|
my guess is EG will make a statement on weapon of choice today!!!
it sucks that i have to work tonight
anyway
EG FIGHTING!!! you guys rock!!
|
On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players?
Oo wat?
Players have contracts (with the big teams) since early beta. That's how it is, that's how it should be, obviously to prevent cases like this.
And frankly, I don't understand the m4dness and frustration. The only person who's anger is justified is the Coach, who invested his time and dedicated himself to a player who one day just packed his things and left.
But outside the courtesy of EG saying, a few days beforehand, "By the way, we're taking PuMa" - he wasn't really entitled to much else, considering the lack of a legal binding between them.
People need to chill.
|
On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players?
This is the fine line where balance must be found, and it's a very pressing question when looking at E-Sports from a business stand-point. Espeically from the Teams/Owners standpoint.
I think trust and cooperation is best for the purity of the sport. But the reality is, this will and can happen, so it's only a matter of time before Teams go about finding ways to securely handle these situations and nullify them. At that point, the ball goes into the players court.
Would enough players band together to stop the teams/owners from placing limits on their liberties? I certainly hope so, but my fear is the enormity of such a task is too daunting for people who just want to play SC2 competitively. Still, someone would need to protect the players, otherwise it would become unfair to them in ways we probably wouldn't even hear about.
It would severely change the face of E-Sports, but is this what the vision of E-Sports entailed? To make it as close to the models used by current sports associations? It's a very intriguing topic, and it's very hard for me to decide on which side is right. The potential for some very interesting dynamics. Free agency? Trading players? That would all be pretty insane to see applied to this situation. Imagine the debates running wild of say EG trading iDra for two lesser known prospects who would be willing to take less money combined than what iDra makes. What if EG believes these two players could help them more than 1 iDra? Do they trade for two potential phenoms, or stick with their proven gun? It'd bring a whole new layer of interest and concepts to the world of SC2.
But it would also make it less innocent and more structured. Taking away alot of the "innocence" that remains in something like E-Sports. Would it set a precedent going forward? How about those woW guilds that get sponsored, are they contracted to stay with their guilds? Would they start doing it, to insure guys dont shoot to another guild, or quit playing altogether?
E-Sports is still very much a baby. But it's not a stretch to say this could be a huge catalyst for a development that has yet to be fully realized by teams and players.
|
i don't know what the big deal is. Yes TSL shoud've had a written contract with Puma. So, EG could pay TSL for the transfer of PUma for serious money. I don't know who is funding EG, my guess is Blizzard or some big corporate honcho.
It's just a game, it's not like this game is taking away your bread money.
|
On July 22 2011 04:22 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:20 GreEny K wrote:On July 22 2011 04:18 shawster wrote:
so i'm in the middle of the shitstorm but i gotta ask something, i can't really form an opinion
so from what i've read so far, puma was approached by eg directly and this was questionable.
but why is giving a player a lucrative contract in any way stealing a player? why couldn't the korean team give him a offer that matches EG's offer? if TSL wasn't able to match it and puma went to EG that wouldn't be unethical or anything, it's just one team wanting a player more than another team.
unless the shitstorm is about how the management could've stopped puma from leaving and they weren't able to. maybe it's my western state of mind that tells me that if one team pays more the team should get it. You came in really late to this argument, this has already been discussed multiple times. People can't agree on if it is right or wrong to do something like that. oh so people are arguing over whether it's right for a player to go where the money is? or is it about how foreign teams shouldn't confront the player without talking to the team? still kinda lost
More about the second part. Xeris posted that EG was approached a bunch of players at NASL about joining EG, including Sen. The morality of what happened is going to be argued about for the end of time. This situation is controversial even in America (so it's not the norm in America for those who are assuming otherwise), for example I think Howard Stern spent about a week slamming Leno on his radio show when he hired away one of Stern's guys without talking to him first or at all during the processes.
Likewise, the first part is always going to be controversial. Just last year, when LeBron (who *was* a free agent) chose Miami over Cleveland a ton of people (outside Cleveland, who shouldn't have cared) raged day and night about him going for the money/better team.
|
On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA.
You mean KeSPA2 will only happen if the coaches convince GSL to make membership mandatory or do you really think all the pros would say "fuck GSL, I'm gonna make money with streaming and foreign tourneys"?
|
On July 22 2011 04:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? Wtf are you talking about? All of a sudden Sc2 is about honor and duty instead of playing the game, apparently the biggest reason we all enjoy Sc2, at least until now, was its naivete? What kind of garbage is this? Besides, this does not demonstrate the need for a KESPA type situation at all, it demonstrates that teams ought to pay more attention and perform due diligence when it comes to their relationships with players. Teams can be business savvy and protected from players steals without some huge governing body, it's called simply contract law.
this.
why is it that people are all of a sudden jumping to the huge extreme example of KESPA?
|
United States12607 Posts
On July 22 2011 04:26 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for the bolded statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players. Kespa has nothing to do with korean government wtf. KeSPA originally started the same way as SC2 kespa did fyi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_e-Sports_Players_Association
That article says that KeSPA was formed with the approval of the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and that the Ministry is KeSPA's "Parent Organization". That comports with my understanding of KeSPA. Am I and the article both incorrect? Or maybe "Parent Organization" means nothing and there actually is no affiliation between KeSPA and the government (it is listed as an "NGO").
I would love to get more information on this.
|
On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for the bolded statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players.
KeSPA and goverment say what ? WTF haha
You watched too much TV.
KeSPA is nothing more than just proffesional association that runs their "chosen sports" with some rules. It's called stability.
It's like that in everything. In Soccer, every country has its own National association of soccer to keep the league pro. NFL, NHL, NBA and other leagues have the same thing.
Now SC2 is running like it was run on my back yard, without any rules what so ever.
|
On July 22 2011 04:21 TedJustice wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:20 GreEny K wrote:On July 22 2011 04:18 shawster wrote:
so i'm in the middle of the shitstorm but i gotta ask something, i can't really form an opinion
so from what i've read so far, puma was approached by eg directly and this was questionable.
but why is giving a player a lucrative contract in any way stealing a player? why couldn't the korean team give him a offer that matches EG's offer? if TSL wasn't able to match it and puma went to EG that wouldn't be unethical or anything, it's just one team wanting a player more than another team.
unless the shitstorm is about how the management could've stopped puma from leaving and they weren't able to. maybe it's my western state of mind that tells me that if one team pays more the team should get it. You came in really late to this argument, this has already been discussed multiple times. People can't agree on if it is right or wrong to do something like that. Wasn't the problem that they didn't even give TSL a chance to convince puma to stay before making their offer?
Whether or not EG discussed it directly with TSL's management, Puma most likely told them what EG was offering and gave them a chance to match/provide a better alternative. It would be foolish of puma to sign EGs contract without giving TSL the chance to up the stakes.
|
On July 22 2011 04:26 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for the bolded statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players. Kespa has nothing to do with korean government wtf. KeSPA originally started the same way as SC2 kespa did fyi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_e-Sports_Players_Association
Parent organization: Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism
Maybe Parent organization means something different in korea tho
|
I'm not familiar with antitrust law in Korea (if it even exists)... in America you could definitely get blasted for that though. I'm genuinely curious to know how KeSPA exists.
|
I'm so tired of all this honor bullshit going on... People have to realize that the teams are running a business, this is business, business involves money. If one offer outweighs the other then chances are that the one who recieved the offer will take it, if no contract is present then it's TSLs own fault...
Puma ACCEPTED this offer, why aren't people flaming him for being so "dishonorable" for accepting such "shady" and "dishonorable" offers? Maybe people have, but if that's the case then you'll have to excuse me for not reading through 200 pages...
Isn't it better to let the decision be up to the PLAYER rather than the team? How is it fair that the COACH should decide wether or not Puma should leave their team and hop on to EG, what if Puma wouldn't even want to switch team and suddenly he's getting thrown out of TSL just because EG bought him?
I'd say that's worse than asking the player personally if he wants to come on your team... We're talking about HUMAN PEOPLE here, he might be good friends with the people on TSL, thus the decision should be up to Puma.
|
On July 22 2011 04:26 [Atomic]Peace wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for this statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players. There are two major differences between BW and SC2: (1) the players know how bad KeSPA worked out for them and they might resist it this time and (2) the players have two secondary markets with at least as much money (US and Europe). BW players got kind of screwed because you had to stay in Korea and put up with KeSPA in order to have a career. But in SC2 you can have a career in US and Europe.
KeSPA worked wonderfully to the players, in comparison to the current SC2 scene. The top BW salary is 10x more than of TSL, and that's from a 13 years old game. B-teamers don't make money on either game anyway.
|
On July 22 2011 04:29 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:26 Milkis wrote:On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for the bolded statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players. Kespa has nothing to do with korean government wtf. KeSPA originally started the same way as SC2 kespa did fyi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_e-Sports_Players_AssociationThat article says that KeSPA was formed with the approval of the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and that the Ministry is KeSPA's "Parent Organization". That comports with my understanding of KeSPA. Am I and the article both incorrect? I would love to get more information on this.
BECAUSE ITS PROFFESIONAL ORGANIZATION. It's like MLS you have in united states. It's proffesional league, it's a sport that needs approval. Nothing else.
|
On July 22 2011 04:29 JWD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:26 Milkis wrote:On July 22 2011 04:23 JWD wrote:On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:On July 22 2011 04:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I'm concerned about the effects this event is going to have. Some people seem to believe that this kind of thing is somehow positive for eSports and will help it grow because players will have more power to guarantee themselves better conditions. I disagree with this and believe that it may very well negatively affect the eSports scene.
Up until this point, the Starcraft 2 scene has largely been run on trust and cooperation. This is what has allowed for the relative lack of regulation within teams and across leagues. EG in this instance has essentially abused that trust and taken advantage of it by poaching a player at a foreign event. You can certainly fault TSL for lacking foresight and not mandating a contract, but this type of naivete is pretty much what many people praised about the SC2 scene. We like to bash KeSPA for its heavy regulations and control over players, but that's exactly what people faulting TSL are arguing should be the norm while at the same time not wanting such a regulatory body to come into fruition.
I'm afraid that a KeSPA-like organization or at least that type of atmosphere is going to be created in response to this, effectively forcing players into contracts and heavily regulating their freedoms in an effort for teams to ensure the protection of their investments. While what EG has done here isn't necessarily wrong, it can't be denied that they've effectively "changed the game" as far as the way teams and players interact goes and the statement that Manager Lee made about measures being put into place in order to prevent this from happening in the future is an immediate indicator of that. The sweet and innocent SC2 scene that we've known so far has all of a sudden become serious business with all of the atmosphere of distrust that comes with it.
It may make the scene more legitimate and closer to the real sports leagues that we see today, but I wonder if that's what we really want for SC2. After all, KeSPA was undeniably an effective organization whose methods, while somewhat ruthless, are tried and true in the business sense (EG would have never been able to pull this on one of their teams or players). Honestly though, when you consider this, don't we want teams to be a little bit more naive and trusting if only for the sake of the players? KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA. What's your basis for the bolded statement (I'm legitimately curious; not a knock)? I haven't ever heard that KeSPA was created or ever promulgated rules with the consent of the players. My understanding is that KeSPA is an organization founded and controlled by the Korean government and the team sponsors, not the players. Kespa has nothing to do with korean government wtf. KeSPA originally started the same way as SC2 kespa did fyi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_e-Sports_Players_AssociationThat article says that KeSPA was formed with the approval of the Korean Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and that the Ministry is KeSPA's "Parent Organization". That comports with my understanding of KeSPA. Am I and the article both incorrect? I would love to get more information on this. I'm pretty sure that Kespa is subsidized by the govt, there was a post that was concerned that korean esports would be cut in a govt budget cut a while back.
|
I personally consider the idea of approaching the team first, instead of the player, borderline disgusting. I know that this is the way many real sports operate, but why should that be taken as the ultimate ideal is beyond my understading.
The whole concept of "player trading" is sick. They are not things, they are bloody humans!
I am not saying "let the players do whatever they want". I am all for having solid legally binding contracts in the way "we give you this, you do this or pay", but that should be about it. When a team wants a player, it should be natural that they ask him, not some kind of an overlord. It would be then up to the player whether he departs the orignal team and pays a due penalty for not providing them services (playing) as agreed, or not.
I understand that many people here want "esports" to be like "normal sports", but why would you want that? All the "big" sports are tragically corrupt and the wishes of the players are the last things that concernes anyone, they are burried deep under interests of BIG$$$$$ corporations. You really want to imitate that?
It is very diificult to break these systems on traditional sports, because there is already too much money and power involved. But SC2 is now being built from scratch. That gives people a chance to make it different and better, for the players and then ultimately for the viewers. Imitating a system, which has been proven by decades of experience to be completely flawed, is absurd.
|
On July 22 2011 04:27 StatikKhaos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 04:25 PHC wrote:On July 22 2011 04:24 Sein wrote:
EG, what do you say to TSL's accusation that you lied? Where is your secondary damage control team for the damage control team? What bothers me the most are the tweets coming from EG's team manager: SirScoots SirScoots I see esports journalism continues its fine tradition of no fact checking! Bravo! Bravo! /me rolls eyes 11 hours ago @thedevilshorse @OrangeMilkis Actually, I was not talking about them either...everyone assumes to "know" everything these days.  11 hours ago @thirnaz umadbro? 9 hours ago @ZinZio what does laughing at your comment do then?  3 hours ago @ZinZio Then you should not be so quick to judge without hearing all the facts eh? Just a thought or take jabs and hate instead I guess. 3 hours ago Lol there we go with one sidedness, did you read what thimaz said? you can't just post one side of a conversation
Yes, I did.
thirnaz adam
@SirScoots you have yo be the biggest fucking joke of all time within esports; such a sad character you are.
10 hours ago
ZinZio Zach
@SirScoots Your response to @thirnaz just goes to show how professional EG has become..
3 hours ago
The fact that he's not addressing the issue and is replying to hateful comments with "umadbro?" with millions of SC fans around the world watching and hundreds of Korean progaming careers are affected because of his behavior....
|
On July 22 2011 04:22 [Atomic]Peace wrote:
KeSPA2 will only happen in the players themselves accept it. And I think they wont, given the treatment of players under KeSPA.
When teams start mandating contracts in order to join their team to protect their investment in their players, you're effectively forcing players to accept contracts to play the game professionally. Teams that don't control their players will simply put themselves at risk of having these players get poached by other teams so everyone's going to start doing it if only to prevent themselves from being made fools of like in this instance. The players themselves have little choice in the matter because it's the teams that hold the money, resources, and opportunities.
Do you think KeSPA grew up out of the ground overnight and started ruling their players with an iron fist from the start? It was a natural evolution of the type of business mindset that we're seeing here. While initially, players will be empowered by it, all of that change very quickly change once teams realize that they need to protect their own interests.
This is not to say that it WILL happen, but we're certainly starting down the path where this becomes a very real possibility if we don't tread lightly.
|
On July 22 2011 04:17 Teejing wrote:
Good for PUMA, all the power to the players ! We dont need Kespa-slavemasters !
Rofl. Ironically enough, this incident will cause contracts to occur, thanks to Puma's actions. Someone didn't read the OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
