|
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?
They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period.
My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months.
If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential.
|
Canada33091 Posts
On March 22 2014 06:55 zev318 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:54 IntoTheheart wrote: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.
But he wouldn't lose - he could be "top foreigner" in two weeks! So clearly it's the rest of [A] holding him back.
|
On March 22 2014 07:01 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote: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?
Examples: Stephano, Stardust. They didnt have to retire or renegotiate, they just missed out on a potential payment by chosing to not go to a tournament. E-sport Contracts are more flexible than you seem to think.
|
On March 22 2014 07:07 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:01 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Examples: Stephano, Stardust. They didnt have to retire or renegotiate, they just missed out on a potential payment by chosing to not go to a tournament. E-sport Contracts are more flexible than you seem to think.
Lucifron went back to his studies. If he decides to play again he is still on mouz.
|
On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris 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"? 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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential.
That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to.
They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance.
If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back.
|
On March 22 2014 07:07 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:01 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Examples: Stephano, Stardust. They didnt have to retire or renegotiate, they just missed out on a potential payment by chosing to not go to a tournament. E-sport Contracts are more flexible than you seem to think.
Stephano is still playing? Unless I have been dreaming his stream. Stardusts situation I have no clue about so I wont commentate. Naniwa quit the actual game, he didn't quit tournaments, he quit the game.
|
On March 22 2014 07:12 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:07 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 07:01 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Examples: Stephano, Stardust. They didnt have to retire or renegotiate, they just missed out on a potential payment by chosing to not go to a tournament. E-sport Contracts are more flexible than you seem to think. Stephano is still playing? Unless I have been dreaming his stream. Stardusts situation I have no clue about so I wont commentate. Naniwa quit the actual game, he didn't quit tournaments, he quit the game.
Wich is why he didnt want to go to IEM, and why it never made sense to force him to go. Get it?
|
On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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"? 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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back.
You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine.
There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost.
|
On March 22 2014 07:15 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:12 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:07 sc2holar wrote:On March 22 2014 07:01 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 06:57 sc2holar wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Examples: Stephano, Stardust. They didnt have to retire or renegotiate, they just missed out on a potential payment by chosing to not go to a tournament. E-sport Contracts are more flexible than you seem to think. Stephano is still playing? Unless I have been dreaming his stream. Stardusts situation I have no clue about so I wont commentate. Naniwa quit the actual game, he didn't quit tournaments, he quit the game. Wich is why he didnt want to go to IEM, and why it never made sense to force him to go. Get it?
They didn't force him, his option was to do his job or be fired. He's choice was to go throw a tantrum and then lie about soundproofing, blame his team for "forcing" him, basiclly acting like a major dick.
|
On March 22 2014 07:16 RiskyChris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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:
[quote]
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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine. There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost.
No, Naniwa is unimportant, what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. I do expect there to be dicks in the world and I'm fine with that, I did not, however, expect people to sympathise with them..
|
On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:16 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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:
[quote]
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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine. There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost. No, Naniwa is unimportant, what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. I do expect there to be dicks in the world and I'm fine with that, I did not, however, expect people to sympathise with them..
Now you are the one twisting things. Naniwa said in his statement that he doesnt actually care. He is not whining about not getting paid anymore.
|
On March 22 2014 07:21 sc2holar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:16 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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:
[quote]
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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine. There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost. No, Naniwa is unimportant, what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. I do expect there to be dicks in the world and I'm fine with that, I did not, however, expect people to sympathise with them.. Now you are the one twisting things. Naniwa said in his statement that he doesnt actually care. He is not whining about not getting paid anymore.
And after him lying about soundprofing and throwing a tantrum you will take his word for this? If he didn't care, then why did he go to the tournament, why not just quit?
|
On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:16 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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:
[quote]
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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine. There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost. No, Naniwa is unimportant, what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. I do expect there to be dicks in the world and I'm fine with that, I did not, however, expect people to sympathise with them..
I'm not really justifying anything. I think the outcome we ended up with is the worst one, entirely on Naniwa's shoulders (and he seems to agree that his actions caused his team's reaction). I argue that maybe, without further information, we could've had a situation where Alliance can still get value from Naniwa in the future in exchange for the trainwreck we got this week.
|
On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:
what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable.
Excuse me, where on earth did Naniwa express that he still wanted to get paid? Source please.
|
On March 22 2014 07:23 RiskyChris wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:16 RiskyChris wrote:On March 22 2014 07:10 Zeze wrote:On March 22 2014 07:02 RiskyChris wrote: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:
[quote]
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? They would negotiate a contract because Naniwa is still a valuable asset even if he's in a blackout period. My whole point is none of us know the full scope of potential arrangements Naniwa and Alliance could've come to. It's very possible to keep Naniwa on the backburner after he explained he doesn't want to play anymore, but expects to find a reignited passion in X months. If they dump him and in 2 months Naniwa goes on a tear and decides to start owning again, they've lost that potential. That's not a point. We know what arrangements they could come to because we know which one they did come to. They would keep a narcesistic man-child on a retainer without him fullfilling any purpose in the hope he might get back to the game after all the shit he pulled? Nobody would do that, including Alliance. If anyone cares about Naniwa after this I'm gonna be really sad on theri behalf. Wheather or not he ever comes back. You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about Naniwa. If you don't think there is a third option, that's fine. There's no doubt that the option Alliance went through with resulted in absolutely nothing of value gained and a potential asset lost. No, Naniwa is unimportant, what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. I do expect there to be dicks in the world and I'm fine with that, I did not, however, expect people to sympathise with them.. I'm not really justifying anything. I think the outcome we ended up with is the worst one, entirely on Naniwa's shoulders (and he seems to agree that his actions caused his team's reaction). I argue that maybe, without further information, we could've had a situation where Alliance can still get value from Naniwa in the future in exchange for the trainwreck we got this week.
That's a enternal posibility with everyone though, by that logic they would have to sign the entire world population. You can't run a bussnis on what ifs..
But since we seem to agree on the main point I won argue over details.
|
On March 22 2014 07:25 Gothic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 07:19 Zeze wrote:
what does anoy me is the people who somehow manage to twist someone deciding to quit his job but still want's to get payed choses to go to his work place, disgrace himself and then blame everyone else for his own decisions into something justifiable. Excuse me, where on earth did Naniwa express that he still wanted to get paid? Source please.
Source would be logic. Why would you want to stay on a team you feel are forcing you to do something you dont want to do if not for the money?
|
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.
not really. he was supposed to compete at IEM, bringing in positive exposure to alliance and its sponsors. Instead he did a bad job. see in the real corporate world, usually if your employer asks you to do something and you do a shitty job, you get fired. this is especially true if you cost the company money. naniwa's actions brought negative exposure to the team and sponsors, hence FIRED. naniwa didnt need to win his match against polt, he just needed to put on a good show and make some semblance of effort.
seriously, have any of you naniwa defenders worked at a job ever? how do you not understand how this stuff works. i feel sorry for when you guys enter the real world.
|
God I really wanted to be happy for him but the way he said that he could come back and be the best foreigner with two weeks of practice...still the same old Naniwa til the end.
|
This should not be a surprise to anyone.
Overall what bothers me is all this speculation. Does anyone actually know what happened between Naniwa, Alliance and their sponsors? I highly doubt it and we will most likely never know all of the truth. Do we even know that Naniwa was receiving paychecks before IEM?
|
best foreigner.. lol.. not even the best foreign protoss. Sase better. Too bad sase not given the chance to compete as much as Naniwa. Naniwa's self proclaimed best foreigner title. What a joke.. Just gave himself that because protoss is stronk in hots. Stephano was better than Naniwa will ever be.
I would rather have state or sase as my player. How does Naniwa forget it took stephano when zerg was op to stop him after getting through the korean gauntlet.
TLO,Dayshi, Vortix has more points in wcs than Naniwa. They have all won tourneys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
