|
On December 05 2012 10:23 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:21 Gorsameth wrote:On December 05 2012 10:17 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:09 HazMat wrote:
Honestly, you can argue for the other people in my post but Dyrus should absolutely 100% be perma banned by now lol. zzzzz Yeah that's what I was thinking lol but it's hard to tell unless you have access to the same info Riot has and compare IWD and Dyrus's behavior. Basically we just don't know, and we have no power to get his information. I don't understand why you guys hate the ideas of a player organization so much. I have already said in this thread that Riot's decision here is a good one. But this is also the business world and there is plenty Riot has done that a player's org would object to. For example when they accused Dignitas and Crs of match-fixing (to decide winner of series) and of prize-splitting. I'm pretty sure Riot Redbeard fucked up there and made an accusation that was not substantiated by the facts. However the accusation was tossed out there, Crs and Dig denied it, and Riot swept the whole thing under the rug. Not very good for the players when they are accused of the worst thing you can do in esports and never get a clear answer back about it. Didnt know you were aware of every single thing communicated between Riot and Crs/Dig People really need to stop believing that info on reddit or wherever is all there is. Because companies really put all there private communication out on the street... What private conversation? Riot publicly accused Crs/Dig of something. Both Crs and Dig denied it. So . . . then nothing happens? Either Riot fucked up and should make a PUBLIC APOLOGY (something that a player union can pressure them on), or Crs and Dig (not just the players but the organizations) straight out lied after they match-fixed and prize-split in a tourney to secide NA rankings. But after this both teams were allowed to compete in NA finals.
And without a player's union and all the player's under Riot's salary it makes situations like that way more awkward for teams. If Riot made that same accusation in Season 3 with Crs/Dig on their pay roll what options does Crs/Dig have? Deny it to Riot and hope that Riot will believe them? Deny it publically and essentially call out their employers as liars? Accept their fate and hope that Riot is lenient?
There's no good reason not to have a player's union now that everyone is going to be salaried.
|
The way this banning was handled is what bothers me the most. If Riot want's a player banned from competitive play, that first of all should be completely separate from soloqueue. I don't disagree that soloqueue abuse could be a reason to ban from competitive play, since actions in soloqueue affect competitive popularity, but something like the Tribunal should never have even been mentioned. That is the wrong mechanism.
Secondly, how this information was released was handled by the wrong people. Dignitas is ultimately responsible for IWD's actions, and it should fall to Dignitas to handle discipline. If Riot wanted IWD banned form competitive LoL for a year, they should have told Dignitas, and Dignitas should have handled the press release, not Riot. Riot should not have announced both the banning of all of IWD's accounts at the same time as IWD's ban from LoL esports. Dignitas should have been given every warning, Dignitas should have been made aware of any misbehavior, and Dignitas should have been allowed to manage its player, not Riot.
|
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote:
I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Why do you think it is your inalienable right to curse people out? And have you SEEN what self-policed communities (e.g. the huge subreddits) turn into?
Anyway, it ultimately comes down to a executive decision: either they believe having a nice environment will make them more money or the management really, really believes in it.
|
On December 05 2012 10:25 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:23 Irave wrote:On December 05 2012 10:12 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote:
What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer. If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players. Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they. I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all. IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it. So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity.
Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing.
|
On December 05 2012 09:26 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 09:25 iinsom wrote:
I cant see how this is an issue?
He was warned sufficient times (8 is massive, at work i get 3 verbal warnings, 1 written warning them im out) and this is his job, then he should treat it as such and be a professional about it. Solo queue isn't his job.
League of Legends is his job, and solo queue is part of that. Riot is saying that you aren't exempt from following the same rules as every other player in the game just because you're at the professional level. A year suspension is very harsh, but honestly, I'm happy that Riot is taking an aggressive stance here, my ONLY concern is whether IWD was warned that his behavior would affect his professional status and his team.
Edit - my only concern is sated based on Neo's post (which I hadn't seen when I posted this.) Riot 100% justified.
|
United States37500 Posts
On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote:
Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes.
Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL.
I am disappoint.
|
BTW I hope there aren't any misunderstandings about how a player org would work. They are not there to battle Riot over every little thing, but to act as a safeguard and a way for players to exercise some power for themselves. For example, in this kind of case Riot would provide information on the banning to IWD, and if it's as severe as it probably is the organization would cooperate with Riot and voice their support of the decision. Furthermore, they could also add their own penalties to punish IWD's behavior, such as kicking him out of the org or forcing him to make some sort of apology.
|
Neo, how verified is your info? Can you put it in the OP?
|
On December 05 2012 10:31 Irave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:25 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:23 Irave wrote:On December 05 2012 10:12 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote:
What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer. If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players. Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they. I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all. IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it. So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity. Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing.
The age restriction is interesting because it is that kinda of thing a player org could have negotiated (but not necessarily wanted to or won on). Also as an employee you don't depend on your boss's generosity for your salary. Riot isn't donating money to players as a charity. The players work and provide something for Riot as well. Within this exchange there is room for negotiation. You might be fine with whatever salary Riot decides on and think it's fair, but in the end I'm saying that the players should have some option to push for a higher salary for their own good if possible. To leave the power to set the salary entirely up to the employer is crazy imo.
|
The most interesting thing about the age restriction is that CA's labor laws are based off being 16 and 18 years old. Why 17?
|
United States37500 Posts
On December 05 2012 10:35 Pooshlmer wrote:
Neo, how verified is your info? Can you put it in the OP?
Confirmed with at least 3 department heads. I'll add it in OP.
|
If you act like a douche you will be banned. Nothing wrong with that. He acted the way he did cause he didn't think he would face harsh consequences. Riot proved him wrong
|
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote:
I can't believe that Riot bans for BM and that this thread is full of people defending it. This Riot as a sheriff cleaning up the wild west that is the community is absolute bullshit.
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
Tribunal is self policing. The tribunal sent IWD to disneyland 8 times. 8 times. Because of his tribunal history, Riot E-Sports reviewed what's going on, decided that the community self-policing actions taken were justified, and extended the punishment to tournament play.
On December 05 2012 10:37 Slow Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:31 Irave wrote:On December 05 2012 10:25 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:23 Irave wrote:On December 05 2012 10:12 Slow Motion wrote:On December 05 2012 10:07 Irave wrote:
What would a player union accomplish? Ok we want the ability to be toxic in solo q games forever and not risk getting banned. Riot is doing some insanely awesome things with their game. People wanting to find negative flaws because they don't treat their pros better than anyone else. Newsflash, even with the perm ban, he was treated better than the average gamer. If you think Riot is never gonna make a questionable decision or one that is not fully in the interests of the players then I guess you don't need a union. I personally don't think that. I'm not downing on Riot but the fact that what is sometimes what's good for the company, or the fans, or the game, is not the same as what is best for the players. Esports is a business. The employees in a business don't usually expect their company to maximize their happiness and wealth over other objectives, nor should they. I don't see them doing anything to really hurt the players. It's getting paid to play in their league. The biggest show in town, other options don't exist. This is insane, and I imagine most people who get this privilege will love it. Highly unlikely that Riot would try and cut ties with MLG/IPL etc. They aren't going to force the players to stop streaming. Its what they have now, but with more tournaments, and money for all. IWD fell to his own demise. He had plenty of warnings, they tried. He didn't improve, if Riot feels inclined to not want him playing their game, or to hire him so be it. So you don't think players should have any ability to negotiate contracts, rules for tourneys they don't agree with, etc.? Sure they can do this individually but they have little choice or power to negotiate unless they present some unity. Negotiate what rules? I think LoL has played enough tournaments to where the rules are already set in stone. It's pretty obvious by offering money, that they expect their players to treat this like a job. Biggest reason for the age restriction. Why would they need to negotiate contract, without this option they wouldn't be getting any type of this money. Riot is already being extremely generous with their league. Player safety shouldn't magically become an issue because one guy couldn't shut his mouth playing. The age restriction is interesting because it is that kinda of thing a player org could have negotiated (but not necessarily wanted to or won on). Also as an employee you don't depend on your boss's generosity for your salary. Riot isn't donating money to players as a charity. The players work and provide something for Riot as well. Within this exchange there is room for negotiation. You might be fine with whatever salary Riot decides on and think it's fair, but in the end I'm saying that the players should have some option to push for a higher salary for their own good if possible. To leave the power to set the salary entirely up to the employer is crazy imo.
The age restriction is there due to US child labor laws. A player org can't really change that. Fnatic is, according to the Rekkles AMA, attempting to find a way that Rekkles can still participate in S3 even though he's 1 year too young.
|
On December 05 2012 10:15 beef42 wrote:
It's like the nanny state of video games. The community should police itself by freezing out people that are legitimate assholes. We should also grow thicker skin or at least use the goddamn ignore features that exist in the game.
We should not depend on big brother Riot telling us who we can or cannot play with.
You can start making any sort of case when any of those 'shoulds' ever happens. And as above, the community is really the one that punished IWD in Tribunal.
|
On December 05 2012 10:32 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote:
Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes. Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
i tought the lol subforum was one of the better place on TL T.T
|
1.) Anyone who think this ban isn't justified are not looking at this in the proper mindset. Think about it, he got reported by the top players multiple times and banned as well. These higher elo players definitely have a thicker skin than most people, but this guy got banned repeatedly for his overall behavior. Not only that, he had months to improve his conduct, and never took it seriously. They also mentioned out of game conduct. This has huge implications, but I doubt anyone will share specifics.
2.) There are definite power issues with Riot. They simply have too much, that's true. The problem here is that trying to get behind IWD is a bad cause. Don't defend his actions. It makes no sense. Complaining about Riot's overwhelming control is fine. I believe it actually harms your overall stand if you try to use IWD to further your point though.
|
On December 05 2012 10:32 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote:
Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes. Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
After hearing so much about how TL's LoL community was small but "elite", it's pretty sad to see the same kind of nonsensical responses that in GD or Reddit.
For the life of me I can't understand how so many people find something negative about this. Gamers sometimes are a really bizarre group.
|
Vancouver14381 Posts
On December 05 2012 10:32 NeoIllusions wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 10:11 Chrispy wrote:
Holy shit this is amazing.
Good job, too many pros act like complete ass wipes. Dunno why this isn't the resounding reaction from TL. I am disappoint.
I thought the majority agreed with the ban. People are just questioning how Riot went about doing it.
|
United States37500 Posts
I'll second, ketchup. If you don't agree with the ban, you are most likely viewing this the wrong way. IWD had multiple opportunities here to reform.
This is not about whether or not some other pro should have been banned as well (insert Dyrus, Regi, whoever you want) but about IWD's individual case. It is safe to presume that if other pros have as many infractions as IWD (afaik, he has the most on NA, as a pro), they will be dealt with as well. In the exact same manner.
As for Riot having too much power, I will somewhat agree. But I am much more in favor of a judicator present with too much power (in this case, Riot) than an entity unwilling/unable to act.
After all, this is how things are run here on TeamLiquid... we all seem to like it here.
|
You should all think about if this dude was punished in the Tribunal 8 times and Riot did nothing as he was a professional player. Would this feel right? How many companies have the guts to punish celebrities and not give them preferential and unjust treatment? Everyone complaining about how they treated this should feel ashamed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
