A Case of Unfair Dismissal?
Background
On 03-02-2025, I submitted a ticket to appeal my Discord ban from the OGame community, as I was informed by a moderator, Lorovus, that I could request a review after six months. Below is a complete log of the discussion, highlighting the issues with the appeal process and the lack of fairness in how decisions are handled.
Ticket Submission & Initial Response
11:49 AM – Ticket Created
- System Message: Welcome @Jillian|Jollian. OGame Discord Support will review your request shortly.
- Reason for Ticket: Discord Ban Appeal
11:51 AM – My Initial Request
“I was told by @Lorovus that I would be allowed to request a review of my Discord ban six months after it was set.”
Rejection Without Consideration
2:01 PM – Lorovus’ Response:
“Hello Jillian! Thank you for your request. The reasons for your original ban were already discussed in your previous complaint, and further discussion is unnecessary.
“Regarding your appeal, we believe that your past conduct—both on your original account and through an unauthorized multi-account—demonstrates a disregard for the rules. For this reason, we are rejecting your appeal.”
My Response: The Flaws in the Decision
2:03 PM – My Appeal to Lorovus
Dear Lorovus,
I appreciate the opportunity to appeal my Discord ban, but I find your response disappointing and lacking in fairness.
- Lack of Justification: You claim my ban was previously “explained,” but simply stating that something has been discussed does not make the reasoning behind it correct. Key concerns I raised regarding the misapplication of the rule were never properly addressed.
- Vague Criteria for Reinstatement: You cite my “conduct” as a reason to reject my appeal but fail to specify which actions disqualify me. If appeals are meant to allow for redemption, then what purpose do they serve if denials are based on personal perception rather than structured criteria?
- Misrepresentation of Multi-Account Use: I acknowledge the rule violation regarding the “unauthorized multi,” but my intent was never to deceive or harm the community. Holding this against me indefinitely—without considering context—feels excessive.
If this decision is final, I request a transparent outline of what qualifies as grounds for a successful appeal. At the moment, it appears as though there is no clear standard.
Best regards,
Jillian
Dismissal Without Meaningful Dialogue
2:26 PM – Lorovus’ Response:
“Further discussion on your original ban is unnecessary. Whether you agree with our justification or not, it was explained. Any further debate would be redundant.
“The appeal system exists to give second chances to users who demonstrate a willingness to follow the rules. In your case, your repeated rule violations indicate that this is not the case.
“The decision is final. Appeals require full acknowledgment of past mistakes and acceptance of penalties. I do not see this happening, and therefore, I do not recommend submitting another appeal.”
Final Attempt to Address the Issues
2:29 PM – My Response:
I understand that you consider further discussion unnecessary, but your approach to this appeal contradicts the very concept of fairness.
- A Rigged System: You claim that appeals allow for “redemption,” yet my case was dismissed outright with no actual reconsideration. That is not an appeal—it is an enforcement of a prior decision without review.
- Unfair Standards: You state that I must fully accept all justifications and penalties to be eligible for reinstatement. But how can one appeal an unjust ruling if the only way forward is to agree with it completely?
- Ignoring Context: You mention that my past conduct was taken into account, yet there is no clear standard for how past behavior is evaluated. Does a single mistake define a user forever? Without transparency, this decision appears arbitrary.
Furthermore, dismissing concerns about Gameforge’s conduct as “not subject to this appeal” reinforces the one-sided nature of this process. A fair system should allow for both parties to reflect—not just place all responsibility on the user.
Closing Statements: The Problem with OGame’s Appeal System
2:50 PM – Final Response from Lorovus:
“We consider past conduct and the appeal itself when making a decision. Your questioning of the process was not a factor in our rejection.”
“This appeal only concerns your conduct on Discord, and this matter is now closed.”
Key Takeaways: Why This Appeal Process is Flawed
- Pre-Determined Rejections: My appeal was dismissed before any discussion took place.
- Lack of Transparency: There is no clear guideline on what qualifies for reinstatement.
- Unfair Handling: The decision process is designed to maintain bans rather than reevaluate cases.
- No Moderator Accountability: Concerns about Gameforge’s handling of bans are ignored.
If appeals are supposed to be a path to redemption, then they should involve actual review and consideration, not predetermined denials. The current process serves no purpose other than to uphold existing decisions without scrutiny.
Final Thought: An appeal system that does not allow for discussion is not an appeal system—it is a rubber-stamping mechanism to reject users regardless of circumstances.
A Follow-Up: The Closing Remarks
After the initial discussion on my Discord ban appeal, I reopened a ticket on 03-02-2025 at 3:22 PM, requesting clarification regarding why my earlier response was dismissed without proper acknowledgment. Below is the summary of the follow-up conversation, using direct quotes to highlight key moments.
Follow-Up Ticket: Clarifications and Reassertions
3:22 PM – My Opening Statement: “You state that this appeal concerns only my conduct on Discord, yet at the same time, my ‘history’ and ‘repeated disrespect of the rules’ were used as justification for rejecting the appeal. If the decision was based solely on my behavior within Discord, then referencing broader past disputes beyond this platform should not have been a factor in your evaluation.”
“This selective reasoning makes it clear that the appeal process is not truly about reviewing my Discord conduct, but rather about reinforcing a predetermined decision using external justifications. If past disagreements are going to be used as a basis to deny an appeal, then there should at least be transparency about which specific actions contributed to that judgment.”
3:32 PM – Lorovus’ Response: “You are wrong in believing that your conduct in cases other than Discord were directly referenced. The decision in case of your appeal has already been made. This matter should be concluded. Have a nice day!”
3:35 PM – My Final Statement: “I appreciate the clarification, but my concern remains the same—this appeal process has felt more like a formality rather than a genuine reconsideration of the case. Regardless of whether my past conduct outside of Discord was directly referenced, the reasoning provided still leans on preconceived conclusions rather than an open review of the situation.”
“At this point, it is clear that further discussion will not be productive. I wanted to ensure my position was clearly stated, and now that it is, I see no reason to continue this conversation.”
“I will leave it at that.”
Key Takeaways: Why This Appeal Process is Flawed
- Dismissal Without Dialogue: My concerns about fairness and transparency were brushed aside with statements such as “this matter should be concluded”.
- Lack of Transparency: Despite requesting clarification, I was told I was “wrong in believing” my past conduct outside Discord was a factor, without addressing why specific justifications were used.
- Preconceived Conclusions: My final remark underscores the heart of the issue: “the reasoning provided still leans on preconceived conclusions rather than an open review of the situation.”
Despite my efforts to raise valid concerns, the conversation ended without any acknowledgment of the systemic issues in the appeal process.