Recently, according to upstream news reports, Dai, a post-90s hero League player, was granted a title by the system for seven days on the grounds of "negative competition". He thought he was just a level dish. He took the operator Tencent to court and asked the other party to clear the title record, compensate 500 yuan for mental loss, a game skin, and make a public apology. As a result, Dai lost both the first and second instance, and the court found that the title punishment was reasonable and legal.
For the "negative game" identified by Tencent, Dai argued that he was not a "negative game", but a "dish": "the game performance may be affected by factors such as game stage, hero selection, game operation, responsibility and strategy and tactics, and can not become evidence for judging the negative game". At the same time, he also believed that "the report of game players only represents the understanding of players, not objective facts."
However, the evidence submitted by Tencent shows that in the four games, Dai was reported by four different users (including Dai's teammates and opponents) for violations. Tencent's background program analyzed and calculated the parameters of Dai's involved account in the four games to determine that Dai had negative competition behavior.
Therefore, Nanshan District Court held in the first instance: "in this case, the defendant (Tencent) submitted the notarial certificate (2020) SZZZ No. 027815-027816" It shows that the plaintiff's game behavior was reported by four different users for violations, and it was judged as a negative game by the defendant's background program. Therefore, the defendant made the punishment measure of closing the plaintiff's account for a period of time, which is reasonable and legal. The plaintiff's relevant litigation claim is groundless in law and will not be supported by the court. With regard to the plaintiff's opinion that the notarized data in the notarial certificate (2020) SZZZ No. 027815-027816) may have changed, the defendant is the operator of hero League game, and it is not necessary to modify the relevant game data in order to close the plaintiff's account, so the court will not accept the plaintiff's opinion. " Nanshan District Court ruled that all claims of the plaintiff Dai were rejected.
In the second instance, the Shenzhen intermediate people's court held that under the condition that Tencent has provided notarized evidence for the facts reported by users and the analysis results of background procedures, and there is neither evidence nor clue in this case to show the modification of background data, it can be believed that the facts to be proved that Dai had a negative competition behavior are highly likely, and the corresponding facts determined by the court of first instance comply with the provisions of the above judicial interpretation, Since the short-term suspension of game accounts taken by Tencent complies with the agreement of both parties and does not exceed the reasonable scope, the Court confirmed the result of the first instance judgment. Finally, the Shenzhen intermediate people's court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.