EPTGetting 2nd place prize money doesn't seems right to me in any way
Just wandering.
ONOG 3K Online Invitational Jan. 28th & Jan. 29th - Page 112
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Dandy_Moustachu
France422 Posts
Getting 2nd place prize money doesn't seems right to me in any way Just wandering. | ||
|
shaberu
Japan21 Posts
On January 30 2012 15:59 Pokebunny wrote: As a player, I completely disagree. I give three reasons for my disagreement, and I believe it's entirely Stephano's fault. Here is why: 1. Stephano was playing two tournaments at once, and forced a 40 minute delay of his semi-final. This in itself is quite rude and could have warranted a walkover being given. Obviously ONOG was trying their best to avoid the situation, but it still does not look good for Stephano. 2. ONOG offered Stephano to play the finals immediately, and to cast from replays, rather than wait for the third place match. This is an extremely generous and lenient offer, and Stephano simply gave ONOG an ultimatum and logged off. 3. It's ridiculously irresponsible of Stephano to log off knowing they have none of your contact info, after giving a ridiculous ultimatum they can't afford to meet. ONOG had outlined the schedule of the tournament beforehand, and Stephano completely disrespected this after ACCEPTING HIS INVITATION and playing through the entire day without any complaint or warning to ONOG. Perhaps he could've said earlier "I don't think I can play the finals at this time" but he simply waited til then, said he was tired, and gave ONOG no opportunity to provide a real solution. "I was tired" is a ridiculous excuse for the finals of a tournament, and cheesing or even drone rushing the finals is by far more respectable than what Stephano did. No one can force a player to try his best one hundred percent, but by accepting an invitation or signing up for a tournament, you're agreeing to play it through. It's ridiculous that we should have to contract players to every tournament, and as a player I completely support and respect ONOG's decision. The advertised prizemoney was assuming that he actually did complete the tournament placing in second. He obviously didn't do that. Had he reasonably earned the second place money? Possibly, but the three reasons above IMO give plenty of evidence that ONOG tried their hardest to find a solution and simply couldn't under Stephano's absurd terms. As a player, you can disagree, but what you've said does not address any point I've made. You're basically claiming that a rude player, who signed no contract promising anything, should receive reduced winnings based on the perceived entertainment value of his play by the tournament organizers, in an entirely subjective way (as per ONOG's statement, which is not debatable). What this comes down to is inflated SC2 drama: people hate Stephano because he's unprofessional and doesn't care about the community, so they say he should be punished; people like Stephano, are fans, and believe that ONOG should be punished. Grab your pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is not the perspective I am attempting to get you to consider. While I respect MrBitter, I can't respect his involvement in this decision. Why? Because this sets a poor precedent. Due to unprofessional behaviour from both sides, contracts, etc. will have to be written for future events, wasting time and money. Furthermore, many of these contracts will not even be enforceable or legally viable, which will cause further problems. Was Stephano right to do what he did? No. Was ONOG right to do what they did? No. The problem isn't that Stephano is an asshole and ONOG got angry and made a bad decision. The problem is that this sets a bad precedent both for the amount of work people will have to put into future tournaments (and money on legal fees if they want contracts to be legally enforceable), but also in terms of the presumed "entertainment value" of each game played in a tournament. ONOG is saying that a player who has played through the majority of the tournament, drew numerous fans, etc. to watch his play, from which they benefited in ad revenue and (most likely) donations, does not deserve their winnings because they were judged to have not provided sufficient entertainment value. The prize pool is not a prize pool. It's a possible fee players may get provided they have appeased tournament sponsors in providing appropriate entertainment to their viewers. This, combined with what occurred between Naniwa and GOM, creates a poor environment for players. It's already difficult enough for people to trust one another with all the drama that unfolded over the past year (and so far this year). I know you're not a professional, Pokebunny, but how would you feel if a tournament sponsor felt that you did not earn your prize because you didn't generate sufficient entertainment value for their organization and therefore revoked it? | ||
|
nicotn
Netherlands186 Posts
On January 30 2012 20:22 NeWeNiyaLord wrote: Lol I didnt even think about stephano's prize money, he did earn the second spot either way. Sad to see him have to settle for 4th place just because he was tired. at 4 am.. 2 am, not 4 am. | ||
|
Schnullerbacke13
Germany1199 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
It's already difficult enough for people to trust one another with all the drama that unfolded over the past year (and so far this year). This in particular is complete nonsense. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: wtf, stephano is not a sc2 slave-worker. he is 17 years old, if you want playing sc2 to be a job ("professional"), then forcing a 17 year old boy to play sc2 all night long is strictly forbidden by law. at least in europe Yes, but they don't need to pay him since he didn't put i that work, imo. | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: wtf, stephano is not a sc2 slave-worker. he is 17 years old, if you want playing sc2 to be a job ("professional"), then forcing a 17 year old boy to play sc2 all night long is strictly forbidden by law. at least in europe He is 18 and near to 19 | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: wtf, stephano is not a sc2 slave-worker. he is 17 years old, if you want playing sc2 to be a job ("professional"), then forcing a 17 year old boy to play sc2 all night long is strictly forbidden by law. at least in europe No one forced him too, he decided to do it. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
The tournament length is posted. You sign up for that tournament, you are fully aware of said tournaments restrictions and thus you are expected to follow it. Stephano didn't. Of course he deserves to be reprimanded. No one forced him to sign up for the tournament. He, and only he, is responsible | ||
|
Canucklehead
Canada5074 Posts
| ||
|
magnaflow
Canada1521 Posts
at least Naniwa had the decency to probe rush This community, what a joke | ||
|
Purple Haze
United Kingdom200 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:11 Canucklehead wrote: I've seen so many defend stephano use the tennis analogy. That analogy makes no sense because tennis players forfeit due to injury or other legitimate reasons. They never forfeit because they were "tired" because they were playing in 2 tennis tournaments at once. Plenty of players have pulled out of matches that they could have completed in some shape or form, but knew that they had no chance of winning, or of doing themselves justice in, due to the condition they were in. It's not like tennis players only forfeit a match when they're stretchered off the court. | ||
|
VirGin
Norway278 Posts
On January 31 2012 02:57 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: wtf, stephano is not a sc2 slave-worker. he is 17 years old, if you want playing sc2 to be a job ("professional"), then forcing a 17 year old boy to play sc2 all night long is strictly forbidden by law. at least in europe This posts gives me allusions to when Sepp Blatter made the slave comment regarding football players (Ronaldo, specifically.) It's equally retarded. | ||
|
shaberu
Japan21 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:01 syllogism wrote: shaberu: a hypothetical question: If a player legitimately reaches finals and then cheats to win said finals, would you be fine with depriving said player of his winnings even if there is no specific rule? You basically posted the same assertions as before and they aren't particularly more compelling on a repeated viewing despite your apparent confidence in your argument That isn't a hypothetical question; it's a straw man. You've previously shown that you're upset with Stephano for going to sleep, yet the only point you disputed is that a tournament should have the right to do basically whatever is in their own interests for whatever reason. You can't just make up the rules as you go along. You've said that this was not an arbitrary decision. How is it not? "We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500." - ONOG. Who are they to determine what is appropriate? They decided not only that Kas did not automatically deserve payout without having played the finals (their words, not mine), but also that Stephano didn't deserve the allotted prize for placing 2nd by defeating VileIllusion, who then got a second shot to get into the finals by playing another previously defeated player. I'm not sure that makes any sense whatsoever, certainly less sense than declaring Kas winner and having a backup plan to fill the remainder of their programming. | ||
|
shaberu
Japan21 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:01 syllogism wrote: This in particular is complete nonsense. It's okay, you must have missed last year. | ||
|
Chessz
United States644 Posts
but really if youre trying to reposition ONOG as culpable/unprofessional as part of a defense of Stephano, reevaluate your ideas. | ||
|
Champloo
Germany1850 Posts
| ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:24 shaberu wrote: That isn't a hypothetical question; it's a straw man. Incorrect, the purpose is to find out whether you think that the "right" to receive the "earned" prize money comes before all other considerations. The situations are obviously completely different, but the fundamental issue is the same. Further, it relates to the lack of applicable rules. You've previously shown that you're upset with Stephano for going to sleep, yet the only point you disputed is that a tournament should have the right to do basically whatever is in their own interests for whatever reason. You can't just make up the rules as you go along. You've said that this was not an arbitrary decision. How is it not? ["We believe everyone deserves to see an appropriate final series for $1,500." - ONOG. Who are they to determine what is appropriate? It is within the right of every tournament admin to determine what is appropriate and how the rules are interpreted and in addition to determine how situations that haven't been accounted for should be handled. This is true even in real life sports and there are even governing bodies that make these decisions. If the tournaments abuse this right, they should and will be boycotted by players and possibly by viewers. Of course, if the players are not in a position to do so due to market realities and such, this may be a problem but it certainly isn't a problem right now. Finally, it is not an arbitrary it is by definition based on a reasonable argument, whether you disagree with it or not. Arbitrary does not mean the lack of rules. It's already difficult enough for people to trust one another with all the drama that unfolded over the past year (and so far this year). Please, do elaborate. Difficult for whom to trust whom? After having answered that, please provide sources or at least attempt to explain what you base the claim upon | ||
|
LimeNade
United States2125 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:43 Champloo wrote: I don't even know what this discussion is about. If you forfeit the finals you are second place. Simple as that. How so? Its their tournament, they don't HAVE to pay you, unless there was a contract that was signed and what I have heard there was none. The tournament has to consider their own integrity for providing entertainment. VIEWERS are what pays for entertainment not a french player who is "le tired" and cant nap during 3rd place match drink energy drinks and try to play the finals. God forbid anyone stays up for a whole night in their life for 1500 dollars. IF YA DONT WANT TO STAY UP LATE FOR A NA TOURNAMENT DONT PLAY IN IT. Simple as that GG | ||
|
rotegirte
Germany2859 Posts
On January 31 2012 03:01 syllogism wrote: shaberu: a hypothetical question: If a player legitimately reaches finals and then cheats to win said finals, would you be fine with depriving said player of his winnings even if there is no specific rule? You basically posted the same assertions as before and they aren't particularly more compelling on a repeated viewing despite your apparent confidence in your argument This in particular is complete nonsense. The question raised is exactly how such a rule regarding specifically forfeiting should be formulated. No one is blaming ONOG for handling an uncovered incident, since almost all major tournaments reserve their right to disqualify upon generic exception clauses and general sportsmanship codes. This is what allows them to disqualify players on a whim and handle exotic situations. The argument is that one side acknowledges the right to forfeit and the other doesn't. The argument is a competitor has no obligation to compete, but an entertainer has. As a competitor I am but only accountable by my personal ambition. As an entertainer providing production value I am accountable towards my team, organizers and fans. There are voices demanding both of the extremes, either full right to forfeit without reasons needed or full refusal of such a right no matter what. And there are other voices that realize that such extremes are not enforceable, damaging business and/or giving organizers disproportionate amounts of power. It is the question of how much you want one to be a competitor, which includes taking care of personal well-being, and how much of an entertainer providing public value he should be. And what ratio could be healthy to fairly represent both sides of a mutual relationship. | ||
| ||
