There is a huge difference between muting someone who had twice issued personal attacks on other players, something clearly in violation of the rules on courtesy and respect, verses deleting any and every comment from an opposing viewpoint and then banning a dozen or more people from ever participating again, without warnings and while fabricating reasons for the bans.
It is not an easy balance to keep peace and respect while also allowing people to express various viewpoints. Deliberate trolling is not cool either, which is clearly what has been happening.
Niantic cannot control any of these facebook groups directly unless they create their own and we'd MUCH rather have them focus on getting the criteria into something like a workable state than dealing with managing a facebook group. That said we should really try to refrain from petty bickering. That only causes more issues in the long run and buries the relevant issues. The only reason this issue was brought here is because a whole group of people were being systematically silenced elsewhere, in a very calculated attempt to manipulate and control information about reviewing in order to let one group's admin, not Niantic and their staff, decide portals would get approved.
Well whatever you do don't head over to the subreddit. The same ego maniac mod is the mod for a half dozen Niantic games subreddits and he systematically bans anyone who disagrees with popular opinion. Heaven forbid you should disagree with him and complain because he spends months making reddit complaints trying to get your account banned.
Must be extremely small subreddits. The regular subreddits (r/NianticWayfarer, r/TheSilphRoad, and r/pokemongo) don't have issues with censoring contrary points of views unless they are clearly blatant troll, like TimerClock.
He's probably referring to that one guy who kept talking about ingress users getting off on denying wayspots and tried to "fight" another user.
Are you still mad they took down your anti-ingress meme?
And then got downvoted for complaining about mods abusing powers for removing it?
One big reason I dislike the large Facebook group is how anti-Ingress it is. Blames Ingress Agents for having a love of rejecting and hating having fun, instead of some certain submitters just having the emotional maturity to handle a POI reject in a video game.
Jamie Kay is in Reddit too? That's disturbing.
He’s not one of the mods of the Wayfarer Subreddit.
Perhaps he is trying to insinuate that u/liehon and Jamie Kay are the same individual. Of course, that doesn't make sense because u/liehon removed an anti-Ingress meme that was posted in r/NianticWayfarer and Jamie is anti-Ingress.
I've never seen any of you people in the same room.
LoL you've reposted that meme more than I have. It goes way beyond a simple meme. Maybe look into what subreddits Liehon is actually a mod on and start asking yourself how one person can control the message on so many boards. Or you can keep crying about one meme. I'm betting on the latter.
Sounds like the same guy who is doing this in the Facebook group, Jamie Kay.
No, the one on Reddit who got removed from the group played Ingress too.
Edit: Somehow a post of mine double-posted after over a day later.
Double phantom post. Odd indeed.
There is a post on the Niantic Wayfarer Reviewers and Nominators Facebook page today titled: All military submissions are 1* correct?
Someone from Niantic should really read the comments here because it illustrates just how useless the current guidelines are.
Even though Andrew Krug's AMAs clearly stated that ANYTHING on a military base should be 1-starred, the Wayfarer guidelines state they should only be given 1-star if it interferes with emergency services. The overwhelming majority of PoGo reviewers and nominators have no clue what the AMAs are, nor do they even care if you mention them because they only care (can't blame them) what the Wayfarer guidelines say. So now we have people submitting and approving POIs on bases because Niantic can't seem to clearly communicate (intentionally?) their guidelines.
Here are a few comments from the thread (again the question posed is: All military submissions are 1* correct?
CAN WE PLEASE GET CLEAR GUIDELINES CONCERNING MILITARY BASE SUBMISSIONS?
I asked this question and pointed out that the wording currently in Wayfarer does not point to a blanket rejection of all base submissions in the November AMA and Krug said to go by the Wayfarer guides. This confusion was pointed out directly to both Krug and NianticCasey and nothing was fixed in Wayfarer so it seems like they're ok with military wayspots that do not obstruct emergency services or operations. IE: at a residential park on base.
Admin Jamie Kay is advocating for more Private Residential Property wayspots again.
Oof, if Niantic let a PRP portal be a featured Wayspot, that's on them.
@NianticCasey, here are two posts that would be great if you addressed some misleading and inaccurate posts, as you mentioned was your goal.
In one post, somebody is admitting they will continue nominating something even they have admitted is prp but they don't think meets the "spirit" and should be accepted anyways, where both admin have chimed in support. Both posts show screenshots of a featured Wayspot that appears to be on a garage (potentially prp but unclear) that admin and others are using to push the agenda that garages on prp are acceptable.
This shows both a systematic issue with feathered Wayspots and admin misleading reviewers.
The goal of my participation in this group is to address some of these misleading or inaccurate posts, since many of these players are not Ingress players and we don't yet have a unified place for Wayfarer reviewers to interact cross-game, but I admittedly don't have much bandwidth to spend on it, and it seems as though some things are slipping through.
And there is no guarantee that the featured wayspot is even PRP, could be a commercial property with an overhead door and Mural but the admins are trying to advocate for more PRP because they make up their own rules and flaunt the Niantic guidelines.
I'm sorry...."houses for cars"???
Yesterday there was a shared rejection that appeared to be a Little Free Library at a Single Family Private Residential Property. I shared the February 2018 AMA clarification and my breakdown of it that I keep stored in a notepad app. My comments and all the sub comments were deleted and Jamie commented telling them to take a better picture.
Here is the screenshot I posted.
Here's is my breakdown since it is collapsed on the screenshot. I knew it was getting deleted and was in a hurry and forgot to expand it:
February 2018 AMA: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (A)--->(right-of-way or not)<---, it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's (B)--->not associated to any private residence<---, that should be ok.It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a (C)--->global game<---, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.
This is for Single Family Private Residential Property:
(A) If they own all the land between the house and the street they are to be rejected even if other people are allowed to pass through and even if there is a sidewalk.
(B) If the land ownership stops somewhere between the house and the street, whether the property there is called Right of Way, easement, verge, or whatever else you call it, it is to be rejected because it is a common area that _is_ associated with a Single Family PRP.
(C) This is a global rule. They are sticking to one prp rule for everywhere, if it's between Single Family Private Residential Property and the street, it is to be rejected.
There were a couple more comments that the op was unhappy there were existing LFL on SFPRP Wayspots and I suggested that if they made him unhappy he could report them via Ingress or Pokemon Go and shared this screenshot:
After everything was deleted it went from 17 comments to 5 visible at the time as shown here:
Jamie Kay promotes Wayspots on SFPRP such a garage murals and Little Free Libraries and removes comments sharing the Niantic guidelines and AMA clarifications that state they are ineligible.
If my SFPRP breakdown contains any errors or misinterpretations I will modify it as needed if any different official information is made known to me.
He keeps trying to insist a mass produced indoor bulletin board inside a university building is eligible due to Niantic claiming community boards be treated like LFL depending on circumstances, which to them means since its bolted to the wall it's always a 5☆ submission regardless of whatever the circumstances may be.
"Situational" is as "situational" does I guess.
Yes, Niantic support was tagged in that post in facebook also. Although there are people posting that they do not agree with or follow the guidelines, at least here people are able to post both viewpoints and not have comments deleted. There is some value in allowing people to have dialog about those guidelines and point out cases where they are perhaps needing further evaluation. The one comment that really surprised me was the canadian who posted an article citing where the military base there ASKED to have a gym on their museum. If the base staff is asking for the wayspots, then it seems like a good case for an exception, or adjustment to the guideline. On the other hand, I posted suggesting that people consider the reasoning for the guideline and the liability concerns.
Looking forward to Niantic getting a clear update on this issue!
It is sad, but also funny, how many people misunderstand the "Featured Wayspot" It is NOT in any way an endorsement by Niantic, it is simply a highlighting of a recent nomination that got approved. Sometimes one that got approved contrary to the guidelines, as is likely in the case shown.
This Wayspot is a new beautiful example of a cultural or historic landmark that is easy to access for all.
I know what you mean, I know you know, but it literally reads like an endorsement. That's why we've several times asked Niantic to remove or change it.
Featured Wayspots have shown nominations that are reject per the guides and even sometimes including watermarks. They also don't tell the whole story (description & substantiation) so it can confuse people making nominations into thinking that everything similar is eligible.
Sad, funny, yes. Also frustrating when dealing with people who interpret that as blanket approvals.
Sharing some screenshots just intended to help reiterate how critical it is that we get the updated Wayfarer guide published, soon. I imagine it's a huge undertaking, but frankly it creates unnecessary conflict between communities when it comes to understanding some of the things the AMAs have helped address.
Edit to add:
The discussions linked pertain to whether or not candidates on military bases are eligible. Regardless of whether or not they are (Ingress community goes back to an AMA saying they are not), the posts were presented:
That's an Ingress AMA, if they can't be bothered to put it on Wayfarer then bases are still eligible... The AMA is outdated, it's just the opinion of someone who used to manage the Ingress community for Niantic. Wayfarer is the current guidelines for review.
That is not not typical stance from PoGO reviewers, but the longer it takes to get updated guides, the longer this misinformation can continue to spread.
Thanks for reading, @NianticCasey, we look forward to the big news!
Any time someone states that the AMAs "don't apply" or are "outdated", quote them this.
As insightful and helpful a that genuinely is, @TheFarix (and is a good point, thanks I'll be sure to post), many similar comments like that end up getting deleted by that group's moderators. And, anyone who still wants to argue isn't going to suddenly be convinced to do the right thing.
"That post is in an Ingress forum, I don't have access." "Still doesn't apply to PoGO." "I still don't agree with that."