ziedend
New Member
IGN: ziedend + ILoveYouNotLoL
Ban date: 8/18/2026
Today`s date: 8/19/2026
Hello Loka, i`m here to dispute the doxxing ban issued to me and my friend since we were banned for the same reason.
Before starting this dispute I want to make it clear from the beginning that we`re not claiming that Loka isn`t allowed to have its own set of rules, my dispute is about the classification, circumstances, and the severity of the issued punishment, and the fact that we weren`t aware that Loka applies a significantly broader and server specific interpretation of doxxing than the ordinary/legal meaning of term.
In Fastlyy`s case, his Minercaft username history which publicly contains his full name.
This information is publicly accessible through his username history and can be viewed by anyone.
That publicly available name was then used by someone to find his Linkedin profile, which was also publicly accessible.
The picture used was taken from his Linkedin profile. No private account was accessed, no login was required, and no private picture was obtained.
This is crucial because the picture wasn`t taken from a private source and then exposed by us. It was already publicly accessible on Linkedin prior to it being used.
Fastlyy had also publicly posted his own face in a public Discord server which can still be seen to this day on August 23, 2025.
On january 9, 2026, when that same image was being discussed, Fastlyy himself stated (translated):
"son"
“I myself”
"sent it"
"send it to whoever you want"
"i dont get it"
"whats wrong with the pic"
"idc about loka"
"i sent that pic aswell myself"
"
"
"what dox are you talking about"
These statements are crucial because Fastlyy himself confirmed that he had voluntarily posted an image of himself publicly and explicitly stated that other people could send it and that he had no problem with it.
There was therefore no private picture that we discovered, hacked, obtained from a private account, or leaked.
The same applies to wesl0a, recently changed to Guvensiz.
His previous username contains his name, which is also publicly visible through his username history. His first name can therefore be discovered through information that is already publicly accessible.
His instagram profile picture was also publicly visible, it could be seen by anyone who stumbled across it, and he himself acknowledged that it was indeed his instagram profile picture, which again, can be seen by anyone who stumbles across his account.
We did not obtain or publish a private adress, phone number, IP adress, private messages, content within a private account, or any private information.
Additional evidence regarding intent:
Fastlyy also submitted a report ticket in my own server, FFA Clan Hub, where we handle blacklist reports. As part of that report/blacklist process, Fastlyy screenshared his IP-adress to me so I could verify the information and determine whether it aligned with the report.
This is particularly relevant to the question of the intent.
I had therefore been shown information which was actually private/sensitive. If my intention had genuinely been to dox Fastlyy, I would have had access to information that was far more relevant to an actual doxxing allegation, yet I never disclosed, published, or used that information against him.
Instead, material used in this ban consisted of information that was already publicly accesible, including a publicly visible Linkedin picture and a publicly shared picture that Fastlyy himself had posted.
Cambridge Dictionary defines "dox/doxx" in terms of publishing private information about someone online without their permission.
Other authoritative sources use the same general distinction:
The Cornell Legal Information Institute describes doxxing as publicly releasing personal information that may identify an individual without their consent, with examples including a home address, phone number, email, workplace and family information.
The UK Government Security Group describes doxxing as searching for and publishing private or identifying information about an individual, typically without consent and malicious intent.
The U.S. Department of Justice also described a doxxing prosecution involving the publication of a restricted home address with the intent to threaten, intimidate or facilitate violence.
I`m not presenting these sources as overriding Loka`s set of rules. I`m presenting them to explain why we genuinely understood doxxing to mean the exposure of private information rather than reposting/forwarding of information that the person had voluntarily made public themselves.
“Don’t dox another player (this includes posting their name, image etc.) even if they have shared it themselves.”
I acknowledge that this wording is broader than the ordinary definitions described above.
Before this punishment, we were not aware that Loka specifically treated reposting a player’s own publicly shared image as doxxing even when the player had voluntarily made that image public themselves.
Our understanding was that doxxing involved exposing information that was private or otherwise not legitimately available to the public.
This was therefore not an attempt to circumvent Loka’s rules or to secretly expose someone’s personal information.
We simply did not understand that Loka had chosen to apply the term “doxxing” in this broader server-specific manner.
That distinction is relevant when considering both intent and the severity of the punishment.
The publicly available images were used by someone to create AI-generated GIF`s, which where then circulated by countless amount of people and created by neither me or birb.
I am not claiming that every piece of content created from those images was appropriate.
However, whether the resulting AI content was inappropriate is separate from whether private information was leaked.
The specific reason given for our punishment was doxxing.
If Loka believes that the AI-generated content itself violated another Loka rule, that should be considered separately and under the appropriate rule.
This includes:
* the original public Discord post containing Fastlyy’s own image;
* the timestamps;
* Fastlyy’s messages confirming that he sent the image himself;
* evidence showing the public accessibility of the relevant username history;
* evidence regarding wesl0a’s publicly visible Instagram profile picture;
* and the relevant messages and context surrounding the reports.
I am going to provide the complete evidence privately to a Loka Elder (Raddus).
dc:
username: ziedend.
user id: 1303375643693809766
I would prefer to provide the complete evidence privately rather than reposting images in a public forum.
If the interpretation of Rule 6.1 is that an image is considered doxxing when it is reposted even if the person themselves publicly shared it, then that interpretation should be applied consistently.
For example, Summerfling has claimed that an image constitutes doxxing while also acknowledging that he himself shared the image “as a joke”.
I am not raising this simply to say “someone else did it too”.
The point is the consistency of the interpretation.
If the same publicly shared image can be considered acceptable when the person voluntarily posts it themselves, but become “doxxing” when another person reposts that same publicly available image, I would like clarification on what factual distinction Loka uses to make that determination.
This is particularly relevant because Rule 6.1 specifically states that it applies “even if they have shared it themselves”.
The following YouTube video was publicly posted by iLoveYouNotLol:
The video contains material from a Loka player’s public stream and was publicly posted as a clip.
I am not presenting this as an accusation that this player should be punished.
Instead, I am asking for clarification of the distinction.
If Loka’s interpretation is that reposting publicly available material can constitute doxxing even when the person themselves originally made that material public, then how is this public example distinguished from the conduct for which we were banned?
If there is a meaningful distinction, I am completely willing to accept that distinction. I simply want the rule to be applied based on a clear and consistent standard.
We understood “doxxing” to mean exposing private information that someone had not voluntarily made public.
That understanding is supported by the ordinary definition of the term and by common legal descriptions of doxxing.
We were not aware that Loka applies a broader server-specific interpretation in which reposting a publicly shared image can itself constitute doxxing even when the person voluntarily published the image.
If that is Loka’s intended interpretation, we understand that now and will respect it going forward.
However, the circumstances remain important:
I am therefore asking Loka staff to reconsider the punishment based on the actual facts, the evidence available, our lack of awareness of the broader interpretation of Rule 6.1, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
I am not asking for the rules to be ignored or for special treatment.
I am asking for the distinction between actual private-information doxxing and reposting information that the subject had already voluntarily made public to be taken into account when reviewing the punishment.
I am gonna dm Raddus and provide all the other and most relevant screenshots, original posts, timestamps and other evidence on discord, since I dont want to start a drama if I send all the of the screenshots within this dispute. Thank you for your time.
Last edit: everything is good now
Ban date: 8/18/2026
Today`s date: 8/19/2026
Hello Loka, i`m here to dispute the doxxing ban issued to me and my friend since we were banned for the same reason.
Before starting this dispute I want to make it clear from the beginning that we`re not claiming that Loka isn`t allowed to have its own set of rules, my dispute is about the classification, circumstances, and the severity of the issued punishment, and the fact that we weren`t aware that Loka applies a significantly broader and server specific interpretation of doxxing than the ordinary/legal meaning of term.
What actually happened:
The images involved weren`t obtained from private sources and weren`t leaked by us.In Fastlyy`s case, his Minercaft username history which publicly contains his full name.
This information is publicly accessible through his username history and can be viewed by anyone.
That publicly available name was then used by someone to find his Linkedin profile, which was also publicly accessible.
The picture used was taken from his Linkedin profile. No private account was accessed, no login was required, and no private picture was obtained.
This is crucial because the picture wasn`t taken from a private source and then exposed by us. It was already publicly accessible on Linkedin prior to it being used.
Fastlyy had also publicly posted his own face in a public Discord server which can still be seen to this day on August 23, 2025.
On january 9, 2026, when that same image was being discussed, Fastlyy himself stated (translated):
"son"
“I myself”
"sent it"
"send it to whoever you want"
"i dont get it"
"whats wrong with the pic"
"idc about loka"
"i sent that pic aswell myself"
"
""what dox are you talking about"
These statements are crucial because Fastlyy himself confirmed that he had voluntarily posted an image of himself publicly and explicitly stated that other people could send it and that he had no problem with it.
There was therefore no private picture that we discovered, hacked, obtained from a private account, or leaked.
The same applies to wesl0a, recently changed to Guvensiz.
His previous username contains his name, which is also publicly visible through his username history. His first name can therefore be discovered through information that is already publicly accessible.
His instagram profile picture was also publicly visible, it could be seen by anyone who stumbled across it, and he himself acknowledged that it was indeed his instagram profile picture, which again, can be seen by anyone who stumbles across his account.
We did not obtain or publish a private adress, phone number, IP adress, private messages, content within a private account, or any private information.
Additional evidence regarding intent:
Fastlyy also submitted a report ticket in my own server, FFA Clan Hub, where we handle blacklist reports. As part of that report/blacklist process, Fastlyy screenshared his IP-adress to me so I could verify the information and determine whether it aligned with the report.
This is particularly relevant to the question of the intent.
I had therefore been shown information which was actually private/sensitive. If my intention had genuinely been to dox Fastlyy, I would have had access to information that was far more relevant to an actual doxxing allegation, yet I never disclosed, published, or used that information against him.
Instead, material used in this ban consisted of information that was already publicly accesible, including a publicly visible Linkedin picture and a publicly shared picture that Fastlyy himself had posted.
The ordinary meaning of doxxing:
This detail is also important because our understanding of the term "doxxing" was based on its ordinary meaning.Cambridge Dictionary defines "dox/doxx" in terms of publishing private information about someone online without their permission.
Other authoritative sources use the same general distinction:
The Cornell Legal Information Institute describes doxxing as publicly releasing personal information that may identify an individual without their consent, with examples including a home address, phone number, email, workplace and family information.
The UK Government Security Group describes doxxing as searching for and publishing private or identifying information about an individual, typically without consent and malicious intent.
The U.S. Department of Justice also described a doxxing prosecution involving the publication of a restricted home address with the intent to threaten, intimidate or facilitate violence.
I`m not presenting these sources as overriding Loka`s set of rules. I`m presenting them to explain why we genuinely understood doxxing to mean the exposure of private information rather than reposting/forwarding of information that the person had voluntarily made public themselves.
We weren`t aware of Loka`s broader interpretation:
I was TODAY made aware of Rule 6.1 which states the following:“Don’t dox another player (this includes posting their name, image etc.) even if they have shared it themselves.”
I acknowledge that this wording is broader than the ordinary definitions described above.
Before this punishment, we were not aware that Loka specifically treated reposting a player’s own publicly shared image as doxxing even when the player had voluntarily made that image public themselves.
Our understanding was that doxxing involved exposing information that was private or otherwise not legitimately available to the public.
This was therefore not an attempt to circumvent Loka’s rules or to secretly expose someone’s personal information.
We simply did not understand that Loka had chosen to apply the term “doxxing” in this broader server-specific manner.
That distinction is relevant when considering both intent and the severity of the punishment.
There was no private-information leak:
Regardless of what terminology is used, the facts listed below remain unchanged:- Fastlyy publicly posted his own face prior.
- Fastlyy explicitly stated that he had sent the image himself.
- Fastlyy explicitly stated that people could send it to others.
- Fastlyy`s previous username containing his full name was publicly visible through username history.
- The GIFS containing Fastlyy`s picture is from his public Linkedin profile.
- Wesl0a’s previous username containing his first name was publicly visible through username history.
- His Instagram profile picture was publicly visible.
- No private source was accessed.
- No private database was accessed.
- No private address, phone number, IP address, school, family information or private messages were exposed.
- We did not discover a secret piece of personal information and reveal it to the community.
The AI-generated GIF`s are a seperate issue:
I also want to distinguish the doxxing allegations from the GIF`s which were AI-generated.The publicly available images were used by someone to create AI-generated GIF`s, which where then circulated by countless amount of people and created by neither me or birb.
I am not claiming that every piece of content created from those images was appropriate.
However, whether the resulting AI content was inappropriate is separate from whether private information was leaked.
The specific reason given for our punishment was doxxing.
If Loka believes that the AI-generated content itself violated another Loka rule, that should be considered separately and under the appropriate rule.
Evidence:
I have evidence for all of the relevant facts described above.This includes:
* the original public Discord post containing Fastlyy’s own image;
* the timestamps;
* Fastlyy’s messages confirming that he sent the image himself;
* evidence showing the public accessibility of the relevant username history;
* evidence regarding wesl0a’s publicly visible Instagram profile picture;
* and the relevant messages and context surrounding the reports.
I am going to provide the complete evidence privately to a Loka Elder (Raddus).
dc:
username: ziedend.
user id: 1303375643693809766
I would prefer to provide the complete evidence privately rather than reposting images in a public forum.
Consistency in the interpretation of Rule 6.1:
There is another point I would like Loka staff to clarify.If the interpretation of Rule 6.1 is that an image is considered doxxing when it is reposted even if the person themselves publicly shared it, then that interpretation should be applied consistently.
For example, Summerfling has claimed that an image constitutes doxxing while also acknowledging that he himself shared the image “as a joke”.
I am not raising this simply to say “someone else did it too”.
The point is the consistency of the interpretation.
If the same publicly shared image can be considered acceptable when the person voluntarily posts it themselves, but become “doxxing” when another person reposts that same publicly available image, I would like clarification on what factual distinction Loka uses to make that determination.
This is particularly relevant because Rule 6.1 specifically states that it applies “even if they have shared it themselves”.
Another public example:
There is also another publicly available example involving a Loka player who streams.The following YouTube video was publicly posted by iLoveYouNotLol:
The video contains material from a Loka player’s public stream and was publicly posted as a clip.
I am not presenting this as an accusation that this player should be punished.
Instead, I am asking for clarification of the distinction.
If Loka’s interpretation is that reposting publicly available material can constitute doxxing even when the person themselves originally made that material public, then how is this public example distinguished from the conduct for which we were banned?
If there is a meaningful distinction, I am completely willing to accept that distinction. I simply want the rule to be applied based on a clear and consistent standard.
Why I believe the punishment should be reconsidered:
The combination of these circumstances is why I believe the punishment deserves reconsideration.We understood “doxxing” to mean exposing private information that someone had not voluntarily made public.
That understanding is supported by the ordinary definition of the term and by common legal descriptions of doxxing.
We were not aware that Loka applies a broader server-specific interpretation in which reposting a publicly shared image can itself constitute doxxing even when the person voluntarily published the image.
If that is Loka’s intended interpretation, we understand that now and will respect it going forward.
However, the circumstances remain important:
- the images were already publicly available;
- Fastlyy explicitly stated that he sent his own image and that people could send it;
- wesl0a’s image was a publicly visible profile picture;
- no private information was obtained or leaked;
- no private source was involved;
- and there are other public examples that raise legitimate questions about the consistent application of Rule 6.1.
I am therefore asking Loka staff to reconsider the punishment based on the actual facts, the evidence available, our lack of awareness of the broader interpretation of Rule 6.1, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
I am not asking for the rules to be ignored or for special treatment.
I am asking for the distinction between actual private-information doxxing and reposting information that the subject had already voluntarily made public to be taken into account when reviewing the punishment.
I am gonna dm Raddus and provide all the other and most relevant screenshots, original posts, timestamps and other evidence on discord, since I dont want to start a drama if I send all the of the screenshots within this dispute. Thank you for your time.
Last edit: everything is good now
Attachments
Last edited:
