|
Everyone now knows what has happened at the Blizzard cup, and there are like 5 threads about it in SC2 general, but here I would just like to explain my stance on it in detail, and why I think what I do.
I really dislike how gom has dealt with this. If we look at their two announcements about it:
The first announcement used this rule as justification:
"During a match, a player shall not offend the opponent or audience with abusive behaviours"
The second announcement expressly stated:
"It is true that NaNiWa has not taken actions that break any explicit rules."
Hypocrisy right there. GOM didn't need to respond immediately, they should have taken their time and at least put up an answer that doesn't contradict itself. This is bad PR work.
Secondly, let us look at GOM's post about the MLG-GSL exchange program:
http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors3/news/65291
+ Show Spoiler + Pro Circuit Players Competing in the GSL
"At MLG Columbus, the Top 3 non-Korean finishers will each be placed into GSL Code A.
At every 2011 Pro Circuit Live Competition after MLG Columbus, GSL placement will occur as follows:
Code S status will be awarded to the highest placing player, regardless of country of origin, who doesn't already have Code S status.
Code A status will be awarded to the next 3 highest placing non-Korean players.
If Code S status is awarded to a Korean player, Code A status also will be awarded to the 4th highest placing non-Korean player.
All travel and accommodation expenses for these players will be provided by the GSL."
Providence was a 2011 live circuit event, with Leenock taking first, Naniwa taking second. Leenock already had code S. Thus, Naniwa has earned a code S spot. GOM says that they have changed the format, but a business CAN NOT change a reward offered for winning a tournament AFTER it has been played. That is equivalent to offering 10k for winning but after saying, "Oh, it was actually only 2k. We changed it after round 1." They never informed anyone of this change. This is more immoral, in my opinion, than what Naniwa did.
On the topic of what Naniwa did, it was certainly not the right decision. It could have been taken by NesTea as an insult, and was just not a good decision, with a hyper-sensitive community all around him. Could it have been handled better? Certainly. But does he deserve to be rejected of a spot that he earned and was promised? No.
GOM has no excuse here. I hope that they change their decision, but what they have done is unacceptable, and all the evidence in the world is against them. I have always been a GOM supporter, but this is just awful.
 
|
United States8477 Posts
Problem is that was GOM's policy in 2011. They changed their format in 2012 as GOM has stated in their official release.
|
But he still earned the spot..how can they just take it away from him?
|
United States8477 Posts
On December 15 2011 09:17 foxSC wrote:
But he still earned the spot..how can they just take it away from him?
The way GSL works in 2012 is that GOM gets to invite 2 foreigner seeds at their own discretion. Previously, yes, Naniwa would have probably been invited due to GOM's good relationship with MLG, but it was never set in stone. There is no policy directly linking high performing players at MLG to code S spots.
|
Why can't you post this in the announcement thread? I'm sure everything you've said here has been said there anyway.
But interesting forensic investigation, this would warrant a Horatio Caine macro on Reddit.
|
A business can do whatever the fuck they want. Stop this bullshit. If you think it's such a travesty go take it up with the government and see how that works for you.
|
On December 15 2011 09:39 Itsmedudeman wrote:
A business can do whatever the fuck they want. Stop this bullshit. If you think it's such a travesty go take it up with the government and see how that works for you.
Just no. A business can not do whatever the fuck they want. If I offer you $10,000 to mow my lawn, you do it, and then I pay you $10 because you don't fit into my definition of an ideal worker, I've been unethical. I can not do that. Chill out.
|
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign.
|
On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign.
Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando.
|
Things like this is why everyone hated kespa in sc1 :/
|
I don't agree with Gom's decision but they can do whatever they like. It's an offer to compete in code S, the player still needs to keep his image up to get the invite, If he doesn't they should be allowed to revoke the invite. I see it just like a college application, if you get accepted but do something and fuck up they can/will revoke your acceptance and it's your fault not theirs.
|
HAHAHAA that argument again.
"So Naniwa throws his game with a Probe rush. Let's firstly establish that fact that he clearly threw the game. Saying "oh, but working rushing IS a strategy" doesn't work here. Naniwa boxed his workers and A-moved them across the map. If you look at the VOD you can even see him take his hand off the keyboard and rest his chin in it after he does it. He didn't micro or do anything even remotely resembling playing the actual game so let's not kid ourselves and say it was a "valid strategy". Be serious, people. He did a long-form version of hitting F10 and then N as soon as the game started and nothing more."
Quote from Doa. Naniwa admitted he threw that game in his interview, stop trying to hide the knife under the covers.
Coca's code S spot was revoked. And if you get employed, do something to piss off your boss, there is no legal right saying you should still be in the job.
|
On December 15 2011 09:53 Itsmedudeman wrote:
HAHAHAA that argument again.
"So Naniwa throws his game with a Probe rush. Let's firstly establish that fact that he clearly threw the game. Saying "oh, but working rushing IS a strategy" doesn't work here. Naniwa boxed his workers and A-moved them across the map. If you look at the VOD you can even see him take his hand off the keyboard and rest his chin in it after he does it. He didn't micro or do anything even remotely resembling playing the actual game so let's not kid ourselves and say it was a "valid strategy". Be serious, people. He did a long-form version of hitting F10 and then N as soon as the game started and nothing more."
Quote from Doa. Naniwa admitted he threw that game in his interview, stop trying to hide the knife under the covers.
Coca's code S spot was revoked. And if you get employed, do something to piss off your boss, there is no legal right saying you should still be in the job.
Except Coca had a reward at stake and was punished by his team, not GOM. And GOM had already guaranteed Naniwa that he would have this spot.
|
On December 15 2011 09:50 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign. Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando.
I agree with you that it wasn't important. I also agree that it's okay not to try in that situation but there are two ways you can not try. One way is just play half-heartedly. The other is shit all over the tournment by not even doing that.
As for the Coca incident, why weren't people pissed off at slayers for making Coca drop out of Code S? He obviously he didn't give a shit about the tournament so it's okay! And there was no code A slot because the gsl format just changed and they didn't put a spot in for that seed.
|
On December 15 2011 09:56 NipponBanzai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:50 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign. Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando. I agree with you that it wasn't important. I also agree that it's okay not to try in that situation but there are two ways you can not try. One way is just play half-heartedly. The other is shit all over the tournment by not even doing that. As for the Coca incident, why weren't people pissed off at slayers for making Coca drop out of Code S? He obviously he didn't give a shit about the tournament so it's okay! And there was no code A slot because the gsl format just changed and they didn't put a spot in for that seed.
Back then, there was a code A slot to be competed for by the winner of that tournament. I believe that Squirtle eventually won it. And some people did say slayers went too far, but most say that throwing matches when prizes are involved is unacceptable, which it is.
|
OP, I agree 100%. I think What Naniwa did was a poor choice, but GOM has handled it terribly. Some sort of new rule or reprimand is fine, but taking away an earned Code S spot is way too far.
On December 15 2011 09:00 NrGmonk wrote:
Problem is that was GOM's policy in 2011. They changed their format in 2012 as GOM has stated in their official release.
You are saying it's perfectly acceptable for them to go back on the agreement they made with MLG? If they want to change their format and not do the MLG Seed anymore that's fine, but they should still honor the result from Providence. According to their own statement Naniwa earned a Code S spot.
|
It was a good decision by GOM. THey are a company with public image and integrity to protect.
|
United States8477 Posts
On December 15 2011 09:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:53 Itsmedudeman wrote:
HAHAHAA that argument again.
"So Naniwa throws his game with a Probe rush. Let's firstly establish that fact that he clearly threw the game. Saying "oh, but working rushing IS a strategy" doesn't work here. Naniwa boxed his workers and A-moved them across the map. If you look at the VOD you can even see him take his hand off the keyboard and rest his chin in it after he does it. He didn't micro or do anything even remotely resembling playing the actual game so let's not kid ourselves and say it was a "valid strategy". Be serious, people. He did a long-form version of hitting F10 and then N as soon as the game started and nothing more."
Quote from Doa. Naniwa admitted he threw that game in his interview, stop trying to hide the knife under the covers.
Coca's code S spot was revoked. And if you get employed, do something to piss off your boss, there is no legal right saying you should still be in the job. Except Coca had a reward at stake and was punished by his team, not GOM. And GOM had already guaranteed Naniwa that he would have this spot.
Not true at all. Naniwa said himself on Lo3 that he never had any confirmation from GOM that he would get a code S spot.
|
United States8477 Posts
On December 15 2011 10:11 Jonoman92 wrote:OP, I agree 100%. I think What Naniwa did was a poor choice, but GOM has handled it terribly. Some sort of new rule or reprimand is fine, but taking away an earned Code S spot is way too far. Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:00 NrGmonk wrote:
Problem is that was GOM's policy in 2011. They changed their format in 2012 as GOM has stated in their official release. You are saying it's perfectly acceptable for them to go back on the agreement they made with MLG? If they want to change their format and not do the MLG Seed anymore that's fine, but they should still honor the result from Providence. According to their own statement Naniwa earned a Code S spot.
GOM's format change was announced before MLG providence.
|
On December 15 2011 10:22 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 10:11 Jonoman92 wrote:OP, I agree 100%. I think What Naniwa did was a poor choice, but GOM has handled it terribly. Some sort of new rule or reprimand is fine, but taking away an earned Code S spot is way too far. On December 15 2011 09:00 NrGmonk wrote:
Problem is that was GOM's policy in 2011. They changed their format in 2012 as GOM has stated in their official release. You are saying it's perfectly acceptable for them to go back on the agreement they made with MLG? If they want to change their format and not do the MLG Seed anymore that's fine, but they should still honor the result from Providence. According to their own statement Naniwa earned a Code S spot. GOM's format change was announced before MLG providence.
http://thisisgame.com/board/view.php?id=979618&category=13438
Post announcing GOM format change for 2012, dated 12/10/2011
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Providence
MLG providence, Nov 18-20, 2011.
At least research before you say stuff like this.
|
United States8477 Posts
|
That's the tournament format that says 2 seeded international players would go straight to up@downs. Nowhere does it mention any change in the GSL-MLG exchange.
|
On December 15 2011 10:05 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:56 NipponBanzai wrote:On December 15 2011 09:50 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign. Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando. I agree with you that it wasn't important. I also agree that it's okay not to try in that situation but there are two ways you can not try. One way is just play half-heartedly. The other is shit all over the tournment by not even doing that. As for the Coca incident, why weren't people pissed off at slayers for making Coca drop out of Code S? He obviously he didn't give a shit about the tournament so it's okay! And there was no code A slot because the gsl format just changed and they didn't put a spot in for that seed. Back then, there was a code A slot to be competed for by the winner of that tournament. I believe that Squirtle eventually won it. And some people did say slayers went too far, but most say that throwing matches when prizes are involved is unacceptable, which it is.
I know there was a code A spot but that actually ended before that specific tournament. It was the tournament before that a code A spot was given to ESV TV. You can go back and check. It was after the format change.
Edit: So I checked for you and ya the code A spot was for the Monthly Finals #3 and not #4. The match-fixing in-between byun and coca occurred in the 15th weekly so it had nothing to do with code A.
|
On December 15 2011 11:23 NipponBanzai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 10:05 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:56 NipponBanzai wrote:On December 15 2011 09:50 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign. Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando. I agree with you that it wasn't important. I also agree that it's okay not to try in that situation but there are two ways you can not try. One way is just play half-heartedly. The other is shit all over the tournment by not even doing that. As for the Coca incident, why weren't people pissed off at slayers for making Coca drop out of Code S? He obviously he didn't give a shit about the tournament so it's okay! And there was no code A slot because the gsl format just changed and they didn't put a spot in for that seed. Back then, there was a code A slot to be competed for by the winner of that tournament. I believe that Squirtle eventually won it. And some people did say slayers went too far, but most say that throwing matches when prizes are involved is unacceptable, which it is. I know there was a code A spot but that actually ended before that specific tournament. It was the tournament before that a code A spot was given to ESV TV. You can go back and check. It was after the format change.
Even if there was no code A slot, there is still a $200 prize for the tourney, plus entry into the $1000 monthly finals. So there was something on the line.
|
On December 15 2011 10:22 NrGmonk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 10:11 Jonoman92 wrote:OP, I agree 100%. I think What Naniwa did was a poor choice, but GOM has handled it terribly. Some sort of new rule or reprimand is fine, but taking away an earned Code S spot is way too far. On December 15 2011 09:00 NrGmonk wrote:
Problem is that was GOM's policy in 2011. They changed their format in 2012 as GOM has stated in their official release. You are saying it's perfectly acceptable for them to go back on the agreement they made with MLG? If they want to change their format and not do the MLG Seed anymore that's fine, but they should still honor the result from Providence. According to their own statement Naniwa earned a Code S spot. GOM's format change was announced before MLG providence.
I don't see how changing the format is really that relevant. A Code S spot is a Code S spot. It was always 32 man right? So it only really affects how people get to Code S and what happens once they lose.
|
On December 15 2011 11:29 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 11:23 NipponBanzai wrote:On December 15 2011 10:05 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:56 NipponBanzai wrote:On December 15 2011 09:50 ampson wrote:On December 15 2011 09:47 Itsmedudeman wrote:
Same thing happened with Coca. Where's the outrage for that? Oh wait, he's not foreign. Coca admitted to throwing a game which had a reward (possible code A slot). Naniwa simply did not try in a game that had no reward or seeding implications. Plus, his punishment was from his team, who had not given him his code S slot in the first place. Not the same thing. People would be just as pissed if MC had done the same thing after getting his Code S slot in orlando. I agree with you that it wasn't important. I also agree that it's okay not to try in that situation but there are two ways you can not try. One way is just play half-heartedly. The other is shit all over the tournment by not even doing that. As for the Coca incident, why weren't people pissed off at slayers for making Coca drop out of Code S? He obviously he didn't give a shit about the tournament so it's okay! And there was no code A slot because the gsl format just changed and they didn't put a spot in for that seed. Back then, there was a code A slot to be competed for by the winner of that tournament. I believe that Squirtle eventually won it. And some people did say slayers went too far, but most say that throwing matches when prizes are involved is unacceptable, which it is. I know there was a code A spot but that actually ended before that specific tournament. It was the tournament before that a code A spot was given to ESV TV. You can go back and check. It was after the format change. Even if there was no code A slot, there is still a $200 prize for the tourney, plus entry into the $1000 monthly finals. So there was something on the line.
Well the finals #4 isn't going to happen so it's just 200 dollars. So you're telling me it's okay to disrespect the most prestigious tournament in the world if there is no money on the line, but it's not okay to throw 1 game in a set in a small weekly tournament just because of $200?
|
Honestly... his team should have taken action.
Gom took action because Quantic didn't.
That's the difference between Korean teams and Foreign ones.
|
On December 15 2011 09:55 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 09:53 Itsmedudeman wrote:
HAHAHAA that argument again.
"So Naniwa throws his game with a Probe rush. Let's firstly establish that fact that he clearly threw the game. Saying "oh, but working rushing IS a strategy" doesn't work here. Naniwa boxed his workers and A-moved them across the map. If you look at the VOD you can even see him take his hand off the keyboard and rest his chin in it after he does it. He didn't micro or do anything even remotely resembling playing the actual game so let's not kid ourselves and say it was a "valid strategy". Be serious, people. He did a long-form version of hitting F10 and then N as soon as the game started and nothing more."
Quote from Doa. Naniwa admitted he threw that game in his interview, stop trying to hide the knife under the covers.
Coca's code S spot was revoked. And if you get employed, do something to piss off your boss, there is no legal right saying you should still be in the job. Except Coca had a reward at stake and was punished by his team, not GOM. And GOM had already guaranteed Naniwa that he would have this spot.
GOM would have punished CoCa if his team did not. His team reacted immediately. QxG didn't respond immediately so GOM had to punish him for his behavior.
|
On December 15 2011 09:51 foxSC wrote:
Things like this is why everyone hated kespa in sc1 :/
We love KeSPA! Some of the Ref decisions have been questionable, but for the most part we appreciate what they do for the scene. Team8 yayay.
I'd expect this to be water under the bridge sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
