|
On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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. 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.
There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom)
They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision
|
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.
Wait. I think You've misunderstood msl's post
msl was saying contract law is not relevant; contract law is just background to the questions at hand. The claim, as I understand it, is something like: the "rule book" contains in it the contract stipulations, but they are too vague.
See, we've no reason to discuss contract law.
EDIT
There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom)They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision
No. This is just simply not true.
|
We can't discuss contract law meaningfully in this case for a lot of reasons. Here are just two:
First, we don't know the governing law of any of these contract.
Second, the GSL rules are, in all likelihood, not a contract.
|
On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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. 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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision
The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa.
The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM.
|
It amuses me how some people think that all these progamers are world wide super stars with all what comes with that. Many of them are just young, very talented, computer nerds who spend their day playing 10 hours of starcraft, and they dont know everything about "the industry", media, korean values, western values etc. These guys are not Cristiano Ronaldo (who still acts immaturely sometimes btw) who are surrounded by a huge pr team with media coaches etc Compared to other sports industries that have been evolving and improving for ages, esports is merely a teenager. Some times that is more apparent than other times as recent events have shown. Same goes for the players and everything else surronding esports. In times like these it can be good to step back and get som perspective.
|
On December 17 2011 06:12 Trsjnica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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. 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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa. The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM.
why did naniwa participate in the gsl then when there was no underlying understanding between the parties (i.e. a contract ?)
also how is korean law not relevant when its clearly the applicable law unless the parties have chosen a different substantive law ?
your argument makes little sense
|
On December 17 2011 06:26 Fjodorov wrote:
It amuses me how some people think that all these progamers are world wide super stars with all what comes with that. Many of them are just young, very talented, computer nerds who spend their day playing 10 hours of starcraft, and they dont know everything about "the industry", media, korean values, western values etc. These guys are not Cristiano Ronaldo (who still acts immaturely sometimes btw) who are surrounded by a huge pr team with media coaches etc Compared to other sports industries that have been evolving and improving for ages, esports is merely a teenager. Some times that is more apparent than other times as recent events have shown. Same goes for the players and everything else surronding esports. In times like these it can be good to step back and get som perspective.
Sure, but it isn't like the punishment here is unimaginable -- he just doesn't get seeded into a single tournament.
Further, it isn't like he shouldn't have seen punishment coming -- someone asked him to play a game (I mean, the game lobby didn't set itself up, someone cues the game to start based on announcers being done, etc), a game he knew was on live to many folks, and he decided not to play it.
You can say the punishment is far too severe/etc. But even if it is only one guy, I think he could have seen it coming that someone might be unhappy about this.
|
On December 17 2011 06:31 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:12 Trsjnica wrote:On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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:
[quote]
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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa. The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM. why did naniwa participate in the gsl then when there was no underlying understanding between the parties (i.e. a contract ?) also how is korean law not relevant when its clearly the applicable law unless the parties have chosen a different substantive law ? your argument makes little sense
An "understanding" is very different than a contract.
|
On December 17 2011 06:10 Trsjnica wrote:
We can't discuss contract law meaningfully in this case for a lot of reasons. Here are just two:
First, we don't know the governing law of any of these contract.
Second, the GSL rules are, in all likelihood, not a contract.
1. unless there is a choice of law clause in a hypothetical contract between naniwa and the gsl its most likely korean law.
2. GSL rules are general terms and conditions that are incorporated into the contractual relationship of two parties. GSL basically says, if you want to play here and get prize money you have to obey these rules and naniwa agreed. this way the GSL rules became part of the contractual relationship between these two. so yes, the gsl rules are part of the contract between naniwa and the gsl.
|
On December 17 2011 06:31 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:12 Trsjnica wrote:On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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:
[quote]
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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa. The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM. why did naniwa participate in the gsl then when there was no underlying understanding between the parties (i.e. a contract ?) also how is korean law not relevant when its clearly the applicable law unless the parties have chosen a different substantive law ? your argument makes little sense
Huh? Let me outline my position more clearly:
There was a contract between Naniwa for GSL Blizzard Cup. It outlined that Naniwa play 4 (or more) games, and that he be paid according to the published schedule. I am sure we all agree such a contract must exist. But unless GOM is refusing to pay him for Blizzard Cup, GOM did not violate this contract.
There was not a contract for Naniwa to play in GSL 2012 Season 1, at least not yet. Thus, this contract could not have been violated.
|
On December 17 2011 06:34 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:10 Trsjnica wrote:
We can't discuss contract law meaningfully in this case for a lot of reasons. Here are just two:
First, we don't know the governing law of any of these contract.
Second, the GSL rules are, in all likelihood, not a contract. 1. unless there is a choice of law clause in a hypothetical contract between naniwa and the gsl its most likely korean law. 2. GSL rules are general terms and conditions that are incorporated into the contractual relationship of two parties. GSL basically says, if you want to play here and get prize money you have to obey these rules and naniwa agreed. this way the GSL rules became part of the contractual relationship between these two. so yes, the gsl rules are part of the contract between naniwa and the gsl.
1. Nearly all contracts include a choice of law clause, although I agree the GSL BlizzCup contract would be in Korean law. However, this contract wasn't violated by GOM and so Naniwa has no complaint--he got paid.
2. GSL rules aren't relevant because the existing contract (for Blizzard Cup) was not violated (at least by GOM)--they paid him his prize money.
|
On December 17 2011 06:26 Fjodorov wrote:
It amuses me how some people think that all these progamers are world wide super stars with all what comes with that. Many of them are just young, very talented, computer nerds who spend their day playing 10 hours of starcraft, and they dont know everything about "the industry", media, korean values, western values etc. These guys are not Cristiano Ronaldo (who still acts immaturely sometimes btw) who are surrounded by a huge pr team with media coaches etc Compared to other sports industries that have been evolving and improving for ages, esports is merely a teenager. Some times that is more apparent than other times as recent events have shown. Same goes for the players and everything else surronding esports. In times like these it can be good to step back and get som perspective.
...and some people will have common sense to not be an ass and a few will just have to learn the hard way.
|
On December 17 2011 05:13 PraetorianX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 05:08 jinorazi wrote: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?
people have the right to do whatever it is, boycott or support, whatever but-
there's no need to blame someone and fight over whats right or wrong.
move on.
for the reasons why i think its unnecessary to continue this drama is on Ian's post.
to sum it up:
gom's rule change does not effect anyone negatively, including naniwa. the issue is gom's ambiguous presentation of the change, the change itself is not bad, its actually for the better.
naniwa's exist has nothing to do with how the rule changed.
on why it seems ambiguous and understandable is in Ian's post.
because people are connecting this to naniwa, its being blown out of proportion. if naniwa's blizzcup thing didn't happen, none of this would have happened even with this rule change situation. naniwa would most likely been sent to code s, along with other players to code s and a.
on why this is so, is also explained in Ian's post.
so you can debate how severe wrong doing was done by gom or naniwa's behavior or whatever for debate's sake, i just dont think there's a need to show hatred and make accusations.
|
On December 17 2011 06:33 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:31 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 06:12 Trsjnica wrote:On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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:
[quote]
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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa. The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM. why did naniwa participate in the gsl then when there was no underlying understanding between the parties (i.e. a contract ?) also how is korean law not relevant when its clearly the applicable law unless the parties have chosen a different substantive law ? your argument makes little sense An "understanding" is very different than a contract.
no its not. a contract according to korean law is two 의사표시(voluntaris declaratio) that are in consent. such voluntaris declaratio can be implied as well.
so in the end if the two parties agreed on certain essential terms (essentialia negotii) there is a contract.
if there was no contract gsl would have no obligation to pay prize money to naniwa
|
On December 17 2011 06:36 Trsjnica wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:34 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 06:10 Trsjnica wrote:
We can't discuss contract law meaningfully in this case for a lot of reasons. Here are just two:
First, we don't know the governing law of any of these contract.
Second, the GSL rules are, in all likelihood, not a contract. 1. unless there is a choice of law clause in a hypothetical contract between naniwa and the gsl its most likely korean law. 2. GSL rules are general terms and conditions that are incorporated into the contractual relationship of two parties. GSL basically says, if you want to play here and get prize money you have to obey these rules and naniwa agreed. this way the GSL rules became part of the contractual relationship between these two. so yes, the gsl rules are part of the contract between naniwa and the gsl. 1. Nearly all contracts include a choice of law clause, although I agree the GSL BlizzCup contract would be in Korean law. However, this contract wasn't violated by GOM and so Naniwa has no complaint--he got paid. 2. GSL rules aren't relevant because the existing contract (for Blizzard Cup) was not violated (at least by GOM)--they paid him his prize money.
1. no they dont if they are domestic (although i strongly recommend to always include choice of law and jurisdiction clauses). also we dont know if there was a written contract at all. and i never said gom violated anything. i said naniwa breached contractual obligations.
2. once again. i never said gom breached any contractual obligations.
|
On December 17 2011 06:38 farnham wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2011 06:33 IPA wrote:On December 17 2011 06:31 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 06:12 Trsjnica wrote:On December 17 2011 06:03 farnham wrote:On December 17 2011 05:36 msl 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:
[quote]
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. There are GSL Rules (GSL규정 : http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/record/leagueInfo.gom) They just did not have specific rules about this situation. But even if there is no specific rule for this situation the korean civil code has a provision that covers this situation. -> no need for new provision The Korean Civil Code can say whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant, because GOM did not breach any contracts with Naniwa. The code provisions you point to would be applicable if, for example, GOM decided not to pay Naniwa for playing in the Blizz Cup. But not here, because there was no contract to speak of between Naniwa and GOM. why did naniwa participate in the gsl then when there was no underlying understanding between the parties (i.e. a contract ?) also how is korean law not relevant when its clearly the applicable law unless the parties have chosen a different substantive law ? your argument makes little sense An "understanding" is very different than a contract. no its not. a contract according to korean law is two 의사표시(voluntaris declaratio) that are in consent. such voluntaris declaratio can be implied as well. so in the end if the two parties agreed on certain essential terms (essentialia negotii) there is a contract. if there was no contract gsl would have no obligation to pay prize money to naniwa
Yeah, there was definitely a contract regarding Blizzard Cup, whether or not Naniwa and GOM signed an official contract.
And I am sure they did sign an official contract anyhow.
|
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
Hey Ian, thanks for a very thorough response to this whole controversy. I really appreciate you taking your time to calm both sides of the argument with reason. I do however have some things I would like to point out, and as you seem to be a very reasonable guy (and I'm fairly certain I am as well), please be open-minded to what I have to say.
In the hypothetical situation that you present you don't consider the possibility of a minor yet important alteration of your version. What makes changing the GSL format as has been done incompatible with letting MLG Providence continue to be affected by the Exchange Program deal? Nothing suggests that there could be a problem. The only practical difference that the first GSL tournament of 2012 now has one more seeded spot. In no way does this mean that the first of the two seeds cannot be awarded as was intended. Without GOM saying this was the case, who would have thought it would be a problem in the first place? This observation may not be backed up with a print screen or a link (as, if it's true, GOM changed it already), but simply inject into your hypothesis the possibility of GOM intending to hand out the first Code S seed for 2012 as was determined in their agreement with MLG, and let the second seed be handed out to whomever they thought worthy. The staff at GOM are not stupid, and this arrangement requires no thought whatsoever as to how they would need to cover up the fact that MLG has less status in esports or whatever. Then once the unfortunate incident of Naniwa vs Nestea happens, and they at first release statements through various sources (though I suppose only Mr. Chae should be considered truly valid) that Naniwa has been effectively banned. Someone shortly thereafter points out that according to the new format of 2012 Naniwa doesn't necessarily have to be considered as already qualified for a Code S seed, so they don't have to ban him if they instead simply revoke his candidacy for the Code S seed as per the new format which wouldn't seem as harsh to the foreign community who at this point are in an outrage, and GOM needs to secure their good reputation and good relations with the foreign community. It's even clearly stated in their agreement with MLG that GOM has every right to change what tournament Naniwa gains entry in, so they're not even breaking any rules even at this point.
In this situation, with the stress growing and the flow of angry posts and emails growing by every minute, that is when they make their mistake. When they determined the new format for 2012 there was no stress, no pressure, and they could make a rational decision. Why would they, at that point, make a decision which also involved an active deception so that MLG would still look good? Whether you believe this to be what actually happened or not, do you at least recognize that this hypothesis is as likely if not more likely than what you described?
Anyway, what I describe (which I by no means hold as truth btw) may be even more forgiving than what you described. In your version they were consciously deceiving people, if for the betterment of mankind (and by this I'm implying that perhaps sometimes you're holding them in too high regard. They're a corporation that survives by making money. I'll admit that the staff may still mean very well, but I won't assume it), whereas in my version they were under a lot of stress and pressure, and much like Naniwa did in a similar situation, they made a huge mistake in part because they didn't understand the culture they were dealing with.
This one might sound far-fetched, but the argument that we need to cut GOM some slack because of their different view of self, and their emphasis on group over individual, and that they're pretty much not acquainted with the concept of being "entitled" to something, can be turned around completely. GOM needs to understand that this outrage from the foreign community in part stems from the fact that we don't share the Korean culture and their views of self, group over individual and so on. GOM needs to understand that we may view Naniwa as entitled to his Code S seed. Whether this view is "correct" or not, is obviously very different depending on what culture you come from (and political background even). But the point is that it's equally true that we need to understand their view and that they need to understand our view (and by "our view", I'm not trying to represent the entire foreign community). Neither party stands above the other in this. Or maybe GOM has the advantage, as all this has occurred on Korean soil? I would argue that's a questionable reason in this day and age, as the event is international and everyone has an equal right to care and be involved; it's everyone's business.
So in short: the foreign community needs to calm down and try to understand why GOM would act like they have, whereas GOM needs to understand why many in the foreign community are upset, and once they understand (much like Naniwa now understands Korean culture better) it would be appropriate to if not apologize, then at least say they're sorry that they have offended our culture and state that as the GSL is meant to be a global tournament they will do their best in showing respect towards western culture in the future.
I want to reemphasize that of course your point is still valid: we need to try to understand how their culture has affected their decisions, but it does go both ways, even if neither side has an obligation to do so.
The third thing I would like to point out is that I contest your view that boycotting GSL is necessarily counter-productive. As I already said, much like Naniwa seems to have grown and matured in his realization of why GOM acted as they did and why Koreans in general were so appalled, GOM could grow and mature in their position as a leading global esports corporation if they realize that they need to consider fans belonging to western culture as well as their Korean fans. Maybe what has already happened is enough for them to realize this and adjust, but until they somehow address this issue directly I can't say that they have, and the only power I have to force them to realize this is to boycott them.
|
On December 17 2011 06:53 Bogeyman 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 The third thing I would like to point out is that I contest your view that boycotting GSL is necessarily counter-productive. As I already said, much like Naniwa seems to have grown and matured in his realization of why GOM acted as they did and why Koreans in general were so appalled, GOM could grow and mature in their position as a leading global esports corporation if they realize that they need to consider fans belonging to western culture as well as their Korean fans. Maybe what has already happened is enough for them to realize this and adjust, but until they somehow address this issue directly I can't say that they have, and the only power I have to force them to realize this is to boycott them.
dont act like such behavior would be tolerated in the west
the measures gom took were very generous.
they could have straight up refused to deal with naniwa in the future.
also boycotting gom is also indirectly punishing players like nestea, mvp, mma etc. that had nothing to do with this.
|
|
|
I think boycotting GSL is the only way viewers can show their dislike for the horrible decisions and lies spread by GOM TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
