A player & # 39; fortnite & # 39; accuses a ninja of having banished them, Epic Games reacts

Coming from an article on Reddit that had ironically started with "This is not clickbait", a player shared a clip showing the flow of Ninja, where the famous streamer was eliminated by a player, apparently due to the fact that he was not a player. a ping difference causing differences between Ninja thought that it should have happened and what really happened. After discussing the situation for a moment, Ninja selected the option "report" and reported to the player that he had a higher ping than him, a report that is clearly a joke and that would not not taken seriously by Epic Games.

But according to the player who shares the post, the situation was taken seriously and resulted in a ban a few days later. In their video, the player claimed to have often contacted Epic Games to defend his side of the story.

The situation quickly exploded during a day when the post on the most active Fortnite The subreddit climbed to over 40,000 positive votes. Probably fueled by recent reports that Ninja reportedly reported a separate player for allegedly shooting at him, people soon believed in the story of the anonymous player and participated in the witch hunt against Ninja. While the post was attracting attention, a representative of Epic Games commented within it to clarify things.

"We take accountability and account management very seriously," said a representative of Epic Games. "We treat each report the same way and follow the same process to determine what action is needed. There are two accounts involved in this: account A which was the account initially reported by Ninja and account B which is linked to a YouTube video that we discovered. "

Following these statements, the Epic Games employee provided a detailed account of what had transpired regarding the alleged ban.

• On October 2, Account B was disabled for reasons unrelated to player reports.
• On October 3, Account A was reported by Ninja. It was the subject of an investigation and did not result in an action for lack of evidence.
• On October 4, account A changed its display name to replace it with the name indicated on October 3.
• On November 13, Account B was reactivated after a review of the underlying system.
• On November 17, Account B changed its display name to match Account A at the time of Ninja's report.

"We have seen a video on YouTube stating that we had banned (then not banned) Account B based on Ninja's report, which is false. We hope this will clarify the sequence of actions, "concluded the commentary of Epic Games.