|
Poland3748 Posts
On October 22 2015 00:24 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2015 23:24 nimdil wrote:On October 21 2015 22:16 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On October 21 2015 21:36 Penev wrote:On October 21 2015 21:19 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The idea that you can become popular through gaming and then throw matches and still use that same popularity and fanbase to continue to earn money does not set a good precedent, as it basically mitigates a lot of the risk of throwing matches. In order to properly motivate people to make the right life decisions getting caught for throwing matches should put people in a lot worse of a situation than never throwing them at all. If these two widely different decisions are too close to each other in value there isn't enough deterrence. I'm really sorry but streaming Afreeca has everything to do with using the popularity gained as a progamer and nothing to do with doing groceries. There's a whole world outside of StarCraft to consider. On what basis can one deny formerly convicted criminals to use products or services they abused in the past? In this case there isn't any legal basis I presume. Only Afreeca can ban these former offenders. They are not doing this because they say they feel they shouldn't give out extra punishment on top of what they already got. One can agree or not but it is, and should be, only their prerogative. Right it is up to Afreeca to decide whether they want to comply with a sports associations request and figure out whether they want to fall within the sports confines or outside of it. However make no mistake the law is one thing, but sports federations oftentimes, and rightfully so, have their own regulation that trumps it. In this case KeSPA is hoping that Afreeca feels they are part of the sports ecosystem instead of outside of it. Afreeca is in their full right to decline this, but IMO it would be nice if they had complied, as I do think streaming services are a huge part of the esports ecosystem. If Lance Armstrong would show up on a bike in TV, should UCI try to protest and ban him from ever appearing with a bike in TV? I think not. Afreeca perhaps can ban them from streaming games (and BTW: which games? IF YoDa streams LoL - would it be OK? WC3? WoW? Witcher3? Or should he be permabanned for streaming anything including playing on a guitar and singing k-pop covers?) but they shouldn't because streaming casual games and competing is just different activity, even if similar in some aspects. Sorry but when you say he shouldn't be allowed to stream SC, it almost sounds like streaming SC is for professional gamers playing SC so when he is kicked out from being professional gamer, he shouldn't be allowed to stream. The only situation I'd agree with banning Yoda and the rest for Afreeca was if Afreeca was solely dedicated as streaming platform for professional gamers. It isn't (AFAIK). EDIT: Worth to point out: Yoda streaming on Afreeca is probably bad for esports (it sounds bad I'm not sure how actually bad it will be) but that doesn't justify him being banned. The entire point of banning match fixers from appearing on afreeca has less to do with banning them from streaming sc2 (there are very good reasons for this, profitting from crime etc) and more to do with afreeca hosting the most prestigious and historied sc2 tournament. To go back to your anology, if for whatever reason people started to generate income via streaming themselves riding a bike, and espn got the rights to live stream lance armstrong then yes, there would be a pretty clear conflict of interest.
ESPN is sports TV channel while Afreeca is not exclusively esports streaming service. So to make your point more appropriate:
80% of ESPN is owned by Walt Disney. Could Lance Armstrong live stream biking on any other Walt Disney owned TV channel?
Because I'm sure Yoda won't stream on Afreeca platform through GSL channel.
|
On October 22 2015 00:56 nimdil wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2015 00:24 bo1b wrote:On October 21 2015 23:24 nimdil wrote:On October 21 2015 22:16 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:On October 21 2015 21:36 Penev wrote:On October 21 2015 21:19 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The idea that you can become popular through gaming and then throw matches and still use that same popularity and fanbase to continue to earn money does not set a good precedent, as it basically mitigates a lot of the risk of throwing matches. In order to properly motivate people to make the right life decisions getting caught for throwing matches should put people in a lot worse of a situation than never throwing them at all. If these two widely different decisions are too close to each other in value there isn't enough deterrence. I'm really sorry but streaming Afreeca has everything to do with using the popularity gained as a progamer and nothing to do with doing groceries. There's a whole world outside of StarCraft to consider. On what basis can one deny formerly convicted criminals to use products or services they abused in the past? In this case there isn't any legal basis I presume. Only Afreeca can ban these former offenders. They are not doing this because they say they feel they shouldn't give out extra punishment on top of what they already got. One can agree or not but it is, and should be, only their prerogative. Right it is up to Afreeca to decide whether they want to comply with a sports associations request and figure out whether they want to fall within the sports confines or outside of it. However make no mistake the law is one thing, but sports federations oftentimes, and rightfully so, have their own regulation that trumps it. In this case KeSPA is hoping that Afreeca feels they are part of the sports ecosystem instead of outside of it. Afreeca is in their full right to decline this, but IMO it would be nice if they had complied, as I do think streaming services are a huge part of the esports ecosystem. If Lance Armstrong would show up on a bike in TV, should UCI try to protest and ban him from ever appearing with a bike in TV? I think not. Afreeca perhaps can ban them from streaming games (and BTW: which games? IF YoDa streams LoL - would it be OK? WC3? WoW? Witcher3? Or should he be permabanned for streaming anything including playing on a guitar and singing k-pop covers?) but they shouldn't because streaming casual games and competing is just different activity, even if similar in some aspects. Sorry but when you say he shouldn't be allowed to stream SC, it almost sounds like streaming SC is for professional gamers playing SC so when he is kicked out from being professional gamer, he shouldn't be allowed to stream. The only situation I'd agree with banning Yoda and the rest for Afreeca was if Afreeca was solely dedicated as streaming platform for professional gamers. It isn't (AFAIK). EDIT: Worth to point out: Yoda streaming on Afreeca is probably bad for esports (it sounds bad I'm not sure how actually bad it will be) but that doesn't justify him being banned. The entire point of banning match fixers from appearing on afreeca has less to do with banning them from streaming sc2 (there are very good reasons for this, profitting from crime etc) and more to do with afreeca hosting the most prestigious and historied sc2 tournament. To go back to your anology, if for whatever reason people started to generate income via streaming themselves riding a bike, and espn got the rights to live stream lance armstrong then yes, there would be a pretty clear conflict of interest. ESPN is sports TV channel while Afreeca is not exclusively esports streaming service. So to make your point more appropriate: 80% of ESPN is owned by Walt Disney. Could Lance Armstrong live stream biking on any other Walt Disney owned TV channel? Because I'm sure Yoda won't stream on Afreeca platform through GSL channel.
You don't think that's slightly disingenuous? In the context of this discussion Afreeca is certainly known as primarily an esports streaming service (to be frank I had never investigated what else Afreeca had streamed, though thats more on me), and espn is almost always recognised as a sports tv channel before being recognised as a channel under the umbrella of Walt Disney.
However, back to the anology, would you not consider a more accurate comparison something like: Lance Armstrong streaming on espn 4 is equivalent to Yoda streaming on afreeca.yoda.com (I confess I don't really know how they structure there website).
That said this is still a fairly incomplete comparison.
This is probably the last I'm going to respond to right now, it's 3am and I'm tired. I'll respond tomorrow if theres more.
|
On October 22 2015 00:52 DCStarcraftGall wrote:Rumor: Players are reportedly boycotting GSL  Not confirmed but I'll try to find additional info http://m.sports.naver.com/general/news/read.nhn?oid=442&aid=0000025073Inven article from former Prime player who is now a reporter. I will translate later and add this on OP. Thank you for all the feedbacks. You guys have given much to talk about on SGall and are prompting further response from people and are really pulling this topic in depth. General consensus is still agreeing with Kespa though. Also idk if you guys know Kespa changed a lot with its new head since 2010? Some of info on Kespa does not apply now.
Thanks for reaching out to us! If you find any more info on the possbible boycott, post it here please!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/497021-possible-boycott-of-afreeca-tv-gsl
|
On October 21 2015 18:07 Ragnarork wrote:Show nested quote +Above the law, there are certain unspoken rules that are so obvious that the law does not need to designate them one by one, an this us a violation of it. How FUCKED UP is that, damn! Make it laws, or drop it... I hate these parts of cultures when there's a government. If people have to abide to that, make them laws. If not, then don't fucking mess with people about these "unspiken rules". I'd be curious as to where these come from. Also, I'm reaaaaaally puzzled about that "we ban because you tried to move to another platform". Like... the logic seems pretty off... I can get the point though of the issue of having on the same platform the matchfixers and the league they fixed in..
안준영(currently in military) made a comparison. "Go on a subway and lie down on the floor or seat and take up all the space since it isn't illegal why don't you?"
The logic IS off, and thats what Afreeca did. This isn't some twisted analogy people made up
|
I can understand that koreans take such things very seriously, but you guys (i mean native koreans) should also understand one thing. People in the west are not that social dependent and have a more liberal kind of thinking and overall attitude towards life and its social aspects. We tend to believe that person who commited a crime should be brought to justice and be punished accordingly (to the law), no less but also. not more. Everything above this is purely one's private concern. Flaming someone who is acting strictly according to law but not as you want him to act is inadmissible here.
|
Above the law, there are certain unspoken rules that are so obvious that the law does not need to designate them one by one
This statement is completely wrong. What is considered bad mannered is not considered illegal until such a case arises and a law is made. If the bottom line is its legal, like in this case, then they are allowed. Opinions are not a valid case to punish, incarcerate or ban. Thats called arbitrary justice and is emotional, immoral, and biased.
On a personal note, people need to stop getting on the hate train. While i do not condone the act, it was years ago and i believe in second chances.
|
Funny that people are willing to look the other way at Afreeca's strange business decisions about a 'game they love' solely for the reason of OMGWTF420LOL 1080P GSL BOIS.
|
141 Posts
On October 22 2015 01:52 RaymondFish wrote:
Funny that people are willing to look the other way at Afreeca's strange business decisions about a 'game they love' solely for the reason of OMGWTF420LOL 1080P GSL BOIS.
even funnier thing is that it was a complete opposite for the Korean audience, as they received a quality downgrade and got pigeonholed into Afreeca player being the only place they can watch it.
|
I do agree that people should get second chances. Afreeca can choose to let whoever they want stream. It's a little crappy that they would ban people for streaming on another platform.
On the other hand, if everything I'm seeing about Afreeca is true, I'd feel better about someone else hosting GSL. I'm pretty sure if the community voiced their opinion about wanting it somewhere else to Blizzard, Kespa, etc, via Twitter, Facebook, TL, Reddit, etc, an intervention would probably happen and GSL would go somewhere else.
|
what happens if they do all this banning and then the state drops the charges due to insufficient evidence?
let the process play out before these guys are sentenced to life in front of a firing squad.
|
United States12235 Posts
I think the most perplexing part about the OP is the expectation from Blizzard to get involved. What would they be expected to do exactly? Making a Battle.net account is free and copies of SC2 are inexpensive. Dedicate an employee to follow a pro's stream and ban each new account?
|
On October 22 2015 01:50 pebble444 wrote:Show nested quote +Above the law, there are certain unspoken rules that are so obvious that the law does not need to designate them one by one
This statement is completely wrong. What is considered bad mannered is not considered illegal until such a case arises and a law is made. If the bottom line is its legal, like in this case, then they are allowed. Opinions are not a valid case to punish, incarcerate or ban. Thats called arbitrary justice and is emotional, immoral, and biased. On a personal note, people need to stop getting on the hate train. While i do not condone the act, it was years ago and i believe in second chances.
I'll sign this opinion as well. I also believe in second chances.
|
On October 22 2015 02:08 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I think the most perplexing part about the OP is the expectation from Blizzard to get involved. What would they be expected to do exactly? Making a Battle.net account is free and copies of SC2 are inexpensive. Dedicate an employee to follow a pro's stream and ban each new account?
Blizzard can send takedown requests to Afreeca for streams from match fixers.
|
On October 21 2015 19:16 papaz wrote:
Calm the F down. Blizzard create games. If someone cheats in Starcraft 2 using 3rd party tools or hacks then Blizzard should/would ban that player.
However, a player throwing a match? How is that a Blizzard problem? Because they own the game?
People want go down that path and use that kind of logic, really?
Think about it for a minute...Good, now move on and let the police do what they do best and Blizzard do what they do best.
Ha, coming from a country without crime I can see why you might have faith in the police. But I was born in America where the police kill innocent people everyday. Time and time again, the legal system has never worked in my favor despite being clearly in the right.
If you want something done, you have to push to do it yourself. Don't wait for the police. In many countries they probably robbed you anyway.
On October 21 2015 19:14 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2015 17:56 Chexx wrote:
I think punishing matchfixers which already got their sentence/ruling. It is something to consider moving forward now with this scandal.
So I don't understand why they won't ban Yoda, B4 etc in addition with the KOO scandal it looks like hypocrisy I'm not sure if I get what you're saying. Is it: Don't ban former (Broodwar) matchfixers but do ban the new ones?
You may be right. Banning the bw match fixers because of what the sc2 ones did may not be fair. Just ban the new ones.
|
what's next, ban them from using a computer because they might figure out another way to game the system?
why stop there...
what a shitshow
KeSPA should just lick its wealthy wounds and carry on with business.
|
Unlike YoDa, BboongBboong only match-fixed in Proleague. Does that mean BboongBboong should be allowed to compete in GSL Code S?
Should he and YoDa both be allowed to join a foreign team and compete in WCS EU, provided they get their athlete visas?
Why not? These are all different events. Proleague is a team league, so BboongBboong never match fixed in an individual league. WCS isn't owned by KeSPA, so neither of them match fixed a non-KeSPA game. WCS EU isn't in Korea, where YoDa and BboongBboong are being held legally accountable for breaking Korean laws. So they should just be able to hop continents and escape all consequences for their actions, right?
The notion that denying streaming SC2, on AfreecaTV no less, is denying match-fixers' basic human rights is disingenuous. If you're right, then we've already denied their rights by denying them access to all competitive SC2 events full stop, and I see no fundamental reason why the line must be drawn exactly where you place it - between competitive events and streaming. As far as I'm concerned, the common denominator between the things YoDa and BboongBboong have been banned from so far is profiting from SC2, and streaming is profiting from SC2, so it falls under the same damn umbrella.
Theoretically, I don't mind match fixers streaming SC2 and earning some money. I don't like it. But it doesn't personally affect me. I just won't ever watch.
In practice, they're now doing it on a channel that is responsible for the integrity of the most competitive league in all of SC2. This is an absolute PR disaster waiting to happen. Anyone who cares about the growth of SC2 in Korea should be very concerned.
Seeing as how we've already banned these players from many things that they never tarnished, I see no compelling ethical reason to get cold feet before we ban them from profiting off of Afreeca streams.
|
you can't match fix on a stream - that is not the point of a stream - it is to be an entertainment of sorts, not a competition
thus, i see these two in separate categories:
- banning from competitions
- banning from streaming
|
On October 22 2015 01:13 DCStarcraftGall wrote:
안준영(currently in military) made a comparison. "Go on a subway and lie down on the floor or seat and take up all the space since it isn't illegal why don't you?"
At least in the places I've been this is actually illegal and can be enforced at the discretion of law enforcement. Not a good comparison at any rate.
|
On October 22 2015 04:43 mishimaBeef wrote:
you can't match fix on a stream - that is not the point of a stream - it is to be an entertainment of sorts, not a competition
thus, i see these two in separate categories:
- banning from competitions
- banning from streaming
When a US soldier is dishonorably discharged, they are not simply thrown out of the army, they are actually "banned" from ever working for the US government in any capacity ever again. Why? Because their crime is bigger than the specific thing of which they stand accused. Their crime is, in a very real sense, having no integrity.
Not every legal consequence of a crime is as direct and parallel to the crime as some people in this thread believe.
Streaming SC2 has more in common with competing in SC2 than being a soldier does with being a mailman.
|
On October 22 2015 04:43 mishimaBeef wrote:
you can't match fix on a stream - that is not the point of a stream - it is to be an entertainment of sorts, not a competition
thus, i see these two in separate categories:
- banning from competitions
- banning from streaming
Apparently you can match fix streaming since there are people betting on it. Anytime there are people betting on something, you can purposely lose for money.
Your slippery slope argument is epic fail.
Though from memory and from this topic... I'd be okay if Yoda couldn't buy broccoli, coffee, and they took away his internet and computer. xD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
