EPTKorean forum opinions on Afreeca's reply to KeSPA - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
OrangeGarage
Korea (South)319 Posts
| ||
|
Jjjinyong
9 Posts
The Black Sox Scandal took place during the play of the 1919 World Series. The Chicago White Sox lost the series to the Cincinnati Reds, and eight White Sox players were later accused of intentionally losing games in exchange for money from gamblers. The players were acquitted in court, but nevertheless, they were all banned for life from baseball. .... After being banned, Risberg and several other members of the Black Sox tried to organize a three-state barnstorming tour. However, they were forced to cancel those plans after Landis let it be known that anyone who played with or against them would also be banned from baseball for life. They then announced plans to play a regular exhibition game every Sunday in Chicago, but the Chicago City Council threatened to cancel the license of any ballpark that hosted them. From r_gg's post. THIS | ||
|
-Celestial-
United Kingdom3867 Posts
On October 22 2015 10:20 RCCar wrote: 3. Vimeo, Google, and Dailymotion don't host the next World Cup. I was literally about to post this exact thing after seeing that guy's post. His analogy is terrible, its nothing like what KeSPA is pushing for. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On October 22 2015 11:45 -Celestial- wrote: I was literally about to post this exact thing after seeing that guy's post. His analogy is terrible, its nothing like what KeSPA is pushing for. Not trying to side with anyone here, but Vimeo, Google, and Dailymotion would have to pay tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to host the next world cup. | ||
|
supernovamaniac
United States3046 Posts
But players and viewers also have the right to not watch/play in GSL if they didn't like Afreeca's actions. It's their decision. Simple. | ||
|
Zibit
United States9 Posts
On October 22 2015 05:21 pure.Wasted wrote: One of the fundamental issues in this thread is legal precedent. Specifically, setting precedent for discriminating against match-fixers. I've demonstrated that legal precedent exists for discriminating against criminals on the basis of their having no integrity on top of the crime they committed. The army isn't even the only place this happens, it was only the first that came to mind. If you're convicted of a felony in the US, you can't ever get a job as a police officer. In what world is that fair?! The felony you committed had nothing to do with being a police officer! Well, in the eyes of the law, you are now legally a shitstain of a human being, so... too bad, so sad. Okay, just want to point out that I don't think you understand what the term "legal precedent" means. Apologies if you do actually know this and are actually citing a specific ruling which you just didn't happen to actually quote. It doesn't mean that something similar somewhere has happened. It specifically refers to case law where there is a precedent handed down as a ruling. This precedent is then referred to in other cases later. Funny thing is, it isn't even similar. It the case of the Army and the US Post Office, you're talking about the SAME EMPLOYER. It's the US Government. Reducto ad absurdum: There's precedent because being fired from a company, you couldn't be hired by the exact same company anymore. Being fired by an employer and not being hired back by the same exact employer doesn't equate to this issue. What about a progamer's previous job equates to any precedent to not be able to use a service owned by a different company?... One which does not consider him an employee or a representative? As for police work, I think this one is a bit closer to a true analogy but it still fails to represent this argument. As a felon you broke certain laws, and now we do not hold you to the standard of being the arbiters of said laws. What about a progamer's previous infractions/crimes would ban him from using a service on which he will neither be a member of KeSPA nor be involved in crime? Does society dictate someone who breaks the law now shouldn't be the arbiters of streaming personal, legal content? Do you see how streaming isn't the same as being a cop? When it comes to the legal side [ie the only think I'm arguing here] I don't think there's precedent at all. I could be wrong though, there could be some Korean case that applies. Regardless, the analogies are just wrong and having nothing to do with precedent, legal or otherwise. Phew... time to catch up on SSL 11 vods I missed. Good thread! | ||
NovemberstOrm
Canada16217 Posts
| ||
|
Kyir
United States1047 Posts
| ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On October 22 2015 15:57 Kyir wrote: Gotta love mob rule. Reasonable or not, Afreeca based their business decision based on how many potential costumers they would lose from the bad PR it would generate. Afreeca doesn't give two shits about principles. | ||
| ||
