|
On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
I just want to (hopefully) make something clear here: the difference between "match-fixing" and "deal-making".
Match-fixing: Where two players agree beforehand who should win the match, and play it out in such a way as to make it happen.
Deal-making: Where two players agree to alter the prize payouts to be more agreeable, and then play the match with the new prizes.
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
now take that tiny cortex and figure out that its the same thing.
Deal-making: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome.
Match-fixing: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome.
And if the outcome really doesn't matter, then it clearly indicates that players will play like that outcome doesn't matter. They'll still play to win, but they won't play to win EVERYTHING, because half of it, as you said, doesn't matter.
What they are doing is trying to minimize their risks of loss due to NOT winning. That goes against the point of a tournament in the first place.
|
So I came into this topic at 74 pages O_O hopefully I'm not repeating anything that's been said already but if anything splitting prize $ at finals takes all pressure off players and possibly means they play a lot better then they would if they were under pressure and possibly making a mistake they wouldn't normally make.
ofc this also means that there is a possibility that the players are better under pressure too in which case they aren't giving the show that viewers want.
Personally i don't care much ^_^ a game is a game and if they're in finals they're still going to play at a high level assuming it's a known tournament.
|
On September 03 2011 13:26 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
I just want to (hopefully) make something clear here: the difference between "match-fixing" and "deal-making".
Match-fixing: Where two players agree beforehand who should win the match, and play it out in such a way as to make it happen.
Deal-making: Where two players agree to alter the prize payouts to be more agreeable, and then play the match with the new prizes.
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
now take that tiny cortex and figure out that its the same thing. Deal-making: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. Match-fixing: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. And if the outcome really doesn't matter, then it clearly indicates that players will play like that outcome doesn't matter. They'll still play to win, but they won't play to win EVERYTHING, because half of it, as you said, doesn't matter. What they are doing is trying to minimize their risks of loss due to NOT winning. That goes against the point of a tournament in the first place.
The amount of ignorance in the post is astounding.
|
On September 03 2011 13:26 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
I just want to (hopefully) make something clear here: the difference between "match-fixing" and "deal-making".
Match-fixing: Where two players agree beforehand who should win the match, and play it out in such a way as to make it happen.
Deal-making: Where two players agree to alter the prize payouts to be more agreeable, and then play the match with the new prizes.
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
now take that tiny cortex and figure out that its the same thing. Deal-making: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. Match-fixing: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. And if the outcome really doesn't matter, then it clearly indicates that players will play like that outcome doesn't matter. They'll still play to win, but they won't play to win EVERYTHING, because half of it, as you said, doesn't matter. What they are doing is trying to minimize their risks of loss due to NOT winning. That goes against the point of a tournament in the first place.
When I say "the outcome doesn't matter", I mean that it doesn't matter when negotiations between the players are taking place. If you're fixing a match, then you are fixing what you want the outcome of the match to be (for whatever reason). If you're trying to chop a prizepool, you're not talking about who's going to win and who's going to lose. You're talking about what 1st place is going to get and what 2nd place is going to get.
I'm not sure how trying to reduce variance goes "against the point of a tournament". The point of a tournament is to win, right? How does changing the payouts refute that? There is more to playing a tournament (specifically winning one) than just the prize money. Winning a tournament brings many other benefits besides the cash, and those benefits can't be chopped with the money. So, how would changing the payouts discourage players from playing to win with all the other benefits to be had?
|
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.
What? I'm late to the party but I hope nobody agrees with this. Would the World Cup, NBA finals, or Wimbledon finals be interesting if we knew that the competitors had agreed to fix the match beforehand? Absolutely not. The drama and uncertainty is what makes sports so fascinating. If we let teams/players decide the outcomes of games for us then our "sport" is no better than WWF wrestling.
Now I know not many people paid attention to the Mexico tournament but it is important that we don't set a precedent as a community to allow such behavior. This thread is a good start, players should have to consider how their public image will be affected before they enter into such an agreement.
|
On September 03 2011 14:09 Horse...falcon wrote:Show nested quote +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. What? I'm late to the party but I hope nobody agrees with this. Would the World Cup, NBA finals, or Wimbledon finals be interesting if we knew that the competitors had agreed to fix the match beforehand? Absolutely not. The drama and uncertainty is what makes sports so fascinating. If we let teams/players decide the outcomes of games for us then our "sport" is no better than WWF wrestling. Now I know not many people paid attention to the Mexico tournament but it is important that we don't set a precedent as a community to allow such behavior. This thread is a good start, players should have to consider how their public image will be affected before they enter into such an agreement.
I don't see him talking about fixing the match, both teams are still playing to win.
You're talking about something else entirely. Once more, match fixing and prize splitting are not the same thing.
|
On September 03 2011 14:09 Horse...falcon wrote:Show nested quote +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. What? I'm late to the party but I hope nobody agrees with this. Would the World Cup, NBA finals, or Wimbledon finals be interesting if we knew that the competitors had agreed to fix the match beforehand? Absolutely not. The drama and uncertainty is what makes sports so fascinating. If we let teams/players decide the outcomes of games for us then our "sport" is no better than WWF wrestling. Now I know not many people paid attention to the Mexico tournament but it is important that we don't set a precedent as a community to allow such behavior. This thread is a good start, players should have to consider how their public image will be affected before they enter into such an agreement.
to be fair the monetary incentive in those examples is irrelevant, and those players are only playing for the glory/prestige of a title
|
On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
And as a spectator, I need to trust that the outcome of the match DOES MATTER. I don't think you intended to make this point the way you did, but I see "deal-making" as a form of "match fixing" to the extent that it threatens to fun the outcome of the match as something that DOESN'T MATTER.
In other words, I get that players (especially those with experience playing professional poker, Magic, etc.) see this distinction (that you have adeptly described) as crystal clear. For myself, this is not about you having the correct information on how to define these two things. I see "match fixing" and "deal making" as being on the same continuum.
Your logic and my logic are in tension here. My logic is informed by my desire to see a match that I am confident in--a match that I know has not been tainted. The logic of many of the players in this thread is informed by the pragmatism of being friends with their opponent. I get it. I just desire something else.
I appreciate the calls for civility in this thread and those keeping an even head. I get where the players are coming from. It must be difficult, especially amongst friends, to negotiate differences in winnings.
I'm not sure that they understand where the opposition is coming from.
tl'dr "Deal making" and "match mixing" are not the same, but they do reside on the same continuum for me, a casual player and an avid fan...a slippery slope.
|
On September 03 2011 18:23 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
And as a spectator, I need to trust that the outcome of the match DOES MATTER. I don't think you intended to make this point the way you did, but I see "deal-making" as a form of "match fixing" to the extent that it threatens to fun the outcome of the match as something that DOESN'T MATTER. In other words, I get that players (especially those with experience playing professional poker, Magic, etc.) see this distinction (that you have adeptly described) as crystal clear. For myself, this is not about you having the correct information on how to define these two things. I see "match fixing" and "deal making" as being on the same continuum. Your logic and my logic are in tension here. My logic is informed by my desire to see a match that I am confident in--a match that I know has not been tainted. The logic of many of the players in this thread is informed by the pragmatism of being friends with their opponent. I get it. I just desire something else. I appreciate the calls for civility in this thread and those keeping an even head. I get where the players are coming from. It must be difficult, especially amongst friends, to negotiate differences in winnings. I'm not sure that they understand where the opposition is coming from. tl'dr "Deal making" and "match mixing" are not the same, but they do reside on the same continuum for me, a casual player and an avid fan...a slippery slope.
can you think of a finals you've seen that has been tainted by deal making? do you think that it has never happened before or is even uncommon? i guess it's all conjecture, but for me the answer to both is no. stop saying everything is a slippery slope. it's a fallacy unless you have perfect reasoning for how to get from point A to point B, and there seems to be plenty of argument saying that it would not significantly impact the quality of the games
|
On September 03 2011 18:23 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
And as a spectator, I need to trust that the outcome of the match DOES MATTER. I don't think you intended to make this point the way you did, but I see "deal-making" as a form of "match fixing" to the extent that it threatens to fun the outcome of the match as something that DOESN'T MATTER. In other words, I get that players (especially those with experience playing professional poker, Magic, etc.) see this distinction (that you have adeptly described) as crystal clear. For myself, this is not about you having the correct information on how to define these two things. I see "match fixing" and "deal making" as being on the same continuum. Your logic and my logic are in tension here. My logic is informed by my desire to see a match that I am confident in--a match that I know has not been tainted. The logic of many of the players in this thread is informed by the pragmatism of being friends with their opponent. I get it. I just desire something else. I appreciate the calls for civility in this thread and those keeping an even head. I get where the players are coming from. It must be difficult, especially amongst friends, to negotiate differences in winnings. I'm not sure that they understand where the opposition is coming from. tl'dr "Deal making" and "match mixing" are not the same, but they do reside on the same continuum for me, a casual player and an avid fan...a slippery slope. There are many variables, what if the team takes 100% of the winnings for example?
Main reasons it seems ok to me is that it that doesn't feel right to dictate what people should do with their money and that I don't see how it could be controlled. Perhaps 6 players live together to help each other get better and decide to pool potential price money for rent etc, how could that be controlled?
It can have negative consequences in theory if there is a lot of money involved for sure, but sometimes we have to get used to things that don't seem to be ideal and accept them as a part of the sport. Like "cooperative strategies" in long distance running, teams in race car sports or even that people that like each other team up against people they don't like, because some things just can't be regulated.
|
How can you make this illegal?
This winner is the owner of the money now. It is his OWN capital. HE can decide WHAT to do with HIS money.
I'm not agreeing that this should be done. But it is inevidable and within our way of legal thinking
|
Alright lets simplify this:
Votes are 67% think its wrong, with some of those people thinking its as bad or the same as fixing matches, while the minority don't think its wrong.
Greater than 2/3 majority believes its wrong so far. Guess you individualistic people are out in the cold.
On September 03 2011 19:44 bluQ wrote:
How can you make this illegal?
This winner is the owner of the money now. It is his OWN capital. HE can decide WHAT to do with HIS money.
I'm not agreeing that this should be done. But it is inevidable and within our way of legal thinking
its not his money until he wins it.
He wins it under the pretext he is competing with the uncertainty of actually winning at all, and thus with the uncertainty of winning any money.
This is the agreement between Tournament and Player.
Player makes a "safety" deal with another player that whichever one of them wins, they split the money.
Said agreement between Tournament and Player is now being invalidated by a secret agreement with a third party.
Said Tournament cannot know about it and adjust the reward accordingly, or bar them from competing.
Players compete and then split the money as winner/loser 50/50.
Said Players thus "workaround" the issue of being required to win to get the money, while Tournament is not aware of this.
How can you not find this unethical and wrong? Its cheating. Don't try to defend them, don't try to be a fanboy. Guess what, this is just like the banks that are now getting sued for hiding the full extent of what the agreement entailed from the consumers.
Hmm, hiding full extent of agreement from Tournament. Player 2 is a secret 3rd party Tournament can't know about, or would kick them both out. Thus they hide it. Why hide it if its ALLOWED??
This entire thread is full of logical fallacy derpishness that loops in endless circles. Welcome to hell, everyone out there who's sane.
|
Lets just say this.
If i were to run a tournament, and it would come to my attention that the 2 players in the finals agreed to split the money before the match, i would not invite those 2 player back in to tournament.
And i cant really see any tournament being okay with player splitting the money.
|
On September 03 2011 20:09 aderum wrote:
Lets just say this.
If i were to run a tournament, and it would come to my attention that the 2 players in the finals agreed to split the money before the match, i would not invite those 2 player back in to tournament.
And i cant really see any tournament being okay with player splitting the money.
pretty much. everyone in here who thinks they can do what they want with their money aren't getting the point that its NOT their money until they win it under the contractual agreement between P and T of them getting first place and thus being ELIGIBLE for that money. giving it to other players DEFEATS that.
Lets say, for instance, that two players make this pact, and one gets knocked out so early as to gain NO prize money. and then the other wins first place. is it FAIR for the other to get money they didn't win legitimately?
Thats why its wrong, and the people failing to see that are still sticking their fingers in their eyes and refusing to see reason.
Edit: Don't hate me for being a little Thrasymachus. It just gets very annoying to see the same repeated phrases as to why its not wrong when it clearly is.
|
who would make a pact before being in the money? that's just dumb.
i will never blame players for looking out for themselves in this type of reward system. you have to accept that this stuff happens when tournaments award money as prizes.
tournaments cannot blame players. if they're so uptight about it, then they will have to give out a different kind of reward.
maybe when you're actually in the position of being in top two, feeling a little bit of doubt, then you'll realize you're not above splitting the money as a consolation for the possibility of losing.
|
On September 03 2011 14:09 Horse...falcon wrote:Show nested quote +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. What? I'm late to the party but I hope nobody agrees with this. Would the World Cup, NBA finals, or Wimbledon finals be interesting if we knew that the competitors had agreed to fix the match beforehand? Absolutely not. The drama and uncertainty is what makes sports so fascinating. If we let teams/players decide the outcomes of games for us then our "sport" is no better than WWF wrestling. Now I know not many people paid attention to the Mexico tournament but it is important that we don't set a precedent as a community to allow such behavior. This thread is a good start, players should have to consider how their public image will be affected before they enter into such an agreement.
if it would be better, the price for 1st and 2nd place would simply be the same, so there was only the honor of winning on the line, just like with deal making. So yeah, while not as bad as fixing the games, it certainly should be 'illegal'.
|
On September 03 2011 14:09 Horse...falcon wrote:Show nested quote +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. What? I'm late to the party but I hope nobody agrees with this. Would the World Cup, NBA finals, or Wimbledon finals be interesting if we knew that the competitors had agreed to fix the match beforehand? Absolutely not. The drama and uncertainty is what makes sports so fascinating. If we let teams/players decide the outcomes of games for us then our "sport" is no better than WWF wrestling. Now I know not many people paid attention to the Mexico tournament but it is important that we don't set a precedent as a community to allow such behavior. This thread is a good start, players should have to consider how their public image will be affected before they enter into such an agreement.
This is not match fixing per se. It's about splitting the prize money.
And to answer your question , no one will care if in the world cup, nba finals, wimbledon , the first and second prize get the same amount of money. No one cares. I bet the players won't. The spectators won't. I won't. Those tournaments you mentioned are really bad examples.
In fact... you can make it so the first place earn less than second and it won't change a thing. Everyone will still want to win. But just to illustrate the point. This is not match fixing. This is price money splitting.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On September 03 2011 20:05 Truedot wrote:
Alright lets simplify this:
Votes are 67% think its wrong, with some of those people thinking its as bad or the same as fixing matches, while the minority don't think its wrong.
Greater than 2/3 majority believes its wrong so far. Guess you individualistic people are out in the cold.
The op as such is very onesided, as is the way the polls are designed. This has a huge influence on the results of polls, as anyone with any experience in polling would tell you. I don't know what the result of a "proper" poll would be, put these two polls are tainted to say the least.
its not his money until he wins it.
He wins it under the pretext he is competing with the uncertainty of actually winning at all, and thus with the uncertainty of winning any money.
This is the agreement between Tournament and Player.
Player makes a "safety" deal with another player that whichever one of them wins, they split the money.
Said agreement between Tournament and Player is now being invalidated by a secret agreement with a third party.
Said Tournament cannot know about it and adjust the reward accordingly, or bar them from competing.
Players compete and then split the money as winner/loser 50/50.
Said Players thus "workaround" the issue of being required to win to get the money, while Tournament is not aware of this.
How can you not find this unethical and wrong? Its cheating. Don't try to defend them, don't try to be a fanboy. Guess what, this is just like the banks that are now getting sued for hiding the full extent of what the agreement entailed from the consumers.
Hmm, hiding full extent of agreement from Tournament. Player 2 is a secret 3rd party Tournament can't know about, or would kick them both out. Thus they hide it. Why hide it if its ALLOWED??
This entire thread is full of logical fallacy derpishness that loops in endless circles. Welcome to hell, everyone out there who's sane.
Interesting construction you attempted to make up there. Nothing more than meaningless semantics though.
It will be the money of both players, they just haven't been paid yet. If it helps just consider both winnings of a match as a pool. They win that pool by reaching the final. What they do with the pool afterwards is no one else's concern.
How the hell can you call it cheating? No competitor is disadvantaged, robbed of or denied anything whatsoever.
What if I agree with my friend that in the future we will split our winnings every time we play out a final placement (final or 3rd place match, earlier rounds don't have that "problem" anyway, since you still play to advance into a later round)? What if a team were to stipulate something along those lines in its player contracts?
Lets say, for instance, that two players make this pact, and one gets knocked out so early as to gain NO prize money. and then the other wins first place. is it FAIR for the other to get money they didn't win legitimately?
If they agreed to do this out of their own free will before the fact then yes, it is fair. Hell, the whole concept of lottery pools is built around this idea.
|
On September 03 2011 13:26 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 13:11 templar rage wrote:
I just want to (hopefully) make something clear here: the difference between "match-fixing" and "deal-making".
Match-fixing: Where two players agree beforehand who should win the match, and play it out in such a way as to make it happen.
Deal-making: Where two players agree to alter the prize payouts to be more agreeable, and then play the match with the new prizes.
Notice how, in the definition of deal-making, the outcome of the match is never brought up. That's because the outcome of the match doesn't matter. Deal-making is solely about the prize pool and how it is paid out to the players.
Now, all you people who are saying no to deal-making because you think it's the same thing as match-fixing, digest the above definitions and reconsider. Then, if you still disagree, then that's fine. But don't equate the two terms, because they really aren't very close at all.
now take that tiny cortex and figure out that its the same thing. Deal-making: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. Match-fixing: the outcome doesn't matter, cash is going to change hands because of the outcome. And if the outcome really doesn't matter, then it clearly indicates that players will play like that outcome doesn't matter. They'll still play to win, but they won't play to win EVERYTHING, because half of it, as you said, doesn't matter. What they are doing is trying to minimize their risks of loss due to NOT winning. That goes against the point of a tournament in the first place.
not only do you not make much sense but you act like an arrogant ass while showing you dont understand the topic at all, nice one
On September 03 2011 21:31 Carnac wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 20:05 Truedot wrote:
Alright lets simplify this:
Votes are 67% think its wrong, with some of those people thinking its as bad or the same as fixing matches, while the minority don't think its wrong.
Greater than 2/3 majority believes its wrong so far. Guess you individualistic people are out in the cold. The op as such is very onesided, as is the way the polls are designed. This has a huge influence on the results of polls, as anyone with any experience in polling would tell you. I don't know what the result of a "proper" poll would be, put these two polls are tainted to say the least. Show nested quote +its not his money until he wins it.
He wins it under the pretext he is competing with the uncertainty of actually winning at all, and thus with the uncertainty of winning any money.
This is the agreement between Tournament and Player.
Player makes a "safety" deal with another player that whichever one of them wins, they split the money.
Said agreement between Tournament and Player is now being invalidated by a secret agreement with a third party.
Said Tournament cannot know about it and adjust the reward accordingly, or bar them from competing.
Players compete and then split the money as winner/loser 50/50.
Said Players thus "workaround" the issue of being required to win to get the money, while Tournament is not aware of this.
How can you not find this unethical and wrong? Its cheating. Don't try to defend them, don't try to be a fanboy. Guess what, this is just like the banks that are now getting sued for hiding the full extent of what the agreement entailed from the consumers.
Hmm, hiding full extent of agreement from Tournament. Player 2 is a secret 3rd party Tournament can't know about, or would kick them both out. Thus they hide it. Why hide it if its ALLOWED??
This entire thread is full of logical fallacy derpishness that loops in endless circles. Welcome to hell, everyone out there who's sane. Interesting construction you attempted to make up there. Nothing more than meaningless semantics though. It will be the money of both players, they just haven't been paid yet. If it helps just consider both winnings of a match as a pool. They win that pool by reaching the final. What they do with the pool afterwards is no one else's concern. How the hell can you call it cheating? No competitor is disadvantaged, robbed of or denied anything whatsoever. What if I agree with my friend that in the future we will split our winnings every time we play out a final placement (final or 3rd place match, earlier rounds don't have that "problem" anyway, since you still play to advance into a later round)? What if a team were to stipulate something along those lines in its player contracts? Show nested quote +Lets say, for instance, that two players make this pact, and one gets knocked out so early as to gain NO prize money. and then the other wins first place. is it FAIR for the other to get money they didn't win legitimately? If they agreed to do this out of their own free will before the fact then yes, it is fair. Hell, the whole concept of lottery pools is built around this idea.
on the subject of this there have been similar 'problems' in F1. not so much sharing prize money but the idea of racers (or players) who are competing in an INDIVIDUAL sport, how much working together is appropriate. many teams have gotten bad press over one driver allowing the other to pass if it will influence the result of the overall championship (if for example one driver needs the points to get overall first, and the second driver has no chance to win the whole thing).
its not the same as sharing money but its in the same vein of cooperation in a mostly individual sport.
|
On September 03 2011 09:43 applejuice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:36 Fubi wrote:On September 03 2011 09:33 applejuice wrote:On September 03 2011 09:30 ReignFayth wrote:On September 03 2011 09:27 Saturnize wrote:
Been reading through most of this thread. I see the argument "well its their money they can do what they want with it so deal with it!!!!!!!!!!" a lot in this thread as if we are arguing about the ethics of it vs whether it is something that will degrade competitive SC2 in the long run/make it less exciting if there is always going to be that stigma of two 1/2 placers agreeing to split the stash. While it may be with in their rights to do whatever they want to with the money, it does make competitive SC2 look really lame compared to any other competitive event like golf or poker when you have people agreeing to throw matches in order to get a share of the 1st prize. Do I blame these actions when you look at how much a top 10 SC2 progamer makes in relation to a sub 100 golfer makes? Of course not! When you get bigger prizepools and more cash finishes I think that there will be less of an incentive to "rig matches" than there will be in a tournament with a smaller prizepool.
Most of the people in this thread want to argue the ethics/morals of what people do with their own money vs if it is good for the professional SC2 scene in the long run. I think that if SC2 is ever to be taken "seriously" people need to stop "fixing" these games.
just my 2 cents. once again nobody talked about fixing games or rigging matches... just altering the prize money for 1st and 2nd It's like playing poker without real money to back it up. It doesn't work. It's a moot point whether the match is actually fixed or not, the competition is going to suck either way. Not a moot point. The difference is, fixing games and rigging matches are usually illegal or at the minimum, against tournament rules, but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want. ...but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want.While your straw man is intriguing, the split you are referring to occurs before the match begins, not after. It's a fix.
Hey cool, I can play with technicality too: You can not split something that you don't have yet. The AGREEMENT to split happens before the match, but nothing is actually split until they actually receive the money. Therefore, they are still splitting their own money that they receive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
