|
On December 15 2011 04:19 o[twist] wrote:
it's unlikely that he can, for example, sue to have the seed back, if that's what you mean - although it's possible
I was regarding everyones outrage for him leaving the GSL rather than the reasons for it. I mean if anyone has the right to drop people out of the competition its the competition itself. Like the FIA banning and punishing teams for team orders a year back ect ect
They have a contract with them but GOM hold the power with their competition and its their business to make sure it has no blemishes
|
Well this thread devolved pretty quickly.
|
On December 15 2011 04:17 moonmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 03:12 CryingPoo wrote:
Sorry about misinforming. The quote was from a friend of mine who watched it in Korea which I shouldn't have posted if I wasn't sure about the source. Thank you for your contribution. For fucks sake Crying Poo, remember the Milkis crap? That a translator has responsibilities? Well this is one of them. If you are going to do it, either do it right or don't do it at all. Also anyone have a link to the stream that this was discussed on? Instead on relying on the translation I would like actually watch it and decide what they sad for myself.
I agree that the translator has a big responsibility, but I think that the reader has a responsibility to be a bit careful as well, specially with this kind of drama. We should always request sources and an independent translation of these very controversial statements. Which, over the course of 250 pages, none did as far as I know. >_>
|
On December 15 2011 04:07 Mystgun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 03:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Pro-gaming is professional gaming. Being a professional means making money. Sure, adding to the hype and getting the crowd fired up can be part of the job too, but first and foremost, pro-gaming is a job.
Pro-gamers need to earn a living for e-sports to be sustainable. Otherwise, this cute vision of "pro-gaming as a vocation should be about gamers competing for the victory, for the audience so they would get excited, and in all that, players job is to compete for the victory through that" is too idealistic and not realistic.
If they wanted someone who was super-serious about winning the tournament, they were right to invite Naniwa. If they cared about exciting the audience and hyping up the community, then they shouldn't have chosen to invite a player with a notoriously lackluster personality. Being professional means that there are certain standards to uphold and certain procedures to respect in the professional circuit, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. There is no question that progamers need to earn a living for e-sports to be sustainable, but ultimately what makes it sustainable is support from fans so companies will continue to sponsor teams. Why is it so hard for people to understand that in any professional career, there are industry standards that must be met? You do things that you don't necessarily want to do in order to uphold your reputation. If you throw that away, there's no reason you should expect to be respected or recognized as a professional gamer.
Yeah, just like FireBatHero in Brood War, John McEnroe in tennis, Phil Hellmuth in poker, and Dennis Rodman in basketball, right? 
I'm perfectly happy having IdrA, Naniwa, and other bad boys in StarCraft 2. It makes the game more interesting and entertaining than if everyone bows and smiles all the time (though that's not to say I don't also appreciate all the White-Ras and Sheths out there too).
|
On December 15 2011 04:21 MayorITC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:07 MrCon wrote:
Are people arguing about if the code S spot was "an invitation" or not ?
The code S spot was Naniwa's, no need to argue otherwise. Just read the LR thread of his MLG, you'll see eveyone cheering because his win in semies meant he won code S.This has also be comfirmed like 100 times, please do not rewrite history.
Naniwa was a code S player, it was so for GOM, for Liquipedia, for MLG, for everyone. So basically the 100s of fans in the MLG LR know the clauses of the contract between MLG and GSL better than Mr. Chae who is claiming that the 2012 Code S spot was being "given" rather than earned? The reason everyone believed that Naniwa earned a Code S spot was because they ASSUMED that the MLG/GSL exchange program would continue throughout 2012. Apparently, it does not according to the GomTV. MLG can't really vouch for you either since they don't seem to be sure about it yet either. Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 01:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
Folks, we're just becoming aware of the decision from GSL. We don't have all the facts yet and are investigating.
Please stay tuned. Thanks,
Lee (Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294713¤tpage=226#4510)Apparently there is a need to argue since random people like you think they know everything when the most-informed authorities are saying a different message.
lol yeah. of course you can trust chae to "know" the contract - of course, he's on one of the sides in the dispute, but you can take him at his word that he's not breaking his promise to naniwa.
or maybe we should actually try and figure out what was promised and what wasn't
|
|
|
On December 15 2011 04:20 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:19 Trsjnica wrote:On December 15 2011 04:13 o[twist] wrote:On December 15 2011 04:04 Trsjnica wrote:
This line of argument seems unreasonable to me. It is not that GOM is not honoring that promise, it is that Naniwa lost his spot due to outside actions.
I don't think you can reasonably argue that players should not be able to lose spots due to other actions. For example, if a player won MLG, but during the month before GSL, was caught cheating and fixing games for profit in NASL, Dreamhack, ladder, AND IEM-- they would surely lose their GSL Code S spot, and no one would complain.
Thus, this established that was all agree that at least *some actions* are sufficient to cause a player to lose a Code S spot, and that this is NOT an example of GOM not honoring their promise.
Rather, the argument here is really over whether Naniwa's actions were sufficient to justify the punishment that was given, and NOT whether GSL is honoring their promise re: MLG.
cheating and fixing games is breaking the law, this wasn't. i'm not an sc2 person but this is absolutely unfair. nfl teams "suck for luck." hell at the bnp paribas masters tennis tournament alex bogomolov jr. said "i don't want to be here" and almost retired without even having been injured. these sorts of things can result in some kind of fine or citation but never in somebody just saying "okay, we don't want you in the tournament anymore, even though you qualified under our rules, so we will simply replace you." Actually, for the most part, cheating and fixing games is not breaking the law. There is no law against me, for example, using a maphack in a game, or whatever other hacks may exist. Fixing games is only breaking the law if it is done in conjunction with betting on the games/etc--that can be racketeering and fraud among other charges. This may be in violation of a contract if it occurs during a tournament, but breaking a contract and breaking the law are not at all the same. uhh are you new to the sc scene? do you remember the bw match-fixing scandal?
He pretty clearly says 'Fixing games is only breaking the law if it is done in conjunction with betting on the games/etc'.
|
On December 15 2011 04:20 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:19 Trsjnica wrote:On December 15 2011 04:13 o[twist] wrote:On December 15 2011 04:04 Trsjnica wrote:
This line of argument seems unreasonable to me. It is not that GOM is not honoring that promise, it is that Naniwa lost his spot due to outside actions.
I don't think you can reasonably argue that players should not be able to lose spots due to other actions. For example, if a player won MLG, but during the month before GSL, was caught cheating and fixing games for profit in NASL, Dreamhack, ladder, AND IEM-- they would surely lose their GSL Code S spot, and no one would complain.
Thus, this established that was all agree that at least *some actions* are sufficient to cause a player to lose a Code S spot, and that this is NOT an example of GOM not honoring their promise.
Rather, the argument here is really over whether Naniwa's actions were sufficient to justify the punishment that was given, and NOT whether GSL is honoring their promise re: MLG.
cheating and fixing games is breaking the law, this wasn't. i'm not an sc2 person but this is absolutely unfair. nfl teams "suck for luck." hell at the bnp paribas masters tennis tournament alex bogomolov jr. said "i don't want to be here" and almost retired without even having been injured. these sorts of things can result in some kind of fine or citation but never in somebody just saying "okay, we don't want you in the tournament anymore, even though you qualified under our rules, so we will simply replace you." Actually, for the most part, cheating and fixing games is not breaking the law. There is no law against me, for example, using a maphack in a game, or whatever other hacks may exist. Fixing games is only breaking the law if it is done in conjunction with betting on the games/etc--that can be racketeering and fraud among other charges. This may be in violation of a contract if it occurs during a tournament, but breaking a contract and breaking the law are not at all the same. uhh are you new to the sc scene? do you remember the bw match-fixing scandal?
Depends on what you understand under match-fixing. I'm sure the bw players only got sentenced because there was the element of illegal betting and massive manipulation. People also call Coca throwing a won game against Byun as match-fixing and I'm quite sure there was nothing illegal there. Moreover, just because something is illegal in Korea doesn't mean it is in most of the world (see match-fixing scandal in German football scene, where it only had internal consequences for the parties involved).
|
On December 15 2011 04:15 arChieSC2 wrote:
ehm im lost, naniwa qualifed for GSL Code S, then he probes rush at BlizzardCup and now GOMTV says that they are kicking Naniwa from Code S becouse they didnt like the way he played against nestea... interesting... sounds like GOMTV is overreacting and being a bit.... well actually i dont know how to say it without offensive words, so gl GSL not a good move.
He wasn't qualified for Code S. He was qualified as one of the candidates to earn Code S seed. And GOMTV didn't kick NaNiwa out from code S, it's more like NaNiwa lost his key to open the door to enter Code S. GSL isn't like any other armature league where players play for fun or for the money. GSL is a tournament where pro-gamers compete each others.
|
On December 15 2011 04:21 msl wrote:
Not if you care about things like integrety of the competion. The only way to have that is to have dependable rules and not make stuff up as you go along.
Like I said elsewhere, the correct thing to do if you deem this unacceptable is to issue a sternly worded warning and make a clear rule that allows you to punish the next guy that breaks it.
The competition in question has yet to start. Its not like its the Ro4 and they are deciding to drop them. Maybe then its alot more questionable
|
On December 15 2011 04:19 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:14 baoluvboa wrote:On December 15 2011 04:13 o[twist] wrote:On December 15 2011 04:04 Trsjnica wrote:
This line of argument seems unreasonable to me. It is not that GOM is not honoring that promise, it is that Naniwa lost his spot due to outside actions.
I don't think you can reasonably argue that players should not be able to lose spots due to other actions. For example, if a player won MLG, but during the month before GSL, was caught cheating and fixing games for profit in NASL, Dreamhack, ladder, AND IEM-- they would surely lose their GSL Code S spot, and no one would complain.
Thus, this established that was all agree that at least *some actions* are sufficient to cause a player to lose a Code S spot, and that this is NOT an example of GOM not honoring their promise.
Rather, the argument here is really over whether Naniwa's actions were sufficient to justify the punishment that was given, and NOT whether GSL is honoring their promise re: MLG.
cheating and fixing games is breaking the law, this wasn't. i'm not an sc2 person but this is absolutely unfair. nfl teams "suck for luck." hell at the bnp paribas masters tennis tournament alex bogomolov jr. said "i don't want to be here" and almost retired without even having been injured. these sorts of things can result in some kind of fine or citation but never in somebody just saying "okay, we don't want you in the tournament anymore, even though you qualified under our rules, so we will simply replace you." He did not qualified contractually, it was their decision to decide that his conduct was not worthy of a PRIVILEGE spot. IT'S NOT A PRIVILEGE. Unless you clarify in advance that you can withdraw it any point without justification it's not a privilege. It can be an invitation, a promise but not a privilege.
A tournament has the right to deny anyone they deem unworthy. GOM has that rule written so they have the right to remove it. They also have complete justification in doing it, not like Naniwa was acting like an angel.
|
I wonder what will happen when IdrA GGs out early again in the GSL.
|
On December 15 2011 04:23 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:20 o[twist] wrote:On December 15 2011 04:19 Trsjnica wrote:On December 15 2011 04:13 o[twist] wrote:On December 15 2011 04:04 Trsjnica wrote:
This line of argument seems unreasonable to me. It is not that GOM is not honoring that promise, it is that Naniwa lost his spot due to outside actions.
I don't think you can reasonably argue that players should not be able to lose spots due to other actions. For example, if a player won MLG, but during the month before GSL, was caught cheating and fixing games for profit in NASL, Dreamhack, ladder, AND IEM-- they would surely lose their GSL Code S spot, and no one would complain.
Thus, this established that was all agree that at least *some actions* are sufficient to cause a player to lose a Code S spot, and that this is NOT an example of GOM not honoring their promise.
Rather, the argument here is really over whether Naniwa's actions were sufficient to justify the punishment that was given, and NOT whether GSL is honoring their promise re: MLG.
cheating and fixing games is breaking the law, this wasn't. i'm not an sc2 person but this is absolutely unfair. nfl teams "suck for luck." hell at the bnp paribas masters tennis tournament alex bogomolov jr. said "i don't want to be here" and almost retired without even having been injured. these sorts of things can result in some kind of fine or citation but never in somebody just saying "okay, we don't want you in the tournament anymore, even though you qualified under our rules, so we will simply replace you." Actually, for the most part, cheating and fixing games is not breaking the law. There is no law against me, for example, using a maphack in a game, or whatever other hacks may exist. Fixing games is only breaking the law if it is done in conjunction with betting on the games/etc--that can be racketeering and fraud among other charges. This may be in violation of a contract if it occurs during a tournament, but breaking a contract and breaking the law are not at all the same. uhh are you new to the sc scene? do you remember the bw match-fixing scandal? Depends on what you understand under match-fixing. I'm sure the bw players only got sentenced because there was the element of illegal betting and massive manipulation. People also call Coca throwing a won game against Byun as match-fixing and I'm quite sure there was nothing illegal there. Moreover, just because something is illegal in Korea doesn't mean it is in [i][most/i] of the world (see match-fixing scandal in German football scene, where it only had internal consequences for the parties involved).
sure - but the example he cited was "cheating and fixing games for profit" - my point was that that would be a very different situation
|
On December 15 2011 04:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:07 Mystgun wrote:On December 15 2011 03:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Pro-gaming is professional gaming. Being a professional means making money. Sure, adding to the hype and getting the crowd fired up can be part of the job too, but first and foremost, pro-gaming is a job.
Pro-gamers need to earn a living for e-sports to be sustainable. Otherwise, this cute vision of "pro-gaming as a vocation should be about gamers competing for the victory, for the audience so they would get excited, and in all that, players job is to compete for the victory through that" is too idealistic and not realistic.
If they wanted someone who was super-serious about winning the tournament, they were right to invite Naniwa. If they cared about exciting the audience and hyping up the community, then they shouldn't have chosen to invite a player with a notoriously lackluster personality. Being professional means that there are certain standards to uphold and certain procedures to respect in the professional circuit, regardless of whether you agree with them or not. There is no question that progamers need to earn a living for e-sports to be sustainable, but ultimately what makes it sustainable is support from fans so companies will continue to sponsor teams. Why is it so hard for people to understand that in any professional career, there are industry standards that must be met? You do things that you don't necessarily want to do in order to uphold your reputation. If you throw that away, there's no reason you should expect to be respected or recognized as a professional gamer. Yeah, just like FireBatHero in Brood War, John McEnroe in tennis, Phil Hellmuth in poker, and Dennis Rodman in basketball, right? I'm perfectly happy having IdrA, Naniwa, and other bad boys in StarCraft 2. It makes the game more interesting and entertaining than if everyone bows and smiles all the time (though that's not to say I don't also appreciate all the White-Ras and Sheths out there too).
Didn't John McEnroe - at least - get fined a bunch of times for his behaviour?
|
I guess being professional now entails giving up on will because "boohoo I just don't feel like playing anymore" no matter how many people are watching, no matter how many people are supporting, no matter where I am, no matter what situation I am in regarding my profession. I am entitled to reap all the positive benefits of being a professional by GIVING UP.
/signed
Foreign community
|
On December 15 2011 04:14 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:07 Phantom_Sky wrote:On December 15 2011 04:02 whereyouat wrote:On December 15 2011 03:59 Phantom_Sky wrote:On December 15 2011 03:53 TheBanana wrote:On December 15 2011 03:46 baoluvboa wrote:On December 15 2011 03:44 Phantom_Sky wrote:
Mr.Chae was suggesting that he gave the Code S pro to a "pro gamer", instead of some random kid that played the game well, as he expected pro gamer to be a higher standard
the problem is just you have to honor the agreement between MLG/ GSL, Naniwa got #2 in MLG the hard way, he should not be punished just because Mr.Chae / GomTV/ Koreans have a different definition of pro gamer There was no contractual agreement. MLG/GSL did not extend to 2012 >.< Naniwa did not have a spot, was only a candidate due to his performance. But this is not the purpose of this thread. In that case they forgot to tell both MLG and the rest of the world. Check out this guys compilation of MLG-quotes saying Naniwa won a code S-seed: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/nc8g6/naniwa_loses_code_s_spot/c37zdqg from GomTV official statement http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors3/news/65291At 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. from that line, it is pretty clear that a Code S should be awarded to Naniwa. Mr.Chae, are you going to honor what you/ GomTV promised? Overturned due to blatent unprofessionalism. Awarded to players more deserving of being named 'CODE S' so GomTV can make up rules on the fly? next time someone they dont like win MLG, the can award that to #2 one just because they feel like it? e.g if Idra wins and Boxer got second (assume both not in Code S), they can award Boxer because he's more "professional" the problem is that you just cannot "bend" the rules on the fly especially we are talking International programs, and subjective judgement like being "professional" should not apply as everyone have a very different definition of professional, as I can claim that that Naniwa is professional as he did not want to waste energy on meaningless match and use more time to prepare for the upcoming Code S match This! Maybe it would be helpful for the discussion to seperate two questions: 1) The question if Naniwar behaved in an unproffesional manner. 2) Does GOM have the right to revoke Naniwars seed for the percieved unprofessionalism, even when there are no clear rules about this situation and he earned the seed by GOMs own rules?About 1) everyone will have an opinion and is entiteled to it. Question 2) though is the sticking point for me, and I don't see how the answer Yes to 1) = Yes to 2), which is what a lot of people seem to argue.
what silly question of course they have guess who runs this tourney?
I still think it was the right decision and Naniwa should rethink his behaviour, but there is no need to discuss analogies to other sports and how that match shouldnt have happened in the first place because there are already 300+ pages about that.
|
Thanks, I was looking for some sort of response from the MLG.
I'll stop arguing untill I hear what they have to say.
|
On December 15 2011 04:19 Stipulation wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:16 m0ck wrote:On December 15 2011 04:06 whereyouat wrote:On December 15 2011 03:59 Mystgun wrote:
The statement is saying that the Code S spot was given to the professional gamer NaNiWa who has demonstrated that he was a skillful and professional player up until the Blizzard Cup match with NesTea, not to Johan Lucchesi the skillful gamer who has apparently acted unprofessionally by forfeiting the game in a crude manner.
For those who can't read between the lines, it implies that GSL is disappointed with Naniwa's behavior the other day and until he meets their standard as a professional gamer, they will not seed him into code S This x100. Skill =/= Professional. Combatex is quite skillful but do we call him a professional? He makes money from the game through streams, lessons and such so he has the qualifications of a professional right? It's becoming a game of semantics, arguing about whose definition of professional takes precedence. Clearly, what koreans and native english speakers understand by 'professional' is not the same. By combatex living off the money he earns by playing starcraft, he would be called a professional starcraft player. It is his occupation, his mean of livelyhood. Whether he is being a dick while doing it is besides the point. But that's not how you understand the word. It is more in the line of 'does he uphold certain virtues that we ascribe to what we call a professional starcraft player', as I understand it. An excellent point. This isn't just a cultural difference, but a language difference that we have to take into account as was analyze the situation.
It's not semantics. The word itself has value so who gets to decide what it means becomes a question of power. Sure, we might agree that we are talking about two different concepts but we'd still fight over who gets to use the word "progamer" for his favoured concept.
|
On December 15 2011 04:22 o[twist] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 04:21 MayorITC wrote:On December 15 2011 04:07 MrCon wrote:
Are people arguing about if the code S spot was "an invitation" or not ?
The code S spot was Naniwa's, no need to argue otherwise. Just read the LR thread of his MLG, you'll see eveyone cheering because his win in semies meant he won code S.This has also be comfirmed like 100 times, please do not rewrite history.
Naniwa was a code S player, it was so for GOM, for Liquipedia, for MLG, for everyone. So basically the 100s of fans in the MLG LR know the clauses of the contract between MLG and GSL better than Mr. Chae who is claiming that the 2012 Code S spot was being "given" rather than earned? The reason everyone believed that Naniwa earned a Code S spot was because they ASSUMED that the MLG/GSL exchange program would continue throughout 2012. Apparently, it does not according to the GomTV. MLG can't really vouch for you either since they don't seem to be sure about it yet either. On December 15 2011 01:56 MLG_Lee wrote:
Folks, we're just becoming aware of the decision from GSL. We don't have all the facts yet and are investigating.
Please stay tuned. Thanks,
Lee (Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=294713¤tpage=226#4510)Apparently there is a need to argue since random people like you think they know everything when the most-informed authorities are saying a different message. lol yeah. of course you can trust chae to "know" the contract - of course, he's on one of the sides in the dispute, but you can take him at his word that he's not breaking his promise to naniwa. or maybe we should actually try and figure out what was promised and what wasn't
Do YOU have a copy of the contract between MLG and GSL? No? Then hell yes, I trust Mr. Chae more than you or what any random person in the forum has to say about Naniwa earning a Code S spot through MLG.
There's only two parties who would know for 100% the details of the contract. GomTV and MLG. Seeing as how MLG are still investigating the matter, I will believe Mr. Chae's word until MLG states otherwise.
|
I wonder if Naniwa will play in the GSL prelims, or if this hits him so hard that he just gets fed up with all of GSL (for a while, or for good).
I hope he tries out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
