|
On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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.
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way?
|
On October 30 2013 02:10 xHaroldx wrote:
Because i believe when Nani played his matches, nobody knew their seeding would be meaningless.
That I can dismiss. My players have known for much longer than that.
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way?
Naniwa was in the same position as Revival this season. How is it fair for Naniwa to play against players who have no incentive to win, but not Revival?
|
On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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
Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well.
|
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way?
He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle.
|
On October 30 2013 01:54 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. 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.
Is it fair that Major faced Alicia and Heart to qualify for season 3, while Neeb faced drunkenboi and Hellokitty?
Is it fair that JonSnow and Select have to beat someone who has a shot at 5000$ when he wins, while the people in the other groups have to play people who have no extra incentive?
Is it fair that when Naniwa faced Life in the finals of IEM, he had an extra incentive to win, because winning meant he would qualify for Blizzcon, and Life couldn't qualify either way?
You're just thinking too much about what's fair and what's not. I prefer a "deal with it" attitude.
|
On October 30 2013 02:14 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:10 xHaroldx wrote:
Because i believe when Nani played his matches, nobody knew their seeding would be meaningless. That I can dismiss. My players have known for much longer than that. Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? Naniwa was in the same position as Revival this season. How is it fair for Naniwa to play against players who have no incentive to win, but not Revival?
Wait when? I need proof that the match that qualified Naniwa for Blizzcon was played against someone who did stand to win anything. I am not sure that is correct at all.
|
On October 30 2013 02:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:54 Martijn wrote:On October 30 2013 01:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. 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. Is it fair that Major faced Alicia and Heart to qualify for season 3, while Neeb faced drunkenboi and Hellokitty? Is it fair that JonSnow and Select have to beat someone who has a shot at 5000$ when he wins, while the people in the other groups have to play people who have no extra incentive? Is it fair that when Naniwa faced Life in the finals of IEM, he had an extra incentive to win, because winning meant he would qualify for Blizzcon, and Life couldn't qualify either way? You're just thinking too much about what's fair and what's not. I prefer a "deal with it" attitude.
Yes, programmers should just "deal with it" and play the matches that are on their schedule and accept the circumstances as they are.
They shouldn't offer bounties to hinder others because they couldn't clinch a Blizzcon spot on their own.
|
On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle.
Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too?
|
christ do i have to go and it again! i said id do it only the once!
|
On October 30 2013 02:00 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:27 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: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. 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. Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:41 AlternativeEgo wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Martijn wrote:On October 29 2013 18:32 AlternativeEgo wrote:On October 29 2013 17:05 Martijn wrote:
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. But you are allowed to bet on your own team to win. 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. 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. Show nested quote +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?
a) its not shady. You may think its shady, but no one in this thread has demonstrated exactly how it is a problem without resorting to slippery slope arguments or similar.
b) how do you know the playing field wasnt leveld during naniwas run?
c) why would that be a problem if it were the case? Why is added incentive a problem?
d) me and seemingly almost everyone else disagree that any of the things you listed are actual problems. And by the way the world isn't fair some people have more money than others and guess what, money is usually used for stuff that people with less money cant afford.
|
On October 30 2013 02:14 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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 Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well.
You have it backwards All ESPN employees are inherently ABC employees since that is who signs their checks. But not all ABC employees are part of the ESPN subsidiary.
|
you'd think revival not being ticked off about it would mean something
I somehow doubt he was preparing as though his opponents didn't give a fuck
|
On October 30 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:14 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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 Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well. You have it backwards All ESPN employees are inherently ABC employees since that is who signs their checks. But not all ABC employees are part of the ESPN subsidiary.
Actually they're both owned by Disney.
And are you really arguing that Naniwa and Revival are teammates?
|
On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too?
There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else.
|
On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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 Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well. You have it backwards All ESPN employees are inherently ABC employees since that is who signs their checks. But not all ABC employees are part of the ESPN subsidiary. Actually they're both owned by Disney. And are you really arguing that Naniwa and Revival are teammates?
They are both employees of Alex Garfield, so yes, they work for the same guy.
|
On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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 Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well. You have it backwards All ESPN employees are inherently ABC employees since that is who signs their checks. But not all ABC employees are part of the ESPN subsidiary. Actually they're both owned by Disney. And are you really arguing that Naniwa and Revival are teammates?
Oh no, just clarifying the example. Subsidiaries are inherently part of the parent company but the parent company is not part of the subsidiary.
So if Alex owns two subsidiaries Alliance and EG, they both work for Alex but Alliance does not work for EG and vice versa.
|
On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else.
A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone.
Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out.
|
On October 30 2013 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:14 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:27 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 01:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:53 YourGoodFriend wrote:On October 30 2013 00:49 HeeroFX wrote:On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot. In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone. But the difference is Naniwa is not asking them to do something that is illegal or against the rules, he is just giving them more incentive. Think about it as the saints head coach offering to take the defense out to dinner if they didnt allow any points in the 2nd quarter 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 Same ownership does not mean they are the same team. If someone works for ESPN, that doesn't mean they're an employee for ABC as well. You have it backwards All ESPN employees are inherently ABC employees since that is who signs their checks. But not all ABC employees are part of the ESPN subsidiary. Actually they're both owned by Disney. And are you really arguing that Naniwa and Revival are teammates? They are both employees of Alex Garfield, so yes, they work for the same guy.
Working for the same guy does not mean they are teammates. One can own multiple sports teams.
|
On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else.
Explain it. I am not convinced they are that different. Also you skipped over the part about the date with a girl the player likes. Or any of the other things that might inspire a player to throw down hard.
|
On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. 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. 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. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out.
Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him.
Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
