff with RES. Am I not allowed to say that something seems to be suspicious? Here locally it is without doubt that ENL is hurt more by the spoofing. It's cool that you agree. But why do you then claim I'm biased?

    As long as I've played this game I can think of maybe 1 or 2 spoofs that were in favor of ENL around my playbox. I've lost count on how many times I've had to fix Skarvøy Lighthouse from spoofing. It's been visited more times by spoofers than RES, which is hysterical. I've also lost count on how many times Fair Isle and Rottumeroog has been spoofed since we started using it for fields. Call it biased or whatever, but you can't deny that it seems odd? But you might be right that I could be more reminded of portals that mean more to me. This still doesn't dispute the fact that, from a north sea perspective, ENL has been on the loosing end due to spoofing. Which you seems to agree on.

    Again, sorry if some if some of my comments contributed to derailments of the real issue at hand: Restoring Fair Isle. Hopeful that NIA will conclude that a restore is in order, as anything other would be illogical. Looking forward to their conclusion, as it will be important for future gameplay.

  • GlenuendoGlenuendo ✭✭✭✭

    Please show me where a conversation such as this has actually been resolved here. All I see is airing of XFAC dirty laundry that will either go on endlessly or the thread gets shut down.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭

    The forums have been around for what? A few months? There is a lot of unknown here that only NIA can clarify, if they would just respond, like in other threads, that would help.

  • roarexroarex ✭✭✭

    account now again banned we are sending in for restore!


  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fair Isle and all qualifying links have been logged for restore.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭

    Great. Why the radio silence from NIA? What's the point of having these forums if they're not going to respond?

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    There's no need to respond on the forum.

  • Jo0LzJo0Lz ✭✭✭✭✭


    Why? What is so hard about "Agents, we have reviewed this bla bla bla.". What's the point if they're not going to provide feedback?

  • AzhreiaAzhreia ✭✭✭✭✭

    They've responded on the ticket that was logged. I really doubt they would respond on a public forum regarding an account status. They haven't before, and I don't think they'll start now.

Sign In or Register to comment.