EPTIf you put more thought into your post, then we could discuss.
BasetradeTV and NoRegreT disagreement escalates - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Starting from Page 11 and onward, if anyone talks about how Blizzard, TOs, and sponsors should no longer support BTTV and Rifkin, you will be temp banned. This adds NOTHING productive to the discussion and only makes the community look immature. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/532710-basetradetv-and-noregret-disagreement-escalates?page=11#216 Additionally, this post deserves to be publicly noticed. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
If you put more thought into your post, then we could discuss. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On April 06 2018 21:10 ZeromuS wrote: Honestly, without seeing a contract, its hard to say. But in the end, if the contract didn't describe what costs were to be reimbursed upon completion of the contract then theres nothing to do. Look. Money was spent in sponsorship. I don't know what you expect back. Its sponsorship, you spend the money and if the ROI is too low, in someone's opinion, then it doesn't matter. Write a better contract next time. Honestly. I didn't see the contract. Write a better contract next time. | ||
|
DSh1
292 Posts
On April 06 2018 07:31 Shuffleblade wrote: I really don't get this, if BTTV invested money in the BTTV house that money is just that, invested, from what I understand BTTV disbanded and a new foreigner teamhouse was funded called project unity. The invested money were used to buy equipment, that does not make the equipment owned by the person that invested the money. The equipment is in that case owned by the house, when the house disbands or reforms the owners of the house decides what to do with it. IF BTTV said: "I will send you money to buy X and Y for me, that equipment will be mine but you may borrow them for the time being" in that case The unity project still has no obligation to send him his items back. The items that belong to BTTV would then be entirely up to Rifkin himself to retrieve/sell or do whatever he want with. Generally in this situation the BTTV house would inform BTTV "we are disbanding the team house and reforming as unity project, you have XX amount of days to pickup your equipment or otherwise organise their retrieval". If not retrieved they would be discarded. Nothing here makes sense, if the investment was indeed money that were supposed to be repaid then BTTV would say give me my money back but he's not. He's saying give me the equipment you used my sponsorship money to buy to me because I think I own it. It sounds a lot like he is grasping at straws and the whole debacle how he is taking it out on the players are just pathetic. Of course the claim holds no legal ground and then the only way of getting money back(no matter who from) is to take from the players in his tournament. Unless you are a lawyer, I doubt it is correct. I do know it depends on who buys the equipment and usually the things belongs to the one paying the money (in my country at least) unless precautions are taken otherwise (e.g. founding an organisation etc. which may have happened, but it is not as simple as you make it out to be). I would say your general statements are not quite right. I am also doubting that the owner has to retrieve the items himself. That might be a point of argument. E.g. Amazon is not supposed to knock at your door to get your items you want to return. Also it would be weird if you could run away with someone else's item to some faraway place so that said person has to get it. I can't imagine it is as simple as you say. | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1841 Posts
On April 06 2018 21:43 Ansibled wrote: I didn't see the contract. Write a better contract next time. It's not easy to litigate, especially when the other party is in another country. Who has jurisdiction in this case? If the items were bought in SK, would SK reside over the case? The cost of hiring a lawyer, filing the suit, arbitration, etc., could easily be more than the 1.5k contested. Perhaps it's much easier to sue someone than i've gathered, but it doesn't seem worth the time and money, which is probably why the tax was implemented in the first place. It's much easier to tax prize money than it is to litigate. | ||
|
fLyiNgDroNe
Belgium4113 Posts
Rifkin approaches this in a steady, mature way, while "progamers" react quite with "i blocked him" and "i dont have time for that". However the crowd here seems to stick to the "poor gamer" who is under attack ... If Rifkin is in the scene for (how many?) years, and he worked with literally every SC2-pro there is/was and through that timespan this is the first time when someone is claiming Rifkin is being unjust/unfair and shady, i call this bullshit. People do not magically start being dicks. | ||
|
Z3nith
485 Posts
| ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On April 06 2018 22:01 DSh1 wrote: Unless you are a lawyer, I doubt it is correct. I do know it depends on who buys the equipment and usually the things belongs to the one paying the money (in my country at least) unless precautions are taken otherwise (e.g. founding an organisation etc. which may have happened, but it is not as simple as you make it out to be). I would say your general statements are not quite right. I am also doubting that the owner has to retrieve the items himself. That might be a point of argument. E.g. Amazon is not supposed to knock at your door to get your items you want to return. Also it would be weird if you could run away with someone else's item to some faraway place so that said person has to get it. I can't imagine it is as simple as you say. I am not a lawyer, I have studied specific parts of the law but I am not at all qualified to make a statement in regards to the legal ramifcations in this situation, especially not since I only have a basic understanding of the law in my own country. What I do know however, barring any significant difference in how the law is structured in these countries compared to sweden is that if you are given money involving no contract and with only an invoice of: "house startup costs" (according to Noregret and scarlett) you have no obligation to return that money or anything you bought with that money. Rifkind may argue its a loan, Noregret may argue its a gift/investment/sponsorship, statement vs statement, barring a legal document that strengthens either side it will likely be seen as a "gift". Also your comparison with amazon is so vastly different I don't really know how to respond, if you own something and you want to return it of course you as the owner has to ship it back. From what I know about the law the rights does not change just because someone else actually bought the items. If we accept that the money was Rifkins and he intended all items that were bought from the investment to be owned by him the situation is comparable to if Rifkin did not tranfer any money to the BTTV house in the first place, lets say he ordered computers, furniture and so on and had them delivered to the BTTV house. The items are obviousy his, the BTTV are being allowed to borrow them, why would they ever be legaly bound to buy/sell/return them for Rifkin? If he owns items in the BTTV house it is his responsiblity to take care of it just like I said, without a contract saying anything different there is very little room for argument. If I order something to a friend that lives in another country, when he gets it I tell him I want him to send it back to me, is he legaly obligated to do so? In my country nope, of course he is not allowed to just keep it or run away with either but it is up to me retrieve it not to my friend to return it. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17764 Posts
On April 06 2018 22:23 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: Rifkin did 10x more for the community than NoRegret Rifkin approaches this in a steady, mature way, while "progamers" react quite with "i blocked him" and "i dont have time for that". However the crowd here seems to stick to the "poor gamer" who is under attack ... If Rifkin is in the scene for (how many?) years, and he worked with literally every SC2-pro there is/was and through that timespan this is the first time when someone is claiming Rifkin is being unjust/unfair and shady, i call this bullshit. People do not magically start being dicks. I don't think Rifkin is a lying, fraud. He does an inconsistent job of managing crises though. He needs to manage his image and the BTTV brand image more consistently. He is better at it than he was 4 years ago. Hopefully, he continues to improve. | ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
EvanC
Canada130 Posts
It seems like those would reveal the terms of the equipment, if it was an investment, sponsorship, or loan, etc. Where are those DMs? At any rate I don't think it's appropriate to withhold prize money from players. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
Komodo
Mexico89 Posts
I hope that it just settles and the image of any party does not come out so damaged because that would just be bad for SC2 in general. | ||
|
EvanC
Canada130 Posts
On April 07 2018 01:53 sc-darkness wrote: Here's another opinion. If Rifkin sponsored a house and the house had the name of his organisation, then that's pretty much advertisement. The same thing Korean sponsors do for pro gaming teams. I'd argue extra publicity is easily worth $1500 or more, especially if the mentioned house lasted at least for a few months. At the same time I would be miffed if I helped start the house, and then they picked up and left and started their own within a few months. How long did the BTTV house last... a full year or just a few months? If the BTTV house lasted a whole year, it sounds like $1500 was a good value if you ask me. | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
| ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
Doesn't rifkin realise he'll lose way more in the future because of all the bad publicity of shit like this? | ||
|
NoRegreT_
Canada16 Posts
On April 07 2018 02:14 EvanC wrote: At the same time I would be miffed if I helped start the house, and then they picked up and left and started their own within a few months. How long did the BTTV house last... a full year or just a few months? If the BTTV house lasted a whole year, it sounds like $1500 was a good value if you ask me. It lasted from December 2016 to November 2017 and this was the only investment made into the house ($1500) besides a deposit which is returned to him at the closure of the house. Scarlett and I invested over $10,000 into equipment. 10 pcs, 10 monitors, 10 desks, 10 chairs etc. | ||
|
feardragon
United States973 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On April 07 2018 03:19 NoRegreT_ wrote: It lasted from December 2016 to November 2017 and this was the only investment made into the house ($1500) besides a deposit which is returned to him at the closure of the house. Scarlett and I invested over $10,000 into equipment. 10 pcs, 10 monitors, 10 desks, 10 chairs etc. It sounds like Rifkin got his money's worth then. $1500 for 11 months of advertisement. Rifkin probably got more subscribers/fans just because of investment. | ||
|
Majick
416 Posts
On April 07 2018 03:41 sc-darkness wrote: It sounds like Rifkin got his money's worth then. $1500 for 11 months of advertisement. Rifkin probably got more subscribers/fans just because of investment. Exactly my thoughts. It's a really cheap advertising campaign for the amount of exposure BTTV got from this. Of course we don't know the terms of the contract, but just expecting a return of these costs is simply being greedy. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On April 07 2018 03:24 feardragon wrote: Everybody seems to have an extremely strong opinion on an issue where they don't know even 50% of the details on situation. and your post is giving attention to posts you think are bad, thereby encouraging them, and the cycle continues. it's a web forum, everyone wants to be right, including you  | ||
| ||
