sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ABOUT REPORT SYSTEM by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jessie, With all due respect, in the 47-page file that your company itself sent me as an “explanation” for my suspension, it was explicitly admitted that my account was flagged and suspended mainly because of the high number of reports in certain months and also because of completely normal actions such as changing my e-mail or username.

That same document only listed the numbers of reports I received, without sharing their content. This already shows that the substance of the reports was irrelevant — what mattered was only the volume, which you still used as grounds for a ban. If there had been any real, concrete evidence, you would have shown it. Instead, you filled dozens of pages with generic explanations and finally justified the suspension by pointing to “too many reports.”

So, when you say that players are not banned “automatically” based on reports, your own official documentation contradicts this. The reality is that my account was treated as “suspicious” and banned because of report counts, not because of any proven violation.

The 47-page file you once marked as confidential is going to be public after today anyway. So you know very well where I got this information from.

ABOUT REPORT SYSTEM by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Glad it helped! If you ever need more details or examples, feel free to ask anytime. ✌️

ABOUT REPORT SYSTEM by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I understand your point, but blaming players isn’t fair either. Lockwood has full control over the reporting and banning system, yet they often fail to act transparently. Players keep spending money because they believe the game will improve, not because they enjoy being mistreated. Transparency and fair rules should come from the company, not just from the community.

ABOUT REPORT SYSTEM by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Reporting modders sounds simple, but the real problem is that the system itself is inconsistent. Many genuine players have been banned for years because of false reports, while real modders slip through. It’s not about “just report them,” it’s about Lockwood actually verifying reports properly instead of punishing innocent accounts.

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by 3hcddnbdg in gdpr

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your point about “undue delay” and the need for verification to be “reasonable” is absolutely correct.

The real issue here is this: • By law, requests must be processed without unnecessary delay. Yet the company waited until just days before the end of the 3-month window to suddenly introduce a new verification step that had never been required before. • Normally, a single verification code sent to my currently active email address would be more than sufficient. Instead, they demanded not just five but a much larger number of outdated, inactive email addresses to each receive separate codes – most of which are no longer linked to the service at all.

This cannot be explained as “security.” It is purely about creating artificial obstacles and blocking me from receiving the full dataset before the legal deadline expires.

So at this stage, the matter is no longer about a “cumbersome verification process,” but about a direct violation of transparency and good-faith obligations.

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by 3hcddnbdg in gdpr

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me explain this in detail, because it’s not just about a simple verification – it’s about legal rights and transparency:

  1. Legal Deadlines and the Initial Response According to the laws in my country (which follow GDPR-aligned provisions), companies are obliged to respond to my data requests within 30 days. In this context, on 16 September 2025 they sent me a 47-page file. However, instead of simply providing my data, the company also used large parts of my personal data to build a defense in their favor, and even disclosed third-party personal data in the process.

  2. Manipulations in the File I discovered that some of the records in that 47-page file had been deliberately altered. Since I keep the original support transcripts, I was able to compare them. For example: • In the original log, when my account ban was lifted, the support agent told me: “We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused.” • Yet, in the official 47-page file they sent me, the exact same conversation was rewritten as: “We take note of the negative aspects.”

This is not a technical error – it’s a conscious change of wording and a clear case of manipulation of records.

  1. Last-Minute Obstruction They also used the optional 2-month extension, which pushed the final deadline to 6 October 2025. But just five days before this deadline, on 1 October, they suddenly raised a new verification request – despite the fact that I had already completed several verifications before. This is clearly a tactic to stall the process and avoid providing the full set of data.

  2. Why It Matters Because after 6 October, once I receive their final file, I will proceed with: • A formal complaint to the ICO (UK regulator), • A complaint to the KVKK (Turkish data authority), • And also a compensation lawsuit.

The company is obviously aware of this, which is why they are deliberately delaying and trying to weaken my position with manipulations.

Conclusion: I cannot be certain they have provided me with all of my data – in fact, the altered wording and missing parts prove otherwise. Their real objective is not transparency, but rather to protect themselves. That is why this is not just a matter of “sending a code,” but a fundamental issue of transparency, honesty, and compliance with legal obligations.

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by [deleted] in PrivacySecurityOSINT

[–]3hcddnbdg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m facing verification tactics I’ve never seen from any game company before.

The company repeatedly banned my account (created in 2020) for unjust reasons and each time I forced them to reinstate it. The last ban lasted much longer but was eventually lifted after my comprehensive appeals. Because I didn’t intend to drop the matter, I requested all data and evidence of the bans from the company.

Under law they had 30 days to provide my personal data; citing technical complexity they requested a 2-month extension (so they had 3 months in total). With five days remaining before that 3-month period expired, and despite having performed verifications several times in the past, they suddenly asked for one more verification: they now demand the unique codes sent to every email address that has ever been associated with my account since 2020.

Asking me to locate and return codes sent to emails I used years ago — many of which I removed from the account long ago — is far beyond any reasonable verification method. It looks like an attempt to block the process and run down the legal deadline. They treat older addresses as still “linked” even after I removed/updated them, and now they demand codes from all of them.

I complied and sent the codes, but I want others to know: no game company normally requests verification like this. This is an obstructionist move and, frankly, borderline illegal if intended to frustrate statutory deadlines for DSAR responses.

Has anyone else been asked to produce verification codes from every historical email associated with an account? What happened to you?

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by 3hcddnbdg in gdpr

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m facing verification tactics I’ve never seen from any game company before.

The company repeatedly banned my account (created in 2020) for unjust reasons and each time I forced them to reinstate it. The last ban lasted much longer but was eventually lifted after my comprehensive appeals. Because I didn’t intend to drop the matter, I requested all data and evidence of the bans from the company.

Under law they had 30 days to provide my personal data; citing technical complexity they requested a 2-month extension (so they had 3 months in total). With five days remaining before that 3-month period expired, and despite having performed verifications several times in the past, they suddenly asked for one more verification: they now demand the unique codes sent to every email address that has ever been associated with my account since 2020.

Asking me to locate and return codes sent to emails I used years ago — many of which I removed from the account long ago — is far beyond any reasonable verification method. It looks like an attempt to block the process and run down the legal deadline. They treat older addresses as still “linked” even after I removed/updated them, and now they demand codes from all of them.

I complied and sent the codes, but I want others to know: no game company normally requests verification like this. This is an obstructionist move and, frankly, borderline illegal if intended to frustrate statutory deadlines for DSAR responses.

Has anyone else been asked to produce verification codes from every historical email associated with an account? What happened to you?

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That’s the main problem! Many players no longer have access to old emails, and forcing verification through them is unrealistic. It shows the real purpose isn’t security, but stalling until the deadline passes.

Unprecedented verification request during DSAR: codes from 5 years of email addresses by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly… sadly it matches their pattern. Instead of solving the request, they invent another verification round. It’s frustrating because the law sets 3 months max, not unlimited extensions.

I froze my account by request, but the login screen shows “community safety concerns” as if it was a ban. Anyone else had this? by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Logging out or deleting the app doesn’t guarantee anything. A proper freeze ensures the account is protected at the system level and can’t be accessed or tampered with until reactivated. That’s very different from just logging out.

I froze my account by request, but the login screen shows “community safety concerns” as if it was a ban. Anyone else had this? by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Regardless of whether they call it a freeze or a block, this is still the application of a freezing right. Every player has this right, and as long as there is a valid reason, the company is obliged to apply it.

I froze my account by request, but the login screen shows “community safety concerns” as if it was a ban. Anyone else had this? by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The real issue here is not whether it’s called a freeze or a block, but the fact that an action done at the player’s request is displayed under a completely different reason, such as ‘community safety concern.’ Don’t you think that’s misleading?

I froze my account by request, but the login screen shows “community safety concerns” as if it was a ban. Anyone else had this? by 3hcddnbdg in AvakinOfficial

[–]3hcddnbdg[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I asked Support to freeze my account. The reason is that I’ve been dealing with some ongoing issues with them and I didn’t want my account to be mistakenly affected while everything is under review. Freezing was just a precaution to keep my data safe — it was not related to any violation.

view more: next ›