|
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
Read through this, very good read and helped me see somethings in a different light.
|
On December 17 2011 04:36 msl 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 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.
i dont believe its farfetched
here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on
Excerpts of the korean civil law
제2조 (신의성실)
권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다.
권리는 남용하지 못한다.
Paragraph 2 Good Faith
The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith.
The abusement of rights are prohibited.
제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상)
채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다.
Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations
If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply.
제546조 (이행불능과 해제)
채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다.
Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination
If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract.
According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible.
|
On December 17 2011 04:37 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:33 Soma.bokforlag wrote: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.
as mentioned here
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=295033¤tpage=34#677
and many other places GOM did in no way try to give the impression of the rules being changed, including not telling mlg altough mlg promoted their prize pool as if it was including a code s-spot (which it was, until a few days ago)
|
On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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 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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible.
Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption.
|
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
Very much enjoyed this. Please make a TL Blog of this so people can read it properly. Although I disagree with several of your reasonings, I feel your diplomatic and well thought-out argument a refreshing change of pace.
|
On December 17 2011 02:31 Bogeyman wrote:
- 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.
this is a very interesting question.
you can view it in two cases
1. The deal between GSL and MLG is a contract to the benefit of a third party (제삼자를 위한 계약 according to 539 of the korean civil code). In this case the inter partes effect extends to the third party thus any third party that is part of this deal gets a direct right out of the contract.
This however must explicitely agreed upon by the parties because it has very real consequences to the GSL (539 Nr. 2 of the korean civil code)
2. The deal between GSL and MLG is merely a contract to include rules in the own system, and thus in the contractual relationships to each player that they will get certain spots in the GSL based on MLG performance. The third party does not get a direct right out of the contract. GSL merely fulfills their contractual obligations to MLG by performing to the third party (giving third party the Code S seed)
In case no. 1 you could argue that the third party does have a right out of the contractual relationship between GSL and MLG. This would mean that GSL would have to terminate the contract between MLG and GSL in order to revoke the code s status of naniwa. however MLG did nothing wrong so the contract cannot be terminated on sidedly. However the thirdparty has certain quasi contractual obligations, because even though the relationship GSL-thirdparty is not a contractual one, there are still very real consequences. One of such obligations is that the third party cannot behave in a way that is harmful to the creditor (부수적 주의의무). Due to the behavior of naniwa in this case GSL had the right to refuse performance since this behavior constitutes a breach of this quasi contractual obligations since it clearly did harm GSL and Naniwa was aware of it.
In case no. 2 GSL could simply terminate their current contractual relationship due to reasons that i stated in earlier posts.
|
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
This is very good, I read trough it.
One thing I want to add, is that GOMTV's new format did not force a change in the league excchange program. One of the foreigner slots of the first GSL in 2012 could still have been given to the highest no-Code S finisher in MLG.
Another thing is that one of the invited players (Idra) has done things in the past that are similarly bad mannered than that what Naniwa did.
|
On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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 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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption.
No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. This is true in Korea and in Germany (except if there is a so called statutory requirement (Schriftformerfordernis). Which is not the case here. ) btw.. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player)
Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance
|
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
do sticky this, threads are going circles because many still havn't realized why this is going in circles.
to many this issue is already resolved (realize there's no need for shitstorm/drama) and there's really no need to argue.
read, even briefly look through what Ian wrote and you'll see whats the best route with this issue.
|
On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance
I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from.
|
On December 17 2011 05:08 jinorazi 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 do sticky this, threads are going circles because many still havn't realized why this is going in circles. to many this issue is already resolved (realize there's no need for shitstorm/drama) and there's really no need to argue. read, even briefly look through what Ian wrote and you'll see whats the best route with this issue.
So what's the best route?
|
On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from.
This is how everything works in a private/private relationship.
Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions.
And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal.
|
On December 17 2011 05:20 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from. This is how everything works in a private/private relationship. Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions. And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal.
Its a tournament, and you play to win the tournament which is exactly what Naniwa did.
|
On December 17 2011 05:30 Fjodorov wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:20 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 03:46 farnham wrote:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from. This is how everything works in a private/private relationship. Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions. And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal. Its a tournament, and you play to win the tournament which is exactly what Naniwa did.
He did not play to win that game and he admitted it too
|
why is this still being debated -.-
|
On December 17 2011 05:20 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote: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:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from. This is how everything works in a private/private relationship. Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions. And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal.
I am not saying a fair and transperant system can't be based on contract law. If in fact that is the easiest way to do it I am all for it. I am saying there needs to be a fair and transperant system of rules that is binding for both players and GOM, so players are (or at least can be) aware of the potential consequences of their actions and GOM cannot make seemingly (to a large number of people at least) unjust, heavyhanded decisions up on the fly.
In the last consequence this would be in the interest of everyone to prevent shitstorms like this.
|
On December 17 2011 05:32 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:30 Fjodorov wrote:On December 17 2011 05:20 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:16 msl wrote:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from. This is how everything works in a private/private relationship. Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions. And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal. Its a tournament, and you play to win the tournament which is exactly what Naniwa did. He did not play to win that game and he admitted it too
Obviously, he has no reason to. I've said this point a lot and I will say it again. Pro gamers don't play to have fun. I assure you, playing the same game everyday for 10 hours can become very boring. But they keep doing it because of the fans and the potential income.
|
On December 17 2011 03:26 TT1 wrote:
gom has the right to do w/e they want because the players dont have a union, until that day esports = joke
And it certainly will happen again. With another player, another organization, another issue. The only thing to take away from it is that players are more or less on their own still. From tiny things like tournament schedules to catering to ruling, salaries and prize money. From AAA+ players like Huk, that are backed by an influential organization to up and comers.
The question would be whether we fully respect "players" as an equal and independent entity or a mere subset to already existing teams. As of right now, representation is only available in case you already have one of the big players of the industry behind your back.
|
On December 17 2011 05:38 Lebzetu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:32 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:30 Fjodorov wrote:On December 17 2011 05:20 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:13 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 05:05 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:50 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:38 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 04:36 msl wrote:On December 17 2011 04:30 farnham wrote:
[quote]
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. i dont believe its farfetched here is the parts of korean civil code that im basing this on Excerpts of the korean civil law 제2조 (신의성실) 권리의 행사와 의무의 이행은 신의에 좇아 성실히 하여야 한다. 권리는 남용하지 못한다. Paragraph 2 Good Faith The execution of rights and the fulfillment of obligations shall be performed with accordance to good faith. The abusement of rights are prohibited. 제390조 (채무불이행과 손해배상) 채무자가 채무의 내용에 좇은 이행을 하지 아니한 때에는채권자는 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. 그러나 채무자의 고의나 과실없이 이행할 수 없게 된때에는 그러하지 아니하다. Paragraph 390 Failure to fulfill obligations If the debtor does not perform according to his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to claim damages. However if the fulfillment has become impossible due to circumstances without intent or negligence of the debtor this provision shall not apply. 제546조 (이행불능과 해제) 채무자의 책임있는 사유로 이행이 불능하게 된 때에는 채권자는 계약을 해제할 수 있다. Paragraph 546 Inability of Performance and Termination If the debtor is inable to perform his obligations the creditor shall be entitled to terminate the contract. According to the korean judicature cases of faulty performance are handled the same as inability of performance if the cure of this breach is impossible. Your basic assumption is that Naniwas performace was faulty. For this to be the case the following needs to be true:
A writen contract exist that specifies how games should be played. If it does, it would need to be the same for every player and we would actually have a body of rules that covers this specific situation an all my concerns would be void. As no such contract is public knowledge, the basis of you argument is actually just an assumption. No this is not true. A contractual relationship can be formed even if there is no written contract. Even if naniwa and gretech had no written contract whatsoever and there is no rulebook of gom for the gsl at all it is clear what the primary obligations of the parties are ("payment of prizemoney" for gom and "playing the game to win" for any player) Also naniwa stated himself that he threw the game. i cannot believe that you are arguing this is not a faulty performance I am arguing that it is questionable that it is a faulty performance in the eye of the law. Admittedly just to make the point that basing a tournament and rulings pertaining to it on contract law instead of a known body of rules is just a bad idea. Which you actually quite succesfully sidetracked me from. This is how everything works in a private/private relationship. Even the scenario that you named "A general rule book of the league" is nothing else then Gom making a slew of conditions to enter into a contractual relationship and each player agreeing to those conditions. And yes this is faulty performance as the "Playing to win" part of the deal is the primary contractual obligation that naniwa had to fulfill and he openly disregarded the "to win" part of the deal. Its a tournament, and you play to win the tournament which is exactly what Naniwa did. He did not play to win that game and he admitted it too Obviously, he has no reason to. I've said this point a lot and I will say it again. Pro gamers don't play to have fun. I assure you, playing the same game everyday for 10 hours can become very boring. But they keep doing it because of the fans and the potential income.
Of course he has a reason to. He was contractually obligated when he entered the tournament. The tournament format was known and he had the chance to see the risk that such situation could occur. He still agreed to participate.
If you are professional you need to swallow the bitter pill too.
|
On December 15 2011 06:57 rolfe wrote:
i still fail to understand how such an incredible misunderstanding could have occurred regarding the providence code s seed, when MLG is stating that a code s seed was awarded so blatantly gom must have been aware of this. this has to be outright dishonesty by Gom or extreme incompetence. If it is dishonesty then this is a very serious fuck you to MLG, the foreign scene as a whole and naniwa. If its incompetence then its a serious fuck you to every single player who was at Providence playing under the false impression that they were getting a code s spot.
I agree completely that GOM is the one looking bad here. They change the rules however they want, but I guess MLG agrees with this one since Nani called their tournament shit already. I agree that GOM has to punish Nani for this somehow, since the Korean audience sees this as spitting on Nestea's face, but trying to wash their own hands from this saying they are not punishing him just seems like kids fighting and lying to their mother who started T_T
I was actually considering paying to watch Naniwa, cause he seems like an interesting player but now I'll just have to wait for him to qualify first
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
