Attempts to engage the OGame community in meaningful discussions about transparency and support issues were met with consistent resistance from the moderation team on the forums. Notably, on the .nl board, every post that raised concerns about how Gameforge handled privacy or support transparency was swiftly shut down. The moderation team seemed to take the posts personally, making it difficult to have any productive discussions.
.nl Board Attempts:
Our initial attempts to raise awareness and discuss ongoing problems on the .nl board were met with immediate resistance. The team was quick to shut down any thread that questioned their handling of support or transparency issues. This reaction from the moderators seemed defensive, with posts often being closed without a chance for constructive dialogue. It felt as though raising legitimate concerns was seen as a personal attack, rather than an opportunity to improve communication and transparency.
First Post on the .org Board:
Following the frustrations on the .nl board, we turned to the .org board. Our first post there aimed to address these issues but included a small amount of personal information regarding the origins of our complaints. This minor detail gave the moderators an excuse to close the discussion quickly. Rather than addressing the broader points about transparency and support, they used the inclusion of personal information as a reason to shut down the conversation, leaving the core issues unresolved.
Second Post on the .org Board:
In an attempt to keep the focus purely on transparency and privacy, we created a second post on the .org board, avoiding any personal information that could be used as an excuse for closure. For a short while, the post remained open, as there was no immediate justification for the moderators to shut it down. Players began contributing to the discussion, voicing similar concerns about the lack of transparency in Gameforge’s handling of account bans and data requests. However, after about a week, the thread was closed, once again stifling the conversation.
The moderation team never provided a clear explanation for the closure beyond vague reasoning that the forum was not the appropriate place for such discussions. This repeated pattern of closing discussions without addressing the core issues further emphasized the lack of transparency from Gameforge. It seemed clear that the forum, despite being a community space, was not a platform where players could openly discuss ongoing concerns regarding privacy, support transparency, and the broader issues affecting the player base.
Ticket Exchanges Regarding the Forum Closure
Following the closure of the forum thread discussing transparency issues, we initiated a series of support tickets to contest the decision. Initially, the moderator’s justification for closing the topic was that it addressed issues better suited for ticket support or legal action, which they deemed inappropriate for the forum. However, we argued that the discussion was not about individual sanctions, but rather about broader issues affecting multiple players, such as the lack of transparency in how Gameforge handled sanctions and data requests.
Despite our reasoning, the moderator maintained that the forum was not the right platform for these discussions, citing that some topics went beyond what could be addressed in the forum format. However, we emphasized that no forum rules had been violated and that the conversation remained productive and relevant to the community. We also pointed out that the closure reinforced concerns that Gameforge was pushing legitimate discussions into private channels, stifling open dialogue.
In subsequent ticket responses, we reiterated that using the ticket system to address broader community concerns, rather than individual complaints, was ineffective. We further highlighted that redirecting players to back-alley channels like ticket support only deepened mistrust and limited public accountability. Ultimately, despite our arguments, the support team refused to reopen the discussion, leaving the impression that Gameforge preferred to silence discussions rather than address the core issues publicly.