Part 1: Disco Zugzug and the Birth of the Study
The story begins with the account Disco Zugzug, which was permanently banned by Gameforge under accusations of automation. This ban was never clearly explained or supported by sufficient evidence, despite multiple requests for clarification. What started as a simple request for transparency turned into a journey of frustration, as the responses from support remained vague, evasive, and delayed.
Disco Zugzug was not originally intended to be part of a study, but the lack of transparency in the handling of the ban motivated me to investigate further. The constant deflection by the support team and the inability to provide concrete evidence of the infraction raised concerns about Gameforge’s transparency and how they handle player issues.
The frustration with Disco Zugzug’s case led to the creation of Mensa, a test account designed to explore whether the issues seen with Disco Zugzug were isolated or part of a broader pattern. The Mensa experiment had three main goals:
- To demonstrate that the support team often misinterprets log data.
- To reveal that the ticketing system causes intentional delays, making it more difficult for players to resolve issues.
- To expose how Gameforge pushes complaints into private, hidden channels, minimizing public accountability.
Disco Zugzug: The Case that Sparked the Study
The case of Disco Zugzug was the catalyst for the study, not a part of it. The ban was imposed with claims of automation, but despite multiple efforts to gain access to the logs or detailed reasoning behind the decision, the support team continually provided generic, evasive responses. The decision to ban the account was final, but no real explanation was given beyond vague references to account activity.
Each attempt to receive clarification was met with delays. This pattern revealed what I believed to be a fundamental lack of transparency. The support team refused to provide details or logs related to the ban, making it nearly impossible to assess the legitimacy of the decision.
This experience with Disco Zugzug made it clear that there was a systemic issue with how Gameforge handled complaints and support. The inability to get clear, timely answers led me to question how well they understood the logs they were relying on and whether they were genuinely interested in resolving player concerns.
Mensa: The Test Account and its Goals
After the frustrating experience with Disco Zugzug, I created the Mensa account as part of an experiment. The primary aim was to test whether the support team’s misinterpretation of logs was an isolated issue or indicative of a larger problem.
The support team’s accusation against Mensa was based on patterns of behavior they claimed to observe in the account’s activity. Specifically, they pointed out that multiple expeditions were sent at nearly the same time every day over several days. Their reasoning suggested that this consistency in behavior was suspicious and indicative of automation.
However, the Mensa experiment was carefully tracked, and after reviewing the logs, it became clear that their claims did not match the actual data. The support team either misinterpreted the logs or provided false information, which called into question the reliability of their entire process.
This case, like Disco Zugzug, was met with vague responses, long delays, and a refusal to engage with the specific evidence provided by the player. The Mensa experiment aimed to demonstrate not only the technical failings of Gameforge’s support system but also how the system was designed to delay and minimize accountability by pushing complaints into private channels.
Part 2: The GDPR Drama
As my experience with Disco Zugzug and Mensa unfolded, it became clear that Gameforge was not only evasive but also unwilling to provide the data needed to validate their decisions. This led me to file a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). According to GDPR, individuals are entitled to access their personal data, including any information used in automated decision-making processes like account bans. This legal route was taken to ensure transparency and accountability from Gameforge regarding their handling of the bans.
The GDPR process, however, quickly turned into a new drama. While the DSAR should have provided a full set of personal data—including the logs and data used to justify the bans—I was given a limited, incomplete response. Critical information about the reasons behind the bans was withheld. Gameforge cited various reasons, such as trade secrets and third-party data privacy, for not providing the logs. These reasons, however, seemed to be a way to avoid full transparency.
At this point, the process shifted from being about resolving a ban to a battle over my rights to access my own data. The logs, which were crucial to understanding why my accounts were banned, were withheld without clear justification, creating a frustrating loop where Gameforge consistently refused to provide the necessary data. Despite repeated attempts to clarify the situation and gain access to the information, I was stonewalled, and the GDPR process became a drawn-out struggle for transparency.
This drama highlighted how Gameforge’s internal policies could be at odds with GDPR requirements, leaving players in a vulnerable position when trying to understand or dispute the actions taken against their accounts. Rather than providing transparency, the company hid behind legal loopholes, further eroding trust in their support and decision-making processes.
Part 3: Gameforge’s Official Response (so far)
Throughout the process, Gameforge maintained a defensive stance regarding the release of detailed data related to the bans on Disco Zugzug and Mensa. In a letter from a representative of Gameforge, the company explained their reasons for withholding the requested logs and data, citing concerns about trade secrets, third-party privacy, and intellectual property. They argued that providing such data could compromise their game’s internal systems and risk exposing sensitive technical information.
The letter explained that sharing certain data, like server logs, would violate GDPR Article 15, Section 4, which protects the privacy rights of others. Furthermore, the requested log data was classified as a trade secret since it reflects how the game operates on a technical level. Revealing this information, according to the company, could allow for the development of cheat software or replication of the game’s structure.
Additionally, the representative referenced Recital 63 of the GDPR, which limits data access when it could infringe on intellectual property or trade secrets. Based on these claims, Gameforge deemed the DSAR request to be excessive.
Despite this explanation, Gameforge’s official stance failed to address the broader concerns surrounding transparency. While the company framed their decision as complying with GDPR regulations, the refusal to provide logs related to my personal account left an unresolved gap in understanding how the sanctions were applied. The response seemed to be another method to avoid engaging with the core issue of accountability.
Part 3.5: Our Response to Gameforge
In response to Gameforge’s explanation for withholding data, we argued that the specific data we requested—related to the ban on our accounts—did not fall under the protections of trade secrets or third-party privacy. We highlighted that personal account data, such as logs detailing our own actions and decisions leading to sanctions, should be accessible under GDPR. Additionally, we emphasized that basic activity logs used for ban decisions are not intellectual property and should not be classified as such. We also clarified that any sensitive information involving other users could be redacted, allowing us access to the data without compromising privacy.
Our response sought transparency in the handling of our case, emphasizing that Gameforge’s justification was insufficient to deny access to personal data that directly impacted the sanctions applied to the accounts.
Part 4: Addressing Transparency and Privacy Issues on the OGame Forums
The issues surrounding transparency and privacy within Gameforge’s support system extend beyond individual accounts and into the wider community, particularly on the OGame forums. When attempts were made to discuss the lack of transparency in bans and data requests publicly, these conversations were often shut down under the guise of keeping forums free of complex discussions. Despite maintaining that the forum is a space for players to exchange information, the moment topics veered into areas that could expose Gameforge’s shortcomings, they were redirected to private channels.
This was exemplified when the forum discussion about transparency and privacy concerns was closed under false pretenses. The discussion was framed as too complex for the forum, yet forums are regularly used for discussions far more intricate than basic transparency and privacy issues. Furthermore, at no point did the discussion advocate for legal action, yet it was closed as though it had.
By pushing these critical conversations into back-alley channels—such as private tickets—Gameforge avoided public accountability. The closure of these discussions suggests that Gameforge is unwilling to confront broader criticisms in a public forum, forcing players to engage in private, closed systems where the visibility of issues is limited and the resolution often unsatisfactory.
The OGame forums should be a space where broader concerns—like the inefficiency of the support system and the lack of transparency—can be openly addressed, but this has not been the case. Instead, the company’s actions seem to prioritize minimizing negative attention over addressing legitimate player grievances. This has resulted in players being left with little choice but to pursue GDPR requests and other formal processes, which are unnecessary for what should be standard support issues.
Part 5: Gameforge’s Response to Community Concerns
While Gameforge has established various platforms—such as forums and support tickets—for players to voice concerns, its responses to these concerns have been inconsistent and, at times, dismissive. An example of this was the letter of complaint we submitted back in June, highlighting several transparency and support-related issues. This letter was partially discussed with Lorovus, but despite the exchange, there was no noticeable improvement in how Gameforge handled player feedback.
This is a recurring theme in Gameforge’s approach to community engagement. While they allow players to submit feedback or complaints, their responses rarely lead to significant changes. Whether the issue involves account bans, data transparency, or the broader inefficiency of the support system, the company’s actions seem more focused on managing complaints than on addressing their root causes.
The lack of meaningful follow-up on these complaints is not just frustrating but also indicative of a systemic problem. Players like myself have consistently raised the same concerns—regarding the clarity of support processes, transparency, and responsiveness—but Gameforge has not implemented noticeable changes. The disconnect between the community’s concerns and Gameforge’s responses only further erodes trust between the players and the company.
This lack of action after multiple rounds of feedback and complaints shows that Gameforge is unwilling or unable to engage in genuine community-driven improvements. The forums, meant to be a space for open dialogue, often fail to serve as a true bridge between players and the company, with many discussions either shut down or redirected without meaningful resolution.
Part 6: My Experience as an OGame Admin
Years ago, after one of my many complaints about how Gameforge handled player issues, I was told, “If you think you can do better, then do better.” I took that challenge to heart and decided to apply as a Game Operator (GO) with the hope of making a meaningful change in the way Gameforge managed its volunteers and players.
After being accepted, I quickly rose through the ranks to SGO (Super Game Operator) and eventually to Admin. During my time in these roles, I made several attempts to reform how Gameforge handled support, transparency, and interactions with its community. However, after months of consistent resistance and being ignored, it became clear that Gameforge was unwilling to implement any real change. Despite my best efforts, the systemic issues I sought to address remained deeply embedded in the company’s culture.
It was after these months of frustration that I ultimately decided to step down from my position. I no longer wanted to be connected in an official capacity with an entity that resisted the necessary improvements. The experience confirmed that Gameforge’s internal structure wasn’t designed to support the kind of transparency and accountability players were asking for.
Part 7: Possible Solutions to Ongoing Issues
The challenges that Gameforge faces—particularly with regard to transparency, support inefficiencies, and community engagement—are not insurmountable. There are several potential solutions that could help improve both the player experience and the company’s relationship with its community:
- Improved Transparency:
- Clear Communication: Gameforge should provide clear, detailed explanations of account actions such as bans, with supporting evidence (logs) when appropriate. This would foster trust between players and the company.
- Open Discussions on Forums: Instead of shutting down sensitive topics, Gameforge could allow moderated discussions on transparency and privacy issues. Players should feel free to discuss general support system flaws without fear of censorship.
- Reform of the Support System:
- Faster Response Times: The support system should be designed to resolve issues efficiently. This includes providing detailed, personalized responses within a shorter timeframe, rather than relying on repetitive and generic replies.
- Tiered Escalation System: Rather than forcing players into private channels without resolution, Gameforge should create a transparent escalation process where unresolved issues can move up the chain in a clear, structured manner.
- Better Handling of GDPR Requests:
- Comprehensive Data Access: Gameforge needs to comply fully with GDPR by offering complete access to personal data when requested. If certain information cannot be shared due to privacy or intellectual property concerns, clear legal justifications should be provided along with redacted versions of the data.
- Transparency in Decision-Making: Bans and sanctions should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how decisions were made, especially when they involve automated processes.
- Improved Volunteer Structure:
- Better Support for Volunteers: Gameforge should invest more resources in its volunteer system, providing clearer guidelines, better tools, and greater transparency for Game Operators (GOs) and other volunteers.
- Volunteer Feedback Integration: Volunteers are often on the frontlines of player interactions. Regular feedback from volunteers should be formally integrated into Gameforge’s decision-making processes to ensure ongoing improvement.
- Regular Public Updates:
- Community Updates on Key Issues: Gameforge should regularly update the community on progress related to player concerns—such as transparency, support reform, and policy changes. This would show that the company is committed to addressing ongoing issues.
By implementing these solutions, Gameforge could rebuild trust with its player base and improve the overall player experience. It would require a willingness to engage openly with both volunteers and the community, but the result would be a more robust and trusted support system.
Conclusion: A Call for Change
As someone who has navigated Gameforge’s system as both a player and a volunteer, the need for transparency and reform has become undeniably clear. My experiences with the accounts Disco Zugzug and Mensa, as well as my time as an OGame Admin, have exposed deep flaws in how Gameforge handles player issues, data transparency, and its relationship with the community.
The lack of meaningful change, despite repeated complaints and efforts from players and volunteers alike, reflects a systemic unwillingness to adapt. It’s time for Gameforge to recognize the importance of clear communication, transparency, and genuine community engagement. Only through real reform can the company regain the trust of its player base and create a support system that prioritizes accountability.
This essay has outlined several possible solutions that could significantly improve the relationship between Gameforge and its players. I hope that by shedding light on these issues and offering constructive feedback, we can move toward a future where OGame thrives not just as a game, but as a community built on fairness, transparency, and mutual respect.