|
On August 27 2012 22:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 22:29 Femari wrote:On August 27 2012 22:16 Sermokala wrote:
The ARAM wasn't even the issue. Why are you acting like it was the reason they lost their standings in the event. They agreed to split the money and do match fixing. Thats a crime in the esports would that deserves a lifetime ban. The fact probably is that Riot told them not to ban them for life which is what mlg has done in the past for people who match fixed.
they were probably gona just quietly ban arams in the future. thats what the tweets from riot said at least.
Tbh I think that crs is just in pr mode. saying that it was because of aram is better then them admitting that they match fixed. Nothing is confirmed other than a decision prior to ARAM, and we don't even know the details of the agreed ARAM. Speculating won't get us anywhere right now. Thats a horrible way to look at. If speculating would get us no where then no one would comment on anything. If no one is going to going to share the whole story. + Show Spoiler +Travis made a pretty good video about everything. It collects all the events that we have now with some good commentary about the whole thing.
I said it won't get us anywhere right now. All of this has been discussed already. We all know the tweets, we all know the allegations.
Us speculating literally does nothing. If they agreed to prize split they're lucky they weren't banned, MLG has already set a precedent with that with Smash. If they agreed to who would win prior, then they should be banned for the season because that is most definitely a bannable offense. If it was just an agreement for the ARAM then the drama is done with, we don't need anything else. The teams themselves agree with the punishment and are looking to move on, given that the other allegations (which would be false in this scenario) are dismissed.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring.
Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at.
|
Oh and I forgot to add this in earlier, MLG has every legal right to partially withhold prize money or even not award it. All competitors essentially sign a contract when they agree to play in their competition. This happened in Smash, they didn't withhold the money but MLG's employee (forgot his name, ran the Smash competition) stated that when they signed up they signed a contract which gives MLG the right to fine players and teams due to misconduct, and that can go up to the entire earnings for an event.
|
On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at.
I agree, the question is not if ARAM is a competition is not. The question is whether players are allowed to agree on additional rules and change thereby the nature of the game.
They are not allowed to do so, because there are numerous problems attached to it. Arguing whether or not an ARAM is more, less or equally competitive than a regular lol game misses the problem.
The same goes for whether or not the community liked what the players did or if it was "fun". This probably has factored into the punishment which was choosen, but MLG/Riot will probably never comment on that, because it might look like as if they would condone what was done by the players.
|
League of Drama. One week left for NA Finals and we get the Reginald/DahnDin all over again.
I saw all of the finals except for the aram game (poor me got late to the party  ) and I thought the games were pretty close and neither team tried to throw.
|
|
|
On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at.
While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining.
It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TL community would react in the following ways:
1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT
*child cries*
2. Why did you take all the flowers off my bush?
For you, Mommy!
Oh - aww - well remember - sometimes its better to do things in moderation - maybe leave some flowers for the bush next time hmm?
3. You STOLE my flowers AND committed shrubicide!! Pfft - max-sec for Johnny. Don't drop the soap. Nice knowing you kid.
|
On August 27 2012 23:18 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining. It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TRL community would react in the following ways: 1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT 2. Why did you take all the flowers off my bush? For you, Mommy! Oh - aww - well remember - sometimes its better to do things in moderation - maybe leave some flowers for the bush next time hmm? 3. You STOLE my flowers AND committed shrubicide!! Pfft - max-sec for Johnny. Don't drop the soap. Nice knowing you kid.
And that's why they got a lenient penalty. The precedent for this is bans. They weren't banned. They just don't receive points or money and are still going to be playing next week.
It's basically MLG and Riot saying "It was in good intents but it was still very misguided and we won't tolerate this, don't do it again and do your best next week."
Also a child has much poorer understanding than Curse or dignitas. They really should've known better.
|
On August 27 2012 23:22 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 23:18 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining. It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TRL community would react in the following ways: 1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT And that's why they got a lenient penalty. The precedent for this is bans. They weren't banned. They just don't receive points or money and are still going to be playing next week. It's basically MLG and Riot saying "It was in good intents but it was still very misguided and we won't tolerate this, don't do it again and do your best next week." Also a child has much poorer understanding than Curse or dignitas. They really should've known better.
Yeah but that's not the issue here. At least - according to MLG. And really? They should have known better than to try and provide more entertainment to fans? What are they - LoL playing robots? You see cause I was under the impression that there was some sort of human emotion tied up in all this money-grubbing.
|
On August 27 2012 23:24 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 23:22 Femari wrote:On August 27 2012 23:18 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining. It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TRL community would react in the following ways: 1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT And that's why they got a lenient penalty. The precedent for this is bans. They weren't banned. They just don't receive points or money and are still going to be playing next week. It's basically MLG and Riot saying "It was in good intents but it was still very misguided and we won't tolerate this, don't do it again and do your best next week." Also a child has much poorer understanding than Curse or dignitas. They really should've known better. Yeah but that's not the issue here. At least - according to MLG. And really? They should have known better than to try and provide more entertainment to fans? What are they - LoL playing robots? You see cause I was under the impression that there was some sort of human emotion tied up in all this money-grubbing.
There you go skipping the point. They should have known better than to play ARAM. I believe Neo was the person who said this prior but if they wanted to make it entertaining they could have done that with unorthodox play like Eve mid. ARAM completely defeats the point of the competition.
|
Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at.
this isn't much of a counter. It is the expectation of the norm. I might as well say that it made absolutely zero sense for boxer to use defensive structures to exploit his opponent in the finals of a broodwar tournament, because that's clearly not what a finals SHOULD look like.
Yes, I am aware there is a significant difference in that boxer didn't agree with yellow to play cheese games, but the point is that it is my and your opinion what a finals should or should not look like. It is not codified anywhere, and frankly we do not know when someone might come up with another boxer bunker rush. I would prefer, however, that even failed attempts to generate such a non-conventional scenario are treated with a little more respect than this.
All that the finals of a tournament must be is within the rules, and carried out in an atmosphere of sportsmanship. If the rules fail to generate the sort of games that *should* be had, then it is the fault of the rules, not the players.
Oh and I forgot to add this in earlier, MLG has every legal right to partially withhold prize money or even not award it. All competitors essentially sign a contract when they agree to play in their competition.
yes, this does not make it right.
when they signed up they signed a contract which gives MLG the right to fine players and teams due to misconduct, and that can go up to the entire earnings for an event.
The problem here is that, assuming there is no collusion, which is explicitly forbidden, misconduct is illdefined. I must stress that it is NOT ACCEPTIBLE to punish a player for behaviour that is not explicitly forbidden. It is in the nature of all play to seek the boundaries of what is acceptable. It is in the nature of all serious competition to abuse any weakness in said boundaries to the utmost. The fault CANNOT, repeat CANNOT be placed with someone who chooses to do so, this goes against every core idea of competition that makes it 'real' and exciting. If the game is abused, it is the fault of the game for being ABLE to be abused, never the player who does so.
Though this is somewhat of an opposite case (refusing to abuse a potential weakness that the opponent presented), we actually generally call this sportsmanship and value it highly. I'm not sure what people are missing...
I should also point out that the power divide between players and corporate sponsors such as MLG and Riot in these games is absurd and so, if these companies were at ALL ethical, they would make damn sure their player agreement was public, gave players a solid system of rules and a potential of appeal. I'd love to see what would happen if all the major teams decided to boycott Riot's Esports scene for a few tournaments and just run their own streaming tourneys or something. Make a condition of supporting Riot's circuit the implementation of a rule like in any best of 5, if both teams agree game 1 will be played as an ARAM on proving grounds. See how long it would take all these big companies to fall on their faces and realise just how much they rely on the players putting up with their crap.
|
On August 27 2012 23:29 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Show nested quote +Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. this isn't much of a counter. It is the expectation of the norm. I might as well say that it made absolutely zero sense for boxer to use defensive structures to exploit his opponent in the finals of a broodwar tournament, because that's clearly not what a finals SHOULD look like. Yes, I am aware there is a significant difference in that boxer didn't agree with yellow to play cheese games, but the point is that it is my and your opinion what a finals should or should not look like. It is not codified anywhere, and frankly we do not know when someone might come up with another boxer bunker rush. I would prefer, however, that even failed attempts to generate such a non-conventional scenario are treated with a little more respect than this. All that the finals of a tournament must be is within the rules, and carried out in an atmosphere of sportsmanship. If the rules fail to generate the sort of games that *should* be had, then it is the fault of the rules, not the players. Show nested quote +Oh and I forgot to add this in earlier, MLG has every legal right to partially withhold prize money or even not award it. All competitors essentially sign a contract when they agree to play in their competition. yes, this does not make it right. Show nested quote +when they signed up they signed a contract which gives MLG the right to fine players and teams due to misconduct, and that can go up to the entire earnings for an event. The problem here is that, assuming there is no collusion, which is explicitly forbidden, misconduct is illdefined. I must stress that it is NOT ACCEPTIBLE to punish a player for behaviour that is not explicitly forbidden. It is in the nature of all play to seek the boundaries of what is acceptable. It is in the nature of all serious competition to abuse any weakness in said boundaries to the utmost. The fault CANNOT, repeat CANNOT be placed with someone who chooses to do so, this goes against every core idea of competition that makes it 'real' and exciting. If the game is abused, it is the fault of the game for being ABLE to be abused, never the player who does so. Though this is somewhat of an opposite case (refusing to abuse a potential weakness that the opponent presented), we actually generally call this sportsmanship and value it highly. I'm not sure what people are missing... I should also point out that the power divide between players and corporate sponsors such as MLG and Riot in these games is absurd and so, if these companies were at ALL ethical, they would make damn sure their player agreement was public, gave players a solid system of rules and a potential of appeal.
The problem with your argument is that MLG has stated years ago that this conduct was forbidden, and that it was in the contract.
|
The problem with your argument is that MLG has stated years ago that this conduct was forbidden, and that it was in the contract.
What conduct? agreeing before a match not to use a certain strategy? So if, for example, Curse were to talk to Dignitas and say, we think diana is bullshit atm, and it'll make the game worse if we use her normally. Neither ban, neither pick, agreed?
Would this constitute match fixing? Because I'm pretty sure that goes on all the time.
How about the reverse? if a support calls out another support for a duel mid, and they both do it, does that constitute match fixing? Because that actually happened in poland. What's the difference, essentially?
I say again: There is no rule against aram. This is probably because it would be impossible to ban aram without banning legitimate alternative strategies. The only way they can phrase it is 'if we think you're not playing the way we think you should play, we'll take all your shit back and say you weren't playing properly'
Mature.
|
On August 27 2012 23:24 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 23:22 Femari wrote:On August 27 2012 23:18 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining. It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TRL community would react in the following ways: 1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT And that's why they got a lenient penalty. The precedent for this is bans. They weren't banned. They just don't receive points or money and are still going to be playing next week. It's basically MLG and Riot saying "It was in good intents but it was still very misguided and we won't tolerate this, don't do it again and do your best next week." Also a child has much poorer understanding than Curse or dignitas. They really should've known better. Yeah but that's not the issue here. At least - according to MLG. And really? They should have known better than to try and provide more entertainment to fans? What are they - LoL playing robots? You see cause I was under the impression that there was some sort of human emotion tied up in all this money-grubbing.
First of all the respond to the ARAM is not unified. More people might have like it, than disliked it but there were still several people that voiced discontent. MLGs first and foremost concern are their customers. You usually try to deliver to your customer what you promise. While you personally might have enjoyed what curse/dig have done, others will not.
Secondly comes the robot part. The players are not supposed to be robots, but they have contracts and obligations. They entered the tournament agreeing to certain rules. There are reasons for there rules and they are designed in a way to make sure that all matches are played on the same terms.
Thirdly cut down on the hyperbole, "some human emotion tied into money-grubbing"? What are you refering to? MLG doesn't gain anything from this discussion, they loose the longer the discussion goes on. This is not about money, this is about tournament conduct and nothing else.
|
On August 27 2012 23:38 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with your argument is that MLG has stated years ago that this conduct was forbidden, and that it was in the contract. What conduct? agreeing before a match not to use a certain strategy? So if, for example, Curse were to talk to Dignitas and say, we think diana is bullshit atm, and it'll make the game worse if we use her normally. Neither ban, neither pick, agreed? Would this constitute match fixing? Because I'm pretty sure that goes on all the time. How about the reverse? if a support calls out another support for a duel mid, and they both do it, does that constitute match fixing? Because that actually happened in poland. What's the difference, essentially? I say again: There is no rule against aram. This is probably because it would be impossible to ban aram without banning legitimate alternative strategies. The only way they can phrase it is 'if we think you're not playing the way we think you should play, we'll take all your shit back and say you weren't playing properly' Mature.
After reading your comments I feel like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
|
On August 27 2012 23:24 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 23:22 Femari wrote:On August 27 2012 23:18 Arghmyliver wrote:On August 27 2012 22:46 Beyonder wrote:On August 27 2012 22:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
How is an aram not serious? If both teams play their utmost to win, it is still a serious competition. If a tennis game is played with the wrong ends of the rackets, or a soccer game played with 3 men a side sitting out, it does not make it any less of a contest, in fact it perhaps makes it more of one since the players have to demonstrate adaptability.
It's that fact that makes it entertaining. that it is, in its own way, MORE competitive than a typical game. If it wasn't competitive, it would be boring. Its like playing the first 30 minutes of the champions league final indoors or on sand. It makes absolutely zero sense to do it. That is not what they get paid for, not what they practiced, and a final should showcase the best available teams and play in what they are best at. While you may not have enjoyed it as much necessarily - you have to remember they quite obviously only did it because they THOUGHT it would be entertaining. It's like if you child ruins your rose-bush by picking all the roses and bringing them to you. According to this thread the TRL community would react in the following ways: 1. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO GIVE ME ROSES GODDAMNIT YOU RUINED MY BUSH YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT And that's why they got a lenient penalty. The precedent for this is bans. They weren't banned. They just don't receive points or money and are still going to be playing next week. It's basically MLG and Riot saying "It was in good intents but it was still very misguided and we won't tolerate this, don't do it again and do your best next week." Also a child has much poorer understanding than Curse or dignitas. They really should've known better. Yeah but that's not the issue here. At least - according to MLG. And really? They should have known better than to try and provide more entertainment to fans? What are they - LoL playing robots? You see cause I was under the impression that there was some sort of human emotion tied up in all this money-grubbing.
What are you trying to defend? Their right to do whatever the hell format type of game they want in a finals? Would this be appropriate for future finals? Many other tournaments have special events at their tournaments for rioters/pros/fans to play one another. Hell, if they wanted to show entertainment they'd have done a showmatch before the finals and that'd be much more appropriate. The problem isn't that they aren't robots, the problem is they made a very unprofessional decision to ARAM their first game and possibly collude with the other team about the matches. Colluding is a huge no in MLG, personally seeing them ARAM the first game is just a red flag to me.
Curse and Dignitas both could've taken this tournament seriously as a step toward becoming a better team by securing a first place win and riding that into PAX. Instead they decided to do something a bit childish and suffer a whole bunch of stupid drama over something easily preventable.
|
On August 27 2012 23:38 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with your argument is that MLG has stated years ago that this conduct was forbidden, and that it was in the contract. What conduct? agreeing before a match not to use a certain strategy? So if, for example, Curse were to talk to Dignitas and say, we think diana is bullshit atm, and it'll make the game worse if we use her normally. Neither ban, neither pick, agreed? Would this constitute match fixing? Because I'm pretty sure that goes on all the time. How about the reverse? if a support calls out another support for a duel mid, and they both do it, does that constitute match fixing? Because that actually happened in poland. What's the difference, essentially? I say again: There is no rule against aram. This is probably because it would be impossible to ban aram without banning legitimate alternative strategies. The only way they can phrase it is 'if we think you're not playing the way we think you should play, we'll take all your shit back and say you weren't playing properly' Mature.
New Rule: "Random picks are not allowed."
Done.
I don't think there is a legitimate claim to punish either team at the moment but we might see that rule added for the next competition.
|
It seems that people dont know the reason for MLG withdrawing prize money.
it was NOT because of the ARAM itself. It was because they made a deal splitting the prizemoney.
This is called matchfixing in other sports, but i no longer think of LOL as an esports at all.
MLG will probably add into player registration terms for next event that no aram or other bs is allowed.
|
On August 27 2012 23:38 Thereisnosaurus wrote:Show nested quote +The problem with your argument is that MLG has stated years ago that this conduct was forbidden, and that it was in the contract. What conduct? agreeing before a match not to use a certain strategy? So if, for example, Curse were to talk to Dignitas and say, we think diana is bullshit atm, and it'll make the game worse if we use her normally. Neither ban, neither pick, agreed? Would this constitute match fixing? Because I'm pretty sure that goes on all the time. How about the reverse? if a support calls out another support for a duel mid, and they both do it, does that constitute match fixing? Because that actually happened in poland. What's the difference, essentially? I say again: There is no rule against aram. This is probably because it would be impossible to ban aram without banning legitimate alternative strategies. The only way they can phrase it is 'if we think you're not playing the way we think you should play, we'll take all your shit back and say you weren't playing properly' Mature.
The standard code of conduct similar to the Olympics...?
|
New Rule: "Random picks are not allowed."
Done.
I don't think there is a legitimate claim to punish either team at the moment but we might see that rule added for the next competition.
too easy to get around, they could just close their eyes and randomly click something.
Also, I'd just like to apologise a little for my tone in the last few posts. This whole thing just seems so wrong to me. I've spent the last five years studying how games develop and the components of ludic culture, and everything that is going on here just screams 'will fuck up the whole scene better than a randy bull with ginger up the back end'. It might not be the visible sort of damage, but it will be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
