I like that last bit very much and would use it for sure given the situation. There are other games that allow you to disable "All chat" and keeps "Team chat" active. That could apply to ingress and would work very well in my opinion. Finally a suggestion!
And yes, I'm willing to make sacrifices, but put me down with the rest of those who may get vanquished :)
Pretty sure that suggestion was mentioned earlier in this discussion. Possibly by @Hosette
Easy to miss amongst all the conspiracies here, I guess
Yes they are. I got two warnings for same incident. This panicked me as 3rd strike was a ban.
Not for COMM incident, but considering I had zero interaction with anyone after first warning came in and then receiving a second it stands that multiple reports, at least sometimes, generate multiple reports.
To doubly make me angry was the incident details, (which a friendly agent told me) was all made up lies. So, two warnings, one incident, based on a lie.
I appealed and got nowhere. This was years ago now but I'm still sad about it.
I personally have not seen multiple warnings for COMM that were unfair.
I have seen outright account ban for COMM but the messages sent were totally beyond the pale and not printable.
We are discussing Comm warnings specifically.
Yes, while I really doubt that it's still the amount of tickets that prioritize the report and the sending warnings process is done automatically while sending bans are done manually because if it were me that design such system I would do so to reach a balance between saving the cost and comforting most of the players.
Anyway, it's still my assumption. I'll see if I could recruit anyone to do that kind of experiments and hope Niantic wouldn't ban me for doing such experiments and prove some fault of system design if any. if players with 0 message history can receive warnings for welcome then it explains everything we worry about.
I very much doubt that OPs told you what incidents the warnings were for, so claiming that they were for the same incident is a bit of a stretch, especially when you at the same time claim that there was no incident at all.
Apart from that, this is really very different from the COMM warnings explicitly discussed here. OPs has a log of COMM messages with exact timing, but for interactions happening beyond their servers they depend on external data, which might not reach them in real time. So here it is possible that they have new data concerning things happening before a previous warning.
Note that there's a difference between prioritizing a report and affecting the outcome of the investigation triggered by it.
I'm also not sure if your experiment would explain everything you worry about. An example of an unjustified warning would show that those can happen (not too surprisingly, since it's already known that humans can make mistakes, and since real-life cases often are less clear than such a constructed one). But it wouldn't show which or how many of the real cases you worry about are unjustified warnings, it wouldn't give any data on the effect of the number of reports, and it wouldn't show to which degree humans and/or algorithms are involved in the process.
Yes you are right. But if it goes as I expect, then there would be a valid reason for Niantic Support to do something about abu.sers of the system as said in https://community.ingress.com/en/discussion/comment/146207/#Comment_146207 because in this case there are definitely abu.sers, if not exploiting an automatic algorightm, still exploiting or trying to create the mistakes that real human from customer support channel can make, by doing SPAM reports.
I'll keep it short as this thread is for COMM.
The warnings I got were 2x for irl threatening behaviour. Yes, I did interact with an agent irl, was I threatening, no. Details of what I supposedly did as passed onto me, were not true. The second warning for same thing came through within 24hrs of first warning. "Continued bad behaviour to other agents".
At no time did I threaten the person, (who is now perma banned).
In the intervening time, I had zero interaction with any other agent. Go figure.
I already went figure and explained it to you. So I'll keep it short as well, as you just can go read what I already wrote. For IRL incidents the time windows when they happen are not the same as the time windows when OPs hear about them. The incident meant in the second warning doesn't have to have happened after the first warning, it can also have happened before the first warning and OPs just didn't know about it at that time. You have no grounds for concluding that both warnings concern the same incident.
The discussion was stirred up a lot, and let me see what I see is needed to be discussed.
First of all, I still think humans reviews all tickets. Yes, they may simply press a button that has automated process when receiving a ticket, but that is efficiency. Thinking that they read every single comms of every report seems a bit absurd, and that is room for improvement. Which leads to..
Second, I think the design of how the so-called COMM ban is completely wrong ATM. As mentioned here in this discussion,
and from another discussion,
(TL; DR: Some agents banned for condolences in COMMS, bans, lifted after Brian sees it)
(Disclaimer: I couldn't see if the condolences actually could violate the ToS.)
The design has loopholes for multi accounts to be utilized, as seen time by time on these forums. For those who are blocked by many agents, I don't think that they will receive a fair ban, which in turn leads to a whole bunch of 'I can't trust support' things again. Its design is also bad for agents to use COMMs when they really need it, as I think that people who block someone hardly manages that list and keep them blocked.
To wrap up, automated reviews of tickets are not a bad thing if done correctly. But Ingress support takes zero trust approach in spoofing and multi account issues, where unless found guilty the accused are innocent. This is not the approach we find in COMMs, as COMM reports approach like 'if many people see guilt, right or not, the accused is found guilty'. And guilty forever as long as he/she is blocked.
So my suggestion: disabling COMMs is a radical approach. Remove taking how many blocks are taken into account.
Disabling COMM is indeed very radical, but it is intended to create a time window where Niantic can actually study modifications based on conflictive areas, which are more likely to suffer from abuse.
Topic is support requiring urgent attention and COMM is the most obvious example of this issue.
@GoblinGranate I assume you are familiar with the parable of the blind men and the elephant? I'm up here fondling an ear and comm doesn't even make my top 3 list.
Fully agree, but COMM would be just an easy way to start and cheaper than top issues regarding support and also the most obvious.
I have several post were I point out spoofing as top priority issue and a thread listing different issues currently affecting different communities and I never mentioned COMM in any of them.
About that parable, I'm not familiar with that one.
So... should I assume that every agent meeting this issues is touching the same part of the elephant? How does the elephant look like from the castle, my lady? Also, this elephant would not be possible to touch from anywhere else as we only have one way to interact with support: ticketing. I don't think your apreciation is correct at all.
Been submitting, btw, some more tickets recently and daily amount has little fluctuations from this blind man view.
Sorry, but I know when I interacted with people. Both came within 24hrs of the incident, weeks and weeks prior I had no in person interaction with any agent on the field and certainly none in the short time after.
Two warnings, for same thing, within 24hours. Agent who relayed the awful things I did, (untrue) told me I was mass reported by the bad actors. (All of whom now long permabanned).
It was just a blatant attempt to get my account banned by some lowlives.
Here is what happened for anyone curious. We had a pub farm running. With 8-10 friendly agents. Agent X of opposite faction was circling pub with his and his wifes account attacking, for almost an hour. Agent X then parked with his high beams on shining onto us.
I went out, saw his wife was not with him and asked him to please stop cheating and acting badly by harassing us. At no time did I threaten him, or get closer than a meter or so from his vehicle. (I am well aware of what could be reported so was cautious). He even wound his window down to converse. He drove off. It was heated but no threats.
The storey I heard back was I bashed on his vehicle and physically threatened him. Lol he was in a huge 4WD and could have beaten 50 year old me into a pulp.
Warning arrived that evening and another the next day.
He later got banned for spoofing and multi accounts.
I can understand multiple tickets and poor cross referencing.
XFAC COMM imho should have an OFF toggle as suggested by Azhreia. I think that's the simplest solution.
People commenting and replying to your concerns in this topic are volunteering their time to explain things.
@GoblinGranate I was basically saying that different people will perceive most urgent issue/most obvious example differently based on what issues are causing them the most personal pain. I understand intellectually that comm/comm support is painful for some people but the support issues I face have to do with cheating (spoofing, multi-accounting) and support or lack thereof.
It's easy to opt out of participating in comms. It's not easy to opt out of having stuff spoofed up/down or having spoofers leveling in your neighborhood with impunity.
This is a case of "If all you can think of is a hammer, everything is a nail" though. Blocking toxic people is effective... if you do it. Having a nanny state because you can't bring yourself to silence your tormenter just seems like your tormentor knows you're easily baited and will find other ways to troll you.
Meanwhile, attempts to revitalise the game by building up the community will be flattened. Communication is what people make of it, good or bad. The best way to start, is by using your influence over your own team to ensure that at least one side is doing the right thing, and communicating in positive and constructive ways both within the faction and across faction lines.
Use Block in the way it was intended. Simple as that. You get the best of both worlds, where you don't get drawn into the toxic conversations, and you can continue to have constructive conversations.
As with many of the "problems" in Ingress, this is a problem of people, not a problem of the game. The more people treat trolls the same way they would in real life, the less they're going to continue to foster a high school drama environment. If you identify a troll, block them. Encourage your friends to block them if they're having an issue too.
I guarantee you that everyone complaining about a troll saying bad things to them has not done it, or you literally wouldn't have them doing it. As with real life starve bullies and trolls of attention, and they find somewhere else to try. If everyone in the region is blocking someone because they won't stop trolling, soon they'll just be playing by themselves. Either they'll decide to change in order to reintegrate with the team, or you simply won't have to deal with them.
This is not a problem with the game. Its just a problem with humans.
This is weird and horrible. I was always thinking that when reporting inappropriate players on the field, it requires documents like police reports to get Niantic support to warn or ban somebody. Sounds like he just sent some reports and then you got the warnings twice very soon without any police report? So does that mean anyone could possibly be attacked by forged "Hara.ssment on the field" reports?
Yes. And based on experience it took someone at least 10 multi accounts(cross-faction verified) and numerous tries for one successful attempt. On our side it took 9 support tickets to 'temporarily' lift the ban. Losing sojourner is a plus.
Yours is a fair point, but what should those who make a legit use of COMMs do to avoid the abuse then? Simply not using it.
This is the whole point, if solution to victims is "block and don't use COMMs" then abusers are passively rewarded. I wish I could just block the problem away, but my blocked agents list is very long and it didn't solve nothing. Same goes for those who create backpacks just to keep tagging others, block it, a new one appears shortly after and in the meantime COMMs are flooded with trash messages that will surely drive away any freshman and promote the flattening of any attemp of building a community, as you stated.
Of course, advise will always be to avoid interaction, the argument is not there.
Yours is a fair point, but what should those who make a legit use of COMMs do to avoid the abuse then?
That's definitely a possibility. Never open chat.
But the chat, when used appropriately, is a very important part of growing the Ingress community. Being told "Just turn off chat completely" to new players would seriously damage legitimate teamwork and bringing new players into the fold.
"block and don't use COMMs" then abusers are passively rewarded.
This is the FOMO that gives all the power to the abusers. If you block them, they're not rewarded. If everyone blocks them, they aren't even heard by anyone. The longer you allow trolls to communicate with you, the more the trolls win.
If everyone blocks an abusive player, that player can yell into the void all they like... and no-one will hear them.
Freshmen would! Imagine entering a game you don't know and using the chat for the very first time and getting 2 different messages: one from a troll trying to find new ears to whisper to and another from another player telling you that the previous one is a troll and recommending you to quit using COMMs and create, for example, a Telegram account.
Who would you trust? Would you even consider invest time playing? I recruited an agent once that reached l4, happened to read the chat and decided that the game was not for her and left it, all the very same day. Surely, not a common issue, but there it is! Although this case would not be affecting to the topic, which is support, as no tickets would have been sent, which is also a normal thing when you are new to any game.
Well then, let's all block all those report abusers!
So why are the warnings and bans issued if all those reports from abusers could have just been replied the same way?
Tell all those 'sensitive' players that all they need is to just block their victims! Instead of punishing randomly.
If you respond, then you clearly aren't offended or being harassed. Because if you were you'd simply block them. So when you reply with pithy aggressive responses to trolls, you're proving that you aren't bothered by it. Or at least that's the logic explained by Niantic.
So yes. Block the abusers. Remove yourself from the trolls. Stop being a victim and demanding someone else protect you. You are the architect of your own destiny.
It's a FAR BETTER plan than shutting down COMM completely because you have no self control and can't avoid being taunted by trolls.
Oh, man, that is definetely how the internet should be, but I'm afraid that is not the current culture we live in.
But we are constantly dodging the topic of support requiring attention. If we want a better game, we need a better support. One way to reduce the amount of incoming tickets could be disabling XF COMMs and lots of real cases of system abuse have been described.
What other ways to reduce ticketing could be possible? The intention of the topic was to bring the problem to front page and also try to get ideas for its reduction. Also, I still have hope that someone from Niantic will show up and clarify any of this.
So now if one replies, it is not offensive!? :D
I'm not demanding protection. LOL
I'm asking for fairness on handling those reports!
Having to have the solution on the victim, by blocking the abusers, is not a real solution! It is not a solution telling someone, to throw away all hers/his stuff, just so no one will be able to steal from him/hers! Makes no sense!
Your comments always seem to end on blaming the players. Why? Is it too much work to go on one of those "secret meetings" and tell whoever that there are a great deal of players which are pointing fingers to your report systems?
It will take some long time until I drop this. Or it will take some change in the eyes of the users. Meaning that if you punish anyone in minutes (and I'm not talking 10minutes), you better be 500% sure it was a fair punishment, otherwise it should take days (the very least).
You are assuming the bulk of those tickets are for comm harassment? Please note that tickets are also logged for cheating, bugs, account issues, even just gameplay questions. We don't know what percentage of those tickets are allocated to a particular category, or even if all those tickets are Ingress-specific, and I don't think Niantic would release that information either.
Disabling xfac comms for everyone is not the answer. The problem isn't present in all communities. I would even wager to say its not a problem in MOST communities.
The only assumption I'm doing is that all those daily tickets are ingress related. I WISH COMM harrasment was the only problem exisiting in this game. And that is why some insights from Niantic behalf would be such a blessing.
As I said in previous messages, disabling COMMs is not a valid solution for me either, but I still think that it hep more than nothing.
Dunno if this is still about it, but God yes, the support in ingress needs improved dramatically, literally the most backwards thing to try and use, there's no way to get specific issues looked at amd trying to follow the sub categories leads to dead ends and conversations cut off