|
On October 31 2013 17:03 love9n wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 10:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for. No it's absolutely not! In soccer teams often spare players or at times field complete B teams when they're guaranteed qualification. That's why you always want to play the toughest team in the champions league group last, because odds are, if they're already through, you'll have an easier time. If what you're saying happened in "real" sports, that would only be one step away from extorting teams when you hold their fate in your hands. You might see practices like this in poker tournaments or the like, but I don't know if we should depend on poker players for our moral compass. ;p You do know that it is very common in football/soccer for example where for example Barcelona or Real Madrid would pay out a bonus to a winning team benefiting them at the end of the season in a game where they themselves didn't play. I think this is what he meant. Read http://afootballreport.com/post/32196649220/why-suitcases-should-be-left-on-the-plane which has more information on this.
Yeah i was going to say the same. What he is saying is that teams withouth motivation to go 100% would let B teamers.
Yes, but that is for teams who are already qualified. The analogy is just bad.
I remember being in the stadium, when the tenerife beat Real Madrid 3-2 on the last match of the season 19 years ago. Tenerife had nothing to play for, but put up a fight because of the bonus offered by the barcelona. Now that i remember, it was two consecutive seasons lol.
Btw, use a translator if you want for the sources, but basically, they got 21 millions of the pesetas as a bonus.
http://www.corazonblanco.com/wiki/Los_Robos_En_Tenerife
And yes, there were bitching and controversy involved, but everything was lifted later on, because it is fucking nonsense, the problem is when you do this stuff on a shady way.
|
United States23455 Posts
Guys Revival is on EG, he don't GAF about $500. That's like his hourly allowance I heard.
|
On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 10:17 saltywet wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves. okay, say I hypothetically, as a nonplayer/spectator, dislike Taeja as a player and I offer $500 to the two out of jonsnow/revival/select who can knock him out. is that shady? i don't stand to gain anything, i just want my least favorite knocked out. sure, it's unfair to taeja but if he gets knocked out because of other players he wouldn't deserve to win. just because i offer added incentive to other players to win against taeja does not mean that they will win if taeja is a skilled player. Money potentially affecting the outcome of a match is bad. It takes away from fair competition.
I stopped reading right here. Seriously? You just grouped every performance bonus on specific goals under "bad" and "takes away from fair competition".
May I remind you, in associated football, player are often handed goal bonus, clean sheet bonus, etc. etc., and these definitely affect outcome of a match.
Oh, also, sponsors are paying all players to actively affect the outcome of a match, how about that?
|
On October 31 2013 23:52 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 17:03 love9n wrote:On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 10:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for. No it's absolutely not! In soccer teams often spare players or at times field complete B teams when they're guaranteed qualification. That's why you always want to play the toughest team in the champions league group last, because odds are, if they're already through, you'll have an easier time. If what you're saying happened in "real" sports, that would only be one step away from extorting teams when you hold their fate in your hands. You might see practices like this in poker tournaments or the like, but I don't know if we should depend on poker players for our moral compass. ;p You do know that it is very common in football/soccer for example where for example Barcelona or Real Madrid would pay out a bonus to a winning team benefiting them at the end of the season in a game where they themselves didn't play. I think this is what he meant. Read http://afootballreport.com/post/32196649220/why-suitcases-should-be-left-on-the-plane which has more information on this. Yeah i was going to say the same. What he is saying is that teams withouth motivation to go 100% would let B teamers. Yes, but that is for teams who are already qualified. The analogy is just bad. I remember being in the stadium, when the tenerife beat Real Madrid 3-2 on the last match of the season 19 years ago. Tenerife had nothing to play for, but put up a fight because of the bonus offered by the barcelona. Now that i remember, it was two consecutive seasons lol. Btw, use a translator if you want for the sources, but basically, they got 21 millions of the pesetas as a bonus. http://www.corazonblanco.com/wiki/Los_Robos_En_TenerifeAnd yes, there were bitching and controversy involved, but everything was lifted later on, because it is fucking nonsense, the problem is when you do this stuff on a shady way.
Lol. That website is funny. Not biased at all! 
Of course, that's what Revival fans (or more likely, Naniwa anti-fans) will sound like if he doesn't make 1st or 2nd spot. They'll call it a stolen match.
Well, we'll see in a few hours! Go Naniwaaaaa (I mean, Taeja, JonSnow and SeleCT)!!!
|
On November 01 2013 00:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 23:52 Godwrath wrote:On October 31 2013 17:03 love9n wrote:On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 10:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a regular occurrence in 'real' sports, positive incentive for teams who hold your fate in their hands, but have nothing besides pride to play for. No it's absolutely not! In soccer teams often spare players or at times field complete B teams when they're guaranteed qualification. That's why you always want to play the toughest team in the champions league group last, because odds are, if they're already through, you'll have an easier time. If what you're saying happened in "real" sports, that would only be one step away from extorting teams when you hold their fate in your hands. You might see practices like this in poker tournaments or the like, but I don't know if we should depend on poker players for our moral compass. ;p You do know that it is very common in football/soccer for example where for example Barcelona or Real Madrid would pay out a bonus to a winning team benefiting them at the end of the season in a game where they themselves didn't play. I think this is what he meant. Read http://afootballreport.com/post/32196649220/why-suitcases-should-be-left-on-the-plane which has more information on this. Yeah i was going to say the same. What he is saying is that teams withouth motivation to go 100% would let B teamers. Yes, but that is for teams who are already qualified. The analogy is just bad. I remember being in the stadium, when the tenerife beat Real Madrid 3-2 on the last match of the season 19 years ago. Tenerife had nothing to play for, but put up a fight because of the bonus offered by the barcelona. Now that i remember, it was two consecutive seasons lol. Btw, use a translator if you want for the sources, but basically, they got 21 millions of the pesetas as a bonus. http://www.corazonblanco.com/wiki/Los_Robos_En_TenerifeAnd yes, there were bitching and controversy involved, but everything was lifted later on, because it is fucking nonsense, the problem is when you do this stuff on a shady way. Lol. That website is funny. Not biased at all!
Yeah, the bitching in here looks like a copy paste from the last sentence there
|
On November 01 2013 00:00 hmsrenown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 10:17 saltywet wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves. okay, say I hypothetically, as a nonplayer/spectator, dislike Taeja as a player and I offer $500 to the two out of jonsnow/revival/select who can knock him out. is that shady? i don't stand to gain anything, i just want my least favorite knocked out. sure, it's unfair to taeja but if he gets knocked out because of other players he wouldn't deserve to win. just because i offer added incentive to other players to win against taeja does not mean that they will win if taeja is a skilled player. Money potentially affecting the outcome of a match is bad. It takes away from fair competition. I stopped reading right here. Seriously? You just grouped every performance bonus on specific goals under "bad" and "takes away from fair competition". May I remind you, in associated football, player are often handed goal bonus, clean sheet bonus, etc. etc., and these definitely affect outcome of a match. Oh, also, sponsors are paying all players to actively affect the outcome of a match, how about that?
That's foolishly dismissing valid arguments by taking one line out of context. It's comments like that that make people think you can't have a proper discussion on a forum.
No one is talking about bonuses paid out by someones team or sponsors or prizemoney because they don't target specific players. It has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Disappointing.
|
On November 01 2013 00:51 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 00:00 hmsrenown wrote:On October 31 2013 16:27 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 10:17 saltywet wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2013 09:45 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 09:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 08:47 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 07:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:58 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:46 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 31 2013 06:38 Martijn wrote:On October 31 2013 06:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cheating is banned in sports.
Gambling in matches that you are not a part of is not banned in sports.
Naniwa is neither playing in this group nor is he asking people to cheat.
Making bets in games you're involved in, bad. Paying people to cheat/lose is bad.
For example, if instead of $500, Naniwa offered to buy the winner Dinner. Would there be controversy? No, because no one cheated. Yeah, if Naniwa were making a bet with someone else on the match, so be it. But assuming this is true, he's offering the money to the players in the match. Monetarily, it's the equivalent of Naniwa placing a bet for them, except that they don't even have to put up the money if they lose. Do you think there's a moral difference between placing a bet on your own match and having someone place a bet on your own match for you? There's a huge moral difference in that. Putting in your own money and having the payout be determined by your results is preposterous and is the reason why most of the time people bet against themselves because its easier to ensure losing that it is to ensure winning. Someone putting their money and risking it based on someone else's performance is completely different. Especially when it is made publicly in the manner Naniwa did it. So if you stand to lose money because of a bet, it's morally wrong, but if someone puts up the money for you, it's fine? Come on. If you feel people shouldn't be allowed to bet on their own matches, it's practically impossible to argue that this should be ok. The reason you don't allow people to bet on their matches is because it leads to people throwing games. The reason you are okay with other people betting on your matches is because it gives you no reason to throw games. Betting on yourself to win doesn't lead to you throwing the game you bet on to win, it leads to you putting less effort in to other games. The same way a bounty against a specific player does. Monetarily, this is no different than having someone place a bet for you. Except that in the case you do still lose, you don't have to pay up. Morally, this is a third party trying to influence matches by offering money. If you feel that people should not be allowed to bet on their own matches to win, there is no logical argument you can make to support these bounties. Here is where we differ. I'm against betting on yourself because it leads to throwing matches. You deciding to care for match A more so than match B is arbitrary. Some people will care more about a match because of incentive, others will care more about certain matchups because of history, or because of pride, or because of fatigue, etc... Theoretically, you should care about all your matches but many factors makes you care more about one match than another. The only thing bad about betting on yourself is that it leads to match fixing scandals, that's it. Someone else giving you incentive to play harder is not a bad thing and creates narrative. Isn't that silly? You're not ok with someone caring more about one match than another when they bet their own money, but you are ok with someone caring more about one match than another when another player pays them to. Morally speaking, it's worse because the motivation for doing so is to intentionally skew the competition.. If Naniwa had said I'll pay $500 to the people that finish first and second in Revival's group, your points would be relevant. Still debatable, seeming nothing like that took place during Naniwas challenger run, but relevant. Getting paid to care more about one match than another by a third party that benefits isn't match fixing to some degree? No, working harder or caring more during any matchup is never match fixing because you are already expected to care 100% about all your matchups as a base axiom that defines what competition is. The assumption is that we want all players to care about all matchups. Not everyone cares about all their matchups. The impetus that makes you care about a matchup is arbitrary. Maybe you hate player X and want to beat his team every time you play. Maybe a little girl with cancer asked you to win your next game. Or maybe Naniwa sets a bounty on someone he's competing with. Whatever the inspiration that drives a player to do his best be that love of the game or cold hard cash is meaningless. I'm against betting on yourself because that quickly leads to the road of betting against yourself. I'm against coaches betting on his team because he will overwork them in one game causing injury to good players who should be resting but he won't rest. Betting on your own performance leads to malicious end goals and lacks the objectivity that third party incentives provide. That's an absurd assumption though. Time is limited. It's practically impossible for a player to be 100% prepared for all his match ups. Your argument is based on an assumption that can only hold in a realm where time isn't limited. You prepare for a match until you're out of time to prepare for the match, unless a player feels they can not win or will win even without preparing for the match. You can't prepare for each match up 100%, you can prepare for each match up equally. That's why skewing the balance towards a specific player is so shady. Suddenly, the people who can put up the highest bounty can influence which players get targeted. Offering money to take out a specific player so that you can progress is arguably malicious. Naniwas offer (once again, if real) didn't try to motivate people in the group to care about how they do in the group, but how they do against Revival. He didn't offer money for the 1st and 2nd place, he specifically offered Revivals opponents money based on their match ups vs Revival. What if TaeJa plays Revival first and beats him, earning $500 and having to face Select next. He'd then have a $500 motivation to throw his match vs Select so he could potentially beat Revival again. Now I'm obviously not implying TaeJa is someone that would throw matches, but this is the same kind of match throwing scenario that you get when you allow players to bet on themselves. okay, say I hypothetically, as a nonplayer/spectator, dislike Taeja as a player and I offer $500 to the two out of jonsnow/revival/select who can knock him out. is that shady? i don't stand to gain anything, i just want my least favorite knocked out. sure, it's unfair to taeja but if he gets knocked out because of other players he wouldn't deserve to win. just because i offer added incentive to other players to win against taeja does not mean that they will win if taeja is a skilled player. Money potentially affecting the outcome of a match is bad. It takes away from fair competition. I stopped reading right here. Seriously? You just grouped every performance bonus on specific goals under "bad" and "takes away from fair competition". May I remind you, in associated football, player are often handed goal bonus, clean sheet bonus, etc. etc., and these definitely affect outcome of a match. Oh, also, sponsors are paying all players to actively affect the outcome of a match, how about that? That's foolishly dismissing valid arguments by taking one line out of context. It's comments like that that make people think you can't have a proper discussion on a forum. No one is talking about bonuses paid out by someones team or sponsors or prizemoney because they don't target specific players. It has nothing at all to do with the discussion. Disappointing.
I thought the discussion was about giving money to people doing their job. You somehow think that if its a non-team/non-sponsor giving the money then it is evil while we're saying it doesn't matter who gives money so long as no one cheats or physically injures the players.
All matches *should* be given 100%, but the truth is that people don't give 100% in all their matches. Yet you somehow feel that money being the incentive to choose when to give 100% is worse than other factors that create the motivation disparity.
|
On October 31 2013 03:26 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:19 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:09 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote:On October 31 2013 02:52 Storm71 wrote:On October 31 2013 02:47 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
And the difference that the bounty will make is so negligible it will not matter. Theses are professional players, not amatures. We don't know for sure, do we? It's just baseless speculation on your part to assume that. No, I know for sure. I've watched these players for years and they give no fucks $500 bounty. It is fucking minor pressure compared to what these players normally deal with. So all those showmatches which give out $500 or less, it's the same as playing for nothing, huh? I didn't know you could read minds. I don't need to. All the players are professionals and the additional "stress" of the $500 bounty is minor. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stress, motivation. $500 for winning a Bo3 isn't exactly trivial. And just because you like to refer to them as "professionals", it doesn't mean that $500 is necessarily a meaningless amount. Nothing will change because of the bounty. It won't change how hard Revival plays and his opponents will not go up in skill. If he can't beat a modivated player, he doesn't deserve to be at Blizzcon. The bounty will change nothing? Then why did Naniwa offer it? Maybe because he knows that performance is not merely a product of skill, but also of motivation. And Revival already has 3175 wcs points; he has beaten quite a few motivated players. Using your logic, perhaps we should replay Naniwa's challenger league matches, offer his opponents a bounty to see if HE deserves to be at Blizzcon? He offered it to make a joke and hype the match. And because the community are a bunch of drama sluts that will get down with even the tinyest amount of drama that can dig up. And it worked, because the community had a hard on for this sort of shit. I didn't know you could read Naniwa's mind. It is hard to convey tone across written text; is that just an assumption you made?
God, you people are overreacting so much.
Did you not read Revival's post on the twitter?
@NaNiwasSC2"Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?"
Naniwa's response (TO REVIVAL):
@EGRevival :D so greedy.........
saying something to the effect of "lol they'll need more like $1000 or $5000"?
He's clearly taking this as a friendly banter, not some malicious, nefarious scheme, and NaNiwa is playing along.
If Revival was pissed off, he would have said something to the effect of 'wtf' or released a message through EG, not made a post playing along with NaNiwa on an unofficial forum like twitter.
Stop trying to make something out of nothing. If Revival isn't angry, you have no right to be angry for him.
And the players playing shouldn't be mad, they're now getting a prize for winning.
|
This "controversy" is stupid.
You can't bribe someone to win. You can't guarantee they will win. NEITHER CAN THEY.
You can bribe someone to lose, because they can guarantee they will lose.
How the hell is offering someone $500 to beat Revival "shady???" It's only shady if someone else was bribing them to lose in the first place lol.
|
On November 01 2013 04:29 DinoMight wrote:
This "controversy" is stupid.
You can't bribe someone to win. You can't guarantee they will win. NEITHER CAN THEY.
You can bribe someone to lose, because they can guarantee they will lose.
How the hell is offering someone $500 to beat Revival "shady???" It's only shady if someone else was bribing them to lose in the first place lol.
Philosophically, one can argue that it is theoretically possible to guide tournament results by "bribing" players to focus/try harder against specific opponents which *might* lead to a mindset where players don't play as hard unless bounty is offered wild west style.
I don't agree with it, but its not a ridiculous mindset to have and is something common among anti-corporation types.
|
Didn't realize that revival will make blizzcon because hes winning wcs.. hence why naniwa made the bet.
|
I'm not sure what to think about this... I never liked Naniwa, but the idea for sniping top dogs is interesting. The only problem that I have with it is that it's for the sake of him getting to Blizzcon.
To me, it makes him look bad because even if Revival wins, they'll have to decide by a best of 5 at Blizzcon and for him to offer a bounty on him (1st time for a player to do this - I think) means that he isn't confident enough to beat Revival himself. Should he really be at Blizzcon if he can't beat the guy who is contesting him in points?
Anyway, about the idea to snipe players in a series, I think they should put a WCS point prize when you beat anyone in the top 16. Maybe just do something small like 50 points for beating 1st place, 45 for 2nd, 40 for 3rd, etc.
|
On November 01 2013 08:29 astray71 wrote:
I'm not sure what to think about this... I never liked Naniwa, but the idea for sniping top dogs is interesting. The only problem that I have with it is that it's for the sake of him getting to Blizzcon.
To me, it makes him look bad because even if Revival wins, they'll have to decide by a best of 5 at Blizzcon and for him to offer a bounty on him (1st time for a player to do this - I think) means that he isn't confident enough to beat Revival himself. Should he really be at Blizzcon if he can't beat the guy who is contesting him in points?
Anyway, about the idea to snipe players in a series, I think they should put a WCS point prize when you beat anyone in the top 16. Maybe just do something small like 50 points for beating 1st place, 45 for 2nd, 40 for 3rd, etc.
You're making assumptions for fun. Nothing about this says that naniwa isnt confident in playing revival, nothing what so ever. You're literally pulling that information from thin air and just sitting on it.
|
United States23455 Posts
|
So...Naniwa owes Taeja $500?
|
On November 01 2013 09:03 coverpunch wrote:
So...Naniwa owes Taeja $500?
Also, Does revival still go to blizzcon? I hope so.
|
Well, Naniwa seems to chicken out. It seems he only pays Taeja if someone else also beats Revival
|
I like it, it makes games interesting.
Also, need more esports drama, been to stale lately.
|
On November 01 2013 04:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 04:29 DinoMight wrote:
This "controversy" is stupid.
You can't bribe someone to win. You can't guarantee they will win. NEITHER CAN THEY.
You can bribe someone to lose, because they can guarantee they will lose.
How the hell is offering someone $500 to beat Revival "shady???" It's only shady if someone else was bribing them to lose in the first place lol. Philosophically, one can argue that it is theoretically possible to guide tournament results by "bribing" players to focus/try harder against specific opponents which *might* lead to a mindset where players don't play as hard unless bounty is offered wild west style. I don't agree with it, but its not a ridiculous mindset to have and is something common among anti-corporation types.
It is a ridiculous mindset to have. We are part of one of the most butthurt communities in the world. We flip the fuck out at even the slightest sign of wrongdoing. If a pro tried to convince other pros to pay him to win, he would instantly get revealed to the community and suddenly everybody would hate him. Also, the blackmailer has no leverage. If the other pro refuses to pay him, then he has to follow up on his threat, which means he loses the match. Most pros don't want to lose a match, it's really all they have.
There's just no way it could happen in SC2's current state. Maybe a few years down the line after a slow moral decline, but by that time SC3 will be out and no one will give a shit about SC2 anymore.
|
On November 01 2013 09:13 fezvez wrote:
Well, Naniwa seems to chicken out. It seems he only pays Taeja if someone else also beats Revival
What a welcher. His original tweet clearly indicates the bounty goes to "whoever beats Revival" and not contingent on Revival not going to Blizzcon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
