|
|
Papua New Guinea1059 Posts
On September 13 2012 08:37 Timerly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:35 HornyHerring wrote:On September 13 2012 08:31 tofucake wrote:On September 13 2012 08:27 Chill wrote:On September 13 2012 08:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:On September 13 2012 08:20 Chill wrote:
It looked really nice. Right, there's a rental fee and some of that fee is subsidized by streaming revenue. Guess what? If you don't like it, then don't live there. This is a privately-run house. Would be pretty funny if someone who lived their claimed tenant rights and over extended their stay. I don't know how it is in Poland (or maybe EU laws) but in some states in the United States you can't be evicted until 90 days have passed and sometimes only with the force of a sheriff. Even if you're behind rent. That would be awesome. Especially if they did it in winter. I some provinces in Canada you can't be evicted if the temperature is below a certain range. I doubt these kind of laws exist in Poland but I have no idea. But without having signed a contract he's a squatter, not a tenant. A skype call is legally binding in EU as a verbal contract. Not necessarily, there are higher burden on things like living and rent agreements etc. Basically, without a written contract it's up to the judge. They agreed for him living there, he was paying for it. He wasn't a squatter, he was a tennant. Wether he'd be evicted or not is another case and dependant on a lot of other factors.
|
what a joke business, real lame and amateur.
|
WTH is this? I was expecting some misunderstanding among agreements when I first saw it, and now it's become a smearing campaign?
|
On September 13 2012 08:37 enCore- wrote:
I'm all for TL pulling out their players of MoW. They basically confirmed everything Fuser said in the press release. Neither the community or any pro-teams should support this organisation.
Yup. Especially Teamliquid. I trusted them to be against stuff like this which is just hurting e-sports.
|
I'm all for MoW admitting they actually messed this up badly. And I don't mean the "oops, he got here without signed contract" part.
|
On September 13 2012 08:28 ilbh wrote:
the thing is that they didn't want to give him his money back, they only offered him back when he said he would make it public.
This is the main point of it all i think. If the manager wasn't a dick and gave the money back when the player left the house, this would have been a non isue.
Contracts and recips are there for a reason, they protect people from scumbags without moral values. Fuzer was naive.
|
On September 13 2012 08:36 Irave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:33 Darkhoarse wrote:
The statement released by MoW makes little sense. They say they have a skype convo of fuzer refusing the money back, but they don't show it, whereas Fuzer shows concrete evidence that they wouldn't refund him. Desrow mentioned that the 10 year rule of not getting into another team house is accurate which is completely ridiculous. Just seems like an unproffessional and sketchy organization People reading what they want to read, zzz. Desrow said the streaming and the ability to not create their own team house after 10 years is accurate. MoW also provided part of the skype chat where they offered to give him the money. Which is what everyone asked for but now its apparently not enough.
Morso the issue is that MoW did not offer to refund his money until after he was gong to air dirty laundry. Neither side is coming off as professional in this thread. Fuzer sounds like a kid, and MoW sounds inexperienced letting him live there for over a month without signing anything.
Also I'm not buying fuzer's complaint about having to pay a portion of his streaming revenue from Twitch to MoW. Obviously MoW has the ability to negotiate very good contracts with Twitch for their players, I don't think you get a player like Destiny who is pretty much completely dependent on streaming revenue for his income to go there unless the cut is fair.
|
Wow, MoW provides a terrible environment for players. Thank you Fuzer for sharing this and I hope you find a better house/team.
|
On September 13 2012 08:33 Timerly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:20 Chill wrote:On September 13 2012 08:12 Timerly wrote:On September 13 2012 08:06 Chill wrote:
This doesn't seem that bad. You're living in a balling house so obviously they need to recover the expenses somehow. And non-competitive clauses never hold up under legal scrutiny. Drama from nothing. 600€ a month per person is beyond that, excluding the streaming revenue. Don't forget we're talking about Poland here. I haven't even seen any evidence for the house being "balling". and btw: According to current MoW house resident desRow, Fuzer's description of certain details of the contract, including a 10-year non-compete clause and streaming quotas, are accurate. “The prohibition of competition page is a bit sketchy, but I think it just needs to be reworded,” he said. How can you be oblivious enough to still sign that when it's clearly BS? Needs to be reworded BEFORE you sign it Oo It looked really nice. Right, there's a rental fee and some of that fee is subsidized by streaming revenue. Guess what? If you don't like it, then don't live there. This is a privately-run house. It would make sense if the conditions met the sum. They clearly don't, even desrow who doesn't even pay doesn't jump from joy apparently. The let him come there under the impression they would renegotiate and change parts of the contract and required him to make his lawyer forward them a legal license after? Really? Fuck, I worked for a multi million dollar business and had a pretty tight NDA/NCC and even those guys didn't care whether I provided that about my lawyer. Much less some random private business in Poland. It's far from common practice and just an obstructive tactic around Europe. It's not only about "take it or leave it". It's much more about what they're doing with people who have no idea what they're really getting into due to lack of experience with this kind of thing. Is it generally reasonable to run this as a business with this kind of business model? Sure. Is the conduct they display in any ways a reflection of this kind of thing being done in a reasonable, agreeable way? Absolutely not.
No one cares which conditions meet which sum.
If I offer you to buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger for 1000$ you're completely free to tell me I'm full of shit and turn the offer down. Apparently they have enough people willing to pay 600 bucks per month, so apparently there is enough demand to eat up all of the supply.
If anything they should think about raising the price. =P
|
On September 13 2012 08:24 Welmu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:23 MinistryOfWin wrote:
We didn't wanted to start the flame war but to complete this in civilized manner. Fuzer was reprimanded more than 10 times, about cleaning his room, keeping the gaming room clean, nothing helped. We have decided that we will sign the contract as soon as possible so we can enforce the house rules on him, but he declined. He declined second time.
Streaming time - quote from the contract: 150 hours per month, unless having a series of training events or trips to StarCraft II tournaments. We are all humans, we are not forcing the players to stream 4 hours a day.
Streaming ad-revenue: Thanks to strategic partnership with Twitch, players living in the house still can earn more money from ad-revenue than they normally could, Fuzer didn't even had any partnership before that. 150 hours per month is 5 hours a day....
Welmu dropping them facts like a boss!!
♥
|
Hyrule19203 Posts
On September 13 2012 08:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:28 ilbh wrote:
the thing is that they didn't want to give him his money back, they only offered him back when he said he would make it public. This is the main point of it all i think. If the manager wasn't a dick and gave the money back when the player left the house, this would have been a non isue. Contracts and recips are there for a reason, they protect people from scumbags without moral values. Fuzer was naive.
He said he was willing to return the money and fuzer said he wanted war and didn't accept it...
|
this is a good lesson for companies who think they can push lesser known players around, sort your shit out
|
On September 13 2012 08:42 nakedsurfer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:24 Welmu wrote:On September 13 2012 08:23 MinistryOfWin wrote:
We didn't wanted to start the flame war but to complete this in civilized manner. Fuzer was reprimanded more than 10 times, about cleaning his room, keeping the gaming room clean, nothing helped. We have decided that we will sign the contract as soon as possible so we can enforce the house rules on him, but he declined. He declined second time.
Streaming time - quote from the contract: 150 hours per month, unless having a series of training events or trips to StarCraft II tournaments. We are all humans, we are not forcing the players to stream 4 hours a day.
Streaming ad-revenue: Thanks to strategic partnership with Twitch, players living in the house still can earn more money from ad-revenue than they normally could, Fuzer didn't even had any partnership before that. 150 hours per month is 5 hours a day.... Welmu dropping them facts like a boss!! ♥
Well MoW isn't wrong. They are not forcing players to stream 4 hours a day... but 5.
|
On September 13 2012 08:42 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 13 2012 08:28 ilbh wrote:
the thing is that they didn't want to give him his money back, they only offered him back when he said he would make it public. This is the main point of it all i think. If the manager wasn't a dick and gave the money back when the player left the house, this would have been a non isue. Contracts and recips are there for a reason, they protect people from scumbags without moral values. Fuzer was naive. He said he was willing to return the money and fuzer said he wanted war and didn't accept it...
Probably coincidence, that it happened not long after fuzer wrote he would post something 
|
On September 13 2012 08:42 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 13 2012 08:28 ilbh wrote:
the thing is that they didn't want to give him his money back, they only offered him back when he said he would make it public. This is the main point of it all i think. If the manager wasn't a dick and gave the money back when the player left the house, this would have been a non isue. Contracts and recips are there for a reason, they protect people from scumbags without moral values. Fuzer was naive. He said he was willing to return the money and fuzer said he wanted war and didn't accept it...
No, he said he would give him back the money OR start a war after Fuzer status on facebook, to try to keep him quiet. He didn't fall for it.
|
On September 13 2012 08:42 tofucake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 13 2012 08:28 ilbh wrote:
the thing is that they didn't want to give him his money back, they only offered him back when he said he would make it public. This is the main point of it all i think. If the manager wasn't a dick and gave the money back when the player left the house, this would have been a non isue. Contracts and recips are there for a reason, they protect people from scumbags without moral values. Fuzer was naive. He said he was willing to return the money and fuzer said he wanted war and didn't accept it...
He should not have to choose between money and going public.
On no basis can MoW refuse money for that.
It's terrible and MoW is stupid to basically come out and confirm that.
|
On September 13 2012 08:37 Timerly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:35 HornyHerring wrote:On September 13 2012 08:31 tofucake wrote:On September 13 2012 08:27 Chill wrote:On September 13 2012 08:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:On September 13 2012 08:20 Chill wrote:
It looked really nice. Right, there's a rental fee and some of that fee is subsidized by streaming revenue. Guess what? If you don't like it, then don't live there. This is a privately-run house. Would be pretty funny if someone who lived their claimed tenant rights and over extended their stay. I don't know how it is in Poland (or maybe EU laws) but in some states in the United States you can't be evicted until 90 days have passed and sometimes only with the force of a sheriff. Even if you're behind rent. That would be awesome. Especially if they did it in winter. I some provinces in Canada you can't be evicted if the temperature is below a certain range. I doubt these kind of laws exist in Poland but I have no idea. But without having signed a contract he's a squatter, not a tenant. A skype call is legally binding in EU as a verbal contract. Not necessarily, there are higher burden on things like living and rent agreements etc. Basically, without a written contract it's up to the judge.
sarcasm dude..
|
On September 13 2012 08:41 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2012 08:33 Timerly wrote:On September 13 2012 08:20 Chill wrote:On September 13 2012 08:12 Timerly wrote:On September 13 2012 08:06 Chill wrote:
This doesn't seem that bad. You're living in a balling house so obviously they need to recover the expenses somehow. And non-competitive clauses never hold up under legal scrutiny. Drama from nothing. 600€ a month per person is beyond that, excluding the streaming revenue. Don't forget we're talking about Poland here. I haven't even seen any evidence for the house being "balling". and btw: According to current MoW house resident desRow, Fuzer's description of certain details of the contract, including a 10-year non-compete clause and streaming quotas, are accurate. “The prohibition of competition page is a bit sketchy, but I think it just needs to be reworded,” he said. How can you be oblivious enough to still sign that when it's clearly BS? Needs to be reworded BEFORE you sign it Oo It looked really nice. Right, there's a rental fee and some of that fee is subsidized by streaming revenue. Guess what? If you don't like it, then don't live there. This is a privately-run house. It would make sense if the conditions met the sum. They clearly don't, even desrow who doesn't even pay doesn't jump from joy apparently. The let him come there under the impression they would renegotiate and change parts of the contract and required him to make his lawyer forward them a legal license after? Really? Fuck, I worked for a multi million dollar business and had a pretty tight NDA/NCC and even those guys didn't care whether I provided that about my lawyer. Much less some random private business in Poland. It's far from common practice and just an obstructive tactic around Europe. It's not only about "take it or leave it". It's much more about what they're doing with people who have no idea what they're really getting into due to lack of experience with this kind of thing. Is it generally reasonable to run this as a business with this kind of business model? Sure. Is the conduct they display in any ways a reflection of this kind of thing being done in a reasonable, agreeable way? Absolutely not. No one cares which conditions meet which sum. If I offer you to buy a McDonalds Cheeseburger for 1000$ you're completely free to tell me I'm full of shit and turn the offer down. Apparently they have enough people willing to pay 600 bucks per month, so apparently there is enough demand to eat up all of the supply. If anything they should think about raising the price. =P
I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm saying it's wrong. Just as a 100$ cheeseburger at MCD would be. Also, my main argument is still their conduct, not the price (I however remain at the point of calling it out as ridiculous).
|
Hyrule19203 Posts
If he refuses to leave he's staying in the house still and has no claim to the money
Of course they can say that
|
Why dont they give a copy of the contract to the players, so they can discuss it with their parents/friends/whatever?
I mean this seems very suspicious.. those are 20 year old boys, that never saw something like this before, and you dont let them think about it with someone they trust, EXEPT its their official lawyer, who proves to be their lawyer?
Something is wrong with that, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
