EPTA Different Perspective on The NaNiwa Controversy - Page 18
| Blogs > EGalex |
|
Mip
United States63 Posts
| ||
|
CallousCarter
United Kingdom81 Posts
I disagree that GOMTV fully fulfilled all their obligations. If they wanted players to show their best games against all of their opponents then it's they're responsibility to provide an environment which is conducive to this situation. They clearly didn't do this. It's important that tournament organisers use the right format to create the best possible product and i'd hope GOM and other organisations would learn from this and off better formats in the future. Unfortunately i fear the way thing are currently going the blame is going to be completely shifted onto Naniwas shoulders and an important lesson will be lost. Of course i'd of preferred to see a true contest between Naniwa and Nestea but with Naniwa on tilt we were never going to get that. I find it truly insulting the stance some people have taken by saying that Naniwa should of tried and fooled the viewers into thinking the game was a genuine contest between two players at their best by using a four gate or another weak strategy. I don't understand how that's providing a better product to the viewers and i don't like the idea that we're too dumb to tell the difference either. At the end of the day Naniwa did what he did because he was devestated at losing his previous matches. It wasn't out of disrespect or a lack of caring but because he had invested so much into the tournament and was so disappointed that he wasn't able to perform as he had hoped. This could of been turned into a positive with people pointing out the passion players have for this game and how much the matches can affect them emotionally. Instead some people have turned Naniwa into a Pariah and GOMTV have set a dangerous and silly precedence that players can be punished for not reaching some kind of arbitrary effort level or for failing to provide a completely subjective level of entertainment. If e-sports can survive the 2010 match-fixing scandal created by the "honourable" and "professional" Korean e-sports culture then i'm sure the industry can survive this. Get over it. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
"What about IdrA vs WhiteRa? GOTCHA" lol It's a long OP but worth the read btw if anyone is checking for the last page of the thread.. please read it <3 | ||
|
BlindSight754
Canada156 Posts
On December 16 2011 02:18 Ninjahoe wrote: To be honest, forbidding that in cricket is silly, you can get almost the exact same result by adjusting your throw. Wow I didn't know that rule existed, so silly... And Naniwa could have prevented this by building a few buildings. All this talk of "trying" or "effort" is meaningless. There is negligible more effort for Naniwa to 2 gate all in than for him to a-move his probes. | ||
|
nakam
Sweden245 Posts
On December 15 2011 17:51 EGalex wrote: This is why, of all the controversial situations that IdrA's been involved in, the only time I felt the need to intervene was when he forfeited a match that was being streamed live to thousands of spectators.* How about that time Idra forfeited 7/8th place match vs. Haypro, a game what wasn't meaningless at all? Would it be appropriate to ban him from next MLG? | ||
|
KangaRuthless
United States304 Posts
| ||
|
AlternativeEgo
Sweden17309 Posts
On December 16 2011 00:30 Boonbag wrote: Sc2 did bring alot of immature kids that need to be educated ! What naniwa did is bad ! no one should do that ! it ruins everything ! So todays lesson is that business and entertainment comes first and that it's ok for an organizer to tell the players how to play their game. I don't like this class.  + Show Spoiler + In 2012: MLG will rule it so that we'll get 37% more lazorz and explosions, and a terran player is not allowed to do the 1/1/1 more than once per event. I say pick your format, set the rules to prevent players from taking unfair advantages in order to win and let the players duke it out in what fashion they choose to. So one guy didn't care to win? Well that's good for the other guy, I guess. C'est la vie. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On December 16 2011 02:48 Risen wrote: Meh, I read the whole thing this is what I got. It's not about the game, it's about the money. Seems pretty lame to me. Your argument seems to center on the fact that this hurts the potential ability of the players to make money. You're allowed to have that opinion. You see that as advancing ESPORTS or something. In your eyes, and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong here I hate putting words in other people's mouths when it isn't true, ESPORTS success is measured in how much money it makes. You're a CEO, I'm not surprised by this. In my eyes, and many other people's eyes, it's not about the money. I think his probe rush was hilarious, I was laughing my damn ass off. It's probably the most entertaining moment I've had in SC2 since the NASL finals. Entertainment achieved. Naniwa channeled his inner Gheed, and I think anyone who's all "this hurts esports wahhhh". Who gives a shit about the money, I don't. I care about the game and the players. I guess this is why the FGC has had a tough time adapting to your "ESPORTS" vision. Too much weaksauce moneygrubbing bullshit. Oh you wanted Naniwa to go out and pretend to do his best in a match that meant nothing? Sorry pal, the illusion of grandeur may be important to you, but anyone with half a brain would have known it was two players playing sub-optimally. I can't stand people who want some stupid illusion to keep themselves happy. This seems a bit harsh to me, but I have to walk my dog. I don't mean to offend, I apologize if I have done so. Honestly this is not really fair as an argument. Let's say someone pays you to walk their dog, you say yes and accept the money. However you end up not doing it for whatever reason. The person who paid you is upset because they paid you. Is this problem about the money, or is it about irresponsible choices and the moral values you attached to being a professional? Before you point it out; the situation is of course not entirely the same. However what is the same is that you're trying to make an argument solely about money, when it should essentially be about responsibilities instead. They may originate from the same source (money), but that doesn't mean a simplified answer such as this is justified as a rebuttal. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 16 2011 02:51 Velr wrote: So everyone in every other sport in the world is an idiot, be it fan or pro? Intresting point... Don't you feel stupid when you post shit like this? You're telling me a sports team is going to try their hardest in a meaningless match? No, they aren't. A perfect example of this is the recent 2009 Colts. So yes, it does happen in other "real" sports. The difference here is that the Colts have a backup squad to throw in, Naniwa doesn't, and that is the only difference in my eyes. Don't you feel stupid when you post something wrong? | ||
|
thesideshow
930 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:04 nakam wrote: How about that time Idra forfeited 7/8th place match vs. Haypro, a game what wasn't meaningless at all? Would it be appropriate to ban him from next MLG? Idra was watching another match and didn't hear the call. | ||
|
BlindSight754
Canada156 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:08 thesideshow wrote: Idra was watching another match and didn't hear the call. I thought the theme of today was "no excuses". | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10565 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:07 Risen wrote: You're telling me a sports team is going to try their hardest in a meaningless match? No, they aren't. A perfect example of this is the recent 2009 Colts. So yes, it does happen in other "real" sports. The difference here is that the Colts have a backup squad to throw in, Naniwa doesn't, and that is the only difference in my eyes. Don't you feel stupid when you post something wrong? There is a giant diffrence between trying their hardest and lose a game on purpose as fast as you can. If you don't see that then no one can help you. In the OP your example is even used and it's just not working for your case. | ||
|
guluru
United States83 Posts
| ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:07 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Honestly this is not really fair as an argument. Let's say someone pays you to walk their dog, you say yes and accept the money. However you end up not doing it for whatever reason. The person who paid you is upset because they paid you. Is this problem about the money, or is it about irresponsible choices and the moral values you attached to being a professional? Before you point it out; the situation is of course not entirely the same. However what is the same is that you're trying to make an argument solely about money, when it should essentially be about responsibilities instead. They may originate from the same source (money), but that doesn't mean a simplified answer such as this is justified as a rebuttal. I guess it's a difference of outlook. In my eyes Naniwa was invited to do his best to reach the finals and win, not play 4 games. Once it became apparent (0-3) that this was not possible, Naniwa completed his obligations. In this case, it isn't about being paid to walk a dog and then not walking it. It's entering a tournament for frisbee catching, losing in the initial heats, and being forced to do a meaningless sideshow (which the dog trainer competes in and throws his frisbee an impossibly long distance) | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:04 nakam wrote: How about that time Idra forfeited 7/8th place match vs. Haypro, a game what wasn't meaningless at all? Would it be appropriate to ban him from next MLG? Of course it wouldn't. Those games weren't even broadcasted. They weren't exactly meaningful. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:11 Risen wrote: I guess it's a difference of outlook. In my eyes Naniwa was invited to do his best to reach the finals and win, not play 4 games. Once it became apparent (0-3) that this was not possible, Naniwa completed his obligations. In this case, it isn't about being paid to walk a dog and then not walking it. It's entering a tournament for frisbee catching, losing in the initial heats, and being forced to do a meaningless sideshow (which the dog trainer competes in and throws his frisbee an impossibly long distance) That's not an opinion, it's an incorrect assumption. He was invited to play 4 games. I understand the emotions Naniwa went through and as such I think I can understand yours, but you can't make up your own reasons of why someone is invited in order to justify your opinion. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:10 Velr wrote: There is a giant diffrence between trying their hardest and lose a game on purpose as fast as you can. If you don't see that then no one can help you. In the OP your example is even used and it's just not working for your case. There isn't a difference in my eyes. I don't pay to watch someone do a bronze level 4gate just so people can sleep well at night. That's exactly what you're asking for. "Well, if he had 4gated we wouldn't be having this discussion." Sweet, I enjoy paying to watch bronze level strategy and play too! Oh wait, no I don't. Edit: Edited to remove an inflammatory statement. | ||
|
nakam
Sweden245 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:07 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Honestly this is not really fair as an argument. Let's say someone pays you to walk their dog, you say yes and accept the money. However you end up not doing it for whatever reason. The person who paid you is upset because they paid you. Is this problem about the money, or is it about irresponsible choices and the moral values you attached to being a professional? Before you point it out; the situation is of course not entirely the same. However what is the same is that you're trying to make an argument solely about money, when it should essentially be about responsibilities instead. They may originate from the same source (money), but that doesn't mean a simplified answer such as this is justified as a rebuttal. Lets say the dogs owner pays you to walk the dog but does not state how long you have to walk it. You walk it for 1 min, techincally fulfilling your obligation. Should you be punished so hard it affects your whole career as a dog walker? | ||
|
BlindSight754
Canada156 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:14 Risen wrote: There is a difference for anyone who is simple-minded, you're right. I don't pay to watch someone do a bronze level 4gate just so people can sleep well at night. That's exactly what you're asking for. "Well, if he had 4gated we wouldn't be having this discussion." Sweet, I enjoy paying to watch bronze level strategy and play too! Oh wait, no I don't. Most people would have then called it a "shitty" game instead of a "controversial" game and there wouldve been one thread of outrage and nothing done to Naniwa. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On December 16 2011 03:12 Grettin wrote: Of course it wouldn't. Those games weren't even broadcasted. They weren't exactly meaningful. This has to be a trolling argument. On December 16 2011 03:13 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: That's not an opinion, it's an incorrect assumption. He was invited to play 4 games. I understand the emotions Naniwa went through and as such I think I can understand yours, but you can't make up your own reasons of why someone is invited in order to justify your opinion. No Nazgul, it is your opinion that he was invited to play 4 games. It is my opinion that he was invited to make an attempt at winning the tournament. It is not an incorrect assumption on either of our parts. | ||
| ||
