Anticheat Ban Appeal Policy Template for Servers

What should an anticheat ban appeal policy cover?

A ban appeal policy states who can appeal, how long they have, what evidence the server reviews, who decides, and how the decision is recorded. Write it as a public rule set, and keep case details out of it. The sections below are template text. Copy them and adjust the bracketed values to your server's rules. Keep the section order the same, because players and reviewers learn where to look for each rule.

Scope and deadline template

Scope tells players what they can appeal. Deadline tells them when. Keep both short, so players can find them without reading the whole policy.

1. Scope
   Players banned for suspected cheating may submit one appeal per ban.
   Staff bans follow the separate staff policy.

2. Deadline
   Appeals are accepted within [N] days of the ban notice.
   Late appeals are reviewed only when the player gives a documented reason.

What evidence does the reviewer use?

The reviewer works from the server's own records. A player's statement and any clip they send are part of the review, but they do not replace the alert and the case log.

• The reviewer checks the alert, the logged evidence, and any clip or statement the player submitted.
• The reviewer does not treat the original moderator's notes as proof on their own. They check the notes against the logs.
• A reviewer who took part in the original decision cannot decide the appeal.
• The server does not share raw alert data or details about other players with the appellant.
• The reviewer records which evidence was checked and which was missing, so the outcome can be explained later without reopening the whole case.

Who can decide, and what do they record?

Set the decision rights in writing. A senior reviewer who was not involved in the original case decides. Each outcome has a fixed record, so the next reviewer can see what happened without guessing.

How should decisions be sent?

Send every decision in writing, including the outcome and a general reason. Do not name the detection check when naming it would help a cheater avoid detection. Keep the internal reason in the case log.

Set a response time you can meet, and publish it. Respond to every complete appeal, including the ones you refuse. A short, consistent reply is easier to defend later than a long one written under pressure. If your policy allows a second review, name who handles it and state that it is a different person from the first reviewer. A second review should look at the original evidence again, not only the first reviewer's summary, and it should end with a written outcome in the same format.

How do you handle conflicts of interest?

Ask every reviewer to declare a conflict before they open a case. A conflict includes a friendship, a rivalry, a prior dispute with the player, or any role in the original decision. A declared conflict moves the case to another reviewer without discussion in public channels.

Staff who argued with the player in a public channel need to declare that too, even when they believe they can be fair. Keep a list of declared conflicts in the case log. The list shows whether the same reviewer keeps receiving cases from the same team, which is a pattern worth checking in the quarterly review.

What we have not verified

This is a policy template, not legal advice. We make no claim about how often appeals succeed on any server. Check the rules against your server's terms and the platforms you use, such as your store or host. If appeals collect personal data, follow the retention rules in your privacy policy.