"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers deal with are of hundreds of millions of dollars. They trust me with understanding these matters to a basic basic level and allow me to do research for them. I will be working for one of these firms next year.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Match Fixing/Dumping
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
The notion that most people are sheep seems to be correct when you look at general comments in Gosugamers and Teamliquid. I want to educate people on this site why this matchfixing scandal is ridiculous. I will try and summarise them in simple sentences to avoid people criticising me of using overconvoluted sentences to express simple things.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
In many professional sports, the clubs which sponsor players have a clause which prohibits a player from conducting certain unethical behaviour. For example, in the legal professional conduct rules, there are rules to the effect that a lawyer must not act dishonestly, or further their means through unlawful conduct. Similarly, I'm sure in many soccer clubs, there are rules that prohibit match fixing EXPRESSLY. As soccer is one of the primary sports where matchfixing is a real problem.
However, it does not seem to me on the face of the evidence and common sense that a newly formed club, which likely did not use lawyers to setup a constitution would have an anti-match fixing clause unless it was identified as a potential problem since Starcraft 1 which carried through to the Starcraft 2 constitution. However, at this stage, I'm unsure that even Starcraft 1 had such a clause. It's likely that most clubs have a catch all provision in the constitution that says that the team has 'discretion to terminate the player for inappropriate conduct'. Where inappropriate is not defined in the constitution, this is a matter that may be brought to court by the players themselves.
The evidentiary issue
The other problem with e-sports is the issue of evidence with regard to dumping a game or match fixing. I've taken note that there hasn't been a clear distinction made between match fixing and dumping in the forums. Although they are similar, the context which the words are used seem to be different. The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
For the purposes of this article, matchfixing is where there is a predetermined outcome organized prior to a match regarding the performance of a player in one or more games. I mention 'or more games' because I've read people saying Nestea could not have been matchfixing in the GSL ro16 because he couldn't know whether Huk would advance. I want to inform readers that it does not matter what happens to Huk. Online sports betting sites bet on a number of things including the number of matches played, who advances to the next round and who does not. Thus how Huk performed is not relevant. Had Nestea gotten a friend to bet on him losing for very good odds, he could have shared the profit with Nestea. Depending on how much was bet, this could be more than the GSL prize.
In Starcraft 1, the reason why the match fixing scandal escalated was because the scheme that was devised was large and there were many parties involved, which made gathering evidence a fairly easy exercise. There were witnesses and a large number of defendants who could all testify against each other.
Insofar as Starcraft 2 is concerned, prima facie, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that match fixing could be proved. Unless it was to a scale in which Starcraft 1 matchfixing was - which to my LIMITED knowledge is unlikely. It would be extremely difficult to prove any form of match fixing where all you have is a hunch of one person betting on behalf of another. Further, unless there are rules in the constitution that prohibit "DUMPING" games - which is described later, there would be no compensation to those who lost the bets due to the match fixing.
Match dumping is where a person deliberately loses a match against another person. Clearly this is what happened in the match between Coco and Byun. Again it comes down to whether the catchall provision exists and whether prematurely leaving a game is inappropriate. I would suggest that the word 'inappropriate' might not be able to be too broadly read or it may fall under an unfair contract term - which is a term that can be interpreted so widely that it essentially covers everything and usurps power from every other term in the contract. Workplace relations law may also not allow unfair dismissal for an arbitrary reason. In my view, the word word inappropriate would be considered from the view of a reasonable man, in which case I believe a breach would have occurred. However further, its questionable whether the clause is a warranty or condition and whether a minor breach is enough to allow for termination. This is another matter altogether.
The main problem however is not identifying the cause of action but gathering enough evidence to prove it. Which leads to my next heading which will describe why I believe this matter has been way too oversimplified in the eyes of the public.
Only stupid people get caught
Read the heading and then read it again if you still don't get it. Run in your mind the scenarios that Coco and Byun could have done to escape the evidentiary burden? Maybe try a list of the things below:
1. Not type for the other person to leave? 2. Deliberately overexpanding and droning up without building a large army 3. Make it a convincing loss? 4. Alternatively what about accidentally leaving the game? Saying pp and pretending to leave the game and pressing surrender by mistake. Or what about telling the person to say gg first, and then you tap out pretending that you thought the other person left first. This would almost 100% be construed as being an accident. No-one would even guess it was matchfixing and even if they did, it couldn't be proved.
In such a situation, it would be difficult to prove that a player dumped the game. Let me make an analogy in a real life situation, if a minister makes a decision without giving reasons, even if its obvious the outcome of the decision is unfair, unless you can prove the minister acted arbitrarily or capriciously without any merit to the facts or the law, you can't challenge the decision. Similarly, how can you prove that either players had a guilty mind if they don't make it obvious. Even if it is obvious a game was dumped, it would be hard to prove intent. Procedurally, taking it to the court would be too costly for the team wanting to persecute the player and would take too long. The only real consequence would be to not renew the players contract later on and of course hte fact that that player would also not likely be picked up from another team after the incident.
Boxer/Slayers/Resignation
People need to stop taking things at face value and understand:
1. Boxer apologised and Slayers asked their player to leave to save the reputation of their team and not for any other reason.
2. The players involved are now in damage control mode and would do anything to preserve their future image, potential sponsorships and livelihood. Nobody is truly sorry.
It hurts e-sports
Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch. But making a moral argument doesn't mean that much in reality. People will matchfix where the reward from matchfixing> reward from playing where risk is minimal. Sometimes the reward from matchfixing includes the risk of being caught.
If not for a potential catch all provision, then players should be able to decide themselves whether they want the other player to win or not. After all, if they aren't allowed, they will just find more elaborate ways to pretend to lose. How about deliberately failing a 6 pool and telling the other player to prepare? What about conveniently forgetting to research stim? What about forgetting gas?
If matchfixing isn't allowed, people are just going to be smarter about doing it. It's not that hard. Why would you make a system where the person with the most elaborate matchfixing tactic should win? Or why would you take away from a person their right to win or lose since they are paying the consequence as a result "losing their place in the competition". For better spectatorship? The only reason I can see, that is a valid reason is matchfixing screws with the team that sponsors them as it messes with their reputation and revenue but if a person is teamless, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to matchfix. Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
You're a good writer, but you should know that you don't start an essay by insulting your audience.
It looks like you are still expanding this topic, so I'll wait until you finish writing. Right now, the topic doesn't really go anywhere.
Ok I'm going to edit this further with my views on the second page of what you've written, but so far all I've gotten is a straight out brag post about your academic achievements. Where's the rating system for this blog? 1/5
They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Lmao. Jesus, slow down. You've lost me. I was with you up until "I'm a lot smarter than all of you so listen closely kids".
Edit. I really don't see why you had to write that giant wall of text to just give your opinion. I know you think it's worth more because you managed to get into Law but seriously dude... you could have left your opinion in the thread itself. Also you seem to have mistakenly put this in Starcraft 2 instead of blogs.
While it's important for e-sports to get regulation, lawyers and team constitutions in (a la Brood War) as it grows, posting in response to the CoCa/Byun incident is just absurd.
It was just two kids who weren't thinking and didn't realize they had a bigger responsibility as pro-gamers. There was nothing malicious or deliberate about it.
Also the scene in Korea already which had a dark time with the match-fixing scandal is a very effective deterrent to match-fix attempts. If the Savior incident never happened, I guarantee you CoCa would be playing in 2 or so hours.
First of all, this is not a legal issue as no laws were broken and no contracts were violated. Coca has a right to lose on purpose and Slayers has a right to kick him out of their house for whatever reason.
Second, the statement "Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch" isn't true. We watch because we want to see players try to win. If it's known that there's matchfixing going on, or might be going on, it damages the integrity of competition.
You seem a bright young solicisator in the making, however your overall point seems to be that match fixing isnt a breach of a players contract? And that only silly people get caught and you wouldnt know if people are match fixing if they do it properly on a small scale?
But whats the solution to the problem? -_- i like conclsions with answers not with more questions!
I retract my comment that it was a "nice article". After reading it a few times I found it very hard to extract a distinct argument, and it seems to go in many directions.
For:
- First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
Can you elaborate? What do you mean by "no reason" and "disallowed".
Am I the only one who is amused that he writes something like this: I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
yet gets something essential as the players name wrong?
Anyways, sports have a high moral aspect and match fixing is mostly about that. Nobody claims that what Coca/Byun did was legally wrong, but I think all of them do it on a moral level.
I'm sorry, but the bottom line of your well structered/written post seems to be that it's not worth to introduce clauses that prohibit match-fixing because people will find clever ways to work around. While that might be true (or not) the same holds true for many, many contractual clauses and even criminal Law. I mean, that's the reason why there are so many lawsuits in business Law in general....because people try to work around the rules while others desperately try to have them abide by them.
It's incomplete from what I can see. I hope the author will finish his thought process soon.
From what I can see, the only point worthwhile is seperating the concept of "match-fixing" and "game dumping." While valid, the argument is largely tautological. How does the act being "gaming dumping" instead change its consequences? I think we're aware that Coca (not Coco) /Byun situation is not as severe as Savior's, much less so, but it doesn't change that it's an act that damages the integrity of the game. More importantly, doing it so blatantly is really an insult to the audience, and they received extralegal punishment as a result.
On November 16 2011 18:04 JustPassingBy wrote: Am I the only one who is amused that he writes something like this: I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
yet gets something essential as the players name wrong?
Anyways, sports have a high moral aspect and match fixing is mostly about that. Nobody claims that what Coca/Byun did was legally wrong, but I think all of them do it on a moral level.
I'm amused by all of it. I don't actually think this is really an "article" on Coca or Byun so much as a way of letting us know how massive his e-peen is. He doesn't want to come off as pretentious? Failed there.
first off, I would leave the lawyer off the island 100% of the time, cause its a deserted island and we can make up our own laws, as i'm sure the engineer, scientist, and doctor i select would be reasonable people.
Secondly if your going to write a wall of text you might not want to start off with 2 paragraphs about how cool you are and how great lawyers are and how prestigious the university you go to is.
Lastly, Matchfixing is bad. No one is encouraging people to be more sneaky about it, would you have us not shun byun/coca because they were stupid about it? No one wants matchfixing its bad for eSports, if people could just as you say lose to a 6pool cause they want their friend to advance than what is the whole point of all of this...What is the point of tl.net LR threads, and gomtv and OGN and on and on, Hell what is the point of any major sporting league if what you say is true. I would rather see an entertaining game where say IMNestea plans on losing to IMMVP either way but they atleast play the game out and nestea makes a stupid decision at the end on purpose and just be ignorant to it from a fans perspective than seeing a bunch of people 6pooling each other on gsl every-night that is for sure. Match-fixers should be punished, and all parties involved, including team members that have knowledge of match fxing going on that don't report it to an appropriate authority. After reading this I really don't understand what you are trying to say tho, you argue both sides and never really come to an opinion. But I guess that just makes me a sheep to you Mr.High and Mighty.
also
"First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se. "
This is why people hate lawyers, using something written on a piece of paper instead of common sense to run an argument/business/country/league. The big problem with what you propose, basically the kespa system, is that when everything is written down it can be misinterpreted and used incorrectly in certain situations where it should not apply. And things like this incident where coca byun matchfix in a small qualifier could be given the same punishment as say savior got in BW. People should be able to trust the Teams, managers, Gomtv, blizzard etc, that they wouldn't let anything get out of hand. There is something to be said for personal pride and honesty, and even self conscience, even if most lawyers would tell you everyone is a liar and a cheat. For lack of a better word, There needs to be "wiggle room" in this system for common sense and majority rule to keep the system honest, rather than a dictator with a sheet of paper with some rules on it handing out punishment.
I'm not really sure I get where you are going with this. What exactly are you trying to say? That match dumping/fixing is ok as long as you don't hurt your team?
Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
Well, this is a pretty amusing statement, since it goes back to the introduction. Even though you want to challenge the view of lawyers being evil, you end up concluding with it after all. Apparently, only accepting the 1%-2% best high school student is no guarantee for morals, which you've just demonstrated fairly well. That a law student can actually defend match fixing is pretty scary.
Anyway, one of the most basic foundation of any competitive activity, is the spirit of the game. If cheating or match fixing or dumping or anything is allowed, people will stop caring about it. And this ruins it for everyone. Of course we can't accept this. Just like we don't accept map hacking or any other form of cheating.
And who's to say throwing a match doesn't hurt anyone? What if whoever was to meet the winner of Coca/Byun has a great XvZ, but a horrible XvT? It messes up the integrity of the whole tournament. Now we can discuss if the punishment was too strict or not, but defending the activity outright is not very productive.
On November 16 2011 18:09 TheGiftedApe wrote: Wait what??
first off, I would leave the lawyer off the island 100% of the time, cause its a deserted island and we can make up our own laws, as i'm sure the engineer, scientist, and doctor i select would be reasonable people.
Secondly if your going to write a wall of text you might not want to start off with 2 paragraphs about how cool you are and how great lawyers are and how prestigious the university you go to is.
Lastly, Matchfixing is bad. No one is encouraging people to be more sneaky about it, would you have us not shun byun/coca because they were stupid about it? No one wants matchfixing its bad for eSports, if people could just as you say lose to a 6pool cause they want their friend to advance than what is the whole point of all of this...What is the point of tl.net LR threads, and gomtv and OGN and on and on, Hell what is the point of any major sporting league if what you say is true. I would rather see an entertaining game where say IMNestea plans on losing to IMMVP either way but they atleast play the game out and nestea makes a stupid decision at the end on purpose and just be ignorant to it from a fans perspective than seeing a bunch of people 6pooling each other on gsl every-night that is for sure. Match-fixers should be punished, and all parties involved, including team members that have knowledge of match fxing going on that don't report it to an appropriate authority. After reading this I really don't understand what you are trying to say tho, you argue both sides and never really come to an opinion. But I geuss that just makes me a sheep to you Mr.High and Mighty.
also "First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se. " This is why people hate lawyers, using something written on a piece of paper instead of common sense to run an argument/business/country/league.
Look, I didn't understand if he had a point in that mess of text either. But then I realised it's because I will never understand critical thinking as well as him. I accepted my inferiority as should you. Take his word on this. Afterall, he has gone to one of the most prestigious universities in Australia and he's worked in 4 top law firms. He also will be adjudicating disputes in rl as a job, so just saying. He also does really well in his class, usually around the top. You know, not to brag or anything. Just saying.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
There was.
Nice that you got to apply the stuff you learned in law school in a TL post though.
Couldn't you have just made this blog "We don't know what their contract says, and ethics of match-fixing don't matter" and left it at that? I know you say your words are all important, but I see this blog as proof to the contrary.
Never mind that you rag on "most people or young adults" for being idiots for assuming that there are legal implications to the match-fixing, when you yourself are assuming that there are no legal implications. I know you try to explain your position with some assumptions and reasoning, but overall it is really poor. (Although I see your point, an SC2 team with no former SC1 players on it may not have adopted SC1 contractual provisions...oh, wait...Boxer...the leader of the team...thats right...shucks...)
I think perhaps we have highlighted a reason why in North America you have to get your undergrad before law school - you've got some more learning to do before you put on that ego.
EPT
