|
On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism?
Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work?
He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid.
|
Hypothesis 1: NaNiwa would have been fired after IEM anyway. He knew it, and so he decided to make one good last show in his style.
Hypothesis 2: NaNiwa would have been fired after IEM anyway. He knew it, became mad and made a good last show by accident.
Hypothesis 3: NaNiwa would have been fired after IEM anyway. [A] & NaNiwa deiced together to make the best out of it and one last good show.
|
On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid.
Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road?
There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less).
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I think Naniwa is just farming achievement points.
Join every single team - +100
|
On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid.
While this logic probably would not fly well in my field of business, it worked out just fine for Stardust @ IEM NY and Stephano has turned down tournaments on multiple occasions because he didnt feel like playing. Stop with the silly comparisons already.
|
On March 22 2014 06:30 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:24 fishjie wrote:
lol what i want to wonder is how old are these ppl defending naniwa and have they ever held a job in their lives. its not a hard concept to grasp - you get paid to do x, you do x. if you don't want to, you get fired. simple.
naniwa trying to act like a victim by being "forced" to do his job? only someone who is currently unemployed (and hence wouldn't understand concepts such as professionalism) would buy that line of reasoning As mentioned above, players skip tournaments all the time (without having to retire or leave their teams), but for some reason Naniwa was not allowed to. This is not like a regular job.
Team paying Naniwa to give them exposure and exposure to sponsors. Team says Naniwa needs to go. When an employer tells you what you need to do, as an employee you have three choices:
a) do it
b) negotiate and explain why doing some different option is better. if they don't agree then either do a or c
c) don't do it and get fired
naniwa chose c and got fired.
As for other players not going to tourneys, this is stuff that would be discussed behind the scenes with their employers so not a big deal. In this situation the people who pay naniwa requests his services and he did not deliver and was justly terminated.
|
On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less).
Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not?
Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why?
|
On March 22 2014 06:41 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:30 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 06:24 fishjie wrote:
lol what i want to wonder is how old are these ppl defending naniwa and have they ever held a job in their lives. its not a hard concept to grasp - you get paid to do x, you do x. if you don't want to, you get fired. simple.
naniwa trying to act like a victim by being "forced" to do his job? only someone who is currently unemployed (and hence wouldn't understand concepts such as professionalism) would buy that line of reasoning As mentioned above, players skip tournaments all the time (without having to retire or leave their teams), but for some reason Naniwa was not allowed to. This is not like a regular job. Team paying Naniwa to give them exposure and exposure to sponsors. Team says Naniwa needs to go. When an employer tells you what you need to do, as an employee you have three choices: a) do it b) negotiate and explain why doing some different option is better. if they don't agree then either do a or c c) don't do it and get fired naniwa chose c and got fired. As for other players not going to tourneys, this is stuff that would be discussed behind the scenes with their employers so not a big deal. In this situation the people who pay naniwa requests his services and he did not deliver and was justly terminated.
Actually, he chose A. he did go to IEM you know.
|
On March 22 2014 06:30 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:24 fishjie wrote:
lol what i want to wonder is how old are these ppl defending naniwa and have they ever held a job in their lives. its not a hard concept to grasp - you get paid to do x, you do x. if you don't want to, you get fired. simple.
naniwa trying to act like a victim by being "forced" to do his job? only someone who is currently unemployed (and hence wouldn't understand concepts such as professionalism) would buy that line of reasoning As mentioned above, players skip tournaments all the time (without having to retire or leave their teams), but for some reason Naniwa was not allowed to. This is not like a regular job.
ya players skip cause their teams were ok with it, alliance was not ok with this one and that's well within their rights. you're under contract, and you do what the team tells you to do. if they think oh this tournament is very important for the team, then ya they're gonna tell you to go. if you dont like being told which tournament that you have to go to, you can quit, just like any job out there.
|
On March 22 2014 06:43 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:41 fishjie wrote:On March 22 2014 06:30 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 06:24 fishjie wrote:
lol what i want to wonder is how old are these ppl defending naniwa and have they ever held a job in their lives. its not a hard concept to grasp - you get paid to do x, you do x. if you don't want to, you get fired. simple.
naniwa trying to act like a victim by being "forced" to do his job? only someone who is currently unemployed (and hence wouldn't understand concepts such as professionalism) would buy that line of reasoning As mentioned above, players skip tournaments all the time (without having to retire or leave their teams), but for some reason Naniwa was not allowed to. This is not like a regular job. Team paying Naniwa to give them exposure and exposure to sponsors. Team says Naniwa needs to go. When an employer tells you what you need to do, as an employee you have three choices: a) do it b) negotiate and explain why doing some different option is better. if they don't agree then either do a or c c) don't do it and get fired naniwa chose c and got fired. As for other players not going to tourneys, this is stuff that would be discussed behind the scenes with their employers so not a big deal. In this situation the people who pay naniwa requests his services and he did not deliver and was justly terminated. Actually, he chose A. he did go to IEM you know.
REALLY? That's your response?????
|
On March 22 2014 06:42 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less). Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not? Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why?
I didn't say anywhere that they'd pay him even at all. I just merely stated that contract renegotiation while Naniwa sorts himself out was an option people keep ignoring.
I don't know how to explain to you how this is different from a job that requires you to do strict labor.
|
Bisutopia19262 Posts
I just hope he does well when joins Alliance's dota 2 team.
|
On March 22 2014 06:47 RiskyChris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:42 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less). Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not? Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why? I didn't say anywhere that they'd pay him even at all. I just merely stated that contract renegotiation while Naniwa sorts himself out was an option people keep ignoring. I don't know how to explain to you how this is different from a job that requires you to do strict labor.
So he didnt wan't to do his job and you don't necessarly think they should pay him to do the job he wasnt doing, then why would they negotiate a contract? How do you imagin that going down? "Hi, I don't want to work" "Ok so we won't pay you" "Fine" "Good sign here"?
You can't explain why it's different yet you mantain that it is? If you have a opinion you should be able to argue in it's favour, if you can't, maybe you should reconsider the opinion?
|
On March 22 2014 06:45 tshi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:43 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 06:41 fishjie wrote:On March 22 2014 06:30 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 06:24 fishjie wrote:
lol what i want to wonder is how old are these ppl defending naniwa and have they ever held a job in their lives. its not a hard concept to grasp - you get paid to do x, you do x. if you don't want to, you get fired. simple.
naniwa trying to act like a victim by being "forced" to do his job? only someone who is currently unemployed (and hence wouldn't understand concepts such as professionalism) would buy that line of reasoning As mentioned above, players skip tournaments all the time (without having to retire or leave their teams), but for some reason Naniwa was not allowed to. This is not like a regular job. Team paying Naniwa to give them exposure and exposure to sponsors. Team says Naniwa needs to go. When an employer tells you what you need to do, as an employee you have three choices: a) do it b) negotiate and explain why doing some different option is better. if they don't agree then either do a or c c) don't do it and get fired naniwa chose c and got fired. As for other players not going to tourneys, this is stuff that would be discussed behind the scenes with their employers so not a big deal. In this situation the people who pay naniwa requests his services and he did not deliver and was justly terminated. Actually, he chose A. he did go to IEM you know. REALLY? That's your response?????
Yes, Really. He went to IEM and forfeited his first series - wich is his right as a participant. Alliance responded by releasing him from, the team, as is their right. So what is there to discuss really? Now put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mister.
|
On March 22 2014 06:51 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:47 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:42 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less). Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not? Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why? I didn't say anywhere that they'd pay him even at all. I just merely stated that contract renegotiation while Naniwa sorts himself out was an option people keep ignoring. I don't know how to explain to you how this is different from a job that requires you to do strict labor. So he didnt wan't to do his job and you don't necessarly think they should pay him to do the job he wasnt doing, then why would they negotiate a contract? How do you imagin that going down? "Hi, I don't want to work" "Ok so we won't pay you" "Fine" "Good sign here"? You can't explain why it's different yet you mantain that it is? If you have a opinion you should be able to argue in it's favour, if you can't, maybe you should reconsider the opinion?
nah bro, its different. why? IT JUST IS, OK?!?!
|
On March 22 2014 06:49 BisuDagger wrote:
I just hope he does well when joins Alliance's dota 2 team.
Did Nani ever play DotA?
|
This is kind of strange from my perspective because usually people get upset and rage when they are invested in something (e.g. idrA), but he talks like he just didn't care at all so why get worked up about losing?
|
On March 22 2014 06:54 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:49 BisuDagger wrote:
I just hope he does well when joins Alliance's dota 2 team. Did Nani ever play DotA?
oh man, can u imagine naniwa in a team game when he never blames himself for anything? id pay to see that.
|
On March 22 2014 06:51 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:47 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:42 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less). Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not? Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why? I didn't say anywhere that they'd pay him even at all. I just merely stated that contract renegotiation while Naniwa sorts himself out was an option people keep ignoring. I don't know how to explain to you how this is different from a job that requires you to do strict labor. So he didnt wan't to do his job and you don't necessarly think they should pay him to do the job he wasnt doing, then why would they negotiate a contract? How do you imagin that going down? "Hi, I don't want to work" "Ok so we won't pay you" "Fine" "Good sign here"?
Yeah, that is pretty much how contracts work in this business. When a player performs during a tournament, they get paid. When they turn down a tournament (wich again, HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE) they dont get paid for that particular tournament. Its pretty simple and logical.
|
On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:51 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:47 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:42 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:37 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 06:34 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 05:59 Ravomat wrote:On March 22 2014 05:56 Broodwurst wrote:On March 22 2014 05:44 aldochillbro wrote:
it's terrible that anyone is defending the team in this situation. I get blaming nani, but how can anyone defend that pretty much forced one of their players to get on a plane and play in a tournament that he didn't want to be in? in a scene that gets butthurt about...everything, how come his team is taking less of the blame? It's his fucking job. I'm amazed by your tone. So just because [A] dishes out some cash they are invulnerable to criticism? Do you use this logic with your employer? Just because you pay me you can't expect me to work? He had a job to do which he didn't want to, there is two acceptable options, you quit your job or you do it. Acting like a child and then blaming everyone else for your choices, including lying about soundproofing, is not anything but stupid. Why are people still comparing this to traditional jobs where you put the fries in the basket or hit the road? There is OBVIOUSLY a third option where Alliance and Naniwa come to an agreement to not participate in IEM, perhaps over a contract renegotiation in order to better serve Alliance's interests and Naniwa's (i.e. pay Naniwa less). Because this is a traditional job, unless you can explain why it is not? Why would they pay him when he has stated that he won't play anymore? Out of charity? Your third option is that a competetiv team take on someone as a charity chase? Why? I didn't say anywhere that they'd pay him even at all. I just merely stated that contract renegotiation while Naniwa sorts himself out was an option people keep ignoring. I don't know how to explain to you how this is different from a job that requires you to do strict labor. So he didnt wan't to do his job and you don't necessarly think they should pay him to do the job he wasnt doing, then why would they negotiate a contract? How do you imagin that going down? "Hi, I don't want to work" "Ok so we won't pay you" "Fine" "Good sign here"? Yeah, that is pretty much how contracts work in this business. When a player performs during a tournament, they get paid. When they turn down a tournament (wich again, HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES BEFORE) they dont get paid for that particular tournament. Its pretty simple and logical.
Really? So you have no problem finding tons of example of players retiring and then renegotiate the contract to say that the player wont play and the team will not pay him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
