EPTAre GOMs arbitrary rules becoming a problem? - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
|
Zalithian
520 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:13 N1ghtshade wrote: Chorus of fanbois: BUT DESERTFOX THERE WERE NO WRITTEN RULES ABOUT PROBE RUSHING!1! HE WAS OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO WIN. PROBE RUSH IS A LEGIT STRAT, EVEN IF YOU TAKE YOUR HANDS OFF THE KEYBOARD. WHY PUNISH HIM FOR USING A STRAT WITH LOW CHANCE TO WIN!!! | ||
|
noddy
United Kingdom927 Posts
| ||
|
o[twist]
United States4903 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:18 Trsjnica wrote: I agree with your statement that GOM's actions are more important here than Naniwa's. Of course, I also think that GOM made a correct choice here, and that this action will very likely prevent future incidents, which benefits fans. i think there's a good deal of room for disagreement about that, and i'm sure you've come to your position very reasonably. a lot of the arguments being bandied about, though - the idea that gom has unlimited authority to remove players at their discretion, the idea that everything gom says in their press releases about this will necessarily be true, the idea that because naniwa deserved this there hasn't been an abuse of discretion - a lot of those are bad. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
It's a matter of common sense and interpretation of the entire set of rules. Saying Naniwa couldn't be punished because the exact thing he did wasn't anticipated and forbidden explicitly by any rule is absurd. | ||
|
o[twist]
United States4903 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:26 Spekulatius wrote: Contracts don't need to be written down to have legal value and to be enforced. Neither do contracts or rules need to state every possible scenario of violation. It's a matter of common sense and interpretation of the entire set of rules. Saying Naniwa couldn't be punished because the exact thing he did wasn't anticipated and forbidden explicitly by any rule is absurd. it's not a matter of common sense, but it is a matter of interpretation of the entire set of rules. however, nothing in the entire set of rules really seems to indicate that throwing a game with no impact would be disallowed, and if we had read through it before this incident i'm pretty sure most people would have agreed about that. words and phrases like "unfit for a progamer" and "offensive" and "abusive" (1) are vague and (2) have no history of being applied in this sort of situation. it's a general rule of interpretation that you have to give some sign of at least the kinds of incidents that you might be policing. otherwise, applying the rule in a certain situation is simply unfair. probe-rushing didn't have to be explicitly forbidden, but throwing a game could have been. | ||
|
Trsjnica
United States477 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:25 o[twist] wrote: i think there's a good deal of room for disagreement about that, and i'm sure you've come to your position very reasonably. a lot of the arguments being bandied about, though - the idea that gom has unlimited authority to remove players at their discretion, the idea that everything gom says in their press releases about this will necessarily be true, the idea that because naniwa deserved this there hasn't been an abuse of discretion - a lot of those are bad. I suspect GOM (in their contracts/etc) has unlimited authority to remove people, legally speaking. However, I agree that people would and should be outraged if GOM actually exercised this authority and booted people for little or no reason. I agree that GOM's press release is definitely putting a spin on this, and it is unclear whether that spin is true or not. (Certainly, they had nor previously announced the Code S foreigner seeding methods that were in their press release, and we will never really know if they would have used those methods without this incident.) I do think that, if you believe Naniwa deserved this, there was not an abuse of discretion though. It seems within GOM's power to penalize people for actions they take in other Starcraft 2 games, especially games that take place on the GOM stage. Whether this action is worthy of such a penalty is open to debate, of course. | ||
|
Desert Fox
United States352 Posts
this is largely a strawman. i've seen very few people defending naniwa, although a few have done so cogently. i myself know next to nothing about him, and what i know isn't good. what i do know is that there's a lot of abuse of discretion in esports, and a lot of taking advantage of kids and young adults, and this situation is a great example of both of those. i'm much less concerned with naniwa than with gsl, and i think how gom conducts itself has much, much more bearing on the current and future state of esports than how naniwa conducts himself. Ah yes, dropping the straw man. See, this is the kind of thought process that goes into defending Naniwa. I can't see on page 47, paragraph E that acting like a dickhead repeatedly for an entire year results in me being treated differently so what you're doing is unjust and unfair. I don't get why because I operate in this black and white world where everything needs to be codified, documented and where rules are rigidly adhered to. But once you do invent rules for every single little thing, you're an authoritarian mess incapable of letting minor grievances slide and boy do I really hate you. Stop the philosophy. Stop the attempt to compartmentalize what has occurred. Sometimes, people just get tired of dealing with people. I'm thinking this is one of those times and organizations need to have those vague rules and obscure definitions to take care of them. If people view what they did as inappropriate, their money will do the talking. From the feel of the landscape, a majority of the people didn't view this as an overreach. At the same time, I think it's good that people do at least throw out there that there is an element of "Haha, I see what you did there to get this done" and to keep them honest about it. They used that discretion for good. When they do it for bad, we'll let them know. | ||
|
Spekulatius
Germany2413 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:31 o[twist] wrote: it's not a matter of common sense, but it is a matter of interpretation of the entire set of rules. however, nothing in the entire set of rules really seems to indicate that throwing a game with no impact would be disallowed, and if we had read through it before this incident i'm pretty sure most people would have agreed about that. words and phrases like "unfit for a progamer" and "offensive" and "abusive" (1) are vague and (2) have no history of being applied in this sort of situation. it's a general rule of interpretation that you have to give some sign of at least the kinds of incidents that you might be policing. otherwise, applying the rule in a certain situation is simply unfair. probe-rushing didn't have to be explicitly forbidden, but throwing a game could have been. In my post, I refrained from taking position to the whole debate. I just wanted to throw in some food for thought from a legal point of view. We can agree on the list of rules compiled by GomTV being bad because they're far from exhaustive and sometimes don't even hint to what they might consider a violation of terms. "Unfit for a progamer" really is a very vague term and should be replaced immediately. And again, it was never about probe-rushing itself, but the mindset behind it that it revealed. | ||
|
Truthful
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
| ||
|
Shardz
United States349 Posts
On December 14 2011 20:13 baoluvboa wrote: If a Korean did it, he would be finished. This, you have to set standards and stick to them =P. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:35 Nagano wrote: He threw the game, you can't throw games. What's there to talk about? A lot of people throw games but you don't care because they gave you lip service. That's hypocritical and that is why there is a lot to talk about. | ||
|
Trsjnica
United States477 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:34 Spekulatius wrote: In my post, I refrained from taking position to the whole debate. I just wanted to throw in some food for thought from a legal point of view. We can agree on the list of rules compiled by GomTV being bad because they're far from exhaustive and sometimes don't even hint to what they might consider a violation of terms. "Unfit for a progamer" really is a very vague term and should be replaced immediately. And again, it was never about probe-rushing itself, but the mindset behind it that it revealed. From a legal point of view, this is just a rules versus standards debate, if you're familiar with such debates. It is difficult for anyone to foresee every possible set of circumstances or potential problem, and to formulate rules ahead of time that address every possible problem. I do agree that GOM's rules are not exhaustive, however, I don't necessarily believe we can permanently cure that problem. The majority of professional sports have a vague rule about "unsportsmanlike conduct" or some such--because it is difficult to imagine every possible way an athlete could be unsportsmanlike ahead of time. This rule serves much the same function. | ||
|
Desert Fox
United States352 Posts
In my post, I refrained from taking position to the whole debate. I just wanted to throw in some food for thought from a legal point of view. We can agree on the list of rules compiled by GomTV being bad because they're far from exhaustive and sometimes don't even hint to what they might consider a violation of terms. "Unfit for a progamer" really is a very vague term and should be replaced immediately. And again, it was never about probe-rushing itself, but the mindset behind it that it revealed. Disagree, for reasons mentioned above. If you outline everything to the T that cannot be done, you'll just have assholes who adhere to those rules who search for that area not covered to misbehave. Then when they misbehave, the organization needs to invent a new rule; the process is repeated endlessly. This isn't a country and this isn't a democracy. It's a flexible organization that has designed a fair means to take care of bad apples who aren't good for their business model. | ||
|
thejadegecko
United States8 Posts
On December 14 2011 20:21 zeru wrote: Ignoring the whole naniwa situation, and if what they did was wrong/right. GOM need a bigger more detailed rules collection. Right now they are just making things up for every situation: Choya, Rain/Idra, Byun, Kyrix, Giving random people who dont deserve it/have earned it code A/S spots. It's silly really. /Agreed There need to be more clearer and detailed rules. | ||
|
o[twist]
United States4903 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:31 Trsjnica wrote: I suspect GOM (in their contracts/etc) has unlimited authority to remove people, legally speaking. However, I agree that people would and should be outraged if GOM actually exercised this authority and booted people for little or no reason. I agree that GOM's press release is definitely putting a spin on this, and it is unclear whether that spin is true or not. (Certainly, they had nor previously announced the Code S foreigner seeding methods that were in their press release, and we will never really know if they would have used those methods without this incident.) I do think that, if you believe Naniwa deserved this, there was not an abuse of discretion though. It seems within GOM's power to penalize people for actions they take in other Starcraft 2 games, especially games that take place on the GOM stage. Whether this action is worthy of such a penalty is open to debate, of course. i don't really agree with that (although you're not being at all unreasonable). my issue is that, in contract law, you're not really allowed to make a contract that doesn't require you to perform your side of the bargain. that's not a contract at all. so it's impossible that gom could have had unlimited authority to remove people, because then they wouldn't have given mlg anything. there would have been no contract in the first place. the contract would basically be like 1. We'll give spots to your two best players or whatever 2. Unless we don't feel like it if it's removal for some sort of cause, we end up going back to the specific language, and i still feel that the rules we've seen are way too vague to be applicable in this case. "offensive" and "abusive" behaviors seem to be things like saying fuck you on chat, and conduct "unfit for a progamer", well, i don't really know what that means, because i don't really have high standards for progamer conduct, just for progamer gaming ability. on the other hand, this is one place where the cultural norms might come in. it could be that, in korea, this is exactly the sort of thing that would be deemed "offensive" or "unfit for a progamer." my humble opinion is that it's not what they had in mind and it's not what you would expect when you read the rules. those sound like rules about bm to me and this just doesn't seem like your standard case of bm. the statements made by mr. chae and gom also go against the kind of attitude i want to see in a gaming organization. i would much rather see them say "we want to compensate our progamers well and make them comfortable" as opposed to "a real progamer doesn't play for the money." that's a great way to justify exactly the sorts of conditions that many young athletes and gamers operate under, and those conditions are not fair. overall i see a lot of strange deference to authority in the reaction to this. why would one trust gom's press release when they're a party to the disagreement? why would one assume the people running the tournament can just dole out whatever punishment they want? mr. chae's statements seemed to suggest he wanted a naniwa that acted like an adult rather than a teenager, but at the same time they seem to want to be able to treat progamers like children. and abuse of discretion and abuse of authority fall right into that mold. | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
No, they are not becoming a problem. The situations you have listed were handled correctly. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
| ||
|
o[twist]
United States4903 Posts
On December 15 2011 08:34 Spekulatius wrote: In my post, I refrained from taking position to the whole debate. I just wanted to throw in some food for thought from a legal point of view. We can agree on the list of rules compiled by GomTV being bad because they're far from exhaustive and sometimes don't even hint to what they might consider a violation of terms. "Unfit for a progamer" really is a very vague term and should be replaced immediately. And again, it was never about probe-rushing itself, but the mindset behind it that it revealed. sure, i just wanted to indicate that i wasn't suggesting that it needed to be explicitly forbidden. that's why you use umbrella terms. but some terms are simply too umbrella-y to be allowed to stand - they give the people who apply the rules too much discretion and therefore more authority than they ought to have. like i said, void for vagueness (i'm familiar with the legal perspective as well). | ||
| ||
