Appeal: Pending Multiman155 v. Cahania [2025] DCR 34 - Appeal

[Franciscus]

- Client Name: Multiman155
- Counsel Name: Multiman155
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: The district court incorrectly dismissed the Plaintiff's case.

1. The district court wrote that "Deported players cannot speak in game or in discord and can overall not participate in any area of society". While this might be assumed by the court, it is not necessarily the case—particularly so with players who are temporarily deported. While individuals who are deported are prohibited in-game and in the in-game discord, the Court fails to account for the fact that there are areas of society in which deported players de facto may actually take part in. As an example, in Exhibit P-001 below, it does certainly appear that Naezaratheus does indeed continue to participate in certain areas of society. And, in fact, the apparent participation of Naezaratheus in society is quite strong—if Naez has a negative opinion of a player, that can still be felt in real ways that lead to real damages. Moreover, the Plaintiff does not believe that Naezaratheus has been permanently deported, and public discussion surrounding this has indicated that the player is not (see: Exhibit P-002).
   
   In short, it is not, as the court wrote, "impossible for reputation harm from a deported player to be felt in any manner". Neither is it true that "[t]he level of harm from a deported player would be essentially equivalent to no harm at all." Instead, it is clear that opinions of this specific apparently temporarily deported players can have real effects and create real damages.
2. The District Court ruled that "[f]or loss of Enjoyment damages, the plaintiff has failed to produce as activity that they were prevented from participating in". But this appears to miss key activities that the Plaintiff stated in the complaint. Namely, the Plaintiff has lost enjoyment in helping players generally; the complaint noted that "I also am now much more suspicious of players who are asking for help with things, which has cause quite a bit of damper on my play".
3. Overall, the ruling by the District Court contained logical errors and erroneous assumptions unfavorable to the plaintiff, while resulting in what the Plaintiff believes to be an erroneous ruling on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff understands that District Court's magistrate may have really wanted a vacation from judicial duties (see: Exhibit P-003 and P-004), and that this case was the only one in the way of attaining such a vacation. It is quite understandable on a human level that one might miss the above, make erroneous assumptions, or miss important details if one were to be rushing. But a desire for vacation does not justify the deficiencies in the Court's ruling that have been identified above.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff respectfully asks that the Federal Court reverse the dismissal of this case and remand it to the lower court, so that the claims contained therein can be pursued with full consideration.

- Additional Information: Below, I have included several screenshots, which are referenced as exhibits above.

Exhibit P-001:

Exhibit P-002:

Exhibit P-003:

Exhibit P-004: