|
On April 12 2016 18:01 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2016 17:18 schaf wrote:
Can't we agree on that it's stupid that you get points for your opponent leaving before there was any contact on the map? Yes, a penalty is in order for that, but no reward! It's fine, it happens quite rarely and a few points doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, player's points will eventually even out to where they belong if they put in enough games. Also if they didn't award points to victories within a time limit then Firecake would have a new way to grief people. If its fine and the points mean nothing for being so inconsequential, why was major banned? Its one or the other.
|
On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air.
Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part.
Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view?
If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
On April 13 2016 05:09 DonDomingo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 02:19 CrayonPopChoa wrote:
Calling this match fixing is really harsh because it puts him in the category of Life, Savior and all the other match fixers, when what he did is nothing even close to that. Oh, the irony :-) Putting a suspected/alleged matchfixer in the same category as a convicted matchfixer is harsh.
There's a huge difference between leaving a few games on ladder that you didn't want to play out -vs- getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to routinely suicide in tournament games.
I can't even list names for high level players who i have seen leaving games for a dozen different reasons or even just because they didn't feel like playing it out. It's a thing that happens so regularly, you would not have a pro scene left if you banned for every instance of it. You would not have much of a ladder left, either.
|
On April 13 2016 06:27 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 05:09 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 02:19 CrayonPopChoa wrote:
Calling this match fixing is really harsh because it puts him in the category of Life, Savior and all the other match fixers, when what he did is nothing even close to that. Oh, the irony :-) Putting a suspected/alleged matchfixer in the same category as a convicted matchfixer is harsh. There's a huge difference between leaving a few games on ladder vs getting paid to suicide a tournament game
Oh, you mean just like there's a huge difference between a charge and a conviction? :-)
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
A ban is practically a conviction; blizzard is acting as judge, jury and executioner here.
|
Looks like we are talking past each other! I meant Life and Savior when I wrote charged* matchfixer and convicted matchfixer.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
Ah i didn't get that you meant the difference between those two rather than Major
|
On April 13 2016 06:51 Cyro wrote:
Ah i didn't get that you meant the difference between those two rather than Major
I definitely couldve made that clearer. My bad. I sometimes forget that people cant read my mind just by reading words of mine.
|
On April 13 2016 06:24 DonDomingo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air. Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part. Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view? If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself.
I did! My apologies. I answered to the whole text.
I'm not sure where this line of questioning goes but the point is if the writer does not care, neither should the reader. If I were pleading my case and looking for support in a situation I felt was unjust, I would do my utmost to convince the reader. So far, I have not seen that level of effort from Major. That's all I'm saying.
I dismiss the ideas because of WHAT was presented. I never commented on the presentation until people discredited Orr for his statements. Presentation was never a factor in my questioning/analysis of the situation. I did ignore semantics, syntax, and grammar in favor of looking at the statements themselves. I agree with you, but I don't think it should be overlooked that even after a situation where Major was at best careless and at worst a cheater, he continues to be careless in his writing. If I were in his position I would do as Orr said, have other people look over my statements and try to present the best possible face. That is all.
|
Blizzard sucks so much, I am pretty sure thsi has nothing to do with wintrading and it's just becasue of major's tweet when he insulted Bly who was picked to replace ML and DnS.
This whole thing is just people at Blizzard punishing out people they don't like and favouring their friends, fucking disgusting.
|
On April 13 2016 08:38 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 06:24 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air. Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part. Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view? If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself. I did! My apologies. I answered to the whole text. I'm not sure where this line of questioning goes but the point is if the writer does not care, neither should the reader. If I were pleading my case and looking for support in a situation I felt was unjust, I would do my utmost to convince the reader. So far, I have not seen that level of effort from Major. That's all I'm saying. I dismiss the ideas because of WHAT was presented. I never commented on the presentation until people discredited Orr for his statements. Presentation was never a factor in my questioning/analysis of the situation. I did ignore semantics, syntax, and grammar in favor of looking at the statements themselves. I agree with you, but I don't think it should be overlooked that even after a situation where Major was at best careless and at worst a cheater, he continues to be careless in his writing. If I were in his position I would do as Orr said, have other people look over my statements and try to present the best possible face. That is all.
Well, I do think Major tried to explain himself/handle the situation the best way he knew how. I, too, would have adviced him to ask friends of his with good English to help him out with PR - no disagreement between us there :D
What I wrote about form and sustance wasnt adressed to you, by the way, at all. I just wrote "you" like the grammatical generic you instead of one because that sounds so wierd (at least to me).
Major careless? xDD guilty as charged
|
I'm a non-progamer therefore I don't share accounts.
|
On April 13 2016 11:12 DonDomingo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 08:38 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 06:24 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air. Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part. Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view? If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself. I did! My apologies. I answered to the whole text. I'm not sure where this line of questioning goes but the point is if the writer does not care, neither should the reader. If I were pleading my case and looking for support in a situation I felt was unjust, I would do my utmost to convince the reader. So far, I have not seen that level of effort from Major. That's all I'm saying. I dismiss the ideas because of WHAT was presented. I never commented on the presentation until people discredited Orr for his statements. Presentation was never a factor in my questioning/analysis of the situation. I did ignore semantics, syntax, and grammar in favor of looking at the statements themselves. I agree with you, but I don't think it should be overlooked that even after a situation where Major was at best careless and at worst a cheater, he continues to be careless in his writing. If I were in his position I would do as Orr said, have other people look over my statements and try to present the best possible face. That is all. Well, I do think Major tried to explain himself/handle the situation the best way he knew how. I, too, would have adviced him to ask friends of his with good English to help him out with PR - no disagreement between us there :D What I wrote about form and sustance wasnt adressed to you, by the way, at all. I just wrote "you" like the grammatical generic you instead of one because that sounds so wierd (at least to me). Major careless? xDD guilty as charged
I was aware that English wasn't his first language before my initial post. And that has no bearing whatsoever on my initial contention. His personal integrity and professional future is on the line. And instead of taking the time to articulately compose a clear and concise response to the events in question, that will hopefully help clear his name in this critical domain of public judgement; he writes run-on, profanity laced tirades, using the caps-lock to try and accentuate important points, and an almost complete lack of acceptable formatting and punctuation. This is laughable in any language, considering the stakes. If we want others to take eSports seriously, and view progamers as legitimate professional athletes, then they need to act the part.
The much more troubling part for me, is the actual underlying logic behind his arguments.
In his first statement, the central tenant of his case is that because of his clearly superior win-rates against certain opposition, match-fixing can't be possible. When in reality, that is exactly the type of player most likely to be able to successfully cheat. It's pretty hard to alter the expected outcome of a game if you're the much inferior player and likely to lose straight up.
In his second statement, his logic holds that since every other programmer is (allegedly) sharing accounts, even though he acknowledges it's against the rules, that absolves him of all responsibility. This type of thinking (lack of all personal accountability) is unfortunately far too prevalent in all facets of society nowadays. But he doesn't stop there. He builds off this existing fallacy, to claim that if action was taken against all cases of account sharing, that not only would the entire foreign pro scene collapse, but so too would the entire Korean one (where he states every single player there is guilty too).
I've never watched Major's games, and have no stake in this either way. Definitely appears Blizzard lacked clear transparency, and handled the entire situation in a less than ideal way. But I took the time to read his statements, since match-fixing is the most serious offense any progamer can be accused of (within the confines of the actual game). And I came away troubled, by what little respect his responses indicated to me that he holds towards the entire SC2 professional scene, and by extension, the passionate fans like us on here, who are the very foundation of this great game.
|
On April 13 2016 13:50 Orr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 11:12 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 08:38 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 06:24 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air. Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part. Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view? If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself. I did! My apologies. I answered to the whole text. I'm not sure where this line of questioning goes but the point is if the writer does not care, neither should the reader. If I were pleading my case and looking for support in a situation I felt was unjust, I would do my utmost to convince the reader. So far, I have not seen that level of effort from Major. That's all I'm saying. I dismiss the ideas because of WHAT was presented. I never commented on the presentation until people discredited Orr for his statements. Presentation was never a factor in my questioning/analysis of the situation. I did ignore semantics, syntax, and grammar in favor of looking at the statements themselves. I agree with you, but I don't think it should be overlooked that even after a situation where Major was at best careless and at worst a cheater, he continues to be careless in his writing. If I were in his position I would do as Orr said, have other people look over my statements and try to present the best possible face. That is all. Well, I do think Major tried to explain himself/handle the situation the best way he knew how. I, too, would have adviced him to ask friends of his with good English to help him out with PR - no disagreement between us there :D What I wrote about form and sustance wasnt adressed to you, by the way, at all. I just wrote "you" like the grammatical generic you instead of one because that sounds so wierd (at least to me). Major careless? xDD guilty as charged I was aware that English wasn't his first language before my initial post. And that has no bearing whatsoever on my initial contention. His personal integrity and professional future is on the line. And instead of taking the time to articulately compose a clear and concise response to the events in question, that will hopefully help clear his name in this critical domain of public judgement; he writes run-on, profanity laced tirades, using the caps-lock to try and accentuate important points, and an almost complete lack of acceptable formatting and punctuation. This is laughable in any language, considering the stakes. If we want others to take eSports seriously, and view progamers as legitimate professional athletes, then they need to act the part. The much more troubling part for me, is the actual underlying logic behind his arguments. In his first statement, the central tenant of his case is that because of his clearly superior win-rates against certain opposition, match-fixing can't be possible. When in reality, that is exactly the type of player most likely to be able to successfully cheat. It's pretty hard to alter the expected outcome of a game if you're the much inferior player and likely to lose straight up. In his second statement, his logic holds that since every other programmer is (allegedly) sharing accounts, even though he acknowledges it's against the rules, that absolves him of all responsibility. This type of thinking (lack of all personal accountability) is unfortunately far too prevalent in all facets of society nowadays. But he doesn't stop there. He builds off this existing fallacy, to claim that if action was taken against all cases of account sharing, that not only would the entire foreign pro scene collapse, but so too would the entire Korean one (where he states every single player there is guilty too). I've never watched Major's games, and have no stake in this either way. Definitely appears Blizzard lacked clear transparency, and handled the entire situation in a less than ideal way. But I took the time to read his statements, since match-fixing is the most serious offense any progamer can be accused of (within the confines of the actual game). And I came away troubled by how little respect his responses indicated to me that he held towards the entire SC2 professional scene, and by extension, the passionate fans like us on here, who are the very foundation of this great game.
Wow. Could not have said it better myself. This is what I've been trying to convey since my first post in this thread. Props.
|
On April 13 2016 13:50 Orr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 11:12 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 08:38 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 06:24 DonDomingo wrote:On April 13 2016 01:44 Jealous wrote:On April 13 2016 00:00 DonDomingo wrote:On April 12 2016 23:45 Orr wrote:
Don't know close to enough about the player or situation to render a verdict one way or another.
But Major's ranting social media posts do him no favors. If you are a progamer and this is your job, then you should take everything very seriously. And take the time to write out an articulate, grammatically correct piece using proper punctuation. And have someone with editing skills look it over first and make the necessary corrections.
His writing looks and sounds like a petulant middle schooler, which renders all of his points hard to take seriously. You're doing yourself a disservice if you neglect substance when discussing ideas just because you don't approve of the form. Communication in real life is 10% verbal and 90% non-verbal, or something like that. I wouldn't say that writing is quite as drastically distributed, but style IS an important factor of how your ideas are interpreted. You know the adage, "It's not what you say but how you say it." If you don't care enough to present your ideas in a comprehensive and adult manner, then why should a reader care enough to appreciate, understand, or believe them? This falls back to what I said in response to Incognoto: it speaks of how much effort he is putting into this, in other words how seriously he takes the situation. It's not up to par, in my opinion. And, I would like to note that Orr specifically pointed out that he doesn't know enough about the player or the situation to make a verdict, so he focused on the one thing he can knowingly comment on. That's a responsible disclaimer and his consequent analysis is based on a foundation he made clear to us all. You judging him for neglecting substance when he said from the start that's not what he is focusing on in his statement is just blowing hot air. Seems like you missed that I was only commenting on the bolded part. Why should you as a reader care enough to appriciate, understand, or believe someone whose style/form/grammar/vocabulary/semantics you do not approve of? To broaden your horizon? To try to become more enlightened by trying to assume someone else's point of view? If you dismiss an idea just because of how someone presented it, I do believe all you're accomplishing is clouding your own chance to make a sound judgement call. Im not saying that it would hurt if someone "makes an effort" when trying to explain themselves/present an idea in terms of how likely they are to "be taken seriously". All Im saying is striving to look past form to focus on what matters is not just a commendable notion that helps discussions/exchanges of ideas to be more civil and constructive, it also is a service to yourself. I did! My apologies. I answered to the whole text. I'm not sure where this line of questioning goes but the point is if the writer does not care, neither should the reader. If I were pleading my case and looking for support in a situation I felt was unjust, I would do my utmost to convince the reader. So far, I have not seen that level of effort from Major. That's all I'm saying. I dismiss the ideas because of WHAT was presented. I never commented on the presentation until people discredited Orr for his statements. Presentation was never a factor in my questioning/analysis of the situation. I did ignore semantics, syntax, and grammar in favor of looking at the statements themselves. I agree with you, but I don't think it should be overlooked that even after a situation where Major was at best careless and at worst a cheater, he continues to be careless in his writing. If I were in his position I would do as Orr said, have other people look over my statements and try to present the best possible face. That is all. Well, I do think Major tried to explain himself/handle the situation the best way he knew how. I, too, would have adviced him to ask friends of his with good English to help him out with PR - no disagreement between us there :D What I wrote about form and sustance wasnt adressed to you, by the way, at all. I just wrote "you" like the grammatical generic you instead of one because that sounds so wierd (at least to me). Major careless? xDD guilty as charged I was aware that English wasn't his first language before my initial post. And that has no bearing whatsoever on my initial contention. His personal integrity and professional future is on the line. And instead of taking the time to articulately compose a clear and concise response to the events in question, that will hopefully help clear his name in this critical domain of public judgement; he writes run-on, profanity laced tirades, using the caps-lock to try and accentuate important points, and an almost complete lack of acceptable formatting and punctuation. This is laughable in any language, considering the stakes. If we want others to take eSports seriously, and view progamers as legitimate professional athletes, then they need to act the part. The much more troubling part for me, is the actual underlying logic behind his arguments. In his first statement, the central tenant of his case is that because of his clearly superior win-rates against certain opposition, match-fixing can't be possible. When in reality, that is exactly the type of player most likely to be able to successfully cheat. It's pretty hard to alter the expected outcome of a game if you're the much inferior player and likely to lose straight up. In his second statement, his logic holds that since every other programmer is (allegedly) sharing accounts, even though he acknowledges it's against the rules, that absolves him of all responsibility. This type of thinking (lack of all personal accountability) is unfortunately far too prevalent in all facets of society nowadays. But he doesn't stop there. He builds off this existing fallacy, to claim that if action was taken against all cases of account sharing, that not only would the entire foreign pro scene collapse, but so too would the entire Korean one (where he states every single player there is guilty too). I've never watched Major's games, and have no stake in this either way. Definitely appears Blizzard lacked clear transparency, and handled the entire situation in a less than ideal way. But I took the time to read his statements, since match-fixing is the most serious offense any progamer can be accused of (within the confines of the actual game). And I came away troubled by how little respect his responses indicated to me that he held towards the entire SC2 professional scene, and by extension, the passionate fans like us on here, who are the very foundation of this great game.
How is match fixing when he clearly took points from the other players by having a positive win rate?, and very positive btw, He just gave up on games when he prioritized other things in his life (feeling sick, and whatever he said), that is not matchfixing sorry but you as a native english speaker should know that, he should be punished for that? I dont have idea, because I dont know and I dont care about Blizzard rules in this WCS parody. About the fallacy, I trust more Major than you about knowing the real state in the share account department between pros, maybe it is an exageration but a fallacy, I doubt it.
|
This is straight out a male cows behind! (BS)! Poor Major
|
Not a whole lot of information to go on here. Nothing really from Blizzard and just a couple responses from Major
|
Just gonna throw this out there, but we do not actually know what he specifically wrote to Blizz/Kim Phan/Whoever. His forum post is nothing more than a forum post to the Starcraft community. Though, I sort of doubt he wrote a super well-composed message to them either.
I think his point about account sharing and leaving ladder matches is somewhat valid given how Blizzard has clearly shown no concern regarding account sharing, other than writing that it's not allowed. And I think you missed his point about the win-rates. He mentioned that he had taken more games from the players than he gave away, which means that they are already suffering from facing him in the first place, so even with the supposedly "thrown" games, he did them more harm than good. That doesn't necessarily mean he didn't leave to try and help them. It's possible that they had been playing all day, and he was winning all of the games, and only in the last few hours did his buddy say "hey man, can u leave for me??? i am so close!"
In that case, Major might be considered guilty. But it's still sort of silly, since he isn't even an eligible player for the qualifier. If we had the top 100 Koreans playing on the EU ladder during that time, the ladder race would basically have zero value because tons of the games (aka losses) would have been against players that they shouldn't even be competing against.
Anyway, yeah, Major's post doesn't provide clear proof that he is innocent, but it actually looks pretty honest, given how he admitted to account sharing among other things. But Blizzard didn't ban him for that. We may never even get to know the truth!
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On April 13 2016 15:36 NyxNax wrote:
Not a whole lot of information to go on here. Nothing really from Blizzard and just a couple responses from Major
Then again, when police arrests a suspect no one is asking for the evidence with the exception of that person and its lawyer ,-)
|
his actions and explanation (while i believe him) are suspicious, and he admits himself that they are suspicious.
if you feel bad, don't queue for the game, it's that simple. its like saying well i only drank one beer while i was driving, im not drunk, so i shouldnt get punished... ur still drinking and driving...
if he queued and instantly left the game at all he deserves to be punished. no game, and no ONE should be cool with people that quit games. it's against the spirit of the game to play with people that refuse to play the game. i'm ok with him getting blackballed over this, honestly.
if this was someone different, i could understand a warning/yellow card before the red card, but this guy is to Starcraft 2 what I am to the Teamliquid mafia community - the 9th layer of hell. I like him, and I'm a fan, but he has a history of acting up.
I feel bad for you Major and I know what I'm saying is harsh, but you gotta change how little you think about what everyone is going to think of your actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
