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.
Last Update April 8th: BTTV received $1500, the money will go towards the BTSL Season 1 and the Unity Tax has been removed. Big shoutout to DSK, an originially uninvolved community member and third party, who has paid the money on behalf of NoRegreT via proxy, to end this dispute.
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 back to him at our own expense, which we were under no obligation to do, and has since threatened to sue over this
Update: Rifkin clarified that the Project Unity change to the BTTV rules was made back in December.
On April 05 2018 20:57 BasetradeTV wrote: Pasting my response from reddit here as well:
Unsure why this is being brought up now, considering the Unity Tax has been there since December.
The new information added was not this, but the strike system, which did not exist before.
There's a reason there hasn't been a public statement made, and why I won't be making a statement about this: Jake and I both signed a contract that includes a confidentiality clause in it. While he may not be willing to honour a contract, I am.
Edit: After reading most of this thread, I feel comfortable addressing the "collective punishment" complaint. Whether you agree or disagree the reasonining is as follows: unless proven otherwise, folks are being punished for using (my) stolen equipment to compete in (my) tournaments.
you never mentioned to any of the players that you'd be taking 10% of their earnings, You invested money into the house so that our house could operate under your name. When the house ends, We were not under any obligation to return the investment. Most of the players aren't even using this equipment.
Since you edited your reply from something really childish to something decent, I'll reward you with a reply, but this will be the only reply I give to you, and I'm only doing it to raise awareness on how this escalated due to your actions, if you want to discuss anything with me you may feel free to unblock & contact me privately.
I personally attempted to reach out to any of the people that were going to be affected by this, primarily you and Scarlett, only to find I was blocked from communication by both of you. This could have been resolved, or confined, or gone down another way with some discussion. Or maybe it wouldn't, but we'll never know because you prevented that from happening.
...
Orinal Post:
Jake "NoRegreT" Umpleby is known for his great success at running a training house in Korea, which is mostly filled with foreign players. The "Project Unity" was not always known as such and started off as the "BasetradeTV House".
In the meantime the house is no longer sponsored by BTTV, but there are still unresolved issues from that time. NoRegreT has been accused of stealing computers, which have been paid for by BTTV, and using them in the new facilities of "Project Unity" without reimbursing BTTV.
This topic had first been discussed in public on Dankshrine Ep. 56 (timestamped at 58m22s).
While the allegations came from an anonymous accuser, recent rule changes (Edit: The Project Unity rule change was actually made in December, the recent changes are about a new punishment system http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqg8p2) from BasetradeTV regarding Project Unity clearly imply that it was the owner of BasetradeTV, Graham "Rifkin" Rogers.
BasetradeTV says that NoRegreT owes them a debt of $1,500 USD, whether this is for the computers or something else is unclear. The interesting part is, that BTTV intends to cut the prize money won by any player, competing in BTTV events from the Project Unity house, by 10%, until the debt of $1,500 USD has been paid.
Any player competing from the "Foreigner House" (aka "Project Unity") will have a 10% reduction to any prizing won from BaseTradeTV organized events, until a 'resolution cap' of $1,500 USD, a debt owed by the manager of the house, Jake "NoRegreT" Umpleby, has been repaid
On Dankeshrine NoRegreT says that the dispute is over house startup costs and wether they were to be returned or not, but that certainly nothing was stolen. Most of the money had gone into beds and desks instead of computers.
Today NoRegret claimed again that he does not owe BTTV any money and he is working on resolving the issue for the players.
While it is impossible for the public to know who is right or wrong, the approach from BTTV to let unrelated players pay for the debt, allegedly owed by NoRegreT, seems very questionable.
one fact here among all these "statements" and "anonymous sources" - BTTV DID pay for Computers in house last year - if NoRegret is still using them without any payment in this "new" project BTTV has right to request money back.
but IMO players should not be punished for personal issues between them.
I have never seen a post with more. "anonymous sources" and "may or may not be true" statements than this. Get your facts before you post something this serious
A quarrel over $1.5k isn‘t exactly what I‘d call „escalation“, more like blown out of proportions with both sides handling this pretty poorly aside from gaining some (negative) publicity.
But still, having the residing players pay 10% of their potential winnings as punishment is just bonkers.
On April 05 2018 20:31 LongShot27 wrote: I have never seen a post with more. "anonymous sources" and "may or may not be true" statements than this. Get your facts before you post something this serious
As I said, there are no facts and we can't know who is right or wrong since neither party has come forth with statements, but that's not the point. The players are getting punished right now for something they have nothing to do with. That's the important part and what makes this worth being discussed. I could not care less about who owes whom money or not, but the players should never be involved in any of this.
On April 05 2018 20:41 Creager wrote: A quarrel over $1.5k isn‘t exactly what I‘d call „escalation“, more like blown out of proportions with both sides handling this pretty poorly aside from gaining some (negative) publicity.
But still, having the residing players pay 10% of their potential winnings as punishment is just bonkers.
I do actually hate the title, but it is impossible to find a good title for this topic with 50 characters. Players getting punished is the thing that's the escalation and makes this topic noteworthy in my opionion. Not the amount of money.
Edit: "BasetradeTV and NoRegreT disagreement results in Unity Tax that punishes unrelated players"
I would've used a title like that, since the focus should be on the players, but the character limit makes it very hard.
Unsure why this is being brought up now, considering the Unity Tax has been there since December.
The new information added was not this, but the strike system, which did not exist before.
There's a reason there hasn't been a public statement made, and why I won't be making a statement about this: Jake and I both signed a contract that includes a confidentiality clause in it. While he may not be willing to honour a contract, I am.
On April 05 2018 20:57 BasetradeTV wrote: Pasting my response from reddit here as well:
Unsure why this is being brought up now, considering the Unity Tax has been there since December.
The new information added was not this, but the strike system, which did not exist before.
There's a reason there hasn't been a public statement made, and why I won't be making a statement about this: Jake and I both signed a contract that includes a confidentiality clause in it. While he may not be willing to honour a contract, I am.
Thanks for posting, added to the OP.
Seems like nobody, including NoRegreT, was aware of the changes to the BTTV rules made in December.
First impression: Well shit, Rifkin in a drama again. Second impression: Did noregret basically admitted that he IS using computers he didn't pay for? The issue is whether those computers were meant to be given or him to use or not.
Also them noregret statements:
NoRegreT_ 40 points 2 hours ago : I can't release a statement yet because I'm working to resolve this for the players, But I can say that I do not owe any money to BaseTradeTV.
Meatwadhead 21 points 2 hours ago Listen I've seen the receipt for $1500 of zergling hentai you commissioned from rifkin
NoRegreT_ 21 points 2 hours ago hey man, Others shouldn't be punished for my hentai addiction
...
NoRegreT_ [score hidden] an hour ago I stand by my statement.
On April 05 2018 20:43 Musicus wrote: As I said, there are no facts and we can't know who is right or wrong since neither party has come forth with statements, but that's not the point. The players are getting punishes right now for something they have nothing to do with. That's the important part and what makes this worth being discussed. I could not care less about who owes whom money or not, but the players should never be involved in any of this.
Totally agree with this. I don't care about who owes money to whom or who is right or wrong. That's their private matter to settle and doesn't need to be public at all. Taking this out on the players living in the house though... :/// I'm sure there are better solutions than that.
Though of course, it'd be interesting to know if the players had even been aware of that ruleset change? If it had been changed in December already, then surely they must know about it, no?
At the end of the day, I have no idea though. I just don't think it's right to punish the people that had nothing to do with the issue in the first place.
If Noregret doesn't think others should be punished for his mistakes, he can just pay his players the tax they're losing. If Basetrade is in the right with the 1500$ I don't see a problem with going for the easy way of getting them back and shifting the dispute to Noregret and his players.
I mean, normally one would give both sides the benefit of a doubt, as we don´t really have any real information, but I have the feeling that this ship has passed about twenty rifkin-dramas ago.
The biggest takeway from this is however how stupid it is that everyone is e-sports insist on pretending they are these huge businessmen. Really, confidentiality clauses in contracts about such peanuts? If anything, some transparency would be much more benefitial than whatever tiny edge anyone can gain from keeping these huuuuuge $100 trade secrets,
This is weird. Either Noregret owes them money or not there's not really room for misunderstanding (except maybe about the exact sum). If Noregret in fact owes them this amount of money then there's nothing wrong with this tax. Just wondering if one side is intentionally lying about this.
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
On April 05 2018 21:51 Charoisaur wrote: This is weird. Either Noregret owes them money or not there's not really room for misunderstanding (except maybe about the exact sum). If Noregret in fact owes them this amount of money then there's nothing wrong with this tax. Just wondering if one side is intentionally lying about this.
If Jake owes Rif money, why would the tax be okay then?
I don't thinnk the $1,500 paid for all 10 or 12 computers in the house. It's impossible say if any or which player uses equipment Rifkin paid for. It's not even the same house anymore, so any deposit or startup cost of the current house has nothing to do with BTTV anymore.
It's a completely personal issues about an old debt between Rifkin and Jake. Why should a player like Lambo that just moved there a week ago lose prize money if he plays a BTTV event? Just doesn't make sense to me.
You should all side with the players and not Rifkin, I'm just saying. It's been made clear they were not notified of the fact that they would have to pay. Rifkin is a desperate neckbeard at this point, just stick to the facts. This is an arrow to the knee of BTTV, because the fat man got too greedy. That's what happens if you attempt to bullshit people post factum.
On April 05 2018 22:03 Derpherpello wrote: You should all side with the players and not Rifkin, I'm just saying. It's been made clear they were not notified of the fact that they would have to pay. Rifkin is a desperate neckbeard at this point, just stick to the facts. This is an arrow to the knee of BTTV, because the fat man got too greedy. That's what happens if you attempt to bullshit people post factum.
Please don't throw around insults or this thread will be closed!
On April 05 2018 21:51 Charoisaur wrote: This is weird. Either Noregret owes them money or not there's not really room for misunderstanding (except maybe about the exact sum). If Noregret in fact owes them this amount of money then there's nothing wrong with this tax. Just wondering if one side is intentionally lying about this.
If Jake owes Rif money, why would the tax be okay then?
I don't thinnk the $1,500 paid for all 10 or 12 computers in the house. It's impossible say if any or which player uses equipment Rifkin paid for. It's not even the same house anymore, so any deposit or startup cost of the current house has nothing to do with BTTV anymore.
It's a completely personal issues about an old debt between Rifkin and Jake. Why should a player like Lambo that just moved there a week ago lose prize money if he plays a BTTV event? Just doesn't make sense to me.
Well Jake runs the foreigner house and IF he intentionally withhold payments to Rifkin then Lambo would basically be supporting a deceiver by participating in his project.
Apparently it's just a misunderstanding though in which case Rikin should just clear this up with Jake before punishing other people.
@Musicus grow a pair, he's trying to punish others for his own incompetence now You should call shit for what it's worth. What he's doing is a PR disaster and a failure comparable only to a failed double proxy hatch
All I can say about all of this..... nothing good can come from this kind of petty stuff being public.
It doesn't look good from anyone involved, and I'm certain that people involved it would have preferred to avoid getting involved in ANOTHER scandal over seemingly insiginifcant amounts of money.
It just looks bad, and none of it is surprising to those of us that follow the scene closely,
On April 05 2018 21:51 Charoisaur wrote: This is weird. Either Noregret owes them money or not there's not really room for misunderstanding (except maybe about the exact sum). If Noregret in fact owes them this amount of money then there's nothing wrong with this tax. Just wondering if one side is intentionally lying about this.
If Jake owes Rif money, why would the tax be okay then?
I don't thinnk the $1,500 paid for all 10 or 12 computers in the house. It's impossible say if any or which player uses equipment Rifkin paid for. It's not even the same house anymore, so any deposit or startup cost of the current house has nothing to do with BTTV anymore.
It's a completely personal issues about an old debt between Rifkin and Jake. Why should a player like Lambo that just moved there a week ago lose prize money if he plays a BTTV event? Just doesn't make sense to me.
Well Jake runs the foreigner house and IF he intentionally withhold payments to Rifkin then Lambo would basically be supporting a deceiver by participating in his project.
Apparently it's just a misunderstanding though in which case Rikin should just clear this up with Jake before punishing other people.
Even if Jake owed Rif money, as long as a players doesn't use equipment that belongs to Rif I really don't see a problem. Well let's hope something good comes form this and they unblocked each other and are working on a solution privately.
Still don't think a tax that blanket targets all players in a house which might have some equipment that Rif paid for is correct. $1,500 could not have paid for all that much.
I don't completely understand what happened and also don't know the contract of course.
First impression is however, if BTTV/Rifkin paid for equipment it should be his unless he said explicitly he was giving it away. Instead of the other way round, that BTTV has to state explicitly, they are not giving it away.
On April 05 2018 22:20 DSh1 wrote: I don't completely understand what happened and also don't know the contract of course.
First impression is however, if BTTV/Rifkin paid for equipment it should be his unless he said explicitly he was giving it away. Instead of the other way round, that BTTV has to state explicitly, they are not giving it away.
I definitely tend to agree with this, just don't agree with the player tax.
On April 05 2018 21:53 Scarlett` wrote: rifkin demanded us to ship these items back to him at our own expense, which we were under no obligation to do
Simply untrue
This was back when we still had a positive relationship I was willing to send you an excess monitor we had despite not being obligated to do so, As time went on our relationship got worse and you refused to fix any issues we had unresolved including the $12,000 USD you kept from the mathcherino we joint supported. At this point I no longer felt it to be reasonable to send you something I wasn't obligated to do.
On April 05 2018 22:20 DSh1 wrote: I don't completely understand what happened and also don't know the contract of course.
First impression is however, if BTTV/Rifkin paid for equipment it should be his unless he said explicitly he was giving it away. Instead of the other way round, that BTTV has to state explicitly, they are not giving it away.
I definitely tend to agree with this, just don't agree with the player tax.
Why do you have problem with the Tax? Its BTTV tournaments, its their money and their time invested, they can make any kind of rules they see fit. And since NoRegret for whatever reason does not want to return the investment (or lets call it good faith gesture) made by BTTV they are getting back the money another way, legal and clean way.
I don't like Rifkin very much, but he is not the bad guy here, at least not because of the Tax
On April 05 2018 22:20 DSh1 wrote: I don't completely understand what happened and also don't know the contract of course.
First impression is however, if BTTV/Rifkin paid for equipment it should be his unless he said explicitly he was giving it away. Instead of the other way round, that BTTV has to state explicitly, they are not giving it away.
I definitely tend to agree with this, just don't agree with the player tax.
Why do you have problem with the Tax? Its BTTV tournaments, its their money and their time invested, they can make any kind of rules they see fit. And since NoRegret for whatever reason does not want to return the investment (or lets call it good faith gesture) made by BTTV they are getting back the money another way, legal and clean way.
I don't like Rifkin very much, but he is not the bad guy here, like at all
It's so weird to withhold prize money from whichever players are currently living in the house. The players just have nothing to do with this. Sure they (BTTV) can do it, but people don't have to be happy with it.
On April 05 2018 22:33 niggerkiller9000 wrote: @MarianoSC2 it's not the tax taht is the problem, it's the fact that it's been imposed on players without thair consent beforehand
What? So basically BTTV or well, Rifkin is asking the 10 percent tax retrospectively? I thought they had this rule applied and players new about it and still attended the Tournies, just got 10percent less money. That would be completely fine.
But if they didn't know, and now they have to pay back some of the prize money, then that is just ridiculous, isn't it?
after refusing to send equipment he was requesting which was equipment I never even purchased with his only investment into this house over the course of 1 year. He threatened to sue me and notified my team. At this point I blocked him because I felt this would never be concluded and that what he was doing was just harassment. He would constantly tell my team things like the lawsuit is underway but they were very supportive of me.
On April 05 2018 22:33 niggerkiller9000 wrote: @MarianoSC2 it's not the tax taht is the problem, it's the fact that it's been imposed on players without thair consent beforehand
What? So basically BTTV or well, Rifkin is asking the 10 percent tax retrospectively? I thought they had this rule applied and players new about it and still attended the Tournies, just got 10percent less money. That would be completely fine.
But if they didn't know, and now they have to pay back some of the prize money, then that is just ridiculous, isn't it?
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.
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.
Well at some point progamers and community personalities will understand that dealing with Basetrade TV always ends up in drama. And when i mean BTTV, i mean Rifkin. Not taking sides referring to the multiple instances of drama/BS related to BTTV in the last years, which don't really interest me. I'm just baffled that anyone would get involved with him at this point.
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.
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'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
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 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 22:51 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.
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.
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.
$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.
Unless we can read the contract they each signed, then what's the point in saying who's right or wrong.
This kind of situation is exactly what the law is for, but that directly relates to their agreement before hand.
It might seem morally one way or another to different people, but it really doesn't matter. What matters is what the agreement was before this happened.
Everytime i come back to check cool TL forums, i found crap like this... and by crap i mean rifkin vs the world... His attitude is so f(not worth a ban using that word haha) childish.
At times point can we just stop working and supporting him? Like there are so many ppl providing way better content... like those 2 guys from "Gauntlet? (I bad with names lol)... Like There is no way someone WAY better could grown better brand... and we just label rifking with all this crap and there is no way he could ever work in esports again, which would be awesome because harrasing ppl actually doing stuff is stupid... and ALL of that FOR 1500 Bucks...
Anyway I'm with Noregret here... and there is no way rifkin has anything because its him (lying dumb person) with serious ego issues
Rifkin has made some silly admin decisions and his irritability leads to bad PR, but there's never been any reason to think him dishonest. People stating otherwise are lying pieces of shit, and I'll happily take that temp ban for bringing this important fact to light.
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 think the question at hand is: Who is the owner of these items? Did noregret and the new training house members pay for these items in its entirety when the involvement with basetrade ended?
Keep in mind that all of this is just my speculation... It's one thing to say that nothing is owed to rifkin, but it's another thing to have in possession something that the new team house has not paid for.
Still, if that is the case, I also don't think that you guys need to ship it back to him if it was not under written agreement, I just think that you shouldn't use these items, just get rid of them and buy new ones. Whether rifkin wants to collect the items in person, or pay for shipping is up to him.
On the other hand regarding the basetradetv terms and conditions. While basetradetv has the right the change the terms(as stipulated from the terms and conditions), It is nevertheless still incredibly shady to change the terms without any notification to the affected party. Does basetradetv really want to develop a reputation for changing the terms affecting the players prize money without even giving notice the the players involved. I feel that that is in incredibly poor taste.
Idk if people are trolling, but I have seen like 3 people post along the lines of "im siding with noregret because i dont like rifkin". Now I wont make a "siding" statement cus idk who is at fault at all here. But if you choose who you side with based on who you like more, you are admitting you have no principles. If you have a standard for what is right and what is wrong, you owe it to yourself to try and apply that consistently. It sickens me to see people shitting on either side just because they dont like that person when it is clear they don't really give a flying fuck who is at fault.
On April 06 2018 00:39 tjtombo wrote: Idk if people are trolling, but I have seen like 3 people post along the lines of "im siding with noregret because i dont like rifkin". Now I wont make a "siding" statement cus idk who is at fault at all here. But if you choose who you side with based on who you like more, you are admitting you have no principles. If you have a standard for what is right and what is wrong, you owe it to yourself to try and apply that consistently. It sickens me to see people shitting on either side just because they dont like that person when it is clear they don't really give a flying fuck who is at fault.
Agreed. Thread/situation could use more objectivity.
On April 05 2018 21:53 Scarlett` wrote: rifkin demanded us to ship these items back to him at our own expense, which we were under no obligation to do
Simply untrue
This was back when we still had a positive relationship I was willing to send you an excess monitor we had despite not being obligated to do so, As time went on our relationship got worse and you refused to fix any issues we had unresolved including the $12,000 USD you kept from the mathcherino we joint supported. At this point I no longer felt it to be reasonable to send you something I wasn't obligated to do.
This probably needs to be added to the OP. Also this $12,000 USD kept from the joint supported mathcherino is very very interesting.
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
First of all, I'm sorry to hear that. That sucks. Secondly, can you tell if any of you did receive less money than you should have? Or is is just an existent rule that hasn't been used so far?
On April 05 2018 23:15 KGssv2 wrote: 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.
Don't agree with that. I mean, yes, ofc BTTV is allowed to update/change their rules now and then. Preeeeetty sure they need to inform their players that there has been a change made though. They don't need to state what has been changed, it's up to the players to reread the rules, yes. But if they had never been notified about any kind of change at all (that's how I understand it happened), then you can't just expect the players to read your rules all over again every single time before they play in any tournament. Facebook also informs you every time they update e.g. their data protection regulations or something. If you don't read them, yes, it's your fault if there's something you don't like. But they can't just do whatever they want without letting you know that there have been changes. And if so, that's unbelievably unprofessional.
I still don't know much about the money issue itself and though I don't want to care too much about it, I still have a question. Maybe I've been completely misinformed but I thought BTTV sponsored the house in the beginning? Wouldn't that mean that whatever money they put into that project was an investment for them and the profit they'd make was establishing their brand any further? What I mean is, if they sponsored the house, then why would they want the money back? Again, I might be misinformed, I admit I haven't followed that stuff much. I'd be very thankful if someone could clear that up for me.
Other than that, I'm not taking any sides, simply because I don't know enough about the situation and I still think it shouldn't be this public at all. I just don't want the players to be punished for something that's not their fault. I hope this issue can be settled soon without too much drama and in a way that's acceptable for anyone involved.
On April 05 2018 21:53 Scarlett` wrote: rifkin demanded us to ship these items back to him at our own expense, which we were under no obligation to do
Simply untrue
This was back when we still had a positive relationship I was willing to send you an excess monitor we had despite not being obligated to do so, As time went on our relationship got worse and you refused to fix any issues we had unresolved including the $12,000 USD you kept from the mathcherino we joint supported. At this point I no longer felt it to be reasonable to send you something I wasn't obligated to do.
This probably needs to be added to the OP. Also this $12,000 USD kept from the joint supported mathcherino is very very interesting.
Linked to it, seems fair since I also linked to Rifkin's screenshot response to Scarlett.
On April 06 2018 01:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: I always wondered what was being done with that matcherino money, there was quite a bit of it.
I don't recall exactly, but there was a meeting on discord between everyone that backed at the end of September/beginning of October. Rifkin goes into the conclusion of that in their stream on October 9th. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/180953633?t=05h00m50s
That equipment is most likely useless to Rifkin anyways, still he has the right to claim it i guess, but punishing the players with this tax is just a shot in his own foot and stains his image as an arrogant guy. He's the one who needs the players, not the other way around.
While rifkin handles things in a far from elegant manner (one could say shitposting manner) he is 100% in the right here. The "tax" as everyone calls it is a shitty way to do it, but this could have been as simple as shipping the equipment back to him at his expense and everything would have been fine. You owe the guy 1500 bucks, pay up.
On April 06 2018 01:28 LongShot27 wrote: While rifkin handles things in a far from elegant manner (one could say shitposting manner) he is 100% in the right here. The "tax" as everyone calls it is a shitty way to do it, but this could have been as simple as shipping the equipment back to him at his expense and everything would have been fine. You owe the guy 1500 bucks, pay up.
He doesn't have to do anything, if Rifkin was that worried about his equipment, let him fly to Korea and get it himself.
This thread should probably be close until further evidence comes up (a.k.a the countract that was signed) It will only make it harder to find an agrement between the parties if it start to be a popularity contest on a forum.
I'm all for informing people of what is happening but it should be in an organise way, no need to make this uglier then it need to be.
On April 06 2018 01:28 LongShot27 wrote: While rifkin handles things in a far from elegant manner (one could say shitposting manner) he is 100% in the right here. The "tax" as everyone calls it is a shitty way to do it, but this could have been as simple as shipping the equipment back to him at his expense and everything would have been fine. You owe the guy 1500 bucks, pay up.
He doesn't have to do anything, if Rifkin was that worried about his equipment, let him fly to Korea and get it himself.
See there's this thing about contracts, you legally have to do what they say.
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.
Rifkin just wants his money back (In case Noregret actually owes him money). How else should he get it back? The players aren't completely uninvolved as they're living in Jake's house. If they don't like that they can choose to not live there anymore. If Jake feels his players shouldn't be punished for his mistakes he can compensate that. I really don't see the problem with this if Rifkin is saying the truth.
This tax thing is a terribly awful way to put pressure on NoRegreT and the reason for this public shitshow, but the reasoning that "Basetrade screwed us over this Matcherino business, so we don't owe him for this equipment anymore" seems rather flawed from a legal standpoint.
And NoRegreT's decision to go public with this is pretty shitty too.
Well first I would say to noregret, what is right and what is wrong when it comes to agreements and business rarely changes because your opinion of the person you are interacting with changed. To go "well, I don't like you anymore, so I actually decided I won't do this thing I already agreed to do" is incredibly shitty. Like, just nut up and do it and then try not to associate with the person. You don't do it for them, you do it because of integrity.
But, that said, I don't really understand a couple things here. Primarily, wtf gives bttv the right to "tax" the winnings of the players in the house? That sounds absurd on multiple levels. Furthermore, it seems to me that the majority of the "team house" setup was put together on a basis of good will. So, if it's not in a contract... just let it go? And if it is in a contract, then there should be no issue, because it is in a contract - so ... there would be no debate here.
I just created an account to participate to the discussion. There is a couple of things to say, that have been globally already said. It's all about the contract, if there is anything written that says the material just go back to Rifkin if he wants, then you have nothing to say about it if you agreed to that. If this is the opposite and nothing is saying that the material should go back in the hands of Rifkin, then Noregret is right about it. So we can't say anything because we don't know what is written in that contract, we can just speculate, and it's not going to salve the situation, only Noregret and Rifkin can do this, it's up to them to read what is written in that contract. That being said, it looks like since a while that Rifkin is quite often into shady cases as this one. I wouldn't make any kind of agreement with him to be honest.
To conclude I would like to add that the posts saying "nice drama", "I love dramas" "juicy drama" and so on ... Are just stupid. We are talking about 1500$. That's not nothing. And you can end being in a lot of troubles if you have to pay this amount without anything to back-up. I've seen people being just chased of their home/flat, just because they aren't able to pay their rent. And btw, make this public, is in my opinion, really unprofessional, you have a contract, just execute it. You don't need the community for this, it's private stuff.
Contracts exist for a reason. And disputes like this should never become public dramas at all, that never helps anything.
This could have been solved if both parties were willing to be somewhat reasonable, or failing that, via legal action. In no case should it have involved other players, other issues, or the general public, and the fact that it has degenerated so far that it dragged in all three of those is grossly unprofessional from both sides.
Above all, emotionally-fueled decisions have no place in financial transactions, and both sides are guilty of exactly that.
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.
I can get behind that. I certainly have sympathy for the players in the house. It's a major distraction to have all the noise of business in the background when you need to focus on training.
As many people have said, it really seems like the contract should resolve the issue one way or another. Since we can't see it, it's impossible to say who should keep the money.
Also why did this even become public? The OP says something about an "anonymous accuser" but that seems pretty vague. It really doesn't reflect well on either party.
Well from what i understand the contract itself doesnt specify what happens to those items after both parties part ways. And since both of them understood it differently and couldnt talk it we have this drama. If contract explicitly definies this issue then there really isnt much to discuss. Just do what contract says and bo done with it.
On April 06 2018 01:28 LongShot27 wrote: While rifkin handles things in a far from elegant manner (one could say shitposting manner) he is 100% in the right here. The "tax" as everyone calls it is a shitty way to do it, but this could have been as simple as shipping the equipment back to him at his expense and everything would have been fine. You owe the guy 1500 bucks, pay up.
He doesn't have to do anything, if Rifkin was that worried about his equipment, let him fly to Korea and get it himself.
See there's this thing about contracts, you legally have to do what they say.
Well first off, that is generally not true, what is in the control has to be legal to begin with. And in this particular case, it's probably not in it otherwise it would have been said first. Probably there was an initial misunderstanding between the two parties about what was going to be the financial implication of BTT, but if the contract does not specify that the stuff bought with rifkin investment belong to him, or that there is a financial guaranty of his investment, I don't think Noregret has any obligations toward him.
edit : however, I'd said that this tax stuff against the players seems completely unreasonable, unfair and most likely illegal.
One thing that does strike me as crummy for NoRegret is that, if this does go to small claims court, he has to book a quick flight back to North America to show up and defend himself. If he's in the wrong, then whatever, but if he's in the right or the contract really is ambiguous, then that kind of sucks.
On April 05 2018 20:57 BasetradeTV wrote: Pasting my response from reddit here as well:
Unsure why this is being brought up now, considering the Unity Tax has been there since December.
The new information added was not this, but the strike system, which did not exist before.
There's a reason there hasn't been a public statement made, and why I won't be making a statement about this: Jake and I both signed a contract that includes a confidentiality clause in it. While he may not be willing to honour a contract, I am.
Honestly Riff, this case is honestly the worst I have ever seen from you, not only do you again, get into this messy situation, you don't even solve the matter well.
Just look at how you handled this Unity tax as an example.
Did you discuss about the amount with noregret? Did you set a period of time of when it needs to be returned by? Did he agree to this compensation method? Did you even notify him about this change in separate email? Did you remind him of this when one of the players enter the tourney?
Most importantly, did he acknowledge he is aware of this tax before and/or after the announcement?
If you did not do any of the above, I can only see it two ways: Either you are just plain bad at communication and follow up, or this is an intentional hostile move.
I am hoping it's the former but whenever I read the tone you use in messages/replies, I ain't so sure.
not saying noregret has no blame in this (we don't know the details) but you constantly being in these situation is definitely a clear sign you are not learning fast enough.
On April 06 2018 03:14 RuiBarbO wrote: One thing that does strike me as crummy for NoRegret is that, if this does go to small claims court, he has to book a quick flight back to North America to show up and defend himself. If he's in the wrong, then whatever, but if he's in the right or the contract really is ambiguous, then that kind of sucks.
If Scarlett makes it to the GSL finals I will crowdfund this. The quickest way for BTV and NoRegret to get this settled now is to give Scarlett all the resources she needs to make the finals and profit.
On April 06 2018 03:21 BisuDagger wrote: If Scarlett makes it to the GSL finals I will crowdfund this. The quickest way for BTV and NoRegret to get this settled now is to give Scarlett all the resources she needs to make the finals and profit.
Everyone and their mother knows that I have some serious NoRegreT bias, so anything I might say in his favour would be not at all objective and pretty much null and void. I can't say I've ever been much of a Rifkin fan either. This just reiterates the fact that I can't look at this situation with neutral eyes.
But, I'm not here to make personal attacks on Rif. I don't care for him but I don't wish him ill either. It's the shadiness that bothers me, and this is not the first time I've felt that way towards him. He would make an excellent Macbeth; "Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under it." If at the end of the day, Jake owes him money, then so be it. But the 10% tax thing seems a little more than ridiculous and completely unfair to the players in the house.
Drama can be fun on occasion but this is not one of those times. All I can hope for is that this unfortunate situation gets resolved and works out as fairly as possible for both parties.
On April 06 2018 02:52 WhiteSPiriT wrote: I just created an account to participate to the discussion. There is a couple of things to say, that have been globally already said. It's all about the contract, if there is anything written that says the material just go back to Rifkin if he wants, then you have nothing to say about it if you agreed to that. If this is the opposite and nothing is saying that the material should go back in the hands of Rifkin, then Noregret is right about it. So we can't say anything because we don't know what is written in that contract, we can just speculate, and it's not going to salve the situation, only Noregret and Rifkin can do this, it's up to them to read what is written in that contract. That being said, it looks like since a while that Rifkin is quite often into shady cases as this one. I wouldn't make any kind of agreement with him to be honest.
To conclude I would like to add that the posts saying "nice drama", "I love dramas" "juicy drama" and so on ... Are just stupid. We are talking about 1500$. That's not nothing. And you can end being in a lot of troubles if you have to pay this amount without anything to back-up. I've seen people being just chased of their home/flat, just because they aren't able to pay their rent. And btw, make this public, is in my opinion, really unprofessional, you have a contract, just execute it. You don't need the community for this, it's private stuff.
Sorry but it they dont have any clause in the contract about that equipment, the owner of the things is the one who bought with his money that equipment, it is not like: "ok I put the furniture in anybodys apartment then if we part ways and I leave the apt, then that furniture now belongs to that person , if is not in the contract".
So Rifkin "threatened" NoRegreT with legal action back in december 2017 but still hasn't actually done anything? Surely if the legal options would have been "easy wins" (as Rifkin said) he would have done it already.
On April 06 2018 03:48 Keeemy wrote: So Rifkin "threatened" NoRegreT with legal action back in december 2017 but still hasn't actually done anything? Surely if the legal options would have been "easy wins" (as Rifkin said) he would have done it already.
Or maybe Rifkin truly is a nice guy.
To be fair a cross-pacific civil lawsuit for 1500$ seems like a bit of an mess, I think their residencr in Canada are in different provinces to, don't know how civil lawsuit work in those cases since they all have their own tribunal system as far as I know.
On April 06 2018 03:48 Keeemy wrote: So Rifkin "threatened" NoRegreT with legal action back in december 2017 but still hasn't actually done anything? Surely if the legal options would have been "easy wins" (as Rifkin said) he would have done it already.
Or maybe Rifkin truly is a nice guy.
To be fair a cross-pacific civil lawsuit for 1500$ seems like a bit of an mess, I think their residencr in Canada are in different provinces to, don't know how civil lawsuit work in those cases since they all have their own tribunal system as far as I know.
A well written contract would have a forum selection clause, but if the contract was well written I doubt things would have come to this. If there isn't jurisdiction could be a nightmare to establish.
On April 06 2018 03:48 Keeemy wrote: So Rifkin "threatened" NoRegreT with legal action back in december 2017 but still hasn't actually done anything? Surely if the legal options would have been "easy wins" (as Rifkin said) he would have done it already.
Or maybe Rifkin truly is a nice guy.
To be fair a cross-pacific civil lawsuit for 1500$ seems like a bit of an mess, I think their residencr in Canada are in different provinces to, don't know how civil lawsuit work in those cases since they all have their own tribunal system as far as I know.
It would probably be a mess, I agree. I just thought it was funny how he threatened with legal action and boasted how it would be an easy win, but probably never intended to actually go through with it. Or maybe he did, who knows.
Just show us the contract(s) and let us, the awesome community of TL, be the judges. Otherwise all we can do is speculate and gossip, and that's not good for anyone.
Regardless of whether or not Rifkin has a case here, unless I'm misunderstanding the situation entirely then 'taxing' the players is not the correct answer. If the players themselves had signed a contract agreeing to it then sure, but just because the players benefit from the house doesn't mean they shoulder responsibility for it.
I always thought both zombiegrub and rifkin were bad, maybe even terrible casters. Some people tried to argue, they might not be good, but they do a lot for community. But this is again a controversy in the long list of controversies caused by basetradetv, I wonder if they haven't done more harm than good.
On April 06 2018 02:52 WhiteSPiriT wrote: I just created an account to participate to the discussion. There is a couple of things to say, that have been globally already said. It's all about the contract, if there is anything written that says the material just go back to Rifkin if he wants, then you have nothing to say about it if you agreed to that. If this is the opposite and nothing is saying that the material should go back in the hands of Rifkin, then Noregret is right about it. So we can't say anything because we don't know what is written in that contract, we can just speculate, and it's not going to salve the situation, only Noregret and Rifkin can do this, it's up to them to read what is written in that contract. That being said, it looks like since a while that Rifkin is quite often into shady cases as this one. I wouldn't make any kind of agreement with him to be honest.
To conclude I would like to add that the posts saying "nice drama", "I love dramas" "juicy drama" and so on ... Are just stupid. We are talking about 1500$. That's not nothing. And you can end being in a lot of troubles if you have to pay this amount without anything to back-up. I've seen people being just chased of their home/flat, just because they aren't able to pay their rent. And btw, make this public, is in my opinion, really unprofessional, you have a contract, just execute it. You don't need the community for this, it's private stuff.
Sorry but it they dont have any clause in the contract about that equipment, the owner of the things is the one who bought with his money that equipment, it is not like: "ok I put the furniture in anybodys apartment then if we part ways and I leave the apt, then that furniture now belongs to that person , if is not in the contract".
Definitely, but we have no clue about if this is the case or not. But if this is like this, you are right. Btw, someone said that Rifkin said in december he would contact a lawyer and stuff, still there isn't any legal action, so yeah, it's not looking like it is that "easy" for him.
i don't know who's legally in the right here, but the fact that rifkin is willing to threaten to sue a player over this is horrendous optics and proves what many people have long suspected, which is that rifkin has a problem keeping his ego in check. even if, hypothetically, rifkin is 100% legally right, no professional organization or sponsor would handle this situation this way
the fact that this is the person who has done so much for the scene is simply sad. it doesn't nullify the good his organization has done, but it makes the scene an ugly and shitty place
I think it's a bad idea for anyone that isn't directly involved to form an opinion on this until we find out where the Matcherino money actually went. If the money went to BTTV that's one thing, but if the players in the house got it that's another.
Lets not only blame rifkin, it is basetrade tv, so it includes the whole organisation and its main team. They all supported or atleast condoned this kind of behaviour and policy. It unfair to put all the blame on rifkin alone.
On April 06 2018 04:31 Solar424 wrote: I think it's a bad idea for anyone that isn't directly involved to form an opinion on this until we find out where the Matcherino money actually went. If the money went to BTTV that's one thing, but if the players in the house got it that's another.
i agree that jumping to conclusions about the contract is pointless, but that's only one issue. the other issue is rifkin repeatedly turning the scene into a stage for him to try to assert his personal importance in comparison to foreign players. im not even trying to shit on rifkin or make him look bad, i just think he needs to stop
On April 06 2018 04:38 Pascal1p wrote: Lets not only blame rifkin, it is basetrade tv, so it includes the whole organisation and its main team. They all supported or atleast condoned this kind of behaviour and policy. It unfair to put all the blame on rifkin alone.
Well ZG hasn't been part of BTTV for a while though, she is only a guest caster now when she is on BTTV, just as Wardi, Maynarde or feardragon when they appear.
I agree with you, but I am not sure who is part of BTTV now apart from Rifkin.
On April 06 2018 03:48 Keeemy wrote: So Rifkin "threatened" NoRegreT with legal action back in december 2017 but still hasn't actually done anything? Surely if the legal options would have been "easy wins" (as Rifkin said) he would have done it already.
Or maybe Rifkin truly is a nice guy.
Isn't that how the normal procedure goes? Rarely do you really settle in court.
On April 06 2018 04:22 Pascal1p wrote: I always thought both zombiegrub and rifkin were bad, maybe even terrible casters. Some people tried to argue, they might not be good, but they do a lot for community. But this is again a controversy in the long list of controversies caused by basetradetv, I wonder if they haven't done more harm than good.
And I and many more like Zombiegrub casting. Taste are taste. And she isn't even in BTTV anymore so stop spreading false informations, things are complicated enough.
Also I think BTTV have done a lot of good for the players, lot of tourney etc. Never followed all these "drama" i'm kind of disapointed now.
The contract may not specify what to do with the equipement once the contract ends, but wording is also important in contracts, specially when both parties disagree, if the equipment is treated as investment, then Rifkin doesnt have the right to claim it back, so yeah just post the contract in the OP instead of those ¨juicy drama screenshots¨ if you want to resolve this.
On April 06 2018 03:46 deacon.frost wrote: Isn't the tax legally a discrimination? As it's based against a certain group of people and not on everybody?
Not sure how 'murrica's law works, thanks in advance.
No thankfully, we haven't become that level of socialist yet
On April 06 2018 04:29 brickrd wrote: Jesus Christ
i don't know who's legally in the right here, but the fact that rifkin is willing to threaten to sue a player over this is horrendous optics and proves what many people have long suspected, which is that rifkin has a problem keeping his ego in check. even if, hypothetically, rifkin is 100% legally right, no professional organization or sponsor would handle this situation this way
the fact that this is the person who has done so much for the scene is simply sad. it doesn't nullify the good his organization has done, but it makes the scene an ugly and shitty place
I think ALL professional organizations would sue if someone is not complying with a legally binding contract that they feel is worth pursuing.
In fact, I think it would be much more professional to handle this privately, with the help of the law if needed, than to do it in the open on public forums throwing around unsupported accusations. That is what the civil court system is for.
EDIT: Also, I think the "tax" is a very unprofessional way of dealing with this.
On April 06 2018 03:46 deacon.frost wrote: Isn't the tax legally a discrimination? As it's based against a certain group of people and not on everybody?
Not sure how 'murrica's law works, thanks in advance.
No thankfully, we haven't become that level of socialist yet
I have to disagree slightly with the thread title, this seems more like just another step in the back and forth.
If we have been at WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE 12k and I'LL SUE YOU AND YADDA YADDA YADDA nd now we're at "ANYONE IN THE THIEF HOUSE IS 10% LESS WELCOME TO MY TOURNAMENTS UNTIL THIS DEBT IS SETTLED" it actually sounds like a DE-escalation to my ears. Or at least just another shot fired. Sigh.
As a fan of everything Starcraft-y I tend to appreciate all players, casters, organizers and sponsors etc, so it is always sad to see them not get along. In THIS case it seems like a series of "You did A so I will do B" and "I did NOT do A but you did B so now I will do C" and soon we run out of alphabet and I have no idea who dotted the i and crossed the t to begin with.
That said, someday someone is going to have to explain to me where the extreme vitriol vs BTTV/Rifkin is coming from and how prevalent it is. Most times I catch up on some drama I find reasonable explanations and attempts at fixing things or fairly honest apologies.
One of those times where I wonder if me saying anything is going to be of any value to anybody, but whatever. When I got a message at the end of autumn asking for my input on the new house project, I had begun to believe that all of this was resolved one way or another and I'd never hear about it again. It's unbelievably disappointing to have that tax pointed out. I'm glad someone did, though.
I don't know if I have everything straight, let me try to get it all unraveled and pieced together in my head... Wall of text under the spoiler.+ Show Spoiler +
For this discussion, "BaseTradeTV", "BaseTrade", "BTTV", and "Rifkin" are assumed to be the same entity (as far as I am aware, Rifkin is the sole owner and mouthpiece of the organization BaseTradeTV).
BTTV and the community wished to help NoRegreT (and other players such as Scarlett, Neeb, TIME, Kelazhur, the list goes on) pay for a new, bigger house for foreign players to live and train in and allow them to compete in the GSL.
BTTV made an investment (apparently at the time in good faith) in the house with the intent to get benefits (return on investment) in the near future, the benefits being specifically raising money through donations to a Matcherino page, an influx of paid subscriptions and further donations to BTTV generated by the initiative to help the greater community see more foreign players practicing and competing in Korea. It was agreed upon by all parties involved that if the Matcherino page met a certain goal, the money would be shared between the parties. The Matcherino page was prematurely closed by the page/event organizer (BTTV), while the page was on track to reach the goal but before it had done so.
Some time passes. BTTV publicly assures the general audience that things are progressing, making a point to state that a point is being made to make sure nothing shady is being done with anything related to the Matcherino by him specifically (+ Show Spoiler +
something something, sounds like something a synth would say...
). Events promised as part of completing the rest of the Matcherino goals are realized by members of the house. Some time passes, NoRegreT and/or members of the house may or may not have been compensated in some way (if so, it was obviously not in a way they deemed either entirely acceptable or enough to entirely excuse their previous actions).
BTTV demands, out of the blue (privately), that equipment purchased with money sent as "house startup costs" (BTTV's initial investment) was to be suddenly returned or that the money was to be returned, despite having already reaped the expected benefits from the investment and without any discussion about what was to be done with the "house startup costs" after they were paid. There was apparently nothing stated by anyone, anywhere, at any point in time until then that this was "a thing". The other parties make a minor effort to appease BTTV while continuing to manage the house, manage incoming and outgoing players, practice in the house, travel and compete in tournaments, and so on.
BTTV grows from being unaccommodating or uncooperative to hostile and unreasonable, their harassment leading multiple parties to cease communication with them, and went so far as to threaten to sue. An anonymous entity (presumed to be BTTV) contacted the host of an internet podcast and gave them private information regarding the somewhat private discussions and unrest between BTTV, NoRegreT, and other members of the previous BTTV House, to be discussed during a live interview with NoRegreT. The issue is left the same as before, some time passes.
BTTV's demands are left un-wangled. BTTV imposes a tax on tournament prize money to everyone affiliated with NoRegreT, the BTTV House, and everyone who lives in the new (unrelated and intentionally disconnected from the previous house) Project: Unity house until their demands are successfully wangled. The act of punishing uninvolved parties in this way leads members of the community to share the news, soon thereafter leading NoRegreT to show more information to the information-starved public. Scarlett comments on the matter, giving yet more information. BTTV appears to be expectedly closed-mouthed with regards to information the public wishes to know about the events and about how and why BTTV is unfairly, in the public's eyes, treating a large group of professional players.
I shake my head. I read the comments, think about not commenting, write a wall of text. Did I miss anything?
Whether one regards fully or entirely disregards all of this "drama", or any drama with BTTV in the recent past, it's fair to say it's completely unacceptable behavior to impose a tax on players like that.
How I personally feel about it... I would also say it's grossly disrespectful to players, players traveling to live and train in Korea, other tournament and event organizers, other casters, and to the community (especially those supporting foreign players competing in Korea) to force this fabricated issue to go on for this long and to cause this much stress for anyone. Knowing as much/little as I do about the issue and everyone involved, I feel that if NoRegreT and Scarlett were somehow required to pay back that initial investment (that was used to buy beds to sleep on and chairs to sit in), they would have done so months ago one way or another. I could be wrong, it could be even more complicated than I think it is so far, they could be lying, but the new and old information with all the context I have just doesn't point me in that direction.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing in any contract that has anything to do with that money needing to be paid back. If somehow there is, I suggest that the capable party point out where in the contract, exactly, it is explicitly written that the "house startup costs" need to be refunded/paid back/reimbursed under any circumstance to make it easier for the issue to come to a reasonable resolution. It seems like this bullshit really just needs to be thrown aside and left to dry up and scatter in the wind instead of being rubbed in anyone else's face. That probably should have been done months ago, but there's no changing that now. I hope it ends and everyone can learn something useful, take a deep breath, and move on.
Well it's obvious Rifkin is a little clueless in regards to litigation and proceedings. It's pretty easy to post what is owed instead of throwing around an arbitrary dollar amount. You'll have to provide this for your 'case' anyway, might as well post it here.
Both parties thinking that they are freed from or entitled to anything else because of x/y/z is asinine and naive. (In this case NoRegret for whatever matcherino thing he is referring to; Rifkin for thinking about previous contracts.)
If there is a legitimate cut and dry case then simply file and serve. Your Skype logs will just be laughed at or dismissed unless they possess anything that directly explicitly incriminates one of the parties. Also you'll need to obtain genuine ones from Microsoft if you plan on using them.
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.
On April 05 2018 23:15 KGssv2 wrote: 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.
Don't agree with that. I mean, yes, ofc BTTV is allowed to update/change their rules now and then. Preeeeetty sure they need to inform their players that there has been a change made though. They don't need to state what has been changed, it's up to the players to reread the rules, yes. But if they had never been notified about any kind of change at all (that's how I understand it happened), then you can't just expect the players to read your rules all over again every single time before they play in any tournament. Facebook also informs you every time they update e.g. their data protection regulations or something. If you don't read them, yes, it's your fault if there's something you don't like. But they can't just do whatever they want without letting you know that there have been changes. And if so, that's unbelievably unprofessional.
I am not from Canada but I am assuming that US and Canadian laws in this area still reflect the tenets established from English common law. Simply put, so long as the terms to be incorporated by notice are visibly available, immediately accessible and sufficiently clear at the time of the creation of the contract, there is no need to give further notification that terms exist. Facebook is not really a relevant analogy in this case since it is an entirely different type of contract. Facebook is a long continuous course of dealing during which time the terms may be changed. BTTV tournaments on the other hand, are not long continuous courses of dealing. Think of it like this, every new online tournament you enter into is a new contract to which you agree with the terms and conditions. At the beginning of every new contract (even if it is on the same subject matter as the previous contract i.e. tournament conditions), it is upon the players to read the terms and conditions. The fact that the sign up page is prefaced with 'By entering into this tournament, you agree to the following Rules and Regulations' is sufficient for legal purposes. As with any commercial dealing, it would be very risky to sign a contract in a course of dealing with the assumption that nothing has changed/was updated from the last contract. I agree that for a business like BTTV it is very unprofessional, not to mention, a severe lack of basic courtesy to not notify players of the specific change, but that does not equate to a legal requirement generally speaking.
However, as I did mention, you could argue that where a contract term is considered unusual for its class, the standard of the 'sufficient notice' test will be much higher, such that reasonable effort should be made to direct the unusual term to the affected players' attention. I think its fair to say that a 10% penalty imposed on a specific class of individuals is very unusual. Then again, I cant say I am that well attuned to Canadian law so I stand to be corrected.
Sorry, but "taxing" players that have absolutely nothing to do with the past house is absolutely bordering on anti-social behavior. It takes a very negative and vindictive person to do something like that.
Basetrade needs to settle with the people that directly "owe" them, and no one else.
I hope other players boycott BTTV tournaments, this is unacceptable for the scene.
Just as they have strikes for unethical player behavior. This constitutes unethical tournament organizer behavior.
I hope this gets resolved quickly and amicably - BTTV have been great for the SC2 scene. I really appreciate their efforts and have the utmost respect for both Rifkin and ZG. May both sides of the dispute behave respectfully and with compassion.
On April 05 2018 23:15 KGssv2 wrote: 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.
Don't agree with that. I mean, yes, ofc BTTV is allowed to update/change their rules now and then. Preeeeetty sure they need to inform their players that there has been a change made though. They don't need to state what has been changed, it's up to the players to reread the rules, yes. But if they had never been notified about any kind of change at all (that's how I understand it happened), then you can't just expect the players to read your rules all over again every single time before they play in any tournament. Facebook also informs you every time they update e.g. their data protection regulations or something. If you don't read them, yes, it's your fault if there's something you don't like. But they can't just do whatever they want without letting you know that there have been changes. And if so, that's unbelievably unprofessional.
Think of it like this, every new online tournament you enter into is a new contract to which you agree with the terms and conditions. At the beginning of every new contract (even if it is on the same subject matter as the previous contract i.e. tournament conditions), it is upon the players to read the terms and conditions. The fact that the sign up page is prefaced with 'By entering into this tournament, you agree to the following Rules and Regulations' is sufficient for legal purposes. As with any commercial dealing, it would be very risky to sign a contract in a course of dealing with the assumption that nothing has changed/was updated from the last contract. I agree that for a business like BTTV it is very unprofessional, not to mention, a severe lack of basic courtesy to not notify players of the specific change, but that does not equate to a legal requirement generally speaking.
I hadn't looked at it that way, tbh. To be fair, it does make a lot more sense the way you just put it.
It's just like I already said... very unprofessional. Even if it is legally fine for BTTV to change their rules just like that, it would've been fair to notify the players living in the house that there has been a change which affects them. Or just notify NoRegreT and put the reponsibility of informing the other players on him or something. Then again, we do not know if there have actually been any "tax cuts" or however you want to call it. Maybe the rule was made for some sort of safety for BTTV but so far players might have still received the full prize money. We do not know.
Sounds like a really positive relationship and situation went a bit sour, and perhaps the contract in place didn't clearly articulate the obligations of the parties involved when the house was wound down. Fully get BTTV wanting to be reimbursed if gear they funded was being used in the new house - but without seeing the contract we won't know if it's as cut and dried as Rifkin is saying, or a bit iffy as seems to be NoRegrets position.
Getting into the personal stuff (on both sides) is doing no one any favours. Hopefully it gets sorted in a reasonable manner, but BBTV is alienating some pretty significant players, and NoRegrets comments about not wanting to resolve it due to other history and not liking Rifkin anymore isn't great.
If the tax and the rationale was clearly communicated, and agreed too by players participating, then there doesn't seem anything illegal about it. But whether it's ethical is another matter.
Doesn't really seem like anyone is covering themselves in glory. Hope it gets sorted asap and everyone involved can move on.
Well so far Rifkin seems to be making a much better showing than NoRegret & Friends tbh. I know the default reaction is to hate on the guy because of the previous incidents but yea....
On April 06 2018 17:28 JD.Cursed wrote: Wow! I knew Rifkin was a money grubber from his exceptionally refined Twitch whoring, but this is truly arrogant.
On the other hand, if there was a contract...
There was certainly a contract. It's just a matter of what was in it.
People lose their minds for a 10% tax over players related to noregret on the tournament hosted by bttv? Regardless of what happened, this is not a big deal. But as usual, they are too many drama queens in this community. :/ This thread should be closed, go on reddit, that's a better place for you.
Dont think anyone here has the full picture, best to leave them to it. A 10% reduction in prizes for Basetrade tournaments for people in the korean house is not a big deal and Rifkin can set whatever rules he likes for his own tournaments.
On April 06 2018 18:19 Zaros wrote: Dont think anyone here has the full picture, best to leave them to it. A 10% reduction in prizes for Basetrade tournaments for people in the korean house is not a big deal and Rifkin can set whatever rules he likes for his own tournaments.
And the community can agree or disagree with those rules and talk about it publicly. 10% might not be much money, but people can still say that it's bullshit and why.
On April 06 2018 18:19 Zaros wrote: Dont think anyone here has the full picture, best to leave them to it. A 10% reduction in prizes for Basetrade tournaments for people in the korean house is not a big deal and Rifkin can set whatever rules he likes for his own tournaments.
It's not a big deal in and of itself but how vindicative and morally wrong it is is a big deal, at least for me and obviously for a great deal other people.
In regards to the contract, Noregret said the contract was separate and has nothing to do with this and seeing as Rifkin wrote to Noregret that "there is a paper trail and good faith negotiations" as support for demanding returns it strongly indicates the contract says nothing about it. If the contract said anything about it I'm sure Rifkin would point that out, but he doesn't.
I will also mention that Rifkin(obviously) tipped the interviewer off on this topic(anonymously) so that he could corner noregret. The reason for doing this becomes apparent from the fact that Rifkin choose to be anonymous(even though its obviously him) and then later posts; "There's a reason there hasn't been a public statement made, and why I won't be making a statement about this: Jake and I both signed a contract that includes a confidentiality clause in it. While he may not be willing to honour a contract, I am.".
The whole debacle on dankshrine seems to indicate Rifkin wanted Noregret to talk about stuff he was under legal obligation not to talk about while Rifkin stayed anonymous and thus followed the contract. Its very underhanded..
I think you are overvaluing TL as a mediator, which is either a mere website or esports team, than as per the standard procedures and court of law. In any case it seems increasingly obvious that there is no legal backing to the claims and it wouldn't be settled.
On April 06 2018 20:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I think you are overvaluing TL as a mediator, which is either a mere website or esports team, than as per the standard procedures and court of law. In any case it seems increasingly obvious that there is no legal backing to the claims and it wouldn't be settled.
No, Teamliquid doesn't have any legal power. It has enough influence to be a mediator in this case. It's also good PR for Teamliquid to do it. It's a matter of willingness.
On April 06 2018 20:16 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I think you are overvaluing TL as a mediator, which is either a mere website or esports team, than as per the standard procedures and court of law. In any case it seems increasingly obvious that there is no legal backing to the claims and it wouldn't be settled.
No, Teamliquid doesn't have any legal power. It has enough influence to be a mediator in this case. It's also good PR for Teamliquid to do it. It's a matter of willingness.
How is influence required to be a mediator and what kind of influence are you saying TL has enough of?
What there is to say has already been said here it seems like, Noregret says he owes Rifkin nothing and Rifkin says he owes him and that he has the legal right to follow it up. How is a mediator supposed to help in this situation, only the court can actually settle this and at the moment it seems that is not happening.
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.
On April 06 2018 19:11 sc-darkness wrote: 1. Let Teamliquid be a mediator between Rifkin and NoRegret as a StarCraft community organisation. 2. Resolve issues.
Done. No need for threads and pages of comments from people like us who don't know the whole story.
On April 06 2018 19:11 sc-darkness wrote: 1. Let Teamliquid be a mediator between Rifkin and NoRegret as a StarCraft community organisation. 2. Resolve issues.
Done. No need for threads and pages of comments from people like us who don't know the whole story.
you aren't serious
If you put more thought into your post, then we could discuss.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
See this is the thing, while Rifkin has his own history of drama, so does Noregret and much of the foreigner teamhouse. One need only look at the whole situation with Wardii to see that. I am not picking sides because I don't know enough details but to side with Noregret simply because you're a fan of him or any other foreigner in the teamhouse is pretty juvenile, likewise to side with BTTV because you like Rifkin or ZG.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think anyone should be rushing to pass judgement here. It seems to be just a factual dispute over the terms of the contract, unless we ever get to see it there's really no way we can say which party is right or wrong. It seems unlikely to me that anyone is straight up lying so I'm guessing there's just some misunderstanding going on.
What I wanna see are the original messages/discussion around this $1500 worth of equipment or the initial messages founding/sponsoring the "BaseTrade TV house".
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.
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.
Pretty much all my SC2 experience have come from Basetrade TV (probably cause of timing schedule) and they have done an amazing job promoting SC2 in general. Many people are just biased to one or another side but all should be supporting SC2 and condemning one side is just plain stupid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
On April 06 2018 19:11 sc-darkness wrote: 1. Let Teamliquid be a mediator between Rifkin and NoRegret as a StarCraft community organisation. 2. Resolve issues.
Done. No need for threads and pages of comments from people like us who don't know the whole story.
This sounds like a suggestion from a 15 year old, who has had no real life experience doing business, or getting into any kind of contract thinking Teal Liquid is some godlike altruistic entity cable of dispensing justice for all.
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.
I think its easy to agree that the contract clearly left some ambiguity or this wouldn't really be an issue.
If the contract doesn't directly state the 10% or return of items. The players are clearly in the right. If the contract does state this then Rifkin / BTTV is clearly in the right. The only thing that matters in a situations like this is what is written in the contract. If it's not in there then it's a big mistake on BTTV side, and you can bet in court it wouldn't stand up.
No offense to anyone, but this honestly isn't the first time Rifkin has ran into issues with players. It seem like several months ago issue came up where he threaten to not pay some of the prize pool to players from a certain team. I'm not sure how that conflict resulted, but I remember reading about it and statements from both sides. When I read some of it back then. It seem Rifkin's anger caused it to escalate quickly, and it made the issue much more difficult to resolve or agree upon. However, I do understand this is a completely different type of issue.
Only the parties involved in the contract know who is in the right or wrong. All they have to do is read the contract. until then what everyone says is basically opinion based.
On April 07 2018 08:10 -StrifeX- wrote: No offense to anyone, but this honestly isn't the first time Rifkin has ran into issues with players. It seem like several months ago issue came up where he threaten to not pay some of the prize pool to players from a certain team.
competitive event promoters often get into conflicts with the competitors. Rifkin/BTTV isn't very special in that respect.
I'm just baffled. What does this even purportedly prove? I guess now I believe that Riffkin paid NoRegret some money at some point for some reason. Was this being disputed? And why is it any of my business?
From a common sense standpoint, the person who buys chairs and tables is the person who owns them, not some random players who used them while living in a house funded by the owner of the chairs and tables.
While I really appreciate BBTV's contribution to SC2, I really dislike that sort of behaviour from Rifkin. His approach to resolving issues jumps all over the show in terms of maturity levels, and getting personal, even if the other parties are doing it, rarely ever pays off. Take the high road if you are confident you've played fair and within the terms of the contract.
Good lord. I had lent someone 2k at one point, and while I appreciate her paying me back as quickly as she could (we worked together and I knew exactly what she was making in tips each night, so I was often paid back in cash at the end of our shift), she still owes me $500 to this day. We've both since left that particular job, and three years after the fact, I've done everything I could to try and contact her again to no avail. Does it piss me off? Sure. Could I really use that 500 at this point in my life? Yeah, definitely. Was I ever this petty about it? Don't think I could be even if I tried. Honestly, Rifkin is being a serious Regina George right now. I stand by what I said before: I don't hate the guy, that would be far too strong a word. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if he had a Burn Book of his very own. This is so spiteful.
I'm just baffled. What does this even purportedly prove? I guess now I believe that Riffkin paid NoRegret some money at some point for some reason. Was this being disputed? And why is it any of my business?
I don't know, both sides have been handling this really unprofessionally, to be honest. Rifkin should cut his losses before this negative publicity ruins BTTV. The chance of him recovering money from this event is close to zero. The amount is so little that he will likely spend more on legal fees than what he will get back.
Good lord. I had lent someone 2k at one point, and while I appreciate her paying me back as quickly as she could (we worked together and I knew exactly what she was making in tips each night, so I was often paid back in cash at the end of our shift), she still owes me $500 to this day. We've both since left that particular job, and three years after the fact, I've done everything I could to try and contact her again to no avail. Does it piss me off? Sure. Could I really use that 500 at this point in my life? Yeah, definitely. Was I ever this petty about it? Don't think I could be even if I tried. Honestly, Rifkin is being a serious Regina George right now. I stand by what I said before: I don't hate the guy, that would be far too strong a word. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if he had a Burn Book of his very own. This is so spiteful.
He actually already did. I wouldn't be surprised if he has another one already. I think the difficult thing is that since the scene is so small, grievances between people will be ever present. It's not like you can just avoid them.
I'm just baffled. What does this even purportedly prove? I guess now I believe that Riffkin paid NoRegret some money at some point for some reason. Was this being disputed? And why is it any of my business?
I don't know, both sides have been handling this really unprofessionally, to be honest. Rifkin should cut his losses before this negative publicity ruins BTTV. The chance of him recovering money from this event is close to zero. The amount is so little that he will likely spend more on legal fees than what he will get back.
$1500 dollars is still a lot of money, especially for someone who is self-employed.
Just to clarify what he showed "multiple payments" was him covering my rent to run the house, If he didn't cover my rent I'd be spending money to work for him. So basically I worked for free for an entire year. Also, he just stopped paying this at some point so I was spending my own money to cover the "BaseTradeTV" house rent.
On April 07 2018 12:26 NoRegreT_ wrote: Just to clarify what he showed "multiple payments" was him covering my rent to run the house, If he didn't cover my rent I'd be spending money to work for him. So basically I worked for free for an entire year. Also, he just stopped paying this at some point so I was spending my own money to cover the "BaseTradeTV" house rent.
So much for BTTV not breaking his 'non-disclosure agreement'. Now nobody has that going for them anymore lol.
This is so incredibly unprofessional. The issue is between these two people.
Trying to drag the community pull into your favor by doing things like this is something a high schooler would do.
These sorts of actions are not a rarity from him, and I really worry about what goes on in his mind when he thinks doing something like this on stream.
Just as an aside, I really wonder if this is even allowed. Disclosing Transaction ID's are the only things you need to provide to companies or paypal when calling.... so... it's actually quite an issue you can see them clear as day...As an example, I called Netflix and provided netflix with a paypal transaction ID and they were able to find all of my personal information and then subsequently change my subscription type and personal info after I called telling them my account had been hacked in Japan. super aside, but this is what leads directly to things like social hacking and how it is achieved -_-;;
So all that is evidence that BTTV was sponsoring the Korean house, but where's the evidence that the specific $1500 would be refunded?
Also, did Bbtv seriously expect that the Korean house was going to ship everything they bought with the sponsor money back to NA? That sounds ludicrous.
The reason why no one's taking Bttvs side. Rifking does have a history with having people disagree with him, then he goes way overboard to try to discredit and turn the community against that person. We haven't forgotten the Syf gaming incident, the Sort of incident. This stuff starts to add up.
i remember one time this rifkin fellow was talking trash on choya and siding with some other shady person against choya
so gonna assume this rifkin fellow is again in the wrong. he can do a kickstarter to recover the money if he wants, if people in community actually cared or believed in him, it'd be easy for him to recover the investment. but im guessing based on all the bad history he has, no one will support or believe him
Lets be "full disclosure" clear, who "benefits" is the only question.
i'd say overall no one benefits, but lets dig a bit more.
What else is a kid suppose to do in front of a bully?
The whole thing (like so many things) is quite "standard".
This community has all the power it needs to deal with it: ignore it take steps add to it
and asking for it is a right!
Lets dwell into the situation: Did noregret abuse rifkin? probably !!! Did rifkin abuse all of the bttv "guests", .. probably more, no?!
... mmm here i'd like to add the following relevant words: "contract" "kickstarter" "roi" and maths.
contract means more than what you kids think, some people actually get their life ruined from signing a contract (said contract can be abusive without being illegal and only a trial will say if it is)
roi means shit if you got f cked in the previously specified contract, but it is the quintessential point of the whole affair (again, who gained more out of the outcome of the affair, rifkin or noregret?)
maths: simply put, noregret (or whoever) exposed this to the community so that rifkin might/would "lose" more than he was prepared to lose by engaging in this "endeavor", by the mere fact that his "character exposed" would make him lose his lively hodd (viewers) made quite a lot of noise no? As simply put, rifkin played the same game first by implying "other streamers/players" in his endeavor, thinking that his "btttv tax" would be a strong move, an "a move" that made "someone" expose this here (on "forums") and that now brings us to this situation....
Who will get more out of those? While i don't care about the outcome right now, i will care later.. i want to underline both of the "tactics" used!
rifkin not wanting to lose versus noregret (whatever the loss is defined as) made other streamers pay for it to shame noregret noregret (or whoever) has no other way to react than to shame rifkin back
noregret assumed rifkin would be a supporter enough to build a new house, and rifkin did his rifkin thing .. if you study the roi and the maths it is clear that both contract signers are both satisfied, so when rifkin tells you that all he got from this "contract/endeavor" was not good enough (you could argue he clearly lost since now he has nothing out of it) then side with him and keep watching his channel / continue to grant him his livelihood or imagine a situation where the roi is clearly in favor of rifkin and imagine that he wants more and that noregret doing the maths makes a power play, yes a kid power play versus a bully, but he does it and the bully calls out the bluff then u got to call for pitchforks versus lawyers
Only things i get out of this: glad the foreign house is not bttv property glad some people think standing up to bullies is worth losing a lot (someone should do a kickstarter: "reimburse the bully for me" is my advice).
Real funny how you kids still need to take lawyer/law lessons
On April 07 2018 17:18 fluidrone wrote: Funny, noregret shames rifkin, rifkin shames noregret...
Lets be "full disclosure" clear, who "benefits" is the only question.
i'd say overall no one benefits, but lets dig a bit more.
What else is a kid suppose to do in front of a bully?
The whole thing (like so many things) is quite "standard".
This community has all the power it needs to deal with it: ignore it take steps add to it
and asking for it is a right!
Lets dwell into the situation: Did noregret abuse rifkin? probably !!! Did rifkin abuse all of the bttv "guests", .. probably more, no?!
... mmm here i'd like to add the following relevant words: "contract" "kickstarter" "roi" and maths.
contract means more than what you kids think, some people actually get their life ruined from signing a contract (said contract can be abusive without being illegal and only a trial will say if it is)
roi means shit if you got f cked in the previously specified contract, but it is the quintessential point of the whole affair (again, who gained more out of the outcome of the affair, rifkin or noregret?)
maths: simply put, noregret (or whoever) exposed this to the community so that rifkin might/would "lose" more than he was prepared to lose by engaging in this "endeavor", by the mere fact that his "character exposed" would make him lose his lively hodd (viewers) As simply put, rifkin plays the same game by implying "other streamers/players" in his endeavor, thinking that his "btttv tax" will be a strong move, a move that made "someone" expose this here (on "forums").
Who will get more out of those? While i don't care about the outcome right now, i will care later.. i want to underline both of the "tactics" used!
rifkin not wanting to lose versus noregret (whatever the loss is defined as) made other streamers pay for it to shame noregret noregret (or whoever) has no other way to react than to shame rifkin back
noregret assumed rifkin would be a supporter enough to build a new house, and rifkin did his rifkin thing .. if you study the roi and the maths it is clear that both contract signers are both satisfied, so when rifkin tells you that all he got from this "contract/endeavor" was not good enough (you could argue he clearly lost since now he has nothing out of it) then side with him and keep watching his channel / continue to grant him his livelihood or imagine a situation where the roi is clearly in favor of rifkin and imagine that he wants more and that noregret doing the maths makes a power play, yes a kid power play versus a bully, but he does it and the bully calls out the bluff then u got to call for pitchforks versus lawyers
Only things i get out of this: glad the foreign house is not bttv property glad some people think standing up to bullies is worth losing a lot (someone should do a kickstarter: "reimburse the bully for me" is my advice).
Real funny how you kids still need to take lawyer/law lessons
No who benefits is not the only question. You are being incredibly condescending and arrogant in your tone throughout your post. It does not help that you call others bullys/children and remark how people need lessons in law. Especially not when what you have scribbled above is barely coherent and far from correct. Please mind your tone.
On April 07 2018 17:18 fluidrone wrote: Funny, noregret shames rifkin, rifkin shames noregret...
Lets be "full disclosure" clear, who "benefits" is the only question.
i'd say overall no one benefits, but lets dig a bit more.
What else is a kid suppose to do in front of a bully?
The whole thing (like so many things) is quite "standard".
This community has all the power it needs to deal with it: ignore it take steps add to it
and asking for it is a right!
Lets dwell into the situation: Did noregret abuse rifkin? probably !!! Did rifkin abuse all of the bttv "guests", .. probably more, no?!
... mmm here i'd like to add the following relevant words: "contract" "kickstarter" "roi" and maths.
contract means more than what you kids think, some people actually get their life ruined from signing a contract (said contract can be abusive without being illegal and only a trial will say if it is)
roi means shit if you got f cked in the previously specified contract, but it is the quintessential point of the whole affair (again, who gained more out of the outcome of the affair, rifkin or noregret?)
maths: simply put, noregret (or whoever) exposed this to the community so that rifkin might/would "lose" more than he was prepared to lose by engaging in this "endeavor", by the mere fact that his "character exposed" would make him lose his lively hodd (viewers) made quite a lot of noise no? As simply put, rifkin played the same game first by implying "other streamers/players" in his endeavor, thinking that his "btttv tax" would be a strong move, an "a move" that made "someone" expose this here (on "forums") and that now brings us to this situation....
Who will get more out of those? While i don't care about the outcome right now, i will care later.. i want to underline both of the "tactics" used!
rifkin not wanting to lose versus noregret (whatever the loss is defined as) made other streamers pay for it to shame noregret noregret (or whoever) has no other way to react than to shame rifkin back
noregret assumed rifkin would be a supporter enough to build a new house, and rifkin did his rifkin thing .. if you study the roi and the maths it is clear that both contract signers are both satisfied, so when rifkin tells you that all he got from this "contract/endeavor" was not good enough (you could argue he clearly lost since now he has nothing out of it) then side with him and keep watching his channel / continue to grant him his livelihood or imagine a situation where the roi is clearly in favor of rifkin and imagine that he wants more and that noregret doing the maths makes a power play, yes a kid power play versus a bully, but he does it and the bully calls out the bluff then u got to call for pitchforks versus lawyers
Only things i get out of this: glad the foreign house is not bttv property glad some people think standing up to bullies is worth losing a lot (someone should do a kickstarter: "reimburse the bully for me" is my advice).
Real funny how you kids still need to take lawyer/law lessons
What is this word diarrhea? This reads like it was generated by a retarded bot. Are they abusing each other? What is this logic, you understand that you can't retroactively change an agreement when the agreement is over and you are not happy with the end result?
Why did I even reply to this absolute drivel. Pretty hilarious you calling people "kids" when you can't seem to string one coherent sentence together. Quick maffs...
This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Without getting involved in the whole thing itself:
I do a lot of mediation and counceling, and I can assure you, that his reaction is one of the many options people choose when being pressured: push back, fight back. Its not very surprising to me, especially considering how he reacted in other conflicts.
What people also tend to forget a lot in forums and on the internet is, that all parties involved are just human beings with a lot of emotions. Those emotions tend to have a bigger impact on our decisions then we say out loud.
Its unfortunately never as easy as: "just stick to the facts", because the facts always get filtered by anger, sadness, and other things....
I think only big companies can get pressured through "exposing" them, because they have the money, time and muscle to act according to a certain "unattached", un-emotional logic.
But when "only" basically two people are fighting (like it seems to be), there is seldom a good way out of this without a third party getting involved to mediate (not a forum, fans, or anybody)...
Its sad to me what is happing.
I can see why you tried to act to help the players, just too bad it does not seem to work out at the moment
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Stop trying to dig the dirt... You did exactly the same on reddit, what a cancer.
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Stop trying to dig the dirt... You did exactly the same on reddit, what a cancer.
Yeah my opinion does not change, regardless wether I post on TL or Reddit. Shocker.
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Without getting involved in the whole thing itself:
I do a lot of mediation and counceling, and I can assure you, that his reaction is one of the many options people choose when being pressured: push back, fight back. Its not very surprising to me, especially considering how he reacted in other conflicts.
What people also tend to forget a lot in forums and on the internet is, that all parties involved are just human beings with a lot of emotions. Those emotions tend to have a bigger impact on our decisions then we say out loud.
Its unfortunately never as easy as: "just stick to the facts", because the facts always get filtered by anger, sadness, and other things....
I think only big companies can get pressured through "exposing" them, because they have the money, time and muscle to act according to a certain "unattached", un-emotional logic.
But when "only" basically two people are fighting (like it seems to be), there is seldom a good way out of this without a third party getting involved to mediate (not a forum, fans, or anybody)...
Its sad to me what is happing.
I can see why you tried to act to help the players, just too bad it does not seem to work out at the moment
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully someone in the right position steps up to mediate behind the scenes. Maybe even a Blizzard Community manager can jump in and and try to solve this issue without it going to court or some shit.
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Without getting involved in the whole thing itself:
I do a lot of mediation and counceling, and I can assure you, that his reaction is one of the many options people choose when being pressured: push back, fight back. Its not very surprising to me, especially considering how he reacted in other conflicts.
What people also tend to forget a lot in forums and on the internet is, that all parties involved are just human beings with a lot of emotions. Those emotions tend to have a bigger impact on our decisions then we say out loud.
Its unfortunately never as easy as: "just stick to the facts", because the facts always get filtered by anger, sadness, and other things....
I think only big companies can get pressured through "exposing" them, because they have the money, time and muscle to act according to a certain "unattached", un-emotional logic.
But when "only" basically two people are fighting (like it seems to be), there is seldom a good way out of this without a third party getting involved to mediate (not a forum, fans, or anybody)...
Its sad to me what is happing.
I can see why you tried to act to help the players, just too bad it does not seem to work out at the moment
Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully someone in the right position steps up to mediate behind the scenes. Maybe even a Blizzard Community manager can jump in and and try to solve this issue without it going to court or some shit.
Blizzard won't help because it's not such a big deal for them. It's not a big enough scandal to involve them. I still think TL/Reddit staff stepping up to mediate is the right choice. TL is respected by both parties so it could work. Try it, then talk shit.
On April 07 2018 17:18 fluidrone wrote: Funny, noregret shames rifkin, rifkin shames noregret...
Lets be "full disclosure" clear, who "benefits" is the only question.
i'd say overall no one benefits, but lets dig a bit more.
What else is a kid suppose to do in front of a bully?
The whole thing (like so many things) is quite "standard".
This community has all the power it needs to deal with it: ignore it take steps add to it
and asking for it is a right!
Lets dwell into the situation: Did noregret abuse rifkin? probably !!! Did rifkin abuse all of the bttv "guests", .. probably more, no?!
... mmm here i'd like to add the following relevant words: "contract" "kickstarter" "roi" and maths.
contract means more than what you kids think, some people actually get their life ruined from signing a contract (said contract can be abusive without being illegal and only a trial will say if it is)
roi means shit if you got f cked in the previously specified contract, but it is the quintessential point of the whole affair (again, who gained more out of the outcome of the affair, rifkin or noregret?)
maths: simply put, noregret (or whoever) exposed this to the community so that rifkin might/would "lose" more than he was prepared to lose by engaging in this "endeavor", by the mere fact that his "character exposed" would make him lose his lively hodd (viewers) As simply put, rifkin plays the same game by implying "other streamers/players" in his endeavor, thinking that his "btttv tax" will be a strong move, a move that made "someone" expose this here (on "forums").
Who will get more out of those? While i don't care about the outcome right now, i will care later.. i want to underline both of the "tactics" used!
rifkin not wanting to lose versus noregret (whatever the loss is defined as) made other streamers pay for it to shame noregret noregret (or whoever) has no other way to react than to shame rifkin back
noregret assumed rifkin would be a supporter enough to build a new house, and rifkin did his rifkin thing .. if you study the roi and the maths it is clear that both contract signers are both satisfied, so when rifkin tells you that all he got from this "contract/endeavor" was not good enough (you could argue he clearly lost since now he has nothing out of it) then side with him and keep watching his channel / continue to grant him his livelihood or imagine a situation where the roi is clearly in favor of rifkin and imagine that he wants more and that noregret doing the maths makes a power play, yes a kid power play versus a bully, but he does it and the bully calls out the bluff then u got to call for pitchforks versus lawyers
Only things i get out of this: glad the foreign house is not bttv property glad some people think standing up to bullies is worth losing a lot (someone should do a kickstarter: "reimburse the bully for me" is my advice).
Real funny how you kids still need to take lawyer/law lessons
No who benefits is not the only question. You are being incredibly condescending and arrogant in your tone throughout your post. It does not help that you call others bullys/children and remark how people need lessons in law. Especially not when what you have scribbled above is barely coherent and far from correct. Please mind your tone.
Classical fluidrone, his ‘special’ posting habits give me a headache every time, better avoid reading this stuff.
On April 07 2018 17:18 fluidrone wrote: Funny, noregret shames rifkin, rifkin shames noregret...
Lets be "full disclosure" clear, who "benefits" is the only question.
i'd say overall no one benefits, but lets dig a bit more.
What else is a kid suppose to do in front of a bully?
The whole thing (like so many things) is quite "standard".
This community has all the power it needs to deal with it: ignore it take steps add to it
and asking for it is a right!
Lets dwell into the situation: Did noregret abuse rifkin? probably !!! Did rifkin abuse all of the bttv "guests", .. probably more, no?!
... mmm here i'd like to add the following relevant words: "contract" "kickstarter" "roi" and maths.
contract means more than what you kids think, some people actually get their life ruined from signing a contract (said contract can be abusive without being illegal and only a trial will say if it is)
roi means shit if you got f cked in the previously specified contract, but it is the quintessential point of the whole affair (again, who gained more out of the outcome of the affair, rifkin or noregret?)
maths: simply put, noregret (or whoever) exposed this to the community so that rifkin might/would "lose" more than he was prepared to lose by engaging in this "endeavor", by the mere fact that his "character exposed" would make him lose his lively hodd (viewers) As simply put, rifkin plays the same game by implying "other streamers/players" in his endeavor, thinking that his "btttv tax" will be a strong move, a move that made "someone" expose this here (on "forums").
Who will get more out of those? While i don't care about the outcome right now, i will care later.. i want to underline both of the "tactics" used!
rifkin not wanting to lose versus noregret (whatever the loss is defined as) made other streamers pay for it to shame noregret noregret (or whoever) has no other way to react than to shame rifkin back
noregret assumed rifkin would be a supporter enough to build a new house, and rifkin did his rifkin thing .. if you study the roi and the maths it is clear that both contract signers are both satisfied, so when rifkin tells you that all he got from this "contract/endeavor" was not good enough (you could argue he clearly lost since now he has nothing out of it) then side with him and keep watching his channel / continue to grant him his livelihood or imagine a situation where the roi is clearly in favor of rifkin and imagine that he wants more and that noregret doing the maths makes a power play, yes a kid power play versus a bully, but he does it and the bully calls out the bluff then u got to call for pitchforks versus lawyers
Only things i get out of this: glad the foreign house is not bttv property glad some people think standing up to bullies is worth losing a lot (someone should do a kickstarter: "reimburse the bully for me" is my advice).
Real funny how you kids still need to take lawyer/law lessons
No who benefits is not the only question. You are being incredibly condescending and arrogant in your tone throughout your post. It does not help that you call others bullys/children and remark how people need lessons in law. Especially not when what you have scribbled above is barely coherent and far from correct. Please mind your tone.
Classical fluidrone, his ‘special’ posting habits give me a headache every time, better avoid reading this stuff.
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Considering that part of this debate over the team house involves community funds apparently vanishing before the end of the date it was suppose to cover I would highly advise you rethink such a gracious motion. (of course, aforementioned is alleged - and to my understanding of what has been claimed.)
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Considering that part of this debate over the team house involves community funds apparently vanishing before the end of the date it was suppose to cover I would highly advise you rethink such a gracious motion. (of course, aforementioned is alleged - and to my understanding of what has been claimed.)
I wouldn't be so surprised if he just refuses anyway, saying Noregret has to pay it. It's the same idea than going legal for such an amount.
Wow, how immature can you possibly be... I guess that question is still being answered.
I'll take a second to remind everyone that an "anonymous" person (assumed by almost everyone to be BTTV/Rifkin) tipped off DankShrine about the "stolen equipment" which led to DankShrine (plausibly with good intentions, not that that matters much to me at this point) sparking the conversation with NoRegreT on the podcast/interview, putting at least a little unnecessary pressure from the community on Jake (Rifkin's intentions, if assumptions about the anon tip are correct), after causing other problems (leading more than one person to block communication with him) after doing shady things what with the Matcherino.
No serious discussion or cooperation with the person he has an issue with, obvious intent to make things more difficult for them and people around them, trying to pressure them to give into his demands (which it's very muddy as to whether or not they were ever at any point reasonable), punishing anyone affiliated with his target with no sensible justifications for it, no discussion or cooperation with the community and instead he tries to make someone a bigger target for harassment with this callous "oops" moment after his target tried multiple times to get away from him harassing them?
I don't know how else to call something "fucking bullshit" without using those two words.
*Also, I appreciate the YouTube video being uploaded for everyone after the clip was taken down, but at some point that needs to be removed as well. Or perhaps whatever important numbers in there could be blurred, idk, but there are a lot of reasons why you don't show that stuff to potentially thousands of random people around the world, right?
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Considering that part of this debate over the team house involves community funds apparently vanishing before the end of the date it was suppose to cover I would highly advise you rethink such a gracious motion. (of course, aforementioned is alleged - and to my understanding of what has been claimed.)
I wouldn't be so surprised if he just refuses anyway, saying Noregret has to pay it.
The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches. You would not want to be associated with such people, not only are they imo bad casters, but this is not the first negative promotion for them.
They hurting the scene so much with this and I admire Scarlett and she seems to back noRegret in this. If there was something shady, she would be the first to correct noRegret and put him in his place.
Or hey maybe if they hire them, just pay them 10% less .
On April 07 2018 23:46 Pascal1p wrote: The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches.
ZG is not officially affiliated with basetrade at this point.
On April 07 2018 23:46 Pascal1p wrote: The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches.
ZG is not officially affiliated with basetrade at this point.
Yes, please remember that these are the actions of BaseTradeTV/Rifkin, not other people currently or formerly associated with them/him.
How petty must the SC2 scene as a whole seem if 2 widely recognised community figures are arguing over an amount that's probably half the average person's salary in their countries? Surely, the game isn't in such a dire situation that 1500$ is a large amount of money for any of these prominent community figures? At least not to the point where the go on reddit and tl with it and make the sc2 scene into a laughingstock?
On April 07 2018 23:46 Pascal1p wrote: The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches.
ZG is not officially affiliated with basetrade at this point.
So she has no shares (anymore) or any investment? Or any contract (that states she is a co-founder/owner)?
On April 07 2018 23:46 Pascal1p wrote: The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches.
ZG is not officially affiliated with basetrade at this point.
Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
This is absurd. Im not too familiar with the situation but it appears BTTV invested 1500 $ in equipment for the team house. Its BTTV property - fine. But its not like they lent 1500 $ to NoRegret. This equipment after one year is worth 30-50% of the original value. Now shipping costs + taxes and duties involved would most likely exceed the value of the items involved. The only solution would be to have NoRegret sell these items in Korea and send back the money (300-500 $) - but clearly NoRegret is not obliged to spend his time on doing that. But given some good will - that would be the best solution. Another solution would be for Rifkin to come to Korea and pack the items and send them back himself - which is also totally absurd. Taking a case of 1500$ to court? You must be joking - costs for both sides will exceed 1500$ and there will be two losers. Talk to each other and be reasonable here.
On April 08 2018 00:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
Ya lets kill the biggest non blizzard regular source of income for the players, what can go wrong.
On April 08 2018 00:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
Ya lets kill the biggest non blizzard regular source of income for the players, what can go wrong.
Why not if the majority decide that? Same deal as when Nokia was destroyed by Apple, Samsung, etc. If enough people don't like something for whatever reason, then they don't use it/buy it. Watching someone's stream isn't much different from some retailer offering you goods. It's a service which you choose whether you want or not.
It's democratic to avoid someone's stream as long as it follows law and I'm pretty sure it's legal. That said, I'm not boycotting either side's stream at this point.
On April 08 2018 00:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
Ya lets kill the biggest non blizzard regular source of income for the players, what can go wrong.
Why not if the majority decide that? Same deal as when Nokia was destroyed by Apple, Samsung, etc. If enough people don't like something for whatever reason, then they don't use it/buy it. It's democratic as long as it follows law. What I'm saying is it could be done naturally, without harming anyone and breaking laws. That said, I'm not joining any campaign to boycott either side at this point.
Well the thing is it's not Apple destroing Nokia, it's putting fire to the the phone factory, there isn't anything to replace BTTV right now if it goes out a good part of the viewers are leaving with it. Obviously if no one whatch it, it will close but I can't see what organisation could replace it, as far as I know it's the only non-WCS full time stream, at least in english, that's why this issue should be solve in an orderly manner and not try to quick BTTV out of the SC2 scene. (NVM I just remember Wardi, still it's the biggest stream)
you can't be serious about shunning content that people have been supporting for years and years. this isn't stuff that panders to a certain type of viewer, like with protech or avilo, this is content that is made to be viewed by the general public. this is extra practice for some of the pro gamers. extra connections, extra viewers for the game in general, and filler content, etc.
why don't you have some faith in the person to resolve the conflict? this is his money, and he's trying to collect on something. whether it was his error or someone else's it will most likely end in a small money exchange so they can cut ties comfortable and agree to never work with one another again, at least directly.
rifkin has a weird business where he doesn't want to be part of the main audience, but it is much needed content nonetheless. you don't just discount him because he butts heads and may or may not be correct on the matter.
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Looks like this is resolved. Thanks DSK. Seriously best wishes to all involved.
On April 07 2018 23:46 Pascal1p wrote: The only wise decision is for IEM, ESL, Blizzard to not hire rifkin and zombiegrub anymore and don't let them stream their matches. You would not want to be associated with such people, not only are they imo bad casters, but this is not the first negative promotion for them.
They hurting the scene so much with this and I admire Scarlett and she seems to back noRegret in this. If there was something shady, she would be the first to correct noRegret and put him in his place.
So what you're saying is just because you like Scarlett and hate Rifkin, you agree with NoRegret? And the SC2 community & players should lose access to the biggest source of SC2 content outside of Blizzard because of that?
On April 08 2018 00:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
This is never going to happen. As much as Rifkin is a very hate-worthy person, he has done at least some good things for this scene, for the viewers and for the players.
There are people who have done far less and been nothing but insolent parasites and crybabies all the while, who continue to be featured on the TL stream sidebar lmao. If scum like that is still allowed, why shouldn't someone who has put money and time into the competitive scene?
On April 08 2018 00:32 paralleluniverse wrote: Where's the contract stating that NoRegret needs to pay back the $1500 spent on equipment?
We should ex-communicate Rifkin, who has a long history of controversy and being a huge dick, from the SC2 community. Stop doing his tournaments. Stop dealing with him. Stop watching his shit. Pretend he doesn't exist.
Ya lets kill the biggest non blizzard regular source of income for the players, what can go wrong.
Why not if the majority decide that? Same deal as when Nokia was destroyed by Apple, Samsung, etc. If enough people don't like something for whatever reason, then they don't use it/buy it. It's democratic as long as it follows law. What I'm saying is it could be done naturally, without harming anyone and breaking laws. That said, I'm not joining any campaign to boycott either side at this point.
Well the thing is it's not Apple destroing Nokia, it's putting fire to the the phone factory, there isn't anything to replace BTTV right now if it goes out a good part of the viewers are leaving with it. Obviously if no one whatch it, it will close but I can't see what organisation could replace it, as far as I know it's the only non-WCS full time stream, at least in english, that's why this issue should be solve in an orderly manner and not try to quick BTTV out of the SC2 scene. (NVM I just remember Wardi, still it's the biggest stream)
What? I don't even need to think and I already have like 5 ppl in my mind wich would replay that (not worth the ban word, but trust me its bad) guy...
And I mean yes, he might talk to some sponsors by having some decent numbers for sc2, but for havens sake how can you be SO BAD at casting after casting that many tournaments, matches, showmatches or whoever... that clearly shows that he is doing it for money and nothing else...
You could get random sc2 guy... let him play the game and also cast and he will do better job than rifkin will ever do...
On April 07 2018 19:43 Musicus wrote: Man, I didn't anticipate such a shit show.
I was hoping Rif would just take back the Unity Tax and stop punishing uninvolved players after some public pressure and then continue to solve the money issue with NoRegreT in private.
Better to try and apply some peer pressure instead of turning it into a full blown legal drama. The problem is you severely overestimated how much influence reddit has over someone that is constantly insulted by them.
On April 08 2018 00:11 [sc1f]eonzerg wrote: so the matcherino keeps appearing over and over and shady moves.did basetradetv take the 12k ?
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Looks like this is resolved. Thanks DSK. Seriously best wishes to all involved.
This issue should now be resolved.
As I have stated, I have paid the amount of $1500 on behalf of NoRegreT and have spoke to BTTV about this.
I had the following stipulations which have been agreed on principle:
1). Jake Umpleby/NoRegreT and other players in the foreigner house are removed from the in-place 10% tax for Base Trade TV tournaments as the arrears are paid off.
2). Further soliciting of the above (Jake Umpleby/NoRegreT and foreign house players) for the amount of $1500 is ceased as I will have paid the amount in full, to the BTTV PayPal account by proxy.
3). With BTTVs permission, I have posted this evidence to the community (via TeamLiquid.net) that the payment has been made, bearing data protection in mind and without posting any private and confidential information on their end. I have also asked that my private and confidential information is also not released.
Lastly, BTTV has stated that the money will be put into the BSTL prizepool. Let us consider that this issue has now been resolved and move on. BTTV can confirm the payment has been made themselves. If there are any issues, please make me aware in PM.
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Looks like this is resolved. Thanks DSK. Seriously best wishes to all involved.
This issue should now be resolved.
As I have stated, I have paid the amount of $1500 on behalf of NoRegreT and have spoke to BTTV about this.
I had the following stipulations which have been agreed on principle:
1). Jake Umpleby/NoRegreT and other players in the foreigner house are removed from the in-place 10% tax for Base Trade TV tournaments as the arrears are paid off.
2). Further soliciting of the above (Jake Umpleby/NoRegreT and foreign house players) for the amount of $1500 is ceased as I will have paid the amount in full, to the BTTV PayPal account by proxy.
3). With BTTVs permission, I have posted this evidence to the community (via TeamLiquid.net) that the payment has been made, bearing data protection in mind and without posting any private and confidential information on their end. I have also asked that my private and confidential information is also not released.
Lastly, BTTV has stated that the money will be put into the BSTL prizepool. Let us consider that this issue has now been resolved and move on. BTTV can confirm the payment has been made themselves. If there are any issues, please make me aware in PM.
Confirming what DSK has said, and my agreement to the terms. Our rules have been modified to remove any mention of project unity or the tax, and at present no player (with the exception of anyone that gains strikes) will have any prize pool reduction in any form.
Following is this pledge, to hold me accountable for, that before May 18th, 2018 I will be depositing the money into the current BTSL Season 1 matcherino, the reasoning for it to not be deposited immediately is to not mess with the current goals & rewards we've been working towards as a community. This money will not be going to my pocket, but towards tournament & players as it was originally intended.
Well hot damn, good on you DSK. I'd shake your hand were such a thing possible. Though it was certainly done through unconventional means, I'm very glad that this dispute has been resolved. Onward and upward from here on out.
While it's great that DSK was so generous, I'm surprised the offer was accepted. Regardless of how I'd handle things, I hope everyone including fans can move on.
Honestly the communities generosity amazes me, But the reason I'm not paying the $1500 isn't because I can't afford it. It's because it isn't supposed to go back to him. I really hope this money is going back to the community in some way. Honestly the tactics he went through to get this money is crazy, The "anonymous" tip, The law suit, The Tax. It's a shame he got his way in the end.
On April 07 2018 19:25 DSK wrote: This is getting silly, and I've had enough. It only makes the foreign community look bad. Rifkin, PM me your paypal and I by proxy will pay the $1,500.
Looks like this is resolved. Thanks DSK. Seriously best wishes to all involved.
This issue should now be resolved.
As I have stated, I have paid the amount of $1500 on behalf of NoRegreT and have spoke to BTTV about this.
Thank you so much for this! It's sad that the issue got to a point where the community had to step in. But that being said, it is fantastic to see someone in the community take initiative and present such generosity. Not sure that we deserve you, but boy am I glad we have you!
Wait, how is DSK a hero in this? Surely he is the villain for robbing poor laywers of the chance to make money from these incompetent business-engaging kids.
DSK are you a completely irrelevant 3rd party? I honestly can't believe anyone is generous enough to fork over 1500 to resolve a dispute you arent involved in. my man.
DSK do you remember me ? you played chess with me when I was 8 on that little municipal event in your district (assuming that you are the french politician)
You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
You're assuming there is a good and a bad in this shit show. i just saw two wronged sides.
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
You're assuming there is a good and a bad in this shit show. i just saw two wronged sides.
And, if both sides are at fault, one was given a giant cake and a party. Is that a good thing?
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
You're assuming there is a good and a bad in this shit show. i just saw two wronged sides.
And, if both sides are at fault, one was given a giant cake and a party. Is that a good thing?
Well...I guess that depends on how you look at it. NoRegret no longer faces potential legal action and the players don't have to endure the 10% tax anymore. Rifkin got what he wants (the $1500) and NoRegret got what he wants (not having to pay Rifkin). Of course, both sides wanted more, namely vindication, but at least the material aspect of the debate is resolved to both side's favour. .
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
You're assuming there is a good and a bad in this shit show. i just saw two wronged sides.
And, if both sides are at fault, one was given a giant cake and a party. Is that a good thing?
Well...I guess that depends on how you look at it. NoRegret no longer faces potential legal action and the players don't have to endure the 10% tax anymore. Rifkin got what he wants (the $1500) and NoRegret got what he wants (not having to pay Rifkin). Of course, both sides wanted more, namely vindication, but at least the material aspect of the debate is resolved to both side's favour. .
Let's get it clear, the threat of legal action against NoRegreT and the abhorrent tax against the other players were (as far as anyone has been able to prove) nothing but harassment and extortion. Now Rifkin has the freedom to feel vindicated and the freedom to sweep that mess under the rug because a third party stepped in to attempt to resolve the dispute.
I get that there a lot of perspectives, but there is still some black and white and red amidst the grey.
*I'd also like to add that one party was rewarded (for their harassment) with money, and, in your argument, the other parties get the reward of "you won't be punished or threatened anymore". Think about that for a moment if you could, please.
**Just for clarity: While the money is going into tournament prize pools and not directly to Rifkin, those tournaments with increased prize pools are still part of his business.
good god ... this is sad and pathetic. DSK is awesome for doing this. in response, i hope this issue dies and we can get on with cheering for the players and the people that contribute to the community - then it would be worth it.
On April 08 2018 16:39 blunderfulguy wrote: rewarded (for their harassment) with money, and, in your argument, the other parties get the reward of "you won't be punished or threatened anymore"
Stuff about image&appearances and professionalism aside. You're saying "harassment" as if with 100% certainty that no equipment was not taken out of the intended use (or whatever it was limited to or–partially–provided for... or shipped to somewhere). While not leaning either way personally I have to say: As not even the people involved, contracts in hand, managed to resolve that uncertainty/question, imo you shouldn't jump to any conclusions or be quick to judge. Some damage to everyone's image is done, regardless of who's right or not; (should there be a) next time, everyone will be watching very closely. Many thanks to DSK for settling the dispute in this unbelievable manner.
On April 08 2018 16:46 gnuoy00 wrote:in response, i hope this issue dies and we can get on with cheering for the players and the people that contribute to the community - then it would be worth it.
Well that was unexpected. Good for the scene i guess. I hope there will be no more drama like this, but sceptic in me says that when money is involved there always be...
On April 08 2018 16:39 blunderfulguy wrote: rewarded (for their harassment) with money, and, in your argument, the other parties get the reward of "you won't be punished or threatened anymore"
Stuff about image&appearances and professionalism aside. You're saying "harassment" as if with 100% certainty that no equipment was not taken out of the intended use (or whatever it was limited to or–partially–provided for... or shipped to somewhere).
You must not understand what harassment is... I'm saying harassment with 100% certainty that Rifkin has been harassing NoRegreT and, until anyone has proof otherwise, Scarlett. See the video posted earlier here and see all of the information and context we have about the situation and look up the definition of the word. It's harassment.
Whether any equipment was stolen or not doesn't change that, and even if in your mind it does there's still no evidence supporting the idea that equipment was stolen, but there is at least some evidence in the form of each parties' actions, among other things, that the $1,500 in question was an investment and there is evidence the idea that said money should at this point be considered a loss at the very least, or, more reasonably, a successful investment that had a significant return to the investor (Matcherino funds, subscribers to BTTV, advertising for a year, etc.; see the OP or any of several other posts in this thread for more information, including information about what business investments are and how that relates to this situation).
On April 08 2018 11:11 BisuDagger wrote: While it's great that DSK was so generous, I'm surprised the offer was accepted. Regardless of how I'd handle things, I hope everyone including fans can move on.
Yeah, I am honestly surprised that it was accepted. But since the money will go to the community through BSTL and most importantly the Unity Tax has been removed, I really can't complain.
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
You're assuming there is a good and a bad in this shit show. i just saw two wronged sides.
And, if both sides are at fault, one was given a giant cake and a party. Is that a good thing?
Well...I guess that depends on how you look at it. NoRegret no longer faces potential legal action and the players don't have to endure the 10% tax anymore. Rifkin got what he wants (the $1500) and NoRegret got what he wants (not having to pay Rifkin). Of course, both sides wanted more, namely vindication, but at least the material aspect of the debate is resolved to both side's favour. .
Let's get it clear, the threat of legal action against NoRegreT and the abhorrent tax against the other players were (as far as anyone has been able to prove) nothing but harassment and extortion. Now Rifkin has the freedom to feel vindicated and the freedom to sweep that mess under the rug because a third party stepped in to attempt to resolve the dispute.
I get that there a lot of perspectives, but there is still some black and white and red amidst the grey.
*I'd also like to add that one party was rewarded (for their harassment) with money, and, in your argument, the other parties get the reward of "you won't be punished or threatened anymore". Think about that for a moment if you could, please.
**Just for clarity: While the money is going into tournament prize pools and not directly to Rifkin, those tournaments with increased prize pools are still part of his business.
As the person above said, you are assuming there is a good and bad in this shit show.
Im not quite sure you can say the threat of legal action against NoRegret was 'nothing but harassment and extortion'. We simply do not have enough facts or knowledge of oral and written communications between the two to make a judgement on that. It remains possible that either side could have been in the right/wrong and unless the matter proceeds to litigation and undergoes the formal process of production of evidence, discovery (if needed) and the laws of evidence etc. Until then, it is unlikely anyone can determine who is liable. I would be very cautious to make blanket statements like "as far as anyone has been able to prove" since both sides have been withholding information to whatever extent.
By labelling Rifkin's action as harassment, you are relying on the assumption that his claim is meritless or vexatious at worse, which as I have said, we simply do not know. Whilst I think Rifkin’s imposition of 10% on players is deplorable, this has nothing to do with the validity of his claim. Your comment that the only benefit NoRegret gets is not being punished or threatened anymore, is again, premised upon the assumption that NoRegret could not have possibly been in the wrong. If, however, he was in the wrong, his benefits would be a lot more than ‘not being threatened anymore’. You can frame this as a one-sided harassment if you wish, but unless I am the judge sitting at the bench with both parties’ complete pleadings, I will be much more reserved and call it a contractual dispute for now.
Sure, I can accept your logic that this incident of third party intervention may potentially set precedent/encourage future episodes of similar nature or even condone certain types of behaviour. Personally, I do not think a third party paying off the disputed sum condones anyone’s actions but I agree that this is not the most ideal outcome. However, realistically disputes never end in the most ideal form. What matters is that the solution was acceptable to both parties involved, even if the practical benefit is just ‘won’t be punished or threatened anymore’. Perhaps if you were in the position of NoRegret or Rifkin you might refuse to accept DSK’s generosity. You might prefer the debate to go on so as to deny Rifkin from getting money. You might prefer to go to court to determine who is legally right. I don’t know what you would do in the situation, but it seems NoRegret and Rifkin both prefer to accept the third party intervention and depart on the matter without admitting to fault.
Your perspective is not invalid. It has been a longstanding criticism within the jurisprudence of Alternate Dispute Resolution practices that parties often end up accepting practical benefits (or to frame it differently, the position of not having to suffer a detriment) despite that outcome not necessarily being the most just or right by law. The alternate view is that if the parties themselves elect to accept a particular outcome knowing it is not 100% of what they want, then perhaps that is the best achievable solution.
On April 08 2018 16:03 blunderfulguy wrote: You effectively just paid someone to stop harassing people, rewarding them for it. This isn't what stops situations like this from happening, it justifies that behavior and enables people to keep doing things like this.
This is the easy, sloppy way to try to end things, and it doesn't work for me. People have been threatened by someone for months... Instead of putting your feet down and calling out their bullshit, demanding better from everyone involved, you give into their demands, with no evidence that their demands and actions are justifiable, and try to make everyone sweep it under the rug just because you're tired of the drama?
Sorry, but despite your generosity and your good intentions and your own desire for everyone to cooperate, I cannot genuinely applaud your actions.
This was extortion. As far as I'm concerned, that money they just made is covered in dirt (read: obtained illegally/immorally).
you assume way too much - for example DSK did not have more information about it than what is publicly know, which is basically only what 2 sides claimed without any actual evidence.
also you don't know what extortion is, otherwise you wouldn't claim such a scandalous thing...but looking edgy and cool is important to you I guess.
On April 08 2018 12:20 NoRegreT_ wrote: Honestly the communities generosity amazes me, But the reason I'm not paying the $1500 isn't because I can't afford it. It's because it isn't supposed to go back to him. I really hope this money is going back to the community in some way. Honestly the tactics he went through to get this money is crazy, The "anonymous" tip, The law suit, The Tax. It's a shame he got his way in the end.
then why TF did you agree to this?if you have such a strong feelings about this why step back, agree to this and then continue to sh*t around?
you accepted, so stop BS around and move on like an adult person would. just thank whoever paid for you
On April 08 2018 12:20 NoRegreT_ wrote: Honestly the communities generosity amazes me, But the reason I'm not paying the $1500 isn't because I can't afford it. It's because it isn't supposed to go back to him. I really hope this money is going back to the community in some way. Honestly the tactics he went through to get this money is crazy, The "anonymous" tip, The law suit, The Tax. It's a shame he got his way in the end.
then why TF did you agree to this?if you have such a strong feelings about this why step back, agree to this and then continue to sh*t around?
you accepted, so stop BS around and move on like an adult person would. just thank whoever paid for you
Yeah, I really don't understand the point of his post as well. It only makes DSK look like an idiot for settling this issue.
On April 05 2018 22:53 JackONeill wrote: Well at some point progamers and community personalities will understand that dealing with Basetrade TV always ends up in drama. And when i mean BTTV, i mean Rifkin. Not taking sides referring to the multiple instances of drama/BS related to BTTV in the last years, which don't really interest me. I'm just baffled that anyone would get involved with him at this point.
Weird, I see it in another manner:
- probably due to the fact that rifkin put this money on their team house which he is not part of anymore, he has to ask his investments back. - as the NoRegret did not want to pay, he blocked rifkin. - he justifies that as rifkin still holds money from matcherino which he believes to have claims on (which he probably has not).
What then happened: - As Rifkin was not getting his money back, he wanted to try to get his investment back via payouts of tournaments that he hosts with that kind of tax. - As NoRegret owes Rifkin the money now, NoRegret would then owe this money the players (not rifkin). - As the players benefit from the investments of Rifkin into that house, it would either be equalized then or NoRegret would owe the players then, which has to be decided between NoRegret and the players.
Rifkin did nothing wrong but one thing. Instead of coming up with anything like that tax to get his investments back, he should have instantly filed suit.
This whole thing didnt need to happen, i agree that if he did owe him money though Rif should have filed a suit real quick like, instead of having the dirty laundry aired out online and having players literally pay the price.
On April 08 2018 21:41 OkStyX wrote: This whole thing didnt need to happen, i agree that if he did owe him money though Rif should have filed a suit real quick like, instead of having the dirty laundry aired out online and having players literally pay the price.
Filing a suit is creating dirty laundry even more.
Trying the tax thing on players can actually only be seen as a Rifkin try to exactly avoid dirty laundry and bad exposure for both sides while still satisfying his probably rightful claims.
On April 07 2018 03:14 ihatevideogames wrote: All this drama for 1500$? Doesn't rifkin realise he'll lose way more in the future because of all the bad publicity of shit like this?
This is what NoRegret hopes/hoped for when blocking contact with a person he owes $1500.
Also part of that is the story with the players: - In order to distract from the Rifkin vs NoRegret matter, observers try to be deceived that it is a Rifkin vs. the players matter. - players themselves might have been deceived about that in fact. - players might have no choice other than siding with NoRegret when they live with him in his "teamhouse".
These are just the obvious things to me. Ofc alot more has happened behind the curtains and we do not know about these details. But it is as well of no importance who has been nice and who has not, or if other things went bad e. g. working for free in the teamhouse or what happened with matcherino money - if 1500 has to be discounted or if it already is the ~ discounted sum, etc.
On April 07 2018 03:14 ihatevideogames wrote: All this drama for 1500$? Doesn't rifkin realise he'll lose way more in the future because of all the bad publicity of shit like this?
This is what NoRegret hopes/hoped for
Again, heck knows who's right.. Rif said he won't comment (much) due to contractual confidentiality (isn't a contract just a worthless piece of paper unless it's considered binding/trusted/enforceable). If, as I assume, all of this would have to be filed/settled in Korea, likely only the translation of legal documents would cost that much, let alone stress, time and opportunity costs of lawyering up, plus even more dirty laundry&bad publicity which certainly would make people shy away from either side, so everybody loses.
Unless there's a saviour! Tried to make a Robin Hood pun, but I couldn't make it work...
It's amazing that DSK offered his own money to resolve the situation, but this was about the principal of the matter rather than the money. I think blunderfulguy expresses a similar opinion as myself so there's no need to repeat it
On April 08 2018 23:42 Ibanez.beau wrote: It's amazing that DSK offered his own money to resolve the situation, but this was about the principal of the matter rather than the money. I think blunderfulguy expresses a similar opinion as myself so there's no need to repeat it
So you also want to see one of the parties crucified rather than this settling down and dieing out. I'm convinced some people in 1914 would agree with you.
NoRegret also bathing himself in glory to retaliate after it should have been closed.
DSK I honestly think what you did is very generous, but I honestly view it as Rifkin being greedy to accept a fan or person outside of the contract for pay for this. This in the end shows me his true colors. If he cared about the fans, then why would you let a fan or someone outside settle something like this? I would have taken a loss if I cared more about fans before having them pay for someone else debt. This only proves, in my opinion of course, that Rifkin is more worried about the money than the fans watching. This to me betrays the brand he supposedly brought up through out the years as BTTV
I agree mostly with blunderfulguy and ibanez.beau.
DSK really did a great and generous thing, the important part of it is that the players in the teamhouse no longer get "punished" with this 10% tax.
This was however a dispute where one person felt entitled to a sum of money without being able to back that up and the person supposedly in "debt" denying it refusing to pay based on principles.
That Rifkin took the money proves one big point, he has not filed any legal action, otherwise he would not have accepted that DSK payed the debt, which in turn proves he did not have any proof that he was owed money. I just really hope the money goes back to the community.
This whole thing reads like a Mafia game. So much accusations and half facts thrown around, and us lowly townships trying to find the bad guy. I hope we lynch the right person...
On April 09 2018 00:27 -StrifeX- wrote: DSK I honestly think what you did is very generous, but I honestly view it as Rifkin being greedy to accept a fan or person outside of the contract for pay for this. This in the end shows me his true colors. If he cared about the fans, then why would you let a fan or someone outside settle something like this? I would have taken a loss if I cared more about fans before having them pay for someone else debt. This only proves, in my opinion of course, that Rifkin is more worried about the money than the fans watching. This to me betrays the brand he supposedly brought up through out the years as BTTV
On the contrary, refusing is impossible. I seriously don't get some people. DSK is saying, he paid for NoRegret. There is no reason for Rifkin to refuse. (i.e. he gifted NoRegret 1.5k with the purpose bound to paying BTTV and thus NoRegret paid Rifkin; if the 1.5k was really owed is another issue of course) Refusing would be the childish thing. Also ideally the whole situation should not have happened.
On April 09 2018 00:25 DSh1 wrote: So you also want to see one of the parties crucified rather than this settling down and dieing out. I'm convinced some people in 1914 would agree with you.
I believe it's important to reveal who is at fault for those who wish to work with either in the future. After all, it was the players who were being punished for the disagreement.
On April 09 2018 00:25 DSh1 wrote: So you also want to see one of the parties crucified rather than this settling down and dieing out. I'm convinced some people in 1914 would agree with you.
I believe it's important to reveal who is at fault for those who wish to work with either in the future. After all, it was the players who were being punished for the disagreement.
I just wish everyone involved can get back to work togheter and put this in the past. I think it's in the best interest of everybody, especially for us the fans who just want to see good games.
On April 09 2018 00:27 -StrifeX- wrote: DSK I honestly think what you did is very generous, but I honestly view it as Rifkin being greedy to accept a fan or person outside of the contract for pay for this. This in the end shows me his true colors. If he cared about the fans, then why would you let a fan or someone outside settle something like this? I would have taken a loss if I cared more about fans before having them pay for someone else debt. This only proves, in my opinion of course, that Rifkin is more worried about the money than the fans watching. This to me betrays the brand he supposedly brought up through out the years as BTTV
He didn't pocket the money though. The money goes into his tournaments. Has nothing to do with Rifkin being greedy
On April 09 2018 02:00 JimSocks wrote: thats the thing, ppl don't read the whole story, ppl already assuming rifkin keeping the money when he said its going back to the tournament.
Ppl don't have to know the whole story since they're not interested in that. There's apparently a lot of blind hatred towards Rifkin, and truth or facts have nothing to do with it.
On April 09 2018 00:25 DSh1 wrote: So you also want to see one of the parties crucified rather than this settling down and dieing out. I'm convinced some people in 1914 would agree with you.
I believe it's important to reveal who is at fault for those who wish to work with either in the future. After all, it was the players who were being punished for the disagreement.
I just wish everyone involved can get back to work togheter and put this in the past. I think it's in the best interest of everybody, especially for us the fans who just want to see good games.
just to add to your point... epic, really cool events that include many good games is good for fans.
BTTV has put on some damn cool events. Its unfortunate that occasionally Rifkin gets involved in nasty mudslinging and this somewhat diminishes the solid work he does.
On April 08 2018 09:54 BasetradeTV wrote: Following is this pledge, to hold me accountable for, that before May 18th, 2018 I will be depositing the money into the current BTSL Season 1 matcherino, the reasoning for it to not be deposited immediately is to not mess with the current goals & rewards we've been working towards as a community. This money will not be going to my pocket, but towards tournament & players as it was originally intended.
Thank you for helping conclude this ugly chapter.
You've previously stated that ticket proceeds from the matcherino will be used to cover venue costs.
Depositing the money into the matcherino does not necessarily mean the funds will go towards the prize pool, which seems to be what DSK was expecting. Can you make a statement confirming that 100% of the money will go towards the prize pool?