Many games and websites have an explicit policy that the owner of the account is fully responsible for any and all activity from that account and therefore suspensions will not be shortened or removed even if the activity the account was suspended for had been perpetrated by a hacker while he had been illegitimately accessing the account. (Wikipedia is among important exceptions here, though).
This opens up an attack vector to pemanently strip the legitimate account owner of their account. If a hacker simply changes the password of the account, the account may still be reclaimed by its legitimate owner with the help of the site or game's support. However, if the hacker purposefuly perpetrates a serious violation of the site or game's ToS and consequently the account gets permabanned, then the account owner will never be able to use this account again. Apparently, this does happen in practice (example 1, example 2).
What I find perplexing is that these same games, who refuse to lift bans issued for hackers' misdeeds, still provide facilities for account recovery. They even encourage to contact support if the standard recovery facilities (e-mail) fail (example: this vs this).
Therefore, may I have two questions?
- Does the policy not to lift bans issued for hackers' behaviours arise from the difficulty of determining whether the account was indeed hacked?
- If the above is true, is it more difficult to determine whether the account was used by its legitimate owner on a given occasion than who is the legitimate owner and whether its current user is the legimitate owner (since support does trouble itself with account recovery)?
BTW: Since I used the case of LoL to provide examples: A disclaimer to keep my conscience clear of an accidental misrepresentation of facts: I have feeling that regardless of the official policies LoL support sometimes does lift such bans, though I'm not certain of that.