|
I don't understand the backlash against Riot for the punishment against Deficio. I think the punishment more or less fits the crime. The positions he's banned from holding in an LCS capacity are the Riot-recognized/salaried positions for LCS teams. If he really still wanted to go work for CW, it'd be pretty easy, or even just go work as a coach/manager/whatever and say that he has some other position. The distinction is that if he wants to go work for CW, he wouldn't be given the Riot salary that other coaches get.
Also, what he did is, to me, very potentially malicious and a clear abuse of his position at a company with power over the LCS.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On June 04 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:14 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:11 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:07 Seuss wrote:
#2 isn't an issue.
If you want to work at a major tech company in the US you're going to run into mandatory training about workplace ethics and problems with conflicts of interest. Maybe some young, idealistic college grads will fret about how much control Riot has, but the fact is that your average tech company has at least this much control when it comes to anything that relates to your job.
The only difference here is that because this particular incident involved a public-facing employee Riot made some details of the matter, primarily those the public would have noticed and asked about. Major tech companies don't usually publically flex their muscles like this. What Riot did is reasonable and within their rights - the issue isn't if they could penalize Deficio, it's whether or not they SHOULD. Yes? Having your caster poach players for a possible team he's planning IS a faux pas that should be punished. Wtf? Despite what Deficio's statement may imply, you don't stumble and mistake your way into planning a team and poaching players without noticing that what you're doing is against the rules. It doesn't matter if you think Deficio is a scum or not. The problem is whether or not his punishment should be made public. And no, "people will eventually figure out" is not an acceptable excuse for publishing these information.
oh, you didn't mean whether they should have punished him, but whether they should have punished him publicly
Why not? Is there anything to be gained by making it remain secret?
"people will find out anyway" is definitely a good excuse because it's better for Deficio if it gets clearly published and explained rather than without a Riot statement. That'd leave room for rumors and doubts.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
I think if you're in a highly visible role, then you should expect your disciplinary measures to be public. See, e.g., NFL v. Tom Brady, NBC v. Brian Williams, etc. This is particularly true where your discipline is significant for deterrence reasons.
|
On June 04 2015 08:23 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:14 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:11 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:07 Seuss wrote:
#2 isn't an issue.
If you want to work at a major tech company in the US you're going to run into mandatory training about workplace ethics and problems with conflicts of interest. Maybe some young, idealistic college grads will fret about how much control Riot has, but the fact is that your average tech company has at least this much control when it comes to anything that relates to your job.
The only difference here is that because this particular incident involved a public-facing employee Riot made some details of the matter, primarily those the public would have noticed and asked about. Major tech companies don't usually publically flex their muscles like this. What Riot did is reasonable and within their rights - the issue isn't if they could penalize Deficio, it's whether or not they SHOULD. Yes? Having your caster poach players for a possible team he's planning IS a faux pas that should be punished. Wtf? Despite what Deficio's statement may imply, you don't stumble and mistake your way into planning a team and poaching players without noticing that what you're doing is against the rules. It doesn't matter if you think Deficio is a scum or not. The problem is whether or not his punishment should be made public. And no, "people will eventually figure out" is not an acceptable excuse for publishing these information. oh, you didn't mean whether they should have punished him, but whether they should have punished him publiclyWhy not? Is there anything to be gained by making it remain secret? "people will find out anyway" is definitely a good excuse because it's better for Deficio if it gets clearly published and explained rather than without a Riot statement. That'd leave room for rumors and doubts.
There isn't much to be gained from Riot's perspective to keep Deficio's disciplinary action secret. In fact, from Riot's perspective, it's simply a balancing act between:
1. Release it: Releasing Deficio's disciplinary action provides a certain level of clarity and provide consistency in their effort in maintaining competitive integrity.
2. Don't release it: Respects Deficio's privacy and understands that such public statement will swing public opinions about Deficio (such as what you just did thinking that Deficio is "scum").
In a nutshell, Riot is choosing between Deficio's privacy and potential damage to the competitive integrity of LCS. Riot chose LCS, not Deficio (note that it's not even super clear if keeping Deficio's parts secret will actually damage LCS). If you are Deficio, how do you feel at this point that now you have to work in a company that doesn't really care about you and bars you from many other employment options?
Additionally, I am not even sure if Deficio needs to follow LCS rules or if LCS punishments are applicable to him. If we look at the scenario organically, then the answer should be yes: since Deficio is a Riot employee and LCS is technically part of Riot Games. But often within an organization there can be pages upon pages of rules and regulations and it's not clear if a single individual (like Deficio) can keep up with everything (especially when LCS rules change like every 4 months).
In any case, I am feeling a bit outraged because I believe Riot's method in handling Deficio's punishment is heavy handed. Maybe they ran through legal already and realized this is perfectly within their rights to do, but if this is how Riot demonstrates to the world as to how they want to treat their employees, then I won't say anything else.
|
This whole thing seems super shady. From both riots side and from dentist/deficio side. I don't know of a job where your contract says you have to report a potential job offer outside of like "hey I want more money or I'm going here." Kind of thing. I think dentist is a tool, and should just be removed for the cancer he seems to emit.
I don't think we have the whole story here though. Probably not going to either.
|
What bugs me about the whole thing is the lack of rule citing from Riot. Normally they'll post part of the players contract to specify why and how the player or organization has broken a rule.
None for dentist nor deficio's employee contract
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On June 04 2015 08:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:23 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:14 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:11 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:07 Seuss wrote:
#2 isn't an issue.
If you want to work at a major tech company in the US you're going to run into mandatory training about workplace ethics and problems with conflicts of interest. Maybe some young, idealistic college grads will fret about how much control Riot has, but the fact is that your average tech company has at least this much control when it comes to anything that relates to your job.
The only difference here is that because this particular incident involved a public-facing employee Riot made some details of the matter, primarily those the public would have noticed and asked about. Major tech companies don't usually publically flex their muscles like this. What Riot did is reasonable and within their rights - the issue isn't if they could penalize Deficio, it's whether or not they SHOULD. Yes? Having your caster poach players for a possible team he's planning IS a faux pas that should be punished. Wtf? Despite what Deficio's statement may imply, you don't stumble and mistake your way into planning a team and poaching players without noticing that what you're doing is against the rules. It doesn't matter if you think Deficio is a scum or not. The problem is whether or not his punishment should be made public. And no, "people will eventually figure out" is not an acceptable excuse for publishing these information. oh, you didn't mean whether they should have punished him, but whether they should have punished him publiclyWhy not? Is there anything to be gained by making it remain secret? "people will find out anyway" is definitely a good excuse because it's better for Deficio if it gets clearly published and explained rather than without a Riot statement. That'd leave room for rumors and doubts. There isn't much to be gained from Riot's perspective to keep Deficio's disciplinary action secret. In fact, from Riot's perspective, it's simply a balancing act between: 1. Release it: Releasing Deficio's disciplinary action provides a certain level of clarity and provide consistency in their effort in maintaining competitive integrity. 2. Don't release it: Respects Deficio's privacy and understands that such public statement will swing public opinions about Deficio (such as what you just did thinking that Deficio is "scum"). In a nutshell, Riot is choosing between Deficio's privacy and potential damage to the competitive integrity of LCS. Riot chose LCS, not Deficio (note that it's not even super clear if keeping Deficio's parts secret will actually damage LCS). If you are Deficio, how do you feel at this point that now you have to work in a company that doesn't really care about you and bars you from many other employment options? Additionally, I am not even sure if Deficio needs to follow LCS rules or if LCS punishments are applicable to him. If we look at the scenario organically, then the answer should be yes: since Deficio is a Riot employee and LCS is technically part of Riot Games. But often within an organization there can be pages upon pages of rules and regulations and it's not clear if a single individual (like Deficio) can keep up with everything (especially when LCS rules change like every 4 months). In any case, I am feeling a bit outraged because I believe Riot's method in handling Deficio's punishment is heavy handed. Maybe they ran through legal already and realized this is perfectly within their rights to do, but if this is how Riot demonstrates to the world as to how they want to treat their employees, then I won't say anything else.
I never called Deficio scum and I have no fucking idea where you got that from. As I said, if you're Deficio, it's probably better for Riot to make an official statement so that there can be no rumors or errors.
On June 04 2015 08:50 Cixah wrote:
This whole thing seems super shady. From both riots side and from dentist/deficio side. I don't know of a job where your contract says you have to report a potential job offer outside of like "hey I want more money or I'm going here." Kind of thing. I think dentist is a tool, and should just be removed for the cancer he seems to emit.
I don't think we have the whole story here though. Probably not going to either.
I'm not sure if that's the case, but I have a feeling (at least from Deficio's statement) that it was the poaching players part that was the main thing.
|
In a way I can understand the heavy-handedness. Riot is the new kid on the block as far as their plan to grow the appeal of e-sports as entertainment. Riot has to dot their I's and cross their T's even more so than let's say the NFL, NBA, etc... Like other folks were saying, this is about image. Even small dings to image can have massive consequences. The entertainment world has tons of examples of this. In a way it's like when a contender fights the champ in boxing. The contender can't just win at the cards, he has to prove outright that he won, or the cards are going to side with the champ.
|
Oh man, I hate Deficio's casting. Anything that results in him casting fewer games is a win in my book.
|
On June 04 2015 09:59 lilwisper wrote:
In a way I can understand the heavy-handedness. Riot is the new kid on the block as far as their plan to grow the appeal of e-sports as entertainment. Riot has to dot their I's and cross their T's even more so than let's say the NFL, NBA, etc... Like other folks were saying, this is about image. Even small dings to image can have massive consequences. The entertainment world has tons of examples of this. In a way it's like when a contender fights the champ in boxing. The contender can't just win at the cards, he has to prove outright that he won, or the cards are going to side with the champ.
I don't see why they can't say "Dentist and a Riot employee who shall not be named due to privacy laws". That's what I would do.
If Richard Lewis later finds out who it was, then so be it. At least the company didn't say who it was.
|
On June 04 2015 09:18 Scip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:23 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:14 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:11 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:07 Seuss wrote:
#2 isn't an issue.
If you want to work at a major tech company in the US you're going to run into mandatory training about workplace ethics and problems with conflicts of interest. Maybe some young, idealistic college grads will fret about how much control Riot has, but the fact is that your average tech company has at least this much control when it comes to anything that relates to your job.
The only difference here is that because this particular incident involved a public-facing employee Riot made some details of the matter, primarily those the public would have noticed and asked about. Major tech companies don't usually publically flex their muscles like this. What Riot did is reasonable and within their rights - the issue isn't if they could penalize Deficio, it's whether or not they SHOULD. Yes? Having your caster poach players for a possible team he's planning IS a faux pas that should be punished. Wtf? Despite what Deficio's statement may imply, you don't stumble and mistake your way into planning a team and poaching players without noticing that what you're doing is against the rules. It doesn't matter if you think Deficio is a scum or not. The problem is whether or not his punishment should be made public. And no, "people will eventually figure out" is not an acceptable excuse for publishing these information. oh, you didn't mean whether they should have punished him, but whether they should have punished him publiclyWhy not? Is there anything to be gained by making it remain secret? "people will find out anyway" is definitely a good excuse because it's better for Deficio if it gets clearly published and explained rather than without a Riot statement. That'd leave room for rumors and doubts. There isn't much to be gained from Riot's perspective to keep Deficio's disciplinary action secret. In fact, from Riot's perspective, it's simply a balancing act between: 1. Release it: Releasing Deficio's disciplinary action provides a certain level of clarity and provide consistency in their effort in maintaining competitive integrity. 2. Don't release it: Respects Deficio's privacy and understands that such public statement will swing public opinions about Deficio (such as what you just did thinking that Deficio is "scum"). In a nutshell, Riot is choosing between Deficio's privacy and potential damage to the competitive integrity of LCS. Riot chose LCS, not Deficio (note that it's not even super clear if keeping Deficio's parts secret will actually damage LCS). If you are Deficio, how do you feel at this point that now you have to work in a company that doesn't really care about you and bars you from many other employment options? Additionally, I am not even sure if Deficio needs to follow LCS rules or if LCS punishments are applicable to him. If we look at the scenario organically, then the answer should be yes: since Deficio is a Riot employee and LCS is technically part of Riot Games. But often within an organization there can be pages upon pages of rules and regulations and it's not clear if a single individual (like Deficio) can keep up with everything (especially when LCS rules change like every 4 months). In any case, I am feeling a bit outraged because I believe Riot's method in handling Deficio's punishment is heavy handed. Maybe they ran through legal already and realized this is perfectly within their rights to do, but if this is how Riot demonstrates to the world as to how they want to treat their employees, then I won't say anything else. I never called Deficio scum and I have no fucking idea where you got that from. As I said, if you're Deficio, it's probably better for Riot to make an official statement so that there can be no rumors or errors. Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:50 Cixah wrote:
This whole thing seems super shady. From both riots side and from dentist/deficio side. I don't know of a job where your contract says you have to report a potential job offer outside of like "hey I want more money or I'm going here." Kind of thing. I think dentist is a tool, and should just be removed for the cancer he seems to emit.
I don't think we have the whole story here though. Probably not going to either. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I have a feeling (at least from Deficio's statement) that it was the poaching players part that was the main thing.
I don't think you said Deficio was "scum", but you did form some negative opinions about him.
|
dentist and a riot employee who will not be named, and then deficio suddenly doesn't cast for 3 weeks.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On June 04 2015 10:49 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 09:18 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:48 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:23 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:22 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:14 Scip wrote:On June 04 2015 08:11 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 08:07 Seuss wrote:
#2 isn't an issue.
If you want to work at a major tech company in the US you're going to run into mandatory training about workplace ethics and problems with conflicts of interest. Maybe some young, idealistic college grads will fret about how much control Riot has, but the fact is that your average tech company has at least this much control when it comes to anything that relates to your job.
The only difference here is that because this particular incident involved a public-facing employee Riot made some details of the matter, primarily those the public would have noticed and asked about. Major tech companies don't usually publically flex their muscles like this. What Riot did is reasonable and within their rights - the issue isn't if they could penalize Deficio, it's whether or not they SHOULD. Yes? Having your caster poach players for a possible team he's planning IS a faux pas that should be punished. Wtf? Despite what Deficio's statement may imply, you don't stumble and mistake your way into planning a team and poaching players without noticing that what you're doing is against the rules. It doesn't matter if you think Deficio is a scum or not. The problem is whether or not his punishment should be made public. And no, "people will eventually figure out" is not an acceptable excuse for publishing these information. oh, you didn't mean whether they should have punished him, but whether they should have punished him publiclyWhy not? Is there anything to be gained by making it remain secret? "people will find out anyway" is definitely a good excuse because it's better for Deficio if it gets clearly published and explained rather than without a Riot statement. That'd leave room for rumors and doubts. There isn't much to be gained from Riot's perspective to keep Deficio's disciplinary action secret. In fact, from Riot's perspective, it's simply a balancing act between: 1. Release it: Releasing Deficio's disciplinary action provides a certain level of clarity and provide consistency in their effort in maintaining competitive integrity. 2. Don't release it: Respects Deficio's privacy and understands that such public statement will swing public opinions about Deficio (such as what you just did thinking that Deficio is "scum"). In a nutshell, Riot is choosing between Deficio's privacy and potential damage to the competitive integrity of LCS. Riot chose LCS, not Deficio (note that it's not even super clear if keeping Deficio's parts secret will actually damage LCS). If you are Deficio, how do you feel at this point that now you have to work in a company that doesn't really care about you and bars you from many other employment options? Additionally, I am not even sure if Deficio needs to follow LCS rules or if LCS punishments are applicable to him. If we look at the scenario organically, then the answer should be yes: since Deficio is a Riot employee and LCS is technically part of Riot Games. But often within an organization there can be pages upon pages of rules and regulations and it's not clear if a single individual (like Deficio) can keep up with everything (especially when LCS rules change like every 4 months). In any case, I am feeling a bit outraged because I believe Riot's method in handling Deficio's punishment is heavy handed. Maybe they ran through legal already and realized this is perfectly within their rights to do, but if this is how Riot demonstrates to the world as to how they want to treat their employees, then I won't say anything else. I never called Deficio scum and I have no fucking idea where you got that from. As I said, if you're Deficio, it's probably better for Riot to make an official statement so that there can be no rumors or errors. On June 04 2015 08:50 Cixah wrote:
This whole thing seems super shady. From both riots side and from dentist/deficio side. I don't know of a job where your contract says you have to report a potential job offer outside of like "hey I want more money or I'm going here." Kind of thing. I think dentist is a tool, and should just be removed for the cancer he seems to emit.
I don't think we have the whole story here though. Probably not going to either. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I have a feeling (at least from Deficio's statement) that it was the poaching players part that was the main thing. I don't think you said Deficio was "scum", but you did form some negative opinions about him.
I said (implied) Deficio either knew perfectly well what he was doing or he's an idiot.
As a matter of fact I don't consider poaching to be too big of a deal, it's bread and butter of amateur teams and it really only becomes an issue once there are some long term contracts involved and even then it's like nya. Obviously it's bad then but on the scale of badness I don't rate it very high.
I say that it's better for Deficio if Riot makes a statement because it's fairly likely that it'd get out anyway through unofficial means and that'd hurt his reputation more. You don't want pro players to have this general idea that you're a shady sort of guy without very accurate info, because it'd threaten to make all his future endeavors illegitimate. Or not, but there's the risk.
|
On June 04 2015 10:48 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 09:59 lilwisper wrote:
In a way I can understand the heavy-handedness. Riot is the new kid on the block as far as their plan to grow the appeal of e-sports as entertainment. Riot has to dot their I's and cross their T's even more so than let's say the NFL, NBA, etc... Like other folks were saying, this is about image. Even small dings to image can have massive consequences. The entertainment world has tons of examples of this. In a way it's like when a contender fights the champ in boxing. The contender can't just win at the cards, he has to prove outright that he won, or the cards are going to side with the champ. I don't see why they can't say "Dentist and a Riot employee who shall not be named due to privacy laws". That's what I would do. If Richard Lewis later finds out who it was, then so be it. At least the company didn't say who it was.
It's still the image thing that comes into play I think. Outside of things forbidden by laws, Riot usually sides on transparency when it comes to rulings. Rulings that have to deal with Riot employees get an even higher dose of transparency. They have done it in the past when misconduct is in play (PsyonicHero).
|
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends.
|
On June 04 2015 11:40 wei2coolman wrote:
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends.
I don't see why Deficio can't cast. The conflict of interest only has to do with him and CW. Just let him skip the CW games.
|
On June 04 2015 11:54 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 11:40 wei2coolman wrote:
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends. I don't see why Deficio can't cast. The conflict of interest only has to do with him and CW. Just let him skip the CW games.
I don't see why they should even have him skip the CW games to be honest... lol.
Real punishment would be that he'd be required to cast all the bottom 3 teams of EU LCS's games with Quickshot. hehehhehe.
|
On June 04 2015 11:58 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 11:54 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 11:40 wei2coolman wrote:
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends. I don't see why Deficio can't cast. The conflict of interest only has to do with him and CW. Just let him skip the CW games. I don't see why they should even have him skip the CW games to be honest... lol. Real punishment would be that he'd be required to cast all the bottom 3 teams of EU LCS's games with Quickshot. hehehhehe.
The problem seems to have to do with conflict of interest. Deficio was getting too cozy with CW and it's arguable that his cast of CW games will be biased toward CW. So bar him from CW games - that's really easy to do. The other games should be fine.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
On June 04 2015 12:05 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 11:58 wei2coolman wrote:On June 04 2015 11:54 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 11:40 wei2coolman wrote:
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends. I don't see why Deficio can't cast. The conflict of interest only has to do with him and CW. Just let him skip the CW games. I don't see why they should even have him skip the CW games to be honest... lol. Real punishment would be that he'd be required to cast all the bottom 3 teams of EU LCS's games with Quickshot. hehehhehe. The problem seems to have to do with conflict of interest. Deficio was getting too cozy with CW and it's arguable that his cast of CW games will be biased toward CW. So bar him from CW games - that's really easy to do. The other games should be fine.
If Quickshot is allowed to cast Elements, there is no way Deficio should be banned from casting CW just because "he might be biased", lol.
It's just exponential flogging pretty much, Riot need to show that they're serious about everything and even more serious when their own workers are drawn into it.
|
On June 04 2015 12:05 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 11:58 wei2coolman wrote:On June 04 2015 11:54 Sufficiency wrote:On June 04 2015 11:40 wei2coolman wrote:
As far announcing it publicly, it was a good idea to do so from Riot imo. It allows them to come out in front of the issue, it answers a lot of community questions as to why Deficio wasn't casting.
The ruling was a bit harsh, especially when a lot of information and "ifs" are usually shared among friends. I don't see why Deficio can't cast. The conflict of interest only has to do with him and CW. Just let him skip the CW games. I don't see why they should even have him skip the CW games to be honest... lol. Real punishment would be that he'd be required to cast all the bottom 3 teams of EU LCS's games with Quickshot. hehehhehe. The problem seems to have to do with conflict of interest. Deficio was getting too cozy with CW and it's arguable that his cast of CW games will be biased toward CW. So bar him from CW games - that's really easy to do. The other games should be fine.
Meanwhile... Quickshot...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
