vZelfeR Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 So pretty simple suggestion as stated in the title, basically as it stands now; a ban is issued, the appeal goes through but it's the issuer of the ban that responds and makes the decision. Whereas it should be a non-bias party that makes the decision and reviews the evidence. I get in some instances there will be some discussion in the background with regards to this with the staff team, but I know of some instances where this hasn't happened. Having the same person look at the appeal and evidence is like going to court and having the police officer that arrested you acting as the judge.... It allows bias, which I have seen massively with a couple of senior staff, and turning over a ban is them essentially admitting they're wrong, which I know a small minority will not do. I am very aware all game bans happen for good reason. If I am mistaken in any of this, then please, some clarity and communication would go a long way!
RustyOsprey2 Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 I'm pretty sure this isn't how the system works. When the staff members get tagged in the appeal, they respond with their "point of view". But I do believe higher-ranking members of staff are the ones actually handling the result, as otherwise it would be incredibly stupid to have the issuer handle the appeal themselves.
Eliza Posted January 14 Report Posted January 14 (edited) This isn’t how it works. Appeals are decided by a higher ranking staff member than the one who issues a decision, mostly handled by a senior admin. You are correct in saying that the issuer gives their input but that is only to justify their reasoning or if they believe somebody is ready. The final decision is not up to the one who issued it. I’ve had some of my decisions reversed in the past. The entire process is explained in the decision appeal guidelines Edited January 14 by Eliza
vZelfeR Posted January 14 Author Report Posted January 14 (edited) Maybe it's my assumption from what I've experienced and confusion from the below; Quote The mod or admin will explain their reasoning, and then it will be reviewed by a member of Senior Staff. The above is whats stated in the guidelines, but in my personal experience I have not found this to be the case unless it's reviewed before the staff has given their reasoning. But unless im perceiving it wrong, I would expect two responses, one from the issuer explaining their reasoning as stated, and then a second response from the more senior staff giving the verdict. I have not seen this happen personally although I have not been game banned. I understand that discussions would take place in the background but I think communication would help resolve issues as it comes across like the issuer has given the verdict. Happy for this to be closed if I have gotten this completely wrong! Edited January 14 by vZelfeR
Hector2Fingers Posted February 4 Report Posted February 4 As has been stated by a few others above and as stated in the decision appeal guidelines, an appeal is initially responded to by the issuer in the event they would like to further explain the reasoning behind their decision. From there, it is then assigned to a member of senior staff who ultimately will make the final decision and respond to the appeal after internal discussions. As such, I will go ahead and archive this suggestion. Feel free to open up a new suggestion if you'd like to see further updates to the appeal process, or feel free to open a support ticket in the ECRP discord if you have any additional questions on the current appeal process.
