Thanks. plus Sandro who I miss most. Very tough attitudes toward violators and full compliance with the standard. Much tougher than others on current customer support line who from my personal perspective are inclined to retain violators in terms of the solution.
Hmm..Funnily enough I've haven't met a spoofer after I made this thread. I am assuming that at the moment in-game reports are handled by Lambert. This is based on only my experience, and can be different by language/timezone/etc.
I just did a search within my mailbox and I can confirm with you that from my side, starting from 2020/Aug until the end of 2020, only Lambert responds if the report is a spoofing case, either escalated to TR or not. Language: English, Mandarin and Japanese. Timezone: GMT+8, GMT+9 preferred but reports filed in various timezone. While for COMM reports there are more than 5 different staffs who respond
The problem is not about whether the proof has weight or not. It's about the fact that general customer support generally does not read the proof. Can't confirm does not justify the fact the proof were not viewed at all.
Forum post ~= Intervention from a warm-hearted Vanguard (like you) = reports from Vanguard's side = a manual review ~= a solution
No forum post, merely do reporting from user's side = no manual review = automatic reply = no solution
Am I reading this right? Forum posts are doing a job that was previously handled by TR bot (Trusted Reporter) before the change for Trusted reporter program.
What I'm asking, is what makes you capable of spotting what no-one else can? I'm sure Niantic is always hiring people who can solve their spoofing detection.
This is literally the example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. A "video split screen" of Ingress and a video, is very easily faked using two different video streams and an easy editor. I'm not claiming that's what that was, but it has been done before in Ingress. For all we know, the person they're accusing could be standing in front of them in the top panel, and the lower panel was shot at a completely different time.
I won't develop this topic here for the same reason as stated in https://nianticlabs.com/blog/cheatingupdate-022321/
We don’t talk much about our anticheat efforts, partly because we don’t want to provide cheaters with information that can help them understand our detection mechanisms better.
while I've already convinced Niantic with the help of documents and proof I provided and successfully banned multiple spoofing sub-accounts controlled by professional spoofers even when "impossible time" is not involved. Any Niantic employee, if doubting that, could check my reporting history.
What I can say is it's hard to prove for user's side that someone is spoofing and even harder to make Niantic confirm that, but it's not impossible to prove, as long as that account is indeed spoofing. Questions like "are you overracting" are actually discouraging people looking for justice.
Yes you are right in some cases or in more cases. But as I said that does not justify the fact that previous customer support did not open that video link at all.
The policy that Niantic has had since the early days, is that they use Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions. Nothing more. Reams of data won't convince them if their own systems can't confirm it.
That's been the primary information coming from both Trusted Reporters and Niantic Support for years.
This sounds like a sophistry. You have stated that "I'm sure Niantic is always hiring people who can solve their spoofing detection." or similar opinion for multiple times.
However, if Niantic really can handle that by themselves then it's no use reporting from user's side. According to your line of reasoning, if supposed the anti-cheat system did not identify the spoofing automatically then they are very likely not spoofing and people are just overreacting. In this case reporting won't succeed because it makes no difference between reviewing automatically or manually if only judging from "Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions"
The fact is a minor part of the spoofing report did succeed. The manual review and automatic detection do make difference.
Besides, this illustrates that you probably have not been doing large quantities of spoofing reporting through the old fast track channel because Trusted Reporters use more than that.
At least Trusted Reporters were collecting information like the screenshot of profile of potential spoofers to see if it's a super obvious suspicious sub-account. Please don't say that they are just double-confirming the agent name.
As someone who was part of the first and second Trusted Reporter programs (which weren't under an NDA), you'd be surprised how much dissembling TR's did (at least back then) simply to get those three pieces of information...
The profile pics are to reassure the TR's that their choice to escalate was appropriate. They weren't passed to NIA Ops.
I don't really care how TR program was organized. What I feel is, previous TR procedure is useful to some extent. At that time, general reporting was not reviewed by customer support at all. Typical automatic replies with no solutions, that's all. All external links listed, even including only "Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions" without other documents that you do not recommend, were not clicked at all.
Once the same reporting materials with same descriptions were sent to TR and were "escalated", spoofers were banned immediately. Yes, same materials. I don't understand why you keep justifying that customer support line did not read general reports. After the change of TR probably they are reading again. Thus what I said here does not impair the reputation of Niantic.
If you stand for us normal players who seek justice, it's better lighting a constructive way for us, rather than a bureaucratic tone.
I don't understand why you keep justifying that customer support line did not read general reports.
Because you're declaring that they should read vast manifestos of why someone's spoofing, while their internal instructions are to only extract the time, place, and agent, and ignore the rest. Because the policy is that they have to provide evidence from their own systems, to ban someone.
After the change of TR probably they are reading again.
I thought your argument was that after the change to Fast Track, they're not reading player reports still?? If you think they're reading all the reports, what's your complaint?
This thread started out as a personal attack on Lambert, morphed into "Fast Track Sucks" and now, after your post, I have no idea where you're going with the hijacking.
Unfortunately I've never said "Fast Track S*cks". Instead I would say previous TR channel very helpful. What I said is, according to experience of not only mine but also some posts here (which are obviously not overreacting because they ultimately went to a solution) general customer support line was not effective before the change of TR procedure no matter how they were promoted. And I'm developing this topic to find a constructive way of reporting in current environment. This has been explained clearly. Please do not obfuscate my opinion and make other think I hate fast track sucks or is hijacking this thread.
And I'm developing this topic to find a constructive way of reporting in current environment.
The constructive way is to submit a Fast Track ticket.
Please do not obfuscate my opinion and make other think I hate fast track sucks or is hijacking this thread.
Considering this is a "Personal attack on member of support thread" that you hijacked, if you're making a completely different point, it might be worth starting a new thread on that topic.
Thank you for making things unmasked. Yes this is the policy, the policy they enforced but never promote or let users especially us reporting volunteers know.
Is the problem lying on us reporting volunteers who were confused during many, many reports that Niantic customer support did not review our documents at all? By saying reporting volunteers I'm referring to myself as a skillful reporter, not those who as you mentioned overreacting in general.
No, I don't think so. If Niantic encourages players seeking justice by reporting spoofers with organized and resonable materials (Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions) then Niantic should let us know so that we could concentrate on these key aspects. This is a Win-Win.
You (let's suppose you stand for Niantic) did not tell us that in general and the internal policy could be found nowhere on the table. Then you ignore our reporting materials which makes us feel that you did not care about anti-spoofing. Afterwards you justify that behavior by saying that it's due to the internal policy which most of the players do not know or feel before they do quite a bunch of reportings.
By the way I see no evidence when @3car making replies in this post that he/she was making a personal attack on Lambert. What I see is a desperate reporting volunteer seeing all cases closed in vain (automatic replies with no solutions) after much work of collecting documents. I might be wrong but if this is exactly the case, rather than putting a label on him/her, isn't it better for you to assist him and guide him onto the correct way? This is what I'm trying to develop here.
Based on my observation, if you would like to make in-app invalid portal reporting works, you have to ensure there are sufficient google street views covering the entire area of the portal. Better upload them (the more captures, the better chance). And the portal must be visible or invisible directly on the satelite view.
Anyway you could still turn to https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/categories/removal-appeals for a solution by providing complicated materials. if the first in-app reporting was rejected.
Lambert isn't the head of Operations. They don't make policy. Declaring that "Lambert changed things" is a personal attack against a Niantic support staff member.
If you've got suggestions on how to change what NIA Ops does, I suggest directing them to @NianticPooja .
And since Lambert has been present at Niantic, since at least when they started putting names to Support agents in 2017 (before that it was NianticOps only), it seems personal to target them specifically.
I see it as "I think that Ingress support, when replying to spoofing reports, uniformly changed the title/sender to Lambert, as I saw Lambert only". Actually this is
Yeah, that's not what a post specifically titled "Lambert" implies.
If you report spoofing and multi accounts, it is the human Lambert that responses.
Regardless, if you're attempting to discuss a real issue not related to human Lambert, I'd suggest a new thread with a far less controversial and critical title, that Support might be more open to reading.
Comments
Thanks. plus Sandro who I miss most. Very tough attitudes toward violators and full compliance with the standard. Much tougher than others on current customer support line who from my personal perspective are inclined to retain violators in terms of the solution.
Hmm..Funnily enough I've haven't met a spoofer after I made this thread. I am assuming that at the moment in-game reports are handled by Lambert. This is based on only my experience, and can be different by language/timezone/etc.
I just did a search within my mailbox and I can confirm with you that from my side, starting from 2020/Aug until the end of 2020, only Lambert responds if the report is a spoofing case, either escalated to TR or not. Language: English, Mandarin and Japanese. Timezone: GMT+8, GMT+9 preferred but reports filed in various timezone. While for COMM reports there are more than 5 different staffs who respond
The problem is not about whether the proof has weight or not. It's about the fact that general customer support generally does not read the proof. Can't confirm does not justify the fact the proof were not viewed at all.
Well, the most striking example, which for some reason has never been viewed in support (judging by YouTube statistics)According to a super obvious spoofing case https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/13393/another-spoofing-incident-in-korolev
Forum post ~= Intervention from a warm-hearted Vanguard (like you) = reports from Vanguard's side = a manual review ~= a solution
No forum post, merely do reporting from user's side = no manual review = automatic reply = no solution
Am I reading this right? Forum posts are doing a job that was previously handled by TR bot (Trusted Reporter) before the change for Trusted reporter program.
I didn't file that report. I helped the agent in submitting their own report.
Sofonisba and Tura have responded to many of my spoofer reports as have many other names. I don't submit anything but spoofer reports to Support.
I'm plenty familiar with the capabilities.
What I'm asking, is what makes you capable of spotting what no-one else can? I'm sure Niantic is always hiring people who can solve their spoofing detection.
This is literally the example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. A "video split screen" of Ingress and a video, is very easily faked using two different video streams and an easy editor. I'm not claiming that's what that was, but it has been done before in Ingress. For all we know, the person they're accusing could be standing in front of them in the top panel, and the lower panel was shot at a completely different time.
Everybody lies.
I won't develop this topic here for the same reason as stated in
https://nianticlabs.com/blog/cheatingupdate-022321/We don’t talk much about our anticheat efforts, partly because we don’t want to provide cheaters with information that can help them understand our detection mechanisms better.while I've already convinced Niantic with the help of documents and proof I provided and successfully banned multiple spoofing sub-accounts controlled by professional spoofers even when "impossible time" is not involved. Any Niantic employee, if doubting that, could check my reporting history.
What I can say is it's hard to prove for user's side that someone is spoofing and even harder to make Niantic confirm that, but it's not impossible to prove, as long as that account is indeed spoofing. Questions like "are you overracting" are actually discouraging people looking for justice.
Questions like "are you overracting" are actually discouraging people looking for justice.
Based on the info from that recent post, coupled with other statements from the past, yes, many many people are.
Yes you are right in some cases or in more cases. But as I said that does not justify the fact that previous customer support did not open that video link at all.
Actually 100% it does justify it.
The policy that Niantic has had since the early days, is that they use Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions. Nothing more. Reams of data won't convince them if their own systems can't confirm it.
That's been the primary information coming from both Trusted Reporters and Niantic Support for years.
This sounds like a sophistry. You have stated that "I'm sure Niantic is always hiring people who can solve their spoofing detection." or similar opinion for multiple times.
However, if Niantic really can handle that by themselves then it's no use reporting from user's side. According to your line of reasoning, if supposed the anti-cheat system did not identify the spoofing automatically then they are very likely not spoofing and people are just overreacting. In this case reporting won't succeed because it makes no difference between reviewing automatically or manually if only judging from "Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions"
The fact is a minor part of the spoofing report did succeed. The manual review and automatic detection do make difference.
Besides, this illustrates that you probably have not been doing large quantities of spoofing reporting through the old fast track channel because Trusted Reporters use more than that.
At least Trusted Reporters were collecting information like the screenshot of profile of potential spoofers to see if it's a super obvious suspicious sub-account. Please don't say that they are just double-confirming the agent name.
As someone who was part of the first and second Trusted Reporter programs (which weren't under an NDA), you'd be surprised how much dissembling TR's did (at least back then) simply to get those three pieces of information...
The profile pics are to reassure the TR's that their choice to escalate was appropriate. They weren't passed to NIA Ops.
I don't really care how TR program was organized. What I feel is, previous TR procedure is useful to some extent. At that time, general reporting was not reviewed by customer support at all. Typical automatic replies with no solutions, that's all. All external links listed, even including only "Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions" without other documents that you do not recommend, were not clicked at all.
Once the same reporting materials with same descriptions were sent to TR and were "escalated", spoofers were banned immediately. Yes, same materials. I don't understand why you keep justifying that customer support line did not read general reports. After the change of TR probably they are reading again. Thus what I said here does not impair the reputation of Niantic.
If you stand for us normal players who seek justice, it's better lighting a constructive way for us, rather than a bureaucratic tone.
I don't understand why you keep justifying that customer support line did not read general reports.
Because you're declaring that they should read vast manifestos of why someone's spoofing, while their internal instructions are to only extract the time, place, and agent, and ignore the rest. Because the policy is that they have to provide evidence from their own systems, to ban someone.
After the change of TR probably they are reading again.
I thought your argument was that after the change to Fast Track, they're not reading player reports still?? If you think they're reading all the reports, what's your complaint?
This thread started out as a personal attack on Lambert, morphed into "Fast Track Sucks" and now, after your post, I have no idea where you're going with the hijacking.
Unfortunately I've never said "Fast Track S*cks". Instead I would say previous TR channel very helpful. What I said is, according to experience of not only mine but also some posts here (which are obviously not overreacting because they ultimately went to a solution) general customer support line was not effective before the change of TR procedure no matter how they were promoted. And I'm developing this topic to find a constructive way of reporting in current environment. This has been explained clearly. Please do not obfuscate my opinion and make other think I hate fast track sucks or is hijacking this thread.
And I'm developing this topic to find a constructive way of reporting in current environment.
The constructive way is to submit a Fast Track ticket.
Please do not obfuscate my opinion and make other think I hate fast track sucks or is hijacking this thread.
Considering this is a "Personal attack on member of support thread" that you hijacked, if you're making a completely different point, it might be worth starting a new thread on that topic.
Thank you for making things unmasked. Yes this is the policy, the policy they enforced but never promote or let users especially us reporting volunteers know.
Is the problem lying on us reporting volunteers who were confused during many, many reports that Niantic customer support did not review our documents at all? By saying reporting volunteers I'm referring to myself as a skillful reporter, not those who as you mentioned overreacting in general.
No, I don't think so. If Niantic encourages players seeking justice by reporting spoofers with organized and resonable materials (Agent Name, Location, and Time of Interactions) then Niantic should let us know so that we could concentrate on these key aspects. This is a Win-Win.
You (let's suppose you stand for Niantic) did not tell us that in general and the internal policy could be found nowhere on the table. Then you ignore our reporting materials which makes us feel that you did not care about anti-spoofing. Afterwards you justify that behavior by saying that it's due to the internal policy which most of the players do not know or feel before they do quite a bunch of reportings.
Things should not work in this way.
By the way I see no evidence when @3car making replies in this post that he/she was making a personal attack on Lambert. What I see is a desperate reporting volunteer seeing all cases closed in vain (automatic replies with no solutions) after much work of collecting documents. I might be wrong but if this is exactly the case, rather than putting a label on him/her, isn't it better for you to assist him and guide him onto the correct way? This is what I'm trying to develop here.
Based on my observation, if you would like to make in-app invalid portal reporting works, you have to ensure there are sufficient google street views covering the entire area of the portal. Better upload them (the more captures, the better chance). And the portal must be visible or invisible directly on the satelite view.
Anyway you could still turn to https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/categories/removal-appeals for a solution by providing complicated materials. if the first in-app reporting was rejected.
Lambert isn't the head of Operations. They don't make policy. Declaring that "Lambert changed things" is a personal attack against a Niantic support staff member.
If you've got suggestions on how to change what NIA Ops does, I suggest directing them to @NianticPooja .
I searched the whole post with keyword "change" but failed to find that @3car declared that "Lambert changed things" or made similar statement.
I think that Ingress support changed post Lambert.
And since Lambert has been present at Niantic, since at least when they started putting names to Support agents in 2017 (before that it was NianticOps only), it seems personal to target them specifically.
I see it as "I think that Ingress support, when replying to spoofing reports, uniformly changed the title/sender to Lambert, as I saw Lambert only". Actually this is
Yeah, that's not what a post specifically titled "Lambert" implies.
If you report spoofing and multi accounts, it is the human Lambert that responses.
Regardless, if you're attempting to discuss a real issue not related to human Lambert, I'd suggest a new thread with a far less controversial and critical title, that Support might be more open to reading.