EPT[Patch 4.14] Gnar General Discussion - Page 19
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
snow2.0
Germany2073 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:48 Sufficiency wrote: That could be a potential buff as well... It would allow Braum to use it for utility/escape. But leave the people he covers in the fire in his stead. It would make it less of a nobrain skill. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22518 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:49 snow2.0 wrote: It would allow Braum to use it for utility/escape. But leave the people he covers in the fire in his stead. It would make it less of a nobrain skill. Also much less manly which is way more important | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:37 Numy wrote: Noticed you are either a pretty huge Riot apologist or always like playing devils advocate. Thinking the former since you start out by doing an insult disguised with a conditional. "Someone doesn't share my opinion? Well, he must be a pretty huge apologist or doesn't actually believe what he's saying. Those are the only two possibilities, cause otherwise there's no way anyone could ever disagree with me." You'll notice that in your haste to reassure yourself with echo chamber-esque reasoning, you didn't even bother to clarify whether or not I agree with you. I think Riot exerts significant, sometimes overbroad, sometimes justified, control over LCS teams. I also think Reginald deliberately mischaracterized the sequence of events as a form of passive-aggressive demagoguery. Those aren't mutually exclusive. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22518 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:54 GrandInquisitor wrote: "Someone doesn't share my opinion? Well, he must be a pretty huge apologist or doesn't actually believe what he's saying. Those are the only two possibilities, cause otherwise there's no way anyone could ever disagree with me." You'll notice that in your haste to reassure yourself with confirmation bias, you didn't even bother to clarify whether or not I agree with you. I think Riot exerts significant, sometimes overbroad, sometimes justified, control over LCS teams. I also think Reginald deliberately mischaracterized the sequence of events as a form of passive-aggressive demagoguery. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Except nothing Reginald said was misleading or misscharacterized. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On August 15 2014 06:54 GrandInquisitor wrote: "Someone doesn't share my opinion? Well, he must be a pretty huge apologist or doesn't actually believe what he's saying. Those are the only two possibilities, cause otherwise there's no way anyone could ever disagree with me." You'll notice that in your haste to reassure yourself with echo chamber-esque reasoning, you didn't even bother to clarify whether or not I agree with you. I think Riot exerts significant, sometimes overbroad, sometimes justified, control over LCS teams. I also think Reginald deliberately mischaracterized the sequence of events as a form of passive-aggressive demagoguery. Those aren't mutually exclusive. You really aren't helping your case by continuing to be aggressive and confrontational. Regi stated that he thought that telling them is optional and didn't wish to do it due to some personal reasons with them. Everything Nick Allen said mirrors this so doesn't seem like Regi mislead anything. Maybe I was wrong in saying you must be an apologist since jumping to insults gave me an impression of irrational behaviour. Maybe you just like being an ass. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Take a look at these various tales of the facts, and see how they inspire such different reactions, even though they all convey the same facts and are mutually consistent: * Today Riot called me up and told me I was getting fined for something I did months ago. I didn't even do anything wrong. They said it had something to do with me getting a Korean support. I guess Riot wants to keep NALCS American. * TSM refuses to listen to LCS officials about roster procedures. When CLG broke the rules, they got banned for two years from major tournaments. When TSM breaks the rules, they just get a slap on the wrist. * Riot fined me for something that isn't in the rulebook. WTF? * TSM repeatedly and deliberately flouted direct orders from LCS officials regarding an illegal substitution. Yet in the end no punishment was handed out and the substitute was allowed. I bet Gambit wouldn't have gotten away with this. Forming judgments about situations from five-second sound bites and 140-character Tweets sums up so much of what is wrong in the world. It's why longform journalism is dying out in favor of Fox News-style sensationalism. People don't even care about what's actually happening, they just want to be mad. You get people that sum up the Israeli-Gaza situation as "Jews slaughtering children" or "Brown terrorists put missiles in schools" without any nuance or context. By comparison, shit like this is peanuts. But it's the same idea: your first instinct whenever you read a story like this must be, "Yes, but what am I not being told?" I said that Reginald's initial tweet was misleading and it was. If his tweet was: "When I told Riot that I was going to add Lustboy, they asked me to wait on announcing him until after behavior checks. I went ahead and announced him anyway before behavior checks were complete. They have now fined me for this." None of this drama would exist. Yeah, you'd have some reasonable debate over how much control Riot exerts over their scene, but everyone would immediately understand why he was fined (because he disobeyed an LCS order) instead of postulating conspiratard reasoning. | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
All lcs teams, are essentially riot employees, contracted and paid by riots pr (read esports) division at riots discretion. Announcing a player who would then be declined would damage the credibility of riot, the team and the player. Reginald took actions which could potentially damage both his team and, essentially, his teams "employer," after being expressly told not to, so riot (the employer of the team) fined him. | ||
|
beefhamburger
United States3962 Posts
| ||
|
nafta
Bulgaria18893 Posts
On August 15 2014 07:38 beefhamburger wrote: When did sheen items have their spellblade cd reduced to 1.5s? http://euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/patch/patch-413-notes Tooltips for Sheen, Trinity Force, Lich Bane and Iceborn Gauntlet now correctly list the Spellblade passive as having a 1.5 second cooldown (actual value unchanged) | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
On August 15 2014 07:38 beefhamburger wrote: When did sheen items have their spellblade cd reduced to 1.5s? it's always been 1.5s the tooltip was wrong until the patch before this weeks. | ||
|
kongoline
6318 Posts
On August 15 2014 07:31 killerdog wrote: Look at it this way. All lcs teams, are essentially riot employees, contracted and paid by riots pr (read esports) division at riots discretion. Announcing a player who would then be declined would damage the credibility of riot, the team and the player. Reginald took actions which could potentially damage both his team and, essentially, his teams "employer," after being expressly told not to, so riot (the employer of the team) fined him. it was regi announcing on his social media not riot how would this damage riots credibility | ||
|
killerdog
Denmark6522 Posts
On August 15 2014 07:48 kongoline wrote: it was regi announcing on his social media not riot how would this damage riots credibility If riot then had to turn down lustboy due to whatever reason (background checks etc) it would hurt riot in the eyes of the fans, and hurt tsm (and by extension riot) in the eyes of the fans. Exactly as the was stated in the riot post on reddit. Not saying I agree with it, but with how LCS is set up currently, you can see how it would make sense. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
On August 15 2014 07:55 cLutZ wrote: To be honest, Riot should be careful with their fining of teams and players. Its foolish to so brazenly attack increasingly powerful organizations in a way that is probably (I would say 80-90% likely) in violation of antitrust rules. Hmmmm.... punishing your own employees (actually they are more like contractors) for violating the contract probably has nothing to do with anti-trust rules. If Regi dislikes the decision he is more than welcome to sue Riot. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
it actually made riot look pretty bad at the time, because it forced them to come out and look petty by announcing there was an approval process despite it being near certain he would clear. Not to mention the reddit posts spuring riot for approving player X or player Y despite the now public check. If they actually asked Regi to not announce when he submitted the roster change, which they are claiming they did, then I think it's pretty justified. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22518 Posts
On August 15 2014 08:12 Slusher wrote: to be honest on this one I agree with Riot. Although I think it's pretty hilarious that they have the behavioral background check (and it even takes longer than simply looking at their report history which the obviously have access to for 10-20 min.) it actually made riot look pretty bad at the time, because it forced them to come out and look petty by announcing there was an approval process despite it being near certain he would clear. Not to mention the reddit posts spuring riot for approving player X or player Y despite the now public check. If they actually asked Regi to not announce when he submitted the roster change, which they are claiming they did, then I think it's pretty justified. There was no reason for Riot to publicly state Lustboy still had to be cleared. A private message to Reginald to the same effect would have been enough if they thought he forgot and if it went like they claim now he already knew and no action had to be taken except maybe a reminder. They could have simply stated Lustboy wasn't allowed to play yet because of paperwork/clearence on the actual game day if it wasn't sorted by then like they have done in the past when players were subbed. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On August 15 2014 08:12 Slusher wrote: to be honest on this one I agree with Riot. Although I think it's pretty hilarious that they have the behavioral background check (and it even takes longer than simply looking at their report history which the obviously have access to for 10-20 min.) it actually made riot look pretty bad at the time, because it forced them to come out and look petty by announcing there was an approval process despite it being near certain he would clear. Not to mention the reddit posts spuring riot for approving player X or player Y despite the now public check. If they actually asked Regi to not announce when he submitted the roster change, which they are claiming they did, then I think it's pretty justified. Riot kind of shot themselves in the foot by going on twitter calling out Regi. They could have merely told regi behind the scenes that he hasn't submitted paper work than now do a normal write up they do for fines explaining that Regi didn't have his paperwork in order. Instead Nick Allen goes on public media outing Regi. It felt petty at the time and I still think it was petty. Now they are just doing even more backpedalling from the situation they could have easily dealt with at the time. If anything this year has been the story of Riot not communicating things properly or handling situations poorly to make themselves look like fools. They should really update the rulebook, having a "he said she said" clause in your rulebook only makes these situations look even worse. They fining him for not following obstructions from a Riot official, not for announcing a player since there's no rules against what he did. | ||
|
Slusher
United States19143 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22518 Posts
On August 15 2014 08:26 Slusher wrote: how is fining him back peddling? The incident happened a month ago. Why is he being fined now and not a month ago? That is the back peddling people talk about. | ||
| ||
