|
On February 12 2010 14:34 Djzapz wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from but I still think I'm right =P we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think a public warning using Tarson as an example with the clear notice that anything similar in the future would have actual consequences would be sufficient. This is how I function and it has worked for me so far on the small scale.
Having experience in organizing groups of people for various types of "things", I have reasons to believe that starting off with a warning sends a clear message if done properly and you avoid the bitter taste of stealing the guy's cookie.
If after all of this, you still need to punish the player because you don't quite perceive human psychology the way I do (and I study psychology), I'll repeat myself but I need to put an emphasis on this; SC players don't gain -nearly- enough money. Don't take the cash he earned over the course of 254 ladder games, 8 games in the qualifiers and 3 games against Nony.
Now let's be stupidly conservative and say games averaged 10 minutes each (which is absurd). That's roughly 44 hours (+finding games,+wiping off tears of blood). Let's not even convert this to minimum wage. I realize that this argument doesn't hold much water but I really think that Tarson *WON* $250 no matter what.
Punishment shouldn't take from him what he earned throughout TSL.
He didn't earn any cash. It isn't written in law that "if tarson plays xxx ladder games and beats xxx players he gets 250 dollars". He gets his money if he goes by the rules of the tournament, it's pretty obvious. He broke the contract he had with teamliquid. In the same way, teamliquid could break it by not paying him at all for no reason. That is similarly breaking the contract, I'm sure you wouldn't mind that, right?
If he breaks his part of the contract, teamliquid.net has no reason to do their part. They could easily have taken all his prize money away. The fact they didn't was them being overly generous, be thankful.
Please.
|
On February 12 2010 05:19 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
Seems like there is this weird idea that the TSL is "just for fun", like it's a shits and giggles tournament and it's totally casual. That's an insult to the TSL.
The TSL is a serious competition for foreign StarCraft players with high stakes and I'll be damned if the admins pussy their way around the rules for "fun". Same with people bitching about cheaters being disqualified. This isn't a LAN at your friends house. This is the goddamned TeamLiquid StarLeague. STARLEAGUE.
.../clap
Good decision, this sums up how I feel about the punishment. People take this event too casually. $10k isn't something to laugh about.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On February 12 2010 17:45 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 14:34 Djzapz wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from but I still think I'm right =P we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think a public warning using Tarson as an example with the clear notice that anything similar in the future would have actual consequences would be sufficient. This is how I function and it has worked for me so far on the small scale.
Having experience in organizing groups of people for various types of "things", I have reasons to believe that starting off with a warning sends a clear message if done properly and you avoid the bitter taste of stealing the guy's cookie.
If after all of this, you still need to punish the player because you don't quite perceive human psychology the way I do (and I study psychology), I'll repeat myself but I need to put an emphasis on this; SC players don't gain -nearly- enough money. Don't take the cash he earned over the course of 254 ladder games, 8 games in the qualifiers and 3 games against Nony.
Now let's be stupidly conservative and say games averaged 10 minutes each (which is absurd). That's roughly 44 hours (+finding games,+wiping off tears of blood). Let's not even convert this to minimum wage. I realize that this argument doesn't hold much water but I really think that Tarson *WON* $250 no matter what.
Punishment shouldn't take from him what he earned throughout TSL. He didn't earn any cash. It isn't written in law that "if tarson plays xxx ladder games and beats xxx players he gets 250 dollars". He gets his money if he goes by the rules of the tournament, it's pretty obvious. He broke the contract he had with teamliquid. In the same way, teamliquid could break it by not paying him at all for no reason. That is similarly breaking the contract, I'm sure you wouldn't mind that, right? If he breaks his part of the contract, teamliquid.net has no reason to do their part. They could easily have taken all his prize money away. The fact they didn't was them being overly generous, be thankful. Please.
Also, let's assume for a second that we don't penalize Tarson. Let us further assume that someone gives his results away to a greater audience in one of the later rounds, or - god beware - the final. Setting a precedent of letting someone get away with leaking results is like shooting ourselves in the foot.
To protect the TSL the precedent we set has to really discourage any future leaking.
|
I dont really want to butt in, but...
1) As much as I feel sorry for Tarson for losing money for a second of weakness, I agree with the penalty
2) As someone mentioned earlier, it was not the first time. I will PM some admin with what I know and if it is relevant you will know about it.
|
In my opinion, claiming this was uncalled for, unfair or quarreling on the tiniest of differences of definitions just to point out that TL.net was wrong to do this, simply demonstrates how little some people understands the concept of a clean tournament as well as sponsorship.
Best let the people who actually know what they're doing, do their thing.
Personally, I couldn't agree more with TL.net on this and think it's a very kind but still strict and clear, gesture =)
|
On February 12 2010 14:34 Djzapz wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from but I still think I'm right =P we'll have to agree to disagree.
.
Fine, go through your life breaking contracts. Let me know how that turns out 
|
On February 12 2010 21:25 Gnabgib wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2010 14:34 Djzapz wrote:
I see where you guys are coming from but I still think I'm right =P we'll have to agree to disagree.
. Fine, go through your life breaking contracts. Let me know how that turns out
You don't need to get an attitude... Getting bitter like that when someone disagrees with you won't bring you far in life. There are plenty of boundaries to be crossed harmlessly.
As for the rest of people raging on me, I understand that you guys just need to get revenge for anything that's not 'by-the-book' as that's how society taught you to react to everything.
The 'revenge' thing shows right here too. Just because I disagree, apparently, I'm objectively wrong and this guy even said 'simply demonstrates how little some people understands the concept of a clean tournament as well as sponsorship.'
While he's entitled to his opinion and all, I have myself participated to tournaments with much bigger money pools that didn't insist on punishing people who crossed lines. In some cases this could be problematic as there are cases in which punishment is called for.
Carnac brought up something which actually made me laugh because it's a typical case of 'I'm just right, you're wrong and this is what happens if you don't listen'. Hypothetical situation which can only be prevented by taking $125 from Tarson's pockets. Let me recap.
1- Public warning with an example most likely be as effective as taking $125 from him. I disagree with the punishment itself. I'm sure Tarson doesn't care about $125 but he's more annoyed by the thread which says Tarson is capable of great evil. That would have been enough.
2- If punishment besides a warning has to be given, it shouldn't have anything to do with the money he won.
You completely dismissed everything I've been saying and figured
1- No, your 'warning' thing doesn't work because I don't think so.
2- This is the only possible punishment.
Now I understand that there's no way this is going to change, and I'm probably going to have MORE people completely ignore my points to say 'Well if we don't shoot Tarson in the kneecap more people will leak results' and 'LOL Dj you don't understand tournaments, vengeance is absolutely necessary -- for some reason -- that's the tournament spirit anyway.'
I want to say I'll quit posting because at this point I just have to rehash what I think over and over and I know I'm not going to convince anybody, but yeah... If there's more people who insist on saying what people have already said in the previous posts, I guess I'll have to re-state my 'counter arguments' however weak you may think they were.
Cheers.
|
Seeing as most things have been said, I strongly disagree with you, dj. Not just because "society says so", but in my opinion it is common sense to have rules in order as well as show the community that they're being upheld to secure any possible future sponsorships.
After all, less people watching = less people being "exposed" to the advertisement making this tournament possible. I strongly believe TL.net's message is effective and for the better in general.
I get what you're saying but I don't agree, and I suppose the same thing goes the other way, hence I thank you for your hospitality and agree on disagreeing =)
|
125$ is not more for poland then for usa ... in europe $ isnt that high then in usa so its only 2/3 euro here normaly (even the euro is very weak last month because of greece etc thats good for all tsl players from europe HAHA) xD
|
Unneeded long post.
I agree with TL's decision. That is all.
|
Good decision. And although his actions were straddling the fence between actually leaking the results, I think it was pretty generous to let him keep half the money. Giving the rest to charity was also a nice thing to do ... I dunno why ppl like Morrow would be so against it =/.
|
Well, money goes to charity after all.
|
On February 13 2010 00:16 Heaven.ReV wrote:
Seeing as most things have been said, I strongly disagree with you, dj. Not just because "society says so", but in my opinion it is common sense to have rules in order as well as show the community that they're being upheld to secure any possible future sponsorships.
After all, less people watching = less people being "exposed" to the advertisement making this tournament possible. I strongly believe TL.net's message is effective and for the better in general.
I get what you're saying but I don't agree, and I suppose the same thing goes the other way, hence I thank you for your hospitality and agree on disagreeing =)
Cheers.
|
Any word on what charity has been chosen?
|
On February 13 2010 02:03 slimshady wrote:Well, money goes to charity after all.
Should go to haiti.........just sayin`
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
