|
|
On April 05 2018 22:46 Musicus wrote:
I don't think they have to pay back money, they just got less money than they should've and didn't know about it. Had the players read the rules back in december, I guess the "drama" would've happened back then. Maybe some kind of boycott. Instead players just kept playing BTTV tournaments without knowning that a part of their winnings was being withheld and used to pay back Jake's alleged debt.
But is there actually any proof he changed the rules in December? If he did, was it just him sneaking it in with zero announcement that the rules were updated?
More shady garbage from exactly the person you'd expect it from.
|
On April 05 2018 22:51 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
I wonder if it's worth it for both parties to burn those bridges for 1500$ (probably more like 1200 USD). Hope this gets solved without more drama. I personnaly don't feel like this whole thing is worth 1500$ of shitty pcs and shitty furniture.
I mean its not just about the "$1500" I owe, the bigger point is in total rifkin received a lot of money and the total amount of support we received that entire year was "$1500" and he requested that back. Like I ran the house with almost no support at all so that he could be paid off the work I was doing. That's the biggest bridge burner in my opinion.
|
I shouldnt talk without knowing full facts I shouldnt talk without knowing full facts I shouldnt talk without knowing full facts I shouldnt talk without knowing full facts
|
Its difficult to really see whether someone owes someone else money or not, but either way its hard to see how it would make any sense to impose a tax on players. That seems petty and self-righteous by Rifkin. The constant underlining of the legality of it all (breaching contracts, suing people) completely contradicts the arbitrariness of the act of just forcing someone to pay.
|
Bisutopia19268 Posts
The whole business behind this sounds pretty personal and speculating who is right and wrong here should not be happening. No one outside of the people involved have the full story. If this were black and white like "X tournament didn't pay prize money" then an outrage would be warranted. I advise everyone that the best thing to do from here is hope this gets resolved fairly and just continue to support everyone involved with the SC2 scene. Despite which side you choose, every single person involved has dedicated a ton to this game and community and don't deserve to take crap from the public.
|
Oh more drama involving basetrade tv, what a surprise.
|
i'm going to automatically side with noregret cause jake is the shit....i've never liked rifkin in the slightest, he's far and away the most annoying caster
User was warned for this post.
|
Juicy drama
So if I understand Basetrade put 1500 on startup costs in the house and now wants it back
Noregret says there's no reason to give it back, basetrade got exposure from the house and there's no contract to give it back. Rifkin threatening to sue
|
As much as I have found Rifkin's handling of certain situations distasteful and inflammatory in the past it seems that both sides are hardly covering themselves in glory. If NoRegret did sign a contract regarding the use of monitors then without even bringing this whole matcherino business (Which smells to me like a dead cat on the table) into the equation, the breach of that contract ought to be resolved properly.
|
On April 05 2018 22:57 Jacenoob wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 21:53 Scarlett` wrote:
Me and other players were never notified of this '10% tax'; and as far as I know has not happened up until now (me, sortof, dns, etc) have played in his tournaments since the beginning of december
The money was an investment from basetrade into the house, invoiced as 'house startup costs' when we were buying beds/chairs/1 monitor for the house at the start of 2017, then labeled 'the basetradetv house', and there was nothing indicating this money was to be returned when the house ended (given the exposure the house generated, etc)
After we moved to a new place at the end of 2017 without basetrade involvement, rifkin demanded us to ship these items to him at our own expense, which we were under no obligation to do, and has since threatened to sue over this I am as biased towards you as it gets and I am not a fan of Rifkin ('s casting) and I am also aware of the rumours that Rifkin is not the nicest of people behind the scenes. But this just seems extremely unreasonable from your side to be honest. NoRegret can't just take Rifkin's stuff with him when he moves out. His offer to let Noregret choose between shipping on Rifkin's cost or negotiating on a sale seems very fair. If Rifkin would demand an unreasonable price NoRegret could just take his offer to ship it back to him on Rifkin's own money. Also your claim that that NoRegret was not obliged to return these items seems weak considering that NoRegret said "would possibly be cheaper to buy it off you" as a response. He wouldn't have said that if he thought the stuff was his in the first place. Unless I miss something big I don't even know how in the world Noregret is thinking that he is in the right.
Unless what ever agreement they had specifically stated that it was Noregret's job to spend however many hours packaging a bunch of desks and miscellaneous stuff and shipping it back to Rifikin it's not his job to do it. It would be a different story if Rifkin went to the house to pick it up and was refused but that's not the case.
|
On April 05 2018 23:04 BisuDagger wrote:
The whole business behind this sounds pretty personal and speculating who is right and wrong here should not be happening. No one outside of the people involved have the full story. If this were black and white like "X tournament didn't pay prize money" then an outrage would be warranted. I advise everyone that the best thing to do from here is hope this gets resolved fairly and just continue to support everyone involved with the SC2 scene. Despite which side you choose, every single person involved has dedicated a ton to this game and community and don't deserve to take crap from the public.
I don't think anybody should be siding with Rifkin or Jake as well. That's between them and does not involve us.
But I think it's fine to side with the players who are uninvolved and ended up being punished for (imo) no valid reason. If it wasn't for that I would never have posted about this whole thing, which I've known about for months since it was discussed on Dankshrine. Once you target innocent players, I think it's normal for the community to show "outrage" and fight for the players.
|
For all the people saying 'the players were never notified'...thats not exactly how contract law works. The online tournaments have rules and the 10% penalty/tax (whatever you want to call it) was part of the terms and conditions. By competing in the tournament, they are taken to have read the rules and agreed. It does not matter that the players elected not to read the rules or assumed the rules would not change. Save for any vitiating factors, if you sign a contract without reading it, you are bound. You could, however, argue that since the 10% penalty clause could be regarded as an 'unusual' contract term, more should have been done to bring them to the affected players' attention.
That being said, I personally don't like the idea of taking away player's earnings due to (what looks to be) miscommunication or unwillingness to resolve a dispute between two people. Its sad that it has come to this and players have to be caught up in this drama. Furthermore, just out of courtesy it would be good to try and notify all the plays impacted by this. But then again, we don't really know the extent to which efforts have been made to reach all of them.
|
On April 05 2018 22:56 NoRegreT_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2018 22:51 Kevin_Sorbo wrote:
I wonder if it's worth it for both parties to burn those bridges for 1500$ (probably more like 1200 USD). Hope this gets solved without more drama. I personnaly don't feel like this whole thing is worth 1500$ of shitty pcs and shitty furniture. I mean its not just about the "$1500" I owe, the bigger point is in total rifkin received a lot of money and the total amount of support we received that entire year was "$1500" and he requested that back. Like I ran the house with almost no support at all so that he could be paid off the work I was doing. That's the biggest bridge burner in my opinion.
Fair point. Thought bbtv was more involved in the teamhouse. Best of luck in solving this issue with Rifkin still.
|
The $1500 was an investment based on the premise of a financial benefit or return. The benefit or return in this case is the publicity and income generated from the players participating in the events. If the net profit for BTTV to run these events exceeds the investment then Jake is under no obligation to compensate Graham. If it does not exceed the investment, then he would be obligated to pay the counterbalance, either by returning assets purchased with the investment, or by liquidating them.
|
It s damaging for both sides to have to expose that to the public in order to solve the problem ...
I don't understand how some in this thread enjoy a drama it's detrimental to everyone.
|
On April 05 2018 23:04 BisuDagger wrote:
The whole business behind this sounds pretty personal and speculating who is right and wrong here should not be happening. No one outside of the people involved have the full story. If this were black and white like "X tournament didn't pay prize money" then an outrage would be warranted. I advise everyone that the best thing to do from here is hope this gets resolved fairly and just continue to support everyone involved with the SC2 scene. Despite which side you choose, every single person involved has dedicated a ton to this game and community and don't deserve to take crap from the public.
This strikes me as so reasonable that I want to shake your goddamn hand. I hope they find some way of resolving this that de-escalates things and lets everyone move on. Maybe arbitration will help.
I also hope people take a bit of time for self-reflection to see how they might have contributed to the overall state of things. But experience has taught me that probably one or more parties will be a bit too hell-bent on being "right" to see their own role clearly.
|
I never liked Rifkin, He is a greedy snake and treats everyone he works with like shit when hes having a bad day. What a ridiculously repulsive person both physically and mentally, I am disgusted by his behavior.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
These kind of drama are not positive to the scene (I rather enjoy drama for a player against a multinational like True vs Blizzard) but here... they really need to get their shit together. 1500£ are probably not worth the shitstorm that Rifkin is receiving (nor using a lawyer)... Good luck to both of them.
|
On April 05 2018 23:34 Ibanez.beau wrote:
The $1500 was an investment based on the premise of a financial benefit or return. The benefit or return in this case is the publicity and income generated from the players participating in the events. If the net profit for BTTV to run these events exceeds the investment then Jake is under no obligation to compensate Graham. If it does not exceed the investment, then he would be obligated to pay the counterbalance, either by returning assets purchased with the investment, or by liquidating them.
That seems logical however we don't know what the exact terms of the agreement were, whether the quid pro quo is indeed, money in return for brand marketing or something more (which seems to be what Rifkin is claiming). In fact, it doesnt even look like the parties involved can agree on what the terms were.
In any case, as a matter of calculating damages it would be impossible to say whether the net profit for BTTV exceeds the investment if the 'profit' is 'publicity' since it is not possible to accurately measure/apply a monetary value to things like the amount of reputation gained.
|
https://matcherino.com/tournaments/4734/contribute
$12,139.39 in total, with $4,983.85 donated from bttv via stream donations / taxes from other events. That leaves a net of $6,643.54, not including the fee that matcherino charges at payout.
The $13,000 stretch goal was the point at which the house players got financial support for rent, yet the matcherino was intentionally closed before that, and as you can see all of the money went back to bttv. You don't need to be a math expert to see that the $1,500 (I haven't seen any receipts or reasoning as to why this equipment is valued at 1.5k, didn't realize used equipment had such stable value) has been recouped via the matcherino profits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
