On November 15 2011 21:42 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 21:20 boaecho wrote:On November 15 2011 21:11 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:49 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo 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. 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 20:54 boaecho wrote:On November 15 2011 20:38 Pangpootata wrote:On November 15 2011 20:23 Hattori_Hanzo 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. 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. It DID hurt the other players because it denied them of a FAIR match regardless if it was for better or worse. If you could reason as well as you can pull up words to make yourself look intelligent, you would see that your logic is flawed in your second point again. It does not matter if coca is stronger or weaker. It does not even matter if he had the power of jaedong, flash, bisu ,and stork combine. It is not for you to assume anything in a debate.Also, your entire point is weak if it consist entirely of "woulds coulds ifs" . It all comes down to who the opponents would have faced in a fair situation. <- End of discussion. He also didn't negate anything with his "immoral" comment. He never attributed it to any of his bullet points. If he added, "omg you are immoral your points are all wrong" then you would be correct. Of course, that did not happen and he merely just simply insulted you. I can tell you with much certainty that in a case where players really want to win a tournament, most would rather face a weaker opponent. whether it is "fair" or not, depends on your definition of fair. You seem to define "fair" as everyone playing to their best, but I define "fair" as everyone doing what they want as long as it adheres to the rules. Moreover, the other players stood to benefit objectively. Furthermore "woulds coulds ifs" don't make an argument weak automatically, so please explain yourself here. Regarding the last point, I assumed that he implied a link (and made a misjudgement by using an ad hominem argument) since civil people don't resort insults, and I respect people by treating them as civil people by default. As to what were his true intentions, only he has the correct answer. But this is besides the main point.
JUST STOP please. Your point about Byun being weaker or stronger is not valid, they are not even the same race, have different strengths and weaknesses you can't define who is stronger overall over one bo3, it's just not FAIR for the opponents, the tournament, and the viewer. You are looking at what happened with the wrong mindset. Letting your friend pass just cause you're nice in this case remove all excitement and interest to the tournament, and thus hurts it, the players and their reputation, the image of their team, their sponsors etc.
They are NOT paid to leave games on tournaments, REGARDLESS of the size of the tournament and the prizes (or lack of)
This is not a "play a console game with your sister and let her win" case, this is a sport, a tournament, with tacit rules. The white-ra case is about sportsmanship from his opponent who wasn't happy with a defwin for 5min late, demuslim was about not forfeiting the main event, this is about nothing and was a dumb decision hurting their image and the sport in general. Will you understand that please?
|
EPT
