Console Ban 3-9-11 (Mod Warning Post #755)

Varik

NORTH1 wrote: »

1. A console has a certain value. If I wanted to sell on my console even though it's working, MS actions have depreciated the value by their actions as most users use it for it's online play.

They lower the price of a 360 and the price you can expect to get when you sell your 360 on you won't get as much, they have no obligation to allow to get a good price when you sell it on.

The console is not MS responsibility, it the retailer who you bought it from and the console is not faulty, you've been black listed.

hightower1

Think of it this way, MS are the market leader in online console MP gaming and infrastructure. They have been running credible online service for years now and I personally or even through hearsay have never.. not once.. ever heard of a wrongfull ban.

I would imagine the team they have are top notch tbh. To add to the security I would image they have to actually build a case for the decision to be made to ban someone. Finally - EVERYTHING, absolutely everything , done on live , by its very nature for the service to work HAS to be logged and recorded so even if there was an initial mistake with proposing a ban on a console they would certainly have another employee double check the logs for the console mac address and the gamertag.


I wouldnt be betting against MS being wrong on this one to be honest.
Attempting to take them to court for something like this while seeming noble and very "david Vs golliath" is at best a waste of time and an excersise in setting the table for the festival of all festivals of humble pie eating contests.

Lets dispense with any brevado here.... the console is permiently unable to go online, dont bin it. Its still good for one player and media streaming in house. Buy a new console and DONT let anyone other than yourself use it in future. A hard pill to swallow surely but this is the most realistic one can be. Lesson learned - to be 100% assured nothing like this will happen again in future make your console off limits to anyone else. /thread

Meesared

NORTH1 wrote: »

4. Seven years of a good name with the network ruined in one fowl swoop.

Really? Your account is unaffected by this, I dont see what you mean?

NORTH1 wrote: »

5. I'm not interest excepting that I have done something wrong by buying a new console to get back on their network.

Sorry what? That sentence makes no sense.

NORTH1

Varik wrote: »

They lower the price of a 360 and the price you can expect to get when you sell your 360 on you won't get as much, they have no obligation to allow to get a good price when you sell it on.

The console is not MS responsibility, it the retailer who you bought it from and the console is not faulty, you've been black listed.

yes like most things it loses value the moment you buy it, but MS action has made it next to worthless.

The retailer hasn't touched the console but MS did and withdraw a service which is a large part of the console ability.

Meesared

Yes but you are not automatically entitled to use said service, they can block people if they see fit.

NORTH1

Meesared wrote: »

Really? Your account is unaffected by this, I dont see what you mean?


Sorry what? That sentence makes no sense.

sorry what I meant was

I'm not excepting MSs stance that the console did something wrong, be it cheating or theft by buying a new console.

Meesared

NORTH1 wrote: »

sorry what I meant was

I'm not expecting MSs stance that the console did something wrong, be it cheating or theft by buying a new console.

What would you expect their stance to be?

Zab

Was the console bought new? Any chance that your son or somebody else has done something to it that you aren't aware of?

Assuming that you've told us everything relevant this situation would really piss me off.

I did some reading on the data protection act and that may be an avenue you could pursue to find out why they banned your console. A problem could be that the data may be about the console rather than about you, but:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?m=m&fn=/documents/guidance/310604.htm

Linked at the bottom of that page is:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2007/wp136_en.pdf

Example No. 6: car service record
The service register of a car held by a mechanic or garage contains the information
about the car, mileage, dates of service checks, technical problems, and material
condition. This information is associated in the record with a plate number and an
engine number, which in turn can be linked to the owner. Where the garage establishes
a connection between the vehicle and the owner, for the purpose of billing, information
will "relate" to the owner or to the driver. If the connection is made with the mechanic
that worked on the car with the purpose of ascertaining his productivity, this
information will also "relate" to the mechanic

Now, I haven't read the whole document so you'll have to do more research, but it does seem like you may be able to use the DPA to get information about a console that belongs to you.

It's looking like courts may be tricky. If MS said that it was modded and it wasn't modded by you I suppose you could take the shop you bought it from to the SCC for selling you a dodgy console. Of course, that's dubious because it's far more likely that MS have just made a mistake and there's nothing wrong with the console.

You're also paying MS so you could take them to the SCC for failing to provide the service you've paid for. Of course this is all covered in their terms so I don't know how that would work in reality. You're also realistically going to be looking for damages from MS rather than just your subscription back and I don't know how or if that works in the SCC. I do know that the SCC can uphold your consumer rights but it can't deem terms and conditions that don't contravene your rights to be "unfair". You have to go to the high court to do that.

Meesared

Zab wrote: »

You're also paying MS so you could take them to the SCC for failing to provide the service you've paid for. Of course this is all covered in their terms so I don't know how that would work in reality. You're also realistically going to be looking for damages from MS rather than just your subscription back and I don't know how or if that works in the SCC. I do know that the SCC can uphold your consumer rights but it can't deem terms and conditions that don't contravene your rights to be "unfair". You have to go to the high court to do that.

Nope afraid not, MS are proving the service, not their problem he cant use it. Look it at this way, if you got a phone on an 18 month contract and broke it 2 months into that contract, and thus couldn't use the service, do you think the network would cancel the contract? No of course not, they are still providing the service, not their problem if you cant use it.

RedXIV

surely there must be something here for the OP? He bought a console with the expectation to play online, but microsoft have now removed this feature and without explaining why? This in itself means the OP has paid for a feature which has been denied to him. Similar to the case where the guy in Australia brought Sony to court because he bought the PS3 to put Linux on and then sony removed the feature?

The console is advertised for playing online with so they've got to be contradicting themselves somehow by doing this?

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Meesared

RedXIV wrote: »

surely there must be something here for the OP? He bought a console with the expectation to play online, but microsoft have now removed this feature and without explaining why? This in itself means the OP has paid for a feature which has been denied to him. Similar to the case where the guy in Australia brought Sony to court because he bought the PS3 to put Linux on and then sony removed the feature?

The console is advertised for playing online with so they've got to be contradicting themselves somehow by doing this?

Nope, MS is entitled to ban people from Live for violating the Terms of Use. So nope thats not going to work.

RangeR

Microsoft has, in effect, affected this guys reputation. They have labeled him a cheat or "modder" or whatnot with absolutely no apparent recourse or explanation.

I don't care how big the company or how water tight, their T's & C's are, if they are going to call me a thief, they better well be able to stack up those claims and prove it.

The mear fact that MS are refusing to even deal with the case is the height of arrogance.

No company or person is infallible. They have and will make mistakes.

Now, as far as the SCC are concerned, OP purchased a good [xBox] AND service [xBox Live]. Apparently, through no fault of his own, he is no longer to fully utilise this good and service. Purchasing a new unit is NOT the answer. Well, it's a lazy answer but doesn't clear his name.

Type of claims dealt with
(a) a claim for goods or services bought for private use from someone selling them in the course of a business (consumer claims)

(b) a claim for goods or services bought for business use from someone selling them in the course of a business (business claims)

(c) a claim for minor damage to property (but excluding personal injuries)

(d) a claim for the non-return of a rent deposit for certain kinds of rented properties. For example, a holiday home or a room / flat in a premises where the owner also lives provided that a claim does not exceed €2,000.

RedXIV

Meesared wrote: »

Nope afraid not, MS are proving the service, not their problem he cant use it. Look it at this way, if you got a phone on an 18 month contract and broke it 2 months into that contract, and thus couldn't use the service, do you think the network would cancel the contract? No of course not, they are still providing the service, not their problem if you cant use it.

But this isn't as if you broke the phone. this is more like your network deciding you've jailbroken the phone and as a result cannot send texts, even though you haven't. The point being they are taking away functionality you paid for and not giving a valid reason why. And the functionality they take may have been the reason you bought the console

Meesared

RedXIV wrote: »

But this isn't as if you broke the phone. this is more like your network deciding you've jailbroken the phone and as a result cannot send texts, even though you haven't. The point being they are taking away functionality you paid for and not giving a valid reason why. And the functionality they take may have been the reason you bought the console

Something has happened the console, so it is comparable.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

NORTH1

Meesared wrote: »

What would you expect their stance to be?

I'm really not interest in MS stance


My stance is the following

1 An admittance they made a mistake.
2 An apology for the trouble they caused.
3 The banning of the console lifted.
4 Time lost on live due to this matter refunded.
5 A statement that there was no wrong doing on my part

I'm using a three phone to write this on threes network.

If three was to block my phone from accessing their network without notice would you think this affect my phone account?

And then they say ok we have not affected your service cause you can go buy a new phone.

This is just analogy I love three.

Meesared

RangeR wrote: »

Microsoft has, in effect, affected this guys reputation. They have labeled him a cheat or "modder" or whatnot with absolutely no apparent recourse or explanation.

I don't care how big the company or how water tight, their T's & C's are, if they are going to call me a thief, they better well be able to stack up those claims and prove it.

The mear fact that MS are refusing to even deal with the case is the height of arrogance.

No company or person is infallible. They have and will make mistakes.

Now, as far as the SCC are concerned, OP purchased a good [xBox] AND service [xBox Live]. Apparently, through no fault of his own, he is no longer to fully utilise this good and service. Purchasing a new unit is NOT the answer. Well, it's a lazy answer but doesn't clear his name.

They havent labelled a cheater or theif, its not like its permanently written on his profile.

The whole Me Vs. the world attitude a lot of people have here is pointless.

The OP will gain nothing by going to the SCC, I can assure you of that.

Meesared

NORTH1 wrote: »

I'm really not interest in MS stance


My stance is the following

1 An admittance they made a mistake.
2 An apology for the trouble they caused.
3 The banning of the console lifted.
4 Time lost on live due to this matter refunded.
5 A statement that there was no wrong doing on my part

I'm using a three phone to write this on threes network.

If three was to block my phone from accessing their network without notice would you think this affect my phone account?

And then they say ok we have not affected your service cause you can go buy a new phone.

This is just analogy I love three.

I know they havent made a mistake, Im sure this is a legitimate ban, as they dont ban people on suspicion, they need hard evidence, which they are guaranteed to have.

Thats the long and short of it I'm afraid.

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

Meesared

They need valid reason for banning people obviously and theyre all listed here:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoleban

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

RangeR

Meesared wrote: »

They havent labelled a cheater or theif, its not like its permanently written on his profile.

The whole Me Vs. the world attitude a lot of people have here is pointless.

The OP will gain nothing by going to the SCC, I can assure you of that.

It was implied by the fact that they banned his machine. You'll forgive me for not just taking your word on it.

Meesared wrote: »

I know they havent made a mistake, Im sure this is a legitimate ban, as they dont ban people on suspicion, they need hard evidence, which they are guaranteed to have.

Again, you'll forgive me for not just taking your word on it.

OP, I'm going to bow out of this now. I've said all I can say on the matter. Good luck and hopefully we have an update from you soon.

Meesared

What would be the benefit if they did ban consoles unwarranted?

They lose money on consoles sold..

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

NORTH1

hightower1 wrote: »

Think of it this way, MS are the market leader in online console MP gaming and infrastructure. They have been running credible online service for years now and I personally or even through hearsay have never.. not once.. ever heard of a wrongfull ban.

I would imagine the team they have are top notch tbh. To add to the security I would image they have to actually build a case for the decision to be made to ban someone. Finally - EVERYTHING, absolutely everything , done on live , by its very nature for the service to work HAS to be logged and recorded so even if there was an initial mistake with proposing a ban on a console they would certainly have another employee double check the logs for the console mac address and the gamertag.


I wouldnt be betting against MS being wrong on this one to be honest.
Attempting to take them to court for something like this while seeming noble and very "david Vs golliath" is at best a waste of time and an excersise in setting the table for the festival of all festivals of humble pie eating contests.

Lets dispense with any brevado here.... the console is permiently unable to go online, dont bin it. Its still good for one player and media streaming in house. Buy a new console and DONT let anyone other than yourself use it in future. A hard pill to swallow surely but this is the most realistic one can be. Lesson learned - to be 100% assured nothing like this will happen again in future make your console off limits to anyone else. /thread

I have a fair idea as to their mistake as it is the only thing it could be!

I bought content for both consoles fact costing 2400 ms points.

MS see a profile switch on the consoles and assumes content is been passed on illegally. I think MS has not realised that the content is already on both consoles and the consoles are on the one network.

Hence the MS forum guys accusing me of theft.

The does not seem to be any other reason for this. and according to ms there is no recourse that they are aware of.

Bobby Baccala

the only explanation is to find bill gates and rip his face off

chopperbyrne

NORTH1 wrote: »

I have a fair idea as to their mistake as it is the only thing it could be!

I bought content for both consoles fact costing 2400 ms points.

MS see a profile switch on the consoles and assumes content is been passed on illegally. I think MS has not realised that the content is already on both consoles and the consoles are on the one network.

Hence the MS forum guys accusing me of theft.

The does not seem to be any other reason for this. and according to ms there is no recourse that they are aware of.

Stop clutching at straws.

It was banned for good reason.

Lots of households have more than one console that would purchase the same content.

faceman

Wow the flag of innocence being flown for MS is hilarious! Are memories so short that we have forgotten their incompetence at their original handling of the RROD issue?

OP if you are 100% convinced you are not at fault maybe try the small claims court. You won't need a solicitor and it's cheap to apply. I'm not sure if they will hear your case but it's a good place to start

KERSPLAT!

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Stop clutching at straws.

It was banned for good reason.

Lots of households have more than one console that would purchase the same content.

And what was that reason?? If he doesn't know you definitely don't, mistakes can be made. It could be 1 in a million but there's still a chance.

Hope it gets sorted soon OP

I think what would p*ss me off most would be not knowing if it was my fault or MS fault