Very interesting read.<p>I don't play video games, but I do play online chess, and in online chess, there is a huge epidemic of cheating. Many cheaters are banned by chess.com. Some of these bans go unnoticed, but in other cases, the cheaters passionately insist that they were not cheating. And I don't believe them.<p>In a minuscule number of cases, chess.com has been known to reverse a ban. But chess.com does not provide the details of their anti-cheating technology.<p>So in the arena of chess, I do side with the provider, because as a practical matter, I believe they are almost always (>99.9%) correct. Of course, they still suffer from false negatives, because intermittent cheating is virtually impossible to prove.<p>I'm not sure what lessons to draw from the article.
> Activision explained that the burden of proof should be on me as “there is no requirement for Activision to prove that I had cheated” and “any burden rests on the Claimant” (me). The Judge agreed with this so I had the task of providing evidence that I didn’t cheat.<p>This doesn't make sense to me - if I bought a book, paid, and never got it, then sued, would I be expected to prove they never delivered the book? That seems nuts, I'd expect the court would say "show the courier's receipt".<p>"The burden of proof is on the accuser" - I'd expect the required proof here to be the proof that they were banned (which should be trivial: the emails).<p>> A combination of the evidence I submitted... and lack of evidence submitted by Activision led to this decision.<p>So in the end the burden of proof wasn't on @mdswanson?<p>Stuff like this is an ever-present threat so I'd like to know what was effective in case it ever happens to me.<p>Here's what I don't get:<p>- At the start the blog says that Activision's case fell apart because they gave a reason - does this mean that if they said "we banned him for no reason at all" he'd have no case?<p>- Couldn't Activision have said "well, he got 37 hours of gameplay, we don't owe him any more"? There's no monetary damage - so how was damage actually determined here? Was there a defamation angle or something?<p>What laws did the Judge cite making this decision?
Whilst it was an interesting read, it still doesn't quite state why they believed he was cheating and what methods are taken on deciding that. Without that it is impossible to make conclusions.
2 years? Jeez. All for a crapfest game haha. Kudos to you for going through with that. I guess they have a streaming platform so reputation was on the line, but I would not have put this much effort. Did you use AI to generate legal documents?