|
|
On September 14 2012 01:47 Brainfart wrote: If this would be the only thread this is happening in I maybe would do you that favor. You are not doing it not because of that, but because you are just like everyone else.
|
On September 14 2012 01:21 LgNFosTA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 01:18 artosismermaid wrote:On September 14 2012 01:14 LgNFosTA wrote: My view on if he should get him money back... I feel that when he moved into the House he was set on stay for a 3 month stunt. When moving into any normal apartment or when renting house from a landlord, you need to pay the amount you say you will stay for. Form where I work If someone wants to move out of our apartment buildings they need to give us 60 day notice. Even if they want to leave within the next 2 weeks they still need to pay for the full 60 days. Since Fuzer (tenant) and MoW (landlord) knew that he was going to stay their for 3 months then he needs to pay what they assigned for. Its a shame that people cant get their money back but the tenant is legally obligated to pay for the amount they set on. that seems shady, most place have you pay first and last months rent and maybe you pay them in post-dated cheques for the months in between Anywhere with a month to month lease runs how I have describe. You are thinking of a set year rate. I have live/worked at a lot of apartment/renters places, I feel that I have a bit of insight on how it works. Edit: Spelling
From what I understand, you would still need a contract to be signed to enforce the rent/lease contract. What happened here is not normal. No contracts were signed, yet money was paid.
|
On September 14 2012 01:55 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 01:47 Brainfart wrote: If this would be the only thread this is happening in I maybe would do you that favor. You are not doing it not because of that, but because you are just like everyone else.
Ok. Gl & hf
|
I would still like to see an explanation for the fact that press release has no real new information, but the article contains the line:
Krupowies showed ESFI a Skype log that had him offering Fuzer the refund of the second month’s fee, but that Fuzer declined to accept it.
It seems a little shady to leak information against Fuzer without officially stating it.
|
On September 14 2012 02:10 KillingVector wrote: It seems a little shady to leak information against Fuzer without officially stating it. I don't believe it's shady at all. When you put money in your bank does the cashier shout out how much you just put in to everyone waiting in line? MoW is essentially doing the professional thing here, it just makes it difficult to come out as the good guy when the other party is slandering your business.
As said by Fuzer himself they are "private" skype conversations. He just doesn't treat them as such.
|
Without having read all posts or the actual contracts the non compete stuff seems like a classic type of mistake. It's not exclusive for new small companies, I can take an example from a real estate company with billions worth of assets.
The example company got many parking areas and several of them were free to use, for anyone. Suddenly they decided to limit the parking to their costumers only, why? This was their reasoning: When free for anyone to use whoever could park their cars on their property, which would lead to less parking lots for their costumers and so on. If you think that seems perfectly logical and that you would do same thing you might be the type of person that is prone to wanting to fix non existing problems. That type of person/reasoning is very common, it could probably even be argued that it's uncommon to not be/think like that. The mistake in my example is of course that the problem they wanted to fix did not exist in the reality. The parking areas in question were never full and the change made it worse for their customers because their visitors/costumers couldn't use the parkings anymore.
From the outside the non compete part looks like the typical attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. And why would you include non compete without NDA? Like: "Ok it's not rocket science what we do plus we probably want people to know how it works so we can get costumers but we really need to make sure the costumers we get will not steal our concept!!". Someone explain how that makes any sense what so ever.
You could probably make the contract for this very simple. Could possibly even get away without one claiming the product is obviously X and therefore the obligations for the parties involved follow common standards, depending on how things happen to work in Poland. I understand things might be very different in Poland than what I'm used to but if I was to suggest a contract for where I live I would probably do somehting like: -Time period. -Price and Payment. -This is what you get. -Grounds for cancellation of the contract. -This happens when the contract is cancelled. You can shove almost all responsibilities on the costumers with those parts if you want to have the upper hand in absolutely any kind of minor dispute. Or you take responsibility for many of those scenarios yourself based on reasonable estimates, because you don't want to lose potential costumers.
The streaming thing seems odd as well. Sounds like they've gotten some deal with the streaming company where they are obligated to achieve a certain amount of stream time or something. If they made a special cpm deal that they feel they need to make money on, why don't they have the stream company pay them the cpm difference instead of their streamers?
|
On September 14 2012 02:41 Hey Sean. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 02:10 KillingVector wrote: It seems a little shady to leak information against Fuzer without officially stating it. I don't believe it's shady at all. When you put money in your bank does the cashier shout out how much you just put in to everyone waiting in line? MoW is essentially doing the professional thing here, it just makes it difficult to come out as the good guy when the other party is slandering your business. As said by Fuzer himself they are "private" skype conversations. He just doesn't treat them as such.
How is your example an analogy for MoW leaking info to the author of the article but not including it in their official statement? The privacy of the conversation isn't an issue at all as both sides have leaked information on the content of those conversations.
|
On September 14 2012 02:59 KillingVector wrote: How is your example an analogy for MoW leaking info to the author of the article but not including it in their official statement? The privacy of the conversation isn't an issue at all as both sides have leaked information on the content of those conversations. Because while MoW have said they did offer Fuzer some money back they didn't specify an amount or post the actual log. There's a difference between saying "We did x" and "We did x here's the proof that was supposed to be private".
Obviously MoW had to show someone the log to back up their side of the story. And without spilling it all to the public they did possibly the best thing they could in that scenario and show a respected news source.
Honestly though this is something I'd expect to read in a gossip magazine. Just a vague story with a lot of people filling the blanks with whatever they like.
|
On September 14 2012 03:24 Hey Sean. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 02:59 KillingVector wrote: How is your example an analogy for MoW leaking info to the author of the article but not including it in their official statement? The privacy of the conversation isn't an issue at all as both sides have leaked information on the content of those conversations. Because while MoW have said they did offer Fuzer some money back they didn't specify an amount or post the actual log. There's a difference between saying "We did x" and "We did x here's the proof that was supposed to be private". Obviously MoW had to show someone the log to back up their side of the story. And without spilling it all to the public they did possibly the best thing they could in that scenario and show a respected news source. Honestly though this is something I'd expect to read in a gossip magazine. Just a vague story with a lot of people filling the blanks with whatever they like.
I wasn't referring to specifying an amount. I was talking about the fact that they didn't mention it in their official press release, but thought it was okay to distribute it through a third party. The entire article is like this, but this statement caught me by surprise. It is MoW stating something in direct conflict with a claim of Fuzer.
Something like this should be done officially. So they can't later say that it was a "misunderstanding" between them and the article's author.
|
On September 13 2012 23:32 pallad wrote: Im so happy that Fuzer will not find any good pro team. None team will sign with player , that show private conversations , contracts etc. You wanna drama ? you have drama , MoW will have maby some problems with it , but fuzer pro gamer carrer is over. MoW is not perfect , but is not evil also . They offered him money back.. he dont take it..and he just killed his pro gamer carrer.
I hope you are trolling. But you are doing so since this thread started so i just guess you are just an complete asshole. How can you wish any player such a bad luck?! He wants to start a living off of esports most probably and you just run him over? That's just not fair.
Still waiting for an answer why Fuzer never got a freaking copy of the contract.
|
I don't know if this has been posted in this thread yet, but this guy on r/starcraft did some digging on who Maciej Krupowies is and his history in the e-sports community. Its pretty damning evidence on this guy. Its up to you to feel how you think about this new information.
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zs2bh/drama_in_mow_house/
|
this drama is just bull. cant understand why they dont pay back money, and they get a bad reputation by this also. this will be continued I think, he is the first. but not the last one.
|
I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable.
|
I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.
|
On September 14 2012 04:12 Avean wrote: I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.
Well, imagine if this thread got closed and moved the first day, MoW would have no reason to release any statements, and could effectively bully fuzer into the ground, deny him money, and just do w/e they wanted. The forum does help provide accountability. Its not a perfect system, but its better than nothing.
|
On September 14 2012 04:12 Avean wrote: I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.
TL player is in the MoW.
|
why would anyone not accept money back that is owed ? i think this situation has an easy fix, MoW give fuzer back the owed money and then everyone goes theyre separate ways. I highly doubt Fuzer wouldnt want his money back...
so i guess its MoW turn to make a move, and unless they do they will be treated badly by the community, thats just the way it works.
|
On September 14 2012 04:12 Avean wrote: I dont understand how this has anything to do with the teamliquid community. It seems as soon someone messes up something within e-sports then its discussed to death on teamliquid where false information are spread like wildfire.
This website isn't just the "teamliquid" community. That is a big part, but a much larger group is represented here.
|
It's weird how most of the posts on this thread are defending MoW and most of the posts on MoW's statement thread are defending Fuzer. It's like people go where they think their post with be most contentious.
|
On September 14 2012 04:01 Grimmyman123 wrote: I only have a few points to make.
For MoW to demand the lawyers certification is excessive. His name and identifying information is sufficient, if provided, and even that should not be required. Simply being informed that a player wants his legal representative or a third party to review a contract is reasonable. If the contract has substantial changes, then this process should be repeated for all parties to ensure the contract is lawful, fair and equitable.
To force a player to sign a contract under threat of a penalty is signing a contract under duress, and in most legal jurisdictions invalidates the contract completely.
The contract should not need to be 10 pages long. This is excessive, and is something from the days of old where lawyers were paid by the word, and would in turn write massive contracts to increase their billing. Modern language and contracts can summarize a rental or residential agreement in under 2 pages, sometimes 3. With the addition of the gaming portion, what is expected, this should only take another page. A final page devoted to resolution of conflicts, default conditions, etc, should take a final page. All pages should have sign off or initial at the bottom, as well as a witness sign off, and should be properly bound or attached together. Any edits to the contract need to be initialed by both parties.
From information provided, some confirmed by MoW - the contract is null and void. Any default provision contained therein is also the same.
In my opinion, MoW owes the player their fee back, based on a per diem rate, and less any other reasonable expenses that MoW suffered ( such as costs of groceries not consumed, linens, etc) but this may not apply as evidence suggests that MoW did not go out of pocket excessively, and was insufficient with its purchasing of food for players.
That said, if the player made slanderous remarks about MoW which are untrue, there may be legal reprocussions from that, though that does not appear to be the case as most information was confirmed by MoW.
MoW is a rookie to this type of business venture. It needs to be clear and transparent to all parties and players involved. This in itself will resolve most problems and issues if any arrise.
I do not blame the player for what he did, and I support it if someone is wronged, and in my opinion that has occured to the player.
I cannot comment on the legal process in Poland or if it is fair or equitable.
I'm not sure that would legally hold up as signing under durress, by my contract analsys exposure (which I do have a decent amount of in my occupation in insurance!) has not addressed that whatsoever, so who knows. It's very circumstantial and this case would be completely borderline.
He voluntarily parted with said money and with no contract in force to stipulate he would get a return for his money, it becomes more gray (although still heavily in Fuzer's favor, just saying that it's a defense against it being durress).
Concerning the contract being 10 pages long, for the type of agreement they are entering, that isn't really excessive whatsoever. It is NOT merely a residential agreement and is significantly more complex than that. Not only are they leasing the residence, there are tons of liability concerns concerning equipment usage, simple liability exposures with bodily injury, penalties for late payments, use of facilities, requirement demaned upon the inhabitants, a page in itself probably concerning the streaming system, they have their (admittedly stupid) non compete clause.
If a contract fails to cover something, arbitrary verbage is almost always ruled in favor of the "little guy" to protect individual interests. It's better to have a longer contract than a shorter one, generally speaking, to cover your ass.
|
|
|
|