Slayers to disband - Page 118

On October 18 2012 16:04 Inori wrote:

This thread alone should be enough to conclude that she is a drama queen.
Most of the accusations are opinionated and blown out of proportion. But then again it doesn't even matter who's right or wrong at this point, it should've been handled internally to avoid what has just happened. Or does she really think that she'll just throw accusations against a whole group of people and expect nobody to retort, bringing in even more drama?
As a potential sponsor I'd try to get as far away from this shitstorm as possible.

Jessica is quite literally hurting esports.

On October 18 2012 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
Additionally, it is not a 1v1: she is blaming a LOT of people (players, coaches, managers). It is simple Ockham's razor to say she is blowing shit out of proportion, rather than that ALL those other people are lying.

On October 18 2012 16:04 Inori wrote:
This thread alone should be enough to conclude that she is a drama queen.
..........
Or does she really think that she'll just throw accusations against a whole group of people and expect nobody to retort, bringing in even more drama?

On October 18 2012 18:00 BobbyAwesome wrote:


This post is consistent with the various people here who lack any respect for an individual trying to tell their side of the story; a side in which they decide to ignore the information provided, the evidence given for said information and a plain reading of the text. These same individuals also commit various logical fallacies to reach their ultimately ignorant conclusions. There is no such thing as no bias. But an effort to take a person at their word goes a long way in understanding their intentions.

Case in point:


What is with people and misusing Ockham's razor? The concept does not say that the simplest answer is always right. The concept is also deflated to an irrelevant philosophical aphorism when actual facts are presented to the contrary. Oh, and facts have been presented to the contrary, to a variety of her claims. I would like to clarify that I do not believe that her statements are without a taint of her own bias. But sometimes bias is just that. It is the coloring of ones opinions by their vantage point. Or simply, it is just how they saw it go down. Not a deliberate deception.

I think the evidence in this thread has established Jessica, not as a Drama Queen seeking to gain....something (what I am not exactly sure the haters thinks she gains from this), but as an individual full well knowing the community would go all National Enquirer on this if she didn't step up and say it like it is.

I think that by putting this all out there, as she saw it, is the best way for her to be held accountable for what has occurred and what has yet to be revealed. So if she is deceiving us in any way, then it will come to light rather soon. But since much of what she has said has been largely verified in some way, I think we can give her the benefit of the doubt unless someone speaks to the contrary and also has their statements verified.

Was she exaggerating some of the stories? Perhaps. Like the arguments between Crank/MMA and Boxer. Did they really yell at each other? Not sure that actually matters. I have had many heated arguments that never reached high decibels, so the concern whether she was exaggerating over the argument intensity is just a logical fallacy known as a red herring. It is an irrelevant issue in relation to the credibility of Jessica's story. Perhaps it was not a yelling match, but the emotional intensity can leave that impression on a memory. Like I said, she is not free of bias, but it doesn't take away from the intended implications of her viewpoint.

There is something in this whole thread that is lost in the translations and the context. It is chemistry. Regardless if Jessica is 100% correct or 0%, the reality is that there are personal chemistry elements that would be rather impossible for either side to convey, especially after translation to English, but even to themselves. Jessica may have contributed to the bad chemistry, she may have not.

But in her defense, she has quite often been an open book. Very emotional, very outspoken. This is where some label her a Drama Queen. But I see it far differently. Because of her history of being so open, it most certainly shows us that she isn't afraid to say something to get the truth out there. Whether that causes 'drama' or not is of little concern to her it seems. Rightly so. It doesn't matter. She just wants people to know what is up thus staying accountable.

Which brings me to this:



Let's say MMA brought forth all of these revelations first. If Jessica didn't say something first, someone was sure going to. So what if it was MMA? Or Crank? Would you label them 'bad for esports' ? Would they be the ones with the holier then thou complex looking to come off as a white knight in a dark time to better sparkle in front of potential sponsors and teams? Would this have been your stance? Not likely.

One does not go out and say the things Jessica did, expecting others to curl up and crawl in a corner. One says things as she did as a way of opening the book for all to see. In a way she is calling them out. First. Otherwise everyone would accuse her of actually changing her story to try to smooth things over or whatever trolls say nowadays.

Anyway, in conclusion, I believe that Jessica is better manager then nearly any of us here could ever be. She may not be as professional as she should be, but at least she is as open and forthcoming as others ought to.

Full disclosure: MMA is my all time favorite terran. Ever. So all of this actually depresses me. A lot.
ALSO I follow Jessica on twitter. Does that count as bias? I can't even read Korean.....meh.

On October 18 2012 18:12 Inori wrote:
Wasn't going to bother replying to you, since you obviously won't change your opinion (and by the way, yes you do come off as biased), but can't let this little gem slide:

How old are you? Are you seriously this naive? Do you seriously think shitstorms like this don't affect esports as a whole? Do you seriously think potential sponsors will look at this crap and think "hey, I think this childish drama is invest-worthy"?

When you stumble upon a completely random drama on a pretty much irrelevant topic to you, do you:
a.) actually care about who's right or wrong and spend hours reading through to get to the bottom of it
b.) think everyone involved is retarded for creating yet another internet drama

Guess which answer is correct for pretty much any potential sponsor.

On October 18 2012 18:00 BobbyAwesome wrote:


This post is consistent with the various people here who lack any respect for an individual trying to tell their side of the story; a side in which they decide to ignore the information provided, the evidence given for said information and a plain reading of the text. These same individuals also commit various logical fallacies to reach their ultimately ignorant conclusions. There is no such thing as no bias. But an effort to take a person at their word goes a long way in understanding their intentions.

Case in point:


What is with people and misusing Ockham's razor? The concept does not say that the simplest answer is always right. The concept is also deflated to an irrelevant philosophical aphorism when actual facts are presented to the contrary. Oh, and facts have been presented to the contrary, to a variety of her claims. I would like to clarify that I do not believe that her statements are without a taint of her own bias. But sometimes bias is just that. It is the coloring of ones opinions by their vantage point. Or simply, it is just how they saw it go down. Not a deliberate deception.

I think the evidence in this thread has established Jessica, not as a Drama Queen seeking to gain....something (what I am not exactly sure the haters thinks she gains from this), but as an individual full well knowing the community would go all National Enquirer on this if she didn't step up and say it like it is.

I think that by putting this all out there, as she saw it, is the best way for her to be held accountable for what has occurred and what has yet to be revealed. So if she is deceiving us in any way, then it will come to light rather soon. But since much of what she has said has been largely verified in some way, I think we can give her the benefit of the doubt unless someone speaks to the contrary and also has their statements verified.

Was she exaggerating some of the stories? Perhaps. Like the arguments between Crank/MMA and Boxer. Did they really yell at each other? Not sure that actually matters. I have had many heated arguments that never reached high decibels, so the concern whether she was exaggerating over the argument intensity is just a logical fallacy known as a red herring. It is an irrelevant issue in relation to the credibility of Jessica's story. Perhaps it was not a yelling match, but the emotional intensity can leave that impression on a memory. Like I said, she is not free of bias, but it doesn't take away from the intended implications of her viewpoint.

There is something in this whole thread that is lost in the translations and the context. It is chemistry. Regardless if Jessica is 100% correct or 0%, the reality is that there are personal chemistry elements that would be rather impossible for either side to convey, especially after translation to English, but even to themselves. Jessica may have contributed to the bad chemistry, she may have not.

But in her defense, she has quite often been an open book. Very emotional, very outspoken. This is where some label her a Drama Queen. But I see it far differently. Because of her history of being so open, it most certainly shows us that she isn't afraid to say something to get the truth out there. Whether that causes 'drama' or not is of little concern to her it seems. Rightly so. It doesn't matter. She just wants people to know what is up thus staying accountable.

Which brings me to this:



Let's say MMA brought forth all of these revelations first. If Jessica didn't say something first, someone was sure going to. So what if it was MMA? Or Crank? Would you label them 'bad for esports' ? Would they be the ones with the holier then thou complex looking to come off as a white knight in a dark time to better sparkle in front of potential sponsors and teams? Would this have been your stance? Not likely.

One does not go out and say the things Jessica did, expecting others to curl up and crawl in a corner. One says things as she did as a way of opening the book for all to see. In a way she is calling them out. First. Otherwise everyone would accuse her of actually changing her story to try to smooth things over or whatever trolls say nowadays.

Anyway, in conclusion, I believe that Jessica is better manager then nearly any of us here could ever be. She may not be as professional as she should be, but at least she is as open and forthcoming as others ought to.

Full disclosure: MMA is my all time favorite terran. Ever. So all of this actually depresses me. A lot.
ALSO I follow Jessica on twitter. Does that count as bias? I can't even read Korean.....meh.

On October 18 2012 18:18 Inori wrote:

I feel sorry for you if you think only way to solve problems is to create a shit-storm, most likely deterring sponsors and players from a game that is already suffering decline.

On October 18 2012 18:18 Inori wrote:

I feel sorry for you if you think only way to solve problems is to create a shit-storm, most likely deterring sponsors and players from a game that is already suffering decline.

On October 18 2012 18:18 Inori wrote:I feel sorry for you if you think only way to solve problems is to create a shit-storm, most likely deterring sponsors and players from a game that is already suffering decline.

On October 18 2012 18:18 Inori wrote:

I feel sorry for you if you think only way to solve problems is to create a shit-storm, most likely deterring sponsors and players from a game that is already suffering decline.