He makes a good point that the people playing Revival don't have a ton of motivation to go all out with preparation, but this is the first time I've ever seen a player offering rewards to other players to beat someone else. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I could see many fans, especially in Korea, thinking this is a little shady.
Oh god here comes the shitstorm... I'm all for defending stuff in eSports and avoiding drama tbh, but idk about this one haha I guess it's obviously not as awful as offering money to lose, but it's still, it's kind of sketchy territory. On the fence on thsi one, gonna wait for the discussion
I love this idea, to be honest before this with the new changes to WCS only revival had a reason to give it his all, which is exceptionally unfair to Naniwa. This is Naniwa's way of adding motivation to everyone else in the group.
On October 29 2013 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Oh god here comes the shitstorm... I'm all for defending stuff in eSports and avoiding drama tbh, but idk about this one haha I guess it's obviously not as awful as offering money to lose, but it's still, it's kind of sketchy territory. On the fence on thsi one, gonna wait for the discussion
Dont see how you could get mad at someone for adding more prize pool and incentive. Makes it more interesting and fun as well. Like another said tho, kind of funny u need outside encouragement to get people to try hard. Dunno how formats like this keep popping up ><
Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
In finland we had pretty little shitstorm when similar thing happened in 1st division football. A team fighting against relegation promised few thousand euros for the last team to win their game, which for them was pointless but if they had won the second last team could still have had a chance to stay in 1st division.
I think this stuff is kind of understandable, but still I'm a bit sad to see it happen. Can't people be trusted to do their best in matches when there is nothing tangible on the line?
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get there on your own.
On October 29 2013 03:32 Penguinator wrote: I'm confused, I thought Naniwa was guaranteed for Blizzcon now? Did they not say that at WCS season 3 finals?
He is, but if revival makes it far enough he has to play a tie breaker at blizzcon instead of simply qualifying.
On October 29 2013 03:32 Penguinator wrote: I'm confused, I thought Naniwa was guaranteed for Blizzcon now? Did they not say that at WCS season 3 finals?
He will be going to blizzcon either way however if Revival wins they are tied in points meaning they play a bo5 AT blizzcon to determine who gets into the tournament
On October 29 2013 03:32 Penguinator wrote: I'm confused, I thought Naniwa was guaranteed for Blizzcon now? Did they not say that at WCS season 3 finals?
Casters were running their mouth off like usual. Rivival gets a chance to make enough points to be even with Naniwa which means a Bo5 is getting hold at Blizzcon but only the winner can actually play in the main tournament.
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
It's not really bribing though, it's like saying he'll buy them a beer if they beat Revival (which is their job anyway). Just a 500$ beer
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
What's up with your comments in this thread? This has litterally nothing to do with his ability to go there on his own.
On October 29 2013 03:32 Penguinator wrote: I'm confused, I thought Naniwa was guaranteed for Blizzcon now? Did they not say that at WCS season 3 finals?
Casters were running their mouth off like usual. Rivival gets a chance to make enough points to be even with Naniwa which means a Bo5 is getting hold at Blizzcon but only the winner can actually play in the main tournament.
He gets to go to blizzcon either way(whether revival ties with him or not) is what they meant most likely.
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
What's up with your comments in this thread? This has litterally nothing to do with his ability to go there on his own.
It has actually. If he was good enough and made enough points in the seasons he wouldn't need Rivival to fail. Quite simple.
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
What's up with your comments in this thread? This has literally nothing to do with his ability to go there on his own.
I think it's a cool move by naniwa to offer a bounty. However, I'm wondering if the $500 is for beating revival or for knocking him out or both? For example, someone could beat revival, but then revival could get 2nd place still. Would that person who beat revival still get the $500 or not since revival still advanced? For revival to be knocked out he would need to lose twice. Would both people get $500? Also it's possible for the same person to beat revival twice in the group. Would that person get $1000?
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
What's up with your comments in this thread? This has litterally nothing to do with his ability to go there on his own.
It has actually. If he was good enough and made enough points in the seasons he wouldn't need Rivival to fail. Quite simply.
He doesn't need Revival to fail, he just doesn't need to beat him himself if Revival loses
nice gamesmanship but it feels a bit unfair because revival cant do the reverse. he cant say 'hey everyone playing me ill give you 500 dollars if i make it to blizzcon'
it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
On October 29 2013 03:35 Thalandros wrote: I love how people think this is serious!
I don't know about you but this seems pretty serious to me. No other player has any reason to play their best which vastly favors revival (and therefore hurts naniwa). This is an excellent way to make the people in revivals group care because as long as one of them takes a series off revival naniwa is the 16th man.
I'm 100% okay with it Only thing that I could add is that Alliance should've thought to do this as a team. Having someone represent them at Blizzcon is worth the 500$, and they can probably afford that(or more). Blizzcon is serious business, and draws a metric shit ton of eyes.
On October 29 2013 03:32 Penguinator wrote: I'm confused, I thought Naniwa was guaranteed for Blizzcon now? Did they not say that at WCS season 3 finals?
Casters were running their mouth off like usual. Rivival gets a chance to make enough points to be even with Naniwa which means a Bo5 is getting hold at Blizzcon but only the winner can actually play in the main tournament.
Why does Revival get anymore points? I thought he forfeited against puck and therefore lost his chance to gain points?
Good on you Naniwa, adding interest to SC2 and WCS. There are plenty of reasons you could choose not to like the guy, but I don't understand the people who choose this as one of them.
He makes a good point that the people playing Revival don't have a ton of motivation to go all out with preparation, but this is the first time I've ever seen a player offering rewards to other players to beat someone else. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I could see many fans, especially in Korea, thinking this is a little shady.
On October 29 2013 03:42 AlgeriaT wrote: Haha, I like it. He's creating a bit of drama, making the last CL stage more fun and stirring up some buzz about himself all in one fell swoop.
Better not pay 500 bucks and then lose in the Ro16 tho, Nani
Still worth it, Nani would pay at least 1K dollars, but earn 5K. He should offer more.
On October 29 2013 03:28 DarkLordOlli wrote: This is now Revival's theme song, to be played whenever he enters a stage. This is the opportunity of a lifetime for him. I would kill for this theme.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Implying that players in literally every competitive sport aren't encouraged to take out the star players on other teams.
On October 29 2013 03:29 Pandemona wrote: Lol xD I want Revival to win so they both get to go as they both earnt the right to go xD A bo5 match before the tournament at blizzcon seems very cool
free invitation to IEM doesn't seem like earning the right to go....
More then bribing other people when you couldn't get their on your own.
What's up with your comments in this thread? This has litterally nothing to do with his ability to go there on his own.
It has actually. If he was good enough and made enough points in the seasons he wouldn't need Rivival to fail. Quite simple.
Not really even a bribe, it's more like an extra incentive. The person still actually HAS to beat Revival. It isn't like he's paying Revival to throw the game.
On October 29 2013 03:50 Pjorren wrote: The hypersensitive squad strikes again!
No fucking kidding. We have something amusnig/funny going on here and people still find a way to whine about it. Really pathetic guys keep ruining the fun things in life and enjoy being lonely.
HAHAHHAA This is freaking hilarious This is why I love Naniwa he might be a little BM but he backs it up with his play then does stuff that adds spice to this scene I really hope he goes to blizzcon
Edit: Seriously why are people hating on this it's not a mean thing to do its actually amusing and makes it interesting Wish we had more stuff like this happen
I like this actually. It's such important matches and adding a price for motivation is only good and he obviously gain from it himself winning $5000 just getting his 16th place. It's totally different from offering money for someone to lose (matchfixing!) and should be allowed. Hope they don't put up any regulations against this.
Naniwa is actually fixing the WCS system because the reason people have no motivation is because they made a faulty system. Naniwa is actually helping the WCS format out and creating motivation to try.
Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
On October 29 2013 03:42 AlgeriaT wrote: Haha, I like it. He's creating a bit of drama, making the last CL stage more fun and stirring up some buzz about himself all in one fell swoop.
Better not pay 500 bucks and then lose in the Ro16 tho, Nani
Still worth it, Nani would pay at least 1K dollars, but earn 5K. He should offer more.
Sure, it'd even be worth it for the buzz alone. But the shame if he does go out early... This would make him fall all the harder. Which again creates more drama of course.
This cannot but get him more viewers for his games. A boss move imo.
On October 29 2013 03:58 Chinnro wrote: Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
On October 29 2013 03:58 Chinnro wrote: Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
Real sportspersons don't play in broken formatted leagues.
On October 29 2013 04:06 Thieving Magpie wrote: Blizzard, do Bo9 showmatch between Naniwa and Revival RIGHT NOW! Prize is WCS Points!
Blizzard would have to be riot level of cool to do that.
Are you being ironic? I honestly can not tell.
No, I don't even know how I could possibly be "ironic" with what I said. I'm being serious. Riot has ways of getting in touch with the community that blizzard can only dream of.
On October 29 2013 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Oh god here comes the shitstorm... I'm all for defending stuff in eSports and avoiding drama tbh, but idk about this one haha I guess it's obviously not as awful as offering money to lose, but it's still, it's kind of sketchy territory. On the fence on thsi one, gonna wait for the discussion
There is nothing sketchy at all. If you win you get a prize and that's it.
On October 29 2013 04:09 Daswollvieh wrote: Haha, this is awesome. Bring on the storyline!
This is what I miss the most about Catsinpajamas!
Do you remember when Hyun was slaying nerds week in week out? Do you remember how big that bounty on his head got after all that time and how exciting each match was after that!
On October 29 2013 03:58 Chinnro wrote: Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
The only difference is that these are offered by teams and not individuals. This actually happens a lot, and in fact I bet it happens in some eSports pro contracts too. I can't guarantee it, but just using the recent EG documentary, Alex Garfield made a comment that HuK's (2012?) contract was in no way incentive based. That implies that there are incentive based contracts out there.
There are a few reasons this could be sketchy. First of all it's essentially a team-kill situation, so while Alliance is not technically EG, I don't think Mr. Garfield would be particularly keen on this type of outward response. I can't say for sure, and obviously this is just an assumption, but I wouldn't want one of my players offering money to directly affect one of my other players.
Additionally, this isn't really a contract situation and Naniwa doesn't need to put his money where his mouth is. He can say whatever he wants and while anyone might take Revival out, he wouldn't be required to pay up.
However, I think it's a relatively harmless thing to say in the first place. Realistically, anyone going to a tournament is going to try their best, so it's almost unnecessary to say at all that he's offering money to whoever takes revival out because if you're not going to do your best at the tournament you shouldn't really be there, no? There's still a much larger prize available for winning IEM than the measly $500 Naniwa's offering.
On October 29 2013 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Oh god here comes the shitstorm... I'm all for defending stuff in eSports and avoiding drama tbh, but idk about this one haha I guess it's obviously not as awful as offering money to lose, but it's still, it's kind of sketchy territory. On the fence on thsi one, gonna wait for the discussion
There is nothing sketchy at all. If you win you get a prize and that's it.
I don't see how its sketchy to pay someone to do better than they would have otherwise....
That's like saying its sketchy to have a salary or prize money.
Paying people to lose, now that's sketchy. Paying revival to not give his all, that is sketchy. But telling people "Hey, I know you got no shot at getting to WCS, but $500 says you might want to play the best damn starcraft of your life" is just all kinds of awesome.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer? so now players are mercenaries and having more money means you should be able to improve your chances of winning?
i think everyone in challenger is going to compete hard regardless, so i don't think realistically it will affect much. but if we're assuming naniwa is serious and he does think there's a realistic advantage to be gained this way, it's definitely something that degrades the legitimacy of the competition
also, if EG sponsors for example found out that people were putting hits out on their players, they probably wouldn't be happy with blizzard. imagine if you sponsored someone for a boxing tournament and then found out that another competitor has a rich family willing to pay extra money to anyone who beats your guy. suddenly your hard work and your player's skill are being weighed not against something equal, but an outside factor that really shouldn't matter
it's not an issue of morality, it's an issue of professionalism. simple question - do people want SC2 and esports to be taken seriously and elevated as a medium? if yes, this kind of thing is totally inappropriate and unfair. on the other hand, if for some reason you prefer esports to be a sort of niche, "street rules" kind of community, i guess there's no problem with it. but that kind of attitude isn't going to be good for tournaments and the scene on a larger scale
can you prevent people from doing this under the table? probably not, if they're smart about it. but if he's going to just openly turn the scene into a bounty hunting arena on twitter, i think blizz has to at least step in and tell him look, this isn't how we do things
This is awesome. It sucks for Revival if it makes pple try harder to beat him, but Naniwa's gotta worry about Naniwa. Besides, even if it's not the most "manner" thing to do, why does that matter? These guys aren't in this scene to help everyone else win as much as themselves. If it's what's good for Naniwa, without actually hurting Revival aside from his Blizzcon chances, I don't see anything reprehensible about it at all (i.e., don't poison his noodles).
On October 29 2013 03:58 Chinnro wrote: Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
The only difference is that these are offered by teams and not individuals. This actually happens a lot, and in fact I bet it happens in some eSports pro contracts too. I can't guarantee it, but just using the recent EG documentary, Alex Garfield made a comment that HuK's (2012?) contract was in no way incentive based. That implies that there are incentive based contracts out there.
There are a few reasons this could be sketchy. First of all it's essentially a team-kill situation, so while Alliance is not technically EG, I don't think Mr. Garfield would be particularly keen on this type of outward response. I can't say for sure, and obviously this is just an assumption, but I wouldn't want one of my players offering money to directly affect one of my other players.
Additionally, this isn't really a contract situation and Naniwa doesn't need to put his money where his mouth is. He can say whatever he wants and while anyone might take Revival out, he wouldn't be required to pay up.
However, I think it's a relatively harmless thing to say in the first place. Realistically, anyone going to a tournament is going to try their best, so it's almost unnecessary to say at all that he's offering money to whoever takes revival out because if you're not going to do your best at the tournament you shouldn't really be there, no? There's still a much larger prize available for winning IEM than the measly $500 Naniwa's offering.
contract incentives are not anywhere close to what naniwa is doing here. blizzard is not naniwa's or revival's employer, they're a company running a tournament with a prize pool. the jets and mark sanchez are two parties involved in an employer-employee contract. naniwa and revival are two parties who signed up for a tournament where the prizes are paid out by a third party. there's just no analogue at all in either concept or legality
the legitimacy of the tournament (at least, i would imagine, in most people's eyes) depends partly on the competition being based on skill at the sport in question. an employer giving an employee bonuses for doing well makes sense, because it's an internal bonus based on a common interest - obviously the player and the team both want themselves and each other to do well because they share their success. a competitor bribing other competitors to play harder against a rival is shady
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
Wonderful. Nothing wrong with making the games more competitive. One could try and pitchfork Naniwa for his motivations for the bounty, but that's about it. Making the game more competitive is never a bad thing. Heck, it actually makes everything so much more entertaining for everybody.
The players who are playing against Revival should ALREADY be trying their hardest even without the $500 bounty. Isn't that what being professional means?
If they weren't trying to win, then that's technically letting Revival win, which should be more of an issue.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
That doesn't make any sense. "Play your hardest" is not the same thing as "cheat." Its the difference between Naniwa offering a small bonus to the winner to increase motivation, and Naninwa texting Revival's opponent information during the game.
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
That doesn't make any sense. "Play your hardest" is not the same thing as "cheat." Its the difference between Naniwa offering a small bonus to the winner to increase motivation, and Naninwa texting Revival's opponent information during the game.
he didn't say "play your hardest," he said "do what it takes to win." naniwa offering money to another is not "playing starcraft" at all so i don't comprehend what your point is.
if paying another player is "playing starcraft" because it helps you win, how is that different from maphacking? people maphack so they'll win. they're trying to win.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
Who else would do this? Maybe only a couple of other players would have the courage to take 'destiny' in their own hands, rather than be 'normal' and let Revival roll over unmotivated competition.
And compared to those other few players who would have the courage to do it, Naniwa is also extremely good in SC2. Personality + sick skills = Nani
I couldn't be friends with anyone who doesn't respect how this guy fights for himself.
he didn't say "play your hardest," he said "do what it takes to win." naniwa offering money to another is not "playing starcraft" at all so i don't comprehend what your point is.
if paying another player is "playing starcraft" because it helps you win, how is that different from maphacking? people maphack so they'll win. they're trying to win.
Maphacking is against the rules. Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules, because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
Player A and Player B are matched against each other.
Player B is already trying to beat Player A.
Player C says "I'll give you hug/burger/$500 if Player B beats Player A"
There is nothing shady about that is overall just lighthearted good fun. If Player C/Naniwa asks people to maphack or send viruses to Revival's computer, that would be different. If Player C/Naniwa asked fans to attack Revival, that would be different.
Revival's opponents are already trying to beat Revival. Naniwa letting the world know that he has a lot at stake in the match is good natured fun for everyone. It would be different if Naniwa asked Revival to punt a game.
On October 29 2013 03:58 Chinnro wrote: Naniwhine the GM of BM strikes again! When are you fanboy apologists going to hold him to account? Can you imagine a real sportsperson doing this? No. Embarrassing.
The only difference is that these are offered by teams and not individuals. This actually happens a lot, and in fact I bet it happens in some eSports pro contracts too. I can't guarantee it, but just using the recent EG documentary, Alex Garfield made a comment that HuK's (2012?) contract was in no way incentive based. That implies that there are incentive based contracts out there.
There are a few reasons this could be sketchy. First of all it's essentially a team-kill situation, so while Alliance is not technically EG, I don't think Mr. Garfield would be particularly keen on this type of outward response. I can't say for sure, and obviously this is just an assumption, but I wouldn't want one of my players offering money to directly affect one of my other players.
Additionally, this isn't really a contract situation and Naniwa doesn't need to put his money where his mouth is. He can say whatever he wants and while anyone might take Revival out, he wouldn't be required to pay up.
However, I think it's a relatively harmless thing to say in the first place. Realistically, anyone going to a tournament is going to try their best, so it's almost unnecessary to say at all that he's offering money to whoever takes revival out because if you're not going to do your best at the tournament you shouldn't really be there, no? There's still a much larger prize available for winning IEM than the measly $500 Naniwa's offering.
contract incentives are not anywhere close to what naniwa is doing here. blizzard is not naniwa's or revival's employer, they're a company running a tournament with a prize pool. the jets and mark sanchez are two parties involved in an employer-employee contract. naniwa and revival are two parties who signed up for a tournament where the prizes are paid out by a third party. there's just no analogue at all in either concept or legality
the legitimacy of the tournament (at least, i would imagine, in most people's eyes) depends partly on the competition being based on skill at the sport in question. an employer giving an employee bonuses for doing well makes sense, because it's an internal bonus based on a common interest - obviously the player and the team both want themselves and each other to do well because they share their success. a competitor bribing other competitors to play harder against a rival is shady
I don't agree. Where the money is coming from isn't important, the fact that the money is being offered to do something well is what's in question here.
Any money offered to guarantee that a player does their best does not affect the legitimacy of an event in any way, other than to make it better. It just creates a situation where Revival will have some hungry opponents who might be trying harder to beat him, so he wont be able to skate through. Anything at all that adds to the reason that a player would play better is going to improve the legitimacy of the tournament. He's not asking anyone to do anything they shouldn't already be doing, he's just offering compensation if they do and it turns out to be something that directly benefits him.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
On October 29 2013 04:39 trinxified wrote: The players who are playing against Revival should ALREADY be trying their hardest even without the $500 bounty. Isn't that what being professional means?
If they weren't trying to win, then that's technically letting Revival win, which should be more of an issue.
Technically, but not really. Games aren't won by trying your hardest in that game. Sure, there is something to be said about mindset, but that's not what really nets you the win. What nets you the win is what happens before the game. What nets you the win is every drill, sprint, pullup, pushup and scrim you've done before that point. It's all the sweat you've dropped, all the pain you've dealt with and all the effort you've put in. THAT is what Naniwa is encouraging. He isn't asking players to give their all for one game, like you seem to think. He's asking them to give their all for dozens of games, before they ever have to play the one that really matters.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Participants offering payouts to other participants for winning happens all the time in several of the biggest, international sports there are. When the tournament itself offers insufficient incentive to succeed, the players and teams step in a lot. Don't tell me this is going to "hurt esports," football is already doing this.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Except you're not stating facts about how it will ruin the competition. You're saying a lot of nonsense and sensible people are correcting you and you're ignoring it.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Protip: Your arguments are bad, and as such you have failed to convince anyone reading that your point is in any way legitimate. There is a vast difference between offering monetary rewards to a winner, and breaking the rules to cheat to win, and implying otherwise is either idiocy or trolling.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Actually, doesn't this happen in other sports as well? >.>
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Actually, doesn't this happen in other sports as well? >.>
Yes. NBA players are notorious for betting each other, and just a couple years ago it came out that in the NFL the New Orleans Saints were offering paid bounties to any player who injured someone on the other team. Both of those strike me as much more problematic than this, and both of those leagues are doing just fine.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
On October 29 2013 04:48 Zaphid wrote: I'm fine with this, because the way Revival got those points was pretty sketchy, he shouldn't have been awarded any points for IEM at all
Is this sarcasm or did I miss something that happened recently?
On October 29 2013 03:37 Canucklehead wrote: I think it's a cool move by naniwa to offer a bounty. However, I'm wondering if the $500 is for beating revival or for knocking him out or both? For example, someone could beat revival, but then revival could get 2nd place still. Would that person who beat revival still get the $500 or not since revival still advanced? For revival to be knocked out he would need to lose twice. Would both people get $500? Also it's possible for the same person to beat revival twice in the group. Would that person get $1000?
Fasten your seatbelts, we've got some real drama coming.
Also I don't think there's a problem with giving monetary incentives to win. Compare this situation to that of Naniwa and Sase discussing his games before the season two finals, and Naniwa saying "man I really feel I can beat innovation" and Sase decides to make it into a bet. With a perfect system both players would have the same incentive to do their best in every match, but that's not the case here. This is basically just leveling the playing field, which is awesome.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
Yeah that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. You act as if the incentive to beat revival isn't there already, and you act as if revival has no incentive to win because *GASP* the prizepools are differen't!
You're typing a lot of nonsense for no reason what so ever.
This is actually way more shady* than naniwa ofering any kind of cash/sexual favors to whoever beats revival...
*not shady as in korean konspiracy, but as in it makes the competition looks pretty fake. I wouldn't be proud of going to blizzcon after getting my final points from a free invite to IEM and a challenger group without its strongest player
Not shady in the slightest. It might look similar to paying people off to throw a match at face value, but it's actually the complete opposite. If anything, it will produce better games.
On October 29 2013 03:47 [17]Purple wrote: [quote] Since I'm absolutely inexperienced when it comes to actual sports. Has there ever been a situation similar to this? I'd be interested to hear it to be honest because I personally see nothing wrong with this sort of thing though I may be overlooking something very important.
well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Actually, doesn't this happen in other sports as well? >.>
Yes. NBA players are notorious for betting each other, and just a couple years ago it came out that in the NFL the New Orleans Saints were offering paid bounties to any player who injured someone on the other team. Both of those strike me as much more problematic than this, and both of those leagues are doing just fine.
do you not understand the difference between underground gambling going on and a player doing this openly?
i didn't say "esports will suffer if players pay each other," i said it's not a good look for blizzard's competitions if they simply allow it to be done openly. and your NBA/NFL examples seem to agree with my point because i recall both of them being absolutely major public scandals at the time
This is actually way more shady* than naniwa ofering any kind of cash/sexual favors to whoever beats revival...
*not shady as in korean konspiracy, but as in it makes the competition looks pretty fake. I wouldn't be proud of going to blizzcon after getting my final points from a free invite to IEM and a challenger group without its strongest player
Who knows maybe Revival paid Taeja to abandon that match and get a sure walk to blizzcon.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
Ah, you're right, your opponent does have a higher potential prize, but there's an even bigger issue with equal footing that you've not touched:
You're Korean. Your opponents are not. Hell, you are significantly better at the game than they are. Why aren't you worried about these inequalities?
You're not worried about those because they don't matter. We don't care if people are competing under different circumstances if all of the relevant circumstances are the same, and both players are interacting with the program under the ways that everyone has agreed are okay, and that the differences in play are due to skill and execution. None of that has changed.
Now, it may be the case that your opponents are slightly more motivated than they would be otherwise, but so what? You (and Revival) are not entitled to have unmotivated opponents. In fact, Naniwa and the watchers are entitled to your having very motivated opponents. This is why we think badly of people who concede these things without playing. We understand, in cases like Taeja's and Scarlett's before it turned out she could play third season of WCS, that they are conceding for good reasons - health, wrist reasons mostly.
Seriously, guys, the comparison with real sports is the comparison to side bets athletes have about their performance, and those side bets are a commonplace. Michael Jordan is so famous for his side bets that there's a conspiracy theory that his first retirement was to hush up a real gambling scandal. This is mostly a non-issue, does not reflect badly on anybody's professionalism, and I think it's kind of cool.
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: Yeah that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. You act as if the incentive to beat revival isn't there already, and you act as if revival has no incentive to win because *GASP* the prizepools are differen't!
no? i didn't say those things at all, you just made them up and attributing them to me
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it (btw i'm still not 100% convinced he's serious anyway). that advantage would be based on naniwa being willing to pay another player, which is not something i think should affect a starcraft competition. simple as that. maybe i'm wrong that it would be a detriment to the scene, maybe i'm not, but if i were running a tournament i wouldn't allow that sort of thing because it's not related to skill at the sport, just like cheating/maphacking/etc. isn't related to skill either
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: You're typing a lot of nonsense for no reason what so ever.
i'm typing opinions and arguments because i enjoy it and i want to have a healthy debate with people, just like anyone else? maybe you need to relax?
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon.
A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious.
Seriously? Seriously? People are taking issue with this? I wish the mods would ban the Nay sayers from this thread. Naniwa isn't doing anything illegal he is giving players extra incentive to ensure his trip to blizzcon. He is doing it in a light hearted manner that actually WILL come up during IEM and will make the game that much more interesting to watch so to all the nay-sayers go post another "Why is Sc2 Dying" Thread please and leave eSports to have some fun
On October 29 2013 04:24 Waise wrote: [quote] well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer?
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Actually, doesn't this happen in other sports as well? >.>
Yes. NBA players are notorious for betting each other, and just a couple years ago it came out that in the NFL the New Orleans Saints were offering paid bounties to any player who injured someone on the other team. Both of those strike me as much more problematic than this, and both of those leagues are doing just fine.
do you not understand the difference between underground gambling going on and a player doing this openly?
i didn't say "esports will suffer if players pay each other," i said it's not a good look for blizzard's competitions if they simply allow it to be done openly. and your NBA/NFL examples seem to agree with my point because i recall both of them being absolutely major public scandals at the time
You're right about the NFL example. That's why it's a bad example-it was about hurting the other players, and was still a case of the team paying the employed player. The relevant comparison is to the side bets Jordan made, well-documented by every biographer he's had. I followed the Atlanta Braves, an MLB team, very closely in the 1990s (still do!) and the famous pitching staff they had always had running bets amongst them about who had the best hitting stats. These were bets that the announcers doing the commentating, most of them former professional baseball players and some of them former Braves, talked about quite a bit. Nothing under the table.
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it
No, he's doing it so they'll actually play Revival seriously, rather than treating the games like they don't matter (which, bounty aside, they don't to anyone except Revival). Giving people a reason not to slack off isn't at all the same as giving them an unfair advantage.
Seriously, guys, the comparison with real sports is the comparison to side bets athletes have about their performance, and those side bets are a commonplace. Michael Jordan is so famous for his side bets that there's a conspiracy theory that his first retirement was to hush up a real gambling scandal. This is mostly a non-issue, does not reflect badly on anybody's professionalism, and I think it's kind of cool.
Yeah Jordan made side bets all the time, and he was far from the only one.
Hahaha this is awesome, I don't even care if it's real or serious, it's fucking hilarious. If he actually follows through with this I'll be a fan forever.
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: Yeah that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. You act as if the incentive to beat revival isn't there already, and you act as if revival has no incentive to win because *GASP* the prizepools are differen't!
no? i didn't say those things at all, you just made them up and attributing them to me
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it (btw i'm still not 100% convinced he's serious anyway). that advantage would be based on naniwa being willing to pay another player, which is not something i think should affect a starcraft competition. simple as that. maybe i'm wrong that it would be a detriment to the scene, maybe i'm not, but if i were running a tournament i wouldn't allow that sort of thing because it's not related to skill at the sport, just like cheating/maphacking/etc. isn't related to skill either
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: You're typing a lot of nonsense for no reason what so ever.
i'm typing opinions and arguments because i enjoy it and i want to have a healthy debate with people, just like anyone else? maybe you need to relax?
naniwa doesn't believe he's giving revival's opponents an advantage, he's doing it to give revival's opponents a motivation that they don't have BUT REVIVAL DOES HAVE, because challenger is worth nothing besides the couple wcs points revival could get to go to blizzcon
On October 29 2013 05:07 IntoTheheart wrote: I have the feeling that it's just a joke, I doubt that NaNi would actually pay someone that much to beat Revival.
If someone beats Revival (well, if 2 people do), Naniwa gets a guaranteed $5k at Blizzcon he otherwise wouldn't. Paying $500 to get $5000 is just good sense.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: You're Korean. Your opponents are not. Hell, you are significantly better at the game than they are. Why aren't you worried about these inequalities?
a lot of people are worried about those inequalities, it's a pretty big subject of debate in the community as far as i can tell? a lot of people don't like koreans coming in and winning prize money for other regions because korean culture has more infrastructure and dedication toward starcraft than other societies. it's an interesting debate, but one that has nothing to do with revival or naniwa, because they presumably knew the rules when they signed up for the tournaments they compete in
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:You're not worried about those because they don't matter. We don't care if people are competing under different circumstances if all of the relevant circumstances are the same, and both players are interacting with the program under the ways that everyone has agreed are okay, and that the differences in play are due to skill and execution. None of that has changed.
i think one player having a higher potential prize pool matters. if you were offered a spot in a tournament with 15 other people who are about equal to you in skill, and the organizers told you that if you won you would only receive 50% of the first place prize, would you not have a problem with that? it doesn't matter what the exact dollar figure is, it's just a principle. why should the rewards not be even? if the rewards didn't matter to players, blizzard certainly wouldn't offer them. so yeah i think it matters
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Now, it may be the case that your opponents are slightly more motivated than they would be otherwise, but so what? You (and Revival) are not entitled to have unmotivated opponents. In fact, Naniwa and the watchers are entitled to your having very motivated opponents. This is why we think badly of people who concede these things without playing. We understand, in cases like Taeja's and Scarlett's before it turned out she could play third season of WCS, that they are conceding for good reasons - health, wrist reasons mostly.
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Seriously, guys, the comparison with real sports is the comparison to side bets athletes have about their performance, and those side bets are a commonplace. Michael Jordan is so famous for his side bets that there's a conspiracy theory that his first retirement was to hush up a real gambling scandal. This is mostly a non-issue, does not reflect badly on anybody's professionalism, and I think it's kind of cool.
key word is "side." doing things openly on twitter is not "side" anything. another key word is "scandal." michael jordan had a gambling scandal because there was a problem with it. those things are still supporting my point IMO
On October 29 2013 05:07 IntoTheheart wrote: I have the feeling that it's just a joke, I doubt that NaNi would actually pay someone that much to beat Revival.
If someone beats Revival (well, if 2 people do), Naniwa gets a guaranteed $5k at Blizzcon he otherwise wouldn't. Paying $500 to get $5000 is just good sense.
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: Yeah that makes absolutely no sense what so ever. You act as if the incentive to beat revival isn't there already, and you act as if revival has no incentive to win because *GASP* the prizepools are differen't!
no? i didn't say those things at all, you just made them up and attributing them to me
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it (btw i'm still not 100% convinced he's serious anyway). that advantage would be based on naniwa being willing to pay another player, which is not something i think should affect a starcraft competition. simple as that. maybe i'm wrong that it would be a detriment to the scene, maybe i'm not, but if i were running a tournament i wouldn't allow that sort of thing because it's not related to skill at the sport, just like cheating/maphacking/etc. isn't related to skill either
On October 29 2013 04:55 PanN wrote: You're typing a lot of nonsense for no reason what so ever.
i'm typing opinions and arguments because i enjoy it and i want to have a healthy debate with people, just like anyone else? maybe you need to relax?
naniwa doesn't believe he's giving revival's opponents an advantage, he's doing it to give revival's opponents a motivation that they don't have BUT REVIVAL DOES HAVE, because challenger is worth nothing besides the couple wcs points revival could get to go to blizzcon
how's that for inequality hhhehhehe
good try, but no. revival began the competitive year on equal footing with all other players. the reason he has that extra incentive at this stage of the year is because of the quality of his play in the past.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
Naniwa isn't skewing the chances in his favour. The chances are skewed in Revivals favour because of the simple fact that Revival has all the incentives in the world to do well while his opponents doesn't. Revival will have an easier time advancing to the bo5 decider vs Naniwa than he would without this flaw in the system. Naniwa is just "deskewing" the incentives, leveling the playing field, curing the flaw in the system.
Many major leagues/tournaments has this flaw; in the final rounds there ends up being between a player/team that has everything on the line agains the other player/team with nothing on the line. This is always a major dent in the legitimacy of the tournament and a inherent problem in those system. Allowing these incentives is one way.
(As a non-native english speaker I'm really stretching my language but I think my point comes across)
On October 29 2013 04:48 Zaphid wrote: I'm fine with this, because the way Revival got those points was pretty sketchy, he shouldn't have been awarded any points for IEM at all
Is this sarcasm or did I miss something that happened recently?
IEM invited Revival to replace someone who couldn't make it. They invited him on the basis that he was the highest WCS points holder who wasn't already going and who accepted the invitation.
The person they SHOULD have invited was the person who came second in a qualifier to the guy who forfeited, but instead they invite people who already have WCS points so they can get more WCS points.
It's ridiculous and should not have happened. If Revival had not gone, he would not be able to match Naniwa on WCS points.
It can look poisonous that Naniwa is trying to defeat Revival in a match he himself is not even a part of. He's trying to inject motivation from outside that otherwise wouldn't be there.
Revival has an obstacle in front of him on his way to Blizzcon. Naniwa is trying to make it bigger.
Of course this is non-standard behavior, it's why it's controversial. Whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' is tricky of course.
But whether it's illegal or not should be black or white.
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it
No, he's doing it so they'll actually play Revival seriously, rather than treating the games like they don't matter (which, bounty aside, they don't to anyone except Revival). Giving people a reason not to slack off isn't at all the same as giving them an unfair advantage.
... so he's doing it so revival's opponents will play harder and provide more of a challenge. which is an advantage if you compare it to "treating the games like they don't matter." which benefits naniwa....
i don't see how what you said is different from what i said? are we arguing semantics?
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon.
A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
On October 29 2013 05:04 Pirfiktshon wrote: Seriously? Seriously? People are taking issue with this? I wish the mods would ban the Nay sayers from this thread. Naniwa isn't doing anything illegal he is giving players extra incentive to ensure his trip to blizzcon. He is doing it in a light hearted manner that actually WILL come up during IEM and will make the game that much more interesting to watch so to all the nay-sayers go post another "Why is Sc2 Dying" Thread please and leave eSports to have some fun
Please and Thank You
you literally want me to be banned because i don't agree with your opinion?
On October 29 2013 05:05 Iceman331 wrote: Can we stop feeding the troll please.....
can you stop spamming accusations that i'm trolling just because you don't like my opinion? thanks
i'm saying that naniwa, if he is serious, believes he is doing this for the purpose of giving revival's opponents an advantage over him. if he didn't think he was gaining an advantage, he wouldn't do it
No, he's doing it so they'll actually play Revival seriously, rather than treating the games like they don't matter (which, bounty aside, they don't to anyone except Revival). Giving people a reason not to slack off isn't at all the same as giving them an unfair advantage.
... so he's doing it so revival's opponents will play harder and provide more of a challenge. which is an advantage if you compare it to "treating the games like they don't matter." which benefits naniwa....
i don't see how what you said is different from what i said? are we arguing semantics?
An advantage implies unequal footing. Revival is not entitled to opponents who don't give a shit, it is not somehow unfair for him to play people who actually have motivation to play.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming.
do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"?
as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't
No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest.
yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense
You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement.
i'm doing people a favor by explaining to them what the problem with this is from a business perspective. i actually couldn't care less if naniwa gives someone money to beat revival; i'm just stating facts about how it affects the legitimacy of the competition
as i have said multiple times, if you think it's OK that the results of a starcraft tournament be affected by player-to-player payouts, that's fine. i really don't care. but don't expect these tournaments to thrive if that's how they're run, that's all i'm saying.
Actually, doesn't this happen in other sports as well? >.>
Yes. NBA players are notorious for betting each other, and just a couple years ago it came out that in the NFL the New Orleans Saints were offering paid bounties to any player who injured someone on the other team. Both of those strike me as much more problematic than this, and both of those leagues are doing just fine.
do you not understand the difference between underground gambling going on and a player doing this openly?
i didn't say "esports will suffer if players pay each other," i said it's not a good look for blizzard's competitions if they simply allow it to be done openly. and your NBA/NFL examples seem to agree with my point because i recall both of them being absolutely major public scandals at the time
You're right about the NFL example. That's why it's a bad example-it was about hurting the other players, and was still a case of the team paying the employed player. The relevant comparison is to the side bets Jordan made, well-documented by every biographer he's had. I followed the Atlanta Braves, an MLB team, very closely in the 1990s (still do!) and the famous pitching staff they had always had running bets amongst them about who had the best hitting stats. These were bets that the announcers doing the commentating, most of them former professional baseball players and some of them former Braves, talked about quite a bit. Nothing under the table.
yes, but those bets are between team members who were all playing for a common goal of high achievement. it's not like smoltz is paying glavine to get more hits than maddux to make maddux look bad. in my opinion that kind of bet is between the players because it doesn't affect the competitive balance of the game between their team and the opponent's team. if anything, it's a way to elevate their own team's play.
to keep going with the analogies, if naniwa wanted to pay, uh... well fuck, no one is on his team. but if revival wanted to bet with suppy about winning games in team league, i wouldn't have a problem with that, because they're still playing for a common goal and they're not trying to backhandedly screw anyone other than their opponents by playing well
Oh jesus some of the responses in this thread reminds me of why the sc2 community is and needs to die. The fact you can't make jokes and fun remarks like Naniwas tweet was is fucking ridiculous. He even put a ":D" at the end jesus. Its simply a bit of fun. It doesn't change anything other than it being more fun for the players and viewers alike. Honestly this community are fucking retarded. "BM" here would be considered Well mannered in other games that a far more popular and the fact people are whining like fuck about this are is fucking unbelievable. Honestly its truly a dissapointment to see such a group of people turn to shit over the past year or so. I'm honestly surprised that this hasn't brought up another SaviOr thing. Truly fucking astonishing.
The unfairness towards Revival, or his lack of luck, comes from the fact that it's obvious and distilled that HE's the only one standing in Naniwa's way to Blizzcon.
There are dozens of situations in each season where players aren't fully motivated because they get nothing from a win. But in those cases, where you don't see just 1 player in your way, it would be very expensive to offer bounties for 5-6 players that could stand in your way, so people don't do it.
In this case, Revival IS the guy who stands in Naniwas way. And he has to endure this 'dirty' fight.
It's one of those moves that are almost illegal, and your opponents will hate you for it, but it's ultimately what winners do. Just look at what Luis Suarez or Diego Costa are doing to defenders of opposing teams. And they're like 2 of the top 5 strikers in Europe right now.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
On October 29 2013 04:52 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On October 29 2013 04:48 Zaphid wrote: I'm fine with this, because the way Revival got those points was pretty sketchy, he shouldn't have been awarded any points for IEM at all
Is this sarcasm or did I miss something that happened recently?
IEM invited Revival to replace someone who couldn't make it. They invited him on the basis that he was the highest WCS points holder who wasn't already going and who accepted the invitation.
The person they SHOULD have invited was the person who came second in a qualifier to the guy who forfeited, but instead they invite people who already have WCS points so they can get more WCS points.
It's ridiculous and should not have happened. If Revival had not gone, he would not be able to match Naniwa on WCS points.
Although I really hope, that JonSnow and SeleCT can beat Revival, I can´t blame this one on IEM because while Nerchio should have gotten ForGG´s spot ( I think we all can agree on that), Revival got screwed over in the original invites. Those were supposed to be based on WCS points, but somehow a certain overhyped ex-bw-player with half of Revivals points got invited before he (Revival) did, although that spot could have already been his.
This is quite common in soccer too. Sometimes a team gives an "incentive" to a lesser team that would not benefit that much from a win if they beat their rival or something like that.
Also, team and sponsor give a bonus for a player if they score in a important match an so on.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: You're Korean. Your opponents are not. Hell, you are significantly better at the game than they are. Why aren't you worried about these inequalities?
a lot of people are worried about those inequalities, it's a pretty big subject of debate in the community as far as i can tell? a lot of people don't like koreans coming in and winning prize money for other regions because korean culture has more infrastructure and dedication toward starcraft than other societies. it's an interesting debate, but one that has nothing to do with revival or naniwa, because they presumably knew the rules when they signed up for the tournaments they compete in
I don't understand your answer here. My point is that of course they're on different footing; all the players are on different footings because they are different people. The question is which inequalities don't serve the purposes of incentivizing good play and keeping the sport healthy. Inequalities like that are a problem. My claim is that this inequality is not a problem.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:You're not worried about those because they don't matter. We don't care if people are competing under different circumstances if all of the relevant circumstances are the same, and both players are interacting with the program under the ways that everyone has agreed are okay, and that the differences in play are due to skill and execution. None of that has changed.
i think one player having a higher potential prize pool matters. if you were offered a spot in a tournament with 15 other people who are about equal to you in skill, and the organizers told you that if you won you would only receive 50% of the first place prize, would you not have a problem with that? it doesn't matter what the exact dollar figure is, it's just a principle. why should the rewards not be even? if the rewards didn't matter to players, blizzard certainly wouldn't offer them. so yeah i think it matters[/quote]
Well, it'd kind of suck for me, yeah. I'd definitely prefer to have the higher prize pool available to me. I'd also like to be the best SC2 player in the world, and rich, and a Ph.D. in geophysics. The question is not what I want, but what I am entitled to.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Now, it may be the case that your opponents are slightly more motivated than they would be otherwise, but so what? You (and Revival) are not entitled to have unmotivated opponents. In fact, Naniwa and the watchers are entitled to your having very motivated opponents. This is why we think badly of people who concede these things without playing. We understand, in cases like Taeja's and Scarlett's before it turned out she could play third season of WCS, that they are conceding for good reasons - health, wrist reasons mostly.
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. [/quote]
Why is manipulating their motivations in this way a problem? It's clear to me (and I think, to you) why manipulating their motivations in the other direction would be bad; if there's some question about whether some people are losing on purpose, it strongly undercuts a lot of the reason to watch and seriously makes people question whether what we're watching is a product of good players playing well. So players having motivation to play badly is bad. But players having motivation to play well is good, and that's what Naniwa is providing. Yeah, Revival's opponents are quite likely to be more motivated than they otherwise would be. That /is/ a 'form' of competitive imbalance, but it's not an objectionable form. Differences in skill are a huge competitive imbalance; the better player wins a ton of the time. But that's not a problem; the better player winning more often is good for the sport and for the viewers. It is better for the sport and for the viewers if Revival's opponents (or, honestly, any player whatsoever) has as much motivation to play well, legitimately, as possible.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Seriously, guys, the comparison with real sports is the comparison to side bets athletes have about their performance, and those side bets are a commonplace. Michael Jordan is so famous for his side bets that there's a conspiracy theory that his first retirement was to hush up a real gambling scandal. This is mostly a non-issue, does not reflect badly on anybody's professionalism, and I think it's kind of cool.
key word is "side." doing things openly on twitter is not "side" anything. another key word is "scandal." michael jordan had a gambling scandal because there was a problem with it. those things are still supporting my point IMO[/QUOTE]
No. 'Side bet' is a technical term in sports gambling having to do with what the content of these bets are. The problem was that Jordan may not have limited his betting to side bets, and may have made bets (all of this is pretty much speculative of course) that undercut the competitive legitimacy of the sport. The bets I'm talking about, the NBA bets and the MLB bets, are common knowledge. Everyone knows about them, and nobody cares.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon.
A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
On October 29 2013 05:05 Iceman331 wrote: Can we stop feeding the troll please.....
can you stop spamming accusations that i'm trolling just because you don't like my opinion? thanks
Keep in mind, you did that yourself.
Also, you seem to have an odd notion of fairness. You're saying that Revival, due to working hard in the past, has the moral high ground. Evidently, since Revival worked hard in the past, it is his moral right for his opponents to not receive any additional motivation. Even if the opponents have far less motivation than Revival for entirely rational reasons, Revival is entitled to his position of motivational superiority, and attempting to balance the scales is immoral and wrong, primarily because Revival worked hard in the past. His opponents also deserve their lack of incentive, despite the fact it is due to poor tournament formatting as opposed to true failure on their parts. Attempting to give them an incentive to win is morally wrong, according to you. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Revival's reward for the effort he put in isn't an entitlement to an easier road to the finals. His reward is what he's already gotten. He's worked hard, but he's fallen short. If he wants to make up for his shortcomings, he's going to have to beat some wimpy Americans. Before, the wimpy Americans had to reason to want to fight Revival due to faulty tournament formatting. Now, they have a reason to win, and thus a reason to fight. That is not a bad thing. It happens constantly in many sports.
I thought Taeja already said a while ago that he wouldn't be competing in Challenger and forfeited his slot once he got knocked out. Regardless that doesn't really matter.
You guys are rediculous for getting so worked about about this. Revival will win his group (especially if Taeja isn't attending), and then he will beat Naniwa. That's that.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon.
A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
On October 29 2013 05:04 Pirfiktshon wrote: Seriously? Seriously? People are taking issue with this? I wish the mods would ban the Nay sayers from this thread. Naniwa isn't doing anything illegal he is giving players extra incentive to ensure his trip to blizzcon. He is doing it in a light hearted manner that actually WILL come up during IEM and will make the game that much more interesting to watch so to all the nay-sayers go post another "Why is Sc2 Dying" Thread please and leave eSports to have some fun
Please and Thank You
you literally want me to be banned because i don't agree with your opinion?
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
On October 29 2013 05:27 InvictusRage wrote: I don't understand your answer here. My point is that of course they're on different footing; all the players are on different footings because they are different people. The question is which inequalities don't serve the purposes of incentivizing good play and keeping the sport healthy. Inequalities like that are a problem. My claim is that this inequality is not a problem.
incentivizing good play shouldn't come at the cost of the legitimacy of the competition. it's a problem to me because if the players' motivation isn't coming from a true desire to achieve and be the best at their sport, then i feel no incentive to care about their success or respect the results of the competition. you and 100 other people have repeated "anything that increases incentives is good" and i just could not disagree more. i could be wrong as far as sponsors or the public go, who knows, but this is how i feel about it
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: Well, it'd kind of suck for me, yeah. I'd definitely prefer to have the higher prize pool available to me. I'd also like to be the best SC2 player in the world, and rich, and a Ph.D. in geophysics. The question is not what I want, but what I am entitled to.
so you actually don't think competitors in a paid tournament are entitled to be given equal circumstances under which to compete? if revival has to play in a snake pit, that's ok because "people are different from each other and you aren't entitled to anything"? my entire argument is that competitors should be/are entitled to a certain standard of competitive fairness. if they weren't, then i'm back to wondering why we don't allow maphacks. either there are rules or there aren't! if there aren't, fine, but what i don't understand is the double standard where some rules are important but other concepts of fairness don't have to be
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: Differences in skill are a huge competitive imbalance; the better player wins a ton of the time. But that's not a problem; the better player winning more often is good for the sport and for the viewers. It is better for the sport and for the viewers if Revival's opponents (or, honestly, any player whatsoever) has as much motivation to play well, legitimately, as possible.
the entire point of hosting a starcraft competition is to exhibit differences in skill. it is not to exhibit differences in scruples or business acumen. that's literally my entire argument. i don't feel interested in a tournament where this type of thing is allowed.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: No. 'Side bet' is a technical term in sports gambling having to do with what the content of these bets are. The problem was that Jordan may not have limited his betting to side bets, and may have made bets (all of this is pretty much speculative of course) that undercut the competitive legitimacy of the sport. The bets I'm talking about, the NBA bets and the MLB bets, are common knowledge. Everyone knows about them, and nobody cares.
ok, i didn't know about the definition you were using for side bets, but it doesn't change anything about my argument. i don't see how you can say that "nobody cares" when there are scandals. how is it possible for a scandal to happen if no one cares?
Are the matches that revival has to play for Challenger league season 3 that leads into next year? And if Revival wins his group then he goes to blizzcon instead of Naniwa?
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote: why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote: Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules,
you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to
On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards.
that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other.
the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue
to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwa
the concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy
However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon.
A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
On October 29 2013 05:04 Pirfiktshon wrote: Seriously? Seriously? People are taking issue with this? I wish the mods would ban the Nay sayers from this thread. Naniwa isn't doing anything illegal he is giving players extra incentive to ensure his trip to blizzcon. He is doing it in a light hearted manner that actually WILL come up during IEM and will make the game that much more interesting to watch so to all the nay-sayers go post another "Why is Sc2 Dying" Thread please and leave eSports to have some fun
Please and Thank You
you literally want me to be banned because i don't agree with your opinion?
On October 29 2013 05:05 Iceman331 wrote: Can we stop feeding the troll please.....
can you stop spamming accusations that i'm trolling just because you don't like my opinion? thanks
There is a difference between voicing an opinion and just condemning someone just because it doesn't fit into your own moral code of ethics......
i don't think you actually read my posts, because on multiple occasions i said that i don't actually care if naniwa tries this, nor do i think it's morally wrong. what i've been saying from the beginning is that i think it's poor sportsmanship and poor business by blizzard to tolerate it. whom am i "condemning"? seriously? all i've done is post viewpoints and arguments. can you point to a post where i said "naniwa is a scumbag"/"ban naniwa from tournaments"/"i hope naniwa gets cancer"/anything like that?
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote: why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
hmm the Q&A with blizzard doesnt seem to be clear on what they want to do
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote: why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
didnt Blizzard say 2014 was going to be the same unless they announce something?
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
If he understands it, it seems he likes to flip-flop on the issue as well.
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: No. 'Side bet' is a technical term in sports gambling having to do with what the content of these bets are. The problem was that Jordan may not have limited his betting to side bets, and may have made bets (all of this is pretty much speculative of course) that undercut the competitive legitimacy of the sport. The bets I'm talking about, the NBA bets and the MLB bets, are common knowledge. Everyone knows about them, and nobody cares.
ok, i didn't know about the definition you were using for side bets, but it doesn't change anything about my argument. i don't see how you can say that "nobody cares" when there are scandals. how is it possible for a scandal to happen if no one cares?
The scandals aren't about side bets. Some bets are different than others. It is generally accepted that players should not make bets that place their financial interests in opposition to their competitive interests. But bets that do not do that are pretty common, well-known, and do not cause scandals.
Sometimes players screw up and make bets that incentive them to sacrifice their competitive chances in some way or other to make the player more money. Those cause scandals.
This case is not like those cases, because Naniwa is not undercutting anyone's motivation to win.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
I don't get it either. Is the $500 really going to tip the scale and make Revival lose?
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote: why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
didnt Blizzard say 2014 was going to be the same unless they announce something?
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote: why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players in each group advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
because there are rumours about this seasons challenger league basically meaning nothing as next years system is going to be different, and as such, qualifiers has to be reset
Even if Naniwa will actually give money to the player who beats Revival (most likely this is just talk), those players are *already* trying to beat revival. Naniwa is just telling the world that he cares about the results.
If Naniwa actually wanted to bribe his way to Blizzcon then he wouldn't have made the offer on fucking twitter.
Guys, this is not rocket science, Naniwa is trying to generate hype--lets run with it! When players do what they can to counteract the whole "SC2 is dying" non-sense; we should follow along and have some good old fashion fun again!
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
I can't believe there's actually people trying to argue that there's something sketchy or wrong with Naniwa giving some incentive to players who otherwise would have close to no incentive to do their best. This happens all the time in various sports leagues. If he payed someone to lose I would be first in line to bring out my pitchfork, but this is the complete opposite of that.
You must be a pretty hardcore Anti-Naniwa to competely ignore common sense and logic to try and find something negative in this.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
Implying that players in literally every competitive sport aren't encouraged to take out the star players on other teams.
Except, this isn't like that at all. This isn't a bounty-gate a la New Orleans Saints scenario.
I'd like to think this is essentially the "hey I'll buy you a really expensive beer if you do me a favour" if taken seriously (I don't), and the favour doesn't have a conflict of interest. Nani isn't paying to fix a match.
On October 29 2013 05:27 InvictusRage wrote: I don't understand your answer here. My point is that of course they're on different footing; all the players are on different footings because they are different people. The question is which inequalities don't serve the purposes of incentivizing good play and keeping the sport healthy. Inequalities like that are a problem. My claim is that this inequality is not a problem.
incentivizing good play shouldn't come at the cost of the legitimacy of the competition. it's a problem to me because if the players' motivation isn't coming from a true desire to achieve and be the best at their sport, then i feel no incentive to care about their success or respect the results of the competition. you and 100 other people have repeated "anything that increases incentives is good" and i just could not disagree more. i could be wrong as far as sponsors or the public go, who knows, but this is how i feel about it
On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: Well, it'd kind of suck for me, yeah. I'd definitely prefer to have the higher prize pool available to me. I'd also like to be the best SC2 player in the world, and rich, and a Ph.D. in geophysics. The question is not what I want, but what I am entitled to.
so you actually don't think competitors in a paid tournament are entitled to be given equal circumstances under which to compete? if revival has to play in a snake pit, that's ok because "people are different from each other and you aren't entitled to anything"? my entire argument is that competitors should be/are entitled to a certain standard of competitive fairness. if they weren't, then i'm back to wondering why we don't allow maphacks. either there are rules or there aren't! if there aren't, fine, but what i don't understand is the double standard where some rules are important but other concepts of fairness don't have to be
Tell me what your concept of fairness is. I take it to be obvious that, from the perspective of competitive fairness or legitimacy, it is totally fine for Koreans to compete with foreigners. I take it to be obvious that, from the perspective of competitive fairness or legitimacy, it is totally fine for people who are very motivated to compete with people who aren't, though I bet those games would be bad in most cases. Why are those differences, which are from a competitive perspective very important, not objectionable differences? Some rules are important because they are good rules, and some rules are unimportant because they're bad rules. 'No rush 20 minutes' is a bad rule; I don't care at all about people who break it. We have to have some way of determining which rules are good and which rules are bad. Here's my method: the good rules are the ones that tend to cause players to compete at higher levels and show off their skills, imbalanced though they might be. Some players playing in snake pits would be a bad rule; that would keep them from playing their best. What Naniwa is doing is not keeping anyone from playing their best.
If you don't like that method of determining which rules are best, you tell me what your alternative is.
On October 29 2013 05:47 Shika wrote: I can't believe there's actually people trying to argue that there's something sketchy or wrong with Naniwa giving some incentive to players who otherwise would have close to no incentive to do their best. This happens all the time in various sports leagues. If he payed someone to lose I would be first in line to bring out my pitchfork, but this is the complete opposite of that.
You must be a pretty hardcore Anti-Naniwa to competely ignore common sense and logic to try and find something negative in this.
It's also on twitter! He's not exactly trying some back room deal. Can't people understand shit talking when they see it?
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
edit: on a side note, i don't know whether to be impressed or embarrassed with myself for the fact that my posts are so substantive people who come into this thread think i'm not the only one arguing my position. lol
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
To the people saying that as professionals "they should already be trying to beat Revival". Just no. It's pretty basic psychology. Starcraft is a very demanding game to play at the top levels. If there's no real incentive to win there is just no way a human will reach within and bring out everything they've got to perform at their best. It's very exhausting. Even if they consciously say to themselves that they'll do their best. There's no way every part of their subconscious will be.
Also. Will you really be spending hours going through replays of Revival, concocting counter-builds and planning for the games if there's no real inscentive to do so. I wouldn't think so.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
People who hate on Naniwa for giving Revivals opponents incentive to play their best would probably hate on him if he donated money to cheerity as well. They would complain about him buying himself a better public image and that it's unfair since not everyone got money to do so.
I think this is awesome and really hope and believe Naniwa will stick to his offer if someone actually beats Revival. If he doesn't then people can hate on him for a good reason.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
The first time he answered this he talked about maphacking. I can't wait for his next response to this question
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
You're representing a point of view that's not very obvious, and most people aren't interested in true communication. If you expect everyone to understand you, you'll get disappointed.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
edit: on a side note, i don't know whether to be impressed or embarrassed with myself for the fact that my posts are so substantive people who come into this thread think i'm not the only one arguing my position. lol
Because your posts make no sense.
If I am arguing that earth is round and you come and say : roses are blue. What can I say to that other than : Your argument makes no sense.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
You don't like people saving kids is all I read from that.
People save others for all sorts of reasons. Moral obligation, they know the person, they know people similar to that person, there is physical rewards, there are spiritual rewards, there are intellectual rewards.
If a cop saves your life, is it because he's paid to save your life or because he wants to save your life--or maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe what matters is that at the moment of danger, someone out there was willing to save your life and trying to place qualitative distinctions in actions that produce equal results simply reveals who you are as a person and not who those people are for being life savers.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
You're representing a point of view that's not very obvious, and most people aren't interested in true communication. If you expect everyone to understand you, you'll get disappointed.
well, yes. i do realize that. it's not that i expect people to understand me right away, but i do expect people to at least try to listen to me if they want me to chat with them.
On October 29 2013 06:03 mcc wrote: Because your posts make no sense.
If I am arguing that earth is round and you come and say : roses are blue. What can I say to that other than : Your argument makes no sense.
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason.
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
You don't like people saving kids is all I read from that.
People save others for all sorts of reasons. Moral obligation, they know the person, they know people similar to that person, there is physical rewards, there are spiritual rewards, there are intellectual rewards.
If a cop saves your life, is it because he's paid to save your life or because he wants to save your life--or maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe what matters is that at the moment of danger, someone out there was willing to save your life and trying to place qualitative distinctions in actions that produce equal results simply reveals who you are as a person and not who those people are for being life savers.
it matters to my personal subjective valuation of their scruples and worthiness of trust and friendship. it's a subjective valuation, just like my subjective valuation of what's "good" and "bad" for blizzard to accept in their tournaments. that's literally the only point i was making. to be honest i think you're getting a little metaphysical for the scope of this discussion.
That's pretty funny. Very NaNiwa-esque that's for sure, always stirring things up. I don't find anything wrong or unethical about it, guess he just doesn't want to have to play Revival in a tie-breaker...
Forfeit a CL, because you don't want to play before Blizzcon, and no one bats an eye. Offer a bounty for winning and everyone loses their minds! joker.jpeg
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me
and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it.
On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote: [quote]
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different.
if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion
On October 29 2013 06:10 kochanfe wrote: That's pretty funny. Very NaNiwa-esque that's for sure, always stirring things up. I don't find anything wrong or unethical about it, guess he just doesn't want to have to play Revival in a tie-breaker...
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 19h atleast now i have a fair chance at WCS even if this tiebreaker sucks hard atleast its in my own hands ^^
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me
and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it.
Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot.
I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them.
I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad?
On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote: [quote] my response this argument in a previous post: [quote] i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different.
if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion
So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"?
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me
and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it.
Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot.
I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them.
I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad?
because i think it sets a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. money already helps people compete in lots of ways - if you can afford good equipment, good education, free time to practice and play, etc., you have an edge in that regard. i think that's unfortunate, but unavoidable. players going in on rogue "alliances" to benefit themselves in exchange for absolutely nothing but hard cash is something i think is completely avoidable. all blizzard has to do is say "no, you can't do that." he could still try to do it secretly, but what are you going to do about that? people overstep boundaries secretly, and you can't stop everyone, but you still at least punish those who are caught or try to prevent them from continuing
if you want to make money with your business sense and financial dealings, go into business. start a company. invest in some stocks. i just happen to think a game tournament should be about who's the best at the game. because the less it's about that, the less significance i think the result has. it's subjective and slightly idealistic, but it's my viewpoint
On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different.
if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion
So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"?
yep. have a problem with that? don't reply
it's a negative impact in my opinion because i think it makes the tournament less credible, less interesting and less fun. if you disagree, good for you. i will not stand in your way for disagreeing, and you can post any counter-arguments you wish. but if you don't like the fact that i'm posting my subjective opinions in a thread about the subject, i suggest you cope.
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
You don't like people saving kids is all I read from that.
People save others for all sorts of reasons. Moral obligation, they know the person, they know people similar to that person, there is physical rewards, there are spiritual rewards, there are intellectual rewards.
If a cop saves your life, is it because he's paid to save your life or because he wants to save your life--or maybe it doesn't matter? Maybe what matters is that at the moment of danger, someone out there was willing to save your life and trying to place qualitative distinctions in actions that produce equal results simply reveals who you are as a person and not who those people are for being life savers.
it matters to my personal subjective valuation of their scruples and worthiness of trust and friendship. it's a subjective valuation, just like my subjective valuation of what's "good" and "bad" for blizzard to accept in their tournaments. that's literally the only point i was making. to be honest i think you're getting a little metaphysical for the scope of this discussion.
It was your example.
You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid.
Which is a silly argument since it doesn't matter *why* people save each other's lives.
I countered by saying.
Police are paid to save your life, do you hate them saving lives as well?
To show that just because Joe might get paid for doing something good, it doesn't mean the action isn't good. And if that incentive is what is needed to make people do good things, then that is a good incentive.
You are literally arguing that since Joe likes money he shouldn't save the child because saving children/good things is less important to you than Joe's intentions.
On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote: [quote]
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different.
if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion
So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"?
yep. have a problem with that? don't reply
it's a negative impact in my opinion because i think it makes the tournament less credible, less interesting and less fun. if you disagree, good for you. i will not stand in your way for disagreeing, and you can post any counter-arguments you wish. but if you don't like the fact that i'm posting my subjective opinions in a thread about the subject, i suggest you cope.
But what is unfun about players possibly playing better?
How is credibility lost when the prizepool increases by $500?
No one is being asked to do something they aren't already doing. The prizepool for some players are simply $500 higher than normal--that's it. How is it less legitimate? How is it less credible? You haven't answered any of those questions other than because you yourself deem it so.
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me
and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it.
Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot.
I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them.
I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad?
because i think it sets a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. money already helps people compete in lots of ways - if you can afford good equipment, good education, free time to practice and play, etc., you have an edge in that regard. i think that's unfortunate, but unavoidable. players going in on rogue "alliances" to benefit themselves in exchange for absolutely nothing but hard cash is something i think is completely avoidable. all blizzard has to do is say "no, you can't do that." he could still try to do it secretly, but what are you going to do about that? people overstep boundaries secretly, and you can't stop everyone, but you still at least punish those who are caught or try to prevent them from continuing
if you want to make money with your business sense and financial dealings, go into business. start a company. invest in some stocks. i just happen to think a game tournament should be about who's the best at the game. because the less it's about that, the less significance i think the result has. it's subjective and slightly idealistic, but it's my viewpoint
It seems like this is what teams are, though: players getting together to advantage themselves in exchange for cash. Take Root; it's even players owning that one.
But also, I don't see how it's setting a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. Rather: how has Naniwa's actions decreased the amount that challenger league group is about the skill of the competitors? If Revival is better than his opponents, he will beat them anyway. The only way this changes things is if Revival would lose if his opponents had a good reason to practice, but would win if his opponents had no reason. But that situation sucks! If the situation really is that JonSnow (say) would beat Revival if he had a good reason to, and it just so happens that things are currently constructed so that he has no good reason, why do we want to keep that current situation?
I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote: [quote] except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
i have this feeling that you're eventually going to say something along the lines of "oh - you're just posting your own personal opinions, that doesn't count for anything". because you seem to be going in this weird direction of asking me for scientific or objective "proof" of thinking a thing is bad. i just think it's bad. i posted the reasons why i don't like it and why it rubs me the wrong way and why i prefer for it to be different.
if you're OK with them being my ~personal subjective opinions~ then after this post i will make another effort at explaining myself, even though i'm honestly going to be re-typing things i already typed. if you're looking for something other than my feelings and opinions, you can just drop it, because that's the basis of the discussion
So you have no reason to believe that this will have any negative impact on the matches or players? You just don't like it personally for no real reason beyond the fact that it runs you the wrong way? Just because you think it's "wrong"?
yep. have a problem with that? don't reply
it's a negative impact in my opinion because i think it makes the tournament less credible, less interesting and less fun. if you disagree, good for you. i will not stand in your way for disagreeing, and you can post any counter-arguments you wish. but if you don't like the fact that i'm posting my subjective opinions in a thread about the subject, i suggest you cope.
But what is unfun about players possibly playing better?
How is credibility lost when the prizepool increases by $500?
No one is being asked to do something they aren't already doing. The prizepool for some players are simply $500 higher than normal--that's it. How is it less legitimate? How is it less credible? You haven't answered any of those questions other than because you yourself deem it so.
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement, nothing more. that doesn't excite me. someone winning at SC2 because they like gaming and they want to be the best is exciting.
and yeah. i have answered those questions. and i have posted this exact point before.
one more time for good measure: i think all measures possible should be taken to maximize the effect of a player's skill, talent and dedication to the sport and minimize all other effects. naniwa injecting cash is an effect which has nothing to do with any other player's skill or desire to win, therefore it's something i don't think belongs in a proper competitive setting (have already posted this multiple times. probably will have to again)
Everyone (well, nearly everyone) agrees that the WCS system as it stands is broken; instead of groups where every player is motivated to try hard, you have Revival, who has *every* reason to play his heart out (the chance at the big stage and big cash) with other players who not only DO NOT have a reason to play hard, but are actually disincentivized/discouraged from doing so.
Imagine that you just made a breakthrough in micro, or came up with a new build order. Perhaps you just really studied your opponent and found a flaw in their play-style. You can either reveal these tricks in a match that CANNOT lead to money (and give you opponents time to analyze it and come up with counters and adaptations), or you can hold it as a trump card for an "important" match.
At the moment, since revival is the only one fighting for something, it's simple game theory that the other players may well hold back their "best game."
This is a major flaw in the current system. Naniwa is not "bribing" anyone, as these players would simply be living up to what the community and their teams ostensibly expect them to do (try their best). Additionally, while you can "choose" to lose (throw a game), you cannot "choose" to win; merely to play your best and hope it's enough. Revival still has a say in it : )
Incentive should be at the heart of EVERY game, for EVERY player. That it is not is the great tragedy of WCS. Naniwa should not be the one providing the incentive, but it is a good thing that SOMEONE is, because it can only lead to BETTER games, and that is good for all of e-sports.
On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote: [quote]
Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing.
my response this argument in a previous post:
no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives.
i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
His opponents were maybe training against opponents A, B and C. Improving their vT, vZ and vP matchup on all maps. Now they might consider training specific against revival, maybe even inventing specific cheese strategies and ignoring the other matches.
In general, beating revival might be of more importance to them then showing a good performance / trying to win the tournament for no other reason but naniwa.
Of course, if it would be a showmatch (1v1) or the finals then it would not matter.
Btw., i don't mind what Naniwa was doing (as long as it is not the norm) - i like the entertainment factor here. Just wanted to explain this, since Waise kinda drifts in weird maphack arguments and stuff...
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad.
well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody.
I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
Sure, it would be better if it were reliable and consistent. I definitely agree with that. But the reason it'd be good if it were reliable and consistent is that it would increase a lot of players' motivation. Unfortunately, the world is not so great. It's still a little great, though, in that he's doing it in this one spot.
If Joe saved a kid from drowning because if the kid drowned, all the police would delay him from getting to a meeting, that would be not nearly as good as if Joe did it because saving kids is great. That way, he'd save more kids! this way, he probably won't save more kids.
But he still saved a kid, and that's a good thing. Similarly, Naniwa might not motivate all the challenger players the way that would be best, but he still motivated some of them. It's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
i don't think you can discount his motivation. yes, joe saved the kid, but if you know the only reason he did was because the kid had rich parents who would reward him, and that he WOULDN'T save a kid without rich parents you would (i hope) still react to that with disgust. i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe." and in this situation i would be saying "gee, i don't like the way naniwa is gaming the system. i don't respect this tournament or find it exciting anymore"
i'm having fun with the analogy game btw!
Right! you'd say "I dunno, guys, Joe might be an awful person," but you wouldn't say that he'd done something bad, or that people shouldn't do what he did, or that there should be a rule against saving kids. I might react with disgust to the person, but the action is pretty awesome (he saved a kid!).
I don't know why you move from 'I wouldn't trust Joe' to 'Naniwa is gaming the system'. The second one seems to be a claim that Naniwa did a bad thing, whereas the first one says that Joe is a bad person.
And if you're willing to grant that Naniwa did a good thing for bad reasons, then I'm perfectly happy with the situation.
we're getting really abstract here. you're talking about the "good" value of any player being more motivated to play at a high level, but i'm weighing that against the "bad" value i see in the competitive system being corrupted by financial backdealing. that was where i was going with the mafia analogy. the "good" value is there, but it's separate from what i'm taking issue with. i don't agree with allowing players to financially incentivize each other, i think it's a form of bribery. even if a player gets motivated because of bribery and that's "good," it doesn't whitewash the other details of the situation for me
and for clarity, i don't think naniwa is "doing a bad thing." i think he's doing a selfish and morally neutral thing, and it would be bad for blizzard to tolerate it.
Well, I tend to deal in the abstract a lot.
I guess I don't agree that this kind of financial dealing is problematic. Lots of financial backdealings are problematic, but this isn't one of them.
I see that you do think it's problematic, but I don't know why you think it's problematic. I distinguish which ones are good from which ones are bad by looking at what they'll do, whether they'll incentivize players to try harder (good!), whether they'll incentivize players to explicitly cheat by maphacking, etc (bad!). How do you tell what kinds of financial dealings are bad?
because i think it sets a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. money already helps people compete in lots of ways - if you can afford good equipment, good education, free time to practice and play, etc., you have an edge in that regard. i think that's unfortunate, but unavoidable. players going in on rogue "alliances" to benefit themselves in exchange for absolutely nothing but hard cash is something i think is completely avoidable. all blizzard has to do is say "no, you can't do that." he could still try to do it secretly, but what are you going to do about that? people overstep boundaries secretly, and you can't stop everyone, but you still at least punish those who are caught or try to prevent them from continuing
if you want to make money with your business sense and financial dealings, go into business. start a company. invest in some stocks. i just happen to think a game tournament should be about who's the best at the game. because the less it's about that, the less significance i think the result has. it's subjective and slightly idealistic, but it's my viewpoint
It seems like this is what teams are, though: players getting together to advantage themselves in exchange for cash. Take Root; it's even players owning that one.
But also, I don't see how it's setting a precedent for competitions of skill to be dictated by cash more than they already are. Rather: how has Naniwa's actions decreased the amount that challenger league group is about the skill of the competitors? If Revival is better than his opponents, he will beat them anyway. The only way this changes things is if Revival would lose if his opponents had a good reason to practice, but would win if his opponents had no reason. But that situation sucks! If the situation really is that JonSnow (say) would beat Revival if he had a good reason to, and it just so happens that things are currently constructed so that he has no good reason, why do we want to keep that current situation?
teams serve a lot of purposes. to some extent, sponsorship is a necessity for the sport to succeed. i recognize that, and that falls under the "unavoidable" category. if we could have WCS with no sponsors and no advertising, that would be great, but it wouldn't happen.
teams can come together for financial reasons or social reasons, both of which i think are fairly legitimate. it gives me as a fan a way to identify players beyond their tag and their results, and it gives structure to the scene as something more than just a bunch of nerds playing RTS. i don't think players paying each other to perform really provides any of those benefits
On October 29 2013 06:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid.
i didn't say this. i said i wouldn't respect a person who saved a life which he would not have otherwise saved if there were no financial incentive
that's probably the source of your confusion
I know that's what you said. Hence why I brought up the police, who save peoples lives everyday specifically because they are paid to do so.
What you specifically said was " i would say "gee, i don't want to be joe's friend. i sure wouldn't trust joe."" Showing that you don't trust Joe saving a kids life because he's paid to do it.
Do you know what the phrase "because he" means?
When I say "You didn't like Joe saving a kids life because he might be paid" the phrase "because he" means exactly the same as "he would not have otherwise saved if there were no." Why? Because the phrase "because he" means that he is enacting an action for the specific reasons cited and linked to the phrase "because he."
I eat, because I'm hungry. I'm bored, because I'm not doing anything. I'm sleepy, because I'm tired. Joe saved a kids life, because he's might be paid.
Maybe you don't speak english, but your attempt to backpedal by saying the same phrase with different words is not changing your argument.
So there is no confusion in my part. You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
i believe almost every single post i've made here has been a reply to someone asking me to explain or justify my viewpoint. it's not like i'm spamming. it's 14 pages of people arguing with me; it's not like i'm just starting shit. my first post was literally just saying "this isn't appropriate in my opinion," then it snowballed into a bunch of people being apparently angry that i feel that way. which is fine. and if a mod said "stop arguing about this" i would stop, but then i don't see the point of having a thread
btw i also said i thought naniwa was joking in my first post
On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote: [quote] my response this argument in a previous post: [quote] i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way.
and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament
Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
His opponents were maybe training against opponents A, B and C. Improving their vT, vZ and vP matchup on all maps. Now they might consider training specific against revival, maybe even inventing specific cheese strategies and ignoring the other matches.
In general, beating revival might be of more importance to them then showing a good performance / trying to win the tournament for no other reason but naniwa.
Of course, if it would be a showmatch (1v1) or the finals then it would not matter.
Btw., i don't mind what Naniwa was doing (as long as it is not the norm) - i like the entertainment factor here. Just wanted to explain this, since Waise kinda drifts in weird maphack arguments and stuff...
Ah. This is a good argument. If Naniwa changes things so that they'd prefer to lose the group but beat Naniwa, that would be bad.
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote: it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc
You guys are just being silly. It happens in sports all the time. I remember when a Calgary NHL (hockey) player got traded to Edmonton who were soon playing against the team that Calgary was neck and neck with. There were all sorts "we'll buy you a meal, hooker, car (the last couple in jest) if you beat them" tweets and stuff from the Calgary guys. Long as you're asking people to do what they'd be doing anyway (trying to win) then it really doesn't affect anything. Sure, five hundred might be a bit much but it's entirely different from the opposite: asking someone to throw games. I think it's awesome.
On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote: [quote] Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time.
He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival.
No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
if you read my posts then surely you can point to a more specific part of my argument you don't understand. saying "i don't get it" doesn't help me. what do you want me to do? re-write everything i already wrote? speak a different language?
not trying to be rude but i don't understand how to reply to posts where people basically say things like "no. you're wrong and dumb. you're trolling. you must hate naniwa". what does a guy have to do to get the benefit of the doubt around here?
No, I think you should answer my questions. Why is this bad? Will it negatively impact the match? How will is cause the match to be unfair? Beyond some weird ethical argument that players shouldn't be offering money to win games, how is this going to make anything worse in any way that is measurable?
i have made multiple posts which directly address your questions. i would go back and re-quote them if not for the fact that you specifically claimed to have read all of them.
i mean, come on, man. people have asked me questions more specific than yours and i gave them detailed answers. tell me what's wrong with my answers or i don't see why i owe you any better ones
I read your posts and they were not clear enough for me to get a good idea why this would be bad. I need you to nail it down for me. How will the offer of $500 going to negatively impact Revivals matchs? How is it a bad thing? I need clear reasons, not analogies.
His opponents were maybe training against opponents A, B and C. Improving their vT, vZ and vP matchup on all maps. Now they might consider training specific against revival, maybe even inventing specific cheese strategies and ignoring the other matches.
In general, beating revival might be of more importance to them then showing a good performance / trying to win the tournament for no other reason but naniwa.
Of course, if it would be a showmatch (1v1) or the finals then it would not matter.
Btw., i don't mind what Naniwa was doing (as long as it is not the norm) - i like the entertainment factor here. Just wanted to explain this, since Waise kinda drifts in weird maphack arguments and stuff...
Ah. This is a good argument. If Naniwa changes things so that they'd prefer to lose the group but beat Naniwa, that would be bad.
Wait--players are so greedy for money that they'd rather play worse for $500 than play better to win the whole thing?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
......Its amazing how people freak out about this so much. So hes trying to spice up the blandness that SC2 has become. So many people turn into complaining bitches its unreal
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
Oh come on naniwa has always been a troll. This community on the other hand can be ridiculously serious about things which I think is one of the really off-putting tendencies that drove a lot of people away from sc2.
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
Oh come on naniwa has always been a troll. This community on the other hand can be ridiculously serious about things which I think is one of the really off-putting tendencies that drove a lot of people away from sc2.
To be fair, I actually do not see much pitchforking here.
The thing is, it would be somehow cooler if Naniwa would be crazy badass enough to be serious here.
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
That's just a dumb feeling I have it's not actually happening I dunno I just don't like the feel of it. Naniwa isn't doing anything wrong, and the stakes should be raised, but I don't think a third party with a vested interest in the outcome should be doing it. Blizzard should make sure there is adequate incentive to play your best and try to win.
On October 29 2013 07:01 Salteador Neo wrote: I hope it's not a joke. It's pretty awesome and a good move for the tournament, helps building hype and create a rivalry/story.
Even if its a joke it still creates a story. Now its Revival's turn to zing Naniwa.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
That's just a dumb feeling I have it's not actually happening I dunno I just don't like the feel of it. Naniwa isn't doing anything wrong, and the stakes should be raised, but I don't think a third party with a vested interest in the outcome should be doing it. Blizzard should make sure there is adequate incentive to play your best and try to win.
Huh, I guess (to me) its such a low sum compared to what they would get for winning the tournament that its almost no different than him offering to buy the players who beat revival dinner and a movie or a prostitute for winning. Like, would you feel the same way if Naniwa offered $50 instead of $500?
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
Poker chips become random pieces of plastic if there's no buy-in. The competition only happens because there is a prize at the end of the tunnel to compete for.
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
That's just a dumb feeling I have it's not actually happening I dunno I just don't like the feel of it. Naniwa isn't doing anything wrong, and the stakes should be raised, but I don't think a third party with a vested interest in the outcome should be doing it. Blizzard should make sure there is adequate incentive to play your best and try to win.
Huh, I guess (to me) its such a low sum compared to what they would get for winning the tournament that its almost no different than him offering to buy the players who beat revival dinner and a movie or a prostitute for winning. Like, would you feel the same way if Naniwa offered $50 instead of $500?
Nah probably not. Maybe it's just because I'm broke as all hell that I think $500 dollars is some mythical sum.
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
That's just a dumb feeling I have it's not actually happening I dunno I just don't like the feel of it. Naniwa isn't doing anything wrong, and the stakes should be raised, but I don't think a third party with a vested interest in the outcome should be doing it. Blizzard should make sure there is adequate incentive to play your best and try to win.
yeah, and i don't think naniwa is doing anything wrong either. from the beginning i've been saying that the issue is with how blizzard handles this. i think it's appropriate for them to tell him not to make tweets like that or imply that he is going to do that. that's how i would handle it if i were blizzard. that's all. no pitchfork, no "freaking out" or "bitching" or "being too serious" like people seem to think. just an opinion that a lot of people seem to strongly dislike
considering i have no impact on what blizzard does, i think a lot of people could manage to relax a bit
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
it is not a backroom deal.
it is a bounty.
IPL Fight Club bounties were the best part of IPL!
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
Poker chips become random pieces of plastic if there's no buy-in. The competition only happens because there is a prize at the end of the tunnel to compete for.
with respect, read my post again. that's kind of the same thing i was saying. i realize SOME prize is necessary for a tournament to happen. but that doesn't mean that ANY prize coming from ANYWHERE is legitimate or good - at least not in my opinion. if players are just going to openly revolt against blizzard's system by buying each other off, i think that's kind of a catastrophe for the legitimacy of blizzard's control over the scene as a public sport
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
lol.
How is that lessening the credibility? Dont just throw words around. How exactly is increasing skill by increasing incentive abandoning credibility? You actually remind me of squire nortons song:
THE child and the old man sat alone In the quiet, peaceful shade Of the old green boughs, that had richly grown In the deep, thick forest glade. It was a soft and pleasant sound, That rustling of the oak; And the gentle breeze played lightly round As thus the fair boy spoke:--
"Dear father, what can honor be, Of which I hear men rave? Field, cell and cloister, land and sea, The tempest and the grave:-- It lives in all, 'tis sought in each, 'Tis never heard or seen: Now tell me, father, I beseech, What can this honor mean?"
"It is a name -- a name, my child -- It lived in other days, When men were rude, their passions wild, Their sport, thick battle-frays. When, in armor bright, the warrior bold Knelt to his lady's eyes: Beneath the abbey pavement old That warrior's dust now lies.
"The iron hearts of that old day Have mouldered in the grave; And chivalry has passed away, With knights so true and brave; The honor, which to them was life, Throbs in no bosom now; It only gilds the gambler's strife, Or decks the worthless vow."
Can't be a child forever.
EDIT: To add, there is never ever a problem with adding incentive through money as long as the incentive is to perform better and the money doesn't come from illegal activities. The opposite (paying money to throw games) is always a bad thing for a number of reasons, most pretty obvious, but you have yet to demonstrate why it is bad for the competition if people can add incentive when its lacking. You have simply thrown some touchy-feely words around as to how you feel about it. Well maybe you should think more about how you feel.
And by the way similar things like this have happened in the gsl since its beginning. Ive yet to see you posting a complain to gom.
On October 29 2013 06:31 Darkhoarse wrote: I realize that Naniwa is probably joking, but it is a little sketchy to do that haha. Plus, if I was playing Revival I would know Naniwa gets 5k with no wins if I beat Revival and I'd ask for a bit more .
All joking aside, I don't really like this.
Why? Giving players additional incentive to play good is not so bad, is it? If he would pay Revival to lose though, that's another matter.
I think having the players have incentive should be the case. HOWEVER that is Blizzard's job. They need to pay people for winning their challenger matches, considering they do not seed for premier next year and therefore people lose motivation. I understand Naniwa's reasoning, but he shouldn't have to do this, Blizzard should.
I know this isn't actually what's happening, but if this did go down I'd feel like Naniwa paid to get into Blizzcon WHICH IS NOT THE CASE but it would just feel weird to me. I dunno maybe I'm the minority. And I don't condemn Naniwa or anything.
This is what I'm not understanding. How is Naniwa raising the stakes him buying his way in?
Unless he pays Revival to punt the match, everyone should already be trying to win. What does it change?
That's just a dumb feeling I have it's not actually happening I dunno I just don't like the feel of it. Naniwa isn't doing anything wrong, and the stakes should be raised, but I don't think a third party with a vested interest in the outcome should be doing it. Blizzard should make sure there is adequate incentive to play your best and try to win.
Huh, I guess (to me) its such a low sum compared to what they would get for winning the tournament that its almost no different than him offering to buy the players who beat revival dinner and a movie or a prostitute for winning. Like, would you feel the same way if Naniwa offered $50 instead of $500?
Nah probably not. Maybe it's just because I'm broke as all hell that I think $500 dollars is some mythical sum.
Got it, to me it's all relative.
Doing well in IEM would net them $2,000 just for reaching the top 4; I doubt they'd work harder to get $500 than they would to get $2,000
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
Poker chips become random pieces of plastic if there's no buy-in. The competition only happens because there is a prize at the end of the tunnel to compete for.
with respect, read my post again. that's kind of the same thing i was saying. i realize SOME prize is necessary for a tournament to happen. but that doesn't mean that ANY prize coming from ANYWHERE is legitimate or good - at least not in my opinion. if players are just going to openly revolt against blizzard's system by buying each other off, i think that's kind of a catastrophe for the legitimacy of blizzard's control over the scene as a public sport
But no one is getting bought off. If Naniwa doesn't offer $500, people will still try to beat Revival. If Naniwa offers $500, people will still beat revival.
All Naniwa is doing is telling Revival that he wants him to lose. That's it. It's drama, and story, and narrative; nothing but good stuff for the scene. It's trash talking and showboating.
No one is being asked to do anything different than what they are already doing.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
lol.
How is that lessening the credibility? Dont just throw words around. How exactly is increasing skill by increasing incentive abandoning credibility? You actually remind me of squire nortons song:
THE child and the old man sat alone In the quiet, peaceful shade Of the old green boughs, that had richly grown In the deep, thick forest glade. It was a soft and pleasant sound, That rustling of the oak; And the gentle breeze played lightly round As thus the fair boy spoke:--
"Dear father, what can honor be, Of which I hear men rave? Field, cell and cloister, land and sea, The tempest and the grave:-- It lives in all, 'tis sought in each, 'Tis never heard or seen: Now tell me, father, I beseech, What can this honor mean?"
"It is a name -- a name, my child -- It lived in other days, When men were rude, their passions wild, Their sport, thick battle-frays. When, in armor bright, the warrior bold Knelt to his lady's eyes: Beneath the abbey pavement old That warrior's dust now lies.
"The iron hearts of that old day Have mouldered in the grave; And chivalry has passed away, With knights so true and brave; The honor, which to them was life, Throbs in no bosom now; It only gilds the gambler's strife, Or decks the worthless vow."
Can't be a child forever.
if blizzard isn't able to properly recompense the players for participating in their tournaments, then by my standards they are not a credible organizer. players defying the prize pool system by coming up with their own rewards and systems is a step toward delegitimizing WCS. you may disagree with me if you wish, but my choice of words was fine. please stop being unnecessary hostile as well!
thanks for the lyrics, though; they're quite beautiful and a good read
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
it is not a backroom deal.
it is a bounty.
IPL Fight Club bounties were the best part of IPL!
The Hyunstoppable legend.
By the way, how can people argue about this 16 pages ? Is there really a problem ? I would dare to say i am a naniwa antifan but i can't really hate on this
Edit - Oh of course, the "this is blizzard's fault". How could i miss that one. Dumbasses, it happens on every single league.
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
Poker chips become random pieces of plastic if there's no buy-in. The competition only happens because there is a prize at the end of the tunnel to compete for.
with respect, read my post again. that's kind of the same thing i was saying. i realize SOME prize is necessary for a tournament to happen. but that doesn't mean that ANY prize coming from ANYWHERE is legitimate or good - at least not in my opinion. if players are just going to openly revolt against blizzard's system by buying each other off, i think that's kind of a catastrophe for the legitimacy of blizzard's control over the scene as a public sport
But no one is getting bought off. If Naniwa doesn't offer $500, people will still try to beat Revival. If Naniwa offers $500, people will still beat revival.
All Naniwa is doing is telling Revival that he wants him to lose. That's it. It's drama, and story, and narrative; nothing but good stuff for the scene. It's trash talking and showboating.
No one is being asked to do anything different than what they are already doing.
again, the premise of this argument is that naniwa actually believes he is improving his chances at competing in the finals by offering the $500 and that it would work. i based that premise off of other people's posts. i don't know how many times i have to bring up that i was one of the few people who originally assumed he was joking.
but i don't know if he's joking or not, i can't read his mind. so if people think he's serious and want to debate it, i'll debate it. i'm arguing on a premise. if the premise is false, it doesn't really matter, because i'm still stating honest opinions about a hypothetical scenario
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
it is not a backroom deal.
it is a bounty.
IPL Fight Club bounties were the best part of IPL!
I miss those so soooo much ;;
It was funny watching Hyun just slay challenger after challenger each week. Never forget that 14-kill streak. Took fall-Leenock (essentially a Super Saiyan) to finally kill him. xD
anyway, this was fun. contrary to what some people apparently thought, i certainly wasn't trolling. i'm just a fast typist who enjoys debate and had nothing better to do for a while, and a lot of people were asking me for further clarifications, so i had plenty of posts to make in any case, it's just an opinion, i'm not calling sponsors or starting a petition, so you can just relax and disagree with me if you think i'm wrong. probably done with this thread though! i don't think there's anything about my view i haven't already explained, and i don't want it to get more repetitive than it already is
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
lol.
How is that lessening the credibility? Dont just throw words around. How exactly is increasing skill by increasing incentive abandoning credibility? You actually remind me of squire nortons song:
THE child and the old man sat alone In the quiet, peaceful shade Of the old green boughs, that had richly grown In the deep, thick forest glade. It was a soft and pleasant sound, That rustling of the oak; And the gentle breeze played lightly round As thus the fair boy spoke:--
"Dear father, what can honor be, Of which I hear men rave? Field, cell and cloister, land and sea, The tempest and the grave:-- It lives in all, 'tis sought in each, 'Tis never heard or seen: Now tell me, father, I beseech, What can this honor mean?"
"It is a name -- a name, my child -- It lived in other days, When men were rude, their passions wild, Their sport, thick battle-frays. When, in armor bright, the warrior bold Knelt to his lady's eyes: Beneath the abbey pavement old That warrior's dust now lies.
"The iron hearts of that old day Have mouldered in the grave; And chivalry has passed away, With knights so true and brave; The honor, which to them was life, Throbs in no bosom now; It only gilds the gambler's strife, Or decks the worthless vow."
Can't be a child forever.
if blizzard isn't able to properly recompense the players for participating in their tournaments, then by my standards they are not a credible organizer. players defying the prize pool system by coming up with their own rewards and systems is a step toward delegitimizing WCS. you may disagree with me if you wish, but my choice of words was fine. please stop being unnecessary hostile as well!
thanks for the lyrics, though; they're quite beautiful and a good read
I'm not hostile, I simply respect you too much to actually believe you could possibly mean what you say you mean.
I agree that the fault lies with blizzard, but you're having it all wrong when you're saying that players adding their own incentive when blizzard provides none causes a delegitimisation of wcs. It has already happened, the added incentive from other sources is just a result from such delegitimisation.
So clearly your beef ought to be 100% with blizzard, and why on earth you would want them to tell naniwa to stop posting such tweets when instead you should tell them to add incentive where there is none so that added incentive isnt needed in the first place. No?
And you still haven't shown how added incentive from other sources than the tournament organizer is a problem. Youre just throwing words around without content. To me it wouldn't matter if blizzard was paying the winner of revival vs jonsnow a billion dollars and naniwa added 500 to the mix, I would never ever mind as long as its added incentive to win
On October 29 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: You literally don't like the idea of good things being done because the perpetrator of said good thing is getting paid.
no, i never said this, nor do i believe it. this is your confusion; you are not correct about what my opinions are.
if you want to tell me that the miscommunication is my fault and that i have poor language skills, feel free to do that. if there's a miscommunication i will try to clarify it, which is what i was doing. you seem to be turning it into some kind of competition about who spoke "correctly," and that's not something i'm interested in. you want to be correct? fine, you are correct, the miscommunication is my fault. but that still doesn't mean that you were ever accurately interpreting my beliefs
On October 29 2013 06:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
it's unfun because i no longer identify with the players' drive to succeed and show high performance for the sake of good-spirited competition. in that scenario i see the players "motivation"/performance as a result of a cash agreement
All prize money is a cash agreement... Unless you're arguing against the existing of money in all competitions?
i assumed context would make it obvious that "cash agreement" was shorthand for "cash agreement between competitors rather than between the organizer and the placers". maybe it didn't.
So if you don't mind people getting paid to do good things, then what is your problem with Naniwa jokingly commenting about paying people to do good things/compete harder?
first, the premise of this argument is based on other people apparently believing he was serious. if it was a joke then obviously who cares? but there are people sincerely saying "i think he's serious/even if he's serious i think it's cool/good/ok," which is what i'm arguing against
as for what my problem is... i'm reaching a point of not knowing what else to say again. i believe it sets a negative precedent for the way tournaments should be conducted. as a fan, i enjoy tournaments that are conducted with standards of professionalism based on my personal beliefs and preferences. that's why i think it's bad. i do not want players to pay each other for their performance in tournaments. i think that's blizzard's responsibility to do and anything else is tampering with what i consider the purpose of a tournament: to determine the player who is most skilled and most dedicated to refining his or her skill
if someone doesn't want to practice until naniwa gives them money, i don't think they are the deserving party.
if we are going to talk about challenger players not having enough incentive because of WCS structure, that's entirely different and i would even grant it to you. the system probably needs to change. but naniwa screwing with the prize pool isn't a solution to that problem any more than shooting cops would solve a corrupt precinct
But if somebody doesn't want to practice until blizzard gives them money, then its ok?
Your analogy falters by the way. An appropriate analogy would be if a private person stepped in and payed cops because they were underpayed and thus didn't do their jobs correctly. While the problem lies with the state (blizzard) not doing their job, the private person stepping in (naniwa) and possibly increasing the quality of investigations (games) is somehow a bad thing in your world. Woe is me, you make no sense.
no, i don't think that way either. i don't generally cheer for players who admit or are widely believed to be in the game just to make a living. but as i've said before, i acknowledge that certain things are avoidable and other things are unavoidable. in another post i said that it would be great if the best players could all come together and compete with no sponsors and no prizes, but that's simply not realistic. players need compensation for the time they spend, otherwise no one will do it. if those challenger players aren't getting enough, then either they should drop out of the sport or blizzard should change the system. but yes, the private person stepping in is a bad thing because to me that means we're abandoning any sense of credibility for the tournaments blizzard is giving us. at that point, why doesn't naniwa just start his own starcraft league?
(the answer, of course, is that he only wants to give money to people whose wins will make him money later )
Dude - we are all in the game to make a living. Unfortunately humankind has created a system where no one can survive without money - ipso facto people tend to do whatever they can do best to make it. If you are faulting people for trying to survive that's kinda lame buddy. "If you aren't making enough you should quit your job" is not a viable option for the majority of humans on the planet. Also NaNi is offering a bounty of 500 dollars - which is a nice bounty, however, it is not enough money to start your own SC league. Blizzards WCS system this year isn't exactly reputed for its brilliance - he's not calling attention to anything everyone didn't already know. NaNi doesn't have to give his money to anyone but in this case he felt it was worth offering a bounty so yes, he is only offering money to "people whose wins will make him money later" but it's not like thats a big secret you are revealing. He's pretty clear about it. If he offered the money to everyone it wouldn't exactly motivate them would it?
On October 29 2013 07:21 Waise wrote: anyway, this was fun. contrary to what some people apparently thought, i certainly wasn't trolling. i'm just a fast typist who enjoys debate and had nothing better to do for a while, and a lot of people were asking me for further clarifications, so i had plenty of posts to make in any case, it's just an opinion, i'm not calling sponsors or starting a petition, so you can just relax and disagree with me if you think i'm wrong. probably done with this thread though! i don't think there's anything about my view i haven't already explained, and i don't want it to get more repetitive than it already is
peace
Got it; so lets stop the debate and on with the Hype!
I'm rooting for Revival to roflstomp everyone so that Naniwa and him have a bo9 tie breaker!
On October 29 2013 03:23 ffadicted wrote: Oh god here comes the shitstorm... I'm all for defending stuff in eSports and avoiding drama tbh, but idk about this one haha I guess it's obviously not as awful as offering money to lose, but it's still, it's kind of sketchy territory. On the fence on thsi one, gonna wait for the discussion
To be honest I agree with Naniwa. If anything the people who are playing up against Revival really have zero motivation or reason to win their games. The money for challenger league is garbage and no one in that group needs the maximum of 50 points to actually change their position in WCS standings except for Revival
Its a bit annoying that it comes down to a situation where the games mean everything to 1 players but the other 3 might not even show up (taeja forfeiting...). Cant force anyone to play but I think its bad sportsmanship from Taeja if his only reason is that he doesnt feel like playing. Havent seen any specific reason posted though.
On October 29 2013 07:32 Fjodorov wrote: Its a bit annoying that it comes down to a situation where the games mean everything to 1 players but the other 3 might not even show up (taeja forfeiting...). Cant force anyone to play but I think its bad sportsmanship from Taeja if his only reason is that he doesnt feel like playing. Havent seen any specific reason posted though.
Not really. IMO it is blizzards format that is at fault and a smart move by Taeja. We all know Taeja has had health problems in the past so anything he can do to avoid meaningless games to stay healthy and keep strats hidden is the smartest thing by far to do for the upcoming blizzcon
On October 29 2013 06:35 Snusmumriken wrote: lol you guys are fucking ridiculous. 14 pages over a twitterjoke, and not one single coherent argument as to why this would be a bad thing.
jesus.
Just wondering but how do you know its a joke? I have yet to see Naniwa say 1 joking thing since he is either BM or super serious. If he now decided to start joking, very inappropriate time.
read the last part? There hasn't been one single coherent argument as to why it would be a bad thing if he's serious.
That was not my point.
Did you even have a point? Naniwa pretty much trolls 24/7 on his twitter, so for you to say hes either superserious or bm means you have no fucking clue what youre talking about.
Well i am curious, too. How do you know it is a joke? Just guessing or did naniwa say so?
Because backroom deals are usually done in the back room, not on twitter.
it is not a backroom deal.
it is a bounty.
IPL Fight Club bounties were the best part of IPL!
The Hyunstoppable legend.
By the way, how can people argue about this 16 pages ? Is there really a problem ? I would dare to say i am a naniwa antifan but i can't really hate on this
Edit - Oh of course, the "this is blizzard's fault". How could i miss that one. Dumbasses, it happens on every single league.
Don't you know, all the philosophy scholars hang out at tl on their time off
On October 29 2013 07:32 Fjodorov wrote: Its a bit annoying that it comes down to a situation where the games mean everything to 1 players but the other 3 might not even show up (taeja forfeiting...). Cant force anyone to play but I think its bad sportsmanship from Taeja if his only reason is that he doesnt feel like playing. Havent seen any specific reason posted though.
Not really. IMO it is blizzards format that is at fault and a smart move by Taeja. We all know Taeja has had health problems in the past so anything he can do to avoid meaningless games to stay healthy and keep strats hidden is the smartest thing by far to do for the upcoming blizzcon
Would a qualifier/code a/code b/challenger format that payed per win instead per placement be better at giving players incentive/help low level players stay afloat until they get enough exposure?
On October 29 2013 03:29 autechr3 wrote: I don't think its unethical, offering 500 dollars to revival to lose would be though. Its probably a joke anyway.
The only possible issue is if Revival would agree to lose to people for half of the bounty.
On October 29 2013 03:29 autechr3 wrote: I don't think its unethical, offering 500 dollars to revival to lose would be though. Its probably a joke anyway.
The only possible issue is if Revival would agree to lose to people for half of the bounty.
On October 29 2013 03:29 autechr3 wrote: I don't think its unethical, offering 500 dollars to revival to lose would be though. Its probably a joke anyway.
The only possible issue is if Revival would agree to lose to people for half of the bounty.
Which would be stupid since winning vs naniwa grants him 5k instead. Huge difference.
On October 29 2013 07:56 Shai wrote: I dislike Naniwa.
I have no moral issues with what Naniwa has done here.
agreed 100% with this man. Naniwa's tweet is funny, smart and completely fair. if he was offering Revival money to lose on purpose, that would be an entirely different story (but also the dumbest thing he could do because Revival would just try his best anyways, if he wins he goes to Blizzcon, if he loses he gets monies from Naniwa ). but i see nothing wrong with what he's doing here.
On October 29 2013 08:09 Lephex wrote: whould someone please put this in a context for me? i dont get it
If Revival does well/wins IEM, he can tie with Naniwa for WCS points. If does, Naniwa and Revival play a tiebreaker vs each other and the winner goes to Blizzcon and automatically gets $5,000 for attending, more for winning.
Naniwa offering money to the player who knocks revival out of IEM.
When are the challenger groups being drawn? Somebody already mentioned players as a response to the Naniwa tweet but at least on Liquipedia the groups are still empty.
On October 29 2013 07:32 Fjodorov wrote: Its a bit annoying that it comes down to a situation where the games mean everything to 1 players but the other 3 might not even show up (taeja forfeiting...). Cant force anyone to play but I think its bad sportsmanship from Taeja if his only reason is that he doesnt feel like playing. Havent seen any specific reason posted though.
Not really. IMO it is blizzards format that is at fault and a smart move by Taeja. We all know Taeja has had health problems in the past so anything he can do to avoid meaningless games to stay healthy and keep strats hidden is the smartest thing by far to do for the upcoming blizzcon
Would a qualifier/code a/code b/challenger format that payed per win instead per placement be better at giving players incentive/help low level players stay afloat until they get enough exposure?
I don't have a fix for it off the top of my head but I am just saying the format blizzard has made has resulted in this situation. Therefore I think Naniwa has every right on his own to offer an incentive for players in Revivals group to play.
On October 29 2013 08:09 Lephex wrote: whould someone please put this in a context for me? i dont get it
If Revival does well/wins IEM, he can tie with Naniwa for WCS points. If does, Naniwa and Revival play a tiebreaker vs each other and the winner goes to Blizzcon and automatically gets $5,000 for attending, more for winning.
Naniwa offering money to the player who knocks revival out of IEM.
On October 29 2013 08:09 Lephex wrote: whould someone please put this in a context for me? i dont get it
If Revival does well/wins IEM, he can tie with Naniwa for WCS points. If does, Naniwa and Revival play a tiebreaker vs each other and the winner goes to Blizzcon and automatically gets $5,000 for attending, more for winning.
Naniwa offering money to the player who knocks revival out of IEM.
There's no IEM... You mean WCS Challenger League - if Revival ends 1st or 2nd, they are tied. And since Taeja reportedly forfeited that group, well...
On October 29 2013 07:32 Fjodorov wrote: Its a bit annoying that it comes down to a situation where the games mean everything to 1 players but the other 3 might not even show up (taeja forfeiting...). Cant force anyone to play but I think its bad sportsmanship from Taeja if his only reason is that he doesnt feel like playing. Havent seen any specific reason posted though.
Not really. IMO it is blizzards format that is at fault and a smart move by Taeja. We all know Taeja has had health problems in the past so anything he can do to avoid meaningless games to stay healthy and keep strats hidden is the smartest thing by far to do for the upcoming blizzcon
Would a qualifier/code a/code b/challenger format that payed per win instead per placement be better at giving players incentive/help low level players stay afloat until they get enough exposure?
I don't have a fix for it off the top of my head but I am just saying the format blizzard has made has resulted in this situation. Therefore I think Naniwa has every right on his own to offer an incentive for players in Revivals group to play.
No, I'm asking if it sounds like a good idea
I don't mind the system (confusing, but whatever) what I do mind is payout distribution. Enough money needs to flow to the lower brackets so that it doesn't feel like a waste without gimping the top of the bracket too much to make the competition feel like its not real.
So, for example, if you get $100 for every game you win, you'll fight hard for at least a 2:1 when faced off against a tough opponent. But if you end up stuck in Code B you still at least try hard every single map despite knowing you can't go to Blizzcon.
Payout system changes once you get out of the qualifier/challenger of course, but I was asking the thread in general if that would be a fair way of getting money to the amateurs.
On October 29 2013 08:09 Lephex wrote: whould someone please put this in a context for me? i dont get it
If Revival does well/wins IEM, he can tie with Naniwa for WCS points. If does, Naniwa and Revival play a tiebreaker vs each other and the winner goes to Blizzcon and automatically gets $5,000 for attending, more for winning.
Naniwa offering money to the player who knocks revival out of IEM.
There's no IEM... You mean WCS Challenger League - if Revival ends 1st or 2nd, they are tied. And since Taeja reportedly forfeited that group, well...
Pretty sure its only if Revival comes in first in the group, I definitely could be wrong though
EDIT: I am wrong, didn't realize liquipedia separated 9th-16th and 17th-24th and even though they give the same amount of points
On October 29 2013 08:09 Lephex wrote: whould someone please put this in a context for me? i dont get it
If Revival does well/wins IEM, he can tie with Naniwa for WCS points. If does, Naniwa and Revival play a tiebreaker vs each other and the winner goes to Blizzcon and automatically gets $5,000 for attending, more for winning.
Naniwa offering money to the player who knocks revival out of IEM.
There's no IEM... You mean WCS Challenger League - if Revival ends 1st or 2nd, they are tied. And since Taeja reportedly forfeited that group, well...
Pretty sure its only if Revival comes in first in the group, I definitely could be wrong though
25 extra points if you get 1st or 2nd in the group
On October 29 2013 08:30 General Nuke Em wrote: So what prevents:
1. Revival and other player to reach agreement 2. Revival throws game 3. Revival and other player splits $500
The part where you get $5000 for being in the main blizzcon tournament or something like that. Also he-who-must-not-be-named
On October 29 2013 08:30 General Nuke Em wrote: So what prevents:
1. Revival and other player to reach agreement 2. Revival throws game 3. Revival and other player splits $500
1. Revival does not want to get kicked out of EG 2. If he makes it to blizz con he wins 5grand just for showing up 3. Who the fuck risk their whole carrier for anything less then 322? 250 wont cut it man!
To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
On October 29 2013 08:35 angrybacon wrote: To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
he will be up vs Soulkey, do you think it will make a difference lol....
On October 29 2013 08:35 angrybacon wrote: To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
he will be up vs Soulkey, do you think it will make a difference lol....
I'm an absolute Faniwa, but I'm afraid you might be right.
Well, if it's true about Taeja throwing, I don't think it will make much of a difference... I don't like it much, but I can't see a reason it should not be allowed...
On October 29 2013 08:35 angrybacon wrote: To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
he will be up vs Soulkey, do you think it will make a difference lol....
Whaddaya mean? All nani has to do is play *almost* standard like Dear
On October 29 2013 08:35 angrybacon wrote: To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
he will be up vs Soulkey, do you think it will make a difference lol....
Well, it will make a $5000 difference, the Winner of Revival/Naniwa gets 5k for the honour of losing to Soulkey
On October 29 2013 08:35 angrybacon wrote: To the people saying that Naniwa should just man up and beat Revival in the tiebreaker, remember that this also puts Naniwa at a disadvantage for the the rest of Day 1 of the tournament. Everyone who he plays afterwards will have played one less set than him.
Sorry if someone else mentioned this and I missed it.
he will be up vs Soulkey, do you think it will make a difference lol....
Why are people so mad? It's not like he is paying revival to lose. This is the same as paying someone 20,000 dollars to beat the last guy in the GSL finals.
On October 29 2013 03:29 autechr3 wrote: I don't think its unethical, offering 500 dollars to revival to lose would be though. Its probably a joke anyway.
The only possible issue is if Revival would agree to lose to people for half of the bounty.
Which he would never do because if he makes blizzcon he gets 5k even if he drops out 0-3 first round
This reminds me a bit of ATC last season when some matches were played and one of the opposing team actually had no purpose in it because they were long gone.
It would be fine if it wasn't for the qualification of maybe the biggest sc2 event so far. I say replace taeja by someone from the challenger league or make an open bracket for it.
But the best solution would ofc be a BO5 at blizzcon,make it the open match...everyone will be delighted.
On October 29 2013 09:04 phodacbiet wrote: Why are people so mad? It's not like he is paying revival to lose. This is the same as paying someone 20,000 dollars to beat the last guy in the GSL finals.
That'd be a solid plan because it would provide a slight incentive for the two finalists to rig the match and split the winnings, if the numbers worked out that each would get more than by winning fairly alone.
But that's not what's happening here with Naniwa anyway. It's small a sum offered for no one match in particular. It's just a playful bounty. Whatevs, moving along
On October 29 2013 09:02 Saraf wrote: Revival should throw the bounty back: "Fine, give $500 to anyone who can beat me. When I beat you, you give me $500".
I can't even make sense of this comment, you understand naniwa isn't just tossing money around for fun right? That being said I think this is likely a joke.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
This is a sport, there is no grey area. Either the tournament organisers sanction him in some way or they don't. After that it's all story, opinions and shouting. Which is great.
I actually had no idea that Nani could still not make it to Blizzcon but now I know. Nani's move has ensured that a match that was destined to be high pressure and well viewed will be higher pressure and even better viewed. Props to him.
Whatever you think it's bad sporing behavior or not you can't forbid things like this since there's no reasonable way to add rules against it that there is actually a way to judge outside personal feeling of the admin/organisation deciding and no way to enforce those rules either.
Personaly I think it's a great thing. We want the best matches possible and more incentative is only positive for getting better matches. Naniwa's own motivation for offering the bounty is completely irrelevant. That's why i say it doesn't make sense to have rules against it. You are free to offer how many incentitives you want .. as long as you don't "benefit" from it?? Or is it simply because naniwa got conflicting interests? So do the teams of the players in revivals group.
But no one is giving away any money for free, there is always a calculated reward even if not monetary. I read through every post in this thread and from what i can see it's one idealist arguing against it.. and every form of competition with money as a motivation afaik. Well the world doesn't work like that and there's not even anything bad about it. There's no altruism anywhere but that doesn't mean caring about something/someone is less real simply because we get get something out of it which is the reason we care in the first place.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
Yeah there's nothing wrong with this. It's not like Naniwa asked someone to poison or kill Revival so he couldn't play lol
On October 29 2013 11:24 tshi wrote: Revival should offer 51 dollars or something to the person who he plays so that he can win, like Savior or something. Who was a bonjwa right?
On October 29 2013 08:20 mikumegurine wrote: 1. Select 2. Jon Snow 3. Revival 4. Taeja (forfeit)
Source for the group and the Taeja forfeit? Liquipedia has no groups so far and it should normally have it if they had already been announced.
Personally I think it would be pretty unsportsmanlike from both Taeja himself and also Team Liquid (who should be able to make him play) if Taeja forfeited this match, seeing how much it still matters for other players.
If this was someone other than Naniwa people would not have a problem with it. People earning money for winning is fair, it would only be a problem if someone was being paid to lose.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? What if one of the players says "well fuck preparing for my other matches, I'll only focus on Revival now"? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok. This is nothing more or less than paying people to take out your competition in tournaments. I'm not even saying this is wrong, but we certainly need to be very careful.
Also, let's be very clear that this is different from adding money to the prizepool. All the players in a group should have equal incentive to play. It's not like Revival gets the money otherwise. That's a very clear distinction.
And the counter-offer doesn't have to be anything like offering bounties for people to lose (obviously a big no no). But I would really like to see something more like announcing that EG will be paying Revival a per-match victory bounty. Naniwa pays $500 to anyone who can beat Revival, so EG counters by saying they will pay Revival per win.
That would create some great hype; every game would be amazing. And if Revival puts together a string of victories, it creates a really awesome dynamic between Revival and Naniwa that transcends the games played. It would really create some fun and entertaining storylines.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
I agree it's a gray area, but I think in the end it's a good thing. Anything that encourages better games is good, and anything that discourages better games is bad. I don't really see it much different than a team paying a player bonuses for succeeding. Sure naniwa has something to directly gain here so you have to step back and think about it, but so do teams when they offer incentives for winning matches.
So naniwa has encouraged better games, AND we get some awesome drama leading into blizzcon. Win win IMO.
Why are people getting so riled up over something that was more then likely a joke?
This reminds me of why I hate the SC2 community at times, a small joke which is meant to be funny gets everyone riled up with pitchforks ready for a witch hunt.
Revival even responded in a joking way to Naniwas "hit". Some of you guys really need to calm down and just enjoy the communication from the professional players.
Oh well I won't stop people from arguing endlessly for no point other then to prove "I'm right and you're wrong"
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
Pretty sure Martijn is just trolling, especially with the "If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?" Obviously a joke...
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
Pretty sure Martijn is just trolling, especially with the "If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?" Obviously a joke...
Assuming this offer is real. Do you think Nani is offering $500 to hype up WCS or because he wants people to put more effort into taking out Revival?
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Really? So you can imagine a world where Select, who is already the underdog against Revival, thinks he can negotiate extra incentive for a match he's not expected to win, and threaten to throw a game if he's not offered an extra $100?
What's his threat supposed to be? "You put up $500 so I try my best. Too bad, I want $600, so I'm gonna half-ass my match until I get it."
Will Blizzard/Alliance/EG pay for Revival/Naniwa's flight to and accommodations at Blizzcon?
If they have to pay their own way, then that seems extremely uncool. Revival/Naniwa would be taking a big financial risk by paying their own way. Blizzard/Alliance/EG must surely be paying for the trip, right?
Will Blizzard/Alliance/EG pay for Revival/Naniwa's flight to and accommodations at Blizzcon?
If they have to pay their own way, then that seems extremely uncool. Revival/Naniwa would be taking a big financial risk by paying their own way. Blizzard/Alliance/EG must surely be paying for the trip, right?
Just curious.
EG pays travel/accommodation for everything. Not sure if Blizzard pays travel expenses, but they probably do (up to a limit).
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
I mean, if a true naniwa fan wanted to help him out, he could hurt revival's fingers somehow when he 'gets his autograph and shakes his hand' just saying
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
I mean, if a true naniwa fan wanted to help him out, he could hurt revival's fingers somehow when he 'gets his autograph and shakes his hand' just saying
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
Pretty sure Martijn is just trolling, especially with the "If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?" Obviously a joke...
Assuming this offer is real. Do you think Nani is offering $500 to hype up WCS or because he wants people to put more effort into taking out Revival?
First of all, the offer doesn't have to be real. It could be a joke. Naniwa's joked about things in the past.
Second, who cares if he's serious? *Even if* Revival's opponents weren't planning on taking their games against Revival seriously (unjustified assumption) and *even if* they now try *extra hard* to win (again, unjustified), so what? All that means is that we see the best games possible, with more players who all have an incentive to win (Revival to move on to face Naniwa, and Revival's opponents to win a few hundred dollars from Naniwa). Boo hoo, someone made a bet.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
TB, your using logic against people who have quit using it cold turkey. You can't just expect them to start back up again.
This certainly isn't bribery. For it to be bribery, Naniwa would have to be asking people to do something wrong. Instead, he's asking players to do what they are already supposed to be doing: playing their best to beat their opponent.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
Yeah clearly this kind of thing is unheard of. Look, I certainly hope we don't see anything like this happening, but that's exactly why we have to be careful. In Korea there's actual legal repercussions. There's rules, regulations, laws even. We certainly don't have any such rules in the foreign scene. Yeah if you get caught with shady business like this, it'll be very hard to carry on as a progamer, but it's unlikely to have any further consequences. Someone with not enough moral fiber could consider it their chance at a final score. It's irrelevant whether any of those scenarios are likely to happen, they're only there to show that this is a gray area. Incentivizing players to specifically target other players is only a few steps from money influencing the competition.
Some people are arguing that it's ok to offer money to target players, but I imagine it being a negotiation makes it more dubious. The whole thing is a slippery slope, a gray area and we have to be careful where we draw the line.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Really? So you can imagine a world where Select, who is already the underdog against Revival, thinks he can negotiate extra incentive for a match he's not expected to win, and threaten to throw a game if he's not offered an extra $100?
What's his threat supposed to be? "You put up $500 so I try my best. Too bad, I want $600, so I'm gonna half-ass my match until I get it."
You realize you're only arguing the specifics of the situation and not the practice in general which is what is so foul right? In this completely hypothetical scenario a player A in the group with player B could tell the third party player C "nah, $500 isn't worth it to focus on player B, I'd rather prepare more for my other match to have better odds at 2nd place". Player C could then ask "well what would your price be?"
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
Pretty sure Martijn is just trolling, especially with the "If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?" Obviously a joke...
Assuming this offer is real. Do you think Nani is offering $500 to hype up WCS or because he wants people to put more effort into taking out Revival?
First of all, the offer doesn't have to be real. It could be a joke. Naniwa's joked about things in the past.
Second, who cares if he's serious? *Even if* Revival's opponents weren't planning on taking their games against Revival seriously (unjustified assumption) and *even if* they now try *extra hard* to win (again, unjustified), so what? All that means is that we see the best games possible, with more players who all have an incentive to win (Revival to move on to face Naniwa, and Revival's opponents to win a few hundred dollars from Naniwa). Boo hoo, someone made a bet.
Yeah, I have no idea if the offer is real or if Nani is just stirring things up to put people on point. In soccer, players have been charged and suspended for betting on their own team to win. They have strict regulations against it to protect the fairness of the competition.
Don't get me wrong, there's arguments to be made for this specific case being ok. Most prominently for me is that Revival doesn't seem to have a problem with it. If he did, I think this could've gotten quite ugly. However saying it doesn't make a difference is just factually unfounded. Of course putting a price on a players head could affect how his opponents play against him. Your argument was that players wouldn't try harder with money on the line, which unfortunately is naive.
Also, tbh, it actually wouldn't be "well mannered" if they actually try full hard mode if they have no purpose. Wouldn't you want to see a friend do well? Isn't that better than gaining nothing for both of you?
On October 29 2013 13:14 TimKim0713 wrote: I'm not sure how to feel right now because I am the number one fan of revival.
Pay Naniwa a thousand dollars to rescind his offer.
That way the #1 Naniwa fan can offer you two thousand dollars to rescind your offer to Naniwa to rescind his offer. And so you make two thousand dollars for free.
On October 29 2013 13:14 TimKim0713 wrote: I'm not sure how to feel right now because I am the number one fan of revival.
Pay Naniwa a thousand dollars to rescind his offer.
That way the #1 Naniwa fan can offer you two thousand dollars to rescind your offer to Naniwa to rescind his offer. And so you make two thousand dollars for free.
I really can't be bothered quoting and editing Martjn's post to reply to it whilst I'm on my phone, but come on, this ISNT comparable to the match-fixing scandal because Naniwa fucking tweeted it openly. The tweet isn't directed at anyone, nor is it a private message... How can anyone look at this and take it even remotely seriously is beyond me?
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Wow you guys are crazy. What fantasy mafia world do you believe in where this happens. Oh, a player tries to extort Naniwa? Then they get exposed, burned publicly and can never play in a tournament ever again. When would this ever happen?
Yeah clearly this kind of thing is unheard of. Look, I certainly hope we don't see anything like this happening, but that's exactly why we have to be careful. In Korea there's actual legal repercussions. There's rules, regulations, laws even. We certainly don't have any such rules in the foreign scene. Yeah if you get caught with shady business like this, it'll be very hard to carry on as a progamer, but it's unlikely to have any further consequences. Someone with not enough moral fiber could consider it their chance at a final score. It's irrelevant whether any of those scenarios are likely to happen, they're only there to show that this is a gray area. Incentivizing players to specifically target other players is only a few steps from money influencing the competition.
Some people are arguing that it's ok to offer money to target players, but I imagine it being a negotiation makes it more dubious. The whole thing is a slippery slope, a gray area and we have to be careful where we draw the line.
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
That's the thing, this is nothing like prize money. Prize money gives all players an equal incentive to do well. This bounty gives players an incentive to target Revival specifically.
As for the second point. In the same world where a player would rather have $600 than $500 and if that player thinks he can force the third party to cough that up, why not? Apparently we're ok with that right?
We have to be very careful.
Really? So you can imagine a world where Select, who is already the underdog against Revival, thinks he can negotiate extra incentive for a match he's not expected to win, and threaten to throw a game if he's not offered an extra $100?
What's his threat supposed to be? "You put up $500 so I try my best. Too bad, I want $600, so I'm gonna half-ass my match until I get it."
You realize you're only arguing the specifics of the situation and not the practice in general which is what is so foul right? In this completely hypothetical scenario a player A in the group with player B could tell the third party player C "nah, $500 isn't worth it to focus on player B, I'd rather prepare more for my other match to have better odds at 2nd place". Player C could then ask "well what would your price be?"
On October 29 2013 10:50 iLevitate wrote: Revival's response : @EGRevival: @NaNiwaSC2 Oh... 500$? really too small you need more reward um...maybe 5000$? or 10000$?
Oh shit, that counter!
Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 17s @EGRevival :D so greedy.........
It's a good thing Revival has a good sense of humor about all this, because this is definitely a gray area at best..
Yeah bro encouraging people to beat Revival has a negative consequence because it gives them an advantage over Revival. Clearly they will try harder than they otherwise would have.
/sarcasm
That's the worst argument yet. If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?
This is a gray area because the next step is someone in a similar situation like Revivals groupmates going and asking money from someone in Naniwas position. What if Select said, "make it 600", Nani says no and Select ends up losing? It's a very slippery slope and there should definitely be clear rules governing this kind of thing. What if in one of the other groups there's a similar situation, or next season? What if those players want money to have a "reason to try your best" as Nani puts it too? This is setting some kind of precedent that you should pay people to actually have them to their best.
Bottom line, whenever you're offering bounties our 3rd party players start throwing money at groups to get results they want, you're in a gray area. We have to very carefully look at what IS and ISN'T ok.
We already do that, its called prize money. I also don't work very hard unless I am paid. I know its weird, but professional sports pay money of some sorts. That's why they are called professional sports, because they are paid to play them.
Also, in what world would Select throw a game because Nani refused to give him $600 and only offered $500? That's giving up the change of free money for no reason, which is beyond unrealistic.
Pretty sure Martijn is just trolling, especially with the "If it wouldn't make a difference, why would he offer the $500 to begin with?" Obviously a joke...
Assuming this offer is real. Do you think Nani is offering $500 to hype up WCS or because he wants people to put more effort into taking out Revival?
First of all, the offer doesn't have to be real. It could be a joke. Naniwa's joked about things in the past.
Second, who cares if he's serious? *Even if* Revival's opponents weren't planning on taking their games against Revival seriously (unjustified assumption) and *even if* they now try *extra hard* to win (again, unjustified), so what? All that means is that we see the best games possible, with more players who all have an incentive to win (Revival to move on to face Naniwa, and Revival's opponents to win a few hundred dollars from Naniwa). Boo hoo, someone made a bet.
Yeah, I have no idea if the offer is real or if Nani is just stirring things up to put people on point. In soccer, players have been charged and suspended for betting on their own team to win. They have strict regulations against it to protect the fairness of the competition.
Don't get me wrong, there's arguments to be made for this specific case being ok. Most prominently for me is that Revival doesn't seem to have a problem with it. If he did, I think this could've gotten quite ugly. However saying it doesn't make a difference is just factually unfounded. Of course putting a price on a players head could affect how his opponents play against him. Your argument was that players wouldn't try harder with money on the line, which unfortunately is naive.
I think there are some very good points in here but first, let me clarify that I don't really care about this specific scenario although it could as stated earlier really set a horrible precedence (spelling? non english speaker here!)
If we asume that in a group play scenario you prepare for every eventuality, that meaning every possible opponent. Something I asume every player does? Let's then asume that the time preparing is limited, something it obviously is, then it's also safe to asume that given more incentive you could definitely get a player to focus more on practicing towards a specific opponent thus letting the players in some way, no matter how slight, effect the outcomes with money.
You cannot compare it with pricemoney, I really don't think you can cause correct me if I'm wrong there is no specific scenario like this where a player can get pricemoney for one specific player and completly neglecting preparing against another. You don't need to advance to recieve this extra price you just need to eliminate.
That said I still believe this is somewhat unserious. But calling it not a grey area is naive and definitely not given enough thought!
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.
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.
On October 29 2013 14:57 Nirel wrote: It seems like a joke to me, how do you know it's real?
We don't.
Though he did say; "Johan Lucchesi @NaNiwaSC2 Naniwa is actually fixing the WCS system because the reason people have no motivation is because they made a faulty system. YOUR WELCOME."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, it's like gambling. One minute you're buying a lottery ticket, the next you've gambled away all your savings and you're homeless. It's a slippery slope.
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.
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 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?
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.
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
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 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 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 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.
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 16:05 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).
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?
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.
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 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 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 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 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?
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 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.
@ 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!
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)
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.
I can't believe how far people are taking this discussion. Naniwa had a cool idea, Revival doesn't seem to be bothered, it definitely makes the challenger matches more exciting for the viewers and pros have something to play for. So what is there to discuss? If EG filed an official complain at Blizzard or something (well Naniwa is on EG so...) I could see that there was something to discuss. But right now it's just a cool thing to look forward to, calm down .
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.
On October 29 2013 18:33 boxerfred wrote: The not-so-fun thing is, that whoever gets #16, has to play Soulkey. And I do not think that either Naniwa or Revival can beat him that easily.
my knee-jerk reaction: no harm, no foul. I don't "think it's cute" like others have said, but I don't immediately see an issue.
thought two: If Revival's opponents are (motivated by outside factors) to do better vs him do we have some harm? Maybe a little. Is there enough harm to call foul? No, players might already be focused on Revival without the bounty and/or it doesn't make enough of a difference that the rest of the games might suffer.
Other random thoughts:
- what if (for example) EG players had a contract clause that every time they beat a TL player they receive a bonus? - does it make a difference that Naniwa's bounty is designed FOR HIS BENEFIT? (what if it was Naniwa's fans putting up the bounty?) - how easily could rules against what he's doing be enforced?
Overall... I don't have a problem with it. He's not betting or fixing a match. He's not putting up a harmful bounty. He's just being Naniwa.
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.
I was under the impression that most professional athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own sports league.
On October 29 2013 17:59 Musicus wrote: I can't believe how far people are taking this discussion. Naniwa had a cool idea, Revival doesn't seem to be bothered, it definitely makes the challenger matches more exciting for the viewers and pros have something to play for. So what is there to discuss? If EG filed an official complain at Blizzard or something (well Naniwa is on EG so...) I could see that there was something to discuss. But right now it's just a cool thing to look forward to, calm down .
Wiat what ? Naniwa is EG now ? Man... i shouldn't have stopped follwing starcraft to catch up my 3seasons of walking dead
Really ? Or did i misunderstood it ?
I don't like Naniwa but his idea is fun i'll give him that. Did EG did a couter offer (not lose to revival but => beat naniwa) ?
Its kind of sad how controversy and negativity seems to follow Naniwa everywhere, even when he doesn't do anything inherently bad.
I really don't see the issue here at all and I can't understand what all the fuss is about. A bounty doesn't violate any morals or code of conduct regarding fair play. The players already have incentives to well in tournaments and leagues because it gives them better prizes or better seeding, a bounty on an opposing player merely sweetens the deal.
A bribe to throw the game, on the other hand, goes against everything sportsmanship, competing should be about always giving your best and struggling to achieve victory under the most auspicious of circumstances, a bribe directly contradicts that, that's why we've made it illegal.
Nani didn't offer Revival money to throw, he just offered Revivals opponents a bounty, an extra incentive to beat Revival, really nothing wrong with that.
This time I think Naniwa is in the clear, and he actually deserves some credit for coming up with an awesome idea.
On October 29 2013 18:33 boxerfred wrote: The not-so-fun thing is, that whoever gets #16, has to play Soulkey. And I do not think that either Naniwa or Revival can beat him that easily.
Franky, I hardly believe the players would accept whatever bounty Naniwa to offer. He's a well-known BM the most part of the SC2 community turned back on.
Nice try, Naniwa, but you better play better youself next time.
Naniwa is more of a PR genius than incontrol, and he doesnt even know it. 26 pages... wp. I love when players increase the hype and stakes. Naniwa is one of the best at it because he speaks his mind and is so freaking competitive.
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.
That's good advice, you may end up having to go through a bunch of henchmen to get to the main villain. I'd say did 10-20 graves actually.
Oh, and you are allowed to bet on your own team to win, it's betting on your own team to lose that is frowned upon.
I prefer the IdrA rages and BM instead Nani BM and this... I hope Revival qualifies and then kick his ******* *** on Blizzcon, but it could be fun to watch if SoulKey can troll Nani better than Life did few weeks ago so I am not sure what could be funnier
On October 29 2013 21:20 Sogetsu wrote: I prefer the IdrA rages and BM instead Nani BM and this... I hope Revival qualifies and then kick his ******* *** on Blizzcon, but it could be fun to watch if SoulKey can troll Nani better than Life did few weeks ago so I am not sure what could be funnier
On October 29 2013 21:20 Sogetsu wrote: I prefer the IdrA rages and BM instead Nani BM and this... I hope Revival qualifies and then kick his ******* *** on Blizzcon, but it could be fun to watch if SoulKey can troll Nani better than Life did few weeks ago so I am not sure what could be funnier
On October 29 2013 18:52 DusTerr wrote: my knee-jerk reaction: no harm, no foul. I don't "think it's cute" like others have said, but I don't immediately see an issue.
thought two: If Revival's opponents are (motivated by outside factors) to do better vs him do we have some harm? Maybe a little. Is there enough harm to call foul? No, players might already be focused on Revival without the bounty and/or it doesn't make enough of a difference that the rest of the games might suffer.
Other random thoughts:
- what if (for example) EG players had a contract clause that every time they beat a TL player they receive a bonus? - does it make a difference that Naniwa's bounty is designed FOR HIS BENEFIT? (what if it was Naniwa's fans putting up the bounty?) - how easily could rules against what he's doing be enforced?
Overall... I don't have a problem with it. He's not betting or fixing a match. He's not putting up a harmful bounty. He's just being Naniwa.
Also.. I hope Revival wins
Your first thought shouldn't be a concern, in sports players often get bonuses for winning a rivalry game.
The second thought, it isn't uncommon for a pitcher in baseball to buy his fielder who made a brilliant play to save his no-hitter something nice and shiny. I've never heard of that practice being frowned upon
Very easily, ban-hammer is like hitting the easy button.
I am blown away by all the people taking issue with this. Putting up an incentive for someone to try and perform their best is a GOOD thing. It's only bad when you are paying someone to throw a game. There is a HUGE difference between the two.
On October 29 2013 21:20 Sogetsu wrote: I prefer the IdrA rages and BM instead Nani BM and this... I hope Revival qualifies and then kick his ******* *** on Blizzcon, but it could be fun to watch if SoulKey can troll Nani better than Life did few weeks ago so I am not sure what could be funnier
It would be funnier if Revival beats him because his fans expect him to be able to beat Revival... Plus he'll be at BlizzCon and get 0 prize money for it. :D
On October 29 2013 21:20 Sogetsu wrote: I prefer the IdrA rages and BM instead Nani BM and this... I hope Revival qualifies and then kick his ******* *** on Blizzcon, but it could be fun to watch if SoulKey can troll Nani better than Life did few weeks ago so I am not sure what could be funnier
Yeah, wishing people to get cancer and get raped with a steel pipe is really preferable to giving some guys a reason to play harder, when they have no reason to do it yet.... + Show Spoiler +
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.
I was under the impression that most professional athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own sports league.
You can't bet on yourself because there is no way to prove that you aren't trying your best ie throwing the match.
But betting on others is still okay.
If I was a footballer I can bet on games not involving teams I'm on because I can't actually punt the match by virtue of not being on the field.
Naniwa is offering a bounty to whoever beats Revival. It adds excitement since the stakes are raised. It adds story since he's calling out a desire for his "rival" to lose. And it will make their tie-breaker match deliciously fun to watch.
Earlier in the thread map hacking was brought up, now homicide is being brought up. I'm honestly curious what other analogies will be brought up later to demonize a twitter joke...
On October 29 2013 20:59 daskilla wrote: Guys from poker do it all the time, It is awesome to see something in SC like that. Not sure how serious is naniwa with this bet.
dude if revival gets knocked out naniwa gets minimum $5000 for 16th-9th in blizzcon :o
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.
I was under the impression that most professional athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own sports league.
You are correct. Pete Rose was banned from MLB for betting on his own team to win when he was a player-manager. The problem with that is that Rose had an incentive to win the particular game that he was betting on instead of doing what was best for the team. That's to say, in baseball they play 162 games; it's a marathon, not a sprint, and if you burn out your best pitchers making sure you win your bet, that's bad for the team.
There are other reasons too, but that's a major one.
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.
I was under the impression that most professional athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own sports league.
You are correct. Pete Rose was banned from MLB for betting on his own team to win when he was a player-manager. The problem with that is that Rose had an incentive to win the particular game that he was betting on instead of doing what was best for the team. That's to say, in baseball they play 162 games; it's a marathon, not a sprint, and if you burn out your best pitchers making sure you win your bet, that's bad for the team.
There are other reasons too, but that's a major one.
So Naniwa broke an unwritten eSports law? Because they are trying to make eSports into a "legitimate" sport.
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.
I was under the impression that most professional athletes aren't allowed to bet on their own sports league.
You are correct. Pete Rose was banned from MLB for betting on his own team to win when he was a player-manager. The problem with that is that Rose had an incentive to win the particular game that he was betting on instead of doing what was best for the team. That's to say, in baseball they play 162 games; it's a marathon, not a sprint, and if you burn out your best pitchers making sure you win your bet, that's bad for the team.
There are other reasons too, but that's a major one.
So Naniwa broke an unwritten eSports law? Because they are trying to make eSports into a "legitimate" sport.
No, because the circumstance was different.
Pete Rose bet on his own performance to win a game. Possibly overplaying his top players not allowing them to rest in order to win a random bo1. He is literally hurting his own team to better his goals.
Naniwa is not betting on himself and is not part of any the matches Revival would be playing in. He's simply telling players who are already doing their best to beat Revival that there is a possible $500 for them should they succeed at their own goals.
Which is why you can't bet on yourself--but you can bet on others.
The smiley face @ the end of the tweet seems like a pretty good sign that Nani is kidding. he probably would'nt have done it on his twitter otherwise ^^
Pretty sure he was serious. Makes perfect sense especially considering his past in korea where he had to play useless matches that he threw (probe rush!). But the perfect part is.. if he's not allowed to or he gets to much negative feedback for it he can always fall back on it being meant as a joke.
Seriously? People are making a huge controversy over this? Honestly I really don't see the issue, the theory is that everyone should be trying their hardest all of the time but the reality is that sometimes people don't; if the outcome of a game doesn't matter then there is little incentive.
To counteract that Naniwa trying to put some incentive into games in the hope of getting to Blizzcon...well I just can't exactly see what everyone is getting worked up over. He's not "manipulating the system" or something, he's attempting to encourage people to care about games that don't matter to other players but that matter to him. Its not like he's bribing Revival to throw a game.
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.
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.
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
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.
Totally different.
What they did was put a bounty on "taking out" players to injure them and make them unable to play. What Naniwa is doing is the equivalent of players being offered a bounty for winning a game.
Now if Naniwa was offering a bounty to anyone who could break Revival's wrists you might have a point...
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.
Totally different.
What they did was put a bounty on "taking out" players to injure them and make them unable to play. What Naniwa is doing is the equivalent of players being offered a bounty for winning a game.
Now if Naniwa was offering a bounty to anyone who could break Revival's wrists you might have a point...
I don't know who Ethan Iacobozzi is but looks like that guy is in trouble!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most stupid argument ever. It's just a completely different thing :D
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
This topic is hillarious. Personally I don't see anything wrong with what Nanni is doing. 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 $$ for Taeja to actually play his matches (me hopes :D).
On October 30 2013 00:43 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I don't see the issue with motivating people more outside of regular tournament payments. In Proleague players receive bonuses from their teams as well. There are countless of examples of athletes getting paid more (outside of the prize money) based on the results they are getting. Whether this comes from Naniwa or someone else I don't see what it matters. The rules and regulations on this in other sports vary a lot.
In the NFL the Saints got in trouble for putting a bounty out on opposing star players. They wanted there defensive players to hurt and knock out the opposing players. THis is just an example of how it could be bad. Not that Naniwa is doing this or anything. It is not like he paying someone to take a fall for his benefit, he just wants players to play there best to knock out someone.
Most stupid argument ever. It's just a completely different thing :D
I disagree. It's one of the FUNNIEST things I read today :D
On October 30 2013 01:30 NihilisticGod wrote: This topic is hillarious. Personally I don't see anything wrong with this. His reasons make a lot of sense too, what exactly do the rest of the group have to play for?
And with that in mind did Taeja decide to just not bother playing because it isn't worth the time to him? Or did he have other reasons?
Next Nanni will offer $$ 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
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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
Taeja already has enough points. What are you talking about?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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 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 01:16 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 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 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 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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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:
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.
Someone will have to double check the math to confirm, but without the points Naniwa got from his run this last season, he would've been out. All I can definitely say is that my players already knew, so I surely assume Nani did. I'm certain because I had to explain it to my players before the last seasons qualifier.
On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote: [quote] 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.
Because the players will magically become better with $500 on the line.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
This forfeiting the challenger league without any consequences is making a farce out of the whole challenger league I feel. Once word was out that it wouldn't necessarily give you a spot in the premier league the challenger league EU went downhill pretty quickly and that is something Blizzard really shouldn't have allowed, because it clearly damages their tournament.
Forfeits for no good reason* should prohibit the player from participating in Season 1 altogether. Throwing matches is not what SC2 needs.
Other than that I can't believe how much Naniwa is keeping this forum active, be it through qualification probabilities or simply funny tweets. 30 pages already because of this joke?? Insane!
*Attending your own funeral is the only valid reason I can think of.
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.
Because the players will magically become better with $500 on the line.
No, not better, just perform better. Do you not believe that financial incentives has an impact on performance?
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
For a minute assuming that is actually the correct group. Taeja forfeited his bracket phase match already. Otherwise it could've been Minigun in his place. So now you'd have a player who forfeited a match that would've landed him in Premier looking to take out Revival (and only Revival) specifically. That doesn't sit uneasy with you?
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
What hurdle? Playing against the same players he would normally face without the bounty only they do their best instead? I just don't see how that is bad.
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger?
Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
Of course he does, he just made this argument a few posts earlier:
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win?
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
And you would rather Select and Jon SNow play lazier than harder?
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
According to people in this topic Revival seems to be in a group with Taeja, JonSnow and Select but I am still waiting for anybody to link a source for this information.
On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger?
Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
Clearly, that's why he won. If ForGG was bribed, he would have just decided not to lose.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger?
Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
Clearly, that's why he won. If ForGG was bribed, he would have just decided not to lose.
Maybe Hyun was bribed too? Maybe everyone in IEM was bribed, only Life didn't take the money!
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
And you would rather Select and Jon SNow play lazier than harder?
No, I would rather the matches be played without any of the players acting as a mercenary for a third party.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger?
Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
Clearly, that's why he won. If ForGG was bribed, he would have just decided not to lose.
Because clearly anyone who was bribed would automatically win, right? Nice argument against a strawman.
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:
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.
Someone will have to double check the math to confirm, but without the points Naniwa got from his run this last season, he would've been out. All I can definitely say is that my players already knew, so I surely assume Nani did. I'm certain because I had to explain it to my players before the last seasons qualifier.
seems kinda hard to point to a single match in particular since naniwa's last wcs point grabber was probably iem hyun definitely stood to gain something by beating naniwa, in terms of wcs life didn't, but he won anyways so that probably isn't relevant don't remember who naniwa faced beforehand
but if we restrict to wcs challenger league forgg had no chance to make it and naniwa did when they played the bracket ro16 match
then there's the whole thing about revival being invited as a replacement to iem so shit gets pretty messy
On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
Does anyone already point out the fact that Naniwa got 100 points from his Challenger League while Revival could gain only 50 points? Challenger League favored him more than Revival... lol
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
On October 30 2013 02:53 dangthatsright wrote: so shit gets pretty messy
Shit isn't messy at all. There's nothing happening, but since Naniwa is in the eye of the absence of storm, people start blowing in every direction (Naniwa creates unfair advantage! Revival shouldn't have gotten points from IEM!) in order to imitate wind.
Wooooo. It's making the trees rustle like living things!
On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Because the players will magically become better with $500 on the line.
No, not better, just perform better. Do you not believe that financial incentives has an impact on performance?
I don't. Pardon me for not finding the source on this, but there has been studies on this topic. It's been shown that offering extra rewards only has an effect on straightforward manual labour. In things that require mental effort, it can even have the exact opposite effect.
Of course, if the players will just forfeit without any consequences otherwise, you could say offering a reward improves their play.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
They might be, they might not be. Clearly Naniwa thinks offering a bounty increased Revival's chances of losing. Apparently you don't seem to agree.
On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Wow... you really are arguing that players should play worse and not better.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Wow... you really are arguing that players should play worse and not better.
Wow.. you really are good at putting words in other people's mouth. Do you know for a fact that they would play worse without the bounty?
On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches.
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches.
You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
On October 30 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote: Wow.. you really are good at putting words in other people's mouth. Do you know for a fact that they would play worse without the bounty?
On October 30 2013 03:01 Storm71 wrote: You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
They might be, they might not be. Clearly Naniwa thinks offering a bounty increased Revival's chances of losing. Apparently you don't seem to agree.
Its clear that Naniwa wants to give Revival a hard time by jabbing him with a bounty on Twitter so they can shit talk with each other before their tie breakers.
If Naniwa really wanted to backroom deal his way to the top ranks he would not be doing it out in the fucking open.
And no, we don't know how hard Select and Snow are working on their matchups. For all we know they're just playing call of duty instead of practicing. Or maybe they think this is their last chance to make a splash in SC2 before the winter sets in and we simply focus purely on Blizzcon.
The worse case scenario for this bounty is that players who are expected to play their best actually do play their best.
On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches.
You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
Yep, because it true, but that's not unfair to Revival. He still has to beat the same players.
On October 30 2013 03:03 MrLightning wrote: I feel that I am in the midst of a star trek convention and someone just said that kirk is a better captain than picard.
On October 30 2013 02:53 dangthatsright wrote: so shit gets pretty messy
Shit isn't messy at all. There's nothing happening, but since Naniwa is in the eye of the absence of storm, people start blowing in every direction (Naniwa creates unfair advantage! Revival shouldn't have gotten points from IEM!) in order to imitate wind.
Wooooo. It's making the trees rustle like living things!
well I meant that if someone wants to actually put together all those recent results and evaluate them under whatever notion of "fairness" they're using, then that process gets rather annoying quickly because of all these things that was very lazy wording on my part though
I do agree that this shouldn't be an issue especially with revival not taking offense
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.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
They might be, they might not be. Clearly Naniwa thinks offering a bounty increased Revival's chances of losing. Apparently you don't seem to agree.
Its clear that Naniwa wants to give Revival a hard time by jabbing him with a bounty on Twitter so they can shit talk with each other before their tie breakers.
If Naniwa really wanted to backroom deal his way to the top ranks he would not be doing it out in the fucking open.
And no, we don't know how hard Select and Snow are working on their matchups. For all we know they're just playing call of duty instead of practicing. Or maybe they think this is their last chance to make a splash in SC2 before the winter sets in and we simply focus purely on Blizzcon.
The worse case scenario for this bounty is that players who are expected to play their best actually do play their best.
You can read Naniwa's mind? Wow you're good.
I guess that is the worst case scenario if you don't value fair competition.
On October 30 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote: Wow.. you really are good at putting words in other people's mouth. Do you know for a fact that they would play worse without the bounty?
On October 30 2013 03:01 Storm71 wrote: You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
I sense a disturbance in the debate force
It's almost like he does know what he is saying. Or might be...a troll.
So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who are bribed and "try their best".
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
I guess facing off against the likes of Life and Hyun and getting 2nd place in IEM is equivalent to a round robin vs Select and Jon?
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
Naniwa had already given up on the chance of going to Blizzcon at that point and had no extra incentives. Not even he himself expected to do so well at IEM to be able to gain enough points. (source: Naniwa interview at IEM)
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
I guess facing off against the likes of Life and Hyun and getting 2nd place in IEM is equivalent to a round robin vs Select and Jon?
Ummm... no, which is why the points awarded are 450 vs 25.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
Naniwa had already given up on the chance of going to Blizzcon at that point and had no extra incentives. Not even he himself expected to do so well at IEM to be able to gain enough points. (source: Naniwa interview at IEM)
Do you always believe what people say in interviews no matter what?
If he didn't bother going to IEM New York, I would have no doubt at all.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
Naniwa had already given up on the chance of going to Blizzcon at that point and had no extra incentives. Not even he himself expected to do so well at IEM to be able to gain enough points. (source: Naniwa interview at IEM)
Do you always believe what people say in interviews no matter what?
If he didn't bother going to IEM New York, I would have no doubt at all.
I think you have some serious trust issues... Why wouldn't you go to a tournament and win money? Even if he had 0 WCS points, he would've still wanted to win some money at IEM.
Don't even bother s1eth. This guy has no point, he doesn't even know what he's arguing, he's just looking at the last post and trying to find a way to criticize it. There have been two different occurrences where he has criticized what he himself was saying, without even realizing it.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Without the points from this season, naniwa would've been out. I'd like for someone to double check the math to make sure. His opponents in WCS were playing under the same conditions as Revivals opponents now, except that they now stand to earn $500. I fully respect you to have your own opinion, but don't try to sweep things under the rug because they don't support your point of view.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
Naniwa had already given up on the chance of going to Blizzcon at that point and had no extra incentives. Not even he himself expected to do so well at IEM to be able to gain enough points. (source: Naniwa interview at IEM)
Do you always believe what people say in interviews no matter what?
If he didn't bother going to IEM New York, I would have no doubt at all.
I think you have some serious trust issues... Why wouldn't you go to a tournament and win money? Even if he had 0 WCS points, he would've still wanted to win some money at IEM.
I didn't say he shouldn't. If he didn't bother to go, I would've believed him without question that he thought there was no hope of him doing well.
As it is, we can't know for sure.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment on my part. It was hard to convey tone across written text.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Without the points from this season, naniwa would've been out. I'd like for someone to double check the math to make sure. His opponents in WCS were playing under the same conditions as Revivals opponents now, except that they now stand to earn $500. I fully respect you to have your own opinion, but don't try to sweep things under the rug because they don't support your point of view.
viewpoints aside, the first sentence is correct iirc there was some discussion about forgg's incentives back when that match was played
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Without the points from this season, naniwa would've been out. I'd like for someone to double check the math to make sure. His opponents in WCS were playing under the same conditions as Revivals opponents now, except that they now stand to earn $500. I fully respect you to have your own opinion, but don't try to sweep things under the rug because they don't support your point of view.
In fairness "get 2nd place in IEM despite the trend of pure Korean domination" is not exactly a plan even Naniwa would go for.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
People being lazy is bad. People trying hard is good.
The more good there is, the better it is for the game.
You are arguing that Revival's opponents should play lazy for Naniwa's sake--which is dumb.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
On October 30 2013 03:08 Storm71 wrote: So basically it's fair for Naniwa to roflstomp through his challenger league against players who had no incentive to win, but Revival should play against players who try their best.
Got it.
Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
On October 30 2013 03:11 Plansix wrote: [quote] Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
On October 30 2013 03:11 Plansix wrote: [quote] Naniwa qualified through IEM, not challenger. He doesn't need to play this weekend. The only way he needs to play is if Revival ties him in WCS points through challenger league.
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
I know, but I think the $500 bounty on his head might be of much for him. I mean, he will know exactly how much his opponents will get for beating him and how modivated they will be. I mean, they could buy a PS4 with that money. It's really mean that Naniwa put which pressure on Revival.
According to people in this topic Revival seems to be in a group with Taeja, JonSnow and Select but I am still waiting for anybody to link a source for this information.
Source is what Naniwa himself thinks the groups will be
Actually you qualify through the number of points you've earned throughout the year, not on any one particular event.
And once again, you've completely ignored what I posted.
Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty.
And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament.
On October 30 2013 03:16 Plansix wrote: [quote] Yes and naniwai got a lot of his pints through IEM, which is what I said. He doesn't need to, and can't play in challenger league for this season.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty.
And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament.
$5000 is still a bigger number than $500, so not fair for select and Jon.
No, you mistakenly said that Naniwa qualified THROUGH IEM, not just the fact that he got some points at IEM.
And Naniwa DID play in challenger league season 3, without a bounty being placed on him I might add.
I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty.
And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament.
$5000 is still a bigger number than $500, so not fair for select and Jon.
What's unfair about it? Without Naniwa's bounty they stood to gain 0 dollars. Now Naniwa is offering $500 bucks to anybody beating Revival. That Naniwa himself stands to gain MORE is completely irrelevant.
On October 30 2013 03:29 Plansix wrote: [quote] I thought he was In premier league this season, my bad. Either way, doesn't change anything. Players around going to play as hard as they want, bounty or otherwise.
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty.
And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament.
$5000 is still a bigger number than $500, so not fair for select and Jon.
What's unfair about it? Without Naniwa's bounty they stood to gain 0 dollars. Now Naniwa is offering $500 bucks to anybody beating Revival. That Naniwa himself stands to gain MORE is completely irrelevant.
Storm71 convinced me that unless Naniwa offers 5k its not a fair fight for other players in group. lol
I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500?
Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line.
It is pretty high stakes for Revival because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway.
$5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival.
There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty.
And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament.
$5000 is still a bigger number than $500, so not fair for select and Jon.
What's unfair about it? Without Naniwa's bounty they stood to gain 0 dollars. Now Naniwa is offering $500 bucks to anybody beating Revival. That Naniwa himself stands to gain MORE is completely irrelevant.
Storm71 convinced me that unless Naniwa offers 5k its not a fair fight for other players in group. lol
you're right. whoever comes first in Revival's challenger group should make it to Blizzcon ROFL
I really hope this is in satire because he is obviously joking. If you remember not too long ago he posted pics of a WCS challenger player betting against himself, calling him out.
On October 30 2013 04:26 mikumegurine wrote: after Revival makes it to Blizzcon to play Naniwa at the tiebreaker, he should wear a shirt with his own bounty poster on it
That would be awesome. It would get everyone talking. GET ON IT!
On October 30 2013 04:32 MrSusan wrote: I really hope this is in satire because he is obviously joking. If you remember not too long ago he posted pics of a WCS challenger player betting against himself, calling him out.
That is a completely different situation. I can't believe how ignorant some people are.
Betting against yourself = bad (matchfixing) Taking money to lose = bad (matchfixing) Offering someone else money to lose = bad (matchfixing) Offering someone else money to win = good (gambling / motivation trigger) Betting for yourself = good (gambling / motivation trigger)
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
yeah, from reading this thread anyway lol. Have you seen the ridiculous reasons and hypothetical scenarios they paint? It's kind of obivous from most of them.
On October 30 2013 03:35 Storm71 wrote: Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
On October 30 2013 03:32 Storm71 wrote: Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So we should automatically assume said incentives do have an effect?
Besides, does it even matter? These are professional competitors we're talking about. Trying their best is what they should be doing already. The problem is with WCS if they aren't.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive.
Well I can see that you just got out of your Philosophy 101 class and want to drop the pain on some nerd online so I'll get out of your way. Enjoy yourself.
If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive.
I completely agree. Naniwa's tweet was completely meaningless, and nobody should have any opinion regarding it at all. Those who do are obviously short sighted and/or biased. Thank you for educating the ignorant masses, I sincerely appreciate it.
On October 30 2013 06:50 Sissors wrote: If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
How is it unfair to Naniwa? Were his opponents motivated to beat him in challenger season 3? LOL
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it.
You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
yeah, from reading this thread anyway lol. Have you seen the ridiculous reasons and hypothetical scenarios they paint? It's kind of obivous from most of them.
I'm a huge Naniwa fan and I can at the very least admit that this is a huge grey area. As I've said earlier in this thread if we asume that the practice time for a player is limited and we also asume that they normally practice for every possible opponents in what have become the standard style group. Then we can pretty easily conclude that giving an extra monetary incentive definitely can effect how that player prepares thus giving the individual a potential way to with money give himself a better chance.
I'm not saying people would try harder IN the game, I think they might focus their limited time preparing differently with this extra incentive. The question then is, do we want the individual to be able to have this effect? Is it fair given that not everyone can afford to do so?. Is the extra hype worth this grey area?
I want Nani to go to blizzcon badly, I have followed WCS closely the last months with this as the prime thing on my mind. But I am definitely not sure that this is acceptable.. I was at first but then I read someones way of arguing in this thread and came to this conclusion. If you agree that it''s a problem or not is one thing but I can't see how you can disagree on that it can actually effect performance cause yes, obviously it can given that the players don't have unlimited time to practice.
In a 1v1 scenario (non group play) I think the effect would be severaly diminished though.
On October 30 2013 06:50 Sissors wrote: If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
How is it unfair to Naniwa? Were his opponents motivated to beat him in challenger season 3? LOL
Fine. It's unfair in general. Giving points in otherwise meaningless matches is unfair, because only the people who can still use the points will bother playing even semi-decently. It can be compared to Naniwa probe-rushing Nestea: he had absolutely NO motivation to play that match decently. He knows that he might be prone to probe-rush if he was in Revival's opponent's shoes. Hence some motivation to not probe-rush (or do some other stupid shit) is clearly required. Blizzard is not providing that, and there's absolutely no reason why Naniwa shouldn't be allowed to step in and offer a reward.
This makes it unfair to everybody for who the games do matter. In this case it's just Naniwa (but of course, Naniwa's own matches were just as unfair to revival, dear, soo, vortix, etc. when this might have mattered to them, because they mattered absolutely nothing to elfi, uzer or forgg).
PS. Why did Revival forfeit the knock-out phase? He could have surpassed Naniwa right then and there.
On October 30 2013 06:50 Sissors wrote: If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
How is it unfair to Naniwa? Were his opponents motivated to beat him in challenger season 3? LOL
Fine. It's unfair in general. Giving points in otherwise meaningless matches is unfair, because only the people who can still use the points will bother playing even semi-decently. It can be compared to Naniwa probe-rushing Nestea: he had absolutely NO motivation to play that match decently. He knows that he might be prone to probe-rush if he was in Revival's opponent's shoes. Hence some motivation to not probe-rush (or do some other stupid shit) is clearly required. Blizzard is not providing that, and there's absolutely no reason why Naniwa shouldn't be allowed to step in and offer a reward.
This makes it unfair to everybody for who the games do matter. In this case it's just Naniwa (but of course, Naniwa's own matches were just as unfair to revival, dear, soo, vortix, etc. when this might have mattered to them, because they mattered absolutely nothing to elfi, uzer or forgg).
PS. Why did Revival forfeit the knock-out phase? He could have surpassed Naniwa right then and there.
He got an invite to IEM this missing those matches.. but he got more points in IEM anyways so without that invite he couldnt have even tied.
On October 30 2013 07:02 teddyoojo wrote: i cant believe there are people delusional enough to say its bad naniwa put a bounty on revival holy flying jesus cheesecake
thank you for your contribution and your opinion that is clearly a well thought out one.
On October 30 2013 07:04 Acrofales wrote: PS. Why did Revival forfeit the knock-out phase? He could have surpassed Naniwa right then and there.
He was on a plane to IEM and Blizzard refused to reschedule the match even though half of the participants couldn't show up that day (Ryung and Revival). Ryung had a family emergency and forfeited before Revival did, so Revival got farther in the bracket... lol
The good thing about this that it's out in the open. If this was just said player to player and came out afterwards it would be a scandal. Now it's just a friendly debate on ethics.
If I had one topic that I could point to that said that the Starcraft community could argue about the most inane topics, this would be it. How is this even 36+ pages? It was a fun jab at Revival, why is this still going on
On October 30 2013 07:13 Chaggi wrote: If I had one topic that I could point to that said that the Starcraft community could argue about the most inane topics, this would be it. How is this even 36+ pages? It was a fun jab at Revival, why is this still going on
Because it's the one chance for a foreigner to be at BlizzCon and people are obsessed about it... Or they're making comments about how bm NaNiwa is...
My personal favorite part of all of this is how NaNiwa tweeted "Btw why does challenger this season give points even tho blizzard said its useless and only for seeding? I dont understand" when he'd be behind Revival by 75 points right now if it didn't.
I really like this by Naniwa, obviously if it were the opposite and he offered Revival money to lose, then thats an issue, but encouraging players by giving them extra incentive can only benefit fans by increasing the quality of games, it also stops revival from getting lazy and under preparing for his matches.
What Naniwa should've done, which everyone would agree it's completely fair, is organize a little one-game tournament between two players. The seeds whould be given to the first and second place finisher in revival's group, and make the prize be $499 for the loser and $500 for the winner.
Oh and revival can't attend because any bullshit reason.
Nothing wrong with seeding players on a tourney based on past results, no?
On October 30 2013 07:09 KingFool wrote: The good thing about this that it's out in the open. If this was just said player to player and came out afterwards it would be a scandal. Now it's just a friendly debate on ethics.
Very true. Also, thankfully Revival doesn't seem to have issue with it.
On October 30 2013 11:58 travis wrote: it's dumb for anyone to complain about this they are supposed to be trying to beat revival anyways
How dare you use logic and cite their professionalism! This is a debate of ridiculas theories of players throwing to split enough money for a low end tablet or the unfairness of an Ipad being offered to the guy who beats Revival.
proxy 2 rax and 6 pool+drones, every single game cmon Select + Jon Snow, cheese at all costs, Revival wont be able to handle or expect mass constant cheese from 2 players in a row
On October 30 2013 11:58 travis wrote: it's dumb for anyone to complain about this they are supposed to be trying to beat revival anyways
How dare you use logic and cite their professionalism! This is a debate of ridiculas theories of players throwing to split enough money for a low end tablet or the unfairness of an Ipad being offered to the guy who beats Revival.
On October 30 2013 11:58 travis wrote: it's dumb for anyone to complain about this they are supposed to be trying to beat revival anyways
How dare you use logic and cite their professionalism! This is a debate of ridiculas theories of players throwing to split enough money for a low end tablet or the unfairness of an Ipad being offered to the guy who beats Revival.
This is so simplified it's ridicolous. I don't particularily care about this specific situation but there is definitely potential situations where this is completly out of order. If a player has 2 matches and another player cares a great deal how one of them goes, should this player then be allowed to give an extra incentive to have him focus the practice on the specific MU that he cares for? I don't really find that to be a good precedent.
He's not saying "I'll pay Revival for him to lose", he's saying "I'm paying someone who wins against him". The first one is really shady and probably match fixing, but I don't see any thing wrong with the latter
On October 30 2013 13:45 dyDrawer wrote: He's not saying "I'll pay Revival for him to lose", he's saying "I'm paying someone who wins against him". The first one is really shady and probably match fixing, but I don't see any thing wrong with the latter
The latter is definitely LESS shady than the former, but I don't like it. You can argue, and it's a pretty good argument, that NaNiwa is just trying to rectify an unfair situation here. In previous Challenger Leagues, players in Revival's group would already have strong incentive to play hard, as they'd be fighting for a Premier League spot. It seems a bit unfair that this is not the case here. But I think there are two strong counterarguments:
1) NaNiwa already GOT his points from playing in his Challenger League bracket. Without those points, he'd be BEHIND Revival right now. What is to say that NaNiwa's opponents weren't not trying their hardest either? Revival wasn't paying them money to beat NaNiwa. NaNiwa is basically leveraging the fact that due to schedules, he's already played all of his Challenger League games but Revival hasn't.
2) "Lack of incentive to win" is just a part of life in sports and e-sports. It happens all the time. It happens all the time that one player/team needs someone else to win, but that player is not that interested in winning. Take 2013's GSTL season 1 for example. Second to last game of the regular season was MVP (the team) vs AZUBU. For FXO and AZUBU this match was crucial--if MVP won, FXO had a very strong chance to make the playoffs, while if AZUBU won, FXO would be out. Problem was that MVP didn't care--they were going to finish first place no matter what happened in the match. So after KeeN, MVP sent out only their "B team"--players like Shine and Bang, and AZUBU managed to narrowly win. Was it fair to FXO that MVP did not "play their hardest" against AZUBU, which would not have been the case if that match was not happening in the last week of the regular season? Probably not, but it's just a fact of life--MVP didn't want to show their best players' builds in a match that was meaningless for THEM, and I bet you if Choya went on Twitter prior to the match and promised to pay MVP a cash prize if they knock AZUBU out of the playoffs, there'd have been a huge scandal.
Taeja just played in Red Bull qualifier but is "sick" to play in this one. Taejas forfeit is obviously a lie. Teamliquid does not respect tournament and foreign community enough to have him play. They just dont give a shit.
On October 30 2013 21:29 Relaaja wrote: Taeja just played in Red Bull qualifier but is "sick" to play in this one. Taejas forfeit is obviously a lie. Teamliquid does not respect tournament and foreign community enough to have him play. They just dont give a shit.
Wow okay take a step back buddy. First of all, you're on their site. Second of all, Taeja never said he was too sick to play in these matches. As soon as he lost in premier, Taeja tweeted that he would forfeit challenger league. The reason for this is that there is no benefit for him, considering it does not seed for next year's premier league and his WCS points are at a level that the additional 25 would do nothing. Playing in Challenger would for him pretty much just be revealing strategies before Blizzcon.
On October 30 2013 21:29 Relaaja wrote: Taeja just played in Red Bull qualifier but is "sick" to play in this one. Taejas forfeit is obviously a lie. Teamliquid does not respect tournament and foreign community enough to have him play. They just dont give a shit.
If Taeja hadn't forfeited his bracket match, it would've been him or Minigun in the group. (Assuming those groups are indeed correct). So odds are he wouldn't have been in that group to begin with. These are inherent problems with the system. Yeah the proper thing would've definitely have been to play all the matches and for everyone to focus on all their opponents equally. Unfortunately, right now many players rather worry about what's best for themselves in the short term, until they're stuck on the bad end of the deal when suddenly they realize the effect it's having.
On October 30 2013 23:43 Sogetsu wrote: "I will be the first SC2 Bonjwa, but plox someone go and defeat Revival before he reaches me"
"I will make this otherwise pointless SC2 match fun to watch. I will create entertainment for my fans. I will also motivate these other pro gamers to compete at their best."
On October 30 2013 23:43 Sogetsu wrote: "I will be the first SC2 Bonjwa, but plox someone go and defeat Revival before he reaches me"
"I will make this otherwise pointless SC2 match fun to watch. I will create entertainment for my fans. I will also motivate these other pro gamers to compete at their best."
Nothing wrong with motivating players to do their best (job). It's only a problem when players would be motivated to lose. Anyway, this is obviously a successful attempt to be entertaining/ funny. Gratz Nani!
On October 30 2013 23:43 Sogetsu wrote: "I will be the first SC2 Bonjwa, but plox someone go and defeat Revival before he reaches me"
"I will make this otherwise pointless SC2 match fun to watch. I will create entertainment for my fans. I will also motivate these other pro gamers to compete at their best."
Really, is it that bad?
Nice point of view, it is cute to be so innocent.
It takes way less effort than being outraged and upset about every little thing. You spend less time angry and more time happy. Plus the ladies love a positive thinker.
If golfers can make match bets, why can't SC2 progamers? Moreover, there is no obvious bad blood to be found in the tweet by NaNiwA. It's an Alliance player encouraging more interesting and friendly competition, and no one here has any reason to believe otherwise unless they've talked to NaNiwA or Revival lately.
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
It's not like that at all. The person giving the bonus and the employee receiving the bonus is part of the same entity. That's not the case with Naniwa and the players Revival is playing.
It's more like paying a third party money to steal your competitor's clients away.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
And the difference that the bounty will make is so negligible it will not matter. Theses are professional players, not amatures.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
It's not like that at all. The person giving the bonus and the employee receiving the bonus is part of the same entity. That's not the case with Naniwa and the players Revival is playing.
It's more like paying a third party money to steal your competitor's clients away.
If they are your competitor, you are already trying to steal their clients--by nature that you are *competing*
In the scenario being talked about, the two entities are already going to be engaged with each other. You are simply rewarding one of them for being successful. Paying someone else to intervene would suggest that Revival would not have to face anyone *unless* Naniwa puts up $500; which is not the case. No one is intervening. Its the same people meeting up to do what they are currently paid to do, except one player is being offered bonus if he is successful.
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
It's not like that at all. The person giving the bonus and the employee receiving the bonus is part of the same entity. That's not the case with Naniwa and the players Revival is playing.
It's more like paying a third party money to steal your competitor's clients away.
Lol
You realize Alliance and EG are the same organization, right?
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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?
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
It's not like that at all. The person giving the bonus and the employee receiving the bonus is part of the same entity. That's not the case with Naniwa and the players Revival is playing.
It's more like paying a third party money to steal your competitor's clients away.
Lol
You realize Alliance and EG are the same organization, right?
Same ownership, not same organization. ESPN and ABC are not the same organization.
You also misread what I posted; I was referring to Naniwa and Revival's opponents, not Naniwa and Revival.
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh.
Isn't this how Alexander the Great conquered Persia?
I must have missed the part where conquering was a 1vs1 sport.
Depends on how you do it. The art of war would support Naniwas actions and The Prince would be super supportive.
Again, this is not the art of war. This is a game/sport so the comparison makes absolutely no bloody sense.
It only doesn't make sense because while Alexander *had* to pay people to fight, Revival still has to fight the same people whether Naniwa gives money or not.
Its more akin to giving someone a performance based bonus for sealing the deal with a particularly difficult client.
It's not like that at all. The person giving the bonus and the employee receiving the bonus is part of the same entity. That's not the case with Naniwa and the players Revival is playing.
It's more like paying a third party money to steal your competitor's clients away.
If they are your competitor, you are already trying to steal their clients--by nature that you are *competing*
In the scenario being talked about, the two entities are already going to be engaged with each other. You are simply rewarding one of them for being successful. Paying someone else to intervene would suggest that Revival would not have to face anyone *unless* Naniwa puts up $500; which is not the case. No one is intervening. Its the same people meeting up to do what they are currently paid to do, except one player is being offered bonus if he is successful.
Unless of course, Revival's opponents would forefeit otherwise. Or decide that winning those matches aren't worth divulging their strategy so they put in little effort.
Stop pretending that players wouldn't play differently with a bounty on the line.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
SeleCT don't give a fuck about $500 bounties. SeleCT is the man.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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?
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
Will $500 make the players cheat? Will they injure Revival? Will the players do anything that they wouldn't do otherwise? Is the only side effect of the incentive to cause the players to take the game more seriously?
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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?
This was an awesome move by naniwa until it showed just how petty and terrible some people in the sc2 scene are. Seriously, get the fuck off the forums and play the goddamn game you are supposedly so beholden to lol. Either that or log off and go to your room to cry some more.
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
Kudos to Naniwa!
Yes, shame on us for wanting fair competition.
Are you suggesting that Select and Jon Snow will cheat if they are offered $500 for winning? Are you suggesting that Revival will take a fall because Select and Jon Snow are being offered $500?
Or are you suggesting that money that will make Select and Jon Snow possibly play their best is unfair competition?
The other players in the group have like, little to no motivation to actually win the matches, while Revival has plenty. It should eliminate the "motivational advantage" issue at hand! Plus, it's coming out of Naniwa's pocket. Of course, I find it unlikely that anything actually will happen still.
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
Kudos to Naniwa!
Yes, shame on us for wanting fair competition.
Are you suggesting that Select and Jon Snow will cheat if they are offered $500 for winning? Are you suggesting that Revival will take a fall because Select and Jon Snow are being offered $500?
Or are you suggesting that money that will make Select and Jon Snow possibly play their best is unfair competition?
No money was offered to Naniwa's opponents in HIS challenger league matches when THEY had little to play for.
You keep ignoring this. I like everyone, want to see the best games and the players giving it their all, but not because one side was hired as mercenary by Naniwa.
On October 31 2013 01:49 sd_andeh wrote: I don't get the people thinking this is bad or wrong :D Worst case scenario - someone in challenger league actually tries to win apart from Revival, who is the only one to have anything to actually try for in this moment.
This challenger league shouldn't even be played in the first place, let alone give any WCS points :D It's all a mess thanks to Blizzard.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
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?
Don't need to, he has been calling players out and hyping his upcoming match forever. Naniwa is slowly learning from MC how to be a super star.
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?
Backroom deals are made in backrooms, public displays are public displays.
A twitter post is not a contract, a twitter post is not a promise, a twitter post is just someone on the internet yelling.
If I made a twitter post saying you are gay--it doesn't make you gay. Much like if Naniwa is making a twitter post about offering a bounty--it does not mean he is forced to pay said bounty.
To assume a twitter post is a contract written in stone is ridiculous. Either stop trolling or--no, fuck it, please just stop trolling, no or.
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
we've established already that you disagree with his opinion. move on =/
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
So you're upset that Select and Jon Snow will practice vs Revival?
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?
Backroom deals are made in backrooms, public displays are public displays.
A twitter post is not a contract, a twitter post is not a promise, a twitter post is just someone on the internet yelling.
If I made a twitter post saying you are gay--it doesn't make you gay. Much like if Naniwa is making a twitter post about offering a bounty--it does not mean he is forced to pay said bounty.
To assume a twitter post is a contract written in stone is ridiculous. Either stop trolling or--no, fuck it, please just stop trolling, no or.
That's assuming that a public statement on Twitter can't possibly lead to an agreement between players, legally enforceable or not. I'm not the one who needs to stop trolling.
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
So you're upset that Select and Jon Snow will practice vs Revival?
Uh.... no, I never stated, suggested or implied that.
On October 31 2013 03:35 stratmatt wrote: storm71: shut up dude you are either trolling or too stupid to realize when nobody wants to hear what drivel you are spewing.
I was trying to beat around the bush, but ya. this.
On October 31 2013 03:35 stratmatt wrote: storm71: shut up dude you are either trolling or too stupid to realize when nobody wants to hear what drivel you are spewing.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion different from yours?
You can go crawl back into your mother's basement now.
On October 31 2013 03:35 stratmatt wrote: storm71: shut up dude you are either trolling or too stupid to realize when nobody wants to hear what drivel you are spewing.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion different from yours?
You can go crawl back into your mother's basement now.
We understand that you have a different opinion and you have stated it many times. Our collective opinion is that your opinion sucks and is not worthy of further discussion.
On October 31 2013 03:35 stratmatt wrote: storm71: shut up dude you are either trolling or too stupid to realize when nobody wants to hear what drivel you are spewing.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion different from yours?
You can go crawl back into your mother's basement now.
You've stated you opinion, now move on. You have nothing new to add to the discussion.
On October 31 2013 03:35 stratmatt wrote: storm71: shut up dude you are either trolling or too stupid to realize when nobody wants to hear what drivel you are spewing.
Yeah, how dare someone express an opinion different from yours?
You can go crawl back into your mother's basement now.
We understand that you have a different opinion and you have stated it many times. Our collective opinion is that your opinion sucks and is not worthy of further discussion.
I was just replying to posts directed at myself. If you don't want me to post, then stop replying to them.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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?
Backroom deals are made in backrooms, public displays are public displays.
A twitter post is not a contract, a twitter post is not a promise, a twitter post is just someone on the internet yelling.
If I made a twitter post saying you are gay--it doesn't make you gay. Much like if Naniwa is making a twitter post about offering a bounty--it does not mean he is forced to pay said bounty.
To assume a twitter post is a contract written in stone is ridiculous. Either stop trolling or--no, fuck it, please just stop trolling, no or.
That's assuming that a public statement on Twitter can't possibly lead to an agreement between players, legally enforceable or not. I'm not the one who needs to stop trolling.
A twitter post is not a contract or promise, it is a social media service with as much legal bearing as a facebook status.
To assume it is real is to construe the idea that social media posts are legally binding promises that must have follow through--which is false.
It is literally more ridiculous to think his tweet was not a joke than it is to think his tweet was the real thing.
What you are talking about is that his tweet could possibly lead to backroom deals, but in order to do that they would have to take their conversation to a backroom somewhere so they can speak in private. Why? Because a twitter post is not a promise. We don't need to read Naniwa's mind on whether that tweet was a joke or not because it is not a promise or contract--it literally cannot be taken seriously.
So can you please answer the question of why you don't like it that players practice against revival?
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
So you're upset that Select and Jon Snow will practice vs Revival?
Uh.... no, I never stated, suggested or implied that.
On October 31 2013 03:54 Thieving Magpie wrote: So can you please answer the question of why you don't like it that players practice against revival?
No point since you clearly don't even read what I post. Either that or you just want to troll.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
Kudos to Naniwa!
Yes, shame on us for wanting fair competition.
Didn't realize that cash was some sort of doping.
It modivates players to play hard and Naniwas opponents were not modivated, according to him. And that isn't fair, for some fucking reason.
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
Kudos to Naniwa!
Yes, shame on us for wanting fair competition.
Didn't realize that cash was some sort of doping.
It modivates players to play hard and Naniwas opponents were not modivated, according to him. And that isn't fair, for some fucking reason.
Hey, let's bribe Revival's players so they play motivated in what is to them a meaningless match. It's fair to do that to only Revival and not Naniwa, because fuck him.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
On October 31 2013 03:23 Energizer wrote: This just goes to show that no matter what, there are posters who will find a way to bitch about anything, no matter how insignificant.
Kudos to Naniwa!
Yes, shame on us for wanting fair competition.
Didn't realize that cash was some sort of doping.
It modivates players to play hard and Naniwas opponents were not modivated, according to him. And that isn't fair, for some fucking reason.
Hey, let's bribe Revival's players so they play motivated in what is to them a meaningless match. It's fair to do that to only Revival and not Naniwa, because fuck him.
Who cares about motivation? If revival cant beat a player - he cant beat a player and doesnt deserve to win PERIOD.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
He didn't do that publicly and took great efforts to hide it. Context is key, since Naniwa isn't going to win money from this, unlike Pete Rose.
I will warrant a guess that if the reverse had happened, and Revival had offered a "bounty" for ForGG to beat NaNiwa in his Challenger League bracket, this forum would be filled with "OMG Korean conspiracy" and "Revival must be disqualified," not "this is totally fine because it makes the matches more fun."
I think it's a gray area on whether it's fine or not (I don't like it but don't feel that strongly), but the double standard is a little sad.
Does anybody remember when Naniwa probe-rushed Nestea in the GSL because he was forced to play a meaningless match? You remember how disappointed everyone was with how that match never happened? I wonder if Naniwa would have played that match out if he had been promised $500 :D
One thing's for sure - I'm actually going to watch Revival's matches. I wouldn't have, otherwise. Thank you, Nani!
On October 31 2013 04:13 Yakikorosu wrote: I will warrant a guess that if the reverse had happened, and Revival had offered a "bounty" for ForGG to beat NaNiwa in his Challenger League bracket, this forum would be filled with "OMG Korean conspiracy" and "Revival must be disqualified," not "this is totally fine because it makes the matches more fun."
I think it's a gray area on whether it's fine or not (I don't like it but don't feel that strongly), but the double standard is a little sad.
I Really doubt there would be such talk from anyone other than hardcore Nani fanboys
On October 31 2013 04:13 Yakikorosu wrote: I will warrant a guess that if the reverse had happened, and Revival had offered a "bounty" for ForGG to beat NaNiwa in his Challenger League bracket, this forum would be filled with "OMG Korean conspiracy" and "Revival must be disqualified," not "this is totally fine because it makes the matches more fun."
I think it's a gray area on whether it's fine or not (I don't like it but don't feel that strongly), but the double standard is a little sad.
The double standard is a figment of your imagination considering it is based on your 'guess'. Naniwa was hung out to dry for throwing a meaningless match like nobody ever was in sc2. Quit race-baiting.
On October 31 2013 04:13 Yakikorosu wrote: I will warrant a guess that if the reverse had happened, and Revival had offered a "bounty" for ForGG to beat NaNiwa in his Challenger League bracket, this forum would be filled with "OMG Korean conspiracy" and "Revival must be disqualified," not "this is totally fine because it makes the matches more fun."
I think it's a gray area on whether it's fine or not (I don't like it but don't feel that strongly), but the double standard is a little sad.
What double standard ? There would be a double standard if people said yes to Naniwa's bounty on Revival, but no to whatever Bounty you are making up for your analogy to have some sort of sense(or parody? sorry english isn't my forte).
On October 31 2013 04:13 CakeSauc3 wrote: Does anybody remember when Naniwa probe-rushed Nestea in the GSL because he was forced to play a meaningless match? You remember how disappointed everyone was with how that match never happened? I wonder if Naniwa would have played that match out if he had been promised $500 :D
One thing's for sure - I'm actually going to watch Revival's matches. I wouldn't have, otherwise. Thank you, Nani!
Probably, 500 cash is quite decent cash for just one game. If anything, i think he has enough experience to know what could motivate himself and others /shrug.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
He didn't do that publicly and took great efforts to hide it. Context is key, since Naniwa isn't going to win money from this, unlike Pete Rose.
Well if revivial does not win his matches nani has confirmed money from blizzcon, no? I know it's not the same as gambling, but nani will win more money if revival loses his matches.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
He didn't do that publicly and took great efforts to hide it. Context is key, since Naniwa isn't going to win money from this, unlike Pete Rose.
Well if revivial does not win his matches nani has confirmed money from blizzcon, no? I know it's not the same as gambling, but nani will win more money if revival loses his matches.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
He didn't do that publicly and took great efforts to hide it. Context is key, since Naniwa isn't going to win money from this, unlike Pete Rose.
Well if revivial does not win his matches nani has confirmed money from blizzcon, no? I know it's not the same as gambling, but nani will win more money if revival loses his matches.
Once again, context is king. He isn't betting on his own team or asking someone to throw a game.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
He didn't do that publicly and took great efforts to hide it. Context is key, since Naniwa isn't going to win money from this, unlike Pete Rose.
Well if revivial does not win his matches nani has confirmed money from blizzcon, no? I know it's not the same as gambling, but nani will win more money if revival loses his matches.
yes Naniwa gets into Blizzcon and get 5000 just for getting there, otherwise he needs to play a bo5 against revival (talk about an important first match). I still dont see a huge problem with setting a bounty on revivals head, he want them to beat him, not lose to him
On October 31 2013 04:13 CakeSauc3 wrote: Does anybody remember when Naniwa probe-rushed Nestea in the GSL because he was forced to play a meaningless match? You remember how disappointed everyone was with how that match never happened? I wonder if Naniwa would have played that match out if he had been promised $500 :D
One thing's for sure - I'm actually going to watch Revival's matches. I wouldn't have, otherwise. Thank you, Nani!
Revival's matches would have affected Nani's blizzcon qualification anyways? I don't think the $500 affects how much impact it has, and therefore its hype/watchability.
Revival has an incentive to win his Code A group => that will guarantee him a top 16 hence at least $5,000 The opponents of Revival do not have such incentive... they are playing for at most $200 and an uncertain seed future
By setting an incentive to Revival's opponents, Naniwa correct in part that unbalance of incentive.
I fail to see what the big fuss is about, really... since when motivating a player to get _better_ result is ever a 'bad thing' ?
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?
Give it a rest bud, you've switched arguments multiple times over the many pages that I'm not quite sure why I read. You're saying the money is extra motivation, Plansix is saying that the money, while being a nice perk if they were to win, is not going to motivate them to practice harder as they already would have been. You guys aren't gonna convince each other
Yeah, players practice the same amount for each match, regardless of how much money is at stake. LOL
So you're upset that Select and Jon Snow will practice vs Revival?
Uh.... no, I never stated, suggested or implied that.
On October 31 2013 04:13 CakeSauc3 wrote: Does anybody remember when Naniwa probe-rushed Nestea in the GSL because he was forced to play a meaningless match? You remember how disappointed everyone was with how that match never happened? I wonder if Naniwa would have played that match out if he had been promised $500 :D
One thing's for sure - I'm actually going to watch Revival's matches. I wouldn't have, otherwise. Thank you, Nani!
Revival's matches would have affected Nani's blizzcon qualification anyways? I don't think the $500 affects how much impact it has, and therefore its hype/watchability.
You're right, the $500 probably doesn't have a big impact. However, I would love to watch the match so that I can see if the commentators bring it up, if the players bring it up... there's likely to be some funny/interesting banter going on in the games.
Personally, though, I really want Revival to win this - I want to see a Nani vs Revival grudge match with the prize being to enter Blizzcon. That'll be sick.
Wait, so Naniwa isn't going to battle for his 16 spot vs revival? And instead he's offering 500$ to whoever wins that spot? I am confused around the logic of everything here. Why isn't he going, why is he offering money?
I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
On October 31 2013 05:17 Darkhoarse wrote: I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
On October 31 2013 05:14 MarlieChurphy wrote: Wait, so Naniwa isn't going to battle for his 16 spot vs revival? And instead he's offering 500$ to whoever wins that spot? I am confused around the logic of everything here. Why isn't he going, why is he offering money?
he is gonna fight for it if it comes down to it (most likely)
On October 31 2013 05:17 Darkhoarse wrote: I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
Especially if you're a fan of Naniwa
Yeah for real. I mean, Naniwa is probably favored by a decent amount to beat Revival in a bo5 anyway.
The thing is that Revival only made it to blizzcon because of his free last minute invite to IEM. Naniwa is still sour about that and wants to see revival knocked off beforehand. I think this drama is good.
On October 31 2013 05:17 Darkhoarse wrote: I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
Especially if you're a fan of Naniwa
Yeah for real. I mean, Naniwa is probably favored by a decent amount to beat Revival in a bo5 anyway.
Even if he wasn't favored. He just called out revival and is about to have a bo5 show match for 5k
On October 31 2013 05:17 Darkhoarse wrote: I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
One thing is for sure, it would mean that Naniwa could at least win a match at Blizzcon. Because he obviously won't win against SK.
I am a big fan of Nani, but holy shit SK is just on another level.
On October 31 2013 05:17 Darkhoarse wrote: I mean lets be serious, a bo5 grudge match featuring Naniwa as an INTRO to Blizzcon? Anyone who is a fan of the #HYPE and drama should be rooting for Revival here, even if they're fans of Naniwa
One thing is for sure, it would mean that Naniwa could at least win a match at Blizzcon. Because he obviously won't win against SK.
Does anyone actually believe that this is bad? If so... Man, I don't know what to say. No idea how your brain thinks because the way I think about it, it cannot have any negative impact.
Giving a player more incentive = bad? What. And people talking about WCS players not having incentive... what? If they win they'll make it through, so they very well have incentive to beat Revival, now they simply have more than before. I like stuff like this in the scene.
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote: I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
An endless swath of slain creatures morphed into unrelenting killing machines marching from the frozen wastes best killed by fire and psi blades; meaning zerg.
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote: I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
I guess that would make Revival.. undead? (white walker)
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote: I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
5k for being 16. (and sry i cant see nani beat soulkey sad but true) but still if revival NOT make top2 in the group its 2 times 500 euro so nani still makes 4k+ xD
I'm sure Naniwa tried to win in challenger too. And he didn't have to play against players with a bounty on his head.
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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
i rly dont get a few stupid comments, he ask OTHERS to beat him and make a bounty, thats common guys like "i give you 100 extra if you beat this guy" i mean ... its a GOOD thing
its not like he pay him for LOOSING or anything he want the other guy to play his BEST
there is no rule against its even something GOOD
if in boxing some guy say JAEH I HATE THIS GUY, IF U WIN VS HIM I GIVE YOU 1 MILLION EXTRA ...
it would only be cool ... nothing wrong to see here just a COOL move
On October 31 2013 06:28 NASL.tv wrote: To clarify, TaeJa had only forfeited his bracket stage match, and we do expect him to compete in his group this week.
If TaeJa had played, odds are that Minigun would be in the group and not TaeJa. So now Revival has to beat TaeJa instead of Minigun. Is there going to be any penalty against TaeJa for what happened?
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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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? It is just as shady.
On October 31 2013 06:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
More than fair enough. Any idea where the rumors that he was going to forfeit his group as well were coming from?
On October 31 2013 02:56 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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 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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
There have been plenty arguments in this thread to support bounties. If someone argues that Naniwa should've had a bounty on his head as well when ForGG slummed through his match up, that is completely logically sound. The position you're defending now is plain silly though.
On October 31 2013 03:06 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
On October 31 2013 06:37 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: TaeJa was sick and forfeited his match against Minigun to fly home and get a doctor's appointment. We explained this when it happened. We expect him to play tomorrow we see no reason why he wouldn't based on forfeiting an earlier match when he wasn't feeling well. NASL has the same understanding of the situation.
How does Taeja feel about taking Naniwa's money? Hasn't he already taken enough foreigner money T_T
$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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
On October 31 2013 03:13 Plansix wrote: [quote] 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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote:
On October 31 2013 03:46 Plansix wrote: [quote] Well, some people don't want to hear that and want to keep claiming its unfair. Of course professional players in all sports make wagers and set bounties against eachother. It makes the game more fun and exciting.
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote: I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
Oh fuck, didn´t notice that, we need a skilled paint hero to portray this epicness in a image. Where is lichter when you need him?
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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote:
On October 31 2013 04:03 Storm71 wrote: [quote]
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team it wasn't a big deal at a... oh wait
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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?
On October 31 2013 03:24 Plansix wrote: [quote] He offered it to make a joke and hype the match.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
On October 31 2013 03:42 Wombat_NI wrote: It's quite frustrating to hear the 'this would never be tolerated in real sports' when it is, frequently.
Positive incentivisation is completely distinct from the likes of matchfixing which are more obviously unethical.
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
On October 31 2013 04:09 stratmatt wrote: [quote]
Yeah when Pete Rose bet on his own team he was BETTING on his own team. This isnt naniwa making a bet, this is naniwa throwing a cash prize out there for a player who actually has to WIN a match. You sound dumb and now I am even more mad that naniwa might not even be serious which means fuck that guy because the coolest thing he has ever done isnt even a real thing anymore :/
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
You think Naniwa made the tweet to hype up Revival's group matches? I can get behind it potentially being a joke, but you clearly don't know Naniwa if you think he wanted to hype Revival's WCS group.
[quote]
Wait, no no no, there is no way this would fly in most professional sports. If a team tried this stunt in soccer, they'd be done for the season.
[quote]
You realize from a moral standpoint, offering someone else money to target a player is worse than putting more on the line for yourself right?
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.
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.
But now that we know that TaeJa is playing, if you want top 2, you need to beat one of the two koreans, and so you have to focus on him to beat him. Now you have to choose between focusing on Revival or focusing on TaeJa. Obviously you choose Revival.
So that won't change a thing?
So can we finally move on to more important matters, like the fact that Jon Snow fights for the king in the north?
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.
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.
On October 31 2013 07:11 Darkhoarse wrote: Taeja is about to make the easiest 500 bucks of his life...
if he plays from korea not so sure.
Well won't Revival play from Korea as well? And WCS AM had that stupid rule where two players playing from KR still had to play on the NA server.
well it's not stupid, it's WCS AM you play on AM server...it's called WCS AM
Welllll here's the thing though. I think it's more than fair to make a player playing from KR against someone in NA to play on the NA server, because as you say, it is WCS AM and they should play on that server. But if it is between two people in KR, the only thing playing on the NA server will do is make both players lag and just bring down the overall quality of the game.
Personally, I have no problems with this. Infact, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
While some people might think of it as akin to bribing, incentive to win is different from incentive to lose right? We would've expect them as professionals to try their best to win in every game regardless of what's on the line anyway, but we know that's not realistic, so what's wrong with a little bonus?
I'm sure all of us want to see competitve games instead of meaningless friendlies. It could've been a smarter play to keep it under wraps, but there are pros to announcing it publicly I guess.
On October 31 2013 05:56 Snusmumriken wrote: I find it funny that jonsnow has the fate of the king in the north in his hands. What does that make revival?
Oh fuck, didn´t notice that, we need a skilled paint hero to portray this epicness in a image. Where is lichter when you need him?
Revival is of course one of R'hllor 's Red Priests... reviving and stuff
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 don't think we should want a scene where throwing money at matches can give you an edge. Yeah in your scenario they might still lose to TaeJa, or they might've beaten him regardless. The only thing we can be certain of is that they have more motivation to beat TaeJa because someone is throwing money around to influence them. How much $500 is worth to these guys is debatable and varies from person to person. However, if the offer is real, Naniwa certainly seems to be under the impression it'll make a difference.
I'm still working this out myself, if I was certain there wouldn't be a point in debating it. But it feels extra scummy when you make money off of the matches. At that point you're throwing money at a match in the hopes of upping your chances to win more money yourself.
In the end, if they can't beat him, they can't beat him. Playing devils advocate for a moment though: (Boring reasoning about why it's statistically reasonable to only focus on playing against Revival and not giving much care to the other match ups) + Show Spoiler +
If the bracket has Jon and Select on one and Revival and TaeJa on the other side. Jon and Select have some interest in beating each other, but only because it guarantees they'll get a shot at Revival. The loser of Jon vs Select only gets a shot if TaeJa beats Revival, or if they proceed to beat TaeJa and the winner of the Jon vs Select match beats Revival. They could also just say fuck all the other match ups and only focus on playing Revival.
Only if they lost every match and Revival won every match or vice versa would they not get a chance at the bounty. Statistically, if all players were even, they'd only have a.. (0.5^3)*2, 1 in 4 chance of not getting a shot at the bounty anyway. If one doesn't, the other player is guaranteed to.
If they're on opposite sides of the bracket, one player is obviously guaranteed to get a shot at Revival and could only focus on that match up and the other will have to take his chances (I think 50-50 he'll get to face him? didn't do the math).
These players now have a $500 motive to only focus on Revival until there's nothing more they can do to prepare. Whomever plays him first, if they win vs Revival will have a $500 motive to throw their next match in the hopes of getting to play Revival again.
Now I don't think these players are particularly likely to go after the money more than the average person. How likely you think this is depends on how trusting you are in the good and honest nature of other people. But I think some people would argue that every player has his price, and it's only a question of whether the bounty is big enough. Thankfully, I'm pretty trusting, if I weren't, I'd be very concerned. Placing a bounty on a specific player is definitely dodgy.
It would've been better to offer money to the first and second place of the group, regardless of who those players are and who they beat. Then still an argument could be made "why should Revivals group have added incentives to make it tougher, when Naniwa's wcs run had people playing who didn't have much to gain".
Side-note: I highly doubt Naniwa actually thought this all through when he made the tweet. Even if it's a legitimate offer, I doubt he even realized that what he was doing was rather shady.
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
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.
On October 31 2013 09:11 Prillan wrote: The problem is that giving the person beating Revival $500 can still cause Revival to throw the game and split the money with the winner.
Fortunately, going to Blizzcon gives you $5000 minimum so I'm guessing Revival will play to win.
I guess we should just scrap monetary prizes all together then, since this applies to almost every professionally played game then.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Man, this is hilarious yet incredibly pathetic and cringe worthy at the same time. 44 pages of people getting butt hurt and arguing over something this trivial and harmless X_X.
The basic problem is that there is huge incentive for Taeja to throw the game for his teammate to make it to blizzcon. (5000 dollar bonus to do so)
Taeja and Revival aren't teammates. If Taeja was really good friends with Revival he would have thrown the game vs him $500 or not.
EG AND TL would never let that happen. The controversy would be extremely bad for all parties involved. Taeja was trying his hardest and playing his best im sure (I didnt see the games) as was expected of him.
Wtf people arguing about ethics? What's there to argue about? Even cheering against someone who can outrun you indirectly (i.e. when nothing depends on you, see nani's situation) is a bad sportsmanship leave alone paying for that to happen. The fact you pay actually makes the whole thing dependent on you in a way, so you're breaking the equilibrium there was. I don't give a shit if that's a common practice in La Liga - the guys paying up to 100kk to steal a player have no moral rights to appeal to sportsmanship whatsoever.
before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
The basic problem is that there is huge incentive for Taeja to throw the game for his teammate to make it to blizzcon. (5000 dollar bonus to do so)
Taeja and Revival aren't teammates. If Taeja was really good friends with Revival he would have thrown the game vs him $500 or not.
Yeah in proleague they are not teammates. I would never ever believe that ;p Basically what you are saying is that if revival and Taeja are friends, Taeja is a douche. (j/k)
Please no need to take sarcasm, seriously. LOL but seriously.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
On November 01 2013 10:37 juvenal wrote: Just to keep people wondering why on earth he's hated aye?
He has done a lot of stupid shit, from bm'ing all the time, to that famous proberush against Nestea and his personality/attitude is making him straight up dislikeable for me(and other people) And he just never stops, every time you think he gets better he does something new like this.
Ties within the Top 16 seeded players Ties within the top 16 WCS players will be decided by cumulative points earned only in World Championship Series America, Europe, Korea, and Season Finals events. If a tie remains, it will be settled through points earned only in WCS Tier 1 events. If the players in question are still tied, seeding will be decided by coin-toss.
Revival has 2300 Points in WCS events, while Naniwa only has 2000 Points. Doesn't that mean Revival gets the 16th spot and Naniwa is out?
thats for determing seeding within the top 16 only, ie two guys tied for 8th place. since this is a tie for the actual 16th spot they are playing a bo5 at blizzcon for that spot.
On November 01 2013 13:49 SafeAsCheese wrote: Wow you people are stupid. Obviously he meant anyone who knows revival out of the tiebreaker position
yeah hes right we're stupid. we had know idea that nani meant anyone who knows revival out of the tiebraker position.
wait......what?
knows = knocks
oh really!? well aren't you a genius i never would have guessed
Good thing he cleared it up then! Always glad when members of the community stick together and resolve issues they have with each other in a peaceful manner, like everyone should do!
On November 01 2013 13:49 SafeAsCheese wrote: Wow you people are stupid. Obviously he meant anyone who knows revival out of the tiebreaker position
if that's what he meant he should have wrote it out more clearly.
Well at the time of that tweet I'm pretty sure he thought Taeja was forfeiting the group. Paying $500 for Taeja to beat Revival is pretty redundant.
No you got the order reverse. He only tweeted "according to sasquatch Revivals group is taeja select and jonsnow and taeja gave walkover ? If hope this isnt true?" after he put up the bounty.
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
Sarcasm flies over the heads of Romanians in the halls of Team Liquid.
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
Sarcasm flies over the heads of Romanians in the halls of Team Liquid.
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
Sarcasm flies over the heads of Romanians in the halls of Team Liquid.
Sarcasm and Romanian in the same sentence?
mmm this is getting good. little bit of lying. little bit of hatin'. little bit of racism.... got some money factor in it.... getting in before the ban!
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote: [quote] after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
Sarcasm flies over the heads of Romanians in the halls of Team Liquid.
Sarcasm and Romanian in the same sentence?
mmm this is getting good. little bit of lying. little bit of hatin'. little bit of racism.... got some money factor in it.... getting in before the ban!
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
On November 02 2013 05:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
On November 01 2013 11:15 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:54 Ghanburighan wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:52 plogamer wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:34 Plansix wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:29 juvenal wrote:
On November 01 2013 10:25 Gamegene wrote: before people start losing their shit remember: it doesn't mean anything if taeja beats revival, and revival still makes it out of the challenger group and plays naniwa anyways at blizzcon.
pretty valid reason not to pay up imo.
after you've promised to pay - quoting - '500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival'. That would be an ultimate dick move.
Oh man, Naniwia shouldn't pay just to keep the drama train rolling. Then they should face off at Blizzcon and settle it once and for all.
If Naniwa did that I might get on the drama train.
I don't care that he put a friendly "bounty" (cmon, it's not a bullet to the head, people. Just relax). But if he backs out on his word, then I would lose what little respect I have left for him.
You have some left for him Result be results, but this guy has burned through his social capital a loooong time ago. I'm not even surprised he broke his promise, and entirely unable to muster the energy for pitchforking.
Well maybe he's broke. I know it's hard to think that since he has won $120,593 in total. But it could happen.
/edit
Just took a look at Revival's earnings and it's only a paltry $40,015 while tweeting him as greedy. Got to love that Swedish charm.
You wouldn't happen to be a Romanian immigrant, would you?
Well, not sure what being Romanian has anything to do with what I had to post. I hope you can explain yourself.
Sarcasm flies over the heads of Romanians in the halls of Team Liquid.
Add my 'people' to the list of people who don't understand sarcasm in Team liquid. I know that Plansix was being facetious in his post, but I do not read any sarcasm in the other posts or in Naniwa's tweets.
EPT
We need stuff like this :D
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BXtBB3gCIAAqjRu.jpg:large)
