Lack of content, flaming (of the French or anyone) and useless posts will be punished. Please keep it from being too inflammatory and keep discussion on-topic. -semioldguy (p.103)
On September 21 2011 22:07 haduken wrote: Stephano certainly did himself no favors. Which team is going to look his way when big money comes up for a new player?
Idra is far to be the most respectfull and manner man in the world, that never closed him any door, because he is a very good player.
Same for Naniwa 10 month ago when everybody was blaming his behaviour (he is a nice guy now).
If their behaviour didn't cost them anything, i've no reason to worried about Stephano's futur
There's a huge difference between having a temper and going back on contracts. Not every country has these legal loopholes, ya know.
It is hilarious that you would call laws that protect the ordinary citizen from making potentially disastrous life-altering decisions a "legal loophole." I take it you are also for large corporations being able to issue sub-prime mortgages out to anybody? In case you don't remember that is a huge reason why the economy of the US has been in a near-catastrophic state for the last 4 years.
Apples to oranges. There are many reasons why the global recession has happened. And the severity of the two situations are not even close.
On September 21 2011 22:07 haduken wrote: Stephano certainly did himself no favors. Which team is going to look his way when big money comes up for a new player?
Idra is far to be the most respectfull and manner man in the world, that never closed him any door, because he is a very good player.
Same for Naniwa 10 month ago when everybody was blaming his behaviour (he is a nice guy now).
If their behaviour didn't cost them anything, i've no reason to worried about Stephano's futur
There's a huge difference between having a temper and going back on contracts. Not every country has these legal loopholes, ya know.
It is hilarious that you would call laws that protect the ordinary citizen from making potentially disastrous life-altering decisions a "legal loophole." I take it you are also for large corporations being able to issue sub-prime mortgages out to anybody? In case you don't remember that is a huge reason why the economy of the US has been in a near-catastrophic state for the last 4 years.
actually the case of the us economy isn't because of the subprime mortgages, but rather the combination of repackaging them and fraudulently selling those packages to other banks as though they were reliable mortgages, in addition to the bottom falling out of the housing market.
On September 22 2011 03:20 Oshuy wrote: 18 is usually considered adult from a legal standpoint (although you are very unlikely to get a maximum sentence on a first offence)
Being considered as an adult in a conversation, depending on the people talking, means having faced real life and punched it once or twice (living outside of your parents home / having a family / stopping childish hobbies like video games), which can get you up to 25 or even 30.
Well this is just plain wrong. Being an adult mentally has nothing to do with age. There are thousands of children the world over that have to care for their parents, other siblings or other family members from a very young age. Having the maturity to take on the responsibility of another persons life makes them an adult in my eyes. You don't have to leave your parents home to grow up, nor have a family.
Lastly, how do you define childish hobby? Most gamers are adults, just because they play video games doesn't make them any less of an adult. There are a lot of hobbies in the world that are far more childish than playing video games.
On September 22 2011 03:20 Oshuy wrote: 18 is usually considered adult from a legal standpoint (although you are very unlikely to get a maximum sentence on a first offence)
Being considered as an adult in a conversation, depending on the people talking, means having faced real life and punched it once or twice (living outside of your parents home / having a family / stopping childish hobbies like video games), which can get you up to 25 or even 30.
Well this is just plain wrong. Being an adult mentally has nothing to do with age. There are thousands of children the world over that have to care for their parents, other siblings or other family members from a very young age. Having the maturity to take on the responsibility of another persons life makes them an adult in my eyes. You don't have to leave your parents home to grow up, nor have a family.
Lastly, how do you define childish hobby? Most gamers are adults, just because they play video games doesn't make them any less of an adult. There are a lot of hobbies in the world that are far more childish than playing video games.
be that as it may, in every country around the world i can think of, 18 is the age of adulthood, meaning that barring a mental incapacity, society has decided you are mature enough to fulfill your financial and legal obligations as an adult. you are also conferred the privilages of an adult, don't like your parents rules,move out, they can't stop you. you don't like the way the government is run, vote them out, its your legal right. you can't set such things on an individual basis. yes there are children who are more mature than adults, does that mean the adults should be treated as children and vice versa?
On September 22 2011 03:20 Oshuy wrote: 18 is usually considered adult from a legal standpoint (although you are very unlikely to get a maximum sentence on a first offence)
Being considered as an adult in a conversation, depending on the people talking, means having faced real life and punched it once or twice (living outside of your parents home / having a family / stopping childish hobbies like video games), which can get you up to 25 or even 30.
Well this is just plain wrong. Being an adult mentally has nothing to do with age. There are thousands of children the world over that have to care for their parents, other siblings or other family members from a very young age. Having the maturity to take on the responsibility of another persons life makes them an adult in my eyes. You don't have to leave your parents home to grow up, nor have a family.
Lastly, how do you define childish hobby? Most gamers are adults, just because they play video games doesn't make them any less of an adult. There are a lot of hobbies in the world that are far more childish than playing video games.
be that as it may, in every country around the world i can think of, 18 is the age of adulthood, meaning that barring a mental incapacity, society has decided you are mature enough to fulfill your financial and legal obligations as an adult. you are also conferred the privilages of an adult, don't like your parents rules,move out, they can't stop you. you don't like the way the government is run, vote them out, its your legal right. you can't set such things on an individual basis. yes there are children who are more mature than adults, does that mean the adults should be treated as children and vice versa?
Although, I've heard of a retarded country where 18 years old people are not considered mature enough to buy alcohol. But that's only normal because buying a beer requires so much more maturity than signing a job contract.
On September 22 2011 02:45 Roynalf wrote: What ever the situation currently is Stephano is really worth of fighting
An unproven player with few online wins and moderate LAN success who thinks of quitting the game next year? sure.. it was worth getting him before he showed his true colors because 'potentially' he could become a top player, but right now no team will touch him with a 10 foot pole, unless it's a french one.
To all the people saying that Stephano is 18, he should have known better, you need to understand that such contract doesn't exist in France.
When you buy a house, build a house, subscribe to a credit, buy something online (or by mail-order), you always have a delai of reflexion (typically 1 week depending on the case) during which you can step back without giving any reason.
And that's not breaking a contract, that's cancelling it.
In the case of a job, you have minimum 1 month probation period.
That's just a culteral difference. In France the law is made to protect people, even against their own mistakes. It looks like that in USA, when someone looses his house because he took a credit he shouldn't have, people just say : "that's his fault, this piece of trash should have known better." In France, we have laws to prevent it from happening as much as possible.
***
Now, what is the situation with complexity ? They want to sue a player that just turned 18, has never earned money in his life. They seriously want money from him ? That sounds rather lame.
What are the damages ? None. The only reason they have is to "promote professionalism".
Now, we can ask ourselves how professional is it to have a french citizen working in France under a contract that is not compliant with french labor law. Is it the best idea to have a player sign a contract in the middle of the night when all the people that could advice him are sleeping ?
So funny to see this thread still going :p If everything I've heard is true about the contract and the jurisdiction it's in, etc.... then I can only say that I think Millennium should prepare themselves. Overall, it's pretty disappointing what Stephano and Millennium are doing. If Stephano changed his mind or there were issues, I'm sure he could've worked something out like Destiny did to leave Complexity but instead both he and Millennium went through this whole drama. Watching his game against MMA, I was starting to see what everyone is talking about in terms of skills, etc.... but, I lost respect for him after this incident. I mean who signs a contract without looking over the details, etc....? Before anyone comments on that question, yes, I know about the french law and the duration that you can still pull out of a contract
On September 22 2011 05:59 Elean wrote: To all the people saying that Stephano is 18, he should have known better, you need to understand that such contract doesn't exist in France.
When you buy a house, build a house, subscribe to a credit, buy something online (or by mail-order), you always have a delai of reflexion (typically 1 week depending on the case) during which you can step back without giving any reason.
And that's not breaking a contract, that's cancelling it.
In the case of a job, you have minimum 1 month probation period.
That's just a culteral difference. In France the law is made to protect people, even against their own mistakes. It looks like that in USA, when someone looses his house because he took a credit he shouldn't have, people just say : "that's his fault, this piece of trash should have known better." In France, we have laws to prevent it from happening as much as possible.
***
Now, what is the situation with complexity ? They want to sue a player that just turned 18, has never earned money in his life. They seriously want money from him ? That sounds rather lame.
What are the damages ? None. The only reason they have is to "promote professionalism".
Now, we can ask ourselves how professional is it to have a french citizen working in France under a contract that is not compliant with french labor law. Is it the best idea to have a player sign a contract in the middle of the night when all the people that could advice him are sleeping ?
you really think M has their number one priority as stephano's wellbeing? rofl.
On September 22 2011 05:59 Elean wrote: To all the people saying that Stephano is 18, he should have known better, you need to understand that such contract doesn't exist in France.
When you buy a house, build a house, subscribe to a credit, buy something online (or by mail-order), you always have a delai of reflexion (typically 1 week depending on the case) during which you can step back without giving any reason.
And that's not breaking a contract, that's cancelling it.
In the case of a job, you have minimum 1 month probation period.
That's just a culteral difference. In France the law is made to protect people, even against their own mistakes. It looks like that in USA, when someone looses his house because he took a credit he shouldn't have, people just say : "that's his fault, this piece of trash should have known better." In France, we have laws to prevent it from happening as much as possible.
***
Now, what is the situation with complexity ? They want to sue a player that just turned 18, has never earned money in his life. They seriously want money from him ? That sounds rather lame.
What are the damages ? None. The only reason they have is to "promote professionalism".
Now, we can ask ourselves how professional is it to have a french citizen working in France under a contract that is not compliant with french labor law. Is it the best idea to have a player sign a contract in the middle of the night when all the people that could advice him are sleeping ?
Not only is 95% of your post false (and shows you dont even know about your own law, yet decide to comment on it), its also extremely biased.
What about you think of the fact that Stephano had time to think about the contract and discuss it prior to the signature, and thus knew exactly what he was getting himself into, and then decided to quit out ?
See how that works now ?
Fact is, we don't know everything that happened, so judging any party is hard, but I think that what we can know is that a contract was signed by stephano, whether valid in france or not, whether late at night or not, yet he still signed it and then backed out, which is peculiar to say the least.
Well, i think that is pretty bad for Stephano's carrier in general, not only is he not going to get a good contract but teams won't want to pick up him in tyhe futurue because all this scandal.
On September 21 2011 22:07 haduken wrote: Stephano certainly did himself no favors. Which team is going to look his way when big money comes up for a new player?
Idra is far to be the most respectfull and manner man in the world, that never closed him any door, because he is a very good player.
Same for Naniwa 10 month ago when everybody was blaming his behaviour (he is a nice guy now).
If their behaviour didn't cost them anything, i've no reason to worried about Stephano's futur
There's a huge difference between having a temper and going back on contracts. Not every country has these legal loopholes, ya know.
It is hilarious that you would call laws that protect the ordinary citizen from making potentially disastrous life-altering decisions a "legal loophole." I take it you are also for large corporations being able to issue sub-prime mortgages out to anybody? In case you don't remember that is a huge reason why the economy of the US has been in a near-catastrophic state for the last 4 years.
Without wanting to go into a political discussion (no matter how much my hands are itching) that sentence is: a) a gross overstatement and shows a clear lack of understanding of global economics and b) a completly idiotic comparison.
Congratulations you have made me laugh out loud in front of my chair.
First of all you don't know any details of the law in question so it might very well be a loophole (probably even by design as part of consumer protection vs. the evil companies). Second of all you might have missed the part where "potentially disastrous life-altering decisions" aren't really the point of that specific law. Newsflash for you, if a contract is so disastrous you can dissolve it in some way in almost any country of the world. You might need a lawyer and a judge for it, but if it is truly so imbalanced to be disastrous you will be able to get out of it (with some exceptions regarding corporations and companies since those are obviously not protected by consumer protection laws).
The law in question gives him the ability to reverse a call without stating any reasons, as long as he agrees to pay the damages. And yes by any definition of the word that can easily be called a loophole. So please take your hyperbole (and political rants about the evil banks) somewhere else, it has no place here.
It's interesting, this inside information a lot of people seems to have gotten hold of that no teams will pick stephano up in the future. You don't really know what kind of things factor into a team's decision to acquire a new player, so why don't you just hold your horses. The fact of the matter is that we still don't know what really happened, and what the legal situation is.
I agree with a lot of people here that mil is acting a bit strange, and that complexity has put out more information about their part in the affair, but those things are not conclusive. It might indeed turn out that col was too hasty in announcing their player, that they should have more closely researched the contract laws of France before assuming that american standards would automatically apply. Or maybe they did in fact do that kind of research and the contract is binding and mil is in the wrong but we don't know! Stop acting like you do!
On September 22 2011 03:20 Oshuy wrote: 18 is usually considered adult from a legal standpoint (although you are very unlikely to get a maximum sentence on a first offence)
Being considered as an adult in a conversation, depending on the people talking, means having faced real life and punched it once or twice (living outside of your parents home / having a family / stopping childish hobbies like video games), which can get you up to 25 or even 30.
Well this is just plain wrong. Being an adult mentally has nothing to do with age. There are thousands of children the world over that have to care for their parents, other siblings or other family members from a very young age. Having the maturity to take on the responsibility of another persons life makes them an adult in my eyes. You don't have to leave your parents home to grow up, nor have a family.
Lastly, how do you define childish hobby? Most gamers are adults, just because they play video games doesn't make them any less of an adult. There are a lot of hobbies in the world that are far more childish than playing video games.
be that as it may, in every country around the world i can think of, 18 is the age of adulthood, meaning that barring a mental incapacity, society has decided you are mature enough to fulfill your financial and legal obligations as an adult. you are also conferred the privilages of an adult, don't like your parents rules,move out, they can't stop you. you don't like the way the government is run, vote them out, its your legal right. you can't set such things on an individual basis. yes there are children who are more mature than adults, does that mean the adults should be treated as children and vice versa?
Although, I've heard of a retarded country where 18 years old people are not considered mature enough to buy alcohol. But that's only normal because buying a beer requires so much more maturity than signing a job contract.
It might have had something to do with the number of drunk kids driving cars and killing themselves (and others) while doing it that led to the change you are referring to. Something which is still a common and daily problem in almost all the european countries including mine and yours. You might want to keep that in mind before you throw stones and call other countries retarded (something seriously uncalled for in this discussion as well)
On September 21 2011 22:07 haduken wrote: Stephano certainly did himself no favors. Which team is going to look his way when big money comes up for a new player?
Idra is far to be the most respectfull and manner man in the world, that never closed him any door, because he is a very good player.
Same for Naniwa 10 month ago when everybody was blaming his behaviour (he is a nice guy now).
If their behaviour didn't cost them anything, i've no reason to worried about Stephano's futur
There's a huge difference between having a temper and going back on contracts. Not every country has these legal loopholes, ya know.
It is hilarious that you would call laws that protect the ordinary citizen from making potentially disastrous life-altering decisions a "legal loophole." I take it you are also for large corporations being able to issue sub-prime mortgages out to anybody? In case you don't remember that is a huge reason why the economy of the US has been in a near-catastrophic state for the last 4 years.
Without wanting to go into a political discussion (no matter how much my hands are itching) that sentence is: a) a gross overstatement and shows a clear lack of understanding of global economics and b) a completly idiotic comparison.
Congratulations you have made me laugh out loud in front of my chair.
First of all you don't know any details of the law in question so it might very well be a loophole (probably even by design as part of consumer protection vs. the evil companies). Second of all you might have missed the part where "potentially disastrous life-altering decisions" aren't really the point of that specific law. Newsflash for you, if a contract is so disastrous you can dissolve it in some way in almost any country of the world. You might need a lawyer and a judge for it, but if it is truly so imbalanced to be disastrous you will be able to get out of it (with some exceptions regarding corporations and companies since those are obviously not protected by consumer protection laws).
The law in question gives him the ability to reverse a call without stating any reasons, as long as he agrees to pay the damages. And yes by any definition of the word that can easily be called a loophole. So please take your hyperbole (and political rants about the evil banks) somewhere else, it has no place here.
Well, if we go by semantics, a loophole is in fact an ambiguity or technicality in a law that allows for outcomes that where not intended by the writers (or at least the legislators). If there is a stated function for this clause, then it is obviously not a loophole. Not a bug, a feature etc.
On September 22 2011 07:24 Tula wrote:The law in question gives him the ability to reverse a call without stating any reasons, as long as he agrees to pay the damages. And yes by any definition of the word that can easily be called a loophole.
that would define almost anything as a loophole wouldn't it?
On September 22 2011 07:24 Cluster wrote: It's interesting, this inside information a lot of people seems to have gotten hold of that no teams will pick stephano up in the future. You don't really know what kind of things factor into a team's decision to acquire a new player, so why don't you just hold your horses. The fact of the matter is that we still don't know what really happened, and what the legal situation is.
I agree with a lot of people here that mil is acting a bit strange, and that complexity has put out more information about their part in the affair, but those things are not conclusive. It might indeed turn out that col was too hasty in announcing their player, that they should have more closely researched the contract laws of France before assuming that american standards would automatically apply. Or maybe they did in fact do that kind of research and the contract is binding and mil is in the wrong but we don't know! Stop acting like you do!
Actually what i do know is that it is easier for Col to sign Stephano under American law (and also quite possible) than it would be for them to get themselves a new lawyer in France and sign him under French law, in a country where they have no office and no represantion for any law issues that might arise in the future.
The question we will almost certainly not get answered (since Col is unlikely to take this to court) is if French clauses supercede the Contract Stephano signed, because the only person who could answer that is a French judge.
Considering his potential future career, well in 1 year this whole discussion will be water under the bridge, but you can be almost certain that any future team will keep it in mind and take appropriate steps to protect themselves against similar issues with Stephano in the future (steps which might include simply planning for another player and ignoring him, or they might not if he is good enough at that time to make it worth the effort).
On September 21 2011 22:07 haduken wrote: Stephano certainly did himself no favors. Which team is going to look his way when big money comes up for a new player?
Idra is far to be the most respectfull and manner man in the world, that never closed him any door, because he is a very good player.
Same for Naniwa 10 month ago when everybody was blaming his behaviour (he is a nice guy now).
If their behaviour didn't cost them anything, i've no reason to worried about Stephano's futur
There's a huge difference between having a temper and going back on contracts. Not every country has these legal loopholes, ya know.
It is hilarious that you would call laws that protect the ordinary citizen from making potentially disastrous life-altering decisions a "legal loophole." I take it you are also for large corporations being able to issue sub-prime mortgages out to anybody? In case you don't remember that is a huge reason why the economy of the US has been in a near-catastrophic state for the last 4 years.
Without wanting to go into a political discussion (no matter how much my hands are itching) that sentence is: a) a gross overstatement and shows a clear lack of understanding of global economics and b) a completly idiotic comparison.
Congratulations you have made me laugh out loud in front of my chair.
First of all you don't know any details of the law in question so it might very well be a loophole (probably even by design as part of consumer protection vs. the evil companies). Second of all you might have missed the part where "potentially disastrous life-altering decisions" aren't really the point of that specific law. Newsflash for you, if a contract is so disastrous you can dissolve it in some way in almost any country of the world. You might need a lawyer and a judge for it, but if it is truly so imbalanced to be disastrous you will be able to get out of it (with some exceptions regarding corporations and companies since those are obviously not protected by consumer protection laws).
The law in question gives him the ability to reverse a call without stating any reasons, as long as he agrees to pay the damages. And yes by any definition of the word that can easily be called a loophole. So please take your hyperbole (and political rants about the evil banks) somewhere else, it has no place here.
Well, if we go by semantics, a loophole is in fact an ambiguity or technicality in a law that allows for outcomes that where not intended by the writers (or at least the legislators). If there is a stated function for this clause, then it is obviously not a loophole. Not a bug, a feature etc.
Very well, i will consult my nearest law dictionary (which is at work) and find the proper translation for the german term i am thinking of in the near future. Let me try to rephrase what i mean in the meantime, maybe in English a loophole covers only what is not intended by the writers, in many cases in European law a similar term is used for costumer protection to cover them and make it possible to retract from previous statements if they can show that they were in some ways tricked by their partner. Those protections are in fact intended by the writer of the law, but they are called something close to loophole (actually the same word) because they cover holes not intended in the contract. So in that sense they are a loophole and in the sense of the law they are a clause.
I hope that is clearer than the past paragraphs. I'll see if there is a proper legal term for such constructions tomorrow
EPT
