|
On July 23 2011 06:35 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 06:13 nuMi22 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. But now it is an issue, despite the offer and departure being perfectly legal and within the player-organization boundaries. Getting contracts is not necessarily a good thing when it's not being done for the sake of the players, and it is not being done so that Nestea and MC can have options. The Korean teams and their sponsors want to protect their investments from the "Western model of business" instead of creating a free market where the players get significant power to choose their own teams. It's very likely that the contracts will restrict player opportunities more than help them. Why are you assuming contracts can't work? I don't think you fully understand the concept of a contract. It doesn't bind a player to a team forever. You can be bought out of a contract by another team, or if the player wants to go somewhere else he can ask for a transfer and then the contract can be bought out. Signing a contract isn't the be all and end all unless that's the nature of the contract. Esports needs to work like a normal sport in the same way. Without contracts, everyone will just take players all the time and there will be absolute carnage, a free for all. I don't think you fully understand the point of a contract. The limitations of a contract are dictated by the interests of the parties involved in it, and right now there is no governing body that decides what is an appropriate/inappropriate contract in the Korean SC2 scene. In fact, that is what's happening right now. So no, I'm not assuming contracts won't work. I'm expecting that if contracts are standardized, they will be done to restrict Korean talent to the Korean scene. There isn't enough money in the Korean SC2 scene to support a free agent market or bidding wars between Korean teams. Except getting payed contract fees for giving out players to foreign teams brings money to the korean scene, which in returns helps everything grow (assuming the foreign team manages to makes profit and expand following this contract).
So now its ok for Korea to use their players more or less as pawns to increase their revenues to get their less than desirable SC2 scene off the ground? While the international scene is doing just fine outside of Korea? That's better than EG signing someone and giving them the chance of a lifetime to see the world and play in a non restrictive environment? While being on a guaranteed contract?
Hm
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 23 2011 06:35 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 06:13 nuMi22 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. But now it is an issue, despite the offer and departure being perfectly legal and within the player-organization boundaries. Getting contracts is not necessarily a good thing when it's not being done for the sake of the players, and it is not being done so that Nestea and MC can have options. The Korean teams and their sponsors want to protect their investments from the "Western model of business" instead of creating a free market where the players get significant power to choose their own teams. It's very likely that the contracts will restrict player opportunities more than help them. Why are you assuming contracts can't work? I don't think you fully understand the concept of a contract. It doesn't bind a player to a team forever. You can be bought out of a contract by another team, or if the player wants to go somewhere else he can ask for a transfer and then the contract can be bought out. Signing a contract isn't the be all and end all unless that's the nature of the contract. Esports needs to work like a normal sport in the same way. Without contracts, everyone will just take players all the time and there will be absolute carnage, a free for all. I don't think you fully understand the point of a contract. The limitations of a contract are dictated by the interests of the parties involved in it, and right now there is no governing body that decides what is an appropriate/inappropriate contract in the Korean SC2 scene. In fact, that is what's happening right now. So no, I'm not assuming contracts won't work. I'm expecting that if contracts are standardized, they will be done to restrict Korean talent to the Korean scene. There isn't enough money in the Korean SC2 scene to support a free agent market or bidding wars between Korean teams. Except getting payed contract fees for giving out players to foreign teams brings money to the korean scene, which in returns helps everything grow (assuming the foreign team manages to makes profit and expand following this contract).
And how exactly are contract fees going to make SC2 more popular in Korea, which is the primary concern for drawing in sponsors and money? Please enlighten me on the complex causal relations that lead from one to the other.
|
On July 23 2011 06:33 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:20 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:19 Telcontar wrote:On July 23 2011 06:14 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:00 Milkis wrote:On July 23 2011 05:42 Longshank wrote:On July 23 2011 04:37 DueSs wrote:On July 23 2011 04:27 CeriseCherries wrote:On July 23 2011 04:19 DueSs wrote:On July 23 2011 04:15 SeigO wrote:
No ones talking about the translation. Milkis interactions throughout the whole thing ie: his posts in the thread and his tweets made me think he was a TSL affiliate or someone personally involved rather than someone relaying a message.
Why does someone who gives HIMSELF the responsibility of translating a language from Korean to English have to be mum on the topic he translated? Who gave him this title of journalist besides Alex? Why can't Milkies interact with a word to word translation he had the skill to translate? Why can't Milkies interact and take a side? Milkies isn't nothing more than a translator. He works for no one. He holds responsibility to NO ONE BUT HIMSELF. The problem is that there is a duality here for Milkis. I agree, he is just a translator- but by tweeting provactively, he is taking a side and defending an interest; his own interest, but one that happens to side with one of the two parties in his neutrally translated article. So what happened as a result of his tweets is that by proxy, his article feels charged. The problem is that Milkis cannot represent simultaneously himself and a neutral party, and that is what may be getting people up in arms. If he wants to remain neutral, he must carefully word his statements. Otherwise, people will see bias in everything he writes- its just perception. So yes, in a perfect world Milkis should be able to report neutrally and tweet his opinons, but in this one, having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting. Literally baffled at this. STILL you portray Milkies as a journalist that has to be held accountable to someone besides himself. You say: "Milkies should be able to report neutrally"..... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?"having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting."... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?You can't have an IQ above that of a toaster and not know that you CAN'T BIAS A TRANSLATION. omg. While I completely support Milkis in this, you're terribly wrong. You can bias a translation a great deal. Due to his heavy pro-kespa stance I've taken what he's been reporting from the Blizzard vs Kespa affair with a grain of salt. With a selective use of words you can spinn the message quite a bit without directly be lying or making stuff up. I would like you to name one case where I "selectively used words" to spin the message. Please. Go through all of my Blizzard vs KeSPA translations and go through them and find one time I did this i doubt he meant you did bias your TLs. I think he meant that in his opinion, it is quite possible to bias a TL, which i completely agree with. I don't think your translations are in question here. You seem to stress out quickly :\ EDIT: I doubt he could find you selectively use words, he most likely can't read korean. How the fuck you do not expect someone to get stressed after being called out on air by the owner of a big ESPORTS company and then being constantly bombarded with similar sentiments from people who just don't get it? Don't try to make Milkis out to be some oversensitive guy here. He's had to deal with a lot of bs in a short period of time. Get off your high horse. I was talking about the way he responded to the post here. I did not use harsh words, was not aggressive. people are way too angry over this whole thing. AG didnt use harsh words and was not aggresive either, He used passive loaded statements to try and discredit milkis all the while saying he wasnt doing those exact things. Sounds kind of like you a little bit.
You can choose to not trust me on it. That's your choice, but i stand by what i said. I did not use loaded statements either, so why would you even feel the need to makes this an argument instead of a discussion.
On another note, Garfield talking about journalistic integrity is not something, according to what he said, that he just said yesterday for the first time, and is his opinion. While not actually targetting Milkis, he asked it to Milkis because he was the only other guest on the show. Should he have asked for someone to come on the show and ask him the question?
|
EG doesnt need to win anyone back. They dont need to write an apology letter to anyone. THEY WILL because they can and it would only help them if they did. But make no mistake, it really doesn't matter whether they do or not.
They can live with the haters because they still bring viewership, stir drama, hyped matches. That's the nature of business, sometimes it doesn't really matter if the market hates you or loves you, as long as there's one extreme business will thrive. Especially in the business of entertainment.
Just look at this thread.
|
On July 23 2011 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:35 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 06:13 nuMi22 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. But now it is an issue, despite the offer and departure being perfectly legal and within the player-organization boundaries. Getting contracts is not necessarily a good thing when it's not being done for the sake of the players, and it is not being done so that Nestea and MC can have options. The Korean teams and their sponsors want to protect their investments from the "Western model of business" instead of creating a free market where the players get significant power to choose their own teams. It's very likely that the contracts will restrict player opportunities more than help them. Why are you assuming contracts can't work? I don't think you fully understand the concept of a contract. It doesn't bind a player to a team forever. You can be bought out of a contract by another team, or if the player wants to go somewhere else he can ask for a transfer and then the contract can be bought out. Signing a contract isn't the be all and end all unless that's the nature of the contract. Esports needs to work like a normal sport in the same way. Without contracts, everyone will just take players all the time and there will be absolute carnage, a free for all. I don't think you fully understand the point of a contract. The limitations of a contract are dictated by the interests of the parties involved in it, and right now there is no governing body that decides what is an appropriate/inappropriate contract in the Korean SC2 scene. In fact, that is what's happening right now. So no, I'm not assuming contracts won't work. I'm expecting that if contracts are standardized, they will be done to restrict Korean talent to the Korean scene. There isn't enough money in the Korean SC2 scene to support a free agent market or bidding wars between Korean teams. Except getting payed contract fees for giving out players to foreign teams brings money to the korean scene, which in returns helps everything grow (assuming the foreign team manages to makes profit and expand following this contract). And how exactly are contract fees going to make SC2 more popular in Korea, which is the primary concern for drawing in sponsors and money?
I was talking about the korean teams having no money, according to most people in Korea, and maybe not having the correct infrastructure to work towards a satisfactory growth for them.
|
On July 23 2011 06:43 Angelbelow wrote:
EG doesnt need to win anyone back. They dont need to write an apology letter to anyone. THEY WILL because they can and it would only help them if they did. But make no mistake, it really doesn't matter whether they do or not.
They can live with the haters because they still bring viewership, stir drama, hyped matches. That's the nature of business, sometimes it doesn't really matter if the market hates you or loves you, as long as there's one extreme business will thrive. Especially in the business of entertainment.
Just look at this thread.
Want an analogy? Dana White in UFC. A lot of dectractors, but heck if MMA would have gotten where it is today.
|
United States8 Posts
Since so many people are making business cultural comments, I'd just like to comment that South Korea has been on a "western" business model since, like, the 1970's, and Asian markets are some of the most cutthroat anywhere. "Honor" and "respect" can sometimes translate into "power privilege" and "abuse," so it's not as if this is some culture war between the east and the west. Speaking in those terms, the west won that war a long time ago (which is not to say that Korea doesn't have a distinct culture of its own).
|
Biased writing is less of an issue when you can separate opinion from facts. News is news and the messenger/relayer will generally inevitably have some views/opinions of their own incorporated in be it the adjectives and what not. Just concentrate on the facts and form your own opinion.
There will always be developments and many other sides to the story, and its up to the reader to ask or go find out.
PS. This is not a news site with professional journalists, its more like wikipedia. The reader should not assume everything is factually correct. The moderators do what they can but its not perfect.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 23 2011 06:43 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:39 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 06:35 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:32 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 06:13 nuMi22 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:06 CosmicSpiral wrote:On July 23 2011 05:48 nuMi22 wrote: Do you really believe relations between the Korean and international scene are going to improve because of this, or that Korean teams won't be even more wary of sending their players to international events (especially after the arguments that this is the "Western business model", and Korea better get used to it)?
The relations should never have been an issue because there is NO issue over how EG handled the situation with Puma. Yes the Koreans better get used to it, TSL is contracting their players now so they're already doing it. They wouldn't have done it if the foreign scene wasn't an influence. But now it is an issue, despite the offer and departure being perfectly legal and within the player-organization boundaries. Getting contracts is not necessarily a good thing when it's not being done for the sake of the players, and it is not being done so that Nestea and MC can have options. The Korean teams and their sponsors want to protect their investments from the "Western model of business" instead of creating a free market where the players get significant power to choose their own teams. It's very likely that the contracts will restrict player opportunities more than help them. Why are you assuming contracts can't work? I don't think you fully understand the concept of a contract. It doesn't bind a player to a team forever. You can be bought out of a contract by another team, or if the player wants to go somewhere else he can ask for a transfer and then the contract can be bought out. Signing a contract isn't the be all and end all unless that's the nature of the contract. Esports needs to work like a normal sport in the same way. Without contracts, everyone will just take players all the time and there will be absolute carnage, a free for all. I don't think you fully understand the point of a contract. The limitations of a contract are dictated by the interests of the parties involved in it, and right now there is no governing body that decides what is an appropriate/inappropriate contract in the Korean SC2 scene. In fact, that is what's happening right now. So no, I'm not assuming contracts won't work. I'm expecting that if contracts are standardized, they will be done to restrict Korean talent to the Korean scene. There isn't enough money in the Korean SC2 scene to support a free agent market or bidding wars between Korean teams. Except getting payed contract fees for giving out players to foreign teams brings money to the korean scene, which in returns helps everything grow (assuming the foreign team manages to makes profit and expand following this contract). And how exactly are contract fees going to make SC2 more popular in Korea, which is the primary concern for drawing in sponsors and money? I was talking about the korean teams having no money, according to most people in Korea, and maybe not having the correct infrastructure to work towards a satisfactory growth for them.
Korean teams have money. They have less money than international teams because international SC2 is far more popular among its respective community. Korean SC2 has to deal with Brood War, and its target audience is very entrenched with the latter.
Actually, that was what I was talking about. I don't know what you're talking about or how it could even work. Explain it to me.
|
On July 23 2011 06:21 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:08 LegendaryZ wrote:On July 23 2011 05:58 nuMi22 wrote:
I explained why there needs to be contracts in my initial post a few pages back. You can't expect Esports to take off without them, it's just not possible. I agree that there eventually needs to be contracts, but they have to happen when the scene can support them. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of one-sided contracts that put control over the players while guaranteeing them nothing in return besides what they would have already gotten without contracts. It's going to end up being KeSPA all over again at this rate. On July 23 2011 05:57 Grimsong wrote:
All the more reason for players to not sign a single damn thing in Korea because the mindset out there is broken. If they were able to slide from under that pressure and realize they drive that market, not the teams, then they could flip it back on the Korean teams that are trying to give people potato sacks as payment for their professional gaming services. The players NEED to protect themselves until there is some type of mediation between the players, and the teams. Not signing a contract = No food, no place to live, no practice environment. Where does that leave the players? Conversely, for the teams, for every player not willing to sign a contract there are probably a hundred that are. This is all not even considering the fact that SC2 Korean teams are very different from BW teams from an administrative standpoint. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much run by the players themselves. They haven't yet reached the type of divide between labor and management where such a dispute would make sense to occur. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much in the rural stages because Korea doesnt have the economic support that BW did. So they're trying to hold onto these players despite not having that "model" BW environment. Not going to fly. If the players sign contracts now, I certainly hope they are VERY short term. As in MAXIMUM one year. Because once it gets out how worthless these contracts are that BIND the Korean players to play in the very secluded Korean market, the global market will be clamoring to get some of those guys in much more lucrative, expansive, and viable contract situations. I understand that Korea is now going to probably start mandating their players to sign contracts. That's fine. That's their perogative, and it's really unfortunate for the players there to have to be subjected to that setting no matter what. Until Korea hops on board with globalizing their guys, this will always be a problem, and it will always be "ours vs theirs" for Korea. Instead of helping the reset of the world grow, they want the rest of the world to implode into them if they want to play with the Korean talent. Hopefully things can happen elsewhere that can help dodge a Kespa 2.0 situation that more or less seals Koreas fate.
Do you honestly think a "global market" would be a good thing in this particular situation? It is universally agreed that the Korean training regime and team structure produces players superior to their Western counterparts. Do you think a good way of globalizing SC2 would be for Western organizations to sign the most successful Korean players?
I can see one of two things happening within the Korean scene in response to this development. Either SK will go the "Brazil" way, force relatively long-term contracts on players, handle transfers between Korean teams through some form of arbitrage, and force the Western teams to pay a huge amount of money for any successful player they want. This is essentially the "Kespa2" option. Or, an agreement like this will not be reached for whatever reason, and the scene will collapse after being drained of top talent.
Now, the former of these options might not seem completely terrible. However, consider that whatever money teams are spending on buying out Korean players will be money they aren't spending on developing their own infrastructure and local talent. It would really be a bad relationship between the scenes. It sort of works in football, except Brazil is nowhere near as far ahead of other countries as SK is in SC2 currently; also, Brazil's dominance stems from the genuine popularity of football over there, as opposed to SK's ability to produce good SC2 players, which is completely based on infrastructure and know-how.
|
On July 23 2011 06:44 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:43 Angelbelow wrote:
EG doesnt need to win anyone back. They dont need to write an apology letter to anyone. THEY WILL because they can and it would only help them if they did. But make no mistake, it really doesn't matter whether they do or not.
They can live with the haters because they still bring viewership, stir drama, hyped matches. That's the nature of business, sometimes it doesn't really matter if the market hates you or loves you, as long as there's one extreme business will thrive. Especially in the business of entertainment.
Just look at this thread. Want an analogy? Dana White in UFC. A lot of dectractors, but heck if MMA would have gotten where it is today.
I have plenty of analogies and examples in my head. The one you chose is a smart one. I personally hated Dana white for a long time because I was a PrideFC fan. Now I just see him as a successful business man with a loud mouth, something that I can certainly respect.
|
On July 23 2011 06:46 SecretDoves wrote:
Since so many people are making business cultural comments, I'd just like to comment that South Korea has been on a "western" business model since, like, the 1970's, and Asian markets are some of the most cutthroat anywhere. "Honor" and "respect" can sometimes translate into "power privilege" and "abuse," so it's not as if this is some culture war between the east and the west. Speaking in those terms, the west won that war a long time ago (which is not to say that Korea doesn't have a distinct culture of its own).
Thank you for this!  Good info IMO.
|
On July 23 2011 06:49 Angelbelow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:44 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:43 Angelbelow wrote:
EG doesnt need to win anyone back. They dont need to write an apology letter to anyone. THEY WILL because they can and it would only help them if they did. But make no mistake, it really doesn't matter whether they do or not.
They can live with the haters because they still bring viewership, stir drama, hyped matches. That's the nature of business, sometimes it doesn't really matter if the market hates you or loves you, as long as there's one extreme business will thrive. Especially in the business of entertainment.
Just look at this thread. Want an analogy? Dana White in UFC. A lot of dectractors, but heck if MMA would have gotten where it is today. I have plenty of analogies and examples in my head. The one you chose is a smart one. I personally hated Dana white for a long time because I was a PrideFC fan. Now I just see him as a successful business man with a loud mouth, something that I can certainly respect.
Though, on the topic of garfield, he might have lied or taken questionable decisions in the past and had bad PR, I don't understand why that would mean he is ill intentioned right now.
|
wonder what EG could actually offer PuMa as a legit salary...the world will never know
|
On July 23 2011 06:49 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:21 Grimsong wrote:On July 23 2011 06:08 LegendaryZ wrote:On July 23 2011 05:58 nuMi22 wrote:
I explained why there needs to be contracts in my initial post a few pages back. You can't expect Esports to take off without them, it's just not possible. I agree that there eventually needs to be contracts, but they have to happen when the scene can support them. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of one-sided contracts that put control over the players while guaranteeing them nothing in return besides what they would have already gotten without contracts. It's going to end up being KeSPA all over again at this rate. On July 23 2011 05:57 Grimsong wrote:
All the more reason for players to not sign a single damn thing in Korea because the mindset out there is broken. If they were able to slide from under that pressure and realize they drive that market, not the teams, then they could flip it back on the Korean teams that are trying to give people potato sacks as payment for their professional gaming services. The players NEED to protect themselves until there is some type of mediation between the players, and the teams. Not signing a contract = No food, no place to live, no practice environment. Where does that leave the players? Conversely, for the teams, for every player not willing to sign a contract there are probably a hundred that are. This is all not even considering the fact that SC2 Korean teams are very different from BW teams from an administrative standpoint. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much run by the players themselves. They haven't yet reached the type of divide between labor and management where such a dispute would make sense to occur. Korean SC2 teams ARE pretty much in the rural stages because Korea doesnt have the economic support that BW did. So they're trying to hold onto these players despite not having that "model" BW environment. Not going to fly. If the players sign contracts now, I certainly hope they are VERY short term. As in MAXIMUM one year. Because once it gets out how worthless these contracts are that BIND the Korean players to play in the very secluded Korean market, the global market will be clamoring to get some of those guys in much more lucrative, expansive, and viable contract situations. I understand that Korea is now going to probably start mandating their players to sign contracts. That's fine. That's their perogative, and it's really unfortunate for the players there to have to be subjected to that setting no matter what. Until Korea hops on board with globalizing their guys, this will always be a problem, and it will always be "ours vs theirs" for Korea. Instead of helping the reset of the world grow, they want the rest of the world to implode into them if they want to play with the Korean talent. Hopefully things can happen elsewhere that can help dodge a Kespa 2.0 situation that more or less seals Koreas fate. Do you honestly think a "global market" would be a good thing in this particular situation? It is universally agreed that the Korean training regime and team structure produces players superior to their Western counterparts. Do you think a good way of globalizing SC2 would be for Western organizations to sign the most successful Korean players? I can see one of two things happening within the Korean scene in response to this development. Either SK will go the "Brazil" way, force relatively long-term contracts on players, handle transfers between Korean teams through some form of arbitrage, and force the Western teams to pay a huge amount of money for any successful player they want. This is essentially the "Kespa2" option. Or, an agreement like this will not be reached for whatever reason, and the scene will collapse after being drained of top talent. Now, the former of these options might not seem completely terrible. However, consider that whatever money teams are spending on buying out Korean players will be money they aren't spending on developing their own infrastructure and local talent. It would really be a bad relationship between the scenes. It sort of works in football, except Brazil is nowhere near as far ahead of other countries as SK is in SC2 currently; also, Brazil's dominance stems from the genuine popularity of football over there, as opposed to SK's ability to produce good SC2 players, which is completely based on infrastructure and know-how.
For Korea? It's not whats best at all. I can understand why Korea has the red alert alarms going and probably have begun taking measure to protect their prized players so that they never leave Korea. But do you think that's whats fair and right to the players? To be secluded solely to a market that will likely never thrive to the extent that BW did there, considering how much momentum has already been attained from the rest of the world?
I think a good way to globalize this is not for the West to sign all of the Korean players, but for Korea to be a bigger player outside of Korea. But they arent. Why? A) Because they never did so in BW so why start now? B) Because they dont have the economical resources to do a great deal outside of Korea, because SC2 isnt driving any market there. It's a floating scene that needs to change for it to reach its peak.
Whats best for the global scene? What's best for fans who want to see the best of the best fight? You think Korea hiding away is whats best for the world?
|
On July 23 2011 06:41 TheStonerer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:33 Executor1 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:20 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:19 Telcontar wrote:On July 23 2011 06:14 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:00 Milkis wrote:On July 23 2011 05:42 Longshank wrote:On July 23 2011 04:37 DueSs wrote:On July 23 2011 04:27 CeriseCherries wrote:On July 23 2011 04:19 DueSs wrote:
[quote]
Why does someone who gives HIMSELF the responsibility of translating a language from Korean to English have to be mum on the topic he translated?
Who gave him this title of journalist besides Alex?
Why can't Milkies interact with a word to word translation he had the skill to translate?
Why can't Milkies interact and take a side?
Milkies isn't nothing more than a translator. He works for no one. He holds responsibility to NO ONE BUT HIMSELF.
The problem is that there is a duality here for Milkis. I agree, he is just a translator- but by tweeting provactively, he is taking a side and defending an interest; his own interest, but one that happens to side with one of the two parties in his neutrally translated article. So what happened as a result of his tweets is that by proxy, his article feels charged. The problem is that Milkis cannot represent simultaneously himself and a neutral party, and that is what may be getting people up in arms. If he wants to remain neutral, he must carefully word his statements. Otherwise, people will see bias in everything he writes- its just perception. So yes, in a perfect world Milkis should be able to report neutrally and tweet his opinons, but in this one, having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting. Literally baffled at this. STILL you portray Milkies as a journalist that has to be held accountable to someone besides himself. You say: "Milkies should be able to report neutrally"..... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?"having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting."... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?You can't have an IQ above that of a toaster and not know that you CAN'T BIAS A TRANSLATION. omg. While I completely support Milkis in this, you're terribly wrong. You can bias a translation a great deal. Due to his heavy pro-kespa stance I've taken what he's been reporting from the Blizzard vs Kespa affair with a grain of salt. With a selective use of words you can spinn the message quite a bit without directly be lying or making stuff up. I would like you to name one case where I "selectively used words" to spin the message. Please. Go through all of my Blizzard vs KeSPA translations and go through them and find one time I did this i doubt he meant you did bias your TLs. I think he meant that in his opinion, it is quite possible to bias a TL, which i completely agree with. I don't think your translations are in question here. You seem to stress out quickly :\ EDIT: I doubt he could find you selectively use words, he most likely can't read korean. How the fuck you do not expect someone to get stressed after being called out on air by the owner of a big ESPORTS company and then being constantly bombarded with similar sentiments from people who just don't get it? Don't try to make Milkis out to be some oversensitive guy here. He's had to deal with a lot of bs in a short period of time. Get off your high horse. I was talking about the way he responded to the post here. I did not use harsh words, was not aggressive. people are way too angry over this whole thing. AG didnt use harsh words and was not aggresive either, He used passive loaded statements to try and discredit milkis all the while saying he wasnt doing those exact things. Sounds kind of like you a little bit. You can choose to not trust me on it. That's your choice, but i stand by what i said. I did not use loaded statements either, so why would you even feel the need to makes this an argument instead of a discussion. On another note, Garfield talking about journalistic integrity is not something, according to what he said, that he just said yesterday for the first time, and is his opinion. While not actually targetting Milkis, he asked it to Milkis because he was the only other guest on the show. Should he have asked for someone to come on the show and ask him the question?
No, he shouldn't have asked about it at all. It was not the topic of the discussion, it was too late to actually start a meaningfull discussion, I believe it kept going even after DJWheat stated he wouldn't do that discussion on the show for the first time. If you have a problem with the way TL runs it's news, you talk to Nazgul, you make a thread in Website Feedback, there are plenty of way to do it that are much better than what he did. Hell, the fact the discussion was interrupted just shows that it was not the time or place to do it. If it was actually such a meaningful problem in this event, he would have stated it earlier, or at least warned DJWheat that he was going to do it.
This is really not a simple matter and harrassing a translator with loaded questions is not the way to go about it.
|
On July 23 2011 07:07 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 06:41 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:33 Executor1 wrote:On July 23 2011 06:20 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:19 Telcontar wrote:On July 23 2011 06:14 TheStonerer wrote:On July 23 2011 06:00 Milkis wrote:On July 23 2011 05:42 Longshank wrote:On July 23 2011 04:37 DueSs wrote:On July 23 2011 04:27 CeriseCherries wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that there is a duality here for Milkis. I agree, he is just a translator- but by tweeting provactively, he is taking a side and defending an interest; his own interest, but one that happens to side with one of the two parties in his neutrally translated article.
So what happened as a result of his tweets is that by proxy, his article feels charged. The problem is that Milkis cannot represent simultaneously himself and a neutral party, and that is what may be getting people up in arms. If he wants to remain neutral, he must carefully word his statements. Otherwise, people will see bias in everything he writes- its just perception.
So yes, in a perfect world Milkis should be able to report neutrally and tweet his opinons, but in this one, having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting. Literally baffled at this. STILL you portray Milkies as a journalist that has to be held accountable to someone besides himself. You say: "Milkies should be able to report neutrally"..... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?"having these opinons based off his own worldview distorts in some minds the credibillity of reporting."... omg, he. is. a. translator. How can he neutrally translate things?You can't have an IQ above that of a toaster and not know that you CAN'T BIAS A TRANSLATION. omg. While I completely support Milkis in this, you're terribly wrong. You can bias a translation a great deal. Due to his heavy pro-kespa stance I've taken what he's been reporting from the Blizzard vs Kespa affair with a grain of salt. With a selective use of words you can spinn the message quite a bit without directly be lying or making stuff up. I would like you to name one case where I "selectively used words" to spin the message. Please. Go through all of my Blizzard vs KeSPA translations and go through them and find one time I did this i doubt he meant you did bias your TLs. I think he meant that in his opinion, it is quite possible to bias a TL, which i completely agree with. I don't think your translations are in question here. You seem to stress out quickly :\ EDIT: I doubt he could find you selectively use words, he most likely can't read korean. How the fuck you do not expect someone to get stressed after being called out on air by the owner of a big ESPORTS company and then being constantly bombarded with similar sentiments from people who just don't get it? Don't try to make Milkis out to be some oversensitive guy here. He's had to deal with a lot of bs in a short period of time. Get off your high horse. I was talking about the way he responded to the post here. I did not use harsh words, was not aggressive. people are way too angry over this whole thing. AG didnt use harsh words and was not aggresive either, He used passive loaded statements to try and discredit milkis all the while saying he wasnt doing those exact things. Sounds kind of like you a little bit. You can choose to not trust me on it. That's your choice, but i stand by what i said. I did not use loaded statements either, so why would you even feel the need to makes this an argument instead of a discussion. On another note, Garfield talking about journalistic integrity is not something, according to what he said, that he just said yesterday for the first time, and is his opinion. While not actually targetting Milkis, he asked it to Milkis because he was the only other guest on the show. Should he have asked for someone to come on the show and ask him the question? No, he shouldn't have asked about it at all. It was not the topic of the discussion, it was too late to actually start a meaningfull discussion, I believe it kept going even after DJWheat stated he wouldn't do that discussion on the show for the first time. If you have a problem with the way TL runs it's news, you talk to Nazgul, you make a thread in Website Feedback, there are plenty of way to do it that are much better than what he did. Hell, the fact the discussion was interrupted just shows that it was not the time or place to do it. If it was actually such a meaningful problem in this event, he would have stated it earlier, or at least warned DJWheat that he was going to do it. This is really not a simple matter and harrassing a translator with loaded questions is not the way to go about it.
I feel like the emboldened text can be applied to EGalex, Coach Lee, and Milkis.
|
Just listened to Weapon of choice.... EG are sly dogs to do what they did and they try patronising the korean guy as to how "international esports works" is pathetic.. maybe thats how US esports is run but not in EU.
Puma has had A LOT of time/money invested in his development and its a piss take that when Koreans get a trip aboard their home teams now have to worry about sly teams like EG trying to poach their players then justify it.
Find it funny Alex talks about how sc2 cant be handled the same way sc1 was in korea because "it will effect the growth of the sport"... clearly he doesnt care about the growth of the sport and is only about the money.
*EDIT*
DJ wheat should stfu trying to justify EGs move on puma, its nothing like FXO or other recent activity.
|
EG did nothing wrong. EG offered a talented player the chance of making a real living. Its clear Puma was not under contract and basically a free agent. So there is no reason EG should have needed to talk to TSL about acquiring Puma. If more money isn't pumped into korean teams then this type of thing will continue to happen. Players want a fan base and a good salary. EG can offer that to puma.
I look forward to seeing EGPuma in future tournaments.
|
On July 23 2011 06:55 darthfoley wrote:
wonder what EG could actually offer PuMa as a legit salary...the world will never know
why do you say this has he turn EG down?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
