|
On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation.
Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit.
Otherwise everyone would think its allowed.
It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job.
And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it.
|
On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it.
GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out.
A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets.
So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed.
|
So... I heard this is the place to discuss GOM's actions concerning the GSL/MLG Exchange Program and MLG Providence.
I'll first agree that this whole discussion is getting out of hand, but that doesn't mean we need to stop discussing. We just need to slow down and stop posting poorly thought-out arguments.
First we need to understand (or to be humble: consider the validity of) that Naniwa's actions during the game vs Nestea and what GOM has done prior to that match are two entirely separate discussions. There may be some things that they have in common, but it must still be understood that if we come to a conclusion in one discussion that doesn't necessarily mean anything for the other discussion, but it still might if we can explain why. My view is that what Naniwa did was clearly wrong, though not so badly that he needed to be punished this severely. From GOMs point of view it may have been necessary though, and I can accept that.
Then there's GOM's actions pertaining to the GSL/MLG Exchange Program, particularly MLG Providence. This discussion is a bit dicey, as there seems to be a lot of uncertainties.
My view of the "facts":
- I read somewhere that some guy from GOM had twittered about Providence never being a part of the deal, though I've seen no reference to this and even if this twitter comment exists, considering the misinformation we received from GOM twitters saying Naniwa was banned (which wasn't quite true), I wouldn't view this as absolute truth neither in terms of GOMs view on it or what the deal specifically says.
- From the MLG statement it would seem GOM never informed MLG directly of the change they had made to their deal. That it is in fact a change to the deal and not a matter of Providence never being a part of the deal seems fairly certain. Several comments from both MLG (such as their official statement, and that they told Naniwa he had a Code S seed after placing 2nd at Providence) and GOM (though I don't think I've read anything that states it explicitly, only implying it, so you'll have to research that part yourselves) leads me to believe this is the case.
- It is unclear how they came to be, but there seems to be one or two Korean articles from the 21st November that at the very least implies that they are unsure if Naniwa will be given a Code S seed or not, and one thread at the GOM forums (I think) from the 22nd November asking GOM if Naniwa gets a seed or not, which GOM (I think) answered by saying that it's under evaluation, and will be determined in the near future. This whole matter suggests that there were some that knew that it wasn't entirely determined whether Naniwa would get the seed or not, at least after MLG Providence, but it seems likely that some in Korea knew beforehand.
- The consensus in the foreign community was that Naniwa had a secure Code S seed, and it was never contested as far as I can see.
My thought process:
- The Korean community and the foreign community are quite reasonably very isolated from each other by the language barrier, but it's rather incredible that something as big as this wasn't picked up by someone on either side and spread throughout the rest of the community. Maybe the entire Korean community knew what we thought and no one thought to inform us? I doubt that would happen. However, this sort of amazing coincidence may be way more reasonable than we would expect.
- Communication can by no means be expected to occur by proxy, where the community acts as proxy, even if it usually would. With the language barrier in this incident in mind, it would be foolish not to communicate directly with those who need to receive your message. This can't possibly be something we just learned, right?
- When two or more professional organizations sign a contract or something equivalent, it's proper conduct to inform all parties involved whenever something occurs that affects the contract. Obviously, the one who has the information regarding such an occurrence is also responsible to communicate this to the involved parties.
- If a third party is involved and affected by a contract such as the aforementioned one, and this third party has been given information regarding it's involvement in this contract, then if this information is suddenly made void and replaced it is proper conduct to inform the third party of this and the new terms of the contract. Again, it is the one who has the information that this has occurred that is responsible to communicate this to all involved parties.
My conclusions:
- To me there's enough evidence that GOM hasn't properly abided by the principles of proper conduct that I hold to be true, and even if I would give GOM the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and respect towards MLG, the foreign community and Naniwa, it may still be perceived that these parties haven't been treated professionally and shown proper respect by GOM. I could forgive them for this, though it would perhaps be best if it is somehow made sure that they realize their mistake and better themselves.
- In respect of fairness, I would argue that GOM needs to judge themselves as they judge others, and if they cannot do so themselves then it is in the interest of those who wish to see them improve that we judge them as they do others. To that matter it is relevant to compare their view of Naniwa's actions and the unprofessionalism and disrespect that they felt with my view (or your view, for your own conclusions) of GOM's actions and the unprofessionalism and disrespect that I feel. I find them very similar, similar enough that it's relevant to compare their actions towards Naniwa with whatever suitable actions towards GOM I can come up with. And to that end...
My actions:
- I don't have much sway over GOM. There's not much I can do. I do however feel that I should do something, whatever is legal and within my power. I will stop paying GOM for watching their broadcasts and VODs. That's all I can do, and if you share my opinion then I would urge you to do the same.
|
On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed.
While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur.
The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state.
An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus.
So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above.
PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors.
Edit: Spelling
|
gom has the right to do w/e they want because the players dont have a union, until that day esports = joke
|
Hey everyone,
This is my first post on TL despite being a frequent visitor over the past 5+ years.
I wrote a long open letter to the eSports community and hosted it here:
http://bit.ly/vr681F
I've read through almost 100 pages of comments here and on GOMTV as well, and I just thought I'd share my opinions and perspective as well. It's extremely long, so I will understand if people "tl;dr" or don't end up reading the whole thing, but I'd love to hear responses or comments all the same. Feel free to get in touch via Twitter (www.twitter.com/ianchoe) or email (it's available in the PDF of the letter).
Thanks in advance,
Ian
|
On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling
interesting
but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him.
the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship
|
On December 17 2011 02:31 Bogeyman wrote:So... I heard this is the place to discuss GOM's actions concerning the GSL/MLG Exchange Program and MLG Providence. I'll first agree that this whole discussion is getting out of hand, but that doesn't mean we need to stop discussing. We just need to slow down and stop posting poorly thought-out arguments. First we need to understand (or to be humble: consider the validity of) that Naniwa's actions during the game vs Nestea and what GOM has done prior to that match are two entirely separate discussions. There may be some things that they have in common, but it must still be understood that if we come to a conclusion in one discussion that doesn't necessarily mean anything for the other discussion, but it still might if we can explain why. My view is that what Naniwa did was clearly wrong, though not so badly that he needed to be punished this severely. From GOMs point of view it may have been necessary though, and I can accept that. Then there's GOM's actions pertaining to the GSL/MLG Exchange Program, particularly MLG Providence. This discussion is a bit dicey, as there seems to be a lot of uncertainties. My view of the "facts": - I read somewhere that some guy from GOM had twittered about Providence never being a part of the deal, though I've seen no reference to this and even if this twitter comment exists, considering the misinformation we received from GOM twitters saying Naniwa was banned (which wasn't quite true), I wouldn't view this as absolute truth neither in terms of GOMs view on it or what the deal specifically says. - From the MLG statement it would seem GOM never informed MLG directly of the change they had made to their deal. That it is in fact a change to the deal and not a matter of Providence never being a part of the deal seems fairly certain. Several comments from both MLG (such as their official statement, and that they told Naniwa he had a Code S seed after placing 2nd at Providence) and GOM (though I don't think I've read anything that states it explicitly, only implying it, so you'll have to research that part yourselves) leads me to believe this is the case. - It is unclear how they came to be, but there seems to be one or two Korean articles from the 21st November that at the very least implies that they are unsure if Naniwa will be given a Code S seed or not, and one thread at the GOM forums (I think) from the 22nd November asking GOM if Naniwa gets a seed or not, which GOM (I think) answered by saying that it's under evaluation, and will be determined in the near future. This whole matter suggests that there were some that knew that it wasn't entirely determined whether Naniwa would get the seed or not, at least after MLG Providence, but it seems likely that some in Korea knew beforehand. - The consensus in the foreign community was that Naniwa had a secure Code S seed, and it was never contested as far as I can see. My thought process: - The Korean community and the foreign community are quite reasonably very isolated from each other by the language barrier, but it's rather incredible that something as big as this wasn't picked up by someone on either side and spread throughout the rest of the community. Maybe the entire Korean community knew what we thought and no one thought to inform us? I doubt that would happen. However, this sort of amazing coincidence may be way more reasonable than we would expect. - Communication can by no means be expected to occur by proxy, where the community acts as proxy, even if it usually would. With the language barrier in this incident in mind, it would be foolish not to communicate directly with those who need to receive your message. This can't possibly be something we just learned, right? - When two or more professional organizations sign a contract or something equivalent, it's proper conduct to inform all parties involved whenever something occurs that affects the contract. Obviously, the one who has the information regarding such an occurrence is also responsible to communicate this to the involved parties. - If a third party is involved and affected by a contract such as the aforementioned one, and this third party has been given information regarding it's involvement in this contract, then if this information is suddenly made void and replaced it is proper conduct to inform the third party of this and the new terms of the contract. Again, it is the one who has the information that this has occurred that is responsible to communicate this to all involved parties. My conclusions: - To me there's enough evidence that GOM hasn't properly abided by the principles of proper conduct that I hold to be true, and even if I would give GOM the benefit of the doubt as to their intentions and respect towards MLG, the foreign community and Naniwa, it may still be perceived that these parties haven't been treated professionally and shown proper respect by GOM. I could forgive them for this, though it would perhaps be best if it is somehow made sure that they realize their mistake and better themselves. - In respect of fairness, I would argue that GOM needs to judge themselves as they judge others, and if they cannot do so themselves then it is in the interest of those who wish to see them improve that we judge them as they do others. To that matter it is relevant to compare their view of Naniwa's actions and the unprofessionalism and disrespect that they felt with my view (or your view, for your own conclusions) of GOM's actions and the unprofessionalism and disrespect that I feel. I find them very similar, similar enough that it's relevant to compare their actions towards Naniwa with whatever suitable actions towards GOM I can come up with. And to that end... My actions: - I don't have much sway over GOM. There's not much I can do. I do however feel that I should do something, whatever is legal and within my power. I will stop paying GOM for watching their broadcasts and VODs. That's all I can do, and if you share my opinion then I would urge you to do the same.
I agree with this and will be doing the same.
|
On December 17 2011 03:36 ianchoe wrote:Hey everyone, This is my first post on TL despite being a frequent visitor over the past 5+ years. I wrote a long open letter to the eSports community and hosted it here: http://bit.ly/vr681FI've read through almost 100 pages of comments here and on GOMTV as well, and I just thought I'd share my opinions and perspective as well. It's extremely long, so I will understand if people "tl;dr" or don't end up reading the whole thing, but I'd love to hear responses or comments all the same. Feel free to get in touch via Twitter (www.twitter.com/ianchoe) or email (it's available in the PDF of the letter). Thanks in advance, Ian
I would strongly recommend reading this, really nice read.
|
I am very disappointed with GOM and fully support Naniwa. GOM has lied about the Code S seed repeatedly and changed information on their website in order to fit the new "truth". It's ridiculous. I will buy no more GOM products.
|
On December 17 2011 03:58 lightsentry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 03:36 ianchoe wrote:Hey everyone, This is my first post on TL despite being a frequent visitor over the past 5+ years. I wrote a long open letter to the eSports community and hosted it here: http://bit.ly/vr681FI've read through almost 100 pages of comments here and on GOMTV as well, and I just thought I'd share my opinions and perspective as well. It's extremely long, so I will understand if people "tl;dr" or don't end up reading the whole thing, but I'd love to hear responses or comments all the same. Feel free to get in touch via Twitter (www.twitter.com/ianchoe) or email (it's available in the PDF of the letter). Thanks in advance, Ian I would strongly recommend reading this, really nice read.
Great read. Everyone should read this before posting anything...
|
Great post Bogeyman I agree.
|
On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling interesting but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him. the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship
Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there was no clear rule or contract Naniwa broke. If you're not referring that vague "no one should be offended" rule, that is.
Part of the point I am trying to make though was that depending on cotractual obligation instead of a body of rules is actually a bad idea, as contracts will in all likelyhood be different for different people. The integrety of the competition however demands that everybody competes under the same rules. Level playing fiels and all that.
While there is little doubt in this case that Naniwas behaviour was offensive to some/many/the most (makes no difference to my point) viewers, the resultant decision of GOM is driven by self-intrest.
An example: What happens when GOM decides it needs even more foreigners in GSL then the LXP can provide it with. Would you be OK with GOM right now changeing the format so that only half of Code S seeds previously reserved for Up/Down matches are actually granted and the other half is reserved for inviting foreigners. This too would be a decision GOM would have the right to make, but would it be fair?
An extreme example, sure, but this type of stuff can happen when the governing body of a competition is seen purely as an business entity. My point stands. You either have a fait, transperant system of rules and judgement for your competetion, a pseudo-legal framework if you want. Or your decisions will always be arbitrary and driven by selfinterest.
Basicly: The slippery slope starts here, GOM made the first step downward.
|
Personally I have lost respect for GOM over this and have no desire to support them in any way shape or form. Simple as that.
|
I think tournaments need to look at their formats in the future and try to ensure that there aren't many meaningless matches. People throw matches all the damn time, just in different ways, and I'm actually glad he did it. I'd much rather him actually express the truth rather than play some artificial real game. I think both GOM and Naniwa are at fault and both sides should learn from it however I feel GOM wont be changing a thing.
|
On December 15 2011 13:41 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 13:38 Achaia wrote:
Regardless of whether or not Naniwa had actually won a Code S spot from MLG Providence (a lot of people seem to be very hung up on this since GomTV claims he didn't), he deserves the punishment. His actions were a disgrace to the eSports community. He was acting childish because things didn't go his way without any regard for the organization that had given him the opportunity to compete there in the first place or the thousands of fans that wanted to see a Naniwa vs. NesTea rematch. What he did was unfair to GomTV, NesTea and his fans. No, he doesn't deserve the punishment. CoCa got banned from GSL for match fixing. Naniwa felt down and quit a match that was meaningless. Is he savior now? Should he be hung? No. Quit the holier-than-thou knee jerk reactions.
Yes he does. I'm not saying he should be banned from eSports forever and he obviously didn't conspire with NesTea before the match for that outcome. The point is that he disrespected everyone involved and that cannot go unpunished. Even if he didn't care about the match he should have been respectful and put forth an effort. I'm not even saying he needs to try his hardest to win a game that doesn't matter but look at someone like Boxer. If he plays an inconsequential game like that he at least tries to make it fun for the fans. That's one of the many reasons that makes him a world class player.
|
On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling interesting but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him. the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there was no clear rule or contract Naniwa broke. If you're not referring that vague "no one should be offended" rule, that is. Part of the point I am trying to make though was that depending on cotractual obligation instead of a body of rules is actually a bad idea, as contracts will in all likelyhood be different for different people. The integrety of the competition however demands that everybody competes under the same rules. Level playing fiels and all that. While there is little doubt in this case that Naniwas behaviour was offensive to some/many/the most (makes no difference to my point) viewers, the resultant decision of GOM is driven by self-intrest. An example: What happens when GOM decides it needs even more foreigners in GSL then the LXP can provide it with. Would you be OK with GOM right now changeing the format so that only half of Code S seeds previously reserved for Up/Down matches are actually granted and the other half is reserved for inviting foreigners. This too would be a decision GOM would have the right to make, but would it be fair? An extreme example, sure, but this type of stuff can happen when the governing body of a competition is seen purely as an business entity. My point stands. You either have a fait, transperant system of rules and judgement for your competetion, a pseudo-legal framework if you want. Or your decisions will always be arbitrary and driven by selfinterest. Basicly: The slippery slope starts here, GOM made the first step downward.
you dont need to have explicit contractual provisions if the applicable statutory law already has provisions for it
the applicable korean law says that in case of 불완전이행 (faulty performance of contractual obligations) of the debtor the creditor is entitled to terminate the current contractual relationship
when naniwa entered the tournaments the basic deal was that he will receive money from gom according to his tournament placing and gom will get him playing his best in his games
what naniwa did is an open faulty performance. he even said that he wasnt even trying. curement of such faulty performance is impossible and thus gom is entitled to terminate the current contractual relationship for this breach.
|
On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling interesting but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him. the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there was no clear rule or contract Naniwa broke. If you're not referring that vague "no one should be offended" rule, that is. Part of the point I am trying to make though was that depending on cotractual obligation instead of a body of rules is actually a bad idea, as contracts will in all likelyhood be different for different people. The integrety of the competition however demands that everybody competes under the same rules. Level playing fiels and all that. While there is little doubt in this case that Naniwas behaviour was offensive to some/many/the most (makes no difference to my point) viewers, the resultant decision of GOM is driven by self-intrest. An example: What happens when GOM decides it needs even more foreigners in GSL then the LXP can provide it with. Would you be OK with GOM right now changeing the format so that only half of Code S seeds previously reserved for Up/Down matches are actually granted and the other half is reserved for inviting foreigners. This too would be a decision GOM would have the right to make, but would it be fair? An extreme example, sure, but this type of stuff can happen when the governing body of a competition is seen purely as an business entity. My point stands. You either have a fait, transperant system of rules and judgement for your competetion, a pseudo-legal framework if you want. Or your decisions will always be arbitrary and driven by selfinterest. Basicly: The slippery slope starts here, GOM made the first step downward. you dont need to have explicit contractual provisions if the applicable statutory law already has provisions for it the applicable korean law says that in case of 불완전이행 (faulty performance of contractual obligations) of the debtor the creditor is entitled to terminate the current contractual relationship
gom still shouldnt lie to the community stating they never gave naniwa a code s-spot, thats the bottom line.
|
On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling interesting but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him. the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there was no clear rule or contract Naniwa broke. If you're not referring that vague "no one should be offended" rule, that is. Part of the point I am trying to make though was that depending on cotractual obligation instead of a body of rules is actually a bad idea, as contracts will in all likelyhood be different for different people. The integrety of the competition however demands that everybody competes under the same rules. Level playing fiels and all that. While there is little doubt in this case that Naniwas behaviour was offensive to some/many/the most (makes no difference to my point) viewers, the resultant decision of GOM is driven by self-intrest. An example: What happens when GOM decides it needs even more foreigners in GSL then the LXP can provide it with. Would you be OK with GOM right now changeing the format so that only half of Code S seeds previously reserved for Up/Down matches are actually granted and the other half is reserved for inviting foreigners. This too would be a decision GOM would have the right to make, but would it be fair? An extreme example, sure, but this type of stuff can happen when the governing body of a competition is seen purely as an business entity. My point stands. You either have a fait, transperant system of rules and judgement for your competetion, a pseudo-legal framework if you want. Or your decisions will always be arbitrary and driven by selfinterest. Basicly: The slippery slope starts here, GOM made the first step downward. you dont need to have explicit contractual provisions if the applicable statutory law already has provisions for it the applicable korean law says that in case of 불완전이행 (faulty performance of contractual obligations) of the debtor the creditor is entitled to terminate the current contractual relationship
I am not a lawyer, but that seems quite far-streched to me. As this will not go to any court anytime soon I will grant that GOM has the flimmsiest of pretexts for terminating a business relationship. Which actually just brings me fiull circle to my point above.
|
On December 17 2011 04:33 Soma.bokforlag wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 03:22 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 00:50 Master_Blaster wrote:On December 17 2011 00:36 Assirra wrote:On December 16 2011 23:41 Mementoss wrote:
All rules NEED to be written in stone before they can be applied. How would you feel if you were walking on grass that had no sign saying you couldn't and ended up with a 250$ fine. Would that be fair? If rules aren't written in stone it gives higher authorities the ability to abuse their power through their own personal bias, therefore giving some people different punishment then other people. You can't just make up rules on the spot, they need to specific and understood, not just so vague that they can be applied to any situation that GOMTV wants to apply them to. Also the language barrier probably did not help the situation. I'm sure many things got lost in translation. Ok, if all rules need to be written in stone might as well add you can't shit in booth or some crazy shit. Otherwise everyone would think its allowed. It's supposed to be common sense for a professional gamer how to act in professional tournaments. It's part of the job. And no, it doesn't mater if he doesn't care about that stuff, its still part of it. GOM makes rules to give a guide code to the players, not to excuse their actions. The one rule that gives power to GOM, "we can do anything cause we own it" is enough authority. So if a player shits in the booth GOM will not claim a rule to be broken they will just exercise their authority as owners and kick the player out. A state on the other hand can't punish anyone if a rule was not broken, even one that covers shitting on the streets. So the discussions about rules and GOM should stop because GOM is not obligated to respect any. However their thought process can be discussed. While in all likelyhood true in the legal sense that GOM " can do anything cause they own it", this is true for almost every governing body in sports. Yet every such organisation that wants to be taken seriously needs to have a body of rules and idealy something akin to an Independent sports tribunal should infactions of said rules occur. The reason thats states cannot punish people for "unwanted behaviour" not actually covered by laws is actualy the reason that GOM shouldn't punish Naniwa: The decision is arbitrary and not competable with a fair an transparent system. The difference is only that the bad outcomes of an unfair system are worse when talking about a state. An intransparent and arbitrary process in determining a punishment is always detriemental to promoting fair competition, something that esports should strife for in order to actually be taken seriously as a competetion, rather then a circus. So yes, it is in the interest of everyone concerned with or interested in the growth of esports to criticise the behaviour of GOM. Not out of sympathy with the actions of Naniwa, but because of the concernes about "due process" I outlined above. PS: I hope I didn't botch this to badly, it is kinda tricky to articulate these concepts in your 2nd language. Appologies for obvious errors. Edit: Spelling interesting but the behavior naniwa showed is a breach of contractual obligations and entitles gom to terminate their current contractual relationships with him. the state-private relationship as in criminal law does not apply in a private-private contractual relationship Did I miss something? I was under the impression that there was no clear rule or contract Naniwa broke. If you're not referring that vague "no one should be offended" rule, that is. Part of the point I am trying to make though was that depending on cotractual obligation instead of a body of rules is actually a bad idea, as contracts will in all likelyhood be different for different people. The integrety of the competition however demands that everybody competes under the same rules. Level playing fiels and all that. While there is little doubt in this case that Naniwas behaviour was offensive to some/many/the most (makes no difference to my point) viewers, the resultant decision of GOM is driven by self-intrest. An example: What happens when GOM decides it needs even more foreigners in GSL then the LXP can provide it with. Would you be OK with GOM right now changeing the format so that only half of Code S seeds previously reserved for Up/Down matches are actually granted and the other half is reserved for inviting foreigners. This too would be a decision GOM would have the right to make, but would it be fair? An extreme example, sure, but this type of stuff can happen when the governing body of a competition is seen purely as an business entity. My point stands. You either have a fait, transperant system of rules and judgement for your competetion, a pseudo-legal framework if you want. Or your decisions will always be arbitrary and driven by selfinterest. Basicly: The slippery slope starts here, GOM made the first step downward. you dont need to have explicit contractual provisions if the applicable statutory law already has provisions for it the applicable korean law says that in case of 불완전이행 (faulty performance of contractual obligations) of the debtor the creditor is entitled to terminate the current contractual relationship gom still shouldnt lie to the community stating they never gave naniwa a code s-spot, thats the bottom line.
i wasnt talking about the code s spot situation. I was talking about the fact that gom has the right to terminate the contractual relationship between them and naniwa due to the behavior naniwa showed. there is no need to have explicit rules for this as the applicable korean civil code already has rules for such situation.
On a side note, i dont think its a lie. i saw the format change on thisisgame months ago and was wondering about the meaning of the change from "MLG시드 (MLG Seeds)" to "후원사시드 (Sponsor Seeds)" just bad communication on both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
