|
On July 22 2011 15:58 BackSideAttack wrote:
Due to popular demand i went ahead and compiled all the sponsors EG has listed on their website. So if anyone wants to boycott their products here they are:
Intel,
Steel Series,
Monster Energy,
Kingston HyperX,
In Win development Inc,
6 pool gaming,
BigFoot Networks,
Split Reason Clothing,
Inferno Online,
G7 Teams,
NFO Servers,
Ventrilo.net
Why would you post something like this? Sponsors are paramount to growing a scene and sponsors are NOT EG(some sponsor more then one team). They are companies investing in advertisement to help sell their product, so by boycotting them you aren't hurting EG as much as you are hurting all teams from getting sponsors.
As to the topic, my thoughts on what AG meant was simply: think before you post. Most people just post anything under it being anonymous and don't care if its detrimental to anyone else and think that they are just "telling" someone else what they are posting, but that is entirely wrong. With how TL has blown up one must think when posting as if they are telling not just their friend, but a group the information. What most people tell their friends is much more private and opinionated then they would tell a group, as telling the group can affect not just the person telling, but others also. So if you find out Mike has an STD, you don't go broadcasting it to the world as it would be detrimental to Mike(unless of course you hate Mike, then its completely fine). Instead you tell your close friends that know Mike and don't broadcast it on a megaphone for all to hear.
Are most people going to think like the above when posting an OP or even a response? No, probably not, as that would be a moderators and PR representatives Utopia, but they can always dream.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 23 2011 00:46 Shiori wrote:
Is it just me, or does Alex Garfield have absolutely no idea what defamation actually is in a legal context? I think it's very difficult for both sides of this conflict to understand each other primarily because of cultural leanings. Americans are, at least in the private sector, in love with lassaiz-faire capitalism, and have devised a hilarious field of 'business ethics' to justify things that, in the public sector, would be considered shady. Conversely, in Korea, there seems to be a lot more emphasis on familial relations. I notice this as a trend in Asian countries in general. A company is treated much like a family, even if there are contracts involved. This problem stems from the importance of the 'family business' in these countries.
Personally, I think EG is utterly in the wrong from any moral perspective imaginable (Alex probably thinks I'm defaming him, hah) but, from a legal point of view, they haven't really done anything wrong. I'm sort of sick of people trying to talk as if EG is immune to any sort of moral or honour code simply because "it's business' and businesses are expected to fuck with each other as much as possible. This is a fundamentally American idea, and it's hardly perfect. Just because businesses do fuck with each other doesn't mean we can't look down on them as being slaves to money and putting said money ahead of respect for their industry.
I'd invite all of you to consider why most leagues have governing bodies. It's because, deep down, everyone knows that the dealings of apathetic businesses aren't reflective of how people want the entertainment industry to play out on an everyday basis. Take a look at football. Everybody hates the Premier League's (e.g. MU) moneygrubbing, but at the very least there's measures in place to stop them from simply buying every player.
So yeah, you can harp on and on about how EG is doing what businesses do, but don't for a second pretend that a widespread extension of those sorts of actions would culminate in an enjoyable eSports experience. It would result in a monopoly of talent doled out to those who entered the game with the most money. And we certainly don't want that. Perhaps it took this event to get teams to realize that contracts are essential when dealing with American organizations (who thrive on capitalism, not respect--EG in particular is especially fond of this) which, by and large, have extremely humble origins (founded by kids with credit cards, essentially).
So, should we have any respect for EG's management? Honestly, not really. Perhaps you can commend them for their excellent business sense, in a coldly financial way, but nobody, I repeat, nobody, can pretend any longer that EG cares about the future of competitive Starcraft 2 except as a means to the end of making them money. Before I get lambasted for suggesting that businesses shouldn't care about money, let me state that my critique is a little different: EG ONLY cares about making money from SC2. They don't care about furthering the game for its own sake. It's possible to do both. I expect that every business wishes to keep itself afloat by bringing in money. That's not to say, however, that they can't at the same time care about the sport or enterprise itself.
You make a very good point. All the foreign team-Korean team relations were extremely good based out of friendly and mutual respect up to this point.
1.) oGs-TL
2.) TSL-Fnatic
3.) oGs (MC, Nada) - SK
4.) fOu - FXO
The foreign teams mentioned above ALL made "smart business decisions" in acquiring the players because of the mutual respect and agreements found from both parties.
It's one thing to make your decision based on "just business" but the moment you disregard the respect and agreement, you make your brand (EG in this case) untrustworthy to everyone.
The 4 teams above made great business decisions. EG tainted their brand and did not.
|
First off dont sign your own post, its in the rules.
I have a statement that i take issue with.
Give some thought to the players who are on the B-teams, with no formal contracts and are struggling to get by. Eventually, one day, the team decides to cull them. That's it - you're off the team. You can't stay in our house anymore, you can't practice with us. It's just not worth it, you're not good enough.
Get out.
Not everyone gets to win Dreamhack. What happens to the hundreds of players that don't make it?
This situation is not unrealistic at all. Some of you might be saying that the "Korean culture" would prevent such an undesirable situation from occurring. But the reality is that should events line up in a fashion where this could happen: it will happen - because this is a business, a cut-throat, no-holds barred, sport.
First off you describe a theoretical situation without showing the entire situation. If a player gets let go in this way you have to look at why the team let them go, not just the fact that they did. They are a business, and like any business they must survive int he face of completion. A player may be let go because the team only has so many resources at their disposal, and in a world of competition they need to provide the best wages for their players and the best conditions for them, or else another team with a higher wage and better conditions will snatch them away. This is analogous to cars. If i make cars at 100$ a car, and another company can make the same car at 90$ a car, I am going to have to cut costs or go out of business, putting hundreds of workers out of work because I did not want to shut down 1 plant and move it somewhere cheaper.
What I am trying to say by this is that even know a player being let go is never a good thing, for e-sports as a whole, it increases conditions for players and players wages through competition. Some players and teams will fail but the e-sports scene will progress, continuing to improve and become better and better. So if you attempt to protect players or teams in any way you are hindering the expansion and growth of e-sports on the corporate level. This is because by protecting them you are eliminating the need for constant improvement through competition, because you are weakening the competitive environment.
|
On July 23 2011 01:20 Silver777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 15:58 BackSideAttack wrote:
Due to popular demand i went ahead and compiled all the sponsors EG has listed on their website. So if anyone wants to boycott their products here they are:
Intel,
Steel Series,
Monster Energy,
Kingston HyperX,
In Win development Inc,
6 pool gaming,
BigFoot Networks,
Split Reason Clothing,
Inferno Online,
G7 Teams,
NFO Servers,
Ventrilo.net Why would you post something like this? Sponsors are paramount to growing a scene and sponsors are NOT EG(some sponsor more then one team). They are companies investing in advertisement to help sell their product, so by boycotting them you aren't hurting EG as much as you are hurting all teams from getting sponsors. As to the topic, my thoughts on what AG meant was simply: think before you post. Most people just post anything under it being anonymous and don't care if its detrimental to anyone else and think that they are just "telling" someone else what they are posting, but that is entirely wrong. With how TL has blown up one must think when posting as if they are telling not just their friend, but a group the information. What most people tell their friends is much more private and opinionated then they would tell a group, as telling the group can affect not just the person telling, but others also. So if you find out Mike has an STD, you don't go broadcasting it to the world as it would be detrimental to Mike(unless of course you hate Mike, then its completely fine). Instead you tell your close friends that know Mike and don't broadcast it on a megaphone for all to hear. Are most people going to think like the above when posting an OP or even a response? No, probably not, as that would be a moderators and PR representatives Utopia, but they can always dream.
Actually, factuality and opinion are real defenses against defamation. If Mike really DOES have an STD, then you saying so isn't really defaming. If you say "I think Mike is a slut and I wouldn't be surprised if he has an STD" it's not defaming either, because it's an opinion.
|
On July 23 2011 01:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 01:20 Silver777 wrote:On July 22 2011 15:58 BackSideAttack wrote:
Due to popular demand i went ahead and compiled all the sponsors EG has listed on their website. So if anyone wants to boycott their products here they are:
Intel,
Steel Series,
Monster Energy,
Kingston HyperX,
In Win development Inc,
6 pool gaming,
BigFoot Networks,
Split Reason Clothing,
Inferno Online,
G7 Teams,
NFO Servers,
Ventrilo.net Why would you post something like this? Sponsors are paramount to growing a scene and sponsors are NOT EG(some sponsor more then one team). They are companies investing in advertisement to help sell their product, so by boycotting them you aren't hurting EG as much as you are hurting all teams from getting sponsors. As to the topic, my thoughts on what AG meant was simply: think before you post. Most people just post anything under it being anonymous and don't care if its detrimental to anyone else and think that they are just "telling" someone else what they are posting, but that is entirely wrong. With how TL has blown up one must think when posting as if they are telling not just their friend, but a group the information. What most people tell their friends is much more private and opinionated then they would tell a group, as telling the group can affect not just the person telling, but others also. So if you find out Mike has an STD, you don't go broadcasting it to the world as it would be detrimental to Mike(unless of course you hate Mike, then its completely fine). Instead you tell your close friends that know Mike and don't broadcast it on a megaphone for all to hear. Are most people going to think like the above when posting an OP or even a response? No, probably not, as that would be a moderators and PR representatives Utopia, but they can always dream. Actually, factuality and opinion are real defenses against defamation. If Mike really DOES have an STD, then you saying so isn't really defaming. If you say "I think Mike is a slut and I wouldn't be surprised if he has an STD" it's not defaming either, because it's an opinion.
What I am saying is not at all regarding a legal matter, its simply a level of politeness/respect(ethical).
In terms of legality ethics is pretty much null and void as you are now looking at objective statements that will have a clear yes or no(yes some are grey, but the end result is still a yes or no). Ethics and legality really don't go together that well, though laws are generally based on the populations general ethics and trials are likewise, but the law itself is set on paper, unlike ethics.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 23 2011 01:20 Silver777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 15:58 BackSideAttack wrote:
Due to popular demand i went ahead and compiled all the sponsors EG has listed on their website. So if anyone wants to boycott their products here they are:
Intel,
Steel Series,
Monster Energy,
Kingston HyperX,
In Win development Inc,
6 pool gaming,
BigFoot Networks,
Split Reason Clothing,
Inferno Online,
G7 Teams,
NFO Servers,
Ventrilo.net Why would you post something like this? Sponsors are paramount to growing a scene and sponsors are NOT EG(some sponsor more then one team). They are companies investing in advertisement to help sell their product, so by boycotting them you aren't hurting EG as much as you are hurting all teams from getting sponsors. As to the topic, my thoughts on what AG meant was simply: think before you post. Most people just post anything under it being anonymous and don't care if its detrimental to anyone else and think that they are just "telling" someone else what they are posting, but that is entirely wrong. With how TL has blown up one must think when posting as if they are telling not just their friend, but a group the information. What most people tell their friends is much more private and opinionated then they would tell a group, as telling the group can affect not just the person telling, but others also. So if you find out Mike has an STD, you don't go broadcasting it to the world as it would be detrimental to Mike(unless of course you hate Mike, then its completely fine). Instead you tell your close friends that know Mike and don't broadcast it on a megaphone for all to hear. Are most people going to think like the above when posting an OP or even a response? No, probably not, as that would be a moderators and PR representatives Utopia, but they can always dream.
Speaking of the OP:
"Sorry Garfield, but time waits for no man. If the internet isn't going to wait for major airlines to announce that a plane has been grounded, what on God's green earth makes you think it's going to wait for you?
This is just reality. The author published an article on PlayXP based on the information he had available. There's nothing wrong with him writing from just "one" side of the story, because it's a community contribution. They've done nothing more than write an article about comments from a key industry figure (one of the coaches of a pro-gaming team) about a situation that the community has massive interest in. EG didn't get time to publish their side of the story. That happens. "
The OP then goes into summary of how major businesses have a ways to disseminate information to the masses or the community with tools such as twitter in these situations. The problem is EG had 2 weeks to prepare for something like this and over 24 hours to make any sort of update on the situation. They chose to ignore. Milkis gave Scoots the opportunity via twitter. Scoots decided to make comments such as "umadbro?" to community members that were upset.
|
On July 22 2011 20:56 jazzbassmatt wrote:
Ok uhh what is with the references to garfield
This is all really about esports lasagna.
|
On July 23 2011 01:44 PHC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 23 2011 01:20 Silver777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 15:58 BackSideAttack wrote:
Due to popular demand i went ahead and compiled all the sponsors EG has listed on their website. So if anyone wants to boycott their products here they are:
Intel,
Steel Series,
Monster Energy,
Kingston HyperX,
In Win development Inc,
6 pool gaming,
BigFoot Networks,
Split Reason Clothing,
Inferno Online,
G7 Teams,
NFO Servers,
Ventrilo.net Why would you post something like this? Sponsors are paramount to growing a scene and sponsors are NOT EG(some sponsor more then one team). They are companies investing in advertisement to help sell their product, so by boycotting them you aren't hurting EG as much as you are hurting all teams from getting sponsors. As to the topic, my thoughts on what AG meant was simply: think before you post. Most people just post anything under it being anonymous and don't care if its detrimental to anyone else and think that they are just "telling" someone else what they are posting, but that is entirely wrong. With how TL has blown up one must think when posting as if they are telling not just their friend, but a group the information. What most people tell their friends is much more private and opinionated then they would tell a group, as telling the group can affect not just the person telling, but others also. So if you find out Mike has an STD, you don't go broadcasting it to the world as it would be detrimental to Mike(unless of course you hate Mike, then its completely fine). Instead you tell your close friends that know Mike and don't broadcast it on a megaphone for all to hear. Are most people going to think like the above when posting an OP or even a response? No, probably not, as that would be a moderators and PR representatives Utopia, but they can always dream. Speaking of the OP: "Sorry Garfield, but time waits for no man. If the internet isn't going to wait for major airlines to announce that a plane has been grounded, what on God's green earth makes you think it's going to wait for you? This is just reality. The author published an article on PlayXP based on the information he had available. There's nothing wrong with him writing from just "one" side of the story, because it's a community contribution. They've done nothing more than write an article about comments from a key industry figure (one of the coaches of a pro-gaming team) about a situation that the community has massive interest in. EG didn't get time to publish their side of the story. That happens. " The OP then goes into summary of how major businesses have a ways to disseminate information to the masses or the community with tools such as twitter in these situations. The problem is EG had 2 weeks to prepare for something like this and over 24 hours to make any sort of update on the situation. They chose to ignore. Milkis gave Scoots the opportunity via twitter. Scoots decided to make comments such as "umadbro?" to community members that were upset.
I agree. I simply meant posts that involve other parties need to be more objective and tread a finer line in wording(assuming you aren't blatantly supporting one side/trolling and not the other then you should make it obvious). Better wording or disclaimers when dealing with multiple parties(businesses) should be at the forethought of ones mind when posting something that could affect said business. If you don't care about offending a business I think that's fine also, but for those that aren't clarity is necessary.
|
On July 23 2011 00:50 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 00:37 PHC wrote:
I think a big argument that's been beaten to death is the status of contracted vs. uncontracted players in Korean SC2.
If they wanted to stay contracted they could have stuck with their status as B-team practice partners in BW and never switched to SC2 in the first place.
Coach Lee lashing out was the worst thing that could have happened for international esports. Korean-foreign relations for SC2 were extremely good up to this point, and now 95% of the Korean community is wary and it may trigger the end of competitive SC2 as we know it.
If Korea closes their doors to the world in regards to SC2, they're dooming the game in their market. Korea alone in it's current system cannot survive with only itself. Instead of this crazy Korea vs. The World madness that seems to be accepted, they should also consider globalizing (like the rest of the world). SC2 will exist competively with or without Korea's hostility towards the global scene. The competitive scene would be better with Korea, obviously. Just as Korea's scene is stronger with foreign interest also driving it. Ending the competitive SC2 as we know it, may be a good thing if you consider the progress that could be made if it progresses.
Globalization is definitely a smart way to go. I almost think Koreans were headed that way (with cooperation with FXO being a prime example) until what happened recently. I guess only time will tell in what they decide now.
|
After reading the translated interviews, listening to Weapon of Choice, and reading this thread, I've got to say that I really dislike Alex Garfield.
I can't believe that he attacked Milkis for not getting EG's side of the story -- he's a translator, a darn good one, and one of the few who go out of their way to bring us info from the other side. It seemed like a petty attempt on EG's part to shift bad PR onto other people.
Instead of communicating with and trying to collaborate and work alongside/with the Korean scene, EG seems content to criticize it and exploit it.
In complimenting TL he called it "the website with the greatest value in all of esports" or something along those lines. That's a major red flag. You don't appreciate TL by saying it's worth a lot of money.
In the end, I guess I just feel like what EG did makes sense and stuff, but they're not in esports to work with the scene and help the scene. They're here to get what they can get from the scene, which is understandable, but definitely puts me (and a lot of others) off.
|
while the whole think with milkis on the show wasnt exactly handled great, he absolutely has a responsibility as a writer of Teamliquid--which has starcraft progamming news very clearly under the banner--to reach out to EG for an official comment. Just because there's no official release doesn't mean you just drop one side of the story and let it be without any fact checking, even if you're a translator. Shit, even fucking deadspin adheres to the very basic news rule of reaching out for comment by the party that's about to be a subject in a big controversy
People keep on bringing up shit like ESPN reporting on rumors and saying this is one in the same. it's not. That happens because they at least reach out to the team or player in question for their side of the story. If the team denies it, you report that. If the team does not respond, or tells you to fuck off, you report that. As far as I know, and it's starting to get quite difficult to follow this whole thing, this did not happen.
Milkis is not just another forum member. he is representing TL, which is an ESPORTS news site. As such, he absolutely has an obligation to do that ground work, and in the event that he can't get any info, it is clearly explained as such. While the attack wasn't exactly the greatest thing, EG absolutely has a damn good reason to be pissed that one side of the story was reported on without even being contacted. It would have helped if they released a presser right after it broke, but they're not obligated to do so, and they did it within 24 hours which is quite standard in the world of sport.
|
On July 23 2011 00:16 IslandLife wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2011 22:44 VGhost wrote:On July 22 2011 16:42 IslandLife wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2011 15:15 Dayrlan wrote:(This will be somewhat long. Please choose to read it all before responding to any piece of it.) I think this article/post makes many excellent points, but it ignores one significant piece: The display of international business ethics (or in my opinion, lack thereof) from Evil Geniuses. Indeed, if you re-watch the recent Weapon of Choice episode and trace the conversation, it is easily to notice that the conversation originally was a debate over TSL Coach Lee Won Jae's anger at EG's behavior. The salient observation is that after Milkis (convincingly) made the point that EG's behavior was extremely rude and improper by Korean cultural standards, Mr. Garfield of EG changed the entire direction of the conversation towards his insinuation that Milkis was at fault for damaging EG. Indeed, as a previous poster points out, Mr. Garfield has significant experience and skill with PR compared to Milkis, and in my opinion, he specifically leveraged this advantage to deflect the fact that Evil Geniuses blatantly disrespected Team TSL (at least, we can all presumably agree: "by Korean standards"). So while the OP brings up a number of "lessons" from this whole event (highlighted in bold), allow me to claim another: As Starcraft 2 ESPORTS grows to a global scale, managers and other ESPORTS agents must strive to be aware of and (reasonably) sensitive to individual countries' cultural values.And a corollary: If you ignore or disregard a culture's values, you're digging your own grave.[[For the next chunk, I'm going to make an assumption about international business ethics that I believe is true, but I'll briefly address "if you believe something else" right afterward. Look after the first set of dashes separating sections for that.]] From the perspective of an international businessman interested in signing a player in Korea, you have to take the (general) perspective that you're a non-native purchasing an asset in a foreign country. Necessarily, this is going to involve some type of interaction with the people of that country. After all, you're entering another country in order to do business. Thought experiment time: Imagine that a foreign company enters your country to do business and sets up a factory a mile from your hometown. Then suppose they dump all types of industrial pollutants into the environment, including toxic waste into a river that supplies your town with drinking water. As a result, many of your friends become sick. Your mother comes down with a severe fever and must go to the hospital for two weeks to recover. Obviously, this company is in the ethical wrong, yes? Of course if your country has domestic environmental policy laws forbidding this behavior, the company would be in the legal wrong too. But let's even suppose that no such laws exist. Still -- What would your reaction be? (Feel free to insert alternate culturally/ethically offensive behavior by this hypothetical company as desired.) I think you'd be pissed. I think you'd be mad as hell. I think you'd be right. No one's argued with the fact that it's a cultural expectation in Korea that if a team is interested in recruiting the player, that the manager of that team speak with the manager of the player's team directly. In my opinion, EG blatantly violated this, a cultural value of Korea, in allowing the negotiations regarding Puma to go as far as they did before contacting TSL management directly. --- On the other hand, there's the tacit response: "Look. This is Business; stop being so naive. Business is a cut-throat, no-holds-barred, cold-hearted thing, where money talks, and that's that." So hey, let's throw ethics entirely out the window (or, perhaps, just disagree with me about whether it's Korea's ethics that should be respected (despite the fact that, well, this is a Korean player previously on a Korean team we're discussing)). What's the bare-bones utilitarian outcome of this entire thing? Frankly, even if EG profits considerably by adding Puma to their roster (even with all of this dramatic ado), they've still seriously damaged their relationship with Coach Lee Woon Jae, their relationship with Team TSL, and their reputation in the eyes of some (if not many) Korean fans. A clear consequence is that EG cannot continue behaving this way repeatedly. If they do, they risk alienating a greater and greater segment of the SC2 community. Cut off one friend. Cut off another. Eventually, you won't have any friends. ( This means you, EG.) --- That all said, I tend to agree with djWHEAT's commentary at the end of the Weapon of Choice episode (as well as the general theme of the OP): Despite everything going on here, Puma should end up ahead, and that's a GOOD thing. But importantly, don't let that distract you from the fact that there's a possible world out there, where EG behaves more appropriately, TSL's coach keeps his dignity, and Puma still gets the same great outcome in the end. Saying it is a cultural expectation that you talk with the coach first is ludicrous. I haven't read the whole thing, but I don't think eSports is mentioned in the "Analects of Confucius". Tell you what, set up a poll and ask all the employees over at Samsung if they think it'd be cool to, just, you know, hang out and work without a contract so they can sleep on a 요 and eat 만두 and 냉면 all summer. Mmmmm 냉면. To tell you the truth, I think EG will be one of the few teams to survive as this scene becomes more and more popular. At least they have an inkling of business sense. Consider: 1) In the NFL, MLB, etc. we routinely get media drama when another team's management has allegedly been talking to a player without anybody telling his current team. So even going by the standards of (American) pro sports, EG was out of line here (assuming for the sake of argument that everything went down as TSL alleges). 2) From what I know of Korean culture, the "community" reigns supreme, whether that "community" is the country, the business you work for, your school, church, etc. - and especially given the esports model Korea is used to TSL clearly would have expected any negotiations to go through them even if Puma wasn't under a formal contract. So the long and the short of it is that EG screwed up on a politeness/PR standpoint, even though they didn't do anything illegal or even underhanded (from what I know now). On the other hand, TSL has been repeatedly in the news do to player dissatisfaction, leading several times to players leaving, so I'm inclined to doubt that the screw-ups are all on EG's side. 1) Well yeah, that's because those players are under contract. This is like a team complaining that someone "stole" the water boy who happened to get in the fourth quarter after a bunch of injuries and throw a winning touchdown pass. Just doesn't add up. 2) Yes, you are absolutely correct that there is a large emphasis on the "community", but it doesn't apply in this case. There is no such thing as talking with a potential employee's boss/manager when hiring in Korea. The potential employee doesn't have to say anything, and could put in their notice for any reason (scary thing is it's very common for Korean bosses to immediately fire people who give notice). If you have good rapport with your boss, though, he/she is very likely to beat the offer of the other company if they wish to keep you. It isn't seen as a betrayal or insult. If you really want to run with the "community" thing, why in the world would that coach say anything before that poor kid signed with EG? Can you even imagine what Puma is going through in his head? Listen, I've dealt with enough Korean bosses to see this as a guy who was angry with himself for not having money to sign Puma, and he lashed out without considering Puma's feelings or future for even a second. Doubt Puma has even gone through mandatory military service yet. With all that in my mind at that age I would crack! I mentioned this in a post in another thread, but it's applicable here, too. Go look up the history of iPhone releases in Korea and I think you'll see the general Korean response to foreign competition.
Both you and Grimsong replied to (1) and (2) as though they were separate points, while they were intended as premises leading up to my conclusion of, "So the long and the short of it is that EG screwed up on a politeness/PR standpoint, even though they didn't do anything illegal or even underhanded (from what I know now)." I'm sorry if that was unclear, so let me restate my argument in shorter terms:
- It's generally accepted in (established) sports that the team has some say in player negotiations
- This has applied in Korean esports as well even though contracts aren't as prevalent (or mandated)
- Therefore, EG/Puma, based on available information did cross a line with regards to "politeness" or "business culture", even though what they did was apparently perfectly legal and had no bad intent.
|
On July 23 2011 02:12 VGhost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 00:16 IslandLife wrote:On July 22 2011 22:44 VGhost wrote:On July 22 2011 16:42 IslandLife wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 22 2011 15:15 Dayrlan wrote:(This will be somewhat long. Please choose to read it all before responding to any piece of it.) I think this article/post makes many excellent points, but it ignores one significant piece: The display of international business ethics (or in my opinion, lack thereof) from Evil Geniuses. Indeed, if you re-watch the recent Weapon of Choice episode and trace the conversation, it is easily to notice that the conversation originally was a debate over TSL Coach Lee Won Jae's anger at EG's behavior. The salient observation is that after Milkis (convincingly) made the point that EG's behavior was extremely rude and improper by Korean cultural standards, Mr. Garfield of EG changed the entire direction of the conversation towards his insinuation that Milkis was at fault for damaging EG. Indeed, as a previous poster points out, Mr. Garfield has significant experience and skill with PR compared to Milkis, and in my opinion, he specifically leveraged this advantage to deflect the fact that Evil Geniuses blatantly disrespected Team TSL (at least, we can all presumably agree: "by Korean standards"). So while the OP brings up a number of "lessons" from this whole event (highlighted in bold), allow me to claim another: As Starcraft 2 ESPORTS grows to a global scale, managers and other ESPORTS agents must strive to be aware of and (reasonably) sensitive to individual countries' cultural values.And a corollary: If you ignore or disregard a culture's values, you're digging your own grave.[[For the next chunk, I'm going to make an assumption about international business ethics that I believe is true, but I'll briefly address "if you believe something else" right afterward. Look after the first set of dashes separating sections for that.]] From the perspective of an international businessman interested in signing a player in Korea, you have to take the (general) perspective that you're a non-native purchasing an asset in a foreign country. Necessarily, this is going to involve some type of interaction with the people of that country. After all, you're entering another country in order to do business. Thought experiment time: Imagine that a foreign company enters your country to do business and sets up a factory a mile from your hometown. Then suppose they dump all types of industrial pollutants into the environment, including toxic waste into a river that supplies your town with drinking water. As a result, many of your friends become sick. Your mother comes down with a severe fever and must go to the hospital for two weeks to recover. Obviously, this company is in the ethical wrong, yes? Of course if your country has domestic environmental policy laws forbidding this behavior, the company would be in the legal wrong too. But let's even suppose that no such laws exist. Still -- What would your reaction be? (Feel free to insert alternate culturally/ethically offensive behavior by this hypothetical company as desired.) I think you'd be pissed. I think you'd be mad as hell. I think you'd be right. No one's argued with the fact that it's a cultural expectation in Korea that if a team is interested in recruiting the player, that the manager of that team speak with the manager of the player's team directly. In my opinion, EG blatantly violated this, a cultural value of Korea, in allowing the negotiations regarding Puma to go as far as they did before contacting TSL management directly. --- On the other hand, there's the tacit response: "Look. This is Business; stop being so naive. Business is a cut-throat, no-holds-barred, cold-hearted thing, where money talks, and that's that." So hey, let's throw ethics entirely out the window (or, perhaps, just disagree with me about whether it's Korea's ethics that should be respected (despite the fact that, well, this is a Korean player previously on a Korean team we're discussing)). What's the bare-bones utilitarian outcome of this entire thing? Frankly, even if EG profits considerably by adding Puma to their roster (even with all of this dramatic ado), they've still seriously damaged their relationship with Coach Lee Woon Jae, their relationship with Team TSL, and their reputation in the eyes of some (if not many) Korean fans. A clear consequence is that EG cannot continue behaving this way repeatedly. If they do, they risk alienating a greater and greater segment of the SC2 community. Cut off one friend. Cut off another. Eventually, you won't have any friends. ( This means you, EG.) --- That all said, I tend to agree with djWHEAT's commentary at the end of the Weapon of Choice episode (as well as the general theme of the OP): Despite everything going on here, Puma should end up ahead, and that's a GOOD thing. But importantly, don't let that distract you from the fact that there's a possible world out there, where EG behaves more appropriately, TSL's coach keeps his dignity, and Puma still gets the same great outcome in the end. Saying it is a cultural expectation that you talk with the coach first is ludicrous. I haven't read the whole thing, but I don't think eSports is mentioned in the "Analects of Confucius". Tell you what, set up a poll and ask all the employees over at Samsung if they think it'd be cool to, just, you know, hang out and work without a contract so they can sleep on a 요 and eat 만두 and 냉면 all summer. Mmmmm 냉면. To tell you the truth, I think EG will be one of the few teams to survive as this scene becomes more and more popular. At least they have an inkling of business sense. Consider: 1) In the NFL, MLB, etc. we routinely get media drama when another team's management has allegedly been talking to a player without anybody telling his current team. So even going by the standards of (American) pro sports, EG was out of line here (assuming for the sake of argument that everything went down as TSL alleges). 2) From what I know of Korean culture, the "community" reigns supreme, whether that "community" is the country, the business you work for, your school, church, etc. - and especially given the esports model Korea is used to TSL clearly would have expected any negotiations to go through them even if Puma wasn't under a formal contract. So the long and the short of it is that EG screwed up on a politeness/PR standpoint, even though they didn't do anything illegal or even underhanded (from what I know now). On the other hand, TSL has been repeatedly in the news do to player dissatisfaction, leading several times to players leaving, so I'm inclined to doubt that the screw-ups are all on EG's side. 1) Well yeah, that's because those players are under contract. This is like a team complaining that someone "stole" the water boy who happened to get in the fourth quarter after a bunch of injuries and throw a winning touchdown pass. Just doesn't add up. 2) Yes, you are absolutely correct that there is a large emphasis on the "community", but it doesn't apply in this case. There is no such thing as talking with a potential employee's boss/manager when hiring in Korea. The potential employee doesn't have to say anything, and could put in their notice for any reason (scary thing is it's very common for Korean bosses to immediately fire people who give notice). If you have good rapport with your boss, though, he/she is very likely to beat the offer of the other company if they wish to keep you. It isn't seen as a betrayal or insult. If you really want to run with the "community" thing, why in the world would that coach say anything before that poor kid signed with EG? Can you even imagine what Puma is going through in his head? Listen, I've dealt with enough Korean bosses to see this as a guy who was angry with himself for not having money to sign Puma, and he lashed out without considering Puma's feelings or future for even a second. Doubt Puma has even gone through mandatory military service yet. With all that in my mind at that age I would crack! I mentioned this in a post in another thread, but it's applicable here, too. Go look up the history of iPhone releases in Korea and I think you'll see the general Korean response to foreign competition. Both you and Grimsong replied to (1) and (2) as though they were separate points, while they were intended as premises leading up to my conclusion of, "So the long and the short of it is that EG screwed up on a politeness/PR standpoint, even though they didn't do anything illegal or even underhanded (from what I know now)." I'm sorry if that was unclear, so let me restate my argument in shorter terms: - It's generally accepted in (established) sports that the team has some say in player negotiations - This has applied in Korean esports as well even though contracts aren't as prevalent (or mandated) - Therefore, EG/Puma, based on available information did cross a line with regards to "politeness" or "business culture", even though what they did was apparently perfectly legal and had no bad intent.
While you're correct in feeling EG could have handled this all better, the point isn't sticking with me right now mainly because everything in this thread is bigger than this smaller incident that keeps getting beat. I'm not here to be pro eg or korea.
|
On July 23 2011 01:17 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 01:08 Zocat wrote:But the ball is currently in the hands of the Korean teams. Emergency SC2 Association meeting. Everyone agrees to have their players signed immediately ("or find your own EG right now!" - which might play into EG's hands, since the doubting players might switch to EG then). Team transfers to other members of the SC2 Association or "allowed" teams is ok. Transfers to teams outside of that circle is prohibited by contract aka: it's the team's decision (with player consent & a transfer sum). "Loaning" players, like MC / Nada to foreign teams still allowed (aka team decision). Then we have a mini Kespa. They could even force GOM to exclude players "marked" from their association ("or we will all pull our teams out") for example denying Puma a GSL entry. That's how I would do it  Why would you do it that way? Why would you promote restrictions in a market that wants to mix and match everyone on a global level? Korea creating a system to protect Korea? It seems to be stunting the growth/health of pushing E-Sports to the next level. As a whole, it would be best bi-passing this whole Korean BW mindset. It's not 2000 anymore, and SC2 isn't a booming product in Korea. Time to move on.
Of course Korean teams would create a system to protect themselves. Stuff like the oGs-TL or oGs-SK partnerships would still be possible. Managers of teams talking to other managers. Making deals which benefit all sides.
Look at football (soccer) - there are multiple teams which basically recruit young not well known players and train them. Those teams of course arent playing for the championship. But when a player shows potential the big clubs knock at the door and are willing to pay large sums. So the training club gets something out from it (transfer sums). Sure sometimes contracts end and a player switches a team, bad luck. But that's not really the case for upcoming promising superstars since multiple big teams are interested in those (and approach the "selling" team prior to the end of the contract)
Do you believe the oGs team isnt getting anything from the SK deal? That it's only benefitting the players & SK?
Also sometimes players just arent for sale. i.e. the 1billion€ buyout clause for Ronaldo. So if Startale says "Bomber isnt for sale" and Bomber is ok with that (remember those contracts require the ok from the player) - then he just cannot be aquired.
Do I fault EG? No, hell no. They saw an opportunity to aquire a top, trained, experienced player basically for free. And they probably (since he hasnt signed the contract yet) took that opportunity.
But thinking that the Korean teams are okay with that and will not trying to protect their own interests is just stupid. Alex even said on WoC that their players have a "dont talk to other teams" clause in the contract (that they dont punish/fine the players if they reject those offers is fairly obvious).
Protecting their own interests & have the ability to enforce them via contracts with "harsh" terms is actually "pushing E-Sports to the next level".
|
On July 23 2011 02:46 Zocat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 01:17 Grimsong wrote:On July 23 2011 01:08 Zocat wrote:But the ball is currently in the hands of the Korean teams. Emergency SC2 Association meeting. Everyone agrees to have their players signed immediately ("or find your own EG right now!" - which might play into EG's hands, since the doubting players might switch to EG then). Team transfers to other members of the SC2 Association or "allowed" teams is ok. Transfers to teams outside of that circle is prohibited by contract aka: it's the team's decision (with player consent & a transfer sum). "Loaning" players, like MC / Nada to foreign teams still allowed (aka team decision). Then we have a mini Kespa. They could even force GOM to exclude players "marked" from their association ("or we will all pull our teams out") for example denying Puma a GSL entry. That's how I would do it Why would you do it that way? Why would you promote restrictions in a market that wants to mix and match everyone on a global level? Korea creating a system to protect Korea? It seoems to be stunting the growth/health of pushing E-Sports to the next level. As a whole, it would be best bi-passing this whole Korean BW mindset. It's not 2000 anymore, and SC2 isn't a booming product in Korea. Time to move on. Of course Korean teams would create a system to protect themselves. Stuff like the oGs-TL or oGs-SK partnerships would still be possible. Managers of teams talking to other managers. Making deals which benefit all sides. Look at football (soccer) - there are multiple teams which basically recruit young not well known players and train them. Those teams of course arent playing for the championship. But when a player shows potential the big clubs knock at the door and are willing to pay large sums. So the training club gets something out from it (transfer sums). Sure sometimes contracts end and a player switches a team, bad luck. But that's not really the case for upcoming promising superstars since multiple big teams are interested in those (and approach the "selling" team prior to the end of the contract) Do you believe the oGs team isnt getting anything from the SK deal? That it's only benefitting the players & SK? Also sometimes players just arent for sale. i.e. the 1billion€ buyout clause for Ronaldo. So if Startale says "Bomber isnt for sale" and Bomber is ok with that (remember those contracts require the ok from the player) - then he just cannot be aquired. Do I fault EG? No, hell no. They saw an opportunity to aquire a top, trained, experienced player basically for free. And they probably (since he hasnt signed the contract yet) took that opportunity. But thinking that the Korean teams are okay with that and will not trying to protect their own interests is just stupid. Alex even said on WoC that their players have a "dont talk to other teams" clause in the contract (that they dont punish/fine the players if they reject those offers is fairly obvious). Protecting their own interests & have the ability to enforce them via contracts with "harsh" terms is actually "pushing E-Sports to the next level".
No it isn't. That's going back to the old bw system that does NOT feasibly work on a global scale. That's pushing it back to the old, restrictive, rigid ways that alienated the bw crowd outside of Korea.
|
On July 23 2011 02:12 Hawk wrote:
while the whole think with milkis on the show wasnt exactly handled great, he absolutely has a responsibility as a writer of Teamliquid--which has starcraft progamming news very clearly under the banner--to reach out to EG for an official comment. Just because there's no official release doesn't mean you just drop one side of the story and let it be without any fact checking, even if you're a translator. Shit, even fucking deadspin adheres to the very basic news rule of reaching out for comment by the party that's about to be a subject in a big controversy
People keep on bringing up shit like ESPN reporting on rumors and saying this is one in the same. it's not. That happens because they at least reach out to the team or player in question for their side of the story. If the team denies it, you report that. If the team does not respond, or tells you to fuck off, you report that. As far as I know, and it's starting to get quite difficult to follow this whole thing, this did not happen.
Milkis is not just another forum member. he is representing TL, which is an ESPORTS news site. As such, he absolutely has an obligation to do that ground work, and in the event that he can't get any info, it is clearly explained as such. While the attack wasn't exactly the greatest thing, EG absolutely has a damn good reason to be pissed that one side of the story was reported on without even being contacted. It would have helped if they released a presser right after it broke, but they're not obligated to do so, and they did it within 24 hours which is quite standard in the world of sport.
Is it defamation like Alex Garfield is claiming? No. Is it rude? Not really. Milkis was acting in his capacity as a translator, and he operated under the idea of breaking news being released as it happens. Quite frankly, I see no reason to allow time for damage control when I'm sure EG frequents these forums and could easily have given Milkis a statement, since this debacle has been going on for DAYS, not hours.
|
On July 23 2011 02:12 Hawk wrote:
while the whole think with milkis on the show wasnt exactly handled great, he absolutely has a responsibility as a writer of Teamliquid--which has starcraft progamming news very clearly under the banner--to reach out to EG for an official comment. Just because there's no official release doesn't mean you just drop one side of the story and let it be without any fact checking, even if you're a translator. Shit, even fucking deadspin adheres to the very basic news rule of reaching out for comment by the party that's about to be a subject in a big controversy
People keep on bringing up shit like ESPN reporting on rumors and saying this is one in the same. it's not. That happens because they at least reach out to the team or player in question for their side of the story. If the team denies it, you report that. If the team does not respond, or tells you to fuck off, you report that. As far as I know, and it's starting to get quite difficult to follow this whole thing, this did not happen.
Milkis is not just another forum member. he is representing TL, which is an ESPORTS news site. As such, he absolutely has an obligation to do that ground work, and in the event that he can't get any info, it is clearly explained as such. While the attack wasn't exactly the greatest thing, EG absolutely has a damn good reason to be pissed that one side of the story was reported on without even being contacted. It would have helped if they released a presser right after it broke, but they're not obligated to do so, and they did it within 24 hours which is quite standard in the world of sport.
I think he is not a Tl writer.... he didn´t even write the article, he just translated it.
|
|
|
On July 23 2011 03:26 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2011 02:12 Hawk wrote:
while the whole think with milkis on the show wasnt exactly handled great, he absolutely has a responsibility as a writer of Teamliquid--which has starcraft progamming news very clearly under the banner--to reach out to EG for an official comment. Just because there's no official release doesn't mean you just drop one side of the story and let it be without any fact checking, even if you're a translator. Shit, even fucking deadspin adheres to the very basic news rule of reaching out for comment by the party that's about to be a subject in a big controversy
People keep on bringing up shit like ESPN reporting on rumors and saying this is one in the same. it's not. That happens because they at least reach out to the team or player in question for their side of the story. If the team denies it, you report that. If the team does not respond, or tells you to fuck off, you report that. As far as I know, and it's starting to get quite difficult to follow this whole thing, this did not happen.
Milkis is not just another forum member. he is representing TL, which is an ESPORTS news site. As such, he absolutely has an obligation to do that ground work, and in the event that he can't get any info, it is clearly explained as such. While the attack wasn't exactly the greatest thing, EG absolutely has a damn good reason to be pissed that one side of the story was reported on without even being contacted. It would have helped if they released a presser right after it broke, but they're not obligated to do so, and they did it within 24 hours which is quite standard in the world of sport. Is it defamation like Alex Garfield is claiming? No. Is it rude? Not really. Milkis was acting in his capacity as a translator, and he operated under the idea of breaking news being released as it happens. Quite frankly, I see no reason to allow time for damage control when I'm sure EG frequents these forums and could easily have given Milkis a statement, since this debacle has been going on for DAYS, not hours.
No, defamation means the claim has to be bogus. It's shitty reporting to not seek out the other side of the story, or at least note that the source you are translating from did not do this and you are not capable of doing so.
and just because EG people frequent the site doesnt mean you drop something like that and wait for them to see it. Good lord. I'm sure incontrol is within arms reach of a computer most of the day, and if you pm him saying this guy is saying this and we want a response, you'd get it or get someone who does. That's how it works.
Just because the source he lifted it from was lazy in not getting the other side of the story doesnt mean that he should just parrot the information without making note of the lack of response, or seeking it out himself.
|
9070 Posts
I cant understand your point Hawk. Milkis did a translation, it was purely a report of another article and not a piece of journalism in its own right. AG's point is completely nonsensical in every possible way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
