|
On January 17 2013 04:29 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:08 Integra wrote:On January 17 2013 03:59 IdrA wrote:
whats the foundation for "if esports cant handle journalism it doesnt deserve to exist"
everyone just keeps repeating it because it sounds good. there's no actual reason to believe that. what if the scene were a lot more precarious than it is and losing viewership that comes with losing exclusivity on an announcement actually cost us a sponsor? or what about the lesser teams totalbiscuit referenced who are wholly dependent on every single view any announcement they have gets? the fact that its a growing industry with unstable money flow that's dependent on certain specific things that the media can influence does not delegitimize it as an industry. Let's put it this way, what kind of community do we want? OR rather, what obligations and rights do we want our community to have. The above things you just stated are great things and totally true, There is a downside to what Slasher is doing, as there is to practically everything. However your example can also be applied to the real world. Journalism in general costs our society allot of money, allot of business related could go much faster and smoother if the journalistic world just kept their mouth shut, but what society would that give us, just look at China. Journalism has always operated under certain costs but most people, in the western world at least, feel that that cost is justified cause we believe in things like free speech and such. I for one would like to believe that we actually can have free journalism and that our community is strong enough to give journalists like slasher the ability to exercise this right and that their free speech actually benefits this community as a whole and that the temporary setbacks which may happen actually are worth it. the cost is justified because we need freedom of information to prevent wrongdoing or to let the public know when it's happening. but how many articles do you see about organizations not paying players on time, or at all? or about all the shady shit going on in korea? or any of the other shit that freedom of the press would actually be useful for. no, instead you have people posting headlines that will be public information within a matter of days a bit early so they can siphon off a portion of the viewership to justify their own jobs. spend that time reporting on things that need to be reported on, or at least spend it productively on the existing headlines instead of dragging others down with your lazyness.
The post was more about the holistic view of journalism and why journalists like Slasher has the right to exist. But sure you are correct, Slasher could spend his time better writing higher quality articles, we all could take some time in our life to do better "work" so I totally agree with you on that. After all Slasher has written some excellent articles in the past.
|
On January 17 2013 04:29 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:08 Integra wrote:On January 17 2013 03:59 IdrA wrote:
whats the foundation for "if esports cant handle journalism it doesnt deserve to exist"
everyone just keeps repeating it because it sounds good. there's no actual reason to believe that. what if the scene were a lot more precarious than it is and losing viewership that comes with losing exclusivity on an announcement actually cost us a sponsor? or what about the lesser teams totalbiscuit referenced who are wholly dependent on every single view any announcement they have gets? the fact that its a growing industry with unstable money flow that's dependent on certain specific things that the media can influence does not delegitimize it as an industry. Let's put it this way, what kind of community do we want? OR rather, what obligations and rights do we want our community to have. The above things you just stated are great things and totally true, There is a downside to what Slasher is doing, as there is to practically everything. However your example can also be applied to the real world. Journalism in general costs our society allot of money, allot of business related could go much faster and smoother if the journalistic world just kept their mouth shut, but what society would that give us, just look at China. Journalism has always operated under certain costs but most people, in the western world at least, feel that that cost is justified cause we believe in things like free speech and such. I for one would like to believe that we actually can have free journalism and that our community is strong enough to give journalists like slasher the ability to exercise this right and that their free speech actually benefits this community as a whole and that the temporary setbacks which may happen actually are worth it. the cost is justified because we need freedom of information to prevent wrongdoing or to let the public know when it's happening. but how many articles do you see about organizations not paying players on time, or at all? or about all the shady shit going on in korea? or any of the other shit that freedom of the press would actually be useful for. no, instead you have people posting headlines that will be public information within a matter of days a bit early so they can siphon off a portion of the viewership to justify their own jobs. spend that time reporting on things that need to be reported on, or at least spend it productively on the existing headlines instead of dragging others down with your lazyness.
If it was sucha huge announcement, Then EG should have taken more precautions to keep it under wraps. Final. Done. It is EG's fault, 100%. The lazyness here is EG's mishandling of its assets. It would be lazy on slashers part to NOT break this story. Stop posting irrelevant off topic things to try to dispute a losing argument. EG has lost, not only this story by leaking it, but also by EG's CEO looking like a complete and utter moron on stream by trying to do the same thing you are, bringing up useless irrelevant information in an attempt to make slasher seem like hes in the wrong. Slasher is 100% in the right.
THIS IS THE REAL WORLD, NOT THE FANTASY WORLD. Don't expect your team to leak information that doesn't get picked up. I hope you re-evaluate your stance on this situation so you don't add fuel to the EG-hate machine that is exploding on reddit right now.
|
On January 17 2013 04:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:27 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. Hm that is true. If all the organizations involved agreed to a NDA with the player and those involved, then it's possible that leaks such as these will be less frequent. Though I'm still not convinced that after a organization lost in a bidding war they have any interest in not talking about this with their friends, and the same problem would still occur. let me explain more succinctly. team A and team B bid for player X. team A makes player X (and all other agents) sign a NDA saying that they cannot disclose that team A is bidding for player x. team b (and the rest of the world) will never know that team a was bidding, and thus, team b will have nothing to talk about other than the fact that they lost the bidding war.
You may have missed my previous post, but this fails as soon as Team A, in their infinite wisdom, makes an announcement that they are going to announce the signing of a new player in the coming weeks, shortly after Team B lost the bidding for a certain player, whose signing would warrant a major announcement. Team A's announcement effectively told Team B, their competitor, that Team A just signed the player Team B lost the bidding for.
|
On January 17 2013 04:35 Aulisemia wrote:
The goal of Esports is not to make EG (or any other company) money. That's their fucking job and they should stop whining how some people aren't helping them count their piles of cash. The arrogance it takes to say someone is "taking money out of our pocket" is astounding and I can't believe people defend it.
Would you react the same if a CEO of Citibank or Shell came out and chastised the media for not cooperating with their monetary interests? Unbelievable that Alex is able to even utter this garbage.
Wait, so the goal of business sectors(E-sports is one) is not to make money? The literal point of business?
It'd be more apt of an analogy if the Shell ran almost entirely of excitement and hype generating interest for their various sponsers.
But Shell is an oil company and probably couldn't give less of a shit what the media says.
|
On January 17 2013 04:34 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:28 Kaitlin wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. EG effectively blows this possibility up when they make their patented announcement of announcements. NDA or no NDA, they've just told any other teams negotiating with a player, who recently found out that player signed with some other unidentified team, that they are that unidentified team that signed the player. well, if you're providing the community information from which it can be determined who you are bidding for, i dont think they would require a NDA in the first place. also, announcements of announcements are for the purpose of causing speculation and hype, and i dont think EG would be upset that people figure it out and sources (not subject to a NDA) reveal their information. the NDA, however, will protect EG until the announcement of announcement is made though.
But this entire blow up is all about Slasher reporting after the announcement of the announcement, but before the actual announced announcement, is it not ?
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player.
To answer your NDA question, let's assume EG's signing of JD was a tripartite affair: EG, OZ and KESPA.
If EG managed to convice OZ and KESPA to sign a NDA (which is not a sure deal, considering they were at a pre-contractual phase and EG had a lot of interest in signing Jaedong), this would force both organizations to take the necessary steps in order to prevent a leak from their side.
However, the enforceability of a NDA is, at best, questionable when a lot of people are involved. Unless EG could muster irrefutable evidence that the leak came from someone at OZ or KESPA, no legal action could be effectively brought against them, rendering the NDA largely ineffective. After all, the leak could have always come from one of EG's own employees.
Therefore, a NDA is only effective when the deal only involves a small number of people (generally high-officers) from each party, and/or there's a reliable way of tracking and controlling the exchange of information during the negotiations.
|
On January 17 2013 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:28 Kaitlin wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. EG effectively blows this possibility up when they make their patented announcement of announcements. NDA or no NDA, they've just told any other teams negotiating with a player, who recently found out that player signed with some other unidentified team, that they are that unidentified team that signed the player. well, if you're providing the community information from which it can be determined who you are bidding for, i dont think they would require a NDA in the first place. also, announcements of announcements are for the purpose of causing speculation and hype, and i dont think EG would be upset that people figure it out and sources (not subject to a NDA) reveal their information. the NDA, however, will protect EG until the announcement of announcement is made though. But this entire blow up is all about Slasher reporting after the announcement of the announcement, but before the actual announced announcement, is it not ?
not really sure. its not like someone has specifically articulated what alex was addressing. he spoke in generalities.
my main point was to address people saying that they cant control the information, and thus, its incumbent on slasher to moderate himself. i dont think thats accurate. people have confidential negotiations all the time. there are ways to control the information if you are savvy enough.
|
On January 17 2013 04:29 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:08 Integra wrote:On January 17 2013 03:59 IdrA wrote:
whats the foundation for "if esports cant handle journalism it doesnt deserve to exist"
everyone just keeps repeating it because it sounds good. there's no actual reason to believe that. what if the scene were a lot more precarious than it is and losing viewership that comes with losing exclusivity on an announcement actually cost us a sponsor? or what about the lesser teams totalbiscuit referenced who are wholly dependent on every single view any announcement they have gets? the fact that its a growing industry with unstable money flow that's dependent on certain specific things that the media can influence does not delegitimize it as an industry. Let's put it this way, what kind of community do we want? OR rather, what obligations and rights do we want our community to have. The above things you just stated are great things and totally true, There is a downside to what Slasher is doing, as there is to practically everything. However your example can also be applied to the real world. Journalism in general costs our society allot of money, allot of business related could go much faster and smoother if the journalistic world just kept their mouth shut, but what society would that give us, just look at China. Journalism has always operated under certain costs but most people, in the western world at least, feel that that cost is justified cause we believe in things like free speech and such. I for one would like to believe that we actually can have free journalism and that our community is strong enough to give journalists like slasher the ability to exercise this right and that their free speech actually benefits this community as a whole and that the temporary setbacks which may happen actually are worth it. the cost is justified because we need freedom of information to prevent wrongdoing or to let the public know when it's happening. but how many articles do you see about organizations not paying players on time, or at all? or about all the shady shit going on in korea? or any of the other shit that freedom of the press would actually be useful for. no, instead you have people posting headlines that will be public information within a matter of days a bit early so they can siphon off a portion of the viewership to justify their own jobs. spend that time reporting on things that need to be reported on, or at least spend it productively on the existing headlines instead of dragging others down with your lazyness.
If there is a market, interest, demand, there will always be people who will be more than happy to satisfy it (for money)... people grave for sensation, big announcments etc.; that seems to be what people want and (often times shitty) journalists will provide... I'm just saying it seems to me some guys are complaining that journalists serve a target group on the market which they would prefer have exclusively for their own.... idk...
|
On January 17 2013 04:38 Romitelli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. To answer your NDA question, let's assume EG's signing of JD was a tripartite affair: EG, OZ and KESPA. If EG managed to convice OZ and KESPA to sign a NDA (which is not a sure deal, considering they were at a pre-contractual phase and EG had a lot of interest in signing Jaedong), this would force both organizations to take the necessary steps in order to prevent a leak from their side. However, the enforceability of a NDA is, at best, questionable when a lot of people are involved. Unless EG could muster irrefutable evidence that the leak came from someone at OZ or KESPA, no legal action could be effectively brought against them, rendering the NDA largely ineffective. After all, the leak could have always come from one of EG's own employees. Therefore, a NDA is only effective when the deal only involves a small number of people (generally high-officers) from each party, and/or there's a reliable way of tracking and controlling the exchange of information during the negotiations.
that is completely inaccurate on a legal basis. and you also assume the only way to insure the success of a NDA is with a stick--try a carrot.
|
On January 17 2013 04:33 Brawny wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:16 dr.fahrenheit wrote:On January 17 2013 04:04 Brawny wrote:On January 17 2013 04:02 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
wtf is this? the freedom of the press does not apply to esports? seriously? "don't write that, because it is hurting our company?" "don't write that because it hurts our beloved country" "don't write that because it hurts the believe in the god we all pray to?" "don't write that because it will hurt yourself too" how is this a discussion? really? if you don't like what he is writing don't read it, if he does a bad job writing than soon he will have no job anymore. problem solved; I can't believe that some butthurt people try to tell the press how to act or what to do just because they loose money (which is basically their own fault) Freedom of the press is a right in the god damn american constitution and it's not an "internet" or "international" right. This isn't a matter of censoring; it's a matter of "stop leaking everything or we'll just stop talking to you". This is almost as bad as how people try to defend shitposting with "freedom of speech". freedom of the press is not only a right in the god damn american constitution but also a really, really woldwide and well known and applied international concept (and indicator of liberty).... might wanna read up on that... Read up on imaginary internet rights, yep got it. Not to mention this isn't even an issue of censorship unless you want to be just like sensationalist tabloids. Show nested quote +
You fully contradict yourself in this post. So what are you trying to say, Either its going to be leaked and theres nothing to do about it, or that people are wrong for posting leaked information to be the first instead of person B getting all the money from leaking it?
Sigh, I'm saying that it's up to the various media in esports to not be tabloid junkies reporting everything they hear regardless of consequences.
haha freedom of the press is an "imaginary internet right"... you just outed yourself as an complete idiot
|
On January 17 2013 04:38 Brawny wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:35 Aulisemia wrote:
The goal of Esports is not to make EG (or any other company) money. That's their fucking job and they should stop whining how some people aren't helping them count their piles of cash. The arrogance it takes to say someone is "taking money out of our pocket" is astounding and I can't believe people defend it.
Would you react the same if a CEO of Citibank or Shell came out and chastised the media for not cooperating with their monetary interests? Unbelievable that Alex is able to even utter this garbage. Wait, so the goal of business sectors(E-sports is one) is not to make money? The literal point of business?It'd be more apt of an analogy if the Shell ran almost entirely of excitement and hype generating interest for their various sponsers. But Shell is an oil company and probably couldn't give less of a shit what the media says.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the goal of business sectors". Within a sector you have competition among competitive entities, which are all competing against each other. It's not their goal that their competitors succeed; it's their goal that they each, themselves, succeed.
It's not the goal of the business sector that one member of that sector reaps benefits at the expense of other members of the sector. That's just stupidity.
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On January 17 2013 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:38 Romitelli wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. To answer your NDA question, let's assume EG's signing of JD was a tripartite affair: EG, OZ and KESPA. If EG managed to convice OZ and KESPA to sign a NDA (which is not a sure deal, considering they were at a pre-contractual phase and EG had a lot of interest in signing Jaedong), this would force both organizations to take the necessary steps in order to prevent a leak from their side. However, the enforceability of a NDA is, at best, questionable when a lot of people are involved. Unless EG could muster irrefutable evidence that the leak came from someone at OZ or KESPA, no legal action could be effectively brought against them, rendering the NDA largely ineffective. After all, the leak could have always come from one of EG's own employees. Therefore, a NDA is only effective when the deal only involves a small number of people (generally high-officers) from each party, and/or there's a reliable way of tracking and controlling the exchange of information during the negotiations. that is completely inaccurate on a legal basis. and you also assume the only way to insure the success of a NDA is with a stick--try a carrot.
I'd be interested to know how this is inaccurate on a legal basis since, well, this is my job after all.
|
On January 17 2013 04:38 Brawny wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:35 Aulisemia wrote:
The goal of Esports is not to make EG (or any other company) money. That's their fucking job and they should stop whining how some people aren't helping them count their piles of cash. The arrogance it takes to say someone is "taking money out of our pocket" is astounding and I can't believe people defend it.
Would you react the same if a CEO of Citibank or Shell came out and chastised the media for not cooperating with their monetary interests? Unbelievable that Alex is able to even utter this garbage. Wait, so the goal of business sectors(E-sports is one) is not to make money? The literal point of business? It'd be more apt of an analogy if the Shell ran almost entirely of excitement and hype generating interest for their various sponsers. But Shell is an oil company and probably couldn't give less of a shit what the media says.
The goal of EG is to make money, yes. The goals of Esports as a whole have absolutely nothing to do with that venture, the goal of Esports (in a general sense) is to develop and be sustainable. EG =/= esports. EG benefits from Esports' existence, not the other way around - Garfield suggesting that EG should be able to do what it wants when it wants without anyone's interference or approval seems to suggest that he has missed that point.
|
i'm confused-- what did slasher break newswise?
|
I think this was going to happen sooner or later. When the industry is formed and there are not many regulations, accidents like this will happen. When the industry is small, everyone knows each other and trusts each other. Once the industry starts to grow, people head into different directions, they pursue different goals and are motivated by different reasons.
When eSport was developing, everyone was on the board of "lets grow the industry!" and journalists and CEOs often would sit behind the same table and their interaction helped the industry get coverage and be exposed when needed. Once the industry matured, the idea of "lets grow the industry" did not go away, but it just added "we need to finally start making some profit out of this".
As the outcome from this incident, I see EG losing a portion of the traffic that they would generate from their release, which could have affected their relationship with their sponsors, but probably not so much, if anything at all. However who it did hurt the most? That would be Slasher, because before they considered him a friend, and he was often allowed into circles and contacts of information that otherwise wouldn't be allowed to an outsider. Today, he stands as an outsider for both EG and TL I assume, because his inconsiderate drive to pursue his own goals finally hurt other players in the industry.
|
On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:29 IdrA wrote:On January 17 2013 04:08 Integra wrote:On January 17 2013 03:59 IdrA wrote:
whats the foundation for "if esports cant handle journalism it doesnt deserve to exist"
everyone just keeps repeating it because it sounds good. there's no actual reason to believe that. what if the scene were a lot more precarious than it is and losing viewership that comes with losing exclusivity on an announcement actually cost us a sponsor? or what about the lesser teams totalbiscuit referenced who are wholly dependent on every single view any announcement they have gets? the fact that its a growing industry with unstable money flow that's dependent on certain specific things that the media can influence does not delegitimize it as an industry. Let's put it this way, what kind of community do we want? OR rather, what obligations and rights do we want our community to have. The above things you just stated are great things and totally true, There is a downside to what Slasher is doing, as there is to practically everything. However your example can also be applied to the real world. Journalism in general costs our society allot of money, allot of business related could go much faster and smoother if the journalistic world just kept their mouth shut, but what society would that give us, just look at China. Journalism has always operated under certain costs but most people, in the western world at least, feel that that cost is justified cause we believe in things like free speech and such. I for one would like to believe that we actually can have free journalism and that our community is strong enough to give journalists like slasher the ability to exercise this right and that their free speech actually benefits this community as a whole and that the temporary setbacks which may happen actually are worth it. the cost is justified because we need freedom of information to prevent wrongdoing or to let the public know when it's happening. but how many articles do you see about organizations not paying players on time, or at all? or about all the shady shit going on in korea? or any of the other shit that freedom of the press would actually be useful for. no, instead you have people posting headlines that will be public information within a matter of days a bit early so they can siphon off a portion of the viewership to justify their own jobs. spend that time reporting on things that need to be reported on, or at least spend it productively on the existing headlines instead of dragging others down with your lazyness. If there is a market, interest, demand, there will always be people who will be more than happy to satisfy it (for money)... people grave for sensation, big announcments etc.; that seems to be what people want and (often times shitty) journalists will provide... I'm just saying it seems to me some guys are complaining that journalists serve a target group on the market which they would prefer have exclusively for their own.... idk...
the larger point has been that slasher is riding a thin line between respected journalist and pandering to that audience that just wants to know whatever is happening a day early at the expense of quality and interesting stories. it's bad for the community for him to be providing the cheaper kind of information and it's going to cost him his ability to work as a quality journalist.
|
On January 17 2013 04:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:38 Kaitlin wrote:On January 17 2013 04:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:28 Kaitlin wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. EG effectively blows this possibility up when they make their patented announcement of announcements. NDA or no NDA, they've just told any other teams negotiating with a player, who recently found out that player signed with some other unidentified team, that they are that unidentified team that signed the player. well, if you're providing the community information from which it can be determined who you are bidding for, i dont think they would require a NDA in the first place. also, announcements of announcements are for the purpose of causing speculation and hype, and i dont think EG would be upset that people figure it out and sources (not subject to a NDA) reveal their information. the NDA, however, will protect EG until the announcement of announcement is made though. But this entire blow up is all about Slasher reporting after the announcement of the announcement, but before the actual announced announcement, is it not ? not really sure. its not like someone has specifically articulated what alex was addressing. he spoke in generalities. my main point was to address people saying that they cant control the information, and thus, its incumbent on slasher to moderate himself. i dont think thats accurate. people have confidential negotiations all the time. there are ways to control the information if you are savvy enough.
Yeah, I don't know about an NDA between teams negotiating with a given player, but it seems the only hope to keep losing bidder teams quiet would be for EG to ante up. But then, there's no guarantee other teams would agree.
An NDA between EG and the player which would restrict the player from telling anyone else that he's negotiating with EG would work up until EG makes an announcement that they've signed a high-profile player TBA in the wake of other teams having lost the negotiations with that player. If EG would just eliminate the pre-announcement they probably could manage to keep this stuff under wraps, as losing teams could only guess, but not know. Then EG could put their video packages together and reap the rewards. Giving these pre-announcements increases hype for the public, but it also provides information to their competitors, which could ultimately negatively effect the ultimate announcement.
|
On January 17 2013 04:45 dr.fahrenheit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:33 Brawny wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dr.fahrenheit wrote:On January 17 2013 04:04 Brawny wrote:On January 17 2013 04:02 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
wtf is this? the freedom of the press does not apply to esports? seriously? "don't write that, because it is hurting our company?" "don't write that because it hurts our beloved country" "don't write that because it hurts the believe in the god we all pray to?" "don't write that because it will hurt yourself too" how is this a discussion? really? if you don't like what he is writing don't read it, if he does a bad job writing than soon he will have no job anymore. problem solved; I can't believe that some butthurt people try to tell the press how to act or what to do just because they loose money (which is basically their own fault) Freedom of the press is a right in the god damn american constitution and it's not an "internet" or "international" right. This isn't a matter of censoring; it's a matter of "stop leaking everything or we'll just stop talking to you". This is almost as bad as how people try to defend shitposting with "freedom of speech". freedom of the press is not only a right in the god damn american constitution but also a really, really woldwide and well known and applied international concept (and indicator of liberty).... might wanna read up on that... Read up on imaginary internet rights, yep got it. Not to mention this isn't even an issue of censorship unless you want to be just like sensationalist tabloids.
You fully contradict yourself in this post. So what are you trying to say, Either its going to be leaked and theres nothing to do about it, or that people are wrong for posting leaked information to be the first instead of person B getting all the money from leaking it?
Sigh, I'm saying that it's up to the various media in esports to not be tabloid junkies reporting everything they hear regardless of consequences. haha freedom of the press is an "imaginary internet right"... you just outed yourself as an complete idiot
By trying to say that freedom of the press is something that is legally binding internationally. You're "an complete idiot".
|
On January 17 2013 04:48 Romitelli wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:38 Romitelli wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. To answer your NDA question, let's assume EG's signing of JD was a tripartite affair: EG, OZ and KESPA. If EG managed to convice OZ and KESPA to sign a NDA (which is not a sure deal, considering they were at a pre-contractual phase and EG had a lot of interest in signing Jaedong), this would force both organizations to take the necessary steps in order to prevent a leak from their side. However, the enforceability of a NDA is, at best, questionable when a lot of people are involved. Unless EG could muster irrefutable evidence that the leak came from someone at OZ or KESPA, no legal action could be effectively brought against them, rendering the NDA largely ineffective. After all, the leak could have always come from one of EG's own employees. Therefore, a NDA is only effective when the deal only involves a small number of people (generally high-officers) from each party, and/or there's a reliable way of tracking and controlling the exchange of information during the negotiations. that is completely inaccurate on a legal basis. and you also assume the only way to insure the success of a NDA is with a stick--try a carrot. I'd be interested to know how this is inaccurate on a legal basis since, well, this is my job after all.
so, your advice to clients is "if there are too many people, NDAs are worthless?"
|
On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:48 Romitelli wrote:On January 17 2013 04:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:38 Romitelli wrote:On January 17 2013 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 04:19 Imbu wrote:On January 17 2013 04:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
is it not possible to use NDAs in the contract negotiations? But it really isn't. Imagine that there were two teams that were interested in signing a player. What interest is there for the second team to not tell someone "Oh, we didn't manage to get player Y so that means he's going to team X". In larger industries, such as baseball, there are enough teams that will bid for a "star player". But in the current esports environment, there are so few teams that can bid for top players that everyone involved will inevitably know where a player will go. Without some type of higher level organization like KeSPA, this will always happen. if there was a NDA, the second team wouldn't know what other teams were bidding for the player. To answer your NDA question, let's assume EG's signing of JD was a tripartite affair: EG, OZ and KESPA. If EG managed to convice OZ and KESPA to sign a NDA (which is not a sure deal, considering they were at a pre-contractual phase and EG had a lot of interest in signing Ja edong), this would force both organizations to take the necessary steps in order to prevent a leak from their side. However, the enforceability of a NDA is, at best, questionable when a lot of people are involved. Unless EG could muster irrefutable evidence that the leak came from someone at OZ or KESPA, no legal action could be effectively brought against them, rendering the NDA largely ineffective. After all, the leak could have always come from one of EG's own employees. Therefore, a NDA is only effective when the deal only involves a small number of people (generally high-officers) from each party, and/or there's a reliable way of tracking and controlling the exchange of information during the negotiations. that is completely inaccurate on a legal basis. and you also assume the only way to insure the success of a NDA is with a stick--try a carrot. I'd be interested to know how this is inaccurate on a legal basis since, well, this is my job after all. so, your advice to clients is "if there are too many people, NDAs are worthless?"
I think his point is NDAs are worthless if you have more than 2 independent parties because it becomes impossible to definitively prove which party broke the NDA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
