EPTWhy should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to?
Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious.
Naniwa offers Bounty to whoever beats Revival - Page 29
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Storm71
Canada55 Posts
Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to? Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:16 Martijn wrote: No.. No professional sports that I know of allow you to bet money on your own team to win. Just like Nani is trying to influence Revivals opponents to target Revival more. Most sports don't allow it because games where you bet a lot of money to win count more, whereas in games you don't have a lot of money on the line you might save your strength. Even if it were coming from his own team, there's still a difference between your team giving you a bonus for winning matches and your team giving you a bonus to target and knock out a specific player. Additionally, I disagree that it doesn't matter whether this comes from his own team or from a third player as well. The motivation behind it is objectionable. Of course, the only reason that there's any debate here is that we don't have any rules. This is the first time I know of that a player has done something like this. It's a gray area and we'd probably be better off if their were clear rules on where we draw the line. What we haven't considered in this thread yet; didn't Nani have the same incentive as Revival to do well in WCS this season? The points were just as important to Nani as they are now for Revival. So why should Revival now be targeted specifically, when no one gave Nani the same treatment? Isn't it kind of silly to complain about players not having enough motivation to beat Revival, when he was in the same situation? That's why we should be glad Revival doesn't seem to object. If he did have a problem with it, there could've been trouble. Early GSTLs the players who won their games got bought fried chicken. Proleague also have players being paid to be snipers against other players. Friendly bets happen all the time among players as well. "$50 bucks says we'll face team ___ in the playoffs, you in?" I honestly think the problem people have is that the sum is $500 and not that Naniwa made the offer. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote: Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to? Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. | ||
|
YourGoodFriend
United States2197 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote: It would be similar to the 49ers head coach wiring payments to Saints players for beating the Seahawks. Actually since they are on the same team (Alliance and EG are both owned by Alex) It is more like paying the defense to do better against Revival (QB) during practice to make him look bad and thus Naniwa gets to start in his place | ||
|
cpower
228 Posts
| ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. "But his opponents might actually try to beat him!" Yeah, I don't know what the problem is either. >_> | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:16 Martijn wrote: Even if it were coming from his own team, there's still a difference between your team giving you a bonus for winning matches and your team giving you a bonus to target and knock out a specific player. Additionally, I disagree that it doesn't matter whether this comes from his own team or from a third player as well. The motivation behind it is objectionable. Of course, the only reason that there's any debate here is that we don't have any rules. This is the first time I know of that a player has done something like this. It's a gray area and we'd probably be better off if their were clear rules on where we draw the line. What we haven't considered in this thread yet; didn't Nani have the same incentive as Revival to do well in WCS this season? The points were just as important to Nani as they are now for Revival. So why should Revival now be targeted specifically, when no one gave Nani the same treatment? Isn't it kind of silly to complain about players not having enough motivation to beat Revival, when he was in the same situation? That's why we should be glad Revival doesn't seem to object. If he did have a problem with it, there could've been trouble. For the most part this reads as good reasons for disliking it, but not for disapproving it. I believe it shouldn't be considered wrong to create external motivation people to perform, even if you dislike the effects of it in this situation. I have no ethical qualms with it and as previously mentioned it happens all over the place. | ||
|
NihilisticGod
Northern Ireland174 Posts
And with that in mind did Taeja decide to just not bother playing because it isn't worth the time to him? Or did he have other reasons? Next Nanni will offer $$ for Taeja to actually play his matches (me hopes :D). | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:21 habeck wrote: Most stupid argument ever. It's just a completely different thing :D I disagree. It's one of the FUNNIEST things I read today :D | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:30 NihilisticGod wrote: This topic is hillarious. Personally I don't see anything wrong with this. His reasons make a lot of sense too, what exactly do the rest of the group have to play for? And with that in mind did Taeja decide to just not bother playing because it isn't worth the time to him? Or did he have other reasons? Next Nanni will offer $$ for Taeja to actually play his matches (me hopes :D). He dropped out because he wouldn't get enough WCS points regardless and didn't want to strain his hands again. But who knows, $500 is a lot of kimchi  | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:30 NihilisticGod wrote: This topic is hillarious. Personally I don't see anything wrong with this. His reasons make a lot of sense too, what exactly do the rest of the group have to play for? And with that in mind did Taeja decide to just not bother playing because it isn't worth the time to him? Or did he have other reasons? Next Nanni will offer $$ for Taeja to actually play his matches (me hopes :D). Pretty sure Taeja forfeited a long time ago so paying Taeja to actually play is quite a big step further. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:27 -Celestial- wrote: "But his opponents might actually try to beat him!" Yeah, I don't know what the problem is either. >_> It's a slow week on the drama front and people need their fix. Thats why they are comparing this to when football players were paid bounties to injure other player. Cause, you know, that's like the exact same thing, right? | ||
|
AlternativeEgo
Sweden17309 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:16 Martijn wrote: No.. No professional sports that I know of allow you to bet money on your own team to win. Just like Nani is trying to influence Revivals opponents to target Revival more. Most sports don't allow it because games where you bet a lot of money to win count more, whereas in games you don't have a lot of money on the line you might save your strength. By law. Sure the various sports unions have their own stances on the matter but it's fine by the law. At least here in Sweden. One of my younger brothers plays football and he is allowed to bet on all games but he's restricted to win only if he wants to bet on a game involving his team. | ||
|
autechr3
United States58 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:33 Thieving Magpie wrote: He dropped out because he wouldn't get enough WCS points regardless and didn't want to strain his hands again. But who knows, $500 is a lot of kimchi Taeja already has enough points. What are you talking about? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:43 autechr3 wrote: Taeja already has enough points. What are you talking about? I read that the points here don't change anything for him, I didn't realize they meant the opposite of what I understood lol #schooled#embarrassed#omglol EDIT: Also, #Nanirivalhype! | ||
|
GeneralSnoop
United States142 Posts
| ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: For the most part this reads as good reasons for disliking it, but not for disapproving it. I believe it shouldn't be considered wrong to create external motivation people to perform, even if you dislike the effects of it in this situation. I have no ethical qualms with it and as previously mentioned it happens all over the place. Well quite, if I felt this was clearly against the rules and definitely ruined the competition, I wouldn't be calling it a gray area but full scale debauchery. It's shady, but considering there doesn't seem to be any rules that I can find that prohibit it, so be it. There's a lot of arguments as to why it could be bad though. Nani wasn't targeted specifically in his WCS group, is it fair for Revival to be targeted? Is this fair to players who can't afford to pay bounties? Should we be relying on bounties to avoid issues with the format instead of letting them fix the format? How can we possibly fairly balance bounties against non-monetary incentives like "going to blizzcon"? I don't have clear answers, hence why it's open to discussion. | ||
|
Martijn
Netherlands1219 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: For the most part this reads as good reasons for disliking it, but not for disapproving it. I believe it shouldn't be considered wrong to create external motivation people to perform, even if you dislike the effects of it in this situation. I have no ethical qualms with it and as previously mentioned it happens all over the place. Well quite, if I felt this was clearly against the rules and definitely ruined the competition, I wouldn't be calling it a gray area but full scale debauchery. It's shady, but considering there doesn't seem to be any rules that I can find that prohibit it, so be it. There's a lot of arguments as to why it could be bad though. Nani wasn't targeted specifically in his WCS group, is it fair for Revival to be targeted? Is this fair to players who can't afford to pay bounties? Should we be relying on bounties to avoid issues with the format instead of letting them fix the format? How can we possibly fairly balance bounties against non-monetary incentives like "going to blizzcon"? I don't have clear answers, hence why it's open to discussion. On October 30 2013 01:41 AlternativeEgo wrote: By law. Sure the various sports unions have their own stances on the matter but it's fine by the law. At least here in Sweden. One of my younger brothers plays football and he is allowed to bet on all games but he's restricted to win only if he wants to bet on a game involving his team. Is this professional soccer? Because there's several documented cases of soccer players getting suspended for betting their own teams to win. Whether it should be barred by rule or law is a completely different matter. I imagine only in Korea could there actually be laws relating to starcraft betting. On October 30 2013 01:46 GeneralSnoop wrote: with the new WCS system coming into play next year, nobody cares about these matches excepts Revival. Naniwa is just trying to level the playing field to what it should be. So why wasn't the playing field leveled during Naniwas run this season? | ||
|
xHaroldx
Netherlands62 Posts
| ||
|
Storm71
Canada55 Posts
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. | ||
| ||
