EPTUser was temp banned for this post.
Stephano suspended by Evil Geniuses - Page 126
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-rndmMusliM-
14 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Came Norrection
Canada168 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:04 cabosetv wrote: Since you don't even have any knowledge of the terms, why make an assumption asserting you have a basis for the information you provide. You have no credibility because you don't have any evidence or knowledge of the legal situation. Please present some cases you worked on regarding a contract of a professional athlete and how the contracts are written for situations like this. Maybe there is a reason why people don't just hire kids in law school to be judges. No creditability I would contest. Less then %1 of the US population go to law school. I would put myself up within the lucky few who have the chance to study law at a higher level. That being said, legally I do not have any creditability past a layman, however, within discussions and TL forums, I believe my education weighs in, also request for jury duty usually leads to me being dismissed right away. I may not know his contract details, I clearly state that I would like to take a look at his contract. I also am speaking general about employment contracts and made certain assumptions about his possible terms. Next time, I will mention that I am making assumptions accordingly. When i started going over what the rules he could of possibly broke, I came up something a long the lines of, committing an act Purposely or Knowingly that reflects poorly upon EG Mangers, Teammates, etc, Sponsors, or Himself, will not be tolerated and subject to disciple. Now again, this is an assumption I was thinking subconsciously and thus analyzed the descriptions of intent that are common in most jurisdictions.Again it was another assumption and could of simple stated, any act that reflects " ". This could encompass all acts. However, some jurisdictions will hold that if an individual commits an act negligently or recklessly, they cannot be held to being in breach. I am unfamiliar with the NFL case and maybe if your provide more context around it, Ill go look it up on the Online DB. Your statement that I am speaking pure nonsense has zero merit. It appears you have some degree of legal knowledge however not complete. My opinion is not completely wrong or nonsense. It gives a possible "best senario" for Stephano that could possibly be the exact issue he is in. I don't see any abuse of the law within my last opinion, and I stand by it. | ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:26 -rndmMusliM- wrote: Rofl, the team "Evil Geniuses" is mad about something like this? They are "Evil" wtf? Find a new name if you are going to go around crying about something so damn ridiculous. Any org. with iNcontrol is retarded though i guess... I lost a few brain cells reading this. | ||
|
Fischbacher
Canada666 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:26 -rndmMusliM- wrote: Rofl, the team "Evil Geniuses" is mad about something like this? They are "Evil" wtf? Find a new name if you are going to go around crying about something so damn ridiculous. Any org. with iNcontrol is retarded though i guess... I'm pretty confident iNcontrol pays for himself, results or no results, because of how good he is at marketing himself. Also, what Stephano said was pretty stupid so by your logic they should fire him :-P | ||
|
cabosetv
United States14 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:21 Fischbacher wrote: What about the fact that he was probably on company time, since he was practising the game he was being paid to play? What would happen if it was discovered that I said something bad about my employer privately but while I was at work? Does that make a difference? Now you bring up a great point. I believe that is up to the desecration of the fact finder. Although there may be similar precedent, nothing is going to be close to the facts here. I believe the judge and/or jury will have to make their own assertions and come up with an answer. If a PM made while playing a game which Stephano is contracted to do so with EG within a certain capacity, is considered a breach of a term or of the contract (depending on how it is written). | ||
|
FireBlast!
United Kingdom5251 Posts
| ||
|
Came Norrection
Canada168 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:20 cabosetv wrote: Forgot about this claim. The above is a valid argument. I am not sure if you are familiar with the terms, purposely, knowing, recklessly and negligently.I would have to say his act was negligent given his last comment of-- I just realized you were streaming, I hope you dont show anyone--( paraphrased). This shows that Stephano himself does not realized his message was being made public. And the reasonable prudent person would agree that a private PM to a player would only be seen by that player. You cannot hold the standard that Stephano should of know that it was streamed. His last statement shows that he did not know he was streaming, thus did not Know the message was public. Nor did he breach the term purposely. His intent was not to purposely break the term. Recklessly is debatable, but I learn more towards negligently. If he were to make the same comments on twitter, while streaming, in a tourney, I would agree with you 100%. However, a private message is held to a different standard then other forms of communication, at least I believe so. Else, everyone who ever talks bad about a company to anyone, on the phone privately, email, text message or even within the confines of his own home, would be in breach and held liable. Now, I do not know what form of law you know, but that is not the law here ~ Texas Law Student ~ Suppose you leak company secrets under the pretense you thinking it was privately to a friend. It doesn't matter if you know before hand if it was private or public so long as it happened. If the person you are contacting privately publicly revival information, you are held responsible for it. If you are under a contract to not make negative claims that goes against the ideology of the company, you are held responsible for any situation where it does become public that you broke the contract. ~ Person on the Internet ~ | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
On October 15 2012 10:53 Crawdad wrote: WTF? #1: How do you know it was a joke? #2: How do you know he was talking about a girl? #3: Even if he was joking about an underage girl, he wasn't just talking about sex (which still would have been illegal at his age), he was talking about straight-up abuse. A joke about abusing a minor is never okay, especially when there's a chance that he actually committed this crime. You don't want the oppressors to win? Actually, you're rooting for the real oppressors when you advocate this kind of behavior. The context makes it more likely to be a girl because of the fact that he also talked about MILFs. And you don't have any evidence that he had sex with a 14 year old in a jurisdiction where it's illegal to do so (let alone that he did so without making a reasonable effort to determine she was of legal age, which is relevant in France, for instance). He was not "talking about straight-up abuse," literally all he said was "abused." The amount of assumptions you have to make to identify a crime and then think it was committed is not proportionate to what actually happened: a guy said some words on battle.net. I highly doubt you have secret evidence that you're hiding from the rest of us, but if you do, the internet is not the place to take it. | ||
|
cabosetv
United States14 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:26 Came Norrection wrote: Since you don't even have any knowledge of the terms, why make an assumption asserting you have a basis for the information you provide. You have no credibility because you don't have any evidence or knowledge of the legal situation. Please present some cases you worked on regarding a contract of a professional athlete and how the contracts are written for situations like this. Maybe there is a reason why people don't just hire kids in law school to be judges. I do have evidence, evidence of what was said by Stephano. I then decided to make logical deductions and come up with the possible terms of his contract in the light most favorable to Stephano. The whole point is to come up with a legal scenario that is plausible. I am a law student so there isn't any cases I have worked regarding the circumstances you laid out. Yea there is a reason why people don't hire "kids" out of law school to be judges. Being a judge and being an attorney are two completely different positions and have different aspects. It takes time and knowledge to become a judge. The law is always revolving and laws and principles I am learning now could be completely different by the time I graduate. School helps you learn the foundations and give you skills going forward: how to analysis cases, interpret statutes, make policy arguments, etc, etc. Thus it would not be the best idea to higher a law student who has not practice or may not be up to date with the most recent laws and precedent. I am fairly current on contract law, having taken a full year of contracts and currently enrolled in another contracts class. | ||
|
momonami5
United States109 Posts
| ||
|
shizaep
Canada2920 Posts
| ||
|
cabosetv
United States14 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:37 Came Norrection wrote: Suppose you leak company secrets under the pretense you thinking it was privately to a friend. It doesn't matter if you know before hand if it was private or public so long as it happened. If the person you are contacting privately publicly revival information, you are held responsible for it. If you are under a contract to not make negative claims that goes against the ideology of the company, you are held responsible for any situation where it does become public that you broke the contract. ~ Person on the Internet ~ Company secrets are completely different then the situation at hand, that is a basic logic flaw and undermines your entire premise. I would agree if an individual leaks the pepsi formula by telling another individual who doesn't work for pepsi privately about it. That is know as trade secrets and has its own set of rules and statutes. Stephano's statement was not conveying a trade secret to a third party. | ||
|
FatkiddsLag
United States413 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:26 -rndmMusliM- wrote: Rofl, the team "Evil Geniuses" is mad about something like this? They are "Evil" wtf? Find a new name if you are going to go around crying about something so damn ridiculous. Any org. with iNcontrol is retarded though i guess... Up until the last sentence, this would have been a great troll. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:26 -rndmMusliM- wrote: Rofl, the team "Evil Geniuses" is mad about something like this? They are "Evil" wtf? Find a new name if you are going to go around crying about something so damn ridiculous. Any org. with iNcontrol is retarded though i guess... What in the what? You have managed to make yourself and all the people defending Stephano look incredibly bad, well done. | ||
|
-TesteR-
Canada1165 Posts
On October 15 2012 11:51 shizaep wrote: I can't believe that this thread is still alive. It's taken every possible side-track to heated page-long debates about pedophilia, to the ethics involved in sleeping with minors and to speculation about the technicalities of the contract between Stephano and EG. well then STOP adding to it. Shit now i've gone and done it too. | ||
|
ScienceGroen
United States43 Posts
There is zero chance his contract doesn't have a clause that states he can't act in ways that reflect badly on EG. You couldn't even say that kind of disgusting junk while working at McDonalds and not get suspended. Stephano certainly can't get away with saying it in front of a live audience while being a highly public representative of EG. Also please stop calling it a joke. He just blurted out that he abused a child. That's not a joke. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6232 Posts
"Should be more careful" is the right response to a dumb situation. | ||
|
ScienceGroen
United States43 Posts
On October 15 2012 12:47 Belisarius wrote: Personally I think it's really silly that players are being beat on for what they say in private conversations. It's starting to happen to politicians as well. nobody is completely PC around their friends, and everyone makes over-the-line jokes from time to time. Unfortunately, whenever that happens these days, it's easy for the dirty laundry to be pulled out and waved around. "Should be more careful" is the right response to a dumb situation. Wasn't a private conversation. Said on a live stream in front of a public audience. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5756 Posts
On October 15 2012 12:49 ScienceGroen wrote: Wasn't a private conversation. Said on a live stream in front of a public audience. It was bling's stream, not the HD MLG stream or something, not even an EG stream. And the backlash didn't come from this community, it came from a vendetta-motivated subreddit. You wouldn't have even learned about this if they hadn't spammed sponsors, forcing a move from EG which results in this announcement thread and all the other coverage (e.g. kotaku). And if you had learned about it, you wouldn't have cared that much despite except your personal opinion about Stephano. It wasn't actually a big deal before the vindictive sponsor campaign. | ||
|
ScienceGroen
United States43 Posts
On October 15 2012 12:56 oBlade wrote: It was bling's stream, not the HD MLG stream or something, not even an EG stream. And the backlash didn't come from this community, it came from a vendetta-motivated subreddit. You wouldn't have even learned about this if they hadn't spammed sponsors, forcing a move from EG which results in this announcement thread and all the other coverage (e.g. kotaku). And if you had learned about it, you wouldn't have cared that much despite except your personal opinion about Stephano. It wasn't actually a big deal before the vindictive sponsor campaign. Really doesn't matter at all why it became a story. It's a story, and it would make EG look like absolute crap if they let it slide. Personally, I'm glad he got suspended simply because he forced me to think about child sexual abuse. I've never understood people who can laugh with images like that in their brain. "LOLOLOL SHE'LL CARRY THE SCARS FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE." Pure hilarity. | ||
| ||
