Jump to content


Tickets and "cannot disclose any evidence/proof regarding this decision"


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

55590729 #1 Posted 05 July 2017 - 06:31 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3871 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

Hello,
I'm not sure if this/"Off-topic" is the best folder to discuss how Wargaming makes decisions when freezing accounts and so on.

I have heard several times that some players have been reported for several reasons and when they ask from the decision maker a proof/evidence/materials that were used to form the decision then Wargaming refuses to show or explain those proofs and  replies as following:

 

"We also cannot disclose any evidence regarding this decision."
or
"We are in no way onligated to provide proof of the account selling."

(their "onligated" may be "obligated" here perhaps)

 

Again i would like to emphasize that it does not matter was the decision right or wrong but the question is why to make decisions without giving any proof or details why the decision is such.

In my understanding it is obvious that if the decision is "account freezed for X days for using Aimbot" then it is obvious would be to additionally explain why they think that Aimbot was used or account selling was done, can they show a replay or a screen-shot or cite a forum posting or whatever. If they just say that they believe in using Aimbot or whatever then they can be easily wrong, why not to show the proof if asked.

What is your opinion should Wargaming provide evidence/proof regarding decision when asked or not?



Nishi_Kinuyo #2 Posted 05 July 2017 - 06:46 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 7274 battles
  • 3,760
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Probably to prevent unnecessary backlast from the community after their account suspension period has elapsed.



55590729 #3 Posted 05 July 2017 - 07:21 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3871 battles
  • 22
  • Member since:
    12-06-2014

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 05 July 2017 - 06:46 PM, said:

Probably to prevent unnecessary backlast from the community after their account suspension period has elapsed.

 

I understand your opinion as "preventing time consuming non-profitable dialog".

 

If i understood you correctly then i would myself comment that such method may be 95% of times correct with correct decisions but on 5% of times or so such method makes mistakes and can even block accounts that are not "guilty".

For example someone will agree with 5 friends to all 5 report one other player and providing fabricated screen-shots in the report. And the result is that the account will be closed permanently and Wargaming ignores any further tickets the victim does by just saying "they are not obligated to show/explain any proof/evidence".

 

Therefore i believe that such current system can be fast and mostly correct but often mistaken. It's not ideal but i'm not sure how would be a better and fast solution. 



1ncompetenc3 #4 Posted 05 July 2017 - 07:25 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36867 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
I think discussing WG staff decisions regarding player accounts is against forum rules. :trollface:

SenpaiErickNutab #5 Posted 05 July 2017 - 07:29 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 41414 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    11-15-2012

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 05 July 2017 - 07:25 PM, said:

I think discussing WG staff decisions regarding player accounts is against forum rules. :trollface:

 

Sounds very democratic :)

Maybe there is a special place/folder where is allowed to talk/discuss?



1ncompetenc3 #6 Posted 05 July 2017 - 07:34 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36867 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostSenpaiErickNutab, on 05 July 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

 

Sounds very democratic :)

Maybe there is a special place/folder where is allowed to talk/discuss?

 

This is an internet forum, not a democracy. :P

And no, there isn't. You can contact an admin or other staff member and discuss sanctions with him, but you're not allowed to share those discussions on the forum. I think it's actually a relatively new rule, from february this year. Presumably they didn't like seeing all the copy-paste replies people get from support. :rolleyes:



Nishi_Kinuyo #7 Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 7274 battles
  • 3,760
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 05 July 2017 - 06:34 PM, said:

This is an internet forum, not a democracy. :P

Eh, democracy is vastly overrated anyhow.

Either you get a lunatic like Trump with elective presidencies, or you get a house of representatives unable to form a majority coalition because nobody wants to work together.

The_Numbers

 If i understood you correctly then i would myself comment that such method may be 95% of times correct with correct decisions but on 5% of times or so such method makes mistakes and can even block accounts that are not "guilty".

 I'm pretty confident that those remaining 5% might not be as innocent as you think them to be.

So imo, it is up to the owner of said account to take it up with support if they disagree.



1ncompetenc3 #8 Posted 05 July 2017 - 10:53 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36867 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 05 July 2017 - 10:24 PM, said:

Eh, democracy is vastly overrated anyhow.

Either you get a lunatic like Trump with elective presidencies, or you get a house of representatives unable to form a majority coalition because nobody wants to work together.

 

To be fair, 'murrka isn't much of a democracy considering the electoral college went against the majority of the population.

The latter is admittedly a bit of a pain in the arse. :P






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users