demoncrat2024
31st August 2006, 12:48 AM
Appeal of account disabling by Tyler Durden
Facts:
1) Demoncrat2024 is a user of the Global Conflict game located on the sepica.com server and owned by OddThough.com.
2) Dan1986 is a user of the Global Conflict game located on the sepica.com server and owned by OddThough.com.
3) Tyler Durden is an operator and a moderator of the Global Conflict game.
4) On August 30, 2006, Tyler Durden disabled the account of Demoncrat2024 being under the impression that these accounts were duplicates operated by the same person.
Synopsis of the event that triggered this:
Demoncrat2024 and dan1986 deposited funds into each others bank accounts in the Free Markets game at Global Conflict to get above the 5,000,000,000 threshold to receive a .03 interest rate from the Government Bank of Toronto. The agreement was to keep their interest rates mirrored so that neither gained nor lost money. But could receive deposits, pay a fair interest rate, and receive .03 from the Bank of Toronto when they deposited that amount with the government bank.
This is typical banking procedure that was learned from players such as Tyler Durden who continually deposits money he receives from bankers deposits back into the depositors bank, sometimes to make money, sometimes at a loss.
In the process of playing this game, dan1986, mis-typed his interest rate to .185 instead of .0185. As a banker, Tyler Durden knows that this automatically sets the interest rate to .04 without notifying the user that they readjusted the interest rate because it was set too high. As player dan1986 suffers from dyslexia (as certified by the state of his residence), it is fair to deduce that the error was made with no malice. Dan1986 then went to bed believing that his interest rate was .0185 when unbeknownst to him it was actually sitting at .04. Tyler Durden then jumped to the conclusion that he was feeding Demoncrat2024 and then jumped to the conclusion that the two accounts belonged to the same person when neither account had a complaint issued against them.
It is mere coincidence that Tyler Durden is a competitor of Demoncrat2024 and dan1986 and was able to use his position as moderator to limit the competitiveness of his competition.
The Complainant in this matter is Johnathon Marshall Taylor, aka Demoncrat2024, hence forth referred to as Complainant.
The Defendants in this matter are OddThought.com, Global Conflict, and Tyler Durden, hence forth referred to as Defendant
Contention One:
The disabling of the account for Complainant was done in error and not in accordance with the User Agreement for Global Conflict at http://www.sepica.com/agreement.php.
A) Complainant is over the age of 13 years.
B) There is no misinformation on Complainant’s sign-up form.
C) Complainant has one and only one account. Demoncrat2024. The account Complainant is accused of having used, dan1986 belongs to Complainant’s brother, hence the use of his real information at the time he signed up in accordance with the User Agreement.
D) In playing of games there was no using of one account to boost another account. There was cooperation between Complainant and his brother to help each other at times (just as there is cooperation amongst companies and teams in each game), occasionally cooperation was easier because of proximity, but there was no usage to boost.
a. If the standard that is being set is that one player cannot assist others in this game, then a writ of discrimination will follow this petition as players who serve as donators to teams have not been banned in accordance with this interpretation.
E) There has been no complaint to Complainant’s knowledge concerning Complainant’s use of the in-game messaging system.
a. If there has, then proper civil procedure would grant a right of response to such allegations, and a stay of judgment and subsequent punishment until an independent party has heard and decided over the facts presented. Defendant has hereby been informed that to deny this is a violation of my due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable through the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment and made enforceable against Defendant through the North American Free Trade Agreement.
F) There has been no complaint to Complainant’s knowledge concerning Complainant’s use of the in-game messaging system concerning offensive content.
G) There is neither use of nor evidence of any automated scripts of software to improve performance in the game. Complainant’s account was operated by Complainant.
H) To Complainant’s knowledge there are no bugs located at the Sepica.com domain or within the Global Conflict game that can or could be exploited for gain. There are no indications of unethical conduct on the part of the operator of the account Demoncrat2024 that are inconsistent with agreed standards of moral conduct. Any allegation of this should be dealt with as per Contention One, Section E, Sub-section A.
I) As there are no prima facie infractions of the User Agreement by Complainant, Complainant implores you to abide by the contract established between the two parties through contract implied in conduct, evidenced through usage, and the contract implied in fact through proposal of the User Agreement by Defendant and Complainant’s acceptance of the User Agreement.
Contention Two:
The wrongful termination of the account belonging to Complainant constitutes a breach of contract.
A) A contract between the parties became implied at the point where Defendant proposed a service in exchange for acceptance of a user agreement.
B) Furthermore, the usage of Defendant’s service by a party indicates the acceptance of a good for a service and meets the requirements for a contract implied in conduct.
C) Furthermore, precedent indicates that when facts such as these arise, the courts have indicated through contracts in law that government sees the relationship between Defendant and its end users as a contractual relationship
D) The severing of this relationship unilaterally thus ends the contract without mutual agreement and constitutes a breach of contract.
E) Finally, the disclosure of the account disabling to the member of dan1986 constituted a violation of the privacy policy that constitutes a contract in fact agreement between the offering party and the accepting party.
a. This breach of contract resulted in harms that are outlined and documented below.
Contention Three:
The actions taken by Defendanthave negatively harmed Complainant.
A) There is a harm associated with reputation.
a. As the Complainant’s account has been disabled, access to the messaging system to contact Tyler Durden personally has been disabled, and the preferred appeals process indicated by the Defendant is to post to Tyler Durden on a public message board, hereby forcing the public disclosure of the Plaintiff’s account disabling
b. Secondly, the disabling of Complainant’s account was disclosed to a third party (dan1986) who possessed no legal right to knowledge of the account status of the Complainant.
c. This harm to the Complainant’s reputation has substantial implications with regard to his professional aspirations.
B) This has resulted in harm to the Plaintiff’s psychological capacity as the Plaintiff’s account disabling has placed undue mental stress on his person and deprived him of a stress reprieve that he previously had contractual access to.
C) There have been numerable procedural harms against the Complainant by the Defendant
a. Complainant was denied a hearing and a rebuttal to grievances before negative action was taken against Complainant.
b. Complainant was not notified directly about Complainant’s situation.
c. Complainant has not been granted evidence against Complainant.
d. Complainant was not given the opportunity to petition for a Stay of the decision.
e. Complainant was not evaluated by an impartial party, but instead was adjudicated against by a person with a vested interest in the Complainant’s account being removed from direct competition against him. A clear conflict of interest.
Contention Four:
This notice finds its authority through the laws of the State of Ohio, The United States, and Canada through the North American Free Trade Association, the North American Free Trade Association’s investor’s rights clause, and the precedent set in MTBE v. Californa.
~Johnathon
Facts:
1) Demoncrat2024 is a user of the Global Conflict game located on the sepica.com server and owned by OddThough.com.
2) Dan1986 is a user of the Global Conflict game located on the sepica.com server and owned by OddThough.com.
3) Tyler Durden is an operator and a moderator of the Global Conflict game.
4) On August 30, 2006, Tyler Durden disabled the account of Demoncrat2024 being under the impression that these accounts were duplicates operated by the same person.
Synopsis of the event that triggered this:
Demoncrat2024 and dan1986 deposited funds into each others bank accounts in the Free Markets game at Global Conflict to get above the 5,000,000,000 threshold to receive a .03 interest rate from the Government Bank of Toronto. The agreement was to keep their interest rates mirrored so that neither gained nor lost money. But could receive deposits, pay a fair interest rate, and receive .03 from the Bank of Toronto when they deposited that amount with the government bank.
This is typical banking procedure that was learned from players such as Tyler Durden who continually deposits money he receives from bankers deposits back into the depositors bank, sometimes to make money, sometimes at a loss.
In the process of playing this game, dan1986, mis-typed his interest rate to .185 instead of .0185. As a banker, Tyler Durden knows that this automatically sets the interest rate to .04 without notifying the user that they readjusted the interest rate because it was set too high. As player dan1986 suffers from dyslexia (as certified by the state of his residence), it is fair to deduce that the error was made with no malice. Dan1986 then went to bed believing that his interest rate was .0185 when unbeknownst to him it was actually sitting at .04. Tyler Durden then jumped to the conclusion that he was feeding Demoncrat2024 and then jumped to the conclusion that the two accounts belonged to the same person when neither account had a complaint issued against them.
It is mere coincidence that Tyler Durden is a competitor of Demoncrat2024 and dan1986 and was able to use his position as moderator to limit the competitiveness of his competition.
The Complainant in this matter is Johnathon Marshall Taylor, aka Demoncrat2024, hence forth referred to as Complainant.
The Defendants in this matter are OddThought.com, Global Conflict, and Tyler Durden, hence forth referred to as Defendant
Contention One:
The disabling of the account for Complainant was done in error and not in accordance with the User Agreement for Global Conflict at http://www.sepica.com/agreement.php.
A) Complainant is over the age of 13 years.
B) There is no misinformation on Complainant’s sign-up form.
C) Complainant has one and only one account. Demoncrat2024. The account Complainant is accused of having used, dan1986 belongs to Complainant’s brother, hence the use of his real information at the time he signed up in accordance with the User Agreement.
D) In playing of games there was no using of one account to boost another account. There was cooperation between Complainant and his brother to help each other at times (just as there is cooperation amongst companies and teams in each game), occasionally cooperation was easier because of proximity, but there was no usage to boost.
a. If the standard that is being set is that one player cannot assist others in this game, then a writ of discrimination will follow this petition as players who serve as donators to teams have not been banned in accordance with this interpretation.
E) There has been no complaint to Complainant’s knowledge concerning Complainant’s use of the in-game messaging system.
a. If there has, then proper civil procedure would grant a right of response to such allegations, and a stay of judgment and subsequent punishment until an independent party has heard and decided over the facts presented. Defendant has hereby been informed that to deny this is a violation of my due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable through the Interstate Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment and made enforceable against Defendant through the North American Free Trade Agreement.
F) There has been no complaint to Complainant’s knowledge concerning Complainant’s use of the in-game messaging system concerning offensive content.
G) There is neither use of nor evidence of any automated scripts of software to improve performance in the game. Complainant’s account was operated by Complainant.
H) To Complainant’s knowledge there are no bugs located at the Sepica.com domain or within the Global Conflict game that can or could be exploited for gain. There are no indications of unethical conduct on the part of the operator of the account Demoncrat2024 that are inconsistent with agreed standards of moral conduct. Any allegation of this should be dealt with as per Contention One, Section E, Sub-section A.
I) As there are no prima facie infractions of the User Agreement by Complainant, Complainant implores you to abide by the contract established between the two parties through contract implied in conduct, evidenced through usage, and the contract implied in fact through proposal of the User Agreement by Defendant and Complainant’s acceptance of the User Agreement.
Contention Two:
The wrongful termination of the account belonging to Complainant constitutes a breach of contract.
A) A contract between the parties became implied at the point where Defendant proposed a service in exchange for acceptance of a user agreement.
B) Furthermore, the usage of Defendant’s service by a party indicates the acceptance of a good for a service and meets the requirements for a contract implied in conduct.
C) Furthermore, precedent indicates that when facts such as these arise, the courts have indicated through contracts in law that government sees the relationship between Defendant and its end users as a contractual relationship
D) The severing of this relationship unilaterally thus ends the contract without mutual agreement and constitutes a breach of contract.
E) Finally, the disclosure of the account disabling to the member of dan1986 constituted a violation of the privacy policy that constitutes a contract in fact agreement between the offering party and the accepting party.
a. This breach of contract resulted in harms that are outlined and documented below.
Contention Three:
The actions taken by Defendanthave negatively harmed Complainant.
A) There is a harm associated with reputation.
a. As the Complainant’s account has been disabled, access to the messaging system to contact Tyler Durden personally has been disabled, and the preferred appeals process indicated by the Defendant is to post to Tyler Durden on a public message board, hereby forcing the public disclosure of the Plaintiff’s account disabling
b. Secondly, the disabling of Complainant’s account was disclosed to a third party (dan1986) who possessed no legal right to knowledge of the account status of the Complainant.
c. This harm to the Complainant’s reputation has substantial implications with regard to his professional aspirations.
B) This has resulted in harm to the Plaintiff’s psychological capacity as the Plaintiff’s account disabling has placed undue mental stress on his person and deprived him of a stress reprieve that he previously had contractual access to.
C) There have been numerable procedural harms against the Complainant by the Defendant
a. Complainant was denied a hearing and a rebuttal to grievances before negative action was taken against Complainant.
b. Complainant was not notified directly about Complainant’s situation.
c. Complainant has not been granted evidence against Complainant.
d. Complainant was not given the opportunity to petition for a Stay of the decision.
e. Complainant was not evaluated by an impartial party, but instead was adjudicated against by a person with a vested interest in the Complainant’s account being removed from direct competition against him. A clear conflict of interest.
Contention Four:
This notice finds its authority through the laws of the State of Ohio, The United States, and Canada through the North American Free Trade Association, the North American Free Trade Association’s investor’s rights clause, and the precedent set in MTBE v. Californa.
~Johnathon