EPTI will probably continue to watch MLG (though with less enthusiasm now that there is no code S spot at stake) and pay for the actual GSL, but my view of GOM's professionalism took a major hit here.
MLG statement on Providence Code S spot - Page 32
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Lpspace
4 Posts
I will probably continue to watch MLG (though with less enthusiasm now that there is no code S spot at stake) and pay for the actual GSL, but my view of GOM's professionalism took a major hit here. | ||
|
Slike
Greece127 Posts
| ||
|
rotegirte
Germany2859 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:32 Packawana wrote: If you want to hurt GOM, then don't give them your business. That's simply the only way to do it -- they won't and shouldn't care about what the public thinks unless it is hurting them significantly. You don't run a business off of public opinion at all times -- otherwise things such as health insurance or the government wouldn't exist. It is no laughing matter to retract on tournament prizes, and even more less of arbitrary opinion. Fact is however, no player is financially able to sue them over this nor would it be worth the effort. No one would have cared if it had been communicated before Providence. Whether it's NaNiwa or not, any other player would have "lost" that Code S spot he was being told to receive initially. | ||
|
Petrina
United States178 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:43 Lpspace wrote: Divorcing this completely from the Naniwa situation, unilaterally changing the agreement they had with MLG is exceptionally unprofessional and, to be frank, as a consumer of GOM's products (I do buy GSL passes somewhat regularly) I feel cheated. I don't care about the Blizzard Cup any more than I care about the dozens of weekly tournaments that are not GSL. I did not pay for it, I am not watching it, and I would have been less interested the last few rounds of Providence had I known that the highest ranking non-code S player would not be getting a code S spot. I will probably continue to watch MLG (though with less enthusiasm now that there is no code S spot at stake) and pay for the actual GSL, but my view of GOM's professionalism took a major hit here. I totally agree with this. I think GOM should appologize of how they have dealt with the situation. Regardless of what is happening to Naniwa or whether removing him from Code S is good or not, they have acted unprofessionally, and they need to be accounted for. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
| ||
|
Ercster
United States603 Posts
Unfortunately, the change was made without notification to MLG, but it is within GSL's jurisdiction to adjust placement. Since some people don't understand what this means, due to the blatant ignorance in some of the posts, I will explain it to you. This is saying that while MLG didn't know that GOM was going to give Naniwa a spot in the Blizzard Cup instead of code S because of the 2012 format change, it was GOM's choice to do so. The contract didn't state that this was going to happen, but it allowed GOM to change it if they wanted to. I hope this cleared a lot of things up, and I hope people will stop posting without actually knowing what the OP said or meant. | ||
|
tapk69
Portugal264 Posts
The sad thing is , no one can dodge this one now and its bad publicity.. | ||
|
Hall0wed
United States8486 Posts
| ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On December 16 2011 08:55 seiferoth10 wrote: Seems to me like they're telling their Korean audience one story, and they're scrambling to try to make the story fit for their international audience, which they've been telling a different story the whole time. That's a very good point that hadn't occurred to me before reading your post. Foreign seeds are extremely unpopular for korean fans and players, so what you say is very plausible. | ||
|
Jarmam
Denmark140 Posts
"Hmmm... what would KeSPA do if they were all drunk, high and have had a full frontal lo..." "How about going out being massive, *massive* drama queens and preach professionalism to those foreign dogs like its the lifeblood of our organisation - even if its obviously wrong even before we do this - and then recall the agreed-upon spots for no apparent reason" "Sure, to make it more path... blatant we'll call it a miscommunication and just say we already gave them their reward" "1-upd, KeSPA. Looking forward to working with ya". | ||
|
narkissos
198 Posts
Although as a law student I have to say that I´m a bit surprised that they had entered a contract which could unilaterally be changed by one party. As I think most have guessed this is not exactly the norm and can in some places even be grounds for declaring a contract null and void. On the other hand there are of course situations were it can be perfectly reasonable with this types of contracts. And luckily for MLG this time it worked out very well for them. If GOM hadn´t had the right to change the contract unilaterally people might have thought that they had a responsibility to pursue legal actions against a valued business partner that has helped them provide the most competitive SC2 tournament in the west on behalf of a player they probably don´t like very much. Would have put them in kind of an iffy spot. It of course also makes it clear why they was under the impression that Naniwa had received a code S spot just a miscommunicationf rom GOM:s part. Funny how things can work out | ||
|
Devolved
United States2753 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:47 rotegirte wrote: It is no laughing matter to retract on tournament prizes, and even more less of arbitrary opinion. Fact is however, no player is financially able to sue them over this nor would it be worth the effort. No one would have cared if it had been communicated before Providence. Whether it's NaNiwa or not, any other player would have "lost" that Code S spot he was being told to receive initially. I think the main problem is that if it was any other player, they would have received that Code S spot. Naniwa had his Code S spot up until the probe rush, and it was only after this incident that they announced the prize had changed for MLG Providence. If Nani had not probe rushed, then GOM would not have changed the prize after the fact. The Code S spot was allocated for this, which can be seen in the fact that Sen is replacing Nani for the spot, where Sen never earned it through any pre-arranged agreement as Nani did. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:01 Hall0wed wrote: Both sides are wrong. Really lazy statement on MLG's part, making GOM look way worse that it is and causing the fanboys that were already freaking out to freak out more. What can MLG say more ? If they say more it'll be even worse for GOM imo. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
1. Let's face it, Naniwa acted unprofessionally. This is impossible to deny - GOM, Quantic, and Naniwa himself all say as much. 2. GOM changed the format of GSL and this was going to affect MLG's Code S spots. This originally was not a problem for Providence because Naniwa was going to get a Code S invite. GOM and MLG have not discussed the ramifications for future MLG winners. 3. GOM is punishing Naniwa but trying to not to cross MLG. They do some strange legal yoga that wouldn't make sense if Naniwa or MLG really fought it. However, it's moot because Naniwa has voluntarily withdrawn from January GSL even though he could play and requalify and MLG is implicitly supporting GOM's decision. 4. Quantic asks GOM to "forgive" Naniwa and allow him a Code S invite in the GSL after January's. This is not decided. It is unknown if GOM would give it to Naniwa. This might also be moot if Naniwa competes in a foreign tournament and wins or plays in GSL and qualifies. If things get ugly, MLG could press GOM and demand that GOM honor the terms of the exchange program - it seems unlikely and I think both MLG and GOM are just hoping Naniwa wins on his own (or flames out so badly that nobody thinks he deserves Code S). | ||
|
SnoLys
149 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:39 Fungal Growth wrote: Here's the thing...I don't think GOM is worried too much about losing subscribers...more so about sponsors. Guess who on of MLG's biggest sponsor is? Ericsson. Guess where Ericsson is based out of? Sweden. Do you think a a large corporation like Ericsson would want to support GOM after it has enraged so many Swedish fans? (who by my unscientific estimate are some of the most vocal about Gom's time traveling rules) If these big corporations get word that their favorite demographic is upset with their advertising platform they could very well pull the plug. Guess the main sponsor of GSL, Sony Ericsson! ![[image loading]](http://img.gomtv.net/imgdata/39446.jpg) | ||
|
xxgeffxx
United States119 Posts
| ||
|
rotegirte
Germany2859 Posts
On December 16 2011 09:57 Ercster wrote: Since some people don't understand what this means, due to the blatant ignorance in some of the posts, I will explain it to you. This is saying the while MLG didn't know that GOM was going to give Naniwa a spot in the Blizzard Cup instead of code S because of the 2012 format change, it was GOM's choice to do so. The contract didn't state that this was going to happen, but it allowed GOM to change it if they wanted to. I hope this cleared a lot of things up, and I hope people will stop posting without actually knowing what the OP said or meant. And what people like you don't understand is that tournaments are not only a matter between organizing parties, being MLG and GOM. There is a third party called players. GOM is well within their rights to choose whoever they want for Code S, and how the process goes. MLG and GOM are well within their right to negotiate whatever agreement, allowing any side any degree of freedom they seem fit for their business relationship. However, when you are changing tournament prizes, you do that before the event, not after. I always thought that to be a simple rule. | ||
|
MrNomad
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
dacimvrl
Vatican City State582 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:12 rotegirte wrote: And what people like you don't understand is that tournaments are not only a matter between organizing parties, being MLG and GOM. There is a third party called players. GOM is well within their rights to choose whoever they want for Code S, and how the process goes. MLG and GOM are well within their right to negotiate whatever agreement, allowing any side any degree of freedom they seem fit for their business relationship. However, when you are changing tournament prizes, you do that before the event, not after. I always thought that to be a simple rule. ^ Pretty much. I still can't fathom why people do not understand this simple issue. Changing the prize of a tournament is probably okay provided that you announced it BEFOREHAND to all the parties involved; however, changing the prize AFTER the said prize has been won is neither professional nor ethically sound. | ||
|
Devolved
United States2753 Posts
On December 16 2011 10:12 rotegirte wrote: And what people like you don't understand is that tournaments are not only a matter between organizing parties, being MLG and GOM. There is a third party called players. GOM is well within their rights to choose whoever they want for Code S, and how the process goes. MLG and GOM are well within their right to negotiate whatever agreement, allowing any side any degree of freedom they seem fit for their business relationship. However, when you are changing tournament prizes, you do that before the event, not after. I always thought that to be a simple rule. This is what it all boils down to. You don't see tennis or golf tournaments or any other professional sport changing their prize after the tournament or saying that, "Oh, this tournament doesn't count for the seeding process because we don't like the attitude of the person who gained the highest seed." It is very unprofessional. | ||
| ||
