|
On September 02 2011 08:57 damngringo wrote:
Tektos, for the love of god, SC2 tourney is showbiz with a target audience below 22 years old. It's still showbiz, and it's competition. It is also a job for players, btw. Imagine you play against your best friend and you know you can win. How much would you value your friendship (ie how much of a winners prize would you chip off to him)?
Entire first sentence has no relevance. And I don't care about your love of God.
It is a job for the players, this is where the issue comes in. It is a job so they need to earn money. If two team mates dedicate a month of their life to a tournament and there is a chance that one of them will make next to nothing away from all that effort while the winner collects everything, the probability of them splitting the pot increases to allow for a more stable income.
If you get enough to support your life regardless of win or lose then it will result in a lower likelihood of making deals which can negatively reflect on your reputation if revealed to the public.
Start quoting me instead of just stating my name at the start of your post. The thread is moving too fast for me to search for my name everywhere.
|
On September 02 2011 09:04 Kieofire wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 09:03 Karak wrote:On September 02 2011 09:02 Kieofire wrote:On September 02 2011 09:01 Karak wrote:On September 02 2011 08:57 Whitewing wrote:On September 02 2011 08:53 itsben wrote:
Sine nobody answered me the first time, is it possible for someone to sue the other for with holding the money after the deal to prevent stuff like this from happening? They had a verbal contract after all. Prove it. That's why verbal contracts are basically worthless, unless you can prove the conversation happened and took place, you can't win in a court of law. I think you neither understand contract law nor the standard deal-making process very well. Verbal contracts are far from worthless. Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. You have no idea what you are talking about. Oh? How is that? Because somebody verbally commits to something doesn't really mean they have to do it.
I mean, I'm not sure how to explain it to you without derailing the thread into a 1L Contracts course, but you are confusing contracts for different things. Your analogy fails because it has no relevance. If you want some reading on American contract law, feel free to PM me, but I'm really not going to write an essay here about it.
Obviously written contracts offer protection greater than that of verbal contracts and also avoid some Statute of Frauds defenses, but to say verbal contracts are worthless as a general rule is simply false. Also your college verbal commitment analogy isn't what you think it is. Additionally, there are certain rules governing personal services contracts that don't cover contracts for goods or money.
I'm starting to have flashbacks of my first year of law school by writing this post (which is not a good thing! I've buried that hell deep in my mind), so I'm going to stop now :-P.
|
On September 02 2011 09:03 Karak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 09:02 Kieofire wrote:On September 02 2011 09:01 Karak wrote:On September 02 2011 08:57 Whitewing wrote:On September 02 2011 08:53 itsben wrote:
Sine nobody answered me the first time, is it possible for someone to sue the other for with holding the money after the deal to prevent stuff like this from happening? They had a verbal contract after all. Prove it. That's why verbal contracts are basically worthless, unless you can prove the conversation happened and took place, you can't win in a court of law. I think you neither understand contract law nor the standard deal-making process very well. Verbal contracts are far from worthless. Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. You have no idea what you are talking about.
However, it would still be pretty hard to proof that that deal actually ever existed. And if just your word would be enough for that, what would stop every loser to sue the winner saying that they had just such a deal?
|
|
|
On September 02 2011 07:30 pksens wrote:
The problem that immediately occurs with this is a "Fake" finals. When 2 competitors no longer have the motivation or requirement to compete in the final, because the outcome is essentially irrelevant, is that the viewers are immediately robbed of any form of meaningful "Match".
I don't think you can assume that money is the only source of motivation to compete at all, which you do. Also why does the amount of money someone else can win make any meaning to the match for you? since you feel "robbed".
I'm sure to get a 1st tournament win under your belt for any player is motivation enough, you could even argue taking money off their mind could be beneficial to game quality.
Another inconsistency is if these deals/agreements were done after the tournament no one would care since they won the money they can do with it as they please.
|
On September 02 2011 09:08 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 09:03 Karak wrote:On September 02 2011 09:02 Kieofire wrote:On September 02 2011 09:01 Karak wrote:On September 02 2011 08:57 Whitewing wrote:On September 02 2011 08:53 itsben wrote:
Sine nobody answered me the first time, is it possible for someone to sue the other for with holding the money after the deal to prevent stuff like this from happening? They had a verbal contract after all. Prove it. That's why verbal contracts are basically worthless, unless you can prove the conversation happened and took place, you can't win in a court of law. I think you neither understand contract law nor the standard deal-making process very well. Verbal contracts are far from worthless. Actually they are worthless, that is like a football player verbally committing to a college and instead goes to a different college. You have no idea what you are talking about. However, it would still be pretty hard to proof that that deal actually ever existed. And if just your word would be enough for that, what would stop every loser to sue the winner saying that they had just such a deal?
In most deal-making situations the chops are either facilitated by the house (quietly), or there are several witnesses to the deal. And most put it in writing. It is worth noting, however, that Harrah's (or Caesar's as they are called now) won't facilitate WSOP chops, which is stupid and lazy on their end cause of the tax issues, but chops still happen all the time in WSOP events with no issues.
I was just taking issue with his blanket "verbal contracts have no value" statement, since it's patently false. Obviously there are situations where verbal contracts are weaker or don't stand (see: Statute of Frauds stuff), but as a general rule that just isn't the case.
See also: Jamie Gold case, although it's possible they construed that as written since it was a voice which was recorded.
|
Simberto, if they split non-evenly, strategic gambling steps up, game theory & bargaining power involved. As for the 2nd, Puma's TvP, Inca's PvP, Nestea's ZvZ, etc. Players know what to expect from each other, stats are aplenty.
I dunno, maybe my logic is really flawed, but if the difference between winner's and loser's money is small and I would make a deal, I'd go for proxy hatch ultralisk rush or mothership timing push, some other random bullshit. When the money difference is significant (say, you can afford a mortgage and move out your parent's basement finally, give your girl a trip to an exotic country, whatever), you will rip your ass apart to get it.
|
This is absolutely legal, perfectly fine, and will absolutely never be proven or punished.
|
Why not?
But I play magic so maybe my judgement isn't the best.
|
On September 02 2011 09:07 HoldenR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 09:00 ReignFayth wrote:
how anyone can mix up match fixing and deal making completely baffles me How a "pro" can defend the concept of throwing games completely baffles me. You are extremely biased as a player. It is up to the spectators to decide whether this is matchmaking or not, not you. And let's face it, considering TT1 threw the game, it meets the very definition of matchmaking in this case. I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. This is obviously a case of blatant match fixing. Deal with it.
dude players are usually both spectators and players, you see different players competing all the time, other pros watch them
and NONE of them give a shit if they split the prize
and let's assume TT1 threw 1 game, it wouldn't even be matchmaking, they didn't agree that TT1 would throw a game, he just decided to be a moron about it, I'm also assuming this wasn't a BO1 final, so people seem to have put aside the other games played, maybe this 1 base carrier build had worked previously
|
People should remember that it was almost a joke as a competitive tournament. Gamecune, in Mexico, was just a bunch of amateurs from the latin-american playing for big bucks. TT1 and Fenix were the only professional players in the entire roster. It was obvious they were going to take first and second place. Therefore, it is not that surprising that two members of the same team decide to go 50/50. Is it right? Is it wrong? I don't know, by Fenix is a sleazy guy, and he pretty much fucked over TT1.
|
As long as both players are playing their best, I don't care what they do with the money.
|
On September 02 2011 09:12 ReignFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 09:07 HoldenR wrote:On September 02 2011 09:00 ReignFayth wrote:
how anyone can mix up match fixing and deal making completely baffles me How a "pro" can defend the concept of throwing games completely baffles me. You are extremely biased as a player. It is up to the spectators to decide whether this is matchmaking or not, not you. And let's face it, considering TT1 threw the game, it meets the very definition of matchmaking in this case. I think it should be handled on a case by case basis. This is obviously a case of blatant match fixing. Deal with it. dude players are usually both spectators and players, you see different players competing all the time, other pros watch them and NONE of them give a shit if they split the prize and let's assume TT1 threw 1 game, it wouldn't even be matchmaking, they didn't agree that TT1 would throw a game, he just decided to be a moron about it, I'm also assuming this wasn't a BO1 final, so people seem to have put aside the other games played, maybe this 1 base carrier build had worked previously
TT1 won game 1, used carriers and lost game 2, then fenix won game 3 to clinch it. TT1 was coming from losers so he would have to win an additional best of 3 if he had won that best of 3.
|
Also to add to the verbal contract thing, there are also evidentiary methods other than witnesses or "hard proof," (such as action taken by one party or the other impyling the existence of a contract), which can help in court.
|
i understand why they might do this but in the end, people put money up to create better games. any sort of dealing goes against us as viewers and should be looked upon as match fixing.
|
It ruins the series both players might just play solid macro games instead of trying to do some epic cheese to take a lead or make a come back.
|
On September 02 2011 08:47 IShowUMagic wrote:
Oh yeah, and any rule against it is completely unenforceable, so there's that.
By 'unenforceable', do you mean won't hold up in Court or simply impossible to prove ? Because I can assure you that if entrants to a tournament contract to abide by tournament rules, and within those rules, this behavior is outlawed, the tourney can disqualify the players involved and no money paid to them. As far as proving it, if somebody (anyone with knowledge) opens their mouth about it, that can lead to proof.
|
If you and your friend were in the finals you would split too, it's a really common thing to do. Throwing matches like tt1 did however is really bad for the game. I don't think it will go away any time soon even if admins start to crack down on it.
|
Not illegal but with some kind of penalty imo, only if before match, I find it perfectly acceptable after they win if they wisht tos plit the prize with their friend because they will both benefit and it won't really upset anyone, after all it's their money. I do agree that it is a little annoying when you can tell they aren't trying in finals that hard. I'd rather not have people arrested for trying to have friendship and helping someone. It's not malicious for money like match fixing, they don't want to just make a quick dollar from this, they want to help another. I don't find that so bad, but again penalty should be needed since it does hurt viewers,
|
Its totally fine. Helping to support your teammates is awesome. Should your friend and practice partner go hungry because you beat them at a tournament?
If you think pro-gamers are less competitive because money isn't involved then you simply don't understand the natural competitiveness that it takes to be a pro-gamer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
