EPTIt shouldn't be illegal.
Remember, if everyone has this "I'm just gonna play for fun" attitude, then they're not going to be getting to very many finals anyway.
Should "Deal Making" be illegal? - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
It shouldn't be illegal. Remember, if everyone has this "I'm just gonna play for fun" attitude, then they're not going to be getting to very many finals anyway. | ||
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
If it's 50/50 it might seem shady and also might impair the quality of the games, anything like 55/45 or even further apart I think is totally fine. If it's a premier tournament, and really this is the only situation in which it matters to me, I'm certain the prestige (and potential future benefits like better sponsorship contract down the road etc) of winning is more than enough for the players to give it their best. Some of you must really underestimate how much major titles mean to serious competitors. And to kind of echo what Nazgul mentioned: I, as spectator would rather not know, although I guess I wouldn't mind if I happened to hear about it after the fact. But I definitely think it's fine if people do it. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:43 Shaetan wrote: But what's the brightline? 8001/7999 is silly as an incentive so more than that but where do you set the cutoff? As long as the players aren't playing shitty because they don't care since the prize money is the same I don't care what they do with the money. This isn't a court of law. This is a question of what I feel is right or wrong. Your example is still wrong in my eyes (but not in yours). Any player with a good sense of responsibility shouldn't even be looking for the brightline. | ||
|
MyNameWuzBoB
57 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:54 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: This isn't a court of law. This is a question of what I feel is right or wrong. Your example is still wrong in my eyes (but not in yours). Any player with a good sense of responsibility shouldn't even be looking for the brightline. Any player with a good sense of responsibility would still play to win with a 50/50 split. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:59 MyNameWuzBoB wrote: Any player with a good sense of responsibility would still play to win with a 50/50 split. I agree, although not all pro's have that sense. For these examples, what do we do? | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:36 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: That's why it is important to split the debate up into two parts. Nobody should disagree with it being illegal to talk about, no matter how you feel about it as a whole. Morally I think players should never share prize winnings to an extent of playing for nothing at all. When poker tournaments accomodate deals behind the scenes they will also keep this in mind. They will help setting up deals but they will always require a sum of money to be left in the middle. This is so that the players will continue to try at 100% to win. For example let's look at the Dreamhack Invitational where it was $16,000 for first and nothing for second. Two players splitting $8,000 each to me is morally wrong. Two players splitting $6,000 and $10,000 each to me is not morally wrong. Case 1 you deprive the viewers of quality games. Case 2 you have no negative influence on anything. I very much question whether you can have rules against any of this, so we are left with questions regarding the morals of the situation. Does the tournament organizer have the right to set the prize pool distribution ? If so, then if a prize pool distribution is not acceptable to a player, why does that player agree to participate in the tournament since they don't agree to the rules of the tournament ? Honestly, I was expecting more from someone in your position. edit: For example, TL mods make it clear that we abide by the rules set by the TL administrators, and if we don't like it, tough shit, start our own website. Why does that same logic not apply to tournaments ? | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:02 Kaitlin wrote: Does the tournament organizer have the right to set the prize pool distribution ? If so, then if a prize pool distribution is not acceptable to a player, why does that player agree to participate in the tournament since they don't agree to the rules of the tournament ? Honestly, I was expecting more from someone in your position. Its more like when the money leaves your hands there is little you can do about it. If the tournament is robbed of competitive games by the players, it can refuse to pay at all. And can even seek damages. | ||
|
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:05 Carnac wrote: Of course a tournament has that right. But in the same vain a player has the right to do whatever he wants with his winnings (minus whatever percentage he might have to give to his team if he has such a clause in his contract). That's the thing - what if the team requires all members to give a good amount of prize money (or even all of it) to the team, and the team redistributes it as it sees fit? Nobody can ever prevent something like that... | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:04 Medrea wrote: Its more like when the money leaves your hands there is little you can do about it. If the tournament is robbed of competitive games by the players, it can refuse to pay at all. And can even seek damages. Meh. The timing of the payment makes little difference. If a case can be made that a player breached the contract, even after payment is made, that payment can be retrieved, and then some, according to whatever the provisions of the tournament provisions agreed to. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:07 Kaitlin wrote: Meh. The timing of the payment makes little difference. If a case can be made that a player breached the contract, even after payment is made, that payment can be retrieved, and then some, according to whatever the provisions of the tournament provisions agreed to. Right. And thats the endpoint. If the spectators are shafted, the tournament is going to feel it and will pursue or not pay the players. In the end, it resolves itself as long as the tournament has its own interests at heart. That seems fairly balanced to me. Not ideal as ideal would obviously be that no matter what players do there best, but that's not very likely. And I am ok with highly unlikely. It's when it tips into the likely spot that i take issue with. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:06 sleepingdog wrote: That's the thing - what if the team requires all members to give a good amount of prize money (or even all of it) to the team, and the team redistributes it as it sees fit? Nobody can ever prevent something like that... I actually suggested way earlier in this thread that agreements between players and their teams where teams get 100% of the winnings in team-kill situations would be a different scenario, and not run afoul of player to player "deal making". The team can then distribute $$ however they choose, as pretty much all players remit a certain % to their team. There would be no pre-arranged agreement between "competitors", it would simply be a condition of both players' contracts with their team that they turn over 100% to the team (which would be dispersed in whatever allocation they agreed to in the contract). | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:59 MyNameWuzBoB wrote: Any player with a good sense of responsibility would still play to win with a 50/50 split. These sort of statements just show me you have no idea what it is like to be a professional at any sport/game. When you play these huge tournaments the sudden knowledge about the money being a lock will give almost anyone a huge feeling of relief and settlement. This will result in lackluster/happy/unfocused play. | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:10 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: These sort of statements just show me you have no idea what it is like to be a professional at any sport/game. When you play these huge tournaments the sudden knowledge about the money being a lock will give almost anyone a huge feeling of relief and settlement. This will result in lackluster/happy/unfocused play. Yea, exactly how i feel. I dont want to know that the players are splitting the money, i want to see them fight over it. The money is not only there to reward the players, but also to add some excitement for the viewer. Splitting it, while it may not be illegal, doesnt belong in competitive sports. | ||
|
Shaetan
United States1175 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:02 Kaitlin wrote: Does the tournament organizer have the right to set the prize pool distribution ? If so, then if a prize pool distribution is not acceptable to a player, why does that player agree to participate in the tournament since they don't agree to the rules of the tournament ? Honestly, I was expecting more from someone in your position. edit: For example, TL mods make it clear that we abide by the rules set by the TL administrators, and if we don't like it, tough shit, start our own website. Why does that same logic not apply to tournaments ? edit: nvm | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:10 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: These sort of statements just show me you have no idea what it is like to be a professional at any sport/game. When you play these huge tournaments the sudden knowledge about the money being a lock will give almost anyone a huge feeling of relief and settlement. This will result in lackluster/happy/unfocused play. Thats what I was saying earlier, but I feel that when the size of the tournament (in terms of winnings) is so large. Even knowing the money is locked, it doesn't outweigh the prestige and community support, which is obv unsharable. | ||
|
Full.tilt
United Kingdom1709 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:10 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: These sort of statements just show me you have no idea what it is like to be a professional at any sport/game. When you play these huge tournaments the sudden knowledge about the money being a lock will give almost anyone a huge feeling of relief and settlement. This will result in lackluster/happy/unfocused play. Exactly, it changes the way they play. Some people see this as a good thing some as a bad thing. But there seems to be no doubt it effects what the finals match could of (should of?) been like. | ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
Even if you can't enforce it, it would keep deals like these out of the public eyes, which is good enough. | ||
|
DertoQq
France906 Posts
On September 02 2011 20:10 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: These sort of statements just show me you have no idea what it is like to be a professional at any sport/game. When you play these huge tournaments the sudden knowledge about the money being a lock will give almost anyone a huge feeling of relief and settlement. This will result in lackluster/happy/unfocused play. is the prize money that important for the players ? I would have though that the prestige of winning would worth more in some tournaments. Even with no prize money i don't see the players being "relief" in a final of a big tournament. But maybe i'm wrong. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On September 02 2011 19:54 Carnac wrote: Putting this in the same context as match fixing is obviously nonsense. The op is pretty bad in regards to this, too. If it's 50/50 it might seem shady and also might impair the quality of the games, anything like 55/45 or even further apart I think is totally fine. If it's a premier tournament, and really this is the only situation in which it matters to me, I'm certain the prestige (and potential future benefits like better sponsorship contract down the road etc) of winning is more than enough for the players to give it their best. Some of you must really underestimate how much major titles mean to serious competitors. And to kind of echo what Nazgul mentioned: I, as spectator would rather not know, although I guess I wouldn't mind if I happened to hear about it after the fact. But I definitely think it's fine if people do it. agreeing to split the money doesnt affect the quality of the games though. they just know they can go out there, try their best and maybe throw in some special tactics without throwing away 5k it sounds bad but imo theres no way to police 2 friends doing whatever they want, so theres little point in bitching about it. and the fact that they both win money doesnt mean they wont try to beat each other edit: to make it clear, im not supporting making deals, i like the idea of a match 'meaning something' beyond pride. but i can understand why people would do it, and its impossible to police the matter. | ||
| ||
