On March 28 2013 01:14 wangstra wrote:I have to lodge my personal distaste with the continuous demonization of Savior. What he did was wrong, punishable, even 'terrible' for esports but he is still human. To ostracize someone as to completely blot him out is to deny the very humanity of his actions. The truth is unfortunately like all tragic figures he demonstrates our friability and the negative aspects that are possible in esports.
Similarly, any serious football fan is aware of how betting/match-fixing has seriously degraded the integrity of the sport. But demonizing the players and tearing them down does nothing to combat the problem. That only serves to highlight players that serve as lightning rods for animosity when in fact the problem is more systemic. In doing so we actually cannibalize players that are most likely to get roped in (because they are some of the most successful) and remove talent from the game.
Full article I'm referencing re: football:
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8924593/match-fixing-soccerTo clarify in case I'm misunderstood... I'm not excusing what Savior did and its very deplorable how things went down. I just hope in the future if something like this is uncovered that more attention is directed at the circumstances that allow for such match fixing to occur. Rather tearing down and demonizing the people who make the sport we enjoy so much does little to perserving the integrity of the game or learning from our mistakes.
I think two points need to be clarified here, the first is more general, the second is more directed at what you point out.
Dividing up Savior's contributions and his actionsI don't think anyone is suggesting we dehumanize him.
Ultimately, what people may take issue with here (and why the article requires a preface), is that we're glorifying his skill within the same context of a scene he was instrumental in irreparably damaging.
Without such a preface, such praise could be interpreted as tacit acceptance of all he has done,
In very abstract terms, praising an individual for something they've done in a
narrow context is often interpreted as
complete acceptance of everything that person does. Colloquially, we call this placing someone on a pedestal. This type of glorification is widespread in any competitive sport.
However, when that someone does something deplorable, we need to be cognisant of the fact that this idolization is logically unsound. One's great contributions in a narrow context does not necessarily exempt them from their actions in a different context.
Take Tiger Woods for example. Even in the aftermath of his well documented fall from grace, people would not dispute that he is/was a great golfer. Nonetheless, it became apparent that he was not necessarily an infallibly great person. The whole ordeal highlighted an unpalatable side of him. He was not a faithful spouse, capable of deceit and betrayal of so-called loved ones.
It became necessary to recognize the disconnect between his contributions to a game and his personal character outside of that game.
No amount of adultery will erase the fact that he is indisputably one of the best golfers to ever grace the sport. But no amount of skill can be used to redeem his personal character.
While the case for Savior is closer to the game than Tiger Woods (in that his deplorable actions directly affected the sport), this is still an example of disconnecting reverence for skill and a character judgement.
That's ultimately what's occurring here---reverence for skill != exemption of personal character flaws
On Systemic IssuesYou rightfully point out that the matter is systemic and that he has become a lightning rod for a problem that he is not solely blameworthy.
(We should keep in mind, however, that his role was not merely participatory--he involved many more players than just himself. This increased role is the most likely reason for this "lightning rod" status.)Determining whether or not blame for criminal action lies with an individual or a broader system... is not limited to match-fixing in sports. Entire justice systems are founded on the principle that we hold an individual accountable, even if there are contributory systemic factors. Punishment, justice, rehabilitation and all sorts of other issues are steeped in this criminological rhetoric.
There just isn't an easy way to separate the two (individual blame, systemic blame). The best we can do is be cognizant of both... but that doesn't stop us from ultimately holding individuals accountable. We just do so with the caveat that they are sometimes a product of a system. This, at best, provides leniency in punishment, but is never excuplatory.
Whether or not he should or should not be forgiven is a wholly different question. One I think each person evaluates based on the harm they feel he caused and whether or not it warrants continued disgust. Being aware that he is part of a system can help mitigate the perceived harm, but it rarely ever absolves one entirely.
TLDR: In the end, I don't think there is any suggestion (at least by TL) that Savior is less than human as a result of his actions. Instead, there is a clear recognition that one's contributions to a sport are distinct from their personal character. Whether a person chooses to levy all of their hatred for match-fixing onto Savior is their own decision. It should also be remembered that match-fixing is not a crime one can engage in within a vacuum. It does indeed require a system. However, it should be remembered that the reason he is singled out for the scandal is that his role was deeply involved and pervasive. He affected not only himself but many players.
I've rambled, but ultimately I agree with you. Regardless what any may think, criminals are humans too. Of course, humanity does not exempt one from my personal contempt.
EPT
