I hope someone can help me understand what has happened, explain what I am doing wrong and avoid from having my account blocked.
I had submitted a nomination for a sign to a public place lots of people come to on weekends. This was my text I submitted: Enseigne à l’entrée de la forêt de Vatable, espace naturel périurbain . Ce site prisé des familles et des promeneurs offre un sentier facile de 2,5 km à travers la mangrove, avec une vue imprenable sur la baie de Fort-de-France
I received a rejection due to “The text or photo contains abuse, ridicule or harassment of a specific person or group”.
I did an appeal with the following text: Foret Vatable is a popular walking area and picnic spot. The sign exists in exactly the spot that I marked. Can you please explain why this submission was rejected to allow me to improve future submissions as I do not understand the rejection? Also, the rejection reasoning says that “The text or photo contains abuse, ridicule or harassment of a specific person or group” and I am not aware of what this could be. Please explain and help me improve. Thank you!
I did not receive an explanation, but the appeal was accepted and the wayfarer point is now a powerstop.
Today, I received an email telling me that an internal investigation was performed and that I had violated a Generic very low severity offense, followed by an email informing me about my account status and a broken link to contact Niantic.
I would like to understand the reason for the rejection and the internal investigation so I could avoid this in the future. Going through the Player Guidelines did not help.
Appreciate your assistance with this question
Here are some images from the submission and the emails
Maybe the sign can be considered generic rather than marking a walking path to the forest (and that would not meet the guidelines) but I don’t see anything offensive in the text.
Maybe a word has an additional slang meaning? Or maybe it was checked by someone that does not speak French with the assistance of an AI that hallucinated? Since many chatbots have a bad tendency to confirm things written by the user if the prompt was something like “Explain why this text is offensive” it may have come up with a wrong explanation. Third option would be it does turn into something offensive when autotranslated to certain languages.
The sign is a directional marker pointing towards a Wayspot, but the sign itself is not a Wayspot. It neither represents the Wayspot nor marks the actual point of interest. It also does not appear to be a trail marker.
As such, the nomination normally should not have been approved, so the original rejection appears to have been correct. For the same reason, the appeal should also have been denied rather than initially approved.
Additionally, there may be an issue with safe pedestrian access at this location. However, more recent photos would be needed to confirm whether that is actually the case. Personally, based on the photo and what I can see on Google Maps, I would consider the location too dangerous to qualify as having safe pedestrian access, as it appears to be directly alongside a busy road where vehicles are travelling at relatively high speeds.
As for why the email was sent, the specific wording used, and whether it should be considered a warning or merely an educational message, only staff can clarify that. In situations like this, staff will normally contact the user privately if they want to provide additional context or explain the reasoning behind the message.
Ça me paraît clair qu’il s’agit d’un panneau pour voitures qui indique où aller pour trouver la forêt en question. Il ne s’agit dès lors pas d’une “enseigne” mais d’un panneau de route. Des panneaux très similaires sont traités dans la clarification ici Trails & Markers et ne sont pas éligibles:
Ce serait mon hypothèse principale. Je suis d’accord que le texte que tu as reçu n’est pas clair, mais je ne reproposerais pas ça et ne ferais pas appel.
D’autres raisons pour que la raison “abus” apparaisse peuvent inclure des actions comme proposer l’objet intentionnellement au mauvais endroit, utiliser des photos que l’on n’a pas pris soi-même, et plein d’autres. Le texte qui apparaîtra sera le même dans tous ces scénarios, il n’est pas très clair et semble insinuer que tu as directement insulté quelqu’un. C’est un problème connu et ça a été signalé de multiples fois à l’équipe. Cela ne change pas le fait que l’objet n’est pas éligible, à mon sens.
Si ta forêt a des panneaux de randonnées destinés aux piétons ou si le site de loisirs en question a des infrastructures de jeux ou de sports, je viserais plutôt ça. La Maison de la Mangrove me semble être un très intéressant lieu touristique qui a plein de potentiel pour des wayspots infiniment plus éligibles.
The “Abuse” rejection narrative can be flagged for a nomination for any of the following reasons (roughly in order of how often they occur):
* The photo is not yours (e.g., taken from streetview, found on another website)
* The wayspot location pin is misplaced
* The wayspot is deliberately misrepresented (e..g., on school property but pretending it isn’t)
* The nomination is believed to be fake
* Another nomination was flagged and all of yours have been flagged as a consequence
* The text itself is abusive
* The nomination is controversial and likely to be offensive (e.g., a mural of terrorists)
* (there may be others)
Merci pour votre réponse détaillée ainsi que pour l’ajout de la section et de l’exemple. C’est très pertinent et cela m’aidera à améliorer mes contributions.
