This response was prepared by the team as a whole, and I am posting it on their behalf. The original thread was locked earlier because, at the time, we were in the middle of addressing the DDoS situation and did not have the capacity to properly respond here as well. Ordinarily, a thread centered on a specific moderation case or appeal would be removed, since such posts are often more about venting frustration than genuinely resolving an issue. In this case, however, we chose to leave the post visible and use it as an opportunity to provide a clearer explanation of how the appeal system works, as we still frequently get questions. A TL;DR and a link to the FAF information page on the moderation system are included below. On “vague” ban messages We use a set of standard ban messages that accurately describe the reason for the ban. This is not because we want to be obscure, but because we process a very large number of tickets, and having consistent, pre-written messages allows us to keep things moving. Examples include “Abuse of union control mode”, “Griefing”, “Reclaiming allied units”, “Verbal abuse”, and “Ctrl-K’ing significant number of units”. The expectation is that players remember the game they just played, especially when the ban is issued within a day of that match, which is frequently the case. If someone does not remember or feels the message is unclear, the ticket system is the place to ask for clarification, and we are always ready to provide details when asked. Typically such tickets are answered within hours. On the appeal timeline You submitted your appeal roughly 4.5 days into a 7-day ban. Your appeal did not ask for clarification; you explicitly acknowledged your abuse of union control and requested a reduction. You received a reply about seven hours later confirming receipt, and at that point you were informed that you should expect a verdict within 7–14 days. This time indication was longer than is usual because of ongoing issues related to the DDoS attacks at the time. Normally, we resolve appeals in 1–3 days. We explain this on our website, along with an explanation of why appeals take longer than normal tickets. The reason for a multi-day turnaround is simple: an appeal is not just “pressing a button.” By protocol, the appeal must be reviewed by at least two moderators who were not involved in the original ban, with the issuing moderator only providing context. The original moderator does not have a vote on how the appeal gets resolved, but is asked for their input and reasoning behind the ban. That means three people are engaged in every appeal. This often involves the replay, verifying the offense, reviewing the reasoning for the original ban, and then discussing whether a reduction is justified. About half of appeals result in at least a partial reduction, which shows that the process is meaningful and not just a rubber stamp. This method of requiring 2 additional moderators has been designed this way on purpose. What you mistake for inefficiency, is in fact an intentionally designed system to ensure moderators are held accountable. All of this takes time, especially since every one of us is a volunteer. We are not employees sitting in a call center waiting to pick up the next ticket. Our Discord status being “online” does not mean we are sitting there ready to process appeals at a moment’s notice. Often we are at work, studying, or just relaxing in our free time with Discord open in the background. So when you say things like: “My bad for asking you to do your duty as a Moderator.” That wording is inappropriate and comes across as entitlement. None of us has a contractual “duty” to provide immediate service. Moderators donate their personal time to keep the FAF community functioning. If you expect an on-demand appeals office, that would require paid staff, not volunteers. It is also worth pointing out that during the very weekend in question, the moderation team was working with admins and the FAF Board to respond to a series of DDoS attacks. Tickets, while important, are not the only part of the job, and sometimes they must wait while other pressing tasks are handled. In the end, we resolved your ticket within 3 days. On the “case-by-case” complaint You argue that moderation is too inconsistent and that “case-by-case” should not be the default. Here it is important to be clear about what consistency actually means. The rules are applied consistently: deliberately destroying an allied commander through union control is griefing and bannable. That is why you were banned. What you describe as “inconsistency” in similar cases is usually one of two things: Misunderstandings by the reporter. Some reports we have received claim that an ally Ctrl-K’d their commander. On review, it turns out the commander was actually killed by enemy fire. For example, we recently received a report where it turned out a commander was sniped by enemy TML, rather than the reported allied abuse of union mode. Because there is no griefing in that case, such reports are dismissed with a short explanation. Reports of normal union control. If you join a union control game, you consent to allies using your units. A teammate moving your ships is not griefing. A teammate deleting your commander is. That is the difference between perceived griefing and actual griefing. The first will be dismissed, the second will result in action. We cannot prevent players from misinterpreting the results, but that does not mean the moderation was inconsistent. In your case, it was unambiguous: you destroyed an allied commander. That always results in a ban. To say that others have done the same and been excused is a claim we have not seen borne out in the reports we process. We won’t pretend mistakes are impossible, but they are far rarer than players assume when they only hear one side of a story, and our appeal system is designed to catch such mistakes. Similarly, if you believe we have discarded a ticket when we shouldn’t have, a moderation ticket is the right place to bring that to our attention. On the appeal outcome It is true that your ban expired very shortly after your appeal was formally denied. We explained above why the process requires multiple moderators to review and discuss, and sometimes the conclusion of that process comes near the end of the ban duration. In your case, this was mostly a consequence of you submitting your appeal after most of your ban had already expired. This happens sometimes, often when the duration of the ban is short or when the appeal was made later into the ban. However, even in these cases, the process serves an important function. An upheld appeal from a player will be taken into account for any future action taken, so it is to the benefit of the player in question. In addition, it helps us keep ourselves consistent and helps us make the right decisions. You should now also understand that your implication that the moderators deliberately delayed your appeal until your ban expired was not the case. If our goal were to avoid appeals, we would not have built this system in the first place. The current ticket system replaced the old email-based process, which often meant waiting a month or more for an appeal. Because of the time volunteers give, most appeals are now resolved within a few days. We hope to continue with this system, but if it ever becomes too difficult to maintain, the fallback would be a return to the slower email-based approach. On adding more moderators You suggest bringing in more moderators. That is an ongoing process: most recently we’ve added TheCrimsonKnight to the team and are always watching for promising candidates. Recruiting, however, is not something that can be rushed, and it is not as simple as “just add more.” A moderator needs to be both trustworthy and willing to volunteer their time consistently. Given the sensitivity of the data a moderator has access to, a careless choice can create far more problems than it solves. TL;DR: The system is designed to be fair and careful, not instant. Appeals take multiple people and careful review, because that is how we ensure decisions are not biased or the consequence of a rogue moderator. Moderators are also not customer service agents on shift. We are community members who volunteer our own free time, and you cannot expect instant resolution. You were banned for Ctrl-King a teammate’s ACU through union control, which is always actionable. The fact that the appeal was completed just before your ban expires is a consequence of you filing your appeal halfway through your ban. For further questions and information I’d like to refer you to our general info page on our website: https://faforever.com/moderation.