|
Okay, EG decides to have a discussion on how journalism should be done. Great, and then the whole discussion is based on the view that journalism should be done in a particular way. Im sorry EG, but I see nothing that legitimates you defineing journalism. If u want Slasher to work in a certain way, maybe you should employ him? Then u can make demands.
I can see both EGs and Slashers point of view. But if the situation is in a certain way, then u should adapt to it and take responsability and dont lay the blame on others. Personally i would like the surpisemoment in announcements, and miss that part about the eSport scene. But if you can't keep the information within the team, then you shouldn't be pointing fingers to how others do their job.
I was a great fan of EG before but now I've lost some respect for them. It's not okay to blame others for your own shortcomings.
Maybe time to grow up? React, Adapt & Overcome.
|
On January 17 2013 04:54 Brawny wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:45 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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".
I'm not really sure, but just for the sake of it: let's asume you can read... so take you're time, read my posts and then show me where I said it was an "legally binding international right"? actually a never used the word "right" or "constitution" or "legally binding"; I could be wrong I think I used something like "concept" or "indicator" ? I don't know, you tell me after you're done reading
|
On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
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.
I know you spend a lot of time training, but certainly you've experienced breaking news on the internet or tv. It comes out in pieces, it's not complete, it's not eloquently written. It's often fast evolving. The reason for this is the need to get the information out NOW. Often updates and more in-depth details follow. Reporters have made careers based on stories they've broken. Reporters reputations for credibility have been built on stories they have broken, which have turned out to be true. These stories are often something that somebody wanted to be kept secret and they are often upset with the reporter for breaking that story.
The bolded part is childish, you're more intelligent than to make a statement like that. However, aren't you really saying "it's bad for EG for him to be breaking news before EG gets a chance to maximize profits from it and it's going to cost him his ability to work as EG's Chief Propaganda Officer" ?
Really, if you think quality journalism is sitting on a breaking news story until EG can profit from their announcement, then you deserve to be six polled. (sp intentional)
|
On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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.
I understand why what Slasher does is upsetting to EG, but "pandering to that audience that just wants to know whatever is happening a day early at the expense of quality and interesting stories" is what sports journalists do. That's why the Eagles hiring of Chip Kelly was put up on twitter by some sports writer this morning. That's why there have been a dozen different reports on if the Sacramento Kings are going to Seattle or not over the past week. Even if you guys shut down Slasher somehow, information is still going to get out, unaffiliated websites are going to hire reporters that will spoil announcements, and you're going to have this kind of cheaper information out on the market. There's nothing you can do about this, Slasher is the tip of the iceberg, and as the industry continues to grow this kind of journalism will continue to grow.
If I were a member of EG's marketing team I would respond to this the way most sports teams do. If journalists want to have the first shot at the announcement so be it. There's lots of other ways to get page views/hype; hold a live press conference type thing instead (even if it has to be over skype) where you have an exclusive interview with the player, release some limited time merchandise somehow tied to this player, or have some sort of streaming session with the new player where fans can play against the new player (or a "survive 20 minutes" game like you just did recently).
I don't really know finances well enough to determine if any of this would be effective, but it seems like it'd be much easier than trying to drop an iron curtain on esports journalism.
|
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 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?"
Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them.
|
On January 17 2013 05:00 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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.
which is stupid because NDAs arent just stick-based, you can offer a carrot instead that incentivizes people.
|
On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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.
I don't really get it. What do you guys expect from Slasher? All of a sudden he's a bad reporter doing cheap tricks just because what he's reporting on is hurting you guys?
Reporter gets his hands on information, reporter reports this information. Doesn't seem like a strange move to me at all. The fact that it's sensitive information doesn't seem like a good enough reason for him to keep things quiet when he is in fact paid to report anything that gathers him viewers.
If your business model relies on information being tight that cannot be kept tight then your business model seems kind of screwed.
If information makes its way to a reporter, you cannot expect the reporter to keep quiet. If you lose business because of that then I feel like the burden's on you to fix things and not simply demand that the reporter only continues reporting on issues that are to your liking.
|
On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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.
I totally agree, and when he is continuing to do a "bad" job then he will be out of one soon.
The only thing that I find problematic is, that this problem of pandering to a audience at the expense of quality journalism is pointed out by someone who basically profits from the same audience, and actually increases its graving for sensation by spectaculary staging big announcments... really difficult
|
On January 17 2013 05:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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 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?" Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them.
sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit.
|
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
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 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?"
Maybe I oversimplified my explanation a bit, let me try an example.
Let's say you run a company with little to no control over your employees (i.e. you don't save their keystrokes, don't control their corporate e-mail and so on). And let's say you sign a NDA with a company of similar profile. In this case, a NDA will be largely ineffective if it comes to a judicial dispute, since you'll have great difficulty in acquiring evidence in order to back your claims (even under full disclosure).
A NDA's effectiveness is also diminished when it's a multi-party agreement envolving several people from each party, for obvious reasons. Unless the claimant can get his hands on irrefutable evidence that the leak came from a specific party, the lawsuit's outcome will depend on the juri's assessment of circumstancial evidence, which is highly subjective and, as such, can lead to many different possible outcomes.
That doesn't mean NDAs are worthless, since, without one, confidential information and documentation could be leaked effortlessly. I'm just saying that it can be difficult to enforce one under some circumstances.
On January 17 2013 05:12 dAPhREAk wrote:
sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit.
Even if you choose a different mechanism of dispute resolution (arbitration, mediation, and so forth), you'll still have to back your claims with solid evidence, so the problems remain largely unchanged.
|
On January 17 2013 05:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 05:10 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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 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?" Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them. sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit.
How else would you enforce an NDA, unless you also employee the person who signed it?
|
On January 17 2013 05:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 05:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 05:10 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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 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?" Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them. sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit. How else would you enforce an NDA, unless you also employee the person who signed it?
draft the NDA to include incentive payments that are conditioned on no leaks. leak = no payment.
|
I think it was one of IdrA's earlier posts that mentioned Slasher's reporting came just a couple days before EG's official announcement was planned ? If this is the case, then I might lean toward suspecting the leak didn't come from within EG, but from an adversary. An adversary who sat on the information while EG and their sponsors soaked time, money, and effort into developing everything for this announcement, which would be ruined at the last moment. To leak it earlier could have saved EG from incurring such expenses. I don't think it's reasonable to suspect Slasher sat on the information for long, so that means whoever leaked to Slasher held it for greatest effect. Just a thought.
|
Slasher is doing pretty bad. They should really do NDAs and then sue Slasher when he breaks them.
This is why people have NDAs and lawyers~
|
On January 17 2013 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 05:20 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 05:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 05:10 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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:
[quote]
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?" Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them. sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit. How else would you enforce an NDA, unless you also employee the person who signed it? draft the NDA to include incentive payments that are conditioned on no leaks. leak = no payment.
Thats not really enforcing the NDA, it is just agreeing to pay people if there are no leaks. When people say they are worthless, they mean that they are not practical to enforce legally, which is the true value of the terms of a contract.
Also, what if there is a leak and its not the player's fault, do you still have to pay them?
|
Does EG really expect the “viewers” to side with the meat packing industry and demonize Upton Sinclair? I have news for you Alex Garfield, welcome to “the jungle.”
|
On January 17 2013 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 05:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 05:20 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 05:12 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 17 2013 05:10 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2013 04:57 dAPhREAk wrote: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:
[quote]
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?" Yes, because they are. Or more importantly, the cost of enforcing one is normally higher than most companies are willing to pay to enforce it. Civil proceedings cost a lot of money and providing the exact amount of damage done by a breach of a NDA would be very time consuming. Attorney's cost money and most people don't want to pay for them. sigh. you can draft a NDA anyway you want. you dont have to make the enforcement mechanism be a lawsuit. How else would you enforce an NDA, unless you also employee the person who signed it? draft the NDA to include incentive payments that are conditioned on no leaks. leak = no payment. Thats not really enforcing the NDA, it is just agreeing to pay people if there are no leaks. When people say they are worthless, they mean that they are not practical to enforce legally, which is the true value of the terms of a contract. Also, what if there is a leak and its not the player's fault, do you still have to pay them?
it insures the contract terms are performed.
|
On January 17 2013 05:11 Linkirvana wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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. I don't really get it. What do you guys expect from Slasher? All of a sudden he's a bad reporter doing cheap tricks just because what he's reporting on is hurting you guys? Reporter gets his hands on information, reporter reports this information. Doesn't seem like a strange move to me at all. The fact that it's sensitive information doesn't seem like a good enough reason for him to keep things quiet when he is in fact paid to report anything that gathers him viewers. If your business model relies on information being tight that cannot be kept tight then your business model seems kind of screwed. If information makes its way to a reporter, you cannot expect the reporter to keep quiet. If you lose business because of that then I feel like the burden's on you to fix things and not simply demand that the reporter only continues reporting on issues that are to your liking.
There is a different impact that reporting in a major, non-sponsorship based industry has than one that works within the confines of sponsorships. Reporters and journalists working in tech industries or major sports leak things all the time but the company that has its information leaked doesn't care because it is building hype for their team or their product. In esports, the teams are the ones building the hype for their sponsors so they can get paid as advertising machines rather than for the sake of being a sports team. By leaking information that was suppose to be hyped up by the team, you are in effect damaging the relationship between the sponsors and teams because you dampen the effect the team will have on generating page views for sponsors. Slasher did exactly this and EG suffered because of it. He should know better than that.
|
I feel that Slasher, is not doing this for the good of the industry or that he is doing it for the people. As a result of these teams being run pretty much off revenue. He is ruining a lot of revenue and in a sense "stealing" money from the teams. But yes I do agree he is doing his job, just not "morally right" journalism. But the one thing is every time he is confronted about this issue, he usually just tries to change point, and tries not to actually answer the question.
|
On January 17 2013 05:36 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2013 05:11 Linkirvana wrote:On January 17 2013 04:53 IdrA wrote:On January 17 2013 04:42 dr.fahrenheit wrote: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. I don't really get it. What do you guys expect from Slasher? All of a sudden he's a bad reporter doing cheap tricks just because what he's reporting on is hurting you guys? Reporter gets his hands on information, reporter reports this information. Doesn't seem like a strange move to me at all. The fact that it's sensitive information doesn't seem like a good enough reason for him to keep things quiet when he is in fact paid to report anything that gathers him viewers. If your business model relies on information being tight that cannot be kept tight then your business model seems kind of screwed. If information makes its way to a reporter, you cannot expect the reporter to keep quiet. If you lose business because of that then I feel like the burden's on you to fix things and not simply demand that the reporter only continues reporting on issues that are to your liking. There is a different impact that reporting in a major, non-sponsorship based industry has than one that works within the confines of sponsorships. Reporters and journalists working in tech industries or major sports leak things all the time but the company that has its information leaked doesn't care because it is building hype for their team or their product. In esports, the teams are the ones building the hype for their sponsors so they can get paid as advertising machines rather than for the sake of being a sports team. By leaking information that was suppose to be hyped up by the team, you are in effect damaging the relationship between the sponsors and teams because you dampen the effect the team will have on generating page views for sponsors. Slasher did exactly this and EG suffered because of it. He should know better than that.
Reporters don't leak. Reporters report.
Who leaked the information to Slasher ? That is who you should be crying out against. Either that, or at EG for leading their sponsors to believe that the information was secret, when it clearly was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
