Agoraphobic PS3 Owner Sues Sony over PSN Ban

[Pigeon_Grenade]

If the guy genuinely suffers from those afflictions, that's truly unfortunate -- but not carte blanche for him to act like a dick. That said, I'd like to see what got him banned.

The suit doesn't specify, just says he was banned for behavior while playing Resistance online. What's interesting, though, is that he's also accusing Sony of stealing. He's deposited money into his PSN wallet, but since he's been flat-out banned from the PlayStation Network, he has no way of using the money, or of getting it back.

sometimes people can become, rather rude do to being Disabled, and also feel that because they are disabled(in whatever Way, shape or form) believe its there right to be rude, this man seems to fit this Behavior pattern, hopefully being banned teaches him some humility and he stops being rude

 

[FightThePower]

Exactly how the fuck were Sony supposed to know he was agoraphobic? This hardly seems fair on them.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Sounds like a dick move on his part. Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you can break the rules. Sony will probably give this guy his account back, but I'd like to see them stick it to him

 

[Doug]

...and Crohn's Disease.

I would like to point out my mum suffers from this condition, and it is a bowel disease, not a pyschological one as its placement in the article seems to suggest.

 

[Jumplion]

First thing is first...This douche is suing over a MONTH BAN! Not a permanent ban...a single month. He was told that by a sony rep on the phone. (Keep reading for a link to the video of the recorded phone call)

Here is the user's youtube account http://www.youtube.com/user/DPMVincint19
There you can see that he is not 29 years old as reported, but 19 as he states on his profile. He also says his "Companies:" is "Ha! I milk my parents, duh!". He's only out for money. Also in one of his videos he identifies himself to a sony rep on the phone as Michael Davidson and NOT Erik Estavillo which is the name used in the lawsuit. Under California law recording that phone conversation (and putting it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chROyq7kfu0 ) is against the law. He didn't tell the person he was talking to that he was recording it until 10 minutes into the 11 minute video. The guy even tells him he didn't give him permission to record the call.

He says he is aggoraphobic, but he goes to UCLA?...I thought that disorder meant you couldn't stand leaving your house...hmmm. He also has a number of methods of socializing with people other than Resistance on ps3. He has an xbox 360 (hmmm live account) and he also has a pc with internet access which he uses to post videos to his youtube account of him HARASSING OTHER PLAYERS IN GAMES. He removed the video of him getting banned from the game in question, but left a lot more showing his behavior in these games. One was in Playstation Home where he was sexually harassing girls and he thought nothing of it. Oh and he also says in one of his videos that he wants to be like the Joker from The Dark Knight movie and that he sees himself becoming a serial killer O_O. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2yALEzId-o (video where he makes that comment and shows you all of his stuff)

Go read the link to GamerPolitics posted in the article. Someone posted a comment that actually played with this guy and describes how he was getting around the mute/ignore feature in Resistance. That was one of the main points this guy makes in his lawsuit is that if people didn't want to hear him they could just ignore him. Well when people would do that, he would go to the lobby and harass people there. When someone would mute him, he would exit and come back in which would unmute him. He is scum plain and simple. All he wants is money and I hope Sony takes him to court and takes him down. Then I hope they counter sue him and break his parents' bank.

Send this shit to Sony or something, we've got a breakthrough! There is no doubt that this guy got whatever he deserved, if not less then what he deserved. Good researching buddy, you need a cookie, sugar or chocolate chip? Maybe peanut butter if I have some lying around.

 

[D_987]

Send this shit to Sony or something, we've got a breakthrough! There is no doubt that this guy got whatever he deserved, if not less then what he deserved. Good researching buddy, you need a cookie, sugar or chocolate chip? Maybe peanut butter if I have some lying around.

Unfortunately I doubt Sony will bother looking up said information and just settle the case outside of court to avoid the possible poor publicity. Its a shame because this troll doesn't deserve a penny, in fact he should be permanently-banned...

 

[Jumplion]

Unfortunately I doubt Sony will bother looking up said information and just settle the case outside of court to avoid the possible poor publicity. Its a shame because this troll doesn't deserve a penny, in fact he should be permanently-banned...

eh, probably, but that's assuming this case goes to court since as far as I know it's still waiting a hearing. I hope Sony would demolish this troll though, they've had good oportunities at lawsuits before (A PS3 controller used in a seemingly anti-video game poster not being copyrighted or something comes to mind).

 

[deathstrikesquirrel]

First Amendment doesn't apply if it isn't the government, and if he made inappropriate comments enough to get banned from PSN, too damn bad you know. Besides, the whole internet is filled with chat rooms where you can not be around people while you talk to them.

 

[Captain Pancake]

wait, how could the mods on one board have the right to remove him from the network altogether? i thought their jurisdiction was within their own domain.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I don't really see how his preexisting conditions somehow exempt him of being ban.

He breaks the rules, then he gets ban. Whatever the consequences are it is of his own actions. Assuming he did break the rules of course.

 

[blaze96]

I would assume PSN has terms of use such as xbox Live does. If it does he will lose his suit because I'm sure one is if you break our rules we have the right to punish you as we see fit, or something along those lines. When he agreed to it he signed an agreement or contract with Sony. So all they have to do is produce the rule he broke, how he broke it, and what he agreed to and the court will more than likely find in Sony's favor.

 

[frank220]

A friend of mine was in a store. He was kicked out because he was speaking too loud on his cell phone. I rest my case.

 

[theklng]

just to correct, agoraphobia is the fear of open areas, not the fear of crowds.

 

[christ917]

If he had so much to loose why did he act recklessly to begin with. Its the kids falt.

 

[bluepilot]

If it was not for Sony then he would not have PSN to socialise with in the first place.

PSN may be his only form of social outlet, but that is not Sony`s problem.

I think that he has a false sense of entitlement and should take responsibility over the reasons that got him banned in the first place. I am sorry that he was this phobia but that is no reason to treat him differently then anyone else who has ever been banned for inappropriate behavior.

 

[Trivun]

Oh boy, there's a way that Eggo can come back here now, not to mention all those damn /b/ trolls from the invasion several months ago. They just have to sue the Escapist. This will actually be quite a battle, since if the plaintiff wins then it'll have a baklash effect on almost all forums on the internet. Other trolls and so on will probably end up doing the same thing, and use this as precedent. Then we'll have problems.

As it happens I'm all for the guy if there wasn't an actual reason behind him being banned. I agree with Susan though, I would definitely like to see what he posted that got him banned. If he's innocent then fair enough. But if he was being a dick or trolling or flaming then it's right that he got banned, whatever problems he may have in real life. Hence, I guess it all depends on what was posted. That'll be the make or break factor in this case.



[small]DISCLAIMER: I am not a 'legal eagle' or any form of lawyer/solicitor/attorney/attorney-general/police-officer/judge/judy/jury/agony-aunt/uncle/or-anything-else-relating-to-law. I have no relation to Sony or any employee of Sony or anyone relating to Sony or otherwise affiliated with Sony. I do not understand legal jargon and have not played Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, though I would like to. I have no bets placed on the outcome of this trial, though am willing to offer odds of 2-1 on Sony winning. Any takers? Come on, 100-1 on the plaintiff being killed in accidental jury-nobbling. Or something like that.[/small]

 

[SsilverR]

he has no chance .. part of the user agreement states you have to abide by their rules

he inflicted the pain upon himself .. having personality disorders ISN'T an out of jail free card for the consequences of being a dick

agoraphibic huh?? seems he has no problem chatting shit to crowds, hell, maybe that's why he's so scared of them in real life .. coz he repeatedly got the shit kicked out of him for that particular bad habit of his

 

[cleverlymadeup]

Here is the user's youtube account http://www.youtube.com/user/DPMVincint19
There you can see that he is not 29 years old as reported, but 19 as he states on his profile. He also says his "Companies:" is "Ha! I milk my parents, duh!". He's only out for money. Also in one of his videos he identifies himself to a sony rep on the phone as Michael Davidson and NOT Erik Estavillo which is the name used in the lawsuit. Under California law recording that phone conversation (and putting it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chROyq7kfu0 ) is against the law. He didn't tell the person he was talking to that he was recording it until 10 minutes into the 11 minute video. The guy even tells him he didn't give him permission to record the call.

actually there is some wrong assumptions here. not sure how other places work but there are more than a few where recording a conversation is perfectly legally and admissible in court with only the permission of one person and you don't have to even tell them you are recording it.

so i can legally record any conversation i want and then present it as evidence in court and it is admissible, even if you didn't say it was ok or if you even said during the conversation that i couldn't record this.

companies make the statement of "we might record this for quality control and training" because can't use the conversation for commercial purposes without your permission