|
On December 16 2011 06:58 Snowball_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 06:48 mrtomjones wrote:
Either way, MLG has stated it was within GOM's right to change the seeds to be for Blizzcup. Heck you have a better shot at winning that then code S anyways. Stop with the debate With all past Champions in it and with no chance to advance / stay in code A/S or whatever? just honor?
I think the dollop of cash available in MLG is also worthwhile. Multiple koreans certainly seem to, and part of the spirited defense of Naniwa is that a mark of a true professional is only playing for the money and not putting in one iota of effort unless you're being paid for it.
But regardless, MLG have now confirmed that GOM were within their rights to change the seeds, as has been stated. Not much else to talk about now. Buy your tickets for next season or boycott as you prefer.
All the facts are in the open now.
|
They just didn't communicate to MLG about change in Seeding spot, that is all.
and this whatever change Gom happened just about a month after the Providence, so change happened before Blizzard cup.
and what I don't understand from a couple of people out there keep saying Gom did dirty work and what not,
Did they take away code S spot for no reason? you think they just took it away from naniwa for no reason?
THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE RULE BECAUSE OF CHILDISH ACT OF NANIWA but coincidentally the change for 2012 was ALREADY MADE, even thought a lot of you out there sees or feels like the change was made on the next day after Naniwa's act.
And also like MLG said, the power is in Gom's hand, not from MLG. WITH THE NEW RULE MADE BEFORE BLIZZ CUP,
Gom was to GIVE code S spot as A GIFT, but Naniwa with CHILDish ACT BLEW IT AWAY, this. why is this so hard to understand?????????????????????
ABOVE im just saying as in facts,
now below is my opinion.
ALSO in Providence, Naniwa only won 3 Matches, 3 Matches to get into the final. because of some type seeding system which MLG has that I can not understand.
I was actually expecting the same format just like any other MLG, from pool game and on.
GUYS, 3 Matches to get into the final, JUST 3 Matches. and also he only had to win 2 GAMES! whereas leenock had to win 4.
and with Naniwa's history in code A, where he never passed above round 16 or 32, whichever is the lowest, is 0-10 or something.
in my opinion, the rule change Gom, even though it was last minute change and happened before blizz cup, was REALLY GOOD.
becuase Naniwa is no where near, in skill wise, to compete in Code S
User was warned for this post
|
This is illegal isnt this? If I was MLG I'd probably sue GOM. This can't be legal. Otherwise I could have a tournament with 50$ entry fees and an advertized 1 million prize pool and then change it to a 500 dollar prize pool after 1000 people pay their entry fee, right? If I just have a "the prize pool isn't final and is subject to change" in the contract?
|
Vatican City State582 Posts
so MLG didn't know about the seeding changes
fairly obvious that GSL bent the rules to punish Naniwa and failed to cover it up
|
What if a korean had qualified for the code S spot, would none have been given then? If so, did the koreans attending that weren't code S know this?
|
On December 16 2011 07:05 JoeSchmoe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 06:56 Nexic wrote:On December 16 2011 06:51 JoeSchmoe wrote:On December 16 2011 06:47 babylon wrote:On December 16 2011 06:44 m0ck wrote:On December 16 2011 06:39 Snowball_ wrote:On December 16 2011 06:33 ACrow wrote:On December 16 2011 06:20 Treemonkeys wrote:On December 16 2011 06:12 Longshank wrote:On December 16 2011 06:08 Treemonkeys wrote:
[quote]
Since before the website changed? I don't think it's there now, but it was still MLG promoting every time they had a tournament.
Can we look at what GOM actually promised? Does anyone have that? http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors3/news/65291edit: "At every 2011 Pro Circuit Live Competition after MLG Columbus, GSL placement will occur as follows: Code S status will be awarded to the highest placing player, regardless of country of origin, who doesn't already have Code S status. Code A status will be awarded to the next 3 highest placing non-Korean players. If Code S status is awarded to a Korean player, Code A status also will be awarded to the 4th highest placing non-Korean player." ....and they followed through with this. By MLG providence there was no 2011 code S left and they had made it public that things were changed in 2012. They weren't explictly clear about what would happen with the new format, and neither was MLG, and both sides could have taken the initiative to sort this out before it came to all this. I hold MLG more accountable because it was being offered as a prize to *their* tournament and they were able to profit from it. I'm sorry but MLG is just as much to blame in this. Read a little more closely - the original states all 2011 MLGs will award a code S spot. Providence was in 2011 and thus should award a code S (no mention the code S spot has to be in 2011 as well) spot. As mentioned read more closely: "Pro Circuit". Providence wasn't one of them. it was rather a championchip. Bullshittu. http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/The above is the site for the Pro Cirvcit. Go to the menu-point "Competitions". Do you see Providence? What is your basis for excluding Providence from the Pro Circuit? The organizers of the Pro Circuit themselves counted Providence as gifting a code S spot. This entire argument boggles my mind. People need to reread the OP. It doesn't matter if Providence was included in the Pro Circuit or not -- the understanding was as follows: The original agreement between MLG and GSL through the League Exchange Program (LXP) stated that the highest ranked player in the Top 3 from each MLG Pro Circuit event in 2011, including Providence, who did not already have Code S status would be granted Code S status at GSL for one season. yet using the same agreement that MLG cited, they never seeded 4 korean players directly into championship pools. what's your explanation for that? or are we to assume that GSL is supposed to keep up their end of the bargain but MLG does not? You don't know what you're talking about. MLG did uphold their part of the agreement. In providence there was obviously no pool play, so instead MLG paid for 4 previous MLG champions/1 runner-up (MMA, MVP, Bomber, and MC) to come to Providence. GSL did not do anything for their half of the LXP for Providence. actually you don't know what you're talking about. lol convenient, no pool play so yeah we don't have to seed them even though that's a CONDITION in the agreement. also MLG didn't pay for MVP. Quantic did as a result of their partnership with IM.
Thats a really interesting point. If the 4 GSL players weren't seeded into MLG didn't MLG first break their end of the bargain? Why should providence winner (or in Nani's case 2nd place) get a seed to Code S if the quid pro quo portion wasn't upheld?
|
On December 16 2011 07:10 Shikyo wrote:
This is illegal isnt this? If I was MLG I'd probably sue GOM. This can't be legal. Otherwise I could have a tournament with 50$ entry fees and an advertized 1 million prize pool and then change it to a 500 dollar prize pool after 1000 people pay their entry fee, right? If I just have a "the prize pool isn't final and is subject to change" in the contract?
Dude, they can't sue GOM right after they issue a press release that says "GOM did not violate our contract."
Sorry, but GOM will just show the judge a printout of that statement from MLG and the case will get thrown out. 
|
I cant believe you guys are even thinking about seeing the two best leagues sue each other, Mlg said its in their jurisdiction. Now everyone just stfu
|
On December 16 2011 07:10 dacimvrl wrote:
so MLG didn't know about the seeding changes
fairly obvious that GSL bent the rules to punish Naniwa and failed to cover it up
so you are saying GOM knew naniwa will do 7 probe rushes, therefore not awarding him the code S spot.
JESUS CHIRST.
|
On December 16 2011 07:02 seabass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 07:01 Biane wrote:On December 16 2011 06:58 Trsjnica wrote:On December 16 2011 06:57 seabass wrote:On December 16 2011 06:56 zzuper wrote:
typical koreans.. not surprised : ] Shit like this... why can't people see that GOM is an organization not a representative of a whole country. Equating them like this is just straight up racist. Agree. This is not Korea vs. foreigners. This is just GOM. Well racism was the rampart in some of the other threads... So because other threads had illogical shitflinging we should resort to that here as well?
No. I was just stating a general notable trend. Its great that it hasn't started here yet but some people inevitably post one /two liners that are somewhat racist which could potentially start a shitstorm out of nowhere.
|
It's useless to talk about if a Korean or almost anyone else had gotten the spot if they would have been given Code S. The answer is yes, Nani did get a spot HOWEVER due to it no longer being solid he fucked it up, something that plenty people have said is "nani being nani".
|
On December 16 2011 07:02 ExO_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 06:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On December 16 2011 06:51 s4life wrote:On December 16 2011 06:28 Trsjnica wrote:On December 16 2011 06:23 s4life wrote:On December 16 2011 06:17 Trsjnica wrote:On December 16 2011 06:14 s4life wrote:On December 16 2011 06:07 Trsjnica wrote:On December 16 2011 06:05 Ghola wrote:On December 16 2011 05:36 castled wrote:
Regardless of whether or not Nani "earned" a code S invite, he threw it away by disrespecting GOM, his opponent, and the viewers. I hope GOM doesn't feel pressure to reverse their decision because so many vocal posters on Teamliquid don't understand the meaning of respect.
I'm really sick of this whole controversy because no matter how many level-headed evaluations are posted, there are so many people that will never understand. There are ways for Gom to punish Naniwa without breaking their agreements with MLG. The MLG press release in the original post specifically says that GOM was within their rights to act as they did. Thus, the did not break their agreement at all--this was in the contract to begin with. Are you fucking kidding me??? If an organizer offers you a certain prize and announces it publicly, and then when you win tells you the prize is not what he/she promised you because of a fine print in page 500 of a contract he signed with a third party, what would you do?? I guess if you are not worked up about it, the natural thing to say would be "oh well, that's what I get for dealing with crooks and liars" .. this is something you'd never expect from an organization that is trying to market themselves as professional and ethical. Uh, so are you arguing that MLG broke their promise to Naniwa then? MLG is coming clean by shrewdly exerting all the blame on GOM, they claim GOM changed the contract unilaterally and without previous notice... the truth? I guess we'll wait for GOM's announcement. Still, I think MLG tried to play nice with GOM by making it look like if they have the right to change anything in the contract unilaterally... I mean, really? could GOM just say sorry no code A, code S for anybody and MLG be ok with that??? I seriously doubt it, it seems more likely that they are both just colluding to fuck up Naniwa coz they know he's a sitting duck right now. I know your ID says Peru, and its possible english isn't your first language (although you speak fine), but I have to nitpick here: GOM did not change the contract unilaterally. In fact, they did not change the contract at all. They took actions which both sides agree were within their rights under the contract. If you are instead suggesting that GOM's actions were not within the contract, and that both GOM and MLG are lying, based upon a contract that you have not seen... Well, that is a large leap of logic. Both parties that have actually seen the contract say that it was not violated. Because I have not seen the contract, I will take their word. Well sure, I don't know what contract says and neither do you. You are assuming both parties are operating in good faith and I have my doubts. GOM, as per MLG's statement can adjust placement without telling MLG about it. Does it mean GOM could switch code S and A for code A and B or get the 5 players that won code A and put them in another online tournament? Would MLG be ok with that? How would that work if Idra had won code S in providence and MLG would be like 'just kidding man, no code S was ever on the line, but if you make the GOM execs happy, they might give you one'. The reason i am doubtful is, the legal language that would allow GOM to place Naniwa in a different tournament and not do any of the things above-mentioned would simply be contradictory. all they have to do is say in the contract: "we reserve the right to modify this contract at any time, and for any reason, without notice to MLG," and then they can do whatever the hell they want. That would never be a valid contract....
maybe in those words, but you can put similar open terms in contracts that are legally enforceable. i was just giving an example.
|
On December 16 2011 07:10 Shikyo wrote:
This is illegal isnt this? If I was MLG I'd probably sue GOM. This can't be legal. Otherwise I could have a tournament with 50$ entry fees and an advertized 1 million prize pool and then change it to a 500 dollar prize pool after 1000 people pay their entry fee, right? If I just have a "the prize pool isn't final and is subject to change" in the contract?
In case you didn't read the first post, MLG just said GOM were within their rights. It's not likely they'd say that if they had the rights to sue them over it.
|
Well, I won't be buying GOM's overpriced passes in 2012 anyway.
|
On December 16 2011 07:13 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 07:10 Shikyo wrote:
This is illegal isnt this? If I was MLG I'd probably sue GOM. This can't be legal. Otherwise I could have a tournament with 50$ entry fees and an advertized 1 million prize pool and then change it to a 500 dollar prize pool after 1000 people pay their entry fee, right? If I just have a "the prize pool isn't final and is subject to change" in the contract? In case you didn't read the first post, MLG just said GOM were within their rights. It's not likely they'd say that if they had the rights to sue them over it.
How can they be within their rights if they decide to change the prize pool of their tournament after the tournament is concluded? That's called false advertizing, it's illegal at least here.
|
On December 16 2011 07:10 Shikyo wrote:
This is illegal isnt this? If I was MLG I'd probably sue GOM. This can't be legal. Otherwise I could have a tournament with 50$ entry fees and an advertized 1 million prize pool and then change it to a 500 dollar prize pool after 1000 people pay their entry fee, right? If I just have a "the prize pool isn't final and is subject to change" in the contract?
Well, MLG said that GOM had a right to do it, so it isn't illegal. On the other hand, if some of the players or affiliated teams wanted to sue MLG for false advertising (Code S seeding in Top 3, many articles with "Naniwa rewarded Code S on MLG site...), they would probably succeed... Anyway, it's not MLGs fault and I don't think there's someone in the community that would sue them, so yeah...
|
On December 16 2011 07:11 Theovide wrote:
What if a korean had qualified for the code S spot, would none have been given then? If so, did the koreans attending that weren't code S know this?
thats a good point
I think what you mean is what if 2 koreans had the 1st and 2nd place spot at providence? Disregarding the blizzard cup and the naniwa incident altogether, would that korean with the 2nd place spot at providence get a code S seed?
After all, the format change by GOM which occurred before the Naniwa incident makes provisions for 2 code s "sponsor seeds" as far as i know but i'm not exactly sure of how those seedings are given about (if any to koreans)
|
Unfortunately, the change was made without notification to MLG, but it is within GSL's jurisdiction to adjust placement.
What a professional league.
Hey let's change a big part of the price of our partner tournament and don't tell them about it.
|
On December 16 2011 06:55 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 05:19 schI2ler wrote:
Well this is really unprofessional. I am amazed how calm and grown up the MLG team is. I can imagine some people would rage at their "business-partners" for doing this, screaming and threatening. But MLG keeps calm, this is not sarcasm, I think this is a professional move by MLG, and I am positively surprised.
But MLG please make sure players and fans can be sure that what you declare as a prize really is going to be handed to the winner. Code S for foreigners is a huge prize, its fame, fanbase, its still the Mekka of sc2, to me code S would probably mean more than "just" money.
It might be legal in Korea to change a contract afterwards and withouth the contractpartner knowing and/or accepting this, I am not a good korean lawyer, but I am pretty sure, that even with the culture clash, this must be highly unrespectfull, not only in America and Europe but also in Korea.
I don't want to jump on the gom-hate-bandwagon but I really hope that the responsible persons at GOM realize how unrespected MLG and foreigner fans (and Naniwa) have to feel right now. Just because Sundance isn't telling you everything he is doing minute by minute... MLG could very well be up-in-arms about this behind the curtains. There is nothing in it for MLG to make their conflict public. Hurting the most prestigious SC2 league doesn't actually help MLG at all unfortunately. The scene is too small to start going after your competitors/partners/colleagues like that. But I would imagine that MLG heads are livid about this.
When they are ambiguous it seems like it is helping them because people are just blaming gomtv.
The fact is MLG promised a reward they have admitted to having no legal control over. That is their fault.
|
They changed it BEFORE the Blizzard cup, but never made anyone aware of it? Bullshit.
If the invite thing was true, I think it would be OK to revoke the Naniwa invite, but as it stands, it seems like a load of bullshit to me.
On December 16 2011 07:18 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 06:55 mprs wrote:On December 16 2011 05:19 schI2ler wrote:
Well this is really unprofessional. I am amazed how calm and grown up the MLG team is. I can imagine some people would rage at their "business-partners" for doing this, screaming and threatening. But MLG keeps calm, this is not sarcasm, I think this is a professional move by MLG, and I am positively surprised.
But MLG please make sure players and fans can be sure that what you declare as a prize really is going to be handed to the winner. Code S for foreigners is a huge prize, its fame, fanbase, its still the Mekka of sc2, to me code S would probably mean more than "just" money.
It might be legal in Korea to change a contract afterwards and withouth the contractpartner knowing and/or accepting this, I am not a good korean lawyer, but I am pretty sure, that even with the culture clash, this must be highly unrespectfull, not only in America and Europe but also in Korea.
I don't want to jump on the gom-hate-bandwagon but I really hope that the responsible persons at GOM realize how unrespected MLG and foreigner fans (and Naniwa) have to feel right now. Just because Sundance isn't telling you everything he is doing minute by minute... MLG could very well be up-in-arms about this behind the curtains. There is nothing in it for MLG to make their conflict public. Hurting the most prestigious SC2 league doesn't actually help MLG at all unfortunately. The scene is too small to start going after your competitors/partners/colleagues like that. But I would imagine that MLG heads are livid about this. When they are ambiguous it seems like it is helping them because people are just blaming gomtv. The fact is MLG promised a reward they have admitted to having no legal control over. That is their fault.
They are both to blame. It's not like GOM didn't admit to going through with the prize.
I host a tourney, and I say that NASL is sponsoring the prize money. NASL agrees to sponsor the prize money, but signs no contract, it's just word of mouth (although they do announce it at least once, and have kept their word in the past). Then NASL backs out. Both I and NASL are at fault, not just me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
