|
On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means
no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change.
i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads.
i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out.
|
On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out.
Then please accept my apologies, I was not aware of this intent, and I agree with it in that light. I think there is little to add in our conversation!
|
On December 16 2011 13:35 rotegirte wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. Then please accept my apologies, I was not aware of this intent, and I agree with it in that light. I think there is little to add in our conversation!
sorry i forget somethings i say could be taken differently than i intended, but i want to keep it short and end up putting little to no effort to explain my intent. i'll try better next time.
|
|
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On December 16 2011 13:39 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:35 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. Then please accept my apologies, I was not aware of this intent, and I agree with it in that light. I think there is little to add in our conversation! sorry i forget somethings i say could be taken differently than i intended, but i want to keep it short and end up putting little to no effort to explain my intent. i'll try better next time.
Your amicable and civilized resolution gives me hope for the internet.
|
On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out.
They did change the rule based on Naniwa, its so obvious how can people still not see this clearly. It's really sad when people posting are clueless.
Quoting someone else's response to GOM.
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
|
On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot.
everyone conveniently ignoring this
|
On December 16 2011 13:11 akalarry wrote:
why should GOM hold their side of the gsl-mlg agreement if MLG Providence was structured so MLG could not hold their side of their bargain? Providence did not have championship pools, and one of the stipulations of the contract was that all four koreans sent to Providence would be placed into pools. MVP was placed into the open brackets. If MVP was not seeded, why should GSL have to seed Naniwa into code S? MLG did not make the tournament applicable to their exchange agreement.
Come to think of it, I didn't even think about that. More e-drama coming your way!!!
|
On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this
Can you please post a link with some kind of proof of this claim? That is why people are ignoring this. There have been MULTIPLE news announcements, posts, and tweets on how Naniwa has already earned the Code S seed, but now suddenly it's taken away.
|
This keeps getting worse. It should be getting better. Frustrating when tournament organizers can't be consistent and forthright with their rules and obligations.
I want to support players in their journeys to become champion of earth, but the vehicle by which they achieve this, the tournament, is making it very difficult to enjoy this with their lack of professionalism.
|
On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this
"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." from the OP.
This not a direct answer to that statement since only MLG knows about it but according to MLG Naniwa won a code S spot at Providence. If you think MLG didn't uphold their end of the bargain then ask them about it or get a statement from GOM, Korean players etc.
|
On December 16 2011 13:44 Kryptic.610 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. They did change the rule based on Naniwa, its so obvious how can people still not see this clearly. It's really sad when people posting are clueless.Quoting someone else's response to GOM. Show nested quote +
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
yeah...tell me about it. -,.-
just pointing out the irony.
naniwa got/considered code s, pissed off people, he lost it.
rules had nothing to do with it.
|
On December 16 2011 13:49 Kryptic.610 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this Can you please post a link with some kind of proof of this claim? That is why people are ignoring this. There have been MULTIPLE news announcements, posts, and tweets on how Naniwa has already earned the Code S seed, but now suddenly it's taken away.
Source
So instead of inviting 4 players directly into the Championship pool, they decided to pay for the trips for MC, MMA, Bomber and MVP.
MVP was invited but had to play through the open bracket, also there are claims that QIM had paid for his trip.
|
On December 16 2011 13:57 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:44 Kryptic.610 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. They did change the rule based on Naniwa, its so obvious how can people still not see this clearly. It's really sad when people posting are clueless.Quoting someone else's response to GOM.
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
yeah...tell me about it. -,.- just pointing out the irony. naniwa got/considered code s, pissed off people, he lost it. rules had nothing to do with it.
Do companies do whatever they want in Korea, ignoring all rules?
|
On December 16 2011 13:57 Jackle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:49 Kryptic.610 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this Can you please post a link with some kind of proof of this claim? That is why people are ignoring this. There have been MULTIPLE news announcements, posts, and tweets on how Naniwa has already earned the Code S seed, but now suddenly it's taken away. SourceSo instead of inviting 4 players directly into the Championship pool, they decided to pay for the trips for MC, MMA, Bomber and MVP. MVP was invited but had to play through the open bracket, also there are claims that QIM had paid for his trip.
Thanks for finding this. Now those guys know why we were all ignoring them.
|
On December 16 2011 13:54 Gurgl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this "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." from the OP. This not a direct answer to that statement since only MLG knows about it but according to MLG Naniwa won a code S spot at Providence. If you think MLG didn't uphold their end of the bargain then ask them about it or get a statement from GOM, Korean players etc.
that is an extract from the agreement that specifies the obligations of GOM. it's' called a partnership because there are benefits for both sides. GOM is not just going to seed random players from MLG into their league for free. you still can't answer why MLG was exempt from upholding their end of their argument yet you are defiant in the stance that GOM should've held up theirs.
|
On December 16 2011 13:57 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:44 Kryptic.610 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. They did change the rule based on Naniwa, its so obvious how can people still not see this clearly. It's really sad when people posting are clueless.Quoting someone else's response to GOM.
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
yeah...tell me about it. -,.- just pointing out the irony. naniwa got/considered code s, pissed off people, he lost it. rules had nothing to do with it.
Wrong, he earned the code S spot. I like how you didn't respond to the 4 points I quoted. Here, try again.
Asked to GOM:
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
I'd like to hear if you still think GOM had every intention of NOT giving Naniwa the Code S seed regardless of what happened at the Blizzard cup.
|
On December 16 2011 13:59 justinpal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:57 Jackle wrote:On December 16 2011 13:49 Kryptic.610 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:46 akalarry wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 JoeSchmoe wrote:
still the same cyclic argument in the end yet no one can still answer why MLG was not obligated to keep up their end of the bargain of paying and seeding 4 koreans directly into championship play (MVP trip payed for by quantic) when this same condition is listed with the ones that says GSL should award a code s spot. everyone conveniently ignoring this Can you please post a link with some kind of proof of this claim? That is why people are ignoring this. There have been MULTIPLE news announcements, posts, and tweets on how Naniwa has already earned the Code S seed, but now suddenly it's taken away. SourceSo instead of inviting 4 players directly into the Championship pool, they decided to pay for the trips for MC, MMA, Bomber and MVP. MVP was invited but had to play through the open bracket, also there are claims that QIM had paid for his trip. Thanks for finding this. Now those guys know why we were all ignoring them.
doesn't explain anything because quantic paid for the trip of MVP. and it's not "instead of inviting 4 players into the championship pool". the original agreement specifies direct seeding of 4 koreans AND paying for all their accommodations and expenses.
|
On December 16 2011 13:59 Gurgl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 13:57 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:44 Kryptic.610 wrote:On December 16 2011 13:31 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:25 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:24 jinorazi wrote:On December 16 2011 13:23 rotegirte wrote:On December 16 2011 13:21 jinorazi wrote:
if naniwa did win code s seed, it have have been revoked.
if naniwa did not win code s seed, the consideration would be revoked.
gom worded it differently, same result.
this is what some you guys are fighting over.
regardless of rule change, naniwa would not be in code s. how flexible are your morals, really? i dont understand the question... you evaluate the righteousness of an action by it's outcome. that means the goal validates any means no, i'm just stating some are slandering gom because of what happened to naniwa, not because of gom's rule change. i dont disagree with those that say gom should have informed everyone in timely manner, i've said this on other threads. i'm just pointing out the false accusation to gom and connecting it to naniwa. as if they changed the rule purposely to kick naniwa out. They did change the rule based on Naniwa, its so obvious how can people still not see this clearly. It's really sad when people posting are clueless.Quoting someone else's response to GOM.
1. Why were the two seeds called "INTERNATIONAL SEED" and the other one "MLG PROVIDENCE CODE S SEED" on your official website (which you in stealth changed today)?
2. Why did your own twitter comment say that you revoked his Code S seed (which you also, delete d today)?
3. Why was it announced on your official partners website that Naniwa has .. earned a seat in Code S?
4.And why does it say on your official website when you announced the partner program still (not had time to change that one yet, had you?) say that: 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.
yeah...tell me about it. -,.- just pointing out the irony. naniwa got/considered code s, pissed off people, he lost it. rules had nothing to do with it. Do companies do whatever they want in Korea, ignoring all rules?
sorry, i'll rephrase.
the change of the rule (naniwa given code s seed to naniwa considered for code s seed) had nothing to do with naniwa's exit.
|
As much as I hate to say it, there needs to be an international governing body that has legal authority to negotiate disputes of this nature. Tough, since so many countries are involved in the scene, but it's the only way to ensure fairness if the leagues aren't willing to do it amongst themselves. If SC2 as a vehicle for eSports is really ready to take off, it needs something like this. Fans and players are always mentioned getting hurt, but what about the sponsors? Are they going to be so forthcoming with their money for an organization that's involved in drama and controversy all the time? Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
