Drama in MoW house. - Page 110

On September 14 2012 01:47 Brainfart wrote:
If this would be the only thread this is happening in I maybe would do you that favor.

On September 14 2012 01:21 LgNFosTA wrote:



Anywhere with a month to month lease runs how I have describe. You are thinking of a set year rate.
I have live/worked at a lot of apartment/renters places, I feel that I have a bit of insight on how it works.

Edit: Spelling

On September 14 2012 01:55 Cheerio wrote:

You are not doing it not because of that, but because you are just like everyone else.

Krupowies showed ESFI a Skype log that had him offering Fuzer the refund of the second month’s fee, but that Fuzer declined to accept it.

On September 14 2012 02:10 KillingVector wrote:
It seems a little shady to leak information against Fuzer without officially stating it.

On September 14 2012 02:41 Hey Sean. wrote:

I don't believe it's shady at all. When you put money in your bank does the cashier shout out how much you just put in to everyone waiting in line? MoW is essentially doing the professional thing here, it just makes it difficult to come out as the good guy when the other party is slandering your business.

As said by Fuzer himself they are "private" skype conversations. He just doesn't treat them as such.

On September 14 2012 02:59 KillingVector wrote:
How is your example an analogy for MoW leaking info to the author of the article but not including it in their official statement? The privacy of the conversation isn't an issue at all as both sides have leaked information on the content of those conversations.

On September 14 2012 03:24 Hey Sean. wrote:

Because while MoW have said they did offer Fuzer some money back they didn't specify an amount or post the actual log. There's a difference between saying "We did x" and "We did x here's the proof that was supposed to be private".

Obviously MoW had to show someone the log to back up their side of the story. And without spilling it all to the public they did possibly the best thing they could in that scenario and show a respected news source.

Honestly though this is something I'd expect to read in a gossip magazine. Just a vague story with a lot of people filling the blanks with whatever they like.

On September 13 2012 23:32 pallad wrote:
Im so happy that Fuzer will not find any good pro team. None team will sign with player , that show private conversations , contracts etc.
You wanna drama ? you have drama , MoW will have maby some problems with it , but fuzer pro gamer carrer is over.
MoW is not perfect , but is not evil also . They offered him money back.. he dont take it..and he just killed his pro gamer carrer.

On September 14 2012 04:12 Avean wrote:
I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.

On September 14 2012 04:12 Avean wrote:
I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.

On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I only have a few points to make.

For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.

To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.

The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.

From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.

In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.

That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.

MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.

I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.

I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable.