On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable for the state of the eSports?
Maybe not OK, but overreaction isn't good for e-sports either. How can you say losing your Code S spot and your team over this is fair? Maybe he was fucking tired of playing at that time anyways?
EDIT: I guess he didn't lose his team, just demoted and kicked out of the training house...
Two little kids, haven't got to learn the meaning of "professional", stupid mistake, pity... I see no bad intent in their act, they just proved themselves to be not capable of anticipating the implications of their recklessness; their regret, disclosure on game chat while thousands watching, prove that.
Too bad they had to learn the seriousness of professionalism by the hard way.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable and good for the state of the eSports to move in this direction? That friends should let their lower ranked friends win if the tournament doesn't interest them.
Would they have done it if they really cared that much about the game ? Def. not they took it more or less like a game among friends . Yeah they made a judgement error and made a mistake but this has nothing to do with esports in general.
On November 15 2011 20:22 elwoodng wrote: Matching-fixing is bad enough but actually saying it in the chat? I don't know what to say...
CoCa wanted a third game instead of a 2-0, White-Ra accepted similar terms during an open bracket at an MLG where he was disqualified from his open bracket match and met the same person later on and they decided to reset the extended series by just leaving the game twice so that it would be 2-2 (the referee wouldn't let them hard reset).
But it's okay because he's White-Ra and the SC2 community prides itself on nepotism instead of actual merit that has been displayed by CoCa and Byun.
Match fixing is a mutual agreement between both players. WhiteRa decided on his own to throw two of his games that ultimately had no impact on the outcome.... not even comparable.
People really forgot what happened at MLG with White-RA...
first, there was no agreement to throw the first 2 games of their rematch. (White-ra's opponent asked the referees to "reset" the score - mlg extended series rule, he started with a 2-0 lead. Refs said "NO"). IIRC, said opponent then worker rushed white-ra in the first two games giving away the easy wins (he didn't just 'leave game').
I have no interest in debating where the line is drawn about what is right and wrong (there will never be an agreement)... I personally don't have a problem with a player deciding they don't want to win/win 2-0/start with a 2-0 lead etc etc...(I do prefer that it's transparent tho).
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
Jesus stop trying to impress people with debate class 101 material. Your argument with point number one is completely wrong. It hurt the other competitors by giving Byun a chance that he would not have gotten if he was not playing against his teammate. No other player had a attained a free win. So why should Byun get one? He should have been eliminated but he got another chance.
ALSO You completely used ad hominem incorrectly. He merely insulted you with a comment but in no way did he use that to try to disprove your argument (Definition of ad hominem is to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Trying to sound smart would only hurt you when talking to people who know their shit.
On November 15 2011 20:51 Toppp wrote: This isn't match fixing, this is a CoCa tossing a game to his best friend and training partner in a tournament relatively insignificant compared to GSL, this is a huge overreaction and probably spells the end of CoCa's career.
This and nothing else. Still wrong but nothing major.
I understand why the disciplinary steps were taken, but purely from a fan perspective, I am just really sorry to hear Coca is out. He was one of my favorite players to watch - his timing attacks against Protoss were really interesting and he was a relatively fresh face for Zergs. Hopefully he'll be back. Also, does this mean that he is kicked off the SlayerS team permanently, or just that he is sort of on a probation-type thing?
How can someone be that stupid too do this? Like, it blows my mind.
I always thought Coca looked stupid just by his looks and his way in sitting and waiting for games to start in the GSL booth (not to mention he is drinking Pepsi canisters with 2 hands and not 1) but now I know he is stupid for sure.
An Byun..well he looks stupid aswell and all that talk about the puppy makes me wanna throw up. But this is just insanely stupid...
On November 15 2011 20:56 Gackt_ wrote: How can someone be that stupid too do this? Like, it blows my mind.
I always thought Coca looked stupid just by his looks and his way in sitting and waiting for games to start in the GSL booth (not to mention he is drinking Pepsi canisters with 2 hands and not 1) but now I know he is stupid for sure.
An Byun..well he looks stupid aswell and all that talk about the puppy makes me wanna throw up. But this is just insanely stupid...
I think we can all agree he LOOKED stupid - FINALLY we have confirmation!
On November 15 2011 20:51 Toppp wrote: This isn't match fixing, this is a CoCa tossing a game to his best friend and training partner in a tournament relatively insignificant compared to GSL, this is a huge overreaction and probably spells the end of CoCa's career.
the "insignificant" tournament offers a way to get into the gsl. and thats the problem here. coca does not need the spot and thats the whole problem here... it certainly is match fixing
On November 15 2011 20:56 Gackt_ wrote: How can someone be that stupid too do this? Like, it blows my mind.
I always thought Coca looked stupid just by his looks and his way in sitting and waiting for games to start in the GSL booth (not to mention he is drinking Pepsi canisters with 2 hands and not 1) but now I know he is stupid for sure.
An Byun..well he looks stupid aswell and all that talk about the puppy makes me wanna throw up. But this is just insanely stupid...
LOL. This is some A-grade material right here. Calling others stupid while typing that drivel is hilarious.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable for the state of the eSports?
Maybe not OK, but overreaction isn't good for e-sports either. How can you say losing your Code S spot and your team over this is fair? Maybe he was fucking tired of playing at that time anyways?
It is not fair. That is why they are called punitive actions. To "punish" the person so that repeating the activity becomes unfathomable. There is a reason why CoCa "only" lost his Code S spot and team spot but not banned for life.
So throwing games to help friends is fair because of fatigue? Did you not read that he was assigned to play in ESV by SlayerS? Is this what you expect out of CoCa from now on? To throw games to friends if the tournament does not interest him? Seriously?
On November 15 2011 20:51 Toppp wrote: This isn't match fixing, this is a CoCa tossing a game to his best friend and training partner in a tournament relatively insignificant compared to GSL, this is a huge overreaction and probably spells the end of CoCa's career.
the "insignificant" tournament offers a way to get into the gsl. and thats the problem here. coca does not need the spot and thats the whole problem here... it certainly is match fixing
But minor Match Fixing not a scandal where people make money from betting the on games. Was it right ? No but nothing that warrants severe punishment.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable for the state of the eSports?
Maybe not OK, but overreaction isn't good for e-sports either. How can you say losing your Code S spot and your team over this is fair? Maybe he was fucking tired of playing at that time anyways?
It is not fair. That is why they are called punitive actions. To "punish" the person so that repeating the activity becomes unfathomable. There is a reason why CoCa "only" lost his Code S spot and team spot but not banned for life.
So throwing games to help friends is fair because of fatigue? Did you not read that he was assigned to play in ESV by SlayerS? Is this what you expect out of CoCa from now on? To throw games to friends if the tournament does not interest him? Seriously?
Would you even play in tournament that didn't interest you? I doubt it. This guy is dedicating his life to play starcraft and clearly make one silly mistake, which he didn't try to hide so he clearly didn't think anything was wrong with what he did. Correct remedy would be to explain to this probably young player that this type of action is not allowed. Let him make a public statement saying that he was wrong to do this and that he we never let his fans down again or something or the sort.
On November 15 2011 20:51 Toppp wrote: This isn't match fixing, this is a CoCa tossing a game to his best friend and training partner in a tournament relatively insignificant compared to GSL, this is a huge overreaction and probably spells the end of CoCa's career.
the "insignificant" tournament offers a way to get into the gsl. and thats the problem here. coca does not need the spot and thats the whole problem here... it certainly is match fixing
I watch ESV Tournaments more than anyone, but this game has nothing to do with the Code A spot. This is the weekly, not monthly, only the monthly winner gets a first place spot.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable for the state of the eSports?
Maybe not OK, but overreaction isn't good for e-sports either. How can you say losing your Code S spot and your team over this is fair? Maybe he was fucking tired of playing at that time anyways?
It is not fair. That is why they are called punitive actions. To "punish" the person so that repeating the activity becomes unfathomable. There is a reason why CoCa "only" lost his Code S spot and team spot but not banned for life.
So throwing games to help friends is fair because of fatigue? Did you not read that he was assigned to play in ESV by SlayerS? Is this what you expect out of CoCa from now on? To throw games to friends if the tournament does not interest him? Seriously?
Seriously?
There is a difference between malicious and benign intent. Take the killing of one man by another man, for example. On the one hand there is murder as a possible explanation, while on the other hand there is manslaughter. Piss poor analogy, but the point you will gather is that certain "crimes" have multiple interpretations based on context!
In this case, CoCa was not malicious at all. Thus, it is painfully obvious that nothing so severe should be done to him! Punishment must be commensurate to the crime committed, and not just some arbitrary, illogical tool brandished in anger anytime a traditional norm is upset.
Look at the info regarding this situation, and come to realize that it's actually not malicious at all. It actually merits no severe punishment at all, and that's all there is to it. Whatever, he was one of my favorite Zergs, I just hope the people at SlayerS are rational and unclouded by cultural/gaming "taboos" or w/e
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
To summarise, two players openly collude to fix a game they were entered in by their respective teams and it is honourable and good by your standards for them to do so.
And you find this good and fair to watch games end this way when two friends meet each other in any tournament: "HEY YOU, LEAVE NOW" "OK, GG"
And you find this acceptable and good for the state of the eSports to move in this direction? That friends should let their lower ranked friends win if the tournament doesn't interest them.
I did not say it was honourable to fix a match, I said that coca's good intentions at helping byun were noble. But whether coca's leaving is impermissible (or comparable to match fixing) is entirely debatable, although I do not think so.
Well, if someone really doesn't want to win, and the rules specifically prohibit the person from blatantly leaving, the person would just make a few mistakes here and there and blame it on a slump or whatever, which would make it indistinguishable from a real loss. Just saying that people can purposely lose secretly if they really wanted too, and coca was honest for doing it outright. Putting heavy punishment on someone for purposely losing a match will not help esports in any way, as people who want to throw matches would still do it, albeit more covertly. If you really want to prevent such stuff, you need to solve the problem from its root, i.e. imbibing in players that they have to play their best at all times. Lynching a few to set an example for the rest and to satisfy the mob is not a good way to solve the problem.
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
1) Right. So a robber has better integrity than a pickpocket. Because he's honest and truthful in relieving you of your valuables. You have evidence this was done in jest? Please provide these incidences. Where you there behind either Byun's or CoCa's PC? Or do you know them personally? And spontaneous theft is perfectly acceptable in our modern society.
2) So the either South Korean eSports community are wrong to call Byun's demands to CoCa to leave the game
3a) How does throwing a game...
You know what, forget it. You sir, are certifiably immoral. I wouldn't trust you with spare change.
1) No, because the robber steals you valuables without consent, which harms you. Coca and byun did something mutually agreeable. Please refrain from using false analogies. 2) It is okay if the South Korean community objects to coca and byun's actions, as it is just their personal opinion, but the overreaction that harms them is certainly wrong. 3a) I do not understand your fragment of a sentence.
Your endeavours at ad hominem do not add value to your arguments. I would advise you not to attempt personal attacks in future, both over the internet and in personal life, as to reasonable people, it only discredits yourself.
On November 15 2011 20:25 Nouar wrote:
On November 15 2011 20:07 Pangpootata wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:52 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
On November 15 2011 19:36 Pangpootata wrote: Just lost respect for the key people of SlayerS and Prime for imposing overly harsh punishment for something trivial, possibly to pander to popular public opinion.
Junkka's analogy about killing a rich man or a homeless man is a flawed analogy. In savior's match fixing case, he harmed himself and his whole team for monetary benefit, while coca made a personal decision that only harmed himself. The analogy should have been between killing (or harming) yourself and your whole team for the sake of money, or just yourself to help a friend, of which the second one can actually be considered a noble action.
Besides, what coca and byun did was not harmful to competition at all. Firstly, coca's actions were not harmful to other competitors. Since coca could have won byun, it proves that coca is a better player than byun. Henceforth, byun's opponents should have an easier time beating him than if they had to face coca. Therefore, the whole field of competition, besides coca himself, stood to benefit competitively from coca's loss. Some may complain that not playing one's best would ruin the standard of games, but progamers in fact routinely play badly for fun such as mothership rushing by Huk. Moreover, forcing one to compete against one's will won't produce entertaining games anyway.
In addition to that, even more blatant match fixing such as stork's hilarious loss to whitera in WCG 2007 have happened before, and nobody really cared. Progamers frequently treat competitive matches non-seriously such as july using terran in an official proleague match, and nobody cares.
It is my strong suspicion that the overreaction to this was in light of savior's match fixing scandal. If my suspicions are true, it would go to show how some people easily change their standards and judge things based on emotional impulses rather than logic and reason. Such actions can only hurt esports.
Coca should've just quit SlayerS. I'm sure there are many reasonable teams out there which would admire his talent.
1) His actions called to question his integrity as a sportsman. He threw a match due to external factors. The other showed he was willing to cheat to win.
2) So it's noble to throw a match for your friend at the cost of the reputation of the team you represent?
3a) So it's not harmful to know that a competition's winner could have won because of friendship and not because of his insane macro, micro and good tactics.
3b) So because they didn't like it, they can do whatever they want on company/team time.
4) We can't force the manager of the top football team to field his best players against a bottom league team but we can force the manager from blatantly throwing the game by fielding all eleven players from the reserve squad.
5) Maybe AZK will take him.
1) Coca's actions reflect total integrity. From wikipedia "integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions". Coca was honest, truthful, that's why he did not try to hide the fact that he let byun win, and Coca was consistent in upholding his friendship. Don't know whether you misunderstand the concept of integrity or something. Besides, byun asked coca to let him win in jest, and was probably surprised that coca was willing to. It was spontaneous rather than premeditated, any byun probably wasn't thinking of cheating. 2) The team's reputation only took a beating because poorly reasoned public opinion was strongly against coca. It is more so the fault of the public than coca. If the public didn't react badly, it would not have harmed the team's reputation. 3a) No it's not. In this case byun didn't win, but if byun had won the competition, then we would have known that he is at least better than everyone else (except coca), and since coca let him win, then so be it. 3b) They probably didn't consider that at that time, which is admittedly their fault. But then again, such actions only hurt the company/team name because of public backlash, which would not have happened if the public was more understanding (as per 2). 4) Sorry, don't know what this point is supposed to mean. 5) Gus might not want to pay for Coca's travel expenses.
If it starts like that, we Will ALL wonder each and every Time two players meet : "is this match fixed because they are friends?" This is the kind of trust WE need as viewers to know matches are fair and the competition is fair. "i'm better at zvt than you, lose and let me win the finals and we'll share the money" is what your opinion will bring us to. I don't watch a tournament to see people lose on purpose and ask myself "is it à true match, is the guy who advances the one who should?" this is NOT integrity. Friendship is not the most important thing when you take part in a COMPETITION ! Letting friends win on purpose is not the way to go whatever the reason. (and asking for a win is even worse imo... Byun....)
That match was inconsequential. Coca and byun would play their best if it was something important. Byun asked to win in jest, and coca gave in jest. They probably didn't mean it to be cheating.
Besides, there is neither a law, nor a rule against purposely playing badly for reasons that do not benefit yourself. Perhaps the tournaments could add in such rules in future to prevent people from doing such things, if they wish to. But going by the current situation, what coca and byun did was a permissible choice.
Jesus stop trying to impress people with debate class 101 material. Your argument with point number one is completely wrong. It hurt the other competitors by giving Byun a chance that he would not have gotten if he was not playing against his teammate. No other player had a attained a free win. So why should Byun get one? He should have been eliminated but he got another chance.
ALSO You completely used ad hominem incorrectly. He merely insulted you with a comment but in no way did he use that to try to disprove your argument (Definition of ad hominem is to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Trying to sound smart would only hurt you when talking to people who know their shit.
Firstly, I am not Jesus.
Secondly, you said it hurt other competitors by giving byun a chance. But if coca had won byun, then coca would have the chance, and coca is stronger than byun, since byun needed coca to throw the match. Therefore, it would hurt the other competitors even more to fight coca than byun.
Thirdly, from wikipedia "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.". He attempted to negate the truth of my statements by terming my statements "immoral". In fact, you are also committing ad hominem by saying that I am "trying to impress people" and "Trying to sound smart" instead of evaluating the salient points of my arguments.
EPT
I think they are just being silly. I am sure they are being "dealt" with in a appropriate manner
