My OG account which I’ve had since 2005, so nearly 20 years, was permanently closed for leveling fishing with a bot.
I accepted what was but then I saw this post right here (link below) by a cs agent, it really started to give me some hope that if at some point in the future, even if it’s not for another six months or a year, I could get the account reopened.
The agent stated that they take into consideration the severity of the issue, age of the account, etc. Well, I’m an OG player going all the way back to true vanilla, this was literally my only ever infraction. Could someone review and see if they can take into consideration my historical account information like the agent said they do in the post below? I would greatly appreciate it.
I understand if no further action can be taken. I’ve made peace with it and just moved on after a few months. But now that I’ve seen this post, I’m really hoping for a miracle and that someone at Blizzard sees this and says “hey, you did something stupid but you’ve been an OG for 20 years and it was minor, so we’ll give you a reduction and let you get your OG account reopened after a couple months” or something. Just holding out hope! Thank you in advance for reviewing.
This forum is an Information Desk to help folks navigate the Support ticket system, explain policies, explain account services, etc.
If your account is closed then your only option is to appeal. You can do that until they tell you to stop or risk your Battlenet account. You can ask that they please reduce the penalty but if they have already reviewed it, they likely already decided.
It does not hurt to ask again though - but you would need to put in a ticket. This can not be done via the forums. There are no GMs here. Vrak was explaining policy and status, not taking action on an account.
The only thing you can do is submit an appeal. There are no GMs or Blizzard Employees that review appeals in this forum and all the SFAs can do is give you advice. The original email you received should have had instructions for appealing, but in case it didn’t or you don’t have it any longer, here is the support article with instructions.
I would suggest, in your appeal, that you remain humble, honest, and regretful. Don’t try to talk or lie your way out if it. Maybe they’ll have some sympathy and revert your perma ban to a suspension. I’ve seen it happen before, but it’s reviewed case by case and it’s not guaranteed.
Correct. And thank you all for the tips and information.
Five months have passed since the account closure, and while I’ve come to terms with it, that account represents nearly two decades of cherished memories and personal significance. It was devastating to lose, but I’ve accepted the outcome and moved forward as best as I can. It was by chance that I saw that CS agent post. Given these details from the CS agent and what others said in this thread, I opened a ticket and asked for a penalty reduction. It would mean a lot to me to have my original account back.
Just so you’re aware, you could be playing since yesterday, you could be playing since the beginning of time, no account is safe from any account penalties if caught breaching any of the policies.
As others have mentioned, all you can do is appeal.
Not sure how that escaped me. I blame multi-tasking while at work, and all the distraction that entails.
I haven’t seen OP refute the validity of the ban, which makes me believe it was a righteous and well-deserved penalty. So not likely to inspire leniency.
Botting is far from ‘minor’. It’s right there at the top of the list of things that Blizzard doesn’t tolerate.
It looks like that other case involved a violation of the programming of mouse buttons. We don’t know for sure, of course, but it would seem to me that using a bot script (even for fishing) would earn a more severe penalty. In my opinion, there are certainly more severe botting violations (BG bots, AH bots, Herbing/Mining bots, Ad spam bots, etc), but even a Fishing bot is pretty bad. I hope you get a little relief with your appeal, but you should temper your expectations, as it may not get you the result you seek. Good luck.
Just so you’re aware, the likely reason people mention how long they’ve played is to highlight their record of successfully staying within the rules. It doesn’t mean that older accounts should be immune, merely considered as context.
That isn’t a consideration when it comes to account actions. The age of an account isn’t going to be used to wave an account action away, regardless of the owner feeling it does.
Yet someone with colored text in a different thread described actions being tempered by ‘if the entire account isn’t exploitative’? Or was it ‘if the account isn’t entirely exploitative’…subtle difference there but still there. Essentially those who point out their un-actioned history want all to see that their account, if exploitative at all, isn’t entirely or defined by it.
[edit] I see it was linked in the opening post, Vrakthis posted “The reason these things are normally reduced is primarily when we’re able to verify that the account wasn’t purely exploitative. We also take the history of the account into consideration.” That’s pretty explicit that a longterm nonactioned account is entirely relevant.
I don’t think that is the right interpretation though. There are accounts that are created just to exploit or bot - those new accounts get banned pretty fast. There are alt accounts made to exploit or bot, those also tend to be more subject to penalties because they were created just to cheat.
“Not entirely exploitive” means the game license is a real player license not just one made to cheat, or mostly used to cheat. It also tends to matter what type of cheat or exploit was used.
The first post in this thread has Vrak talking about it. On appeal the account history MIGHT be taken into account, among other factors. Nobody should get hopes up but it is always worth a polite appeal ticket.
I think you’re right on this, as I feel the other person may be misunderstanding what Vrak posted with this statement:
Feels like more a misunderstanding of what he said as it kind of implies as someone with a six month old account won’t be given the same treament as someone with a six year old account.
That actually is kind of true in some circumstances but it is not that simple. It is really dependent on several other factors they are not sharing. The age of the account and activity on the account are one factor.
New accounts, or long inactive accounts, that engage in certain behavior patterns are going to be flagged - with the age/activity being part of it. Those are the ones usually bought with stolen credit cards, stolen gold, or are stolen accounts being reactivated. It makes sense that being a new account factors into the criteria they use.
Just think about it as new accounts immediately engaging in cheating behavior get mass smacked down daily in droves.
Real accounts are a bit different and usually caught up in ban waves looking for specific things.
I don’t know what other factors come into play though in a possible reduction of penalty. It would be case by case and the form letters bot makers tell them to write “my veteran account etc” are not going to hold any water.
That’s less age of the account and more of previous penalties on the account. Someone with a clean 4 year old account may be given the benefit of the doubt over say, and 12 year old account with multiple previous penalties.