|
On August 05 2011 03:55 Grimsong wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:55 Triscuit wrote:On August 05 2011 03:47 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 03:42 GinDo wrote:
No play no pay. Sounds fair enough. Go Lee.
No play, get fired, no pay. Sounds about right. Go logic. Except what he did was "No play, no pay, get fired." From what it sounds like, Lee just decided to stop paying them without actually releasing them from the team. This isn't how things work. Even if they aren't fulfilling their obligations, if you want to have them as a player you have to keep paying them. I fully agree, which is kinda what I was trying to point out. Friendly fire bro! =p
Bah! I realized this and edited my post accordingly. 
|
On August 05 2011 03:57 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:55 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 03:55 Triscuit wrote:On August 05 2011 03:47 Grimsong wrote:On August 05 2011 03:42 GinDo wrote:
No play no pay. Sounds fair enough. Go Lee.
No play, get fired, no pay. Sounds about right. Go logic. Except what he did was "No play, no pay, get fired." From what it sounds like, Lee just decided to stop paying them without actually releasing them from the team. This isn't how things work. Even if they aren't fulfilling their obligations, if you want to have them as a player you have to keep paying them. I fully agree, which is kinda what I was trying to point out. Friendly fire bro! =p Bah! I realized this and edited my post accordingly.
Hah, we meet again. No surprise at all really, didn't realize it was you till now though. Anyway...
/gets wages withheld
|
|
|
On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:30 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:27 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
You sign a contract to come to work. You don't come to work I don't pay you. How is that not simple enough for you to understand? Except they were at work. They participated in the GSL and GSTL which is the crux of the services. TSL isn't paying them to practice, TSL is paying them because TSL hopes to win the GSTL and have one of their stars win the GSL. While their performances and efforts may have been lackluster, it doesn't change the fact that they fulfilled their duties from a legal standpoint (from an ethical one, maybe not). Considering I actually study quite a bit of business law, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding. There may be differences with Korean and Canadian/American Law but I'm pretty sure the crux of the arguments still hold. I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering. TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice. Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice. Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid. You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again...
True.
"A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal
If saddening to see how many teamliquid posters form their opinions out of their bias and thin air. Whether there is no contract or an ambiguous one, the blame lies with Coach Lee for making expectations and promises that held no actual significance.
What people don't seem to understand about law is that it's not always about what is fair in a case by case basis (read: emotional appeal and sympathy), it's about what is legal. Decisions set precedent with impact future cases so once exceptions are made they can be continually made. If a worker doesn't preform he doesn't get his pay cut or withheld (unless the contract explicitly says so), he will simply by fired by his employer who will not only have to build a case against him, but also still pay for his last few months of incompetence. However, the employee (if he really was at fault) will typically have a harder time finding new employment due to his reputation.
If you just cut people's wages based off what you think is right that could lead to very abusive systems.
|
On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:30 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:27 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
You sign a contract to come to work. You don't come to work I don't pay you. How is that not simple enough for you to understand? Except they were at work. They participated in the GSL and GSTL which is the crux of the services. TSL isn't paying them to practice, TSL is paying them because TSL hopes to win the GSTL and have one of their stars win the GSL. While their performances and efforts may have been lackluster, it doesn't change the fact that they fulfilled their duties from a legal standpoint (from an ethical one, maybe not). Considering I actually study quite a bit of business law, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding. There may be differences with Korean and Canadian/American Law but I'm pretty sure the crux of the arguments still hold. I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering. TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice. Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice. Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid. You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again...
Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed
I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins.
Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
|
On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:30 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Except they were at work. They participated in the GSL and GSTL which is the crux of the services. TSL isn't paying them to practice, TSL is paying them because TSL hopes to win the GSTL and have one of their stars win the GSL.
While their performances and efforts may have been lackluster, it doesn't change the fact that they fulfilled their duties from a legal standpoint (from an ethical one, maybe not).
Considering I actually study quite a bit of business law, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding. There may be differences with Korean and Canadian/American Law but I'm pretty sure the crux of the arguments still hold. I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering. TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice. Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice. Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid. You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
How is that wrong or difficult to understand?
"A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal
|
Alright lets get the difference between being paid wages and being on a salary out of the way. If you work at mcdonalds you are a wage earner. If you aren't flipping burgers and punching the clock you aren't getting paid. Fine. If you are on a salary you are no longer punching a clock. Although, negligence on your duty to perform is grounds to be terminated. However, you still have to pay the salary as long as they are contracted even if they are not showing up.
|
On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:30 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Except they were at work. They participated in the GSL and GSTL which is the crux of the services. TSL isn't paying them to practice, TSL is paying them because TSL hopes to win the GSTL and have one of their stars win the GSL.
While their performances and efforts may have been lackluster, it doesn't change the fact that they fulfilled their duties from a legal standpoint (from an ethical one, maybe not).
Considering I actually study quite a bit of business law, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding. There may be differences with Korean and Canadian/American Law but I'm pretty sure the crux of the arguments still hold. I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering. TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice. Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice. Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid. You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
Are you kidding me? I won't even dignify your throwing of punches with eyes closed towards FF. Come on man.
Reality says if you don't want to pay employees, you fire them, not take their wages/salary. This isn't even touching on the fact that there were still adverts being used with FD and Tester.
|
This is really sad, because it's not unlikely that everyone involved had good intentions at the start. I don’t really understand why many people are so eager to pick good guys and bad guys. All we know about is the mess/drama their cooperation ended in, but we hardly have a clue about what was agreed on at the start. It’s all hearsay.
All I can conclude is that this is another reason why they should start making (good/better) contracts. Mr. Lee and the players might have had different interpretations about their affiliation/cooperation from the start. Stuff like that often isn’t clear unless you put it on paper… before, during and after some thorough negotiation. The ‘good faith’-stuff is just a magnet for drama.
The argument that FD & Trickster are the bad guys because they were only at the practice house 10 out of 45 days and comparing it to a normal job doesn’t make sense to me. We don’t know what was agreed upon and if, for instance, TSL was able to attract sponsor money because of their affiliation with FD & trickster, those guys might well be worth what they got paid even without any labor in return. This would not be unique to eSports.
Anyway, I don’t think this would turn into this kind of drama when it’s completely clear from the start to both parties what is expected of them and what they will get in return. Contract seem to be a necessary ‘evil’.
(* Just to be very clear, when I say FD & Trickster aren’t the bad guys, this doesn’t mean I think Mr. Lee is.)
|
On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:30 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
Except they were at work. They participated in the GSL and GSTL which is the crux of the services. TSL isn't paying them to practice, TSL is paying them because TSL hopes to win the GSTL and have one of their stars win the GSL.
While their performances and efforts may have been lackluster, it doesn't change the fact that they fulfilled their duties from a legal standpoint (from an ethical one, maybe not).
Considering I actually study quite a bit of business law, I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding. There may be differences with Korean and Canadian/American Law but I'm pretty sure the crux of the arguments still hold. I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering. TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice. Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice. Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid. You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes.
It is perfectly understandable, it's English and I'm not a native speaker. Also, do you have any proof of the fact that lawyers regularly talk away laws, as ambiguous being held vs drafter is a law? Ofc I don't know Korean law, but if you care about that, talk about that ffs.
|
On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering.
TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice.
Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice.
Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid.
You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal
You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins.
|
So this is why they left TSL...
|
im no expert on law, actually i really don't kow anything, anyways regarding the argument of if tsl/fd and tricksters actions were legal why are we arguing according to US law they are in korea.
|
On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
You are dead wrong here.
"Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold).
"Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice"
You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins.
Uh you know that these players live in Korea right?
|
you guys need to read the OP again, it has TSL managers response to what has happened at the bottom.
You see Coach Lee say why Fruitdealer and Trickster had their pay withheld:
"Due to their attitude actions which hurt their team mates such as not being interested in team rebuilding and ect, the coach and the players decided that there would be no need to give the final payment. That duration was for a month"
Its not that what Coach Lee did was right or wrong that I say this, its just, now there's 15+ pages of "why did lee hold back money?" "they didn't want to practice" ...like its a mystery or something :<
its in the op!!!
Anyway, holding back money is wrong and Coach Lee doesn't seem trust worthy. Just fire Fruitdealer and trickster, don't pin the rest of the team against them.
But I can also sense the frustration out of TSL and the players. If it was another pro team and you had 2 players who refused to take part in any rebuilding or improvement process that the whole team needed to go through, or was required. I think that you couldn't really except those 2 players as really caring about the team at all, or caring about anybody else in the team house.
|
On August 05 2011 04:07 tl55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:
[quote]
You are dead wrong here.
"Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold).
"Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice"
You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal You know what else USLegal says? People are entitled to a fair trial. The person with more money who can hire better lawyers wins.
That's not even remotely true, don't speak on trials and the US legal system on such a blanket statement, when you likely have no idea about what goes on at the court houses.
It's not even about legality at this point. Logically you can't stop paying someone their money due unless they are no longer employed. Both players were still employed under the TSL flag.
|
On August 05 2011 04:05 Sighstorm wrote:
This is really sad, because it's not unlikely that everyone involved had good intentions at the start. I don’t really understand why many people are so eager to pick good guys and bad guys. All we know about is the mess/drama their cooperation ended in, but we hardly have a clue about what was agreed on at the start. It’s all hearsay.
All I can conclude is that this is another reason why they should start making (good/better) contracts. Mr. Lee and the players might have had different interpretations about their affiliation/cooperation from the start. Stuff like that often isn’t clear unless you put it on paper… before, during and after some thorough negotiation. The ‘good faith’-stuff is just a magnet for drama.
The argument that FD & Trickster are the bad guys because they were only at the practice house 10 out of 45 days and comparing it to a normal job doesn’t make sense to me. We don’t know what was agreed upon and if, for instance, TSL was able to attract sponsor money because of their affiliation with FD & trickster, those guys might well be worth what they got paid even without any labor in return. This would not be unique to eSports.
Anyway, I don’t think this would turn into this kind of drama when it’s completely clear from the start to both parties what is expected of them and what they will get in return. Contract seem to be a necessary ‘evil’.
(* Just to be very clear, when I say FD & Trickster aren’t the bad guys, this doesn’t mean I think Mr. Lee is.)
I get that and I hope other people do. There are no good or bad guys only a conflict of interest and horrible miscommunication and expectations. However, Mr. Lee is at fault for this because he is the Coach and is responsible for making it clear and binding in the first place.
His actions also appear to be worsen his case though.
|
I just translated the statement of Startale manager, Jong-Wook Won.
Original source is here. http://www.playxp.com/sc2/bbs/view.php?article_id=3254338&page=5
The translation is really long so I would put spoiler tag on it
If somebody didn't do FD and Trickster, I will work on that too.
Translation:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Show Spoiler +Greetings,
This is Startale Manager(Coach) Won, Jong-Wook.
First of all, I apologize that greeting you all at this uncomfortable moment.
As manager of the team, I write this statement for explaining all of this happening without any false info.
For the case of Fruitdealer and Trickster, I admit that their inconsistence attitude is wrong. As the matter of fact, both players admit their attitude and regret that it was far beyond self-free practice routine.
The self-free practice routine of FD and Trickster was on the contract case once they signed the contract with Mr. Lee when TSL is created. And they come to this far, now Mr.Lee, TSL manager argues about their attitude. It is truly unprofessional.
If TSL manager thinks their attitude is problematic, he should have done something about it but he didn't. So I think it is also problem for TSL manager, not managing properly for both players.
Or the promise he made at the beginning was a hypocrisy so that he wanted them to sign TSL.
Next, I will talk about "not receiving the salaries" part.
TSL is the one and only team has several sponsors and support from the beginning, include money and goods.
To be honest, when I compared TSL and other team which didn't have sponsors and it fully funded by manager's personal capital. No manager is better than Mr.Lee in financial term.
FD and Trickster received salaries only for two months, April and May. And FD agreed with Mr.Lee that delaying $500 of his May salary to the next month, June.
Although, the money from sponsors has been deposited to TSL from March.
I have to ask why he lies constantly, telling the players the money has not been deposited.
And he said that the money from sponsors had decreased, it was the case from July. It is nothing related with this issue.
Can you imagine, FD and Trickster didn't know about this truth, just believing the word from Mr. Lee and blaming sponsors.
What is the problem with TIMU and other companies, sponsoring TSL from the difficult situation of early SC2 market.
It's hard for me to understand that one manager created this mess, supporting and blaming players.
Once both players found out the fact that sponsors deposited their money as planned, at the conversation with Mr.Lee, he said that company didn't deposit yet and keep lying. And both players said that they knew the money has been deposited from sponsors. Mr.Lee said that the amount was quite little and it was late, keep hiding the fact he lies.
After I saw this was happening, it was the moment I disappointed with Mr.Lee.
The money from sponsors was increased this year, more money than 2010 when TSL was created. And TSL started "Annual Salaries" system. But the question is why their finance is so low and why didn't give their salaries as Mr.Lee promised.
At the same time, TSL is acquired the least players among all of Korean SC2 progaming team. Also, kitchen woman comes three times a week and cook some side dish.
At this moment, I wonder as a manager how finance can be so low.
Mr.Lee said that players spent over $1,000 per month to buy some at convenience store. That amount, $1,000 is also covered monthly taxes and car maintenance.
Plus, he said that the food cost is over $5,000 per month. For example. my team has 15 people, food cost is most likely $2,000~2,500. This covers meat(cow+pig), fish for every week and several side dishes, ramen, etc. It is not that much but my team eats with no complain. Sometime, we eat outside too.
But how can TSL spend over $5,000 per month for 8~9 people?
And at this situation of team, I want ask Mr.Lee for that food cost is okay.
It is truly the case to seriously think about his abilities as an manager.
He created that flaws. And if he said that he couldn't give salaries and spend for operating money, I will ask you this.
Money from sponsors is the important factor to manage a team.
Money is not everything in this world but for the management of a team, all people would admit that it is very important.
The money is not only for personal self, but for every people in a team.
Manager can get sponsors because players exists.
For both player and manager, we need the mind like family and companionship.
From the people of the past, they said, "lies lead another lies."
My heart is really sad that I see once again the ghastliness of Wormtongue through this issue.
Sincerely, I look forward to seeing the manager who can be more truthful.
|
Well, now we have some idea why the team is disintegrating - losing Rain, Trickster, FruitDealer, and PuMa in a very short time made me wonder if there was some kind of deeper problem at TSL and now it seems like its true. Not that I mean to blame TSL, I don't know the circumstances, but there does seem to be bad blood between the players and the management.
|
On August 05 2011 04:02 wolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2011 04:00 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:49 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:45 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:35 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:27 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 03:16 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 03:07 tl55555 wrote:On August 05 2011 02:50 FairForever wrote:On August 05 2011 02:46 tl55555 wrote:
[quote]
I would say what I study lends more importance to the discussion as it's more logical- software engineering.
TSL was supposed to pay them not only for tournaments but practice too. Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL left and right not coming to practice 35/45 days wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately they didn't win and didn't come to practice.
Understandably coach Lee was angry they were losing, not practicing enough and getting paid, so he decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice.
Contracts can be interpreted differently and can mean different things to different people. In this case the players violated the contract and weren't paid.
You are dead wrong here. "Now maybe if they were winning GSTL and GSL... wouldn't be a problem". That goes contrary to the point. This isn't a results-based discussion. FD and Trickster should be treated the same throughout regardless of whether they won GSL or fell into Code B, unless the "contract" stipulated incentives or had clauses to protect against this (and seeing how there seems to be no written contract, this doesn't hold). "Decided to enforce the part of the contract that included practice" You are just making up bs now, what part of the contract stipulated practice time? You're trying to support a position that has no merit unless a written contract allowed for it. Which in this case isn't true. Dude... what kind of white knight business law are you studying... you're going to make a terrible businessman if you think like that. People bend and break contracts ALL the time, and there are middle grounds, all it depends is how good your lawyers are. You keep going by the book and see how long you last. Whether Lee broke the contract or not this is whats happened: they didn't come to practice and they didn't get paid. If the contract is AMBIGUOUS on practice schedules, there is an argument for both sides. Law is not always fair, law is just law. One lesson for you to learn in your long, hard journey ahead. So at least we agree now that what Lee did was wrong and unethical? I personally don't care what you think about business law and whether you feel it means very little. The fact is what Lee did was wrong. Not anymore wrong and unethical than what FruitDealer and Trickster did, which was violate their contract by not practicing. Don't flaunt your business law when you have no idea wtf is going on, just makes you look like a pompous arrogant child. Read above. I never said that I agree with what FD and Trickster did. But that's not the point. While FD and Trickster may have been morally wrong in not practicing hard to really fully commit to their duties, TSL was legally wrong in refusing to pay them. I'm not sure how it's comparable. EDIT: I forgot to mention again, you keep saying they violated their contract. Again, stop spewing bullshit out of your mouth. To clear up your confusion, TSL was not legally wrong if the contract was ambiguous, that's how its comparable. Actually TSL is still legally wrong. Exemption of a clause does not allow for open interpretation. In fact, it would be construed against the drafter of the contract, presumably TSL (contra preferentem). Again though, stop spewing bullshit, you're trying to defend a position that is clearly indefensible and it is recognized by most of the people here. I'm not going to bother repeating my arguments again... Me stop spewing bullshit? How about you stop spewing mumbo jumbo legal speak. People who try to impress by using legal speak and can't communicate a point in english -> unemployed I don't give a shit what the book says, what REALITY says is ambiguous contract + better lawyer wins. Please don't bother repeating your incorrect arguments again, you will be saving TL valuable bytes. How is that wrong or difficult to understand? "A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. " -USLegal
Why are you quoting US contract law as though it is the be all and end all?
Moreover, given that apparently 'free' hours were part of the contract, the nature and extent of any possible breach by FD/Trickster may not even be ambiguous (to say nothing of Korean labour law).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
