|
On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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.
Potter got booted off Hogwarts because people emailed Voldemort
#CloseEnough #IncreasingPostCount
|
As much as I dislike Naniwa, the bounty idea itself is pretty cute.
It could be kind of cute to have a community fund with bounties on player's heads. Player A has a bounty on him, player B beats him, player B gets like €50 from the community for taking his "head".
Biggest problem with that is that tournament matches are the most important ones and that players don't choose their opponents, so it would be unfair to the majority of professional players, as they wouldn't be able to hunt other players effectively.
Cute idea in general though, I like it. You could probably do something cute with this without real money. Maybe a small cash prize for the pro with the most points, the whole idea is that professionals do a fun little thing with the community, money is in there to make things mildly interesting.
|
On October 29 2013 15:19 robson1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. The fun police is here.
Hypothetical situations killing esports man - we need the precrime police for that!
On a more serious note,
Nani making things more interesting - yet again <3
|
On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round.
U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games)
Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies.
|
On October 29 2013 16:05 Incognoto wrote:
As much as I dislike Naniwa, the bounty idea itself is pretty cute.
It could be kind of cute to have a community fund with bounties on player's heads. Player A has a bounty on him, player B beats him, player B gets like €50 from the community for taking his "head".
Biggest problem with that is that tournament matches are the most important ones and that players don't choose their opponents, so it would be unfair to the majority of professional players, as they wouldn't be able to hunt other players effectively.
Cute idea in general though, I like it. You could probably do something cute with this without real money. Maybe a small cash prize for the pro with the most points, the whole idea is that professionals do a fun little thing with the community, money is in there to make things mildly interesting.
There has been poker tournaments where pro-poker players had bounties on them. Busting one of them as an amateur would net you a cash prize. In return the pro's had reduced buy-ins or were brought in specifically for it.
|
On October 29 2013 16:09 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:05 Incognoto wrote:
As much as I dislike Naniwa, the bounty idea itself is pretty cute.
It could be kind of cute to have a community fund with bounties on player's heads. Player A has a bounty on him, player B beats him, player B gets like €50 from the community for taking his "head".
Biggest problem with that is that tournament matches are the most important ones and that players don't choose their opponents, so it would be unfair to the majority of professional players, as they wouldn't be able to hunt other players effectively.
Cute idea in general though, I like it. You could probably do something cute with this without real money. Maybe a small cash prize for the pro with the most points, the whole idea is that professionals do a fun little thing with the community, money is in there to make things mildly interesting. There has been poker tournaments where pro-poker players had bounties on them. Busting one of them as an amateur would net you a cash prize. In return the pro's had reduced buy-ins or were brought in specifically for it.
you could do the same thing for like players in wcs challenger vs wcs premier (or whatever they're called these days).
kind of nice
would require players consent to work i guess
|
On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies.
I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area.
It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most?
Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining.
|
On October 29 2013 16:17 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies. I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area. It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most? Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining.
If u still do not get the difference between criminality and incentives then please do not take it a stupid step further on the focus part (it has nothing to do with action but merely response which is totally not wat Naniwa is doing). Your argument is based on there being no difference between criminality (incentives to not do your best) and the incentives which Naniwa is offering (to do ur best/wat ur supposed to do). As long as you still proclaim KILL as no different to MURDER, there is no point in this thread.
Morality?!??!?!?! oh god, literally soon this will turn into is Naniwa god fearing/atheist? thread soon. Be concise precise AND factual. The only thing worst than theorycrafting is theorycrafting without data, direction and definition.
|
Awesome that´s the way Nani 
|
On October 29 2013 16:17 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies. I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area. It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most? Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining.
Why shouldn't Revival face competition with the same stakes as everyone else? currently the stakes are diminished, because only he truly gains anything from a win. Everyone else who made it to Blizzcon had to do so by playing against people who were trying their hardest and had something to gain from that win.
|
On October 29 2013 16:38 Kheve wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:17 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies. I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area. It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most? Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining. If u still do not get the difference between criminality and incentives then please do not take it a stupid step further on the focus part (it has nothing to do with action but merely response which is totally not wat Naniwa is doing). Your argument is based on there being no difference between criminality (incentives to not do your best) and the incentives which Naniwa is offering (to do ur best/wat ur supposed to do). As long as you still proclaim KILL as no different to MURDER, there is no point in this thread. Morality?!??!?!?! oh god, literally soon this will turn into is Naniwa god fearing/atheist? thread soon. Be concise precise AND factual. The only thing worst than theorycrafting is theorycrafting without data, direction and definition.
For a competition to be fair, incentives should be equal. You should be equally motivated to win every match, or you get unfair competition. A good example of this is round robin group play. We've seen situations where players at the end of the group stage would not care about matches and not try as hard because they had nothing to win or lose, which gave their opponents easier wins. There was no incentive for those players to win their last matches because they were either already through or already out.
This was a big motivation to switch to the GSL type groups which is like a 4 player double elimination format without a rematch decider seeming the top 2 players progress. There's an equal incentive for every player in every match -> to progress through the tournament. Players no longer had to play matches when they were already out or through and had no incentive to win. I think we all remember Nanis probe all in when his match didn't matter anymore and how upset the Koreans were even though it didn't affect the results.
I'm sorry for using a 4 syllable word like morality, but that's the bases for most good rules and regulations. This whole discussion is about what it's acceptable to put a bounty on another player in the hopes of getting better chances or not. Whether it's moral or immoral. Fair or unfair.
The difference between killing someone and murdering someone that murdering someone by definition is illegal. Whether what Nani is doing (if his offer is serious) is legal or illegal, fair or unfair, is the whole point of the discussion. The only thing you're doing is pointing out that there's a difference between doing something that is fair and doing something that is unfair.
You seem incapable of arguing why you think what Nani is doing is fair. The only thing you've contributed is that you think players should be trying to win regardless. My counter argument to that is that in sports you're not allowed to bet on your own team to win either because of the conflict of interest. You have a bigger incentive to win a match that you bet a lot of money on than a match you bet very little or no money on. If the incentives to win every match are not equal, you create unfair competition. Many people would be very tempted to spend more time focusing on a match where they stand to win a lot, than on any other match in their group.
On October 29 2013 16:44 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:17 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies. I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area. It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most? Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining. Why shouldn't Revival face competition with the same stakes as everyone else? currently the stakes are diminished, because only he truly gains anything from a win. Everyone else who made it to Blizzcon had to do so by playing against people who were trying their hardest and had something to gain from that win.
That was Nanis argument as well. He feels that the current system is unfair because only Revival still has a chance to go to Blizzcon, so is more motivated to do well. Nani, according to his tweet, says the system is broken and that this is his way of compensating.
The problem with that is is that Revival earned the position he's in by winning many points. He has earned himself the chance of going to Blizzcon over the last x-months. He is fighting for the same amount of points that the rest of his group is. The incentive pointwise, is the exact same. However the points are more important for Revival than for the others. In a sense it's similar to the problem with round robin groups, where certain matches don't matter anymore to some players. However, it's less severe in that there's still some incentive for the other players in his group to do well; they all benefit from progressing. Furthermore, skewing the competition by offering players money is an even worse problem. To pull out an age old cliche: Two wrongs don't make a right.
I personally feel we're in for a lot of trouble if players start offering money because they feel the system is unfair. It's Blizzards responsibility to ensure the fairness of their competition. People shouldn't be "buying justice" regardless. How can we possibly balance that? What is the "fair" bounty here? What if a player can't afford to place a bounty, is he just out of luck? Did Naniwas opponents when he last earned points still have a chance to go to Blizzcon? Should there have been a bounty on Naniwa?
There's a lot wrong with the WCS system. It's hurting sc2 on a much bigger scale than some people realize. But throwing money at matches to get better odds instead of fixing the system is only going to create more problems.
|
On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. Here, maybe you'll find this one more agreeable. You feel you're a contender for second place in a group. Is it ok to have someone offer a bounty on the favored number 1 player so the people in your group spend more time preparing to beat him than they spend preparing to beat you, leading to you have an easier time in your matches against them? Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round.
I am still waiting for the valid argument for how this is unfair competition.. What if Naniwa posted this instead "Anyone that beats revival will be my best friend!"
Then do the same rules apply because being Naniwa's best friend is something so desirable? Maybe not because that would be subjective? Maybe it's also subjective how attractive the money is? *gasp* of course you couldn't be just blindly accusing these players of being so greedy and single minded that this kind of thing would sway competition. That would be judgmental and clearly someone standing on a podium as tall as yours would never be so.
You can draw strange hypothetical analogies that don't quite match up all day. If you could present some kind of actual argument that makes a little sense showing how the competition would become "unfair" everyone in this thread would stop considering these posts like yours to come across as so stupid.
|
Depending on the brackets, there is a potential for the bounty to NEGATIVELY effect the matches. If Taeja meets Revival first, then he can choose to go win-lose-win to collect an easy $1k.
But I hate Revival so I like this scenario very much.
|
On October 29 2013 16:44 Uncultured wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 16:17 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 16:08 Kheve wrote:On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. U obviously do not know the difference between criminality in sports and incentives. Incentives are for one to perform their best. Criminality is when one does not perform their best (throw). Both are a form of incentives in laymen terms but is totally different by definitions. One does not get penalized for doing what one is supposed to do (win games) Lay off, take a deep breath and THINK, preferably with ur brain and not where ur nonsense came from. And ull realise how silly u r. Killing a bug does not lead to murdering a human. Yes thriller novel and movies like to present a link but those are fiction, unreal, fantasies. I know the difference between a personal attack and a logical argument. An incentive is something that motivates someone, nothing more, nothing less. Some incentives are legal, others illegal. That simply depends on the rules. Considering there aren't any, we should be more concerned with moral and immoral incentives. I'd argue that a monetary incentive offered by a third player that can benefit from the results is most certainly a gray area. It's not about wanting to win or not wanting to win, it's about it now being more rewarding to win against Revival than against anyone else in the group. If I tell you you have to play 3 opponents, 1 of which you can win an additional $500 against, which match would you focus on most? Thankfully, Revival isn't complaining. Why shouldn't Revival face competition with the same stakes as everyone else? currently the stakes are diminished, because only he truly gains anything from a win. Everyone else who made it to Blizzcon had to do so by playing against people who were trying their hardest and had something to gain from that win.
A player a might try to win against Revival, lose in the winner match, then win against Revival the 2nd time to get $1k. So it does have the potential to affect the integrity of the games. Even so, I still like the bounty.
|
Russian Federation1016 Posts
@ Painkilla, Taeja forfeits CL (official statement on his Twitter)
I would like to hear from Soulkey. Basically, if Revival takes 25 points, Soulkey is at disadvantage. He won't know his match till the very start of Blizzcon. If he prefers ZvP, than he should support Naniwa's "trick"
Edit: Probably, Soulkey does not give a flying %^&*, he is too stronk!
|
Good on him! I don't see what the big deal is
|
On October 29 2013 17:29 bombsauce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 15:49 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 15:18 furerkip wrote:On October 29 2013 13:55 Martijn wrote: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? 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. 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. Nothing is wrong with saying please beat player X. It's implied already, everyone sensible is going to reach the conclusion Naniwa would like the best odds he can get at Blizzcon. If it's true that Revivals group is Taeja, Select and Jon Snow and Taeja is giving a walkover, then you are plain wrong. 2 players progress, so either Select or Jon Snow is going to progress regardless of whether they beat Revival or not. I have no idea if those groups are correct or not. Offering money incentivizes players to focus on Revival, potentially more than their other opponents. It's possible that the money offered will influence the results, (hell if it didn't, why would Nani offer it anyway), which is a gray area. I will be damned before I care more about what is "exciting" than what is "fair competition". On October 29 2013 15:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 29 2013 14:40 Martijn wrote: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. 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. 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. It's a valid logical construct. Here, maybe you'll find this one more agreeable. You feel you're a contender for second place in a group. Is it ok to have someone offer a bounty on the favored number 1 player so the people in your group spend more time preparing to beat him than they spend preparing to beat you, leading to you have an easier time in your matches against them? On October 29 2013 15:09 VillageBC wrote: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* 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. There's much better ways of doing this. Like for instance having an incentive for each player to win, not just when they're playing against Revival. If everyone got $500 for a win in that group, players would be equally incentivized for each match. It would be fair. Doubt Blizzard has that kind of money, but it doesn't make sense to argue it's ok to slant players incentives to ensure games count. Effectively it's making games vs Revival count more than other games this round. I am still waiting for the valid argument for how this is unfair competition.. What if Naniwa posted this instead "Anyone that beats revival will be my best friend!" Then do the same rules apply because being Naniwa's best friend is something so desirable? Maybe not because that would be subjective? Maybe it's also subjective how attractive the money is? *gasp* of course you couldn't be just blindly accusing these players of being so greedy and single minded that this kind of thing would sway competition. That would be judgmental and clearly someone standing on a podium as tall as yours would never be so. You can draw strange hypothetical analogies that don't quite match up all day. If you could present some kind of actual argument that makes a little sense showing how the competition would become "unfair" everyone in this thread would stop considering these posts like yours to come across as so stupid.
The analogies got progressively extreme because people kept arguing "well, but" until we finally got to one that no one could argue was acceptable. That's how we ended up here. People just read the last post and jump in.
But sure, what you're asking is easy. You have to play 3 opponents tomorrow, all matches are equally important except for one where you can earn an extra $500. Which match do you prepare more for? Is that fair to the person that is now targeted by all the other players in the group? Also considering he doesn't get any money.
It's different if you want to win because you want to be Nanis friend or something in that trend. Anyone can offer you that, nor does that pay the rent. If I tell the referee I'll be his friend if he awards me a penalty, that's one thing, if I offer him money, that's much more severe. A big part of the issue is that with bounties like that, people that have more money can place more bounties and can buy better odds than people without that money. Investing more money shouldn't get you better chances in a tournament, it's not fair.
If everyone in Revivals group, including Revival, was getting a payout per won match, that would be equal across the board. There wouldn't really be a problem, and they'd all do their best to win every match. There wouldn't be a skewed incentive to target one player specifically. Just like now they're all playing for the same amount of points.
|
On October 29 2013 17:44 IAmWithStupid wrote:
@ Painkilla, Taeja forfeits CL (official statement on his Twitter)
I would like to hear from Soulkey. Basically, if Revival takes 25 points, Soulkey is at disadvantage. He won't know his match till the very start of Blizzcon. If he prefers ZvP, than he should support Naniwa's "trick"
Edit: Probably, Soulkey does not give a flying %^&*, he is too stronk!
Soulkey probably wants revenge against Revival for kicking his ass in his first match ever at a foreign event... (not counting the 8 KeSPA player exhibition match thing when they just switched over)
|
|
|
Russian Federation1016 Posts
On October 29 2013 17:50 Elite_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 17:44 IAmWithStupid wrote:
@ Painkilla, Taeja forfeits CL (official statement on his Twitter)
I would like to hear from Soulkey. Basically, if Revival takes 25 points, Soulkey is at disadvantage. He won't know his match till the very start of Blizzcon. If he prefers ZvP, than he should support Naniwa's "trick"
Edit: Probably, Soulkey does not give a flying %^&*, he is too stronk! Soulkey probably wants revenge against Revival for kicking his ass in his first match ever at a foreign event... (not counting the 8 KeSPA player exhibition match thing when they just switched over)
Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
