|
On November 16 2011 06:40 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:33 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 06:22 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 06:15 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 06:10 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 05:45 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 05:42 hmunkey wrote:On November 16 2011 05:41 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 05:40 hmunkey wrote:
Not really sure if I find Coca at fault here. He was in a tournament where winning wouldn't really give him a real prize, so why would he have an incentive to win? He could have just not signed up then. Oh yeah of course, but I don't think the punishment has been proportionate to the "crime." I beg to differ. It's certainly a lot lighter than what saviOr received. Both players are young. A little "time-out" by their respective teams won't damage their career much in the long run. If anything it'll definitely ensure that they think twice before pulling stuff like this again. On November 16 2011 05:44 fleeze wrote:
this just shows that you are even unable to read the chatlog posted.
the argument is totally valid. there was no code A spot on the line and he actually had no terran practise partners in house because the rest of SlayerS was at another LAN event.
i think SlayerS is doing this to move the issue away from their own faults. Giving your only Code S zerg no practise partners for his next matches against 3 terrans? that's not professional, but somehow in line with the Yugioh incident. 2 wrongs does not make 1 right. Also, it's perfectly within SlayerS rights to balance out the assignments of practice partners and sending players out for LANs as they see fit. OK, I've looked at the chatlog at least 5 times now. Please show me which part says that he's lacking practice partners. Also, answer me why couldn't he just knock Byun out and play a normal custom game with him? just comparing this case to saviors case disqualifies your opinion. it's extremly different to FIX an OSL match and bet money on it compared to a random online tournament with 100$ prize playing a friend in the first rounds... and can't you read yourself? 3:48 B: fuck, you said you'll let me win C: I have to practice, there's 3 Ts in my group ... C: I'm here just because I don't have other Ts to practice B: Next opponent is P, so just forfeit B: Where's your teams T? C: G-star event Honestly can't find that chatlog anywhere in the OP. Is it somewhere in the middle? Anyways, why is it not comparable to saviOr? Minor or major it's still match-fixing, similar to how it doesn't matter whether you steal a pen or a car. The charge is the same, the only difference is degree hence, the degree of punishment as well. It's not exactly apples and oranges, rather an apple with a bigger apple. it's in the thread and you should probably read it before making a statement yourself. also as is revealed in the thread too and it might be surprising but you just said you want idra, demuslim, stephano, brat_ok and a few other pros banned because they basically did the same. just look up the posts and read the damn thread before making such statements... and why should you compare it to match fixing at all? it was 2 friends joking around in the first round of an unimportant tournament, where other koreans forfeit matches all day... but Coca wanted the practise out of the matches at least. this is totally blown out of proportion. there was no money involved and Coca got nothing out of it. I did mention my thoughts regarding Stephano v Brat_OK somewhere in the thread. It's a completely different scenario there. I usually post with the assumption that all relevant info is in the OP. No way I'm going through nearly 80 pages just to get all the facts straight. Being a law student I already go through cases on a daily basis, and it's the last thing I want to do on TL. An unimportant tournament (which is totally subjective btw) is still a tournament, which players should respect. It's wrong because on CoCa's end he could have handled the situation a lot better than what he did. If he wanted Byun to advance he could have just forfeited the series and not play at all. If he wanted just the practice he could have hit Byun up for some custom games outside the tournament. With the way he handled it, not only it showed disrespect to the ESV Weekly, but it also casted SlayerS in a very unprofessional light. The decision done by SlayerS is a good one imo, it's exactly decisions like these that prevent eSports from overextending itself. Players should not be allowed to play for as much money as they are if they can't even behave up to the standards set, especially considering the current growth of eSports is exactly what the likes of BoxeR has done much to realise. I've seen football teams throw matches through placing unknown players instead of their stars or playing like crap in tournaments they don't care about, similar cases in ANY sport. Yes he didn't handle it well, he should have forfeited and played customs against him. i wonder why he didn't do it (speculation: prohibited by either SlayerS or Prime). The decision of the SlayerS team is REALLY wrong though. Hurting the competition in the GSL (since Coca earned his spot) and even leaving Code S matches to be forfeited... And if you think stephano vs brat_ok was different what about idra vs demuslim in ESWC qualifiers? or even haypro who participated in a qualifier and forfeited to morrow (?), since he was already qualified? similar cases and atm there isn't even a Code A spot on the line for ESV tournaments...
Yes, there can definitely be real life analogous examples that can be drawn as you've mentioned. Problem is that it's impossible to prove that their decision was to throw the game rather than they just trusted their younger players to do better. In this case, both players have blatantly stated that they were in it together.
As for DeMusliM, IdrA and HayprO, I'm afraid I didn't follow those tournaments, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. If you care enough about what I have to say, you can PM me the facts and we'll deal with it there rather than potentially derail this thread.
|
This is all over reddit as well.
I'm not sold on any course of action.
I understand that Coca and Byung were "fighting" for a Code A spot, but that there was no need for Coca to win, as he already secured a Code S spot. Byung, however had the most to benefit and indeed, went on to win the 3rd game and beat Coca.
What's not fair here is that the integrity of the Code A spot, a highly covetable spot, has been compromised.
Is it fair that Byung and Coca receive such harsh punishments....
I'm not sure.
Is being young and ignorant enough of an excuse to insulate them from a harsh punishment?
These are indeed tough questions
|
On November 16 2011 06:46 zmansman17 wrote:
This is all over reddit as well.
I'm not sold on any course of action.
I understand that Coca and Byung were "fighting" for a Code A spot, but that there was no need for Coca to win, as he already secured a Code S spot. Byung, however had the most to benefit and indeed, went on to win the 3rd game and beat Coca.
What's not fair here is that the integrity of the Code A spot, a highly covetable spot, has been compromised.
Is it fair that Byung and Coca receive such harsh punishments....
I'm not sure.
Is being young and ignorant enough of an excuse to insulate them from a harsh punishment?
These are indeed tough questions
There was no code A spot to win and no gains to be made from winning or losing.
|
On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 16 2011 05:51 IPA wrote:On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol I couldn't disagree more. I made countless mistakes at age 18, even into my early 20s. I suppose you guys were ministers by then. It's old enough to take responsibility (which they are doing); it's young enough to make it semi-understandable. Jesus, did you guys ever have fun or get into trouble? Gee, I didn't realize that having fun was the same as doing something illegal, but if it is, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking the rules. If your argument is that he should be allowed to act in an immature manner, then he's clearly not mature enough to play in legitimate tournaments for thousands of dollars. But I'm hoping that he eventually recognizes that what he did was incredibly stupid and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense.
well, i totally agree with this post (except the weed part).
On November 16 2011 06:45 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:40 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 06:33 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 06:22 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 06:15 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 06:10 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 05:45 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 05:42 hmunkey wrote:On November 16 2011 05:41 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 05:40 hmunkey wrote:
Not really sure if I find Coca at fault here. He was in a tournament where winning wouldn't really give him a real prize, so why would he have an incentive to win? He could have just not signed up then. Oh yeah of course, but I don't think the punishment has been proportionate to the "crime." I beg to differ. It's certainly a lot lighter than what saviOr received. Both players are young. A little "time-out" by their respective teams won't damage their career much in the long run. If anything it'll definitely ensure that they think twice before pulling stuff like this again. On November 16 2011 05:44 fleeze wrote:
this just shows that you are even unable to read the chatlog posted.
the argument is totally valid. there was no code A spot on the line and he actually had no terran practise partners in house because the rest of SlayerS was at another LAN event.
i think SlayerS is doing this to move the issue away from their own faults. Giving your only Code S zerg no practise partners for his next matches against 3 terrans? that's not professional, but somehow in line with the Yugioh incident. 2 wrongs does not make 1 right. Also, it's perfectly within SlayerS rights to balance out the assignments of practice partners and sending players out for LANs as they see fit. OK, I've looked at the chatlog at least 5 times now. Please show me which part says that he's lacking practice partners. Also, answer me why couldn't he just knock Byun out and play a normal custom game with him? just comparing this case to saviors case disqualifies your opinion. it's extremly different to FIX an OSL match and bet money on it compared to a random online tournament with 100$ prize playing a friend in the first rounds... and can't you read yourself? 3:48 B: fuck, you said you'll let me win C: I have to practice, there's 3 Ts in my group ... C: I'm here just because I don't have other Ts to practice B: Next opponent is P, so just forfeit B: Where's your teams T? C: G-star event Honestly can't find that chatlog anywhere in the OP. Is it somewhere in the middle? Anyways, why is it not comparable to saviOr? Minor or major it's still match-fixing, similar to how it doesn't matter whether you steal a pen or a car. The charge is the same, the only difference is degree hence, the degree of punishment as well. It's not exactly apples and oranges, rather an apple with a bigger apple. it's in the thread and you should probably read it before making a statement yourself. also as is revealed in the thread too and it might be surprising but you just said you want idra, demuslim, stephano, brat_ok and a few other pros banned because they basically did the same. just look up the posts and read the damn thread before making such statements... and why should you compare it to match fixing at all? it was 2 friends joking around in the first round of an unimportant tournament, where other koreans forfeit matches all day... but Coca wanted the practise out of the matches at least. this is totally blown out of proportion. there was no money involved and Coca got nothing out of it. I did mention my thoughts regarding Stephano v Brat_OK somewhere in the thread. It's a completely different scenario there. I usually post with the assumption that all relevant info is in the OP. No way I'm going through nearly 80 pages just to get all the facts straight. Being a law student I already go through cases on a daily basis, and it's the last thing I want to do on TL. An unimportant tournament (which is totally subjective btw) is still a tournament, which players should respect. It's wrong because on CoCa's end he could have handled the situation a lot better than what he did. If he wanted Byun to advance he could have just forfeited the series and not play at all. If he wanted just the practice he could have hit Byun up for some custom games outside the tournament. With the way he handled it, not only it showed disrespect to the ESV Weekly, but it also casted SlayerS in a very unprofessional light. The decision done by SlayerS is a good one imo, it's exactly decisions like these that prevent eSports from overextending itself. Players should not be allowed to play for as much money as they are if they can't even behave up to the standards set, especially considering the current growth of eSports is exactly what the likes of BoxeR has done much to realise. I've seen football teams throw matches through placing unknown players instead of their stars or playing like crap in tournaments they don't care about, similar cases in ANY sport. Yes he didn't handle it well, he should have forfeited and played customs against him. i wonder why he didn't do it (speculation: prohibited by either SlayerS or Prime). The decision of the SlayerS team is REALLY wrong though. Hurting the competition in the GSL (since Coca earned his spot) and even leaving Code S matches to be forfeited... And if you think stephano vs brat_ok was different what about idra vs demuslim in ESWC qualifiers? or even haypro who participated in a qualifier and forfeited to morrow (?), since he was already qualified? similar cases and atm there isn't even a Code A spot on the line for ESV tournaments... Yes, there can definitely be real life analogous examples that can be drawn as you've mentioned. Problem is that it's impossible to prove that their decision was to throw the game rather than they just trusted their younger players to do better. In this case, both players have blatantly stated that they were in it together. As for DeMusliM, IdrA and HayprO, I'm afraid I wasn't following those tournaments, so I'm not in a position to comment on them. If you care enough about what I have to say, you can PM me the facts and we'll deal with it there rather than potentially derail this thread.
I was just mentioning examples where people throw games in matches they don't care about, to show that this is not as unnatural as some people in this thread might think. the post i quoted above brings it to the point much better then i could do 
btw: i understand your opinion, i just don't think it is necessary in this case to enforce the law to it's fullest degree. nobody got harmed (except the viewers maybe, i don't think a forfeit would have been more enjoyable to watch)
|
On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 16 2011 05:51 IPA wrote:On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol I couldn't disagree more. I made countless mistakes at age 18, even into my early 20s. I suppose you guys were ministers by then. It's old enough to take responsibility (which they are doing); it's young enough to make it semi-understandable. Jesus, did you guys ever have fun or get into trouble? Gee, I didn't realize that having fun was the same as doing something illegal, but if it is, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking the rules. If your argument is that he should be allowed to act in an immature manner, then he's clearly not mature enough to play in legitimate tournaments for thousands of dollars. But I'm hoping that he eventually recognizes that what he did was incredibly stupid and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense.
Stopped reading after the bolded part. Jailtime is a consequence of being caught with weed. A legal consequence.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 16 2011 06:57 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 16 2011 05:51 IPA wrote:On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol I couldn't disagree more. I made countless mistakes at age 18, even into my early 20s. I suppose you guys were ministers by then. It's old enough to take responsibility (which they are doing); it's young enough to make it semi-understandable. Jesus, did you guys ever have fun or get into trouble? Gee, I didn't realize that having fun was the same as doing something illegal, but if it is, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking the rules. If your argument is that he should be allowed to act in an immature manner, then he's clearly not mature enough to play in legitimate tournaments for thousands of dollars. But I'm hoping that he eventually recognizes that what he did was incredibly stupid and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Stopped reading after the bolded part. Jailtime is a consequence of being caught with weed. A legal consequence.
gna, why do you do this?
people don't care about legal consequences if they don't understand the reasoning behind it. that was really easy to understand.
legal consequences are sometimes even dumb rules made up by people in charge (to keep their power) and don't necessarily have a LOGIC reason.
|
On November 16 2011 05:45 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:42 hmunkey wrote:On November 16 2011 05:41 S_SienZ wrote:On November 16 2011 05:40 hmunkey wrote:
Not really sure if I find Coca at fault here. He was in a tournament where winning wouldn't really give him a real prize, so why would he have an incentive to win? He could have just not signed up then. Oh yeah of course, but I don't think the punishment has been proportionate to the "crime." I beg to differ. It's certainly a lot lighter than what saviOr received. Both players are young. A little "time-out" by their respective teams won't damage their career much in the long run. If anything it'll definitely ensure that they think twice before pulling stuff like this again. Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:44 fleeze wrote:
this just shows that you are even unable to read the chatlog posted.
the argument is totally valid. there was no code A spot on the line and he actually had no terran practise partners in house because the rest of SlayerS was at another LAN event.
i think SlayerS is doing this to move the issue away from their own faults. Giving your only Code S zerg no practise partners for his next matches against 3 terrans? that's not professional, but somehow in line with the Yugioh incident. 2 wrongs does not make 1 right. Also, it's perfectly within SlayerS rights to balance out the assignments of practice partners and sending players out for LANs as they see fit. OK, I've looked at the chatlog at least 5 times now. Please show me which part says that he's lacking practice partners. Also, answer me why couldn't he just knock Byun out and play a normal custom game with him?
Comparing this to sAviOr is just spitting in the face of everyone effected by sAviOr. Brokering match fixing and making money off it is completely different to two friends going to a third game in the first round of a tournament where neither are making money off it or getting any added benefits.
They did something wrong and should be punished. However the punishment and the crime seem to not be appropriate and comparing this to anything to do with sAviOr is just pathetic.
|
On November 15 2011 14:50 R1CH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 14:44 JunkkaGom wrote:On November 15 2011 14:37 R1CH wrote:On November 15 2011 14:32 JunkkaGom wrote:On November 15 2011 14:28 setzer wrote:On November 15 2011 14:25 jinixxx123 wrote:On November 15 2011 14:21 Redmark wrote:
It's not match-fixing, Christ.
It's dumb, but it's not match-fixing. Not everyone in jail committed murder. Some of them are there for a couple of nights for getting drunk and punching a guy. so what would you call this? throwing a game? you make no sense, This is match fixing. It was intentional of coca to loose the game. Did CoCa benefit in anyway leaving the game? no Did the BW match-fixers benefit from what they did? Absolutely People need to stop comparing apples to oranges. Let me say this to people who say that since this isn't as big deal as Savior incident because Coca dind't gain anything and hasn't caused as huge scandal as then, he should be forgiven : Killing some owner of rich company to steal money is just as bad as killing homeless guy for fun. Small or big, match fixing is killing esports Ruining pro-gamers careers with ridiculous over-reactions is killing esports. Not some 17 year old kid throwing a game. I am aware that these are just kids and I do feel pitty but I still think this is unacceptable. A 'pro-gamer' should not insult fans who watch the game anticipating good game. Sure many players fail to entertain but there is difference doing it unintentionally and doing it on purpose, not to mention showing it to viewers witout shame or guilt. I agree it's unacceptable but I think the punishment in this case (essentially destroying his career) is also unacceptable. An apology and reprimand by SlayerS would have been enough to get the message across.
I viewed this broadcast live, and what I can say is that I enjoyed the games, and both players played their hardest to win during the game. It was only after Coca had clearly won that he left the game.
Plus, I got to see an extra ZvT between Byun and Coca.
Match fixing is where you in secret purposely lose. Both players tried their hardest to win. To me this is matter of when a match is already decided, are you allowed to give your opponent the win.
|
On November 16 2011 06:49 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:46 zmansman17 wrote:
This is all over reddit as well.
I'm not sold on any course of action.
I understand that Coca and Byung were "fighting" for a Code A spot, but that there was no need for Coca to win, as he already secured a Code S spot. Byung, however had the most to benefit and indeed, went on to win the 3rd game and beat Coca.
What's not fair here is that the integrity of the Code A spot, a highly covetable spot, has been compromised.
Is it fair that Byung and Coca receive such harsh punishments....
I'm not sure.
Is being young and ignorant enough of an excuse to insulate them from a harsh punishment?
These are indeed tough questions There was no code A spot to win and no gains to be made from winning or losing.
Not true.
Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23899&p=1
Link to TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225519¤tpage=185#3687
|
On November 16 2011 07:11 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:49 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 06:46 zmansman17 wrote:
This is all over reddit as well.
I'm not sold on any course of action.
I understand that Coca and Byung were "fighting" for a Code A spot, but that there was no need for Coca to win, as he already secured a Code S spot. Byung, however had the most to benefit and indeed, went on to win the 3rd game and beat Coca.
What's not fair here is that the integrity of the Code A spot, a highly covetable spot, has been compromised.
Is it fair that Byung and Coca receive such harsh punishments....
I'm not sure.
Is being young and ignorant enough of an excuse to insulate them from a harsh punishment?
These are indeed tough questions There was no code A spot to win and no gains to be made from winning or losing. Not true. Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23899&p=1Link to TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225519¤tpage=185#3687
Mr Chae came out and said they hadn't negotiated for 2012 Code A spots going to the winner.
There was no Code A spot for the tournament.
|
On November 16 2011 07:11 zmansman17 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:49 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 06:46 zmansman17 wrote:
This is all over reddit as well.
I'm not sold on any course of action.
I understand that Coca and Byung were "fighting" for a Code A spot, but that there was no need for Coca to win, as he already secured a Code S spot. Byung, however had the most to benefit and indeed, went on to win the 3rd game and beat Coca.
What's not fair here is that the integrity of the Code A spot, a highly covetable spot, has been compromised.
Is it fair that Byung and Coca receive such harsh punishments....
I'm not sure.
Is being young and ignorant enough of an excuse to insulate them from a harsh punishment?
These are indeed tough questions There was no code A spot to win and no gains to be made from winning or losing. Not true. Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23899&p=1Link to TL thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=225519¤tpage=185#3687
Technically he is telling the truth. There is no code A spot for the weeklies. The weeklies only allow access to the monthly finals which then if you win(or highest non code-S) you get a spot. So at worst the only thing to gain was the potential of getting into another tournament which he could get a code A spot.
Personally the Korean communities dealing with anything outside of the scope of the game has been rather poor in my eyes. From the SC2-con stuff to this.
|
On November 16 2011 06:57 S_SienZ wrote:
Stopped reading after the bolded part. Jailtime is a consequence of being caught with weed. A legal consequence.
A swing... and a miss
That isn't what he meant at all. It might be hard to explain, but whether something has legal consequences is completely separate from the moral/ethical consequences. According to your logic, everything legally wrong is morally wrong, and everything legally OK is morally right, which is obviously bollocks.
He meant that people using legality to try and explain the severity of Coca's "crime" are using flawed logic. If you want to claim he was acting wrongly, then argue for that. Don't just say "it's against the rules". In the USA in the 80s, being Russian was "breaking the rules". Does that make Russians morally wrong by default? To use a cliched example, in Nazi Germany being Jewish, Slavic, Communist, black or a sympathiser to any of these groups was "against the rules". Does that make Jews morally wrong? Does that make being born black morally wrong? No.
Coca did something stupid in the opening round of a tournament for a tournament. Comparing this to the Saviour incident is just retarded. The best thing we can do at all at the moment is stop overreacting, provide support for Coca/Byun in their fanclubs and stop all the hatin'.
|
|
|
On November 16 2011 06:57 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 05:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 16 2011 05:51 IPA wrote:On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol I couldn't disagree more. I made countless mistakes at age 18, even into my early 20s. I suppose you guys were ministers by then. It's old enough to take responsibility (which they are doing); it's young enough to make it semi-understandable. Jesus, did you guys ever have fun or get into trouble? Gee, I didn't realize that having fun was the same as doing something illegal, but if it is, then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of breaking the rules. If your argument is that he should be allowed to act in an immature manner, then he's clearly not mature enough to play in legitimate tournaments for thousands of dollars. But I'm hoping that he eventually recognizes that what he did was incredibly stupid and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Stopped reading after the bolded part. Jailtime is a consequence of being caught with weed. A legal consequence.
If you come up to me and say 'Hey man, how's it going?' and I beat the living shit out of you, is me beating the living shit out of you and consequence of you being polite?What if I warn you? 'Hey, if you walk up to me and say 'Hey', I'm going to murder everyone in your family'' Your whole family being dead is a consequence of you saying 'Hey'? Sure, due to a string of events, it sort of indirectly lead you there, so maybe I should use the term 'indirect consequence', but, to me, that's essentially saying it's unrelated. Once you get into that string of logic, it becomes a slippery slope. Why did you say 'Hey'? Well earlier a person held the door for you, making you happy? So it's also the person who held the door's fault that your whole family is dead? Why did the person hold the door? Because he's polite and was taught to be this way by his mom. So his mom holds some blame for your family being dead. Etc, etc, etc. The only person to blame for the family being dead is the person who killed them.
Sure, jail time is a result (or may be) of getting caught, by a police officer, with weed. Weed itself cannot make you go to jail. Jail time is a consequence of a police officer putting you in jail, or a judge sentencing you to jail time. Now, whether or not you agree, the punishment for weed is there for an assumed reason. Punishment for speeding is there to reduce or eliminate speeding because it was determined that speeding is dangerous to yourself and others, hence a designated speed limit. Punishment for drunk driving is there so people will be less inclined to drunk drive because it was determined that driving drunk is dangerous to yourself and others. You don't just make rules for no reason. They exist for reasons, whatever those reasons may be.
In Coca's case, the rule existed to ensure the integrity of the tournament, fine. I absolutely agree with the ban by ESV tv from their tournaments. It made them look bad. However, no one thought anything of it until Slayers decides to make a big deal about it for no reason. If we're talking about consequences of our actions, let's talk about the direct consequence of Coca resigning from Code S. 1. Ruining a 17 year old's career, or severely hindering it. 2. Hurting the Slayers team by moving a better player down to B team, which hurts the other players in terms of sponsorships, team leagues, etc. 3. All other Code S groups have to win 2 games to advance, except Coca's group. 2 players get byes vs Coca, making it easier for them to advance, which is not fair to the rest of the code S players that this group gets an unfair advantage. These are consequences of Slayers' actions, not of Coca's.
edit: Some guy above me said he watched the games and enjoyed them because Coca didn't leave until it was over and got to see another TvZ, so I don't know if it really even made ESV tv look bad, but I can understand the existence of the rule and punishment because it happened to them and their tournament.
|
Just a little food for thought. Don't some racing teams do similar actions during races? RICKY BOBBY! No but seriously, has anyone ever contemplated that perspective, or is it entirely inapplicable? Just curious as to some opinions.
|
|
|
On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense.
Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means.
The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant."
The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows."
Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time:
You may or may not smoke weed.
If you get caught smoking weed.
You will get jail time.
Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal.
Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post.
|
I can see how a mistake like this could've been made on the fly, doing something in the haste of things without thinking about the consequences. It is, however, respectable of him to forfeit his spot and he shouldn't be judged to harshly, in my opinion.
|
On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:
Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time:
You may or may not smoke weed.
If you get caught smoking weed.
You will get jail time.
Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal.
Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post.
Oh, come on.
I'll point out where you went wrong. "My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence". It actually does violate the word consequence.
"You may or may not smoke weed.
If you get caught smoking weed.
You will get jail time."
The jail time is for being CAUGHT smoking weed, and for having laws against smoking weed in that country. The word consequence should actually read:
You may or may not smoke weed.
If you get caught smoking weed in a country where smoking weed is illegal,
You will get jail time.
This makes jail time a consequence of smoking weed being illegal, not just of smoking weed. You left out a relevant step here.
If going to jail was always a consequence of smoking weed, if you went to the Netherlands and smoked weed you would always end up in jail. The assumption you make at the very start of your post is a really important one for this: the post you quoted was about morals. Legality is irrelevant for judging morals, because that is just Argument by Authority, a form of fallacious logic.
|
On November 16 2011 07:18 SeaSwift wrote:
A swing... and a miss
That isn't what he meant at all. It might be hard to explain, but whether something has legal consequences is completely separate from the moral/ethical consequences. According to your logic, everything legally wrong is morally wrong, and everything legally OK is morally right, which is obviously bollocks.
He meant that people using legality to try and explain the severity of Coca's "crime" are using flawed logic. If you want to claim he was acting wrongly, then argue for that. Don't just say "it's against the rules". In the USA in the 80s, being Russian was "breaking the rules". Does that make Russians morally wrong by default? To use a cliched example, in Nazi Germany being Jewish, Slavic, Communist, black or a sympathiser to any of these groups was "against the rules". Does that make Jews morally wrong? Does that make being born black morally wrong? No.
Coca did something stupid in the opening round of a tournament for a tournament. Comparing this to the Saviour incident is just retarded. The best thing we can do at all at the moment is stop overreacting, provide support for Coca/Byun in their fanclubs and stop all the hatin'.
I understood fully what he wrote. But if you're gonna go into the whole sheer existence of rules vs rationale behind them thing it's gonna open up a whole new can of worms which I do not intend to go into. So fine, let's just play it your way and discuss only the ethical consequences of match fixing.
As I've already mentioned earlier, fixing a game like that really tarnishes the legitimacy of the tournament, the images of the players themselves and their respective teams. Given how eSports as a spectator sport is mostly driven by the fans and sponsors, it's a pretty big deal that a player on one of the most reputable SC2 teams behaved like that.
Throwing legality out of the window, it's perfectly within SlayerS's rights to punish CoCa as they did. And assuming there's no contract (which I highly doubt) CoCa could ditch them, but obviously his prospects in Korea would be even worse off if he did that.
Bear in mind that I'm not saying that the punishment should be harsher or more lenient. I'm saying that it's perfectly fine as it is at the moment. So I wouldn't exactly characterise what I'm doing at the moment as overreacting.
On November 16 2011 07:19 bigbeau wrote:
If you come up to me and say 'Hey man, how's it going?' and I beat the living shit out of you, is me beating the living shit out of you and consequence of you being polite?What if I warn you? 'Hey, if you walk up to me and say 'Hey', I'm going to murder everyone in your family'' Your whole family being dead is a consequence of you saying 'Hey'? Sure, due to a string of events, it sort of indirectly lead you there, so maybe I should use the term 'indirect consequence', but, to me, that's essentially saying it's unrelated. Once you get into that string of logic, it becomes a slippery slope. Why did you say 'Hey'? Well earlier a person held the door for you, making you happy? So it's also the person who held the door's fault that your whole family is dead? Why did the person hold the door? Because he's polite and was taught to be this way by his mom. So his mom holds some blame for your family being dead. Etc, etc, etc. The only person to blame for the family being dead is the person who killed them.
Well, that would depend. A consequence is whatever would logically follow from an antecedent. So if you did beat me because of my politeness yes I would say it's a consequence. If you would beat me even if I ignored you then it would be independent of my politeness.
On November 16 2011 07:19 bigbeau wrote:
In Coca's case, the rule existed to ensure the integrity of the tournament, fine. I absolutely agree with the ban by ESV tv from their tournaments. It made them look bad. However, no one thought anything of it until Slayers decides to make a big deal about it for no reason. If we're talking about consequences of our actions, let's talk about the direct consequence of Coca resigning from Code S. 1. Ruining a 17 year old's career, or severely hindering it. 2. Hurting the Slayers team by moving a better player down to B team, which hurts the other players in terms of sponsorships, team leagues, etc. 3. All other Code S groups have to win 2 games to advance, except Coca's group. 2 players get byes vs Coca, making it easier for them to advance, which is not fair to the rest of the code S players that this group gets an unfair advantage. These are consequences of Slayers' actions, not of Coca's.
edit: Some guy above me said he watched the games and enjoyed them because Coca didn't leave until it was over and got to see another TvZ, so I don't know if it really even made ESV tv look bad, but I can understand the existence of the rule and punishment because it happened to them and their tournament.
No disagreements on the first bolded part.
As for the second part, yes there are certainly consequences to SlayerS actions, but it's perfectly within their rights to do so. (esp regarding your point that it hurts their A -team, although I would argue that their strict handling makes them look better public image-wise.) And there is certainly good reason for it. As for "ruining" CoCa's career, using the term "ruin" really overdramatises the issue. The only thing you could conclusively say without doubt is that they hindered him from probably making a good run in Code S this season given how many Ps there are and how well he's been doing + He'll have to requalify. But other than that nobody knows what will happen in the future. For all you know, he takes all this as a lesson well learnt and goes on to be one of the greatest Zergs when he makes his comeback?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
