|
Seriously people, if you're all fired up about pros not been paid money they're owed why don't you direct your attention to the organisers of IPL5 who apparently owe in excess of $50,000 and stop berating a player who may or may not have flaked out on an open bet he may or may not have been serious about.
|
On November 01 2013 21:15 Greendotz wrote:
Seriously people, if you're all fired up about pros not been paid money they're owed why don't you direct your attention to the organisers of IPL5 who apparently owe in excess of $50,000 and stop berating a player who may or may not have flaked out on an open bet he may or may not have been serious about.
I thought the IPL5 money scandal was a huge thing? It's not like they got away with it. But even if some people did turn a blind eye, two wrongs don't make a right.
|
On November 01 2013 21:17 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 21:15 Greendotz wrote:
Seriously people, if you're all fired up about pros not been paid money they're owed why don't you direct your attention to the organisers of IPL5 who apparently owe in excess of $50,000 and stop berating a player who may or may not have flaked out on an open bet he may or may not have been serious about. I thought the IPL5 money scandal was a huge thing? It's not like they got away with it. But even if some people did turn a blind eye, two wrongs don't make a right.
I believe a few low placing pros (Huk?) did receive their money after the initial twitter/reddit shitstorm. However about 3 weeks ago I heard Leenock still hasn't been paid his 40k (source from Choya's twitter, fairly reliable) to which some other pros relied that they also hadn't been paid. So while everyone does know about it I believe they've still gotten away with it.
|
On November 01 2013 19:09 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 19:04 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 18:58 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:55 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now. You really want to argue this? Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal. Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to paid the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no? what? the point isnt what in particular google wants. The point is that they don't pay for someone not doing what they want. I honestly don't see how you're arguing this point. If google says "We'll pay you if you find a bug," then anyone that does find a bug will get paid. Even if the bug cannot be fixed, google still pays out. The point is, if you say "A", you cannot go around saying "A only if B as well". That's being dishonest. No it's not being dishonest. That's why any contest like the one you describe has a rulebook 10s of pages long. The only thing Naniwa is guilty of is poorly phrasing that shit.
Err mate you are aware that the position you are trying to defend is completely wrong and against common law here right?
You are drawing an analogy which really doesn't apply.
Let me quote Naniwa's tweet:
since theres not much reason to try your best in wcs anymore right now, offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival :D
So this is the "offer" made by Naniwa. He doesn't mention what one must do to accept, the only thing he demands is that someone wins against Revival. Taeja did win. Naniwa doesn't pay.
I could go look for my legal dictionary and start throwing technical terms around, but frankly it is moot. Simply put Naniwa welched on a side bet. I doubt anything will come of it, but it shows (for the xth time basically) that he really has no sense of honor.
You can try to twist and turn what he meant by "wins" but frankly it really doesn't matter. He didn't say "to whoever eliminates revival" he said "wins". In this game that definition is crystal clear.
Regarding your first post, let just ask you one thing: In what world is "whoever wins against Revival" synonymous to "whoever eliminates Revival from a tournament" ?
|
United States1072 Posts
Man I really wanted Naniwa to play in blizzcon. Looks like its going to be an all Korean Blizzcon this year lol. Not to take anything away from the players but It would have been nice to see someone that is not korean be up there in the top 16 for the year.
|
Would prefer it if the No1 seed (Soulkey) got to pick his opponent from seeds 9–16, followed by Innovation picking his opponent etc. That would add even more hype – if it's even possible 
|
On November 01 2013 18:34 Mafab wrote:
I find this to be really bad decisioning by ESL. They just gave someone close to the cutoff a random seed in IEM, which made this possible even without having a good run (Revival dropped out in the first round), whereas Nani got second in a tournament that he fought through the qualifier. ESL should really not give people close to cutoff a seed, as this is just not how a tie should happen.
Very good point.
|
On November 01 2013 21:29 Pirfiktshon wrote:
Man I really wanted Naniwa to play in blizzcon. Looks like its going to be an all Korean Blizzcon this year lol. Not to take anything away from the players but It would have been nice to see someone that is not korean be up there in the top 16 for the year.
As much as I want to deny it, if Naniwa is in a positive mind set he will have a good chance against Revival because of their playstyles. Which is sad because SoulKey has no chance at all at winning against Revival ! So go Revival win it all ! And give Select the 500 dollar for not sleeping for 24hours prior to his matches.
|
more sc2 games YESSS HYPE HYPE HYPE
|
On November 01 2013 21:29 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 19:09 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 19:04 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 18:58 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:55 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:
[quote]
pretty obvious that was what he meant.
If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now. You really want to argue this? Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal. Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to paid the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no? what? the point isnt what in particular google wants. The point is that they don't pay for someone not doing what they want. I honestly don't see how you're arguing this point. If google says "We'll pay you if you find a bug," then anyone that does find a bug will get paid. Even if the bug cannot be fixed, google still pays out. The point is, if you say "A", you cannot go around saying "A only if B as well". That's being dishonest. No it's not being dishonest. That's why any contest like the one you describe has a rulebook 10s of pages long. The only thing Naniwa is guilty of is poorly phrasing that shit. Err mate you are aware that the position you are trying to defend is completely wrong and against common law here right? You are drawing an analogy which really doesn't apply. Let me quote Naniwa's tweet: Show nested quote +
since theres not much reason to try your best in wcs anymore right now, offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival :D
So this is the "offer" made by Naniwa. He doesn't mention what one must do to accept, the only thing he demands is that someone wins against Revival. Taeja did win. Naniwa doesn't pay. I could go look for my legal dictionary and start throwing technical terms around, but frankly it is moot. Simply put Naniwa welched on a side bet. I doubt anything will come of it, but it shows (for the xth time basically) that he really has no sense of honor. You can try to twist and turn what he meant by "wins" but frankly it really doesn't matter. He didn't say "to whoever eliminates revival" he said "wins". In this game that definition is crystal clear. Regarding your first post, let just ask you one thing: In what world is "whoever wins against Revival" synonymous to "whoever eliminates Revival from a tournament" ?
Nobody cares.
I'm sure this match will generate a huge amount of hype, but the winner will most likely get stomped by Soulkey anyway, so I don't think it matters all that much.
|
This is such a load of bullshit.
Revival getting free points and all.
NANIWA FIGHTING
|
nevertheless, both players are getting teased a blizzcon...
you're here but you can't compete, sucka.
|
Good way to settle it! I don't think either one can win against Soulkey tough, but I feel like Nani have the best chance.
|
As someone said, this is the best possible outcome since this match will generate a lot of hype!
It would be really petty from Taeja if he wants money even though Revival got through, though.
|
On November 01 2013 21:29 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 19:09 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 19:04 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 18:58 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:55 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:
[quote]
pretty obvious that was what he meant.
If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now. You really want to argue this? Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal. Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to paid the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no? what? the point isnt what in particular google wants. The point is that they don't pay for someone not doing what they want. I honestly don't see how you're arguing this point. If google says "We'll pay you if you find a bug," then anyone that does find a bug will get paid. Even if the bug cannot be fixed, google still pays out. The point is, if you say "A", you cannot go around saying "A only if B as well". That's being dishonest. No it's not being dishonest. That's why any contest like the one you describe has a rulebook 10s of pages long. The only thing Naniwa is guilty of is poorly phrasing that shit. Err mate you are aware that the position you are trying to defend is completely wrong and against common law here right? You are drawing an analogy which really doesn't apply. Let me quote Naniwa's tweet: Show nested quote +
since theres not much reason to try your best in wcs anymore right now, offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival :D
So this is the "offer" made by Naniwa. He doesn't mention what one must do to accept, the only thing he demands is that someone wins against Revival. Taeja did win. Naniwa doesn't pay. I could go look for my legal dictionary and start throwing technical terms around, but frankly it is moot. Simply put Naniwa welched on a side bet. I doubt anything will come of it, but it shows (for the xth time basically) that he really has no sense of honor. You can try to twist and turn what he meant by "wins" but frankly it really doesn't matter. He didn't say "to whoever eliminates revival" he said "wins". In this game that definition is crystal clear. Regarding your first post, let just ask you one thing: In what world is "whoever wins against Revival" synonymous to "whoever eliminates Revival from a tournament" ?
It's a tweet.. it's quite logical that it was only relevant to Naniwa that Revival got knocked out, not just suffered one loss.
|
I think everybody is a winner, and I hope Naniwa is twice the winner and advances into the actual finals because that would add SUCH a great story line.
|
On November 01 2013 15:15 canikizu wrote:EG wins.
More like win-win scenario for the Otter.
On November 01 2013 22:16 TXRaunchy wrote:
nevertheless, both players are getting teased a blizzcon...
you're here but you can't compete, sucka.
Who wouldn't like vacation at Blizzcon? o-O
On November 01 2013 23:01 Jampackedeon wrote:
I think everybody is a winner, and I hope Naniwa is twice the winner and advances into the actual finals because that would add SUCH a great story line.
The fact they were they were chirping prior already adds story. They already got what they wanted.
|
On November 01 2013 21:41 Stinkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 18:34 Mafab wrote:
I find this to be really bad decisioning by ESL. They just gave someone close to the cutoff a random seed in IEM, which made this possible even without having a good run (Revival dropped out in the first round), whereas Nani got second in a tournament that he fought through the qualifier. ESL should really not give people close to cutoff a seed, as this is just not how a tie should happen. Very good point.
Naniwa got seed for WCS S1 EU, Revival played in WCS Challenger NA S1. Nani got more points for just have a seed than revival playing challenger.
|
Oh this is going to be good.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
nani nani nani, damn you revival
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
