Naniwa offers Bounty to whoever beats Revival - Page 24

On October 29 2013 13:21 W2 wrote:
revival can just lose on purpose and split it 50/50

On October 29 2013 13:13 Martijn wrote:


Yeah clearly this kind of thing is unheard of. Look, I certainly hope we don't see anything like this happening, but that's exactly why we have to be careful. In Korea there's actual legal repercussions. There's rules, regulations, laws even. We certainly don't have any such rules in the foreign scene. Yeah if you get caught with shady business like this, it'll be very hard to carry on as a progamer, but it's unlikely to have any further consequences. Someone with not enough moral fiber could consider it their chance at a final score. It's irrelevant whether any of those scenarios are likely to happen, they're only there to show that this is a gray area. Incentivizing players to specifically target other players is only a few steps from money influencing the competition.

Some people are arguing that it's ok to offer money to target players, but I imagine it being a negotiation makes it more dubious. The whole thing is a slippery slope, a gray area and we have to be careful where we draw the line.



You realize you're only arguing the specifics of the situation and not the practice in general which is what is so foul right? In this completely hypothetical scenario a player A in the group with player B could tell the third party player C "nah, $500 isn't worth it to focus on player B, I'd rather prepare more for my other match to have better odds at 2nd place". Player C could then ask "well what would your price be?"



Yeah, I have no idea if the offer is real or if Nani is just stirring things up to put people on point. In soccer, players have been charged and suspended for betting on their own team to win. They have strict regulations against it to protect the fairness of the competition.

Don't get me wrong, there's arguments to be made for this specific case being ok. Most prominently for me is that Revival doesn't seem to have a problem with it. If he did, I think this could've gotten quite ugly. However saying it doesn't make a difference is just factually unfounded. Of course putting a price on a players head could affect how his opponents play against him. Your argument was that players wouldn't try harder with money on the line, which unfortunately is naive.

On October 29 2013 13:43 ReignSupreme. wrote:
I really can't be bothered quoting and editing Martjn's post to reply to it whilst I'm on my phone, but come on, this ISNT comparable to the match-fixing scandal because Naniwa fucking tweeted it openly. The tweet isn't directed at anyone, nor is it a private message...
How can anyone look at this and take it even remotely seriously is beyond me?

On October 29 2013 14:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Look, Martijn, you're just talking out of your ass now.

If you have to stretch the scenario so ridiculously to even make it a debate, then you have absolutely no argument for the actual situation.

On October 29 2013 14:57 Nirel wrote:
It seems like a joke to me, how do you know it's real?

On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote:
*snip*

I'm assuming no one is ok with players throwing games. Are we ok with players bartering over games? Are we ok with players paying others to focus more on specific opponents? It's a logical progression to something we don't want (again, I assume). Hence, where do we draw the line.

*snip*

On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote:


I have no idea if he's serious or not. Hell, I'll tweet at him and ask.

As for the match-fixing scandal, I think when you're on your desktop or laptop, you'll see I wasn't relating that to what is happening right now, but to a next-step hypothetical. I think everyone can almost unanimously agree that the hypothetical would be a very bad scenario as it involved players negotiating over what matches to train for. It's a slippery slope argument that implies we have to be careful with placing bounties on players because it could lead to harmful situations. That makes what's going on here and now a gray area and there should probably be rules in place governing what is and isn't ok.

On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote:


It's not a large stretch to go from offering a bounty to negotiating a bounty. It's a very small step to something I think most of us consider very harmful. Both can influence how players prepare for matches and can potentially change the outcome. Money can buy better odds. It's a gray area and it needs to be very clear where the line is drawn.

As for the scenario being "so ridiculous" to you, I only offered it so people would actually think about what they think is ok and what isn't. And it was one of several. If one wasn't an extreme, it'd just lead to people arguing cases where it could be ok. The point was to get to a scenario we all consider wrong and show it's only a few steps in the direction this is heading.

I'm assuming no one is ok with players throwing games. Are we ok with players bartering over games? Are we ok with players paying others to focus more on specific opponents? It's a logical progression to something we don't want (again, I assume). Hence, where do we draw the line.

If you look back, I have tried very hard to avoid arguing that the current "actual situation" is necessarily a bad one. That's not the argument I was making. The argument I was making is that the "actual situation" is in a gray area and if left unchecked could lead to future harmful situations.

On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote:


It's not a large stretch to go from offering a bounty to negotiating a bounty. It's a very small step to something I think most of us consider very harmful. Both can influence how players prepare for matches and can potentially change the outcome. Money can buy better odds. It's a gray area and it needs to be very clear where the line is drawn.

As for the scenario being "so ridiculous" to you, I only offered it so people would actually think about what they think is ok and what isn't. And it was one of several. If one wasn't an extreme, it'd just lead to people arguing cases where it could be ok. The point was to get to a scenario we all consider wrong and show it's only a few steps in the direction this is heading.

I'm assuming no one is ok with players throwing games. Are we ok with players bartering over games? Are we ok with players paying others to focus more on specific opponents? It's a logical progression to something we don't want (again, I assume). Hence, where do we draw the line.

If you look back, I have tried very hard to avoid arguing that the current "actual situation" is necessarily a bad one. That's not the argument I was making. The argument I was making is that the "actual situation" is in a gray area and if left unchecked could lead to future harmful situations.

On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote:


It's not a large stretch to go from offering a bounty to negotiating a bounty. It's a very small step to something I think most of us consider very harmful. Both can influence how players prepare for matches and can potentially change the outcome. Money can buy better odds. It's a gray area and it needs to be very clear where the line is drawn.

As for the scenario being "so ridiculous" to you, I only offered it so people would actually think about what they think is ok and what isn't. And it was one of several. If one wasn't an extreme, it'd just lead to people arguing cases where it could be ok. The point was to get to a scenario we all consider wrong and show it's only a few steps in the direction this is heading.

I'm assuming no one is ok with players throwing games. Are we ok with players bartering over games? Are we ok with players paying others to focus more on specific opponents? It's a logical progression to something we don't want (again, I assume). Hence, where do we draw the line.

If you look back, I have tried very hard to avoid arguing that the current "actual situation" is necessarily a bad one. That's not the argument I was making. The argument I was making is that the "actual situation" is in a gray area and if left unchecked could lead to future harmful situations.

On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:


Dunno if you're straight up retarded or trolling.

How in the world is saying "Please beat player X" a terrible thing to say? It's not even like him giving money can be debated, the action of beating Revival is a necessary prerequisite for any player to get his offering. It's like getting paid after doing something good, congratufuckinglations. You can't "negotiate" the price, how would that even work? "I'd like $700 or else I won't win!" Well, too bad for you, who the fuck cares? You didn't want the $500. But it's in your goal to get into Premier League for next season right so you have a chance next year? Obviously, you want to get out of Challenger League, and if that means beating Revival, you have to do it ANYWAYS.

So what's wrong with the $500 if the action it supports is one that is ALREADY SUPPORTED anyways? He's just making it obvious he wants anyone but Revival to pass.

On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Whee, SC2 General has gone from bad drama to bad hypothetical drama.

I eagerly await the first hypothetical player getting booted from the first hypothetical team because people emailed their hypothetical sponsors.

On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote:


Nothing here suggests players throwing games, or that is the natural progression of events. Other players, incentive's other players to win is interesting and will create some good story-lines. I don't believe we'll have players bartering over games. It's career suicide for them to do that and be found out. Though it does provide incentives for tournaments to ensure every game counts.

Seems win-win.