|
On December 15 2011 08:39 Trsjnica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 08:34 Spekulatius wrote:On December 15 2011 08:31 o[twist] wrote: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. 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.
also @ o[twist], Desert Fox
That rules vs standards debate is unknown to me since I study law in a different language. However, I can assume what it's about. And you're right, it's the same old problem basically. State every single possible violation and have a huge list of singular rules that risk not being exhaustive (and thus exploitable) - or having general standards that apply to a yet to be defined number of cases.
But even if it's the same old story, "unfit for a progamer" (or w/e the phrase they used was) can be clarified. Replace it with "put all possible effort in winning your games" and you have a term that applies to the Naniwa situation. Or something along those lines. I just feel the wording is unfortunate and GomTV should fix that.
|
On December 15 2011 08:41 o[twist] wrote:
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.
Well, a couple points:
1. I agree with your assertion that contracts require the K to bind both parties.
2. I disagree that GOM was necessarily bound to take Naniwa. Practically, that contract would be between MLG and GOM, not Naniwa, and I doubt MLG would ever assert a claim against GOM on the matter for a variety of reasons.
Mostly, we just don't know the terms of the MLG/GOM contract (duration, terms, etc), or if there even was a contract rather than some more informal agreement. Also, the K might be under Korean law, and I have no idea what Korean law says about the matter.
3. As for "why would one assume the people running the tournament can just dole out whatever punishment they want?" -- We can assume it because unless there is a contract that states otherwise, they can invite whoever they want to their tournament. Until Naniwa signs a contract to play in GSL January, there isn't a contract in place there, and they are merely choosing not to offer him that contract.
I doubt they had sent out GSL January contracts already, and so the contract they may more likely have broken was with MLG. And I don't know the terms of that K, and don't really have any knowledge with which to meaningfully speculate.
|
o[twist]: I am fine with what they are doing because I have purchased every season of GSL going back to GSL August and I enjoy their product and how they view what the competitive spirit is. I think you're conflating what the GSL is with something far more sinister--almost like it's this government capable of oppressing people. I'm sorry if that's not your opinion but to me it's silly that people think an organization whose prime objective is to provide entertainment at a premium should act like a fully operational government with checks and balances and a Constitution that must be adhered to absolutely.
They are first and foremost a business who must cater to customers. As a customer, I don't like shitty play, I don't like a shitty attitude and I don't like brats. Naniwa fits that to a T and I cannot stand him as an individual. He ruins what I feel is a burgeoning industry. That's just why personally I applaud them.
Other than that, they can do what they want. If they start banning people left and right and turn into a sloppy business model, people will walk with their money. I'm all for supporting the players and making sure tournaments treat them fairly but this is the worst possible scenario to bring that argument up with. This isn't a player worthy of our time. He couldn't respect other players, he couldn't respect teams and he sure as hell didn't care about anyone but himself. The GSL used their fail-safe to get rid of him.
I will not entertain that argument nor go to bat for players with Naniwa being the reasoning.
|
On December 15 2011 08:45 Spekulatius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 08:39 Trsjnica wrote:On December 15 2011 08:34 Spekulatius wrote:On December 15 2011 08:31 o[twist] wrote: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. 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. also @ o[twist], Desert Fox That rules vs standards debate is unknown to me since I study law in a different language. However, I can assume what it's about. And you're right, it's the same old problem basically. State every single possible violation and have a huge list of singular rules that risk not being exhaustive (and thus exploitable) - or having general standards that apply to a yet to be defined number of cases. But even if it's the same old story, "unfit for a progamer" (or w/e the phrase they used was) can be clarified. Replace it with "put all possible effort in winning your games" and you have a term that applies to the Naniwa situation. Or something along those lines. I just feel the wording is unfortunate and GomTV should fix that.
You are correct re: rules v. standards. I agree that your wording covers this situation better and more cleanly, and it seems a good wording to add.
I would still be a bit uncomfortable removing something like "unsportsmanlike conduct" or "unfit for a progamer" due to a lot of other situations that could occur. For example, (and I hope this example doesn't cause flame), if a player wore clothing that was entirely unfit for the competition (imagine swatikas or hateful messages on a shirt/etc), I believe that would be unportsmanlike and unfit for a progamer, and worthy of punishment. However, your rule wouldn't cover that.
|
that all seems pretty fair. i think i originally meant to be referring to contract law only conceptually rather than practically - that is, in the sense that naniwa agreed to the rules of the tournament and gom agreed to his participation, and that he hasn't broken any of them. there would definitely be an outcry if he had been thrown out *without* having probe-rushed, right? even though that would have, under your (convincing) analysis, well within their rights. so the question is the extent to which we feel they should be bound to enforce only the rules they've stated clearly (and by clearly, i don't mean explicitly delineating every possible breach, but to some kind of reasonableness standard) and the extent to which we feel naniwa broke those rules. those topics are definitely debatable, but i still find it very hard to extract anything about probe-rushing or game-throwing generally from the rules that have been listed, and my instinct is very much to say that if no rules were broken, it's unfair to exclude him from a spot that was, from all evidence that i've seen, his.
|
@ Trsjnica: Yea sure. I just meant it as a mere example for one of several phrases to replace "unprofessional behavior".
|
On December 15 2011 08:50 Desert Fox wrote:
o[twist]: I am fine with what they are doing because I have purchased every season of GSL going back to GSL August and I enjoy their product and how they view what the competitive spirit is. I think you're conflating what the GSL is with something far more sinister--almost like it's this government capable of oppressing people. I'm sorry if that's not your opinion but to me it's silly that people think an organization whose prime objective is to provide entertainment at a premium should act like a fully operational government with checks and balances and a Constitution that must be adhered to absolutely.
it's not exactly that, but you'll see in all sorts of sports that players are taken advantage of so that the people putting the sports on tv can make a buck. they complained about it at the us open, there's tons of articles about how it happens in ncaa football. hell, the nfl and nba had contract disputes this year. in the nfl right now there's a lot of outcry because the rules about who gets fined about what hits are very unclear - and people are still only penalized in-game and fined for those things, not thrown out, and they're hits that could kill people, not just make some fans unhappy. there doesn't have to be a conspiracy for one side to have more power than i'd like.
that said, i respect your position as a fan. i would submit that you should be irritated at gom for not having a clearer rule. if they had had a clearer rule, you would have gotten a more enjoyable game, because if throwing games had been clearly disallowed, i very much doubt that naniwa would have done it.
|
On December 15 2011 08:53 o[twist] wrote:
that all seems pretty fair. i think i originally meant to be referring to contract law only conceptually rather than practically - that is, in the sense that naniwa agreed to the rules of the tournament and gom agreed to his participation, and that he hasn't broken any of them. there would definitely be an outcry if he had been thrown out *without* having probe-rushed, right? even though that would have, under your (convincing) analysis, well within their rights. so the question is the extent to which we feel they should be bound to enforce only the rules they've stated clearly (and by clearly, i don't mean explicitly delineating every possible breach, but to some kind of reasonableness standard) and the extent to which we feel naniwa broke those rules. those topics are definitely debatable, but i still find it very hard to extract anything about probe-rushing or game-throwing generally from the rules that have been listed, and my instinct is very much to say that if no rules were broken, it's unfair to exclude him from a spot that was, from all evidence that i've seen, his.
Yeah, I agree we'd all be outraged if they tossed him from Code S without any justification (like, if he had 4 gated Nestea, it failed, he lost to roaches... if GOM tosses him then, we riot).
Assuming they have a rule akin to "unsportsmanlike conduct," ("unfit for a progamer") then such a rule is going to be really vague and we won't have much idea what it means until it is enforced. This may be one of those initial enforcements that helps us get a grasp on what players can and cannot do.
Now, I think such a rule is necessary as it's impossible/undesirable to delineate all possible bad things a player can do. I also think this is a reasonable application of such a rule. But, both of these two things are merely my opinion, and I admit they are debatable points, with reasonable arguments on each side.
|
On December 15 2011 09:02 Trsjnica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 08:53 o[twist] wrote:
that all seems pretty fair. i think i originally meant to be referring to contract law only conceptually rather than practically - that is, in the sense that naniwa agreed to the rules of the tournament and gom agreed to his participation, and that he hasn't broken any of them. there would definitely be an outcry if he had been thrown out *without* having probe-rushed, right? even though that would have, under your (convincing) analysis, well within their rights. so the question is the extent to which we feel they should be bound to enforce only the rules they've stated clearly (and by clearly, i don't mean explicitly delineating every possible breach, but to some kind of reasonableness standard) and the extent to which we feel naniwa broke those rules. those topics are definitely debatable, but i still find it very hard to extract anything about probe-rushing or game-throwing generally from the rules that have been listed, and my instinct is very much to say that if no rules were broken, it's unfair to exclude him from a spot that was, from all evidence that i've seen, his. Yeah, I agree we'd all be outraged if they tossed him from Code S without any justification (like, if he has 4 gates Nestea, it failed, he lost to roaches... if GOM tosses him then, we riot). Assuming they have a rule akin to "unsportsmanlike conduct," ("unfit for a progamer") then such a rule is going to be really vague and we won't have much idea what it means until it is enforced. This may be one of those initial enforcements that helps us get a grasp on what players can and cannot do. Now, I think such a rule is necessary as it's impossible/undesirable to delineate all possible bad things a player can do. I also think this is a reasonable application of such a rule. But, both of these two things are merely my opinion, and I admit they are debatable points, with reasonable arguments on each side.
i am in complete agreement with your description of our disagreement 
|
Let IDRA back in GSL ... and the GRACKEN will DESTROY!!!!
|
The way the question is phrased in the title of this post is ridiculously biased. It assumes the rules are arbitrary. Shoo.
|
On December 15 2011 07:58 Desert Fox wrote:What Naniwa did was reason enough but let's be honest: Naniwa isn't a good individual.
I think this comment makes you a terrible person.
+ Show Spoiler +Not really. But these comments (including some of the tweets by Korean players) worry me.
|
On December 14 2011 21:14 gregnog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 21:06 iky43210 wrote:On December 14 2011 21:05 gregnog wrote:On December 14 2011 21:00 iky43210 wrote:On December 14 2011 20:52 gregnog wrote:
Koreans need to get rid of that medieval mentality with all that bull shit "honor and pride". Its all fake. All of it.
Fire your tournament organizer for having such a terrible format, not Naniwa.
Next season GOM is going to introduce interviews with the game loser I bet, and if you dip out on the interview you will be banned. since when is honor and pride a medieval mentality. where do you live? A fake game with the illusion of real competition is what the Koreans want. But then they pretend its about fans/pride/honor. Where was Nesteas honor when he purposefully gave MVP the win at Blizzcon finals? That game had a 25k difference in 1st and 2nd place. (Most likely split the difference...) Naniwas was literally meaningless. Please do not make the naive assumption that skipping meaningless games detract from your pride and honor. That is what I am getting at. every sports in the world is exactly the same, and they all receives heavy punishment as well if you pull any stunts like that. I guess all sports are all fake honor and pride then right? and seriously your accusation without proofs is not something a logical person would do. Where is your proof that Nestea purposely throw away the game? I'm not sure why I am even wasting my time responding to a conspiracist. No? I have heard that there is some soccer rule that has only been enforced 1 or 2 times. In the US there is no such rule, for any sport. It is actually standard strategy to not put in full effort for meaningless games. Conspiracy? I guess you weren't around when the Blizzcon Finals happened. It is pretty well known. Them being on the same team and all...
so if the US was 0-2 in the next World Cup Group stage and faced another 0-2 team, you'd be fine with them walking onto the field and just sitting down? Yeah, that'd go over real well.
People are such hypocrites about this.
|
Maybe some people do not live in the same world I live in where I go to work at a company every day. They make up lots of vague rules much like the many silly laws politicians make up. Almost every law or rule has some other law or rule that says they can interpret or change any of them however they want and at any time. GOM makes the rules and can change them or interpret them to mean anything they want and any player basically just does what they are told or does not participate fair or not same thing in real life everywhere else.
|
On December 15 2011 12:31 snakeeyez wrote:
Maybe some people do not live in the same world I live in where I go to work at a company every day. They make up lots of vague rules much like the many silly laws politicians make up. Almost every law or rule has some other law or rule that says they can interpret or change any of them however they want and at any time. GOM makes the rules and can change them or interpret them to mean anything they want and any player basically just does what they are told or does not participate fair or not same thing in real life everywhere else.
ofcourse, the question is not wheter this is normal, it is if it benefits e-sports and the GSL.
the worlds biggest e-sports tournament is not like a normal company, and the actions are viewed and disussed by thousands so they need to be more predictable and well formulated than the rules regarding the coffee machine at your local car dealership.
i think that the way the gsl handles "the foreigner factor" is getting out of hand and hurting the league and hurting the entertainment value of the league
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
