Request: Modify Portal Selection Criteria "open to some but not to all"

I realize I'm challenging an old rule. I realized it has been challenged many times before, but I feel the need to question it again.

I request changing the "open to some but not to all" selection criteria in selecting portals. I believe that this can cause portals to exist in places where only a select few can access the portal. I find it frustrating when I see a portal that I cannot access because it's on private property or behind a gate. Plus, this can give a team an unfair advantage if the portal in question is a great anchor portal and only one team has people who have regular access to said portal. If that's the case, then it can be very difficult, if not impossible for the other team to take down the portal.

For example, there is a portal in the area where I live that is on private property. This property is a park that is meant for exclusive use of the people in a certain residential area. There are numerous signs outside this area claiming that the area is private property and is not open to the public. The portal is usually gray because no one has access to it. Even though I'm on foot, I cannot interact with the portal without trespassing. Yet, it's a valid portal because it's open to the people of that one community, which means it's open to "some but not all."

I don't think portals on private property, that are accessible by only a few people makes for great gameplay. So, I think that this criteria needs to be changed.

Now, one of the arguments for the "open to some but not to all" selection criteria is "where do you draw the line?" For instance, a shopping mall is on private property. Should all portals on private property be removed, even though the portal is easily accessed by the public? If all the portals on private property were removed, there wouldn't be a whole lot of portals left in the world.

I counter by arguing that one could use this argument the other way to justify almost any portal location. For instance, where does one draw the line when it comes to a portal being open to some but not all? Area 51 is off limits to almost all people. Use of deadly force is authorized if a random stranger went up and tried to trespass on it. But, it's a famous land mark, and it's open to the employees of the base, which is some but not all, so shouldn't that make it a portal candidate? So, I posit that this argument does not make a lot of sense.

I suggest this policy be replaced by a "seasoned traveler" stipulation. (I would use the term random stranger, but seasoned traveler sounds better.) I suggest that the rule be changed to "Can a seasoned traveler safely access the portal in a reasonable time frame?" Here are some definitions I use:

  • Seasoned traveler implies that a person is new to the area. The seasoned traveler does not belong to and is not affiliated with any clubs or organizations in the area. The seasoned traveler is well presented (aka, does not look destitute.) The seasoned traveler is not in trouble with any organizations in the area. The seasoned traveler also wants to sight see.
  • Safely is just what it says. Can the portal be accessed safely?
  • Reasonable time frame would need to be determined for each submission, but should be obvious. For instance, a shopping mall open weekdays from 9 am to 5 pm is open during a reasonable time frame. A landmark open once per year to 100 "outside" people is not open during a reasonable time frame.

How would this change portals and portal submissions? Here are a list of some examples that I would consider "good" portal submissions under the seasoned traveler stipulation:

  • A portal is in the middle of a shopping mall. The shopping mall is open to the public between 9 am to 10 pm. A seasoned traveler can enter the area during shop hours and interact with the portal.
  • A portal is located outside a religious temple. The people who run the temple welcome all visitors to stay outside and explore, but only those who belong to that religion can enter. But, the portal is OUTSIDE the temple, so a seasoned traveler can safely reach the portal in a reasonable time frame.
  • A portal is located at the end of a 5 mile long trail. The trail is safe. The only way to reach that portal is to hike the entire trail. It may be out of the way, but a seasoned traveler can safely access the portal if they want.
  • The portal is in a park that is usually open to the public, but construction has closed the park temporarily. Although the construction is unfortunate, it's expected that some places might be closed off parodically for construction and maintenance. So a seasoned traveler can still access the landmark in a reasonable time frame. Temporarily closed does not mean that a portal should be removed.

Here are some examples of "gray areas," where portal submissions may or may not be allowed and need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.

  • A portal is in an airport on the other side of TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) security. A seasoned traveler might be able to access the portal, but they would need to go through TSA screening first, and may not be able to enter the area at all if they don't have a flight boarding from a gate in the area.
  • A portal is located in a park, but park owners charge a small fee to access the area. A seasoned traveler should have enough money to get to the portal, but should the paywall invalidate the portal?
  • A portal is located in a fairground. Same with the previous example, but here there may not be landmarks to validate the portal's existance.
  • A portal is in the middle of gang controlled terrirtory. This is not safe for a seasoned traveler, although the area is open to the public.
  • A portal is a natural landmark where there is some danger, like ocean currents or falling rocks. There are clear warning signs warning travelers about the dangers of the area. Yet, the landmark is open to the public, and very few deaths occur each year. Is this "safe enough?".
  • The portal is a hill in the middle of a ranch. There are clear no trespassing signs up, but the owners of the ranch don't enforce it and let visitors climb the hill if they want.

Here are some examples of invalid portal location under this new rule:

  • The portal is in the middle of a religious temple, where only members of that religion have access to. In this case, a seasoned traveler will not be able to access the portal.
  • The portal is behind the gates of a hotel. Although travelers visit a hotel, it's assumed that the seasoned traveler does not have membership to that particular hotel. So, the seasoned traveler cannot visit the hotel. Therefore the portal is invalid.
  • The portal is a famous landmark. However, the trail to the landmark is crumbling. The area is fenced off and closed to the public because of the danger. Yet, many people hop the fence and visit the landmark anyway. In this case, it's not safe for the seasoned traveler to visit the landmark, and therefore the portal is invalid.

Comments

Sign In or Register to comment.