Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cops Warn Pokemon Go Players: Please Don't Trespass To Catch 'em All (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the common-sense dept.

An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report:Law enforcement agencies around the globe are reminding citizens to obey trespassing laws and follow common sense when playing Pokemon Go. The new crazy-popular mobile game has led to some frightening results in recent days, such as the location of a dead body and robberies of players in Missouri. Now, San Francisco Police Department Captain Raj Vaswani warned in one online posting for players to "obey traffic laws, please. Do not run into trees, meters, and things that are attached to the sidewalk; they hurt," he said. "Do not drive or ride your bike / skateboard / hipster techie device while interacting with the app. Know where your kids are going when playing with the app, set limits on where they can go, so they don't keep going trying to get that Pokemon."

141 comments

  1. I don't understand these warnings. by LiENUS · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah I'm not getting these warnings. Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense. Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em. So why would trespassing even come up?

    1. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Calydor · · Score: 2

      It is 'that one spot' you haven't checked yet, I guess.

      Ever run through any maze game looking for that one last enemy, or chest, or whatever else may be in a limited but known quantity?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Quantus347 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a "Nearby" readout that tells you what's close, and it operates on a 0-3 footprint scale. It's essentially a hot/cold game, so you can triangulate enough to work out the proper direction and relative distance until it does actually appear. There is also the fact that they appear in close to the same spot for everyone (within a certain time window) so if somebody else spotted one down a given dark alley, odds are you will too.

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    3. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going on someone's front lawn is trespassing, it's pretty easy to trespass without knowing it.

    4. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      You need to be <30m to interact w/a gym or pokestop (portals from ingress) and many of these are behind fences or on private property. Lots of players feel compelled to hop a fence or trespass to get within interaction distance. There are some nearby my work that are in active construction zones and I've seen players try to dodge bulldozers to snag a gym in the middle of the pit.

      Maybe change the motto to "You don't literally gotta catch em ALL"

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    5. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they make local city parks the Gyms?

      Think of the good press they would get: "Kids flock to parks thanks to Nintendo"!

    6. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'm not getting these warnings.

      You may not as long as you know the limit of how to play the game.

      Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense.

      Why would it make no sense? According to http://www.imore.com/pokemon-g... , you are notified by your phone that it is out. Some kids (or not bright people) may keep their eyes glued to the phone instead. As a result, trespassing could easily occur (get excited about the game and pay no attention on where they are going).

      Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em.

      You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.

      I hope you would try to understand how others think too...

    7. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      That would be a lot better than a future newspaper with the headline "Kid killed on a construction site by a bulldozer".

    8. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what they did.

    9. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are

      No, *YOU* can't tell where they are. If I've been watching the "nearby" screen I have a good idea where they are.

    10. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of your existing gps inaccuracy theres an additional 15 meter (minimum) inaccuracy in the nearby screen. It's intentionally meant as a spawn indicator and not a pokemon finder. You may think you know where a pokemon from that is but you're just fooling yourself you can't use nearby to get closer than about 70 ft.

    11. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      So why would trespassing even come up?

      Because the ad company posting these stories doesn't care about truthfulness?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.

      There's no need to go onto private property to capture a pokemon on the private property. Once you know the pokemon is there you can capture it. There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.

    13. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing you are on someones lawn should be a good clue you are trespassing.

    14. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Going on someone's front lawn is trespassing, it's pretty easy to trespass without knowing it.

      I don't care for your excuses. Get off my lawn!

    15. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      City parks, you've got to be kidding me! Every single Responsible Facebook Mom knows all city parks are overrun with pedophile kidnappers who spend their free time tossing razorblade-filled hunks of meat on the ground for dogs to find. There's no way I'm letting my kids near a city park!

    16. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > you can't use nearby to get closer than about 70 ft

      I think you are empirically incorrect. I'll just keep doing my thing that finds me pokemon though.

      Note that it actually displays where it THINKS you are on the map. If that's wrong, obviously the location data will refer to the incorrect spot. Control for that as you hunt.

    17. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      > Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense.

      You answered your own question. People dont know they're *not* there, unless they get close enough to check.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    18. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game operates on a general "warmer/colder" method to find critters. You can't tell exactly where they are, but you can see if you're getting closer.

      If you're getting closer, closer, closer, almost there ... and stopped by a chain-link fence, well ...

    19. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are dumb. A friend of mine works on a military base... said they caught someone walking where they shouldn't walk...

    20. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Do the gyms & pokemon locations change from day to day (or sporadically)?

      In other words, does one end up collecting all of them from a certain area, and HAVE to go to new physical locations?

      I'm just wondering if for example someone walks the same route to work every day, if they could keep getting something new out of the game.

    21. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in a large number of cases, at least not from a legal standpoint. It varies from state to state somewhat but I think for the most part in order to "trespass" the owner of the property needs to do one of two things. Either they need to have an obvious barrier/notification (extremely dense tree line, fence, signs, etc) indicating the don't want intruders or need to verbally give notice to each individual who enters their property.

    22. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by rfengr · · Score: 1

      Well the typically must have a No Trespassing sign, or verbally tell you.

    23. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Pest control. That Charmander could have started a fire in your front yard!

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    24. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And according to analysis and leaks from the game devs, you are wrong.

    25. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gyms/stops don't move (in fact it would be pretty pointless for a gym to move since it's a capture point). Pokemon will respawn in the same areas that they were seen before (there are what's called "XM" hotspots in the older Ingress game that seem to be reused for spawn points).

    26. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The press isn't interested in good stories, which is why we've only heard of people trespassing, attacked by gangs and finding dead bodies.

      The fact that these happen because the game encourages people to walk around their neighborhood and explore isn't a good story.

    27. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did, or tried too. They identified a bunch of public places but some of their data must have been out of date.

      So that former church (which they treat churches as public places) that some guy turned into a house is a gym. Or that park that is being redeveloped into a community center is a gathering place for players and dump trucks now.

    28. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.

      A sign on its own will no longer suffice, because people staring at their phones will not see it. If they wish to provide fair warning Pokemon players who are not paying attention, then it is now necessary to put up at the minimum a physical barrier such as a door, or a fence.

      Also, there must be a warning sign on the fence every 10 feet, because it is standard practice for other enterprising young Poke players to simply jump a fence.....

    29. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It would be best for them to create a capability for some areas to be marked as "No Go zones"

      Then give certain members in the local area an ability to mark them.

      Also, ideally, the actual Streets and roads should be marked as "No Play" areas

      Just make them like 'Lava' that gradually drains HP if you are running the game in a moving vehicle, or while located on a road or street.

    30. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.

      Maybe. There literally are not many sidewalks around here; You're on the street, or in the ditches, or grass on the other side of the ditches by the streets. Not very pedestrian-friendly.

      I still say there's no such thing as "Trespassing" by someone not paying attention to where they are. Trespassing requires the property owner to have taken substantial steps to isolate their land from the public land and wilderness. Including barriers, so it's not possible to "carelessly" wander through it.

      Also, even if it's private property and setup to block access, You may be able to defeat barriers And enter in order to Pass Through that land when necessary to reach a destination on the other side, Or in order to retrieve some possession which is yours or that you Claim ownership or right to obtain ownership of (Such as a Pet who wandered over there, or Basketball that unintentionally rolled onto their property), even if that possession you are claiming is a virtual Pokemon in a game.

    31. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Striikerr · · Score: 1

      I think that someone should come up with a catchy Pokemon style name for a character based upon Darwin. Then, we can hold the annual Pokemon Darwin awards as these fools get themselves killed chasing nothing..

    32. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

      They already are chasing nothing!

    33. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I've been playing for a week and on my route to work encounter a lot of the same pokemon in the same places. I find a lot of rat and snake ones in grassy areas, water types along a creek, etc. There are rare pokemon that you only see once in a great while, and there seems to be a time of day component. Hasn't gotten too repetitive yet.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    34. Re: I don't understand these warnings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! No, it's the players responsibility to watch where they're walking. If they can't do that, then perhaps augmented reality games aren't for them.

    35. Re:I don't understand these warnings. by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.

      Not according to the law where I live in Louisiana.

  2. Stop with the nannystate warnings! by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let natural selection take it's course. If people want to wander out in traffic to capture a virtual Pokemon, let them.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
    1. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that someone idiotically running or riding their bike into traffic endangers the drivers? Or do you not suppose that a driver will swerve to avoid striking them, with unknown results?

    2. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by bmorency · · Score: 1

      Well I do not want to deal with the issues with hurting or even killing someone when they run out in front of my car. I couldn't imagine how that would affect me knowing I killed someone.

    3. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am warning you to stop posting.

      Now, in the real world, you are of course free to ignore my warning, and continue posting anyway.

      But you seem to think that "warnings" hold the power to actively forbid someone from doing something.

      You now have 2 options. You can either maintain that you are correct, in which case you must never post again, or you can concede that issuing a warning != nannystate. If you choose to post without addressing this, that shall be taken as you conceding.

      In either case, I win.

    4. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by c · · Score: 1

      Let natural selection take it's course. If people want to wander out in traffic to capture a virtual Pokemon, let them.

      Natural selection is a bit rough on my front grill. Couldn't they just walk off a remote cliff?

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not all sane people like you. Some people are sociopaths, and don't care about killing people, or psychopaths who are looking for an opportunity to kill someone. Either wouldn't even think of hitting a P.G. player as a problem. I wish the Internet hadn't made me aware of whole communities of people who fantasize about killing anyone outside their media-driven cult.

    6. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of lemmings...

    7. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by HumanWiki · · Score: 2

      There's also places where the driver is ALWAYS at fault for hitting a pedestrian or cyclist. I don't want my life messed up because some moron playing this game lost the last bit of common sense they possessed.

    8. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by ultranova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let natural selection take it's course. If people want to wander out in traffic to capture a virtual Pokemon, let them.

      Natural selection is outdated. We switched to cultural evolution 10,000 years ago for all important development, and are on the verge of simply designing and reshaping our biological forms as we see fit. So what purpose does your comment serve, aside from promoting viciousness and devaluing of human life which threaten to kill us all precisely because of the power we now possess, and is thus far worse defect than being easily distracted at young age, as well as making life less pleasant overall?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? Some kind of learning disability perhaps? You have to be insanely stupid to be this shortsighted.

    10. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Or do you not suppose that a driver will swerve to avoid striking them, with unknown results?

      Not me. Jump in front of my car and you'll be lucky if I don't bill you for sponging the blood off the headlights.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    11. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      If someone steps in front of your moving vehicle, then you did not kill them.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    12. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by bmorency · · Score: 2

      That is true but it would still be pretty traumatizing.

    13. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pokemon Evolution, the upcoming section of MTV's Ridiculousness show.

    14. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bunch of mumbo jumbo, what the gp said makes sense to me. Bet you're a lib with all that fancy talking.

    15. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with your overall point, but you're making it rather poorly. A police department is a state actor whose words, even when spoken with the most benign of purpose, always carry an authority an implied threat that yours by definition do not. Making an analogy between your "warning" and theirs just doesn't work.

    16. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by c · · Score: 1

      I'm just thinking of my car and insurance, but now that you mention it "lemmings" does sound like an apt description of a lot of these people.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    17. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooooh we got an internet hero right here folks...

    18. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      Considering that when there's an accident people slow down almost to a halt in the hope of seeing something "traumatizing", my guess is people, at least the ones who are not actively seeking attention, are not as easily "traumatized" as you think they are.

    19. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Driving a 2+ ton death machine is a PRIVLIDGE and not a RIGHT. If you hit and kill soneone, pray that THEY don't sue, and if you are stupid/panicky enough to drive away, then really start praying that you won't be sucking Bubba's dick for the next 10 years.

    20. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Nice idealistic view, but go to jail/prisons or just some of the neighborhoods around you, or most other countries and you will find "survival of the fittest" and raw animalistic brutality among humans is alive and well.

    21. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Lemme guess: you're one of those people that thinks it's perfectly OK to ride a bike in a serpentine across multiple lanes of traffic at rush hour.

    22. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then pay attention and apply your brakes.

    23. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Then pay attention and apply your brakes.

      You're right, I should magically know exactly where a person is going to appear out of nowhere with enough time to apply the brakes because I'm paying attention and also brakes are magical!

      Paying attention and applying your brakes only works when you can see somebody about to enter the road from far enough away to, well, do so. However, there are such amazing things as 'bushes,' 'parked cars,' and geography that inspires road signs like 'Hill Blocks View' that can render this a bit of a problem--which is why when I've been playing Go and walking along the side of the road I've been very, very careful to keep enough away from the edge of the road as to be not hit. (As for trespassing--honestly? The road is the only way to get between a couple parts of a greenway/park, and the city has not seen fit to install sidewalks. If you can't live with people walking along where the sidewalk would probably be if the city ever gets around to it, you probably shouldn't be living on that road...especially since it's a very good place to live if you want to be able to walk to the grocery store and the like.)

    24. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Minupla · · Score: 1

      Considering that when there's an accident people slow down almost to a halt in the hope of seeing something "traumatizing", my guess is people, at least the ones who are not actively seeking attention, are not as easily "traumatized" as you think they are.

      These people are, frankly, morons. I still get nightmares from a motorcycle accident I was first on the scene of 15 years ago. (PSA: If you ride, PLEASE wear a helmet, if not for you, for the poor smuck trying to save your life.) I can't imagine what it would do to me to actually hit someone. Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    25. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GP is not referring to witnessing an accident, or the aftermath of one, as being traumatising, but being traumatised as a result of being the one involved in the accident - that is to say the one doing the hitting, rather than the one being hit, though I'd imagine were they still alive after the event they'd be pretty traumatised too, by definition.

      Or, to put it more simply, he's saying that if he was driving along, and hit someone he'd be traumatised. It doesn't matter whether it was an unavoidable situation, in no way his fault, he'd still be traumatised.

      I'm not sure what was unclear about his posts in this thread...

    26. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by mysidia · · Score: 0

      You're right, I should magically know exactly where a person is going to appear out of nowhere with enough time to apply the brakes

      People do not materialize out of nowhere for you to possibly hit.

      The speed you are to drive is limited by AS CONDITIONS ALLOW.

      Conditions do not allow you to drive so fast that you will not be able to stop within the same moment someone "appears out of nowhere"

      If visibility to the sides and front of the vehicle are limited, then it may be unsafe for you to be driving more than 5mph, even if the speed limit on that road is 35.

    27. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Driving a 2+ ton death machine

      But I like my 2+ ton death machine; I'm thinking of upgrading to a 3+ death machine with spikes on the grill.

      -

      is a PRIVLIDGE and not a RIGHT. If you hit and kill soneone, pray that THEY don't sue

      Well, Blythe, if I kill them then I really don't see how they could sue me. The way you're phrasing it, it's almost like an incentive to kill them. I'm pretty sure a dead body has no standing in court and can't be sworn in to testify against me.

      -

      and if you are stupid/panicky enough to drive away, then really start praying that you won't be sucking Bubba's dick for the next 10 years.

      I dunno, I've always managed hit and kill people with my car and get away with it and I'm still not in jail. And that's without even praying!

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    28. Re:Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just by your use of "mumbo jumbo" I know you're a conservative- most likely Tea Party.

    29. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      If I hit and injure/kill someone because they jumped out in front of me looking for Pokemon, that's really pretty much on them. I watch for pedestrians, because I don't *want* to hit someone, but there are situations where you can't avoid it.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    30. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      You and AC have 100% missed the point. I can and am allowed to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on a sidewalk. But, I can't predict that one of them will just step out in to the road without paying attention. This was my point. If they suddenly step off the sidewalk and in to the road and I hit them, then it's still my fault legally even though they are the one that caused the issue.

    31. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I can and am allowed to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on a sidewalk. But, I can't predict that one of them will just step out

      Hold it right there, there is no legal right to drive a particular speed. Are you allowed? Did you check the law? What tells you that you are allowed? Note that officials approving of an activity or not enforcing 100% of the rules does not make an action legal or safe.

      If an action you take (Such as driving 35) might have consequences, then that action was Not really allowed.

      Prohibiting you from crashing into pedestrians, means that you are forbidden from taking any series of actions which are likely to have that consequence.

      That means you may NOT be allowed to drive 35, even if it is not a specific traffic rule that is directly prohibiting it. There are things called Actions prohibited through indirect means. You are required to Drive Safely, and this means you are legally prohibited from doing certain things and legally required to do certain other things which are not explicitly spelled out in the text of the law.

      So this game is inconveniencing drivers who are no longer allowed to drive 35, I understand that..... But it's not true that you're "Allowed to drive 35", if there is a likelihood that a pedestrian will go out in front of you too quickly for you to avoid hitting them.

      The law certainly does not say you have the right to drive 35MPH when there are pedestrians on the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is close to the road, then you may be legally required to slow down, when you see someone on the sidewalk.

      In general: you are allowed to drive the speed limit subject to conditions; conditions include not just the weather, but everything about the environment.

      If the sidewalk is so close to the road that somebody can step out quickly, And, someone is there, then it might not be safe or legal for you to drive that full speed.

    32. Re: Stop with the nannystate warnings! by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      That's some lovely victim blaming there. You've fully put the problem on the driver instead of the people blindly walking in to an active road. Good luck in life as you no longer deserve any sort of reply from me.

  3. This is getting crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell? How many times are we going to be subjected to Nintendo advertising?

    1. Re:This is getting crazy by red+crab · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful.. Wish I had modpoints for you.

  4. Bad movie in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... by PCM2 · · Score: 2

    I'm already imagining the terrible, direct-to-streaming horror movie based on Pokemon Go.

    Quickly, ScriptBot! Let's have those first few scenes...

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Bad movie in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm already imagining the terrible, direct-to-streaming horror movie based on Pokemon Go.

      Quickly, ScriptBot! Let's have those first few scenes...

      Godlike beings from another realm of existence are casting their avatars in your world, hunting and enslaving your friends and you, and making you fight for their entertainment. When you amuse them no more, they'll turn off your universe, casting you all to oblivion, until resurrected in some bizarre new form for another hunt. You hope and fear that this time the darkness will be eternal.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  5. A much more serious problem... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    How do adult Pokemon players interact with children Pokemon players?

    http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/this-doesn39t-happen-to-ash

    1. Re:A much more serious problem... by Quantus347 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the only underage children I've come across playing it were with their mother, who was also playing. She's actually the one that struck up the conversation. It probably helped that we were in the parking lot of the local police station, which has 3 Pokestops (all had Lures going) so a crowd of us were camped and feeling relatively safe.

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
    2. Re:A much more serious problem... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In countries without an irrational fear of child kidnapping, sexual abuse etc, we interact in the normal way. That is, by talking to them.

      Can you "steal" a Pokémon in the game? If so, it's probably less appropriate to steal them from children.

    3. Re:A much more serious problem... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the only underage children I've come across playing it were with their mother, who was also playing.

      My coworker was complaining about being neglected at home because his wife and their kids are playing the game.

    4. Re:A much more serious problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife took off to play Pokemon Go with her yoga instructor for two days. What has two thumbs and is ordering pizza and watching Bruce Willis movies? This guy!

    5. Re:A much more serious problem... by cfalcon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You just talk to them. Why are grown men afraid of talking with children? What a bunch of social wimps.

    6. Re:A much more serious problem... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Kids still play Pokemon? I thought it was more of a mid to late twenties thing.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:A much more serious problem... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why are grown men afraid of talking with children?

      Because grown men are viewed by society as sexual predators when children are around.

    8. Re:A much more serious problem... by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      My teenager and his friends have been playing... he even pulled his bike out of the shed so he could ride it while playing. I'm just glad he will have forgotten about the game in 5 months when he can get a driver's license not just a permit.

    9. Re: A much more serious problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's getting cheated on? ^ that guy!

    10. Re: A much more serious problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but the yoga instructor is a girl, so it's hot and that makes it ok.

    11. Re:A much more serious problem... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "Come, I have a few rare pokemons to catch for you in my van..."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:A much more serious problem... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I think the answer is no. You ought to be able to challenge them to a Duel or Pokébattle.

      In previous Pokemon games, you could challenge other players to a Duel, and loser actually loses something, But, for some reason, there are no Player vs Player features in the mobile game.

    13. Re:A much more serious problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife took off to play Pokemon Go with her yoga instructor for two days. What has two thumbs and is ordering pizza and watching Bruce Willis movies? This guy!

      Yea... Pokemon Go....

  6. Found landmarks in buildings by subanark · · Score: 2

    Found two landmark points (used to get free pokeballs and other items) inside 2 Microsoft buildings (showing off their Halo exhibits). I wonder if anyone is going to try to hang out on the side of the building to pick it up.

    1. Re:Found landmarks in buildings by Quantus347 · · Score: 2

      Found one that was a nice mural...in the drive through lane of a Wine&Spirits convenience store...

      "I'd like a 5th of Jack and three Pokeballs, please"

      --
      Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  7. CIA are wacked out on Pokemon disinfo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many Pokemon stories nobody cares about.

    CIA are why the USA is around 70 trillion dollars in debt and they spent it on a lot of surveillance.

    MSNBC Microsoft National Broadcasting Company is why you have fucking Windows spyware.

    All dicks, all die, CIA to Hell. You heard it here on CIAdot.

    1. Re:CIA are wacked out on Pokemon disinfo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9373301&cid=52497801

      mmhmm same CIAdot shit.

    2. Re:CIA are wacked out on Pokemon disinfo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do I know you're not one of them? You're trying reverse psychology on me! But you won't get me, CIA spooksman. I'm onto your GAME, man! I'm gonna go post about Pokemon other entertainment bullshit and thwart your evil scheme.

  8. Captain Raj Vaswani by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would he be willing to trespass to find a Dedicated Defecation Driveway?

  9. #PokemonGoPlayersLivesMatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to rally a protest

    1. Re:#PokemonGoPlayersLivesMatter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally worth saying this. CIAdot.

    2. Re:#PokemonGoPlayersLivesMatter by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. No they don't.

      Sorry, but any creature too stupid to avoid its own death due to pure stupidity MUST be eliminated from the gene pool, preferably before it breeds.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. MMDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Massively Multiplayer Darwin Award in the making?

    1. Re:MMDA by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's hope.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Can't install it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google play store says my phone is not compatible. Can't even side load it.

  12. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/17461-pika-rude-news-anchor-walks-through-meteorologists-live-shot-while-playing-pokemon-go

    OOPSIE

  13. Grammar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surely you meant to say "take its course"...

    And I'll call you Shirley as much as I want.

    1. Re:Grammar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if I can be Frank

  14. I heard you can Set Lures by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I heard you can Set Lures to get Pokemon to appear in locations that you want. So you could cause the P.Go servers to spawn Pokemon in the middle of a highway, in the middle of a swamp, or in a KKK meeting hall.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:I heard you can Set Lures by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      You can only deploy lures at established pokestops which are various landmarks (portals from Ingress)

      Savvy business owners are buying lure modules in game and deploying them, advertising on social media. Players are motivated to hang around within 30 meters to hit the pokestop every 5 minutes and catch the attracted pokemon.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:I heard you can Set Lures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to headlines, there have already been multiple robberies using this technique.

    3. Re:I heard you can Set Lures by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > I heard you can Set Lures to get Pokemon to appear in locations that you want.

      No, you can make a pokestop spawn pokemon for half an hour. The locations of pokestops are not something you can pick. You can't just lure a highway or whatever, or your house.

    4. Re:I heard you can Set Lures by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I heard you can Set Lures to get Pokemon to appear in locations that you want. So you could cause the P.Go servers to spawn Pokemon in the middle of a highway, in the middle of a swamp, or in a KKK meeting hall.

      If they made P.Go available in Cambodia, they could put them in live, uncleared minefields.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. Space Monster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if there are any Pokemons intersecting the orbit of ISS. While I am not a hardcore pokemon fan by any means, capturing dat shit would be epic.

  16. People who dance backwards into the street... by Dareth · · Score: 1

    People who dance backwards into the street... and get ran over by ice cream trucks can and have successfully sued the driver for "damages".

    Need to update my sign, No trespassing, No swimming, No fishing, and No hunting (includes Pokemon).

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  17. Someone shout make "CTR Go" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crash Team Racing Go... Where you can race Crash Bandicoot while driving your car and watching your phone at the same time. Extra points for anything you hit.

  18. Dare anyone to try it in Texas by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

    let us know if you come away alive after being shot

    1. Re:Dare anyone to try it in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That outcome is likely to depend on whether you are black or white.

    2. Re:Dare anyone to try it in Texas by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      More on whether I can see you're playing the game.

      If you do, be prepared to be shot. Idiots who trespass without any good reason should be weeded out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. night time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, the security at our campus has had to tell people to leave our campus after 10pm because there's two stops and three refill stations(?) here.

    Is there not a way to fence off private property?

    1. Re:night time by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > the security at our campus has had to tell people to leave our campus after 10pm

      What a pussy college. The one I drive to doesn't have a stick up its ass.

      > Is there not a way to fence off private property?

      It's called a "fence".

      But to answer your question, the pokemon don't really spawn on private property to any great degree. It's not a strict thing, because that would take more effort, but they clearly have tried to put pokemon spawns in areas such that they can be reached on public property.

    2. Re:night time by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      It's not a strict thing, because that would take more effort, but they clearly have tried to put pokemon spawns in areas such that they can be reached on public property.

      But not always succeeded, as the guy's whose house was marketed as a gym:

      http://wgntv.com/2016/07/11/mans-home-mistakenly-set-as-pokemon-go-gym/

      It was once an church and the developers apparently used an old reference to designate it a gym. Unfortunately, there is no way to get taken out of the game.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:night time by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      There soon will be.

      https://support.pokemongo.nian...

      Right now, they only take reports for gyms that represent a physical danger, but once the initial push is over, they'll be able to take out gyms that don't meet their requirements, such as churches that are now houses.

    4. Re:night time by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing this campus is a corporate campus, such as the Cisco campus that I was asked to leave back in Ingress days. The guard knew about Ingress and asked which team I was on. He let me hit the portal and said other guards aren't so cool.

      Many many portals are technically on private property - artwork or fountains in a business park for example, and players need to get within 30 meters to interact with them. People aren't necessarily going for pokemon on private property, they are trying to hit a pokestop or a gym. Some of these large campuses are a legal gray area - they are quite large and have pedestrian paths that have a history of use for short cuts which makes them quasi public.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    5. Re:night time by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Get a few dozen Ingress players to report it as an invalid portal. Since it is no longer a church a brief explanation of this fact and that it is now a private residential property (a very key phrase in portal location criteria) and it should be removed within a few months. (The portal que is heavily backlogged due to very poor decisions by Niantic.)

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    6. Re:night time by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Niantic has long held that restricted access does not mean invalid. As long as some people can legally access the site and play without violating any security rules and it's not private residential property. This rule came about so that they could keep their portals on the Google Campus which are off limits to the general public. Thus many stops and gyms may appear in places that are going to be off limits to most people. They just have to recognize that they are off limits and that they will most likely not be able to get to those locations. Hopefully the game will soon have a way to request that such ingress portals not be used as stops or gyms. Keeping such locations viable makes sense with the game play of Ingress where hard to get to portals is just part of the strategy in some aspects of the game. But they do not really make as much sense with Pokémon Go. Though some such locations do make sense to keep valid (i.e. the Google Campus, non secure sections of military bases etc...)

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
  20. No no NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Slashdot. We are against the nanny state! Personal responsibility will solve all problems. I'm not sure quite how, but it's all libertarian and hipster to say that, so I'm sure it will. If a driver gets hurt, it is because they avoided personal responsibility, and the nanny government must be responsible. It must be!

    1. Re:No no NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the nanny state is against Pretendo, fuckle, crapple or communist open-sores will the fucktarded shitdot sheeple speak out against it. If this were Microsoft or Sony, or M$ and $ony as the fucktarded shitdot sheeple like to say, they would be all for the nanny state dismantling them both. Of course they are nothing more than a bunch of communist loving fucktards who should go and collectively slit their fucking wrists.

  21. Almost killed some stupid kid playing this game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two kids ran in front of a moving vehicle, at night, to get to a pokemon. Whether or not it's their fault, I don't want to kill children, even if they are playing in traffic without looking.

  22. Social good by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Can Nintendo use this to lure young people to polls on election day?

  23. Transition period by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is funny, society is having to adjust to people going for walks again.... even if it is just to level up their pokemon... I renamed my bird thing to Doom Pigeon... It's a high level Doom Pigeon. Really Nentindo just needs to disable the anti-cheat, so people can play from home where it is safer by using gps spoofing.

  24. Dungeons and Dragons by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    Not all that different than when I was in college and some of us started playing D&D in the real world. A buddy decided to jump off the top of the dining facility to evade a troll and broke his leg because the snowbank was an ice bank. Sure the scale is smaller but the principle is the same: Some people get carried away when playing games.

    1. Re:Dungeons and Dragons by fikx · · Score: 1

      how about Quake outdoors?
      arquake

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
  25. Let 'em all perish by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    "Do not run into trees, meters, and things that are attached to the sidewalk; they hurt," he said.

    Thanks mr safety guy thats great advice.

    -

    "Do not drive or ride your bike / skateboard / hipster techie device while interacting with the app."

    Am I allowed to sit quietly in the corner without moving? Can I do that?
    Can I draw my gun and empty the magazine if a pokemon suddenly appears in front of me?
    Am I allowed to set fire to a building in order to flush them out?
    Can I poison all my coworkers so they're deathly ill and unable to play, giving me a clean shot at getting the pokemon at my workplace?
    If I'm robbing a bank and a wild pokemon appears, which takes priority- grabbing the sweet, sweet cash or capturing the pokemon?
    Am I allowed to give other players concussions or mortal wounds if they encroach on my playfield?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  26. and Nintendo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they not liable? Waiting for those big lawsuits to come rolling in and finish off the company once and for all...

  27. M..musst...not...post.... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    This is just d....d...Darw.....Darwi.... ah, that was close!

    1. Re:M..musst...not...post.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see the Darwin Awards now...And didn't I read that there is malware attached to this app, and/or that it asks for many permissions on your phone/tablet than it doesn't need (access to all files and can change any settings, can take pictures and record audio and video etc...)?

  28. really??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on people.. All the hype over a Game..
    Parents School your children
    Adults pull your heads out, its a "GAME"

    Others, I must beg the question....... Don't you have jobs, or other "worth while" things to occupy your valuable time?
    Once again,

    It's a Kids game, designed for those whom have a huge amount of time on their hands and dont have to work for a living..

  29. This seems more suited for... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... an augmented reality type of application, so you could use the iphone screen to watch where you are walking, keeping your head up and seeing where you are going, while still catching a peripheral view of things in front of you to either side of your phone.

    Hololens would probably be a very good platform for it as well.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:This seems more suited for... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It is an AR app

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  30. This game could be a death sentence to black men by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    So says the author of this post. And what he says makes sense to me.

  31. Why didn't anyone get that idea yet? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    To write an app that spoofs the GPS coordinates for that game? I mean, let's be honest here, running around like an idiot for an effing GAME?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Why didn't anyone get that idea yet? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      There's GPS spoofers already--for more than just Pokemon Go--and the exploit has been noticed and patched out.

    2. Re:Why didn't anyone get that idea yet? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug, it's a feature!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Womans ___CUNT___try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When MMAMAMAAALLLEEESSSSSSSSSSSS were in control men married female children and ruled over the woman as master. (Even in the born-cuntrry of americunt:

      >In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
    )

    If you read the hebrew in the book of Deuteronomy the man is refered to as master and he can also rape young female children and just keep them after paying the father some money.

    Women do NOT want males to rule, so maaaaaaallllleesss are suppressed by the police.

    There is no "people" here. There are women: mainly white women. White males are dogs: to work and support the woman, black men are "bucks" that the women ride for a good time. Hispanics... maybe she'll have a kid with him.

  33. Pokemon Go helps Darwinism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know someone else is going to die due their stupidity combined with Pokemon Go "where it is not safe" ! HAHAHA!

  34. In New Zealand: local Pokestop is the Hells Angels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Whanganui chapter house is a pokestop for all your local ball, potion and egg needs. Also the Hells Angels is where you would expect to capture a slowbro, psyduck or hitmonlee

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11672443