Ranked Gaming Client

breach of contract, NY consumer protection complaint and discrimination/retaliation claim 2 years ago

Member Service Center / Technical Support / Solved

Under the rules of RGC designed by Frost, advertises itself as a fair game of skill platform based on rules that promotes fairness and competitiveness open to the general public (Rule 1.1). It specifically bans conducts that is game ruining (Rule 5.9), farm pointing or that is part of a collusion to engage in anticompetitive behavior (Rule 5.12). Peru channel has extra rules such as a friends-only host ban and a ban of antigamer behavior, even if such behavior is not described in the rules. https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1619091. Staffs are furthermore forbidden in engaging in bad behavior under risk of demotion. https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1678662

RGC gamers in general, and Peru channels in specific, are advised that these rules are equally applied to everyone without regard to people.

Against the background of knowledge of the rules, I joined a game hosted by a person who is very close to Staff. I play as opposing team. https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1685230

I state and express my concern that the one of the person has a history of being anti gamer in several of prior interactions. I ask to kick that person. Or as an alternative to promote inclusion and a second change, I ask to balance the game. I do this under my understanding of the rules and principles thereof stated above. The host did not disclaim Rule 5.12 or disclaim any other peruvian-specific rules. Unfortunately, I got distracted and the game gets started.

I expressed my concern about the antigamer in my team. I also requested to rmk. All denied. I quit the game under the understanding that the host is violating the rules of the RGC. In my good faith belief that there is plausibility of a violation of Rule 5.12, I believe that no punishment is applicable. I found out later throughout the night that I was banned from the Peru channel.

As such, I attempt to inquire about the propriety of the ban. I ask support staff for clarification, I read the rules and gather information to properly and objectively assess the situation to fix, what in my view was a misunderstanding. No ban can result of refusing to participate in antigamer behavior. Otherwise, the staff and RGC would be promoting antigamer behavior.

Admins in Peru, while tecnically can ban anybody who quits, as provided by the rules of RGC, are very selective in their application of such punishment. A few months ago, Parabellum refused to ban a quiter who played in my team, which conveniently was opposing Parabellum's team. Parabellum won and I lost, and Parabellum refused to ban such player. Parabellum is an admin. Parabellum generally uses his power to ban people for minor infractions such as using caps in sentences.

I find out that Mosin-Sky was the person who banned me. Mosin-Sky has expressly stated his aversion and hostily against me in public channels such as Trovo. Mosin-Sky has also publicly stated homophobic slurs, which at that time, I avoid to make a “fuss” because I believed it would not affect any term, condition, or privilege of the contract between RGC and myself.

A reasonable person would believe that there is probability that a ban based on leaving a game where the host goes against the rules is just a sham pretext or excuse to discriminate. This is so when admin sometimes refuses to ban players who quit in their own games. A reasonable person would attempt to pursue internal channels of review to ensure the ban was not arbitrary, capricious, or bases on ill motives.

After finding the rules of conducts for staff and people and general, I learn that homophobic slurs are not tolerated. I leave a message to Frost, so that he is aware and enforce the ban on a company basis. Afterwards, I contact several support staff to clarify the rules for me, to ensure I am understanding the rules as everyone else does.

Cosde is extremely helpful. However, he declines to consider peruvian specific rules, or Rule 5.12. He evades making a definition, and simply make a general denial without futher information. According to the rules against surplusage, I assume that the rules must have meaning, and there are just not meaningless, so I attempt to get clarification from other staff, while reporting my ban and the admin through the proper channels. Since a violation is from a staff member, I also properly notify RGC rulemaker and head administrator, “Frost”, about the situation.

However, another staff appears and start calling me disability slurs (crazy, out of your mind) in plain violation of Rule 2.4 which forbids Improper and offensive Behavior and Rudeness. Concern about this conduct I rarely see in other staffs, I properly notify RGC rulemaker and head administrator, “Frost”, about the situation.

I gather all my documentation and properly submit my complaints to the proper channels for review, to ensure my ban and my complaints are addressed according to the rules. I assume that reporting to promote inclusiveness in encouraged by RGC.

It is then when I get surprised by Frost response to the first issue. Rather than addressing the disability slurs, and rules in plain violation of Rule 2.4, Frost states that I am making a “fuss” for bringing this behavior to his attention, and that I was well banned for ruining and wasting other 9 players time. At no moment I mentioned the ban, nor did Frost allow me the ability to present to him facts to explain why I left the game hosted. At no point does he address the violation of Rule 2.4 by his support staff. In fact, he blames it on me, as to try to make it clear that Support staff was justified in being rude, offensive and making disability slurs because I was “making a fuss” for a ban resulting from "ruining / wasting time of other 9 players. https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1685243

Similarly, Frost did not address the homophobic slurs stated by his other staff in plain violation of the rules he himself made. Instead, refer to the rational mentioned above, and which could be plausibly interpreted as homofobic slurs are justified because I was “making a fuss” for a ban resulting from "ruining / wasting time of other 9 players. https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1685238

Unlike myself, no staff member were applied disciplinary action based on the plain violation of Frost rules. In fact, a reasonable person would belief that he violated the rules himself, as he had no reason to be upset to someone who merely follows the proper channels for review Frost himself has stated one must follow. It follows then, that the violation of Rule 2.4 is not just condoned by RGC but it is a conduct that is part of the enforcement manual used systemically by the company. Thus, the rules are not only not enforceable against staff, but are rather enforceable arbitrarily, and thus, they are not rules at all.

GBL § 349 (a) declares unlawful all “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state.” Section 349, “on its face, applies to virtually all economic activity” (Karlin v IVF Am., 93 NY2d 282, 290 [1999]). Because the legislature was concerned with the impact of deceptive conduct on consumer purchases, GBL § 349 prohibits deceptive acts and practices that misrepresent the nature or quality of products and services (see Teller v Bill Hayes, Ltd., - 6 - No. 39 - 6 - 213 AD2d 141, 146 [2d Dept 1995]). Put simply, “[t]he statute seeks to secure ‘an honest marketplace’ where ‘trust,’ and not deception, prevails” (Goshen v Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 324 [2002], citing Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]). To ensure the broadest enforcement of the statute, the legislature added a private right of action for injunctive and monetary relief (GBL § 349 [h]). Thus, in addition to the Attorney General, individuals and businesses may bring an action under GBL § 349 (id.). The requisite elements of the cause of action are well established. A plaintiff must allege that: (1) the defendant’s conduct was consumer-oriented; (2) the defendant’s act or practice was deceptive or misleading in a material way; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deception (GBL § 349 [h]; Plavin v Group Health Inc., 35 NY3d 1, 10 [2020])

RGC has a deceiptive conduct of promoting the equal and fair application of its rules to the general public as well as its own members. However, these rules are deceptive because the rules are not really applied uniformily but in a very arbitrarily if not discriminatory manner. As a result, I was banned and I was unable to use my TC for the Peru channel. I believe I have a claim under GBL §349.

It is well settled that "[i]n New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of performance" (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 153 [2002]; Kirke La Shelle Co. v Paul Armstrong Co., 263 NY 79, 87 [1933]). Broadly stated, the implied covenant "embraces a pledge that 'neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract'" (511 W. 232nd Owners Corp., 98 NY2d at 153, quoting Dalton v Educational Testing Serv., 87 NY2d 384, 389 [1995]).

The ban of 4 days resulting in a breach of contarct and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. At all times, I have behaved in good faith, faithfully pursuing the internal channel of redress of greivances. However, all I was met was with rude, offensive, denigrating and disparing comments and behavior by some staff members and Frost himself. This failure to behave in good faith with me to resolve my concerns can be plausibly interpreted as a violation of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The elements of a breach of contract claim are "the existence of a contract, the plaintiffs performance thereunder, the defendant's breach thereof, and resulting damages" (Harris v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 79 A.D.3d 425, 426 [1st Dept 2010]; see also Second Source Funding, LLC v Yellowstone Capital, LLC, 144 A.D.3d 445, 446 [1st Dept 2016]).

In New York, “[t]he law is clear that ambiguities in a written contract are to be construed against the drafter. . .”. Al Sayegh Brothers Trading, LLC v. Doral Trading & Export, Inc., (E.D.N.Y. 2002). See also 67 Wall St. Co. v. Franklin Nat. Bank, 37 N.Y.2d 245, 249, 371 N.Y.S.2d 915, 918 (N.Y. 1975) (citing 4 Williston, Contracts, s 621; 10 N.Y.Jur., Contracts, s 223)

I specifically interpreted the rules of the gaming rules as promoting competitive and proper gaming behavior. The rules does not specifically states that one must stay on a game that violates the rules. Such interpretation of the rules is worrisome. Does one have to stay in a game where everybody makes homophobic or other discriminatory slurs to avoid a ban? Does quiting a game where there is collussion/point farming results in a ban? It sounds illogical that RGC is concerned by users waste of times but does so by punishing the innocent people caught in rule breaking host games. The rules may specifically provide for an avenue of how to handle these kind of situation. But at present it does not, and I feel I was excused for refusing to engage in antigamer behavior that could be inferred as a game hosted in violation of the rule.

As such, I have complied with the rules and thus I continue to perform on the contract with RGC. RGC however has refused to allow me to use my TC membership in the peru channel. A reasonable person can plausible believe that RGC has breach the contract with myself.

New York’s Human Rights Law provides: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability or marital status of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a). It is also unlawful to “publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place [of public accommodation] shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability or marital status.” N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a). It prohibits a public accommodation from publishing, circulating, issuing, displaying, posting, or mailing any written or printed communication to the effect that “the patronage or custom [] of any person of or purporting to be of any particular race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.” In turn, New York Civil Rights Law § 40-c reads: “No person shall, because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of the executive law, be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, . . . by any other person or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision of the state.” N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c(2); see also id. § 40 (stating that “[a]ll persons within . . . this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any places of public accommodations”).

A reasonable reading of the statutes can be interpreted as forbidding a place of public accommodation to discriminate, forbidding hostile environments, forbidding disparate treatment /impact and forbidding retaliation.

Upon a reasonable concern of discrimination based on sexual orientation made by the display of homophobic slurs by one of Frost staff, I reasonably tried to pursue internal channels of redress. However, at all times, I was met with offensive, rude, intimidating and retaliatory behavior. In fact, one of the support staff stated that “I am going to get into deep trouble” A plausible person would believe that this behavior is discriminatory/retaliatory and violates NYS Executive Law/NYC Civil Rights Law.

I have done my best to address my concerns internally and pursue a satisfactory solutions that address my concerns within the internal channels of RGC.
But either I have met bad faith in the resolution of the process, I do not trust the equal and fair enforcement of the rules, or I am continously stonewalled by RGC.
Since we all have different positions regarding the rules, and due to extremely technical nature of this controversy, I believe resort to the NY judiciary is proper.

Given that RGC is insistent with technicalities to the resolutions of claims, RGC is welcome to handle technicalities with the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules as for capacity (RGC is not registered with the NYSDOS), specific jurisdiction, long-arm staute, venue, choice of law, pleadings, motion to dismiss, discovery, summary judgment, etc.

Admin Mosin-Sky Homofobico y Conspirador - abuso de autoridad 2 years ago

North & South America Region / Regional Channels / Peru / Perú / Denuncias / Abuse TC/DM/RC/Global Rank / Solved

Parabellum,

Ultima pregunta:

El ban se ha disputado en otro thread asi que no es parte de este thread.
La pregunta es, si me banean por romper las reglas, no se deberia aplicar las reglas generales al staff?
En este caso, este staff ha expresado conducta homofobica y dice profanaciones en medios publicos.
Eso es legal tambien, deberia yo aceptar ese tipo d comentario dentro y fuera de un juego
Y que hay sobre comentarios irrespetuosos de parte de Staff.

Espero tu respuesta.

Admin Mosin-Sky Homofobico y Conspirador - abuso de autoridad 2 years ago

North & South America Region / Regional Channels / Peru / Perú / Denuncias / Abuse TC/DM/RC/Global Rank / Solved

USERNAME: momoelf

Denunciado: Mosin-Sky

Motivo: Crea un ambiente homofobico hostil o aprubea y conspira con conducta antigamer

Minuto: 00:00 the game has started

REPLAY : https://parser.d1map.net/match/18253

Admin en Peru usa su rango para crear un ambiente hostil y homofobico que entre otras resulto en mi ban. Admin abiertamente usa palabras homofobicas en Discord, Trovo, Tiktok o el chat de RGC. Admin continua haciendo esos comentarios groseros a pesar de que Michicu siempre reporte que esos comentarios son inapropiados y que por favor se detenga en crear un ambiente hostil. Esto esta grabado en Trovo.

Admin me baneo y uso como excusa conducta antigamer de unos de los Admin para formentar el ambiente hostil y homofobico. Admin demuestra una mala conducta y demuestra comportamiento grosero hacia mi, a pesar que yo siempre lo saludo, entro a sus juegos, le hablo bonito y de una u otra manera he tratado de crear amistad con Admin. Admin sin embargo es discriminador.

Admin me banea segun el pretexto de kiter. Pero el otro admin (Diskoteka) usa su rango para crear un juego, lo llena a proposito de antigamers y kiters o gente de level 1300, pedimos balance y no manda, y crea partida sin dar previa notificacion de conducta antigamer. Luego abusa autoridad cuando uno rehusa participar en conducta anti-gamer.

Diskoteka y Mosin-Sky son amigos, hablan por Discord y por diferentes canales, y tienen diferentes metodos de comunicacion entre sus celulares.

Mosin-Sky sabia que la conducta de Diskoteka era en contra de las reglas. Pero enves d sancionar a diskoteka, me sanciona porque Admin es homofobico y aprovecho esta oacsion para crear un ambiente hostile. Segun lo que tengo entendido de las reglas de los Admin de Peru, una definicion objectiva de antigamer es crear un ambiente de juego donde haya una justa y realista oportunidad de ganar para todos. Un Admin que crea juegas inherentemente injustos, que no balancea es una conducta antigamer en mi entendimiento.

Segun lo que tengo entendido de las reglas de los Admin de Peru, una definicion objectiva de antigamer es crear un ambiente de juego donde haya una justa y realista oportunidad de ganar para todos. Un Admin que crea juegas inherentemente injustos, que no balancea es una conducta antigamer en mi entendimiento.

Reglas y Personalizaciones en el canal de Perú: (Estas Reglas Son Para Todos Los Modos)

₪ Nivel 4 - Abuso Del Ranking (Mamuteo): Ban de 30 Días.

https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1079848

Staff Perú 2023

Degradación del staff

- A los STAFFS, no se les permite tener mala conducta en lo general, ya que se les podría sancionar, degradandoles o removiendoles el rango segun la gravedad.

https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1678662

PD: EN peru esta prohibido hostear solo para amigos

# Esta totalmente prohibido crear salas para amigos

https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1255802

En Peru, tambien la prohibicion antigamer es total, asi no este descrita en las reglas. La conducta del ADmin era objectivamente antigamer porque queria perjudicar un juego llenandola de gente antiigamer

➥ ANTIGAMER - Conducta Antigamer (Esta regla aplica para aquellos usuarios que logren encontrar un metodo para perjudicar el juego y dicho metodo no esta descrito en las reglas) (Dicha falta debe ser confirmada con un head admi o rango superior): Ban de 3 Día.

https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1352770Submit Reply

#5.12 collusion / farm points on matchmaking or an event is not tolerated and it results a ban up to 30 days and it both collusion sides might be banned depending on the scenario and admin decision. (game replay is required as evidence)

https://board.rankedgaming.com/topic/1619091

Segun Cosde:

Un Admin no puede abiertamente mostrar bajo actitud y palabras en canales publicos como rgc chat, trovo, tiktok y discord.

Un Admin no puede tomar represalias cuando una persona reporta y se queja de esa conducta.

Casde - reconsideracion a base de reglas especificamente peruanas 2 years ago

North & South America Region / SA Abuse Support / Abuse Reports / Solved

No viola esta regla tambien?