Riot Game's actions on the new season 4 policy are not justified
Debate Rounds (3)
http://www.forbes.com...) Although this was reversed (http://www.polygon.com...) and is no longer in action, was this a justified move?
With this debate I plan to see whoever agrees with Riot's actions and wouldn't care if it was done again by another company or if it infuriated the community. This debate is pretty common in the League of Legends community at the moment.
1) Peanut butter is irrelevant to this topic.
2) Riot's steps to try and make League of Legends an official sport make these regulations more justified: For example, if Kobe Bryant (basketball) stopped attending practices and started to play baseball for a living, would NBA approve of that? I think not.
The situation was the same here. Though it's true that Riot shouldn't be able to control what their fans play, 1) Riot PAYS them to play and 2) They can play the other games in off time, and not stream. The streaming bans only last for the season and were not permanent, as this is the Season 4 policies, and professionals can play other games on streaming services once the season is over.
If other arguments are to be given, I'd like to see them.
To counter argue
1: Peanut butter is always relevant
2: It is not justified because of very simple reasons
a. Reasons why it is not justified
1: When people stream, they are not streaming for the League Community.
2: The League staff should have no jurisdiction about the community/staff of other games
As for the "1 season ban" rule.... A ban, is a ban.. it should be treated as such, It is their right to stream whatever game to please, anything otherwise would be infringement on the very rights of liberty.
I await your argument!
More counter arguments.
1) Almond butter is far more superior to Peanut butter, both in the health department and taste department.
2) Counter arguments to why you think it is unjustified:
1a) Most people will see streaming as a form of advertising. It gets the streamer money, and it benefits both the company and the streamer, as the streamer will gain money and the company will gain fans. So for example, if a payed professional worked for Nike and started to advertise Adidas, what would Nike do? The same is done here.
2a) Except LCS is payed by Riot to play League of Legends. The Nike-Adidas example can be used here once again.
I await your argument(s).
1a) Live streaming is a form of entertainment, the person is streaming, not a hired actor. The person has the right to stream whatever he/she pleases to, and should not be confined to what his employer at work tells him to do, as he is not working, he is having fun.
2a) LCS is payed by Riot, but the person has his own right to stream..... The counter-example is not "legit" because
1: If the model for Nike, decides to wear Adidas in his off-time can Nike tell him otherwise? No, he is not working at the time, and therefore can do what he pleases, he is being payed to stream, not by Riot, but by Twitch, so therefore Riot should have no interference with the livestreaming.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: All other areas I would deem tied, except for arguments. I think Con made a valid point in regards to how streaming is used as Advertising for games. While streaming is entertaining, it often will influence the watcher to want to participate in that game, and Riot was perhaps somewhat justified in limiting what their paid employees do.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.