|
It's not like he's been sentenced to death. He's just banned from playing a video game at a competitive level. Why would we need leniency on that?
For every "viewer" who would come back to see Life play, you'd also have viewers who would just leave because the pro scene has no legitimacy. No forgiveness. I'm ready to let SC2 die completely if it means not letting these scum match fixers play again for money.
|
There are people that still want to let Life come back to the scene?!
We might as well let Savior come back, then...no? I think both players were phenomenal. Why not, then?
The Korean scene has had enough...no tournament will ever let a match fixing player play again!~ This is how it must be, - from one there are five, 10, 20...Match fixing destroys the integrity of the entire scene and everything that the spirit of competitive SC stands for. It shits on the spirit of competition. It should not be tolerated, in any form! And like it not, no matter how seductive it may seem, the final vector for matchfixing are the players themselves...
Whether or not players get payed enough, player treatment, the need for player unions, etc...Those are all good things to talk about. But suggesting that a player who matchfixed in the greatest SC2 tournament in the world be allowed to come back and play again? I'd hope that you have a moral standing such that you put your own personal desires below the integrity of the competitive scene you enjoy so much...
I loved Life. He was/is (who knows, he could still be on ladder for all I know) an absolutely incredible player who defied the odds. Dark is still struggling to fill his shoes. But I've accepted that he will never play another tournament again, and I agree that he should not be allowed to.
Matchfixing should never be tolerated. As long as tournament organizers have the power to do something about it, they will. That's how it should be.
|
On March 14 2017 23:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 23:23 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:09 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:01 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 14 2017 21:06 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 20:58 Hildegard wrote:
However, when pushing for harsh punishments keep in mind that it could mean losing something significant. Life was one of the most promising players SC2 ever had and the loss of not having him anymore is severe. You can talk about the general punishment in case of a certain crime, but popularity should not be an argument to lower any punishment. It's not about popularity, it's about greatness - but maybe your mind is just too simple to appriciate such a thing. Don't start insulting. The same argument is applyable to talent, greatness, whatever you like. Just because someone is extraordinary at something doesn't mean he deserves special treatment. Talk about simple minds... You guys are misunderstanding the point. It's not about giving Life special treatment, it's about whether the treatment that we give to all of them is appropriate. I don't want Life allowed to come back because he's Life, I want him allowed to come back because I think he's been punished enough in relation to what he has done. When people mention all of the things he could be doing in the community if he was allowed to come back, it's not because he's Life, it's because he's not there. Any of the banned players could be doing things if they were there. I don't think so. Not at all. There have been more players, but this thread is dedicated to Life. Tell me why? Because he's more famous, and issues tend to revolve around more famous people easier than they do around less famous people. But you already knew that, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to do. Ofc and that's the point. Don't tell me ppl that try to defend Life cared much about players in similar situations. If they did, if they had such principles, they'd start "fighting" before Life's case, not now. Your argument was that they wanted to lower the punishment because he's popular. You're now saying that they care about the issue because he's popular. Please be aware of what you're arguing.
I don't see a problem, sry. The issue is to lower the punishment.
TLDR for you: Treat everyone equally. Do not treat popular ppl differently.
|
On March 14 2017 23:53 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 23:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 23:23 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:09 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:01 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 14 2017 21:06 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 20:58 Hildegard wrote:
However, when pushing for harsh punishments keep in mind that it could mean losing something significant. Life was one of the most promising players SC2 ever had and the loss of not having him anymore is severe. You can talk about the general punishment in case of a certain crime, but popularity should not be an argument to lower any punishment. It's not about popularity, it's about greatness - but maybe your mind is just too simple to appriciate such a thing. Don't start insulting. The same argument is applyable to talent, greatness, whatever you like. Just because someone is extraordinary at something doesn't mean he deserves special treatment. Talk about simple minds... You guys are misunderstanding the point. It's not about giving Life special treatment, it's about whether the treatment that we give to all of them is appropriate. I don't want Life allowed to come back because he's Life, I want him allowed to come back because I think he's been punished enough in relation to what he has done. When people mention all of the things he could be doing in the community if he was allowed to come back, it's not because he's Life, it's because he's not there. Any of the banned players could be doing things if they were there. I don't think so. Not at all. There have been more players, but this thread is dedicated to Life. Tell me why? Because he's more famous, and issues tend to revolve around more famous people easier than they do around less famous people. But you already knew that, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to do. Ofc and that's the point. Don't tell me ppl that try to defend Life cared much about players in similar situations. If they did, if they had such principles, they'd start "fighting" before Life's case, not now. Your argument was that they wanted to lower the punishment because he's popular. You're now saying that they care about the issue because he's popular. Please be aware of what you're arguing. I don't see a problem, sry. The issue is to lower the punishment. TLDR for you: Treat everyone equally. Do not treat popular ppl differently.
You have not demonstrated that your opposition wants to treat popular people differently, which means you're arguing against a strawman, which is the problem that you should be seeing.
|
On March 15 2017 00:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2017 23:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 23:23 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:09 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:01 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 14 2017 21:06 Phaenoman wrote:
[quote]
You can talk about the general punishment in case of a certain crime, but popularity should not be an argument to lower any punishment. It's not about popularity, it's about greatness - but maybe your mind is just too simple to appriciate such a thing. Don't start insulting. The same argument is applyable to talent, greatness, whatever you like. Just because someone is extraordinary at something doesn't mean he deserves special treatment. Talk about simple minds... You guys are misunderstanding the point. It's not about giving Life special treatment, it's about whether the treatment that we give to all of them is appropriate. I don't want Life allowed to come back because he's Life, I want him allowed to come back because I think he's been punished enough in relation to what he has done. When people mention all of the things he could be doing in the community if he was allowed to come back, it's not because he's Life, it's because he's not there. Any of the banned players could be doing things if they were there. I don't think so. Not at all. There have been more players, but this thread is dedicated to Life. Tell me why? Because he's more famous, and issues tend to revolve around more famous people easier than they do around less famous people. But you already knew that, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to do. Ofc and that's the point. Don't tell me ppl that try to defend Life cared much about players in similar situations. If they did, if they had such principles, they'd start "fighting" before Life's case, not now. Your argument was that they wanted to lower the punishment because he's popular. You're now saying that they care about the issue because he's popular. Please be aware of what you're arguing. I don't see a problem, sry. The issue is to lower the punishment. TLDR for you: Treat everyone equally. Do not treat popular ppl differently. You have not demonstrated that your opposition wants to treat popular people differently, which means you're arguing against a strawman, which is the problem that you should be seeing.
Ok so first the problem was that you didn't quite understand what the issue was, now you are telling me I need to demonstrate something?
I am very certain you could follow my argumentation. If not, try reading again what I have written. I have no intention to repeat myself once again. You'll be fine.
|
On March 15 2017 00:28 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 00:06 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 23:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:43 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 23:23 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:53 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:27 Nebuchad wrote:On March 14 2017 22:09 Phaenoman wrote:On March 14 2017 22:01 SKNielsen1989 wrote:
[quote]
It's not about popularity, it's about greatness - but maybe your mind is just too simple to appriciate such a thing. Don't start insulting. The same argument is applyable to talent, greatness, whatever you like. Just because someone is extraordinary at something doesn't mean he deserves special treatment. Talk about simple minds... You guys are misunderstanding the point. It's not about giving Life special treatment, it's about whether the treatment that we give to all of them is appropriate. I don't want Life allowed to come back because he's Life, I want him allowed to come back because I think he's been punished enough in relation to what he has done. When people mention all of the things he could be doing in the community if he was allowed to come back, it's not because he's Life, it's because he's not there. Any of the banned players could be doing things if they were there. I don't think so. Not at all. There have been more players, but this thread is dedicated to Life. Tell me why? Because he's more famous, and issues tend to revolve around more famous people easier than they do around less famous people. But you already knew that, so I'm not sure what you're attempting to do. Ofc and that's the point. Don't tell me ppl that try to defend Life cared much about players in similar situations. If they did, if they had such principles, they'd start "fighting" before Life's case, not now. Your argument was that they wanted to lower the punishment because he's popular. You're now saying that they care about the issue because he's popular. Please be aware of what you're arguing. I don't see a problem, sry. The issue is to lower the punishment. TLDR for you: Treat everyone equally. Do not treat popular ppl differently. You have not demonstrated that your opposition wants to treat popular people differently, which means you're arguing against a strawman, which is the problem that you should be seeing. Ok so first the problem was that you didn't quite understand what the issue was, now you are telling me I need to demonstrate something? I am very certain you could follow my argumentation. If not, try reading again what I have written. I have no intention to repeat myself once again. You'll be fine.
I didn't understand what the issue was? When did that happen exactly?
|
A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable.
What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment.
Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!!
|
On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:Show nested quote +A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!!
You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks!
No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner.
|
On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner.
Oh god another simple minded moron appears. Im done here. You guys are too dumb.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner.
Again, it's not about who does the crime. It's your fundamental misunderstanding of that that leads you to create this analogy where someone who is more useful than someone else gets to be punished less under a "benefit and drawback" logic. That's not what is being discussed, but the benefit and the drawback of punishment x as it is applied to people as a whole.
On March 15 2017 01:09 SKNielsen1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Oh god another simple minded moron appears. Im done here. You guys are too dumb.
Please never do that.
|
On March 15 2017 01:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Again, it's not about who does the crime. It's your fundamental misunderstanding of that that leads you to create this analogy where someone who is more useful than someone else gets to be punished less under a "benefit and drawback" logic. That's not what is being discussed, but the benefit and the drawback of punishment x as it is applied to people as a whole. Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:09 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Oh god another simple minded moron appears. Im done here. You guys are too dumb. Please never do that.
The only reason we're having this discussion at all is because it happened to Life. It's even in the title of the thread. How can you pretend that the "who" is not* a driving factor in this conversation?
Anyway, I'll humor your perspective.
Pros: upholds the traditions of the scene, legitimizes the scene by upholding standards of fair play, serves as a deterrent for future potential cheaters.
Cons: some Life fans are more upset about their player not being able to play anymore than they are about him defiling the sanctity of competitive spirit in the game they love, perhaps to the point of no longer watching it because they were a fan of a player more than anything else, which is a shallow allegiance to begin with.
|
Why does it even matter? I think Leenock said that Life doesn't even play Sc2 anymore during Scarlett's 24hr stream.
|
On March 15 2017 04:28 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 01:28 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Again, it's not about who does the crime. It's your fundamental misunderstanding of that that leads you to create this analogy where someone who is more useful than someone else gets to be punished less under a "benefit and drawback" logic. That's not what is being discussed, but the benefit and the drawback of punishment x as it is applied to people as a whole. On March 15 2017 01:09 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Oh god another simple minded moron appears. Im done here. You guys are too dumb. Please never do that. The only reason we're having this discussion at all is because it happened to Life. It's even in the title of the thread. How can you pretend that the "who" is a driving factor in this conversation?
Because (again) you are mistaking "caring because it's Life" for "thinking it should only apply to Life". "Thinking it should only apply to Life" is not a coherent position, as you've illustrated very aptly with your surgeon example. "Caring because it's Life" is a coherent position: you think Life is good for the scene, so you question the interest of banning any player forever because they cheated once, as opposed to for another, less final, amount of time. You are pretending that the first position is the second because it helps you avoid the conversation by presenting an argument that is very easy to refute. It's convenient, but not very interesting.
|
On March 15 2017 04:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2017 04:28 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 01:28 Nebuchad wrote:On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Again, it's not about who does the crime. It's your fundamental misunderstanding of that that leads you to create this analogy where someone who is more useful than someone else gets to be punished less under a "benefit and drawback" logic. That's not what is being discussed, but the benefit and the drawback of punishment x as it is applied to people as a whole. On March 15 2017 01:09 SKNielsen1989 wrote:On March 15 2017 01:08 Jealous wrote:On March 15 2017 00:58 SKNielsen1989 wrote:A crime is a crime and has punishments. Thinking about benefits and drawbacks, if it doesn't inlcude literal human lifes, is very questionable. What is and what is not deemed a crime is not set in stone; it is agreed upon continually - as is the case for what is deemed appropriate punishment. Guess how societies, countries, communities etc agree upon what is deemed a crime and what is deemed appropriate punishment: that's right! By considering the benefits and drawbacks!!!! You're right, that's why surgeons who commit murder shouldn't be prosecuted because they save hundreds of lives in a year, right? What's 1 lost life to 100 saved? Consider the benefits and drawbacks! No. This is stupid. Violate the integrity of competition and get banned, it's that simple, no matter if you are a celebrity player or a low-rank practice partner. Oh god another simple minded moron appears. Im done here. You guys are too dumb. Please never do that. The only reason we're having this discussion at all is because it happened to Life. It's even in the title of the thread. How can you pretend that the "who" is a driving factor in this conversation? Because (again) you are mistaking "caring because it's Life" for "thinking it should only apply to Life". "Thinking it should only apply to Life" is not a coherent position, as you've illustrated very aptly with your surgeon example. "Caring because it's Life" is a coherent position: you think Life is good for the scene, so you question the interest of banning any player forever because they cheated once, as opposed to for another, less final, amount of time. You are pretending that the first position is the second because it helps you avoid the conversation by presenting an argument that is very easy to refute. It's convenient, but not very interesting.
But in the part of the quote that you cut out, I specifically addressed this? Just replace "Life" in the "Cons:" with *Insert Banned Cheater Here* and it will still be the same, albeit to a much smaller degree.
|
Punishment serves only 2 JUST purposes: Deterrence and Rehabilitation. Anything else is vindictive and cruel.
I think there's sufficient deterrence from match-fixing a timed ban, a fine, some time in jail, and a really bad reputation. Oh sure we could maximize deterrence even more than we already have if we say, non stop torture for 5 years and then kill anyone who match fixes but ... I think we all agree that is a terrible idea.
|
For the "special treatment for life"-argument: many people argued that a lifetime ban was to harsh back when the matchfixing of Yoda and B4 got revealed. The difference is not that Life has more advocates now, a year later, but that he almost had none when his case got revealed - probably because it was a bigger scandal because of his fame. Very few even thought about unbanning Life under the impression of the huge upset that Life's matchfixing was. Now everybody calmed down a bit and we can discuss questions that would've been inappropiate back then.
So yes, Life gets special treatment - but not for his good.
My opinion on a comeback of Life (or any matchfixer) as expressed before:
It shouldn't be easy to be allowed to play again after such an incident, but having no possible way of redemption for a player that truly regrets and is ready to give very much for this is nothing to be proud of as a community.
|
On March 15 2017 15:53 fronkschnonk wrote:
For the "special treatment for life"-argument: many people argued that a lifetime ban was to harsh back when the matchfixing of Yoda and B4 got revealed. The difference is not that Life has more advocates now, a year later, but that he almost had none when his case got revealed - probably because it was a bigger scandal because of his fame. Very few even thought about unbanning Life under the impression of the huge upset that Life's matchfixing was. Now everybody calmed down a bit and we can discuss questions that would've been inappropiate back then.
So yes, Life gets special treatment - but not for his good.
My opinion on a comeback of Life (or any matchfixer) as expressed before:
It shouldn't be easy to be allowed to play again after such an incident, but having no possible way of redemption for a player that truly regrets and is ready to give very much for this is nothing to be proud of as a community.
Alright, that explains the foundation of this thread in a somewhat different light. There have always been vocal Life supporters though, or perhaps I simply remember them because they stood out from the crowd. Either way...
I don't know if we can conclusively agree on any of the attributions you hung on Life's shoulders.
a) How do we know he "truly regrets?" Logically, everyone regrets being in jail/on probation/whatever, but that does not necessarily mean they regret their actions - they regret getting caught. The fact that he filed an appeal, as others have noted, shows a certain lack of remorse and an attempt to "get away with it."
b) How do we know he is "ready to give very much for this?" A poster earlier said that some other pro said that Life doesn't even play anymore. So what would he be really giving for this? Of course, one person's speculation/word-of-mouth rumor isn't worth much, but you both have the burden of proof. He at least semi-cited a semi-verifiable source.
|
Sc2 needs Life more than Life needs sc2 right now. Sc2 needs a superstar that can dominate the scene to pull viewers and bring in sponsorship money. There is nobody in the scene right now that can do that, there is no player currently in the scene doing what Life and MVP did.
The top 2 zergs (Solar/Dark) are not even comparable to Life in his prime.
The pro scene right now is very lacklustre at the moment and sc2 is declining fast.
Let's hope blackjeff really is him and that he does make a come back.
|
On March 15 2017 17:51 SuperFanBoy wrote:
Sc2 needs Life more than Life needs sc2 right now. Sc2 needs a superstar that can dominate the scene to pull viewers and bring in sponsorship money. There is nobody in the scene right now that can do that, there is no player currently in the scene doing what Life and MVP did.
The top 2 zergs (Solar/Dark) are not even comparable to Life in his prime.
The pro scene right now is very lacklustre at the moment and sc2 is declining fast.
That sets such a terrible precedent.
"Hey, our game is struggling because we lost star value. We know you did something shitty that negatively impacted the whole scene and you're still on probation for it, and you probably haven't been playing recently because we said you'd have no future in it and all, but whaddya say you come back? It'll look really good for sponsors. We're tryna make money lol."
Basically, if you're important enough to SC2, you can get away with whatever, the scene will take you back in about a year or so?
If SC2's success hinges on the unwarranted exculpation of a match-fixer that hasn't finished serving the time set forth by a court of law... That's not a good look fam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
