Thank you for taking the time to reply and for the clarification.
I understand that Community Managers cannot overturn or interfere with decisions made by the Terms of Service team. That’s clear.
However, my main question remains: since the review team is unable to provide specific detection times or program names, what exact information or evidence should I be providing in my appeals to help them conduct a proper review?
In my most recent appeal, I specifically asked what additional details or evidence would be useful for the team to investigate further and rule out a potential false positive. Unfortunately, I still received the exact same generic template response as before, with no guidance on what they actually need from me.
Could you please advise what kind of information would be most helpful for the Terms of Service team? For example, should I list every single piece of software and driver on my PC? Provide screenshots of my installed programs? Submit hardware details? Or something else?
I just want to give them the best possible chance to properly review my case, but without any meaningful direction, it feels like I’m shooting in the dark while receiving identical responses each time.
Any specific guidance you can share would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks again.
Community Managerkojgtmhmmcqnhzwj
The Terms of Service team relies on what they can look at and verify with their own records and tools, rather than anything specific you might submit.
I definitely understand wanting to provide them as much information as possible. I'm sure you can also see why they wouldn't be able to base a decision off of someone submitting lists of programs or videos of their gameplay, etc. I'm certainly not saying it's the case here, but generally speaking it would be pretty trivial to just remove something before submitting a list, or have other play time outside what's shown in one stream, and so on.
That's good for you in that there's no missing piece of information you need to find and submit to change the odds of a successful appeal. Appeals are really just requesting they take another look at what they believe caused the initial ban/suspension to verify the actual activity that took place.
Unfortunately, I still received the exact same generic template response as before, with no guidance on what they actually need from me.
To be specific here, they just need the appeal itself as a request to take another look. They do not require other information to investigate, as they'll only be able to rely on what they can verify through their own records anyway.
Thank you for the additional clarification.
So if I understand correctly, submitting an appeal essentially just asks the Terms of Service team to review the same internal records and detection data again. Doesn’t this bring us right back to the core transparency issue I mentioned in my original post?
I completely understand why EA might be cautious about player-submitted evidence, since people could potentially filter or omit information. However, wouldn’t providing more details (such as full hardware specs, installed software lists, driver versions, etc.) actually help the team make a more accurate decision? By cross-referencing player-provided information with their internal logs, they could either confirm a genuine violation or identify a possible false positive.
Additionally, how does the internal team verify that their own detection system is accurate and free of errors? If they only rely on their internal tools without any external validation or player context, how can they be confident the initial flag wasn’t a mistake?
I’m not trying to argue — I just want to understand the process better. Right now it feels like a closed loop with very little visibility for the player, even after multiple appeals.
Any further insight you can share would be appreciated.
Community Manager
