EPTShould "Deal Making" be illegal? - Page 67
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
|
CatNzHat
United States1599 Posts
| ||
|
Egyptian_Head
South Africa508 Posts
On September 03 2011 02:43 Neo.NEt wrote: Personally I can't believe how many of you don't care about this. I want to see people living and dying by one series and doing whatever it takes to win. Once you take the competition out of something... I'm out. Yeah some of us care about personal freedoms more than starcraft. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:21 Gummy wrote: It is not match fixing in that people betting aren't getting scammed. Therefore, it seems absurd that fans should have a right to demand this being illegal. I think it's unfortunate that the word "illegal" was used in this thread. It's more about whether it should be allowed or against the rules or not. Illegal, in the strictest sense means criminal, which really isn't what we're debating. Although, some actual legal ramifications have been brought up, it's more a question of should it be allowed (by the tournament). | ||
|
roymarthyup
1442 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:15 SlipperySnake wrote: I think fans have a right to demand legitimacy in their competitions and at the end of the day the fans are the only reason the players are even able to make money. If people are tuning in to see a legitimate competition then I think the fans have a right to ask the players to expect that rather than just seeing this as an occasion to cash in. the problem is that when 2 friends meet in the finals, even if they arent deal making they probably still are friends and will share the money anyway... i guess im trying to say this... even if dealmaking was outlawed they would simply know in their heads the deal is going on because they agreed to chop in finals long ago and said dont speak about it again. so the two finalists would say they arent chopping to follow the rules, then after the tournament is over one guy would give some money to his uncle then his uncle gives it to the other finalist. short of tracking everyones bank statements its impossible to regulate this i guess the truth comes down to this. when two friends/teammates are in the finals, automatically you can expect it to be less competitive than if two people that hate eachother are in the finals however, if the finals is big the fame/exposure that comes from winning it can never be shared. so with that in mind there is still a big prize for the winnner and in that case it can still be somewhat competitive | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
You have two players who need to play for third-place in a tournament. However, they talk to each other and realize that they don't want to play the match and decide to split 50/50. They go to the tournament organizers and inform them of this. The tournament organizers go, "Fine," and split the prize for them, 50/50. Better or worse than deal-making? What if this happened in, say, the finals instead of the bronze match? Here, they go through the proper channels and split, but deprive the viewers of any games. With deal-making, players split on their own but still provide games for the public, which may or may not have been affected by their deal and other external, uncontrollable factors. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
Seriously, why on Earth would you play SC2 just for money? Just go work at McDonald's and you have a significantly higher chance of making more money with far less effort. The real prize is the title. | ||
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
| ||
|
NexUmbra
Scotland3776 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:46 babylon wrote: Okay, guys. Another scenario! You have two players who need to play for third-place in a tournament. However, they talk to each other and realize that they don't want to play the match and decide to split 50/50. They go to the tournament organizers and inform them of this. The tournament organizers go, "Fine," and split the prize for them, 50/50. Better or worse than deal-making? What if this happened in, say, the finals instead of the bronze match? Here, they go through the proper channels and split, but deprive the viewers of any games. With deal-making, players split on their own but still provide games for the public, which may or may not have been affected by their deal and other external, uncontrollable factors. This would never never happen, if someone ever did this they would be the scum of the earth. You can make up your little scenarios all you like but this would never happen... | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:51 NexUmbra wrote: This would never never happen, if someone ever did this they would be the scum of the earth. You can make up your little scenarios all you like but this would never happen... http://www.gotfrag.com/war/story/39159/ Lol, not so dumb, right? | ||
|
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
In any case it's still dumb. I can't see why a tournament would agree with this. | ||
|
J.E.G.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On September 03 2011 04:58 Carnac wrote: Would need more background info. In any case it's still dumb. I can't see why a tournament would agree with this. I'm trying to do some more digging into the matter at the moment, but articles are very skimpy on the details, unfortunately. Mostly just a passing mention of Grubby and Lucifer each receiving $2500. I guess you'd have to ask why the tournament organizers would even choose to split the bronze prize between the two players. If one didn't want to play, it should have been a forfeit. But if both didn't want to play, it would make more sense -- though still not very much, since ... if either one of them didn't want to play, the other could just say he was up for the task and come out $2500 richer due to the forfeit. | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On September 02 2011 07:34 nkulu wrote: When the difference between first and second is huge and both of them think its basically a 50/50 chance I can see why they would want to split the winnings instead. Playing without nerves will probably make better games for the spectators anyway. Um no... Champions are players who can overcome nerves and WIN. 2nd,3rd placers are the kind of people who fall to nerves if there is a 50,000$ money to the winner i want to see a REAL champion not the result of a "friendly" match between team mates if i wanted to see that i would watch streams. Also you must have never been in a situation were the championship is on the line people are able to go beyond and above when they REALLY want to win its all about guts. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
| ||
|
hacky
United States63 Posts
| ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
If a player does this, you can hate on them all you want for not being competitive or whatever, but legally they've done nothing wrong. It would just be a stupid thing to do because you're going to lose fans. | ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
On September 03 2011 05:19 TedJustice wrote: Bottom line is that this shouldn't be illegal. If a player does this, you can hate on them all you want for not being competitive or whatever, but legally they've done nothing wrong. It would just be a stupid thing to do because you're going to lose fans. Wait, your reasoning for why it shouldn't be made illegal is that it's not currently illegal? And how will we lose fans by making it illegal? | ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
On September 03 2011 05:28 Novalisk wrote: Wait, your reasoning for why it shouldn't be made illegal is that it's not currently illegal? And how will we lose fans by making it illegal? #1 He's saying it's not illegal so nothing should be done in the way of punishment towards the players #2 He's saying the players could(potentially) lose fans if they split prizes, not that making it illegal will lose fans | ||
| ||
