🧾 Transcript: OGame Discord Ban Appeal – Second Appeal Ticket

[08:57] APP (Ticket Tool)
@Jillian|Jollian Welcome
@English @OGame Discord Support will shortly take care of your ticket.
OGame Support Staff will be with you shortly.
To close this ticket react with 🔒
TicketTool.xyz – Ticketing without clutter

Reason for Ticket:
Request for Reconsideration of Discord Ban (Second Appeal)

[08:58] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello,

I’m reaching out today to respectfully request a fresh review of my Discord ban from the OGame community. As advised previously, I waited the appropriate amount of time before submitting my initial appeal on February 3rd. However, I felt that the appeal process at the time did not offer a clear opportunity for genuine dialogue or reconsideration.

I’ve taken time to reflect on the situation and my past conduct, and I’d like to approach this second appeal with a sincere intent to move forward in a positive and respectful way — both in my interactions with the community and with moderation staff.

If there are specific criteria I need to meet or acknowledge for this appeal to be considered, I’d appreciate the opportunity to understand those more clearly. My goal is not to argue past decisions, but to demonstrate that I am capable of engaging constructively under the community’s guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Jillian

[10:17] Lorovus:
Hello Jillian!

I don’t think there needs to be another conversation regarding this case. In your previous appeal, we communicated our decision and that this decision is final. We also recommended against submitting another appeal on this case.

As stated earlier, the appeal process is there to provide a second chance to our users in cases where — based on their history — we believe there is a chance for their “redemption”. In our consideration, your case does not fall in this category. Therefore we will not define criteria for this appeal or the removal of your Discord ban.

[10:33] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello Lorovus,

Thank you for your reply — though I must express my ongoing concern regarding both the substance and structure of your response, which again appears to affirm a pattern of procedural inflexibility rather than any genuine reconsideration of the matter at hand.

You have stated, once again, that the decision is “final,” and further discussion is “not needed.” Respectfully, I must challenge that assertion. The function of an appeal — by definition — is to reassess an earlier decision in light of new context, time passed, or reformed intent. When your response simply reaffirms the original judgment without review, deliberation, or criteria, it ceases to function as an “appeal process” in any meaningful sense of the term. What you are describing is a post-hoc justification loop — not a restorative or evaluative mechanism.

The refusal to define any criteria for reinstatement — under the rationale that my case does not fall within some undefined category of “redeemable” — is emblematic of the lack of procedural transparency that makes this system so deeply problematic. When decisions are made with opaque logic, and when users are not informed of what specific behaviors disqualify them from returning, you create a situation where accountability is entirely one-sided. I cannot “demonstrate change” or “redeem” myself if the metrics for redemption are deliberately withheld. This is not moderation — it is containment.

To be clear, your message did not actually engage with the content of my original appeal. You referenced past decisions, but provided no meaningful insight into how this new request was considered. You referred to “history,” but declined to identify which elements of that history, specifically, preclude reconsideration. Instead, you’ve defaulted to asserting finality as if repetition alone validates it.

This approach is not just dismissive — it undermines the credibility of your entire appeal framework. A system that refuses to define its terms, denies dialogue, and forecloses all pathways to return cannot reasonably be called fair, nor functional. If this is the intended structure — a system in which certain users are effectively blacklisted indefinitely with no recourse — then I believe that should be made explicit in your policy. As it stands, the absence of clear guidelines, timelines, or evaluative criteria creates an arbitrary and, frankly, indefensible gatekeeping mechanism.

I would prefer not to escalate this further, but I want to be entirely transparent: if the intent here is to shut down communication and render the appeal process functionally inert, I will be documenting this exchange and raising the issue through other available channels — whether that means through Gameforge directly or publicly where necessary. This is not about entitlement to reentry; it’s about basic fairness in how decisions are communicated, reviewed, and justified.

I remain, however, open to a genuine discussion — one grounded in clarity, not dismissal. I’m not asking for a special exemption. I’m asking for due process — or at the very least, for the appearance that such a thing exists within this framework.

Sincerely,
Jillian

[10:55] Lorovus:
I don’t engage, because I don’t think there is a need to engage. We already stated the reasons for the rejection of your appeal. Revisiting said reasons or the reasons for your ban (and earlier penalties on Discord) would be redundant. I can see that you don’t agree, however our decision on this matter is final.

Further discussion on this matter is not necessary.

We consider this matter as concluded.

[10:56] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello Lorovus,

Your response unfortunately confirms what I suspected — that this is not a functioning appeal system, but a mechanism to shut down further dialogue under the illusion of finality.

You say you “don’t engage” because you “don’t think there is a need to.” That statement alone underscores the core problem: you’ve positioned yourself as both the enforcer of the original penalty and the sole authority over whether its review deserves consideration. That’s not a process. That’s unchecked discretion masquerading as policy.

You’ve repeated that the matter is concluded, but you haven’t once addressed the actual content of my messages — not in this exchange, not in the February appeal, and not now. I’ve asked for clarity, criteria, and an honest evaluation of the decision-making process. In return, I’ve received reiterations, evasions, and declarations of finality that do not withstand basic scrutiny.

I understand you “don’t think” further discussion is necessary. But that’s not how appeals are supposed to work. If your system cannot tolerate being questioned — if your decisions are “final” simply because you don’t want to revisit them — then what you’ve created is not an appeal process. It’s a rubber stamp with a timer attached.

You are of course free to mark this conversation “concluded” on your end. But as long as you continue to refuse accountability, define no standards, and deny users a meaningful avenue for return, I will continue to raise the issue. Silence and dismissal do not equal resolution — they simply prolong the underlying problem.

If you won’t offer transparency, where can we pursue it?

Jillian

[11:23] Lorovus:
It seems you are creating a general opinion on the appeal process based on your case. In Discord, not all cases are the same, because in chat rooms situations are naturally different as participants and topics change. When making a decision in your case, we referred to your case.

The decisions regarding your case are supported by our team. If you wish to contact Gameforge by other means to dispute said decisions, the outcome would be the same.

Thank you for your time. Have a nice day!

[11:57] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello Lorovus,

Thank you for confirming once again that your refusal to engage with this appeal is not due to any shortage of facts or process, but rather a choice to remain unaccountable for how those processes are applied.

You’re correct — I am forming an opinion of the appeal system based on how my case has been handled. That’s how systems are evaluated: by how they operate in practice, not by how they claim to function in theory. And in practice, this appeal has been met not with a fair review or a criteria-based assessment, but with deflection, repetition, and arbitrary finality. If this is not reflective of how other appeals are handled, then I would respectfully ask: why is mine being treated differently?

You’ve now repeated several times that the decision is final. You’ve also said I am welcome to escalate it, while preemptively asserting that the outcome “would be the same.” That, too, is telling. If the outcome is predetermined regardless of what process is followed, then the process itself is functionally meaningless.

I will be pursuing this further, not because I expect a different outcome from Gameforge per se, but because I believe the lack of transparency and dismissiveness in how this case has been handled deserves to be formally documented — and reviewed by someone who is not already invested in maintaining the original decision.

I understand that this conversation is, from your perspective, over. That does not make it resolved — and I won’t be treating it as such.

Jillian

[12:08] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello again,

I’d like to formally follow up on one of the most troubling aspects of this entire process — namely, the inconsistency and lack of clarity around the actual reason for my Discord ban.

Originally, the justification given was that I had shared “confidential information.” However, it was later stated that the reason for the ban could potentially be rephrased or shifted away from that, while the “underlying reasoning” would remain the same. This, frankly, is a problem. If the stated reason can be altered retroactively, but the core rationale remains undefined, then it becomes impossible to engage with the decision in any meaningful way. This is not transparency — it’s obfuscation.

To complicate matters further, the topic of multi-accounting has also entered the conversation. While it has never been explicitly listed as part of the reason for my ban, it is now being cited — indirectly — as a contributing factor in my appeal being denied. If this was part of the decision at the time, it should have been disclosed clearly. If it wasn’t, and is only now being invoked to reinforce a “final” decision, then that’s a retroactive justification — which completely undermines the legitimacy of the process.

If I’m being penalized for actions that are not officially acknowledged, and if the reasoning for the ban can shift depending on what’s more convenient to cite, then this appeal system isn’t just flawed — it’s structurally incoherent.

So I will ask again, plainly:

• What is the official, standing reason for my Discord ban?
• What is the “underlying reasoning” that supposedly justifies the ban and blocks reinstatement?
• Was multi-accounting a factor in the original decision, or has it only been introduced post-appeal?

If your position is that this matter is closed, then I would suggest it be closed with clarity, not with vague language and retroactive logic. Because right now, it’s difficult to view this process as anything but arbitrary.

I’ll be including these points in possible escalation.

Jillian

[12:12] Jillian|Jollian:
To follow up on specifics:

You mentioned that I’m welcome to escalate this to Gameforge, but I have to ask — escalate to where, exactly? As far as I’m aware, there are no actual channels for doing so, at least none that deal with this sort of situation in any meaningful capacity.

If that statement was meant sincerely, I’d appreciate some clarity on what specific path you’re referring to. If not, then I’d prefer we not pretend there are options available when, in practice, there aren’t.

Jillian

[12:18] Jillian|Jollian:
To clarify: there are no actual channels for doing so open to me.

[12:22] Lorovus:
The reasons have already been explained. Since it seems you intend that we should repeat ourselves, this conversation lost its meaning for us. Please refer to our earlier responses to answer your questions.

To answer your third question specifically, yes it was. It is part of the history as I referred to earlier. However, discussing it would be unnecessary, because we’ve said all we can say on that matter.

Regarding contacting Gameforge by other means, I merely stated that the outcome would be the same.

Once again, I see no point in discussing this matter further. I consider this case concluded. Please do not contact us regarding this issue again!

[12:44] Jillian|Jollian:
Hello Lorovus,

Understood — I won’t continue the conversation further (for now), but I do want to leave one point clearly stated, because it’s the reason this situation remains unresolved on my end.

The problem has never been just that I disagree with the decision. The core issue is that the reasoning behind that decision was never clearly explained — not at the time of the ban, not in the appeal, and not in any of the follow-ups. Each time I’ve asked for specifics, I’ve received vague references to “history,” “confidential information,” or “disregard for rules,” none of which were defined, evidenced, or connected to any specific policy or action.

Even now, with your brief confirmation that the multi-account was “part of the history,” the actual rationale remains unclear — there is no consistent or transparent explanation for what exactly led to the decision, how it was evaluated, or why no path to reconsideration exists. That lack of clarity has been present since the beginning, and it’s never been addressed directly.

You’ve chosen to end the conversation, and I’ll think about respecting that. But from my side, I’ll simply state that this process has not demonstrated fairness or transparency — because the reasons for the decision were never explained in a way that allowed for understanding, reflection, or meaningful response.

I’ll also add this: in past conversations, I was specifically told not to draw conclusions based on incomplete information — that assumptions shouldn’t be made without the full context. And yet, throughout this entire process, that’s exactly the position I’ve been put in. The reasoning behind the ban has remained vague, shifting, and deliberately underexplained from the start.

If conclusions shouldn’t be drawn from partial information, then the responsibility is on your side to provide the full picture. That never happened. Instead, I’ve been asked to accept a final judgment built on fragments, generalities, and undefined references — all while being denied access to the very details that would make a fair appeal possible.

It’s not reasonable to expect clarity from users while maintaining intentional ambiguity in return.

Lastly, I want to briefly acknowledge your request that I “not contact you regarding this issue again.” I find that response particularly troubling.

At no point have I been hostile, disrespectful, or unreasonable in how I’ve tried to engage with this process. I’ve asked valid, specific questions about a decision that continues to lack clear explanation — and your response has been to shut the door entirely, without accountability or transparency.

Telling someone not to reach out again, especially after failing to provide consistent answers, is not professionalism — it’s avoidance. And it sends a clear message: that not only is the appeal process opaque, it actively discourages those who try to navigate it in good faith.

You’re free to consider the matter closed on your end. But I reject the idea that silence and dismissal constitute resolution — and I reject the notion that asking fair questions justifies being told not to speak again.

Until we meet again,
Jillian

[12:51] APP (Ticket Tool)
Ticket Closed by @Lorovus