Portal Removal Appeal

Category: Invalid Portal Report

Title of the Portal: Conimicut Point Lighthouse

Location: https://intel.ingress.com/intel?ll=41.717028,-71.345159&z=21

City: Warwick, Rhode Island

Country: United States

Screenshot of the Rejection Email: N/A

Photos to support your claim:

This portal was removed primarily due to faction bias as it has been long controlled by ENL. Requesting reinstatement.



  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    Portals must have safe pedestrian access. Access by boat does not count.

  • There are plenty of portals in other cities/states/countries that I can't access without getting on a plane or boat, doesn't mean any of them are invalid. Someone can get to them.

  • Challenging portals are one of the best parts of the game. I'd much rather paddle out to a lighthouse than explore painted utility boxes.

  • How do you think the light house keeper changes bulbs, refuel it, or you know do their job. I know it's electric now but historically wasn't.

    The standard isn't ADA access it's that anyone can access safely. Multiple folks have accessed this.

    The city of Warwick is literally looking to turn it into a hotel.

    Just because some folks are negligent in taking basic safely precautions doesn't make it unsafe.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    The lighthouse is not accessable by foot, therefore it was not a valid portal. All portals are required to have safe pedestrian access.

  • I understand your confusion, but this is a request for reinstatement of a portal, not a new submission through OPR/Wayfarer!

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    You seem to be confused. Pedestrian access is required for all portals, not just new submissions. One of the criteria for removal is lack of safe pedestrian access.

  • We can get there and get out of the boat without a problem. Sure, there's no crossing guard, but pedestrian access is a pretty broad term and doesn't mean that it's invalid just because you personally can't walk there.

    Portals that met criteria at the time they were submitted were grandfathered in and not subject to removal. You acknowledged this in one of your own threads, and given your post history/reputation it seems like you're just here to troll anyway.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    The criteria for removal applies to all portals. If a portal meets the criteria for removal, then it is removed. You are trying to conflate the criteria for a high-quality portal with the criteria for removal. This one clearly meets the criteria for removal because it does not have safe pedestrian access. As I said before, reaching the location by boat does not count as pedestrian access.

    And if you actually when through my post history in the appeals forums, you will know that I have an extremely high accuracy rate when it comes why these appeals will be rejected. But I guess people will still never accept it until Niantic denies their appeals.

  • By that criteria, islands can't have portals on them. Thank you for your continued valuable input about a place you've never been!

  • quote it.

    no safety for players. Old portals must be review with the new AMA and criteria, so that portal is no longer valid.

  • bendlesbendles ✭✭
    edited February 12

    By this logic, 'valid portals' are portals that can solely be reached on foot, correct? If this is the case, portals that require a vehicle should be invalidated. I have no choice but to drive or be driven to my job. I have to cross bridges that don't allow pedestrian access. Does this mean that all of these portals on this island should be invalid?

    Just because you have to use a different means of transportation to reach a portal doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a portal. People are flying to Germany for the next anomaly, right? Should any of the portals there be valid? They had to purchase a plane ticket to get there, therefore the access to these portals for them isn't on foot.

    It's a very slippery s l o p e when you try to make 'on foot' a condition for a valid portal.

    It matters very little to me what your accuracy rate is. All that means is you bow to the letter of the law with no interpretation or a very rigid literal interpretation of the Niantic criteria. The criteria have altered severely over the life of the game and I'm sure you can (or could, before this community died because G Plus died) find evidence to support many different outcomes as to what makes a valid portal.

    Post edited by bendles on
  • Now that the trolls have had their fun, I want to loop back to the original point of the post. This is a valid portal that has been in place for years, it can be accessed by any agent, and was removed by res agents who didn't like that we were keeping it green and linking to it.

    To Niantic: the request is for reinstatement because one side shouldn't be able to remove portals just because they don't like the other team using it, and don't feel like bothering to capture it themselves. Thanks!

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is the second time you called my a troll over telling you about Niantic's criteria for removal and why this location meets it. It's clear that you don't want to hear the truth, but calling someone a troll over it is a violation of Community Guidelines, Section 3 which states:

    It’s in everyone’s best interest to keep things courteous and fun for all in the game, in the Community and in the real world.

    Here are a few principles of respect to keep in mind:

    Never defame, abuse, ****, harm, ****, or threaten another player.

    Never violate the legal rights (including the rights of privacy and publicity) of others.

    Never impersonate other players or Niantic staff.

    Never expose players’ identities without their consent (“dox”). This includes any information about another user’s identity, including their name, phone number, email address or physical address, even if a player discloses that info first.

    Be respectful towards other players. You can share an opposing idea without being rude or offensive.

    Calling me a troll for telling you something you don't want to hear is both rude and offensive. If you continue to do so, I will report those posts for violating the terms of the community guideline.

  • I'm pretty sure that he called no one in particular a troll. Let's keep this about the issue at hand and not anyone's feelings or status.

  • @TheFarix - No comment about the interpretation of 'on foot' or 'pedestrian'?

  • Agreed, all the distracting noise isn't doing anything constructive here. Quite the opposite, but heaven forbid I use the t-word :-D

  • @TheFarix - I'd like to discuss the validity of portals based on pedestrian access. Will you please comment? It directly relates to the validity of this portal and the appeal that is posted here.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    You ask an obviously ridiculous question. There is no need for me to point out the absurdity of your question was based on.

  • @TheFarix - What's ridiculous? I'm trying to determine what pedestrian access constitutes. Please don't devalue my question by calling it 'obviously ridiculous'. That's neither helpful nor constructive.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    You are comparing traveling to a small group of rocks out in the ocean to going to another continent were millions of people live. That is why you question was ridiculous.

  • @TheFarix Please define pedestrian access.

  • TheFarixTheFarix ✭✭✭✭✭

    It is being able to walk to the location from a nearby sidewalk, footpath, parking area, or residential area and be able to touch the object without needing to swim, use a boat, or cross a road in an unmarked location. Moorings are iffy, and Niantic has not established any guidelines about them. But at the very least, serviced by a ferry is accepted.

  • bendlesbendles ✭✭
    edited February 12

    @TheFarix Can you please show where this definition is from? I don't recall seeing them anywhere within Niantic's definitions or guidelines.

    Also, I am unable to get to work by your definition for pedestrian. Should the portals in the city where I work be part of the portal network?

  • @bendles don't feed the you-know-whats. They just keep making things up and contradicting themselves until they convince themselves they're right. Must be able to touch it without using a boat, unless it's a ferry, which isn't a boat? I dunno, lol.

  • @TheFarix Any place can be serviced by a boat. Ferries run on a schedule and typically you have to pay a fare. Having a private boat or commercial boat take you to a place is known as a charter. Is getting a chartered trip any different than paying for a ferry to take you somewhere?

  • bendlesbendles ✭✭
    edited February 13

    @TheFarix Right? Is there something wrong with what I said? I'd genuinely like your input.

  • @TheFarix You said this.

    Then you said this.

    These two statements contradict each other. Which one do we think the actual guideline is?

  • MoogModularMoogModular ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bendles I'm confused why you're trying to incite by making nine posts to define pedestrian access when the input provided was by Niantic guidelines.

    We can argue back and forth about this until Prime reaches parity but Niantic will make the call here with a boiler plate template statement indicating approving or rejecting the appeal. Anything beyond that is excess.

  • @GridEXE I'm just looking to see if @TheFarix has maybe gained a better understanding of what should or shouldn't be considered a valid portal. It's concerning to me that someone with such an 'extremely high accuracy rate' has such a literal and narrow understanding of why a portal should or shouldn't be valid. If they've learned something from this appeal and will apply that to future appeals and reviews, awesome.

    Why should someone be allowed to influence portal creation/removal when they clearly aren’t very open minded?

Sign In or Register to comment.