EPTThis really isn't a cover-up and there's no reason to be angry at all, in my opinion. Jinro heard something but it had no effect on the game -- but people are stupid and won't try to process the whole picture further down the road.
I dunno.
GSL soundproof issue - Interview Censorship - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
This really isn't a cover-up and there's no reason to be angry at all, in my opinion. Jinro heard something but it had no effect on the game -- but people are stupid and won't try to process the whole picture further down the road. I dunno. | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
| ||
|
Xswordy
United Kingdom425 Posts
On January 23 2011 08:35 briandawkins wrote: Also, Blizzard should stop numbering patches. No reason to document their mistakes. It's enough to say they took care of balance problems. I think you clicked on the wrong thread. | ||
|
Sinborn
United States275 Posts
On January 23 2011 04:52 Galleon.frigate wrote: This is fundimental to the sport. If the NFL tried to hide that one team was intercepting the radio of another teams plays would you not be concerned? How you ensure that people do not apply this to other situation is addressing it so throughly that no one had reason to. Not by hidding it. Your hypothetical isn't applicable to the situation at hand. You state that it is necessary for a sports caster entity to report an intentional act of unsporting conduct between performers. Jinro did not intentionally cheat and therefore, they are not covering up something that is detrimental to the spirit of competition. Jinro's discovery was not intentional in that his hearing of the crowd is not on the same questionable level as intercepting a private broadcast. The distinction between hearing and actively going out of your way to cheat are clearly distinguishable from one another. While the match may have been determined by the hint, that information was not pursued in such a way that would be detrimental to the integrity of the game. The interception of radio communications was not a result of an oversight by the NFL, whereas GomTV's oversight was the direct cause because they control the environment and regularly maintain its integrity. Your statement infers that GOMtv should be transparent with the details between teams, which I agree, but since GOMtv is directly responsible for something that appeared to be unsporting, it falls outside the hypothetical. | ||
|
Mauldo
United States750 Posts
They issued a statement acknowledging the issue and even going as far as to specifically cite the issues that plagued the Jinro match enough to cause the issue in the first place. If you read the press release, you know it happened during the Jinro/Idra matchup. The important part is that you know it happened. The editing is a PR move, but it's doesn't even do anything. We still know it happened. They just edited a piece of video that, guess what, they own and can edit as they please. They aren't denying the issue. Hell, they aren't even dodging the issue. They're just editing a video. Jesus Christ. Don't let them edit the after game commentary of Tastosis, or there will be another shit storm to clean up. | ||
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
On January 23 2011 09:27 Uncultured wrote: If there's a part of you that says any/all censorship is wrong, It's the naive part. Even Wikileaks understands the importance of censorship. That's a bit of an obscure comparison. I could say the same for totalitarian and fascist governments. Giving examples of other people that have supported censorship in different contexts goes both ways and isn't really relevant. In regards to the gomtv editing of the interview: I don't think there is any justifiable reason to cut out what a player is saying in an interview. Where does the line get drawn, and who decides what the fans don't get to hear? I think it's absolutely inexcusable to edit an interview like that, regardless of any statement made. It's not fair to jinro, either (whether it really changes the impact of what he's saying or not). The only almost reasonable explanation I could think of is that they want to preserve the perceived integrity of the results because they don't want people questioning the legitimacy of any of the games played in the studio. If they are worried about that however, they should be actually preserving the integrity of the matches instead of trying to pretend that nothing ever went wrong. Edit: There are a number of people who will watch the VODs and not see the statement. As unfortunate as it may be, everyone watching starcraft doesn't do so through team liquid and doesn't necessarily browse the gomtv press releases. How can you see it's not 'a cover up' when the only tangible outcome of the edit is the hiding of information? It may not be your typical 'cover up' involving conspiracies and the FBI, but it is certainly a cover up to a degree. Making a press release acknowledging that a problem occurred does not mean its okay to destroy any evidence of it happening. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
I really liked how they handled the soundproof thing, until I heard about the censoring, that made me quite sad. Players should be able to speak freely, without fear of being censored if they say something that makes Gom look bad. Just hope they learned from how the community reacted to this and they won't use these Kespa style methods anymore from now on. | ||
|
Ludwigvan
Germany2371 Posts
| ||
|
Xeph
Korea (South)191 Posts
On January 23 2011 10:04 Ludwigvan wrote: It was good that they talked about the issue in the press release. But with cutting the part out of the video they take back this being open about the topic that they seemed to have. They just don't want their viewers to know. And for those that do know, they still can point at the press release. That is maybe not a full cover up, but a semi cover-up. It is just totally ugly, unnecessary and unappealing. Actually, not a press release but just a reply. | ||
|
Xeph
Korea (South)191 Posts
I got a reply from GSL staff about this issue. I had to post two thread to get the response. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/52HB8.jpg) Translation: We acknowledged our fault, but we thought that the well known incident to be cited again and again is not good, and there are some people diminishing the match with the incident which did not practically effected to the result. Sorry. Updated on OP also. I still think the censoring is not a good idea. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On January 23 2011 08:58 suejak wrote: I dunno, part of me says any censorship is wrong, but I can see the argument the other way too. This really isn't a cover-up and there's no reason to be angry at all, in my opinion. Jinro heard something but it had no effect on the game -- but people are stupid and won't try to process the whole picture further down the road. I dunno. I agree. It did not affect the match and they did not want ti to be brought up. Though to be fair, with how they censored it (it's really obvious), they might as well just kept the original version up. They should have kept the original but added a 30 second text intro or something explaining the issue (and how they gave a warning to themselves) and explaining that it did not really affect the outcome of the match. | ||
|
Ulfsark
United States958 Posts
| ||
|
Xeph
Korea (South)191 Posts
On January 23 2011 14:55 Ulfsark wrote: That is cool that they were nice enough to respond to you. I had to post two thread to get the response. | ||
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On January 23 2011 14:11 Xeph wrote: UPDATE 1 13:59 23 Jan 2011 KST I got a reply from GSL staff about this issue. I had to post two thread to get the response. Translation: We acknowledged our fault, but we thought that the well known incident to be cited again and again is not good, and there are some people diminishing the match with the incident which did not practically effected to the result. Sorry. Updated on OP also. I still think the censoring is not a good idea. are they apologizing for the censorship or for the actual incident? I'm way more concerned about the censorship tbh, cutting out part of interviews because they make you look bad? fascist moves  | ||
|
Xeph
Korea (South)191 Posts
On January 23 2011 15:13 nttea wrote: are they apologizing for the censorship or for the actual incident? I'm way more concerned about the censorship tbh, cutting out part of interviews because they make you look bad? fascist moves Apparently, they apologized for the censorship. | ||
|
Reptilia
Chile913 Posts
On January 23 2011 15:16 Xeph wrote: Apparently, they apologized for the censorship. no, they are Explaining why censorship. "the well known incident to be cited again and again is not good" | ||
|
Marsevern
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
SikLyric
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
Xeph
Korea (South)191 Posts
On January 23 2011 16:22 Reptilia wrote: no, they are Explaining why censorship. "the well known incident to be cited again and again is not good" "Apparently, they apologized for the censorship." is the answer for "are they apologizing for the censorship or for the actual incident?" | ||
| ||
