The reason
One word. No details.
This is the complete message that announced the ban. It names no specific message, no time and no example of the alleged spam.
It also says detection was “partially automated”. That raises the central question: did a human ever look at this case?
11/10/25 UTC Hello, your account has been banned due to repeated or severe violations of our Player Guidelines. Your account violated our policies: Spam . Detection and enforcement on this account was partially automated. To learn more, please visit: https://nianticlabs.com/guidelines
What happened
From founder to banned account
-
Before
A Campfire group with more than 6,000 members
Nicolasos owned the group. Players used it to meet up for raids, Community Days and events.
-
Banned without warning
No warning, no temporary restriction. The account was banned outright, with “Spam” as the reason.
-
After
Requests to support
Every request received an automated reply. There was no clear explanation and no real review of the case.
-
Today
– days without an answer
The group has lost its founder. We want a human to review the case.
The support replies
Asked. Answered by a machine.
Screenshots of the requests and the replies, unedited. Tap to enlarge.
The community
6,000 sparks. One is missing.
Each dot stands for one member of the Campfire group. The dark dot in the middle is the person who built it.
Voices from the community
What the group says
We are collecting the first voices
Were you in Nicolasos’ group? Tell us what it meant to you: a raid, a Community Day, a friendship that started there.
Post your story on social media with #FreeNicolasos. We collect the posts and publish them here.
Is your voice missing? Post it on social media with #FreeNicolasos and we will add it here.
Open questions
What we want to know
Which messages were “spam”?
Running a group with thousands of members means sending announcements, raid invites and event details. That is organising, not advertising.
Why was there no warning?
The notice speaks of “repeated or severe” violations. If they were repeated, there could have been a warning first.
Did a human review the case?
According to the notice, detection and enforcement were partially automated. The support replies were automated too.
How can anyone respond to that?
Without a specific reason, an accusation can be neither understood nor disproved.
Our demands
Three things
-
A review by a human
A real, manual review of the ban instead of automated replies.
-
A specific reason
Which content is supposed to have broken which rule, and when.
-
Restore the account
If the accusation cannot be backed up, the ban has to be lifted.
Get involved
How you can help
Share this page
Post the link in your groups, on social media and on Campfire. The more people hear about it, the more likely the case gets noticed.
Write to support
A polite message you can copy and adapt. A calm message does more than an angry one.