Read your first reply where you quoted me...

Like I said in your other post, there is a difference between a gaming platform and an organizer. To ban people from working on your gaming platform because you took a photo with a controversial figure is ridiculous no matter how you try to spin it.

This is the debate between whether you can separate the artist from the art and you're thoughtlessly taking one side of the coin, in the likeness of Riot, without providing any justification for your reasoning. To summarize my argument concisely: just because you take a photo or associate with someone does not mean you associate with them wholly.

A gaming company should not determine your personal life without context. All we saw of Carlos was in a party with Tate and Carlos "doubling down" by saying people can't police his friends. This does not imply or mean Carlos accepts Tate's misogyny. It would be an entirely different story if Carlos was in anti-women's march or if he stated he stands by Tate's views on women. In the real world, it's not a mind boggling concept that you can befriend people you have disagreements with, but this might be difficult to grasp if you're constantly on Twitter or VLR.

I am not the CEO of a multimillion dollar company that has a very big social media presence.

Judging by your thought process, you don't have to worry about that as this would never happen.

If I were I would 100% not associate publicly with such a family member and surely wouldnt post it on twitter and definitely wouldnt be doubling down on it when I get backlash.

Good, you just explained that you, yourself, would do your best to please Riot. That still isn't an argument against my claim or answers my question.

many employees took a photo with a controversial figures

is not a equal comparison with a controversial figure making direct statements on the platform...

What..? This is such a stupid and dangerous precedent - to allow authority figures to make arbitrary implications based on your actions that don't give any statements. I already gave further examples below.

I hope all of your friends and family are perfect. By golly, if any of them espouses any form of bigotry or immoral behaviors, you better cut your ties with them because of the iMpliCaTiOnS.

Who..?

Okay, that's a fair view. However, it's unfair to expect others to partake on that ideology.

That doesn't answer my question. When he double downed, he didn't double down on Tate's worst ideologies. Life isn't black and white lmfao.

Dude, no big sponsorship is going to back out because one of the many employees took a photo with a controversial figures. Like what? Then almost every platform that relies on sponsorships will NOT survive. This is simply virtue signaling...

The problem is that Tate also has other achievements and we don't know what Carlos is associating with in Tate since he never clarified. It's not as if I took a picture with Chris Brown, I endorse woman beating, or if I take a photo with Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise, I endorse anti-Semitism. Only in VLR will you find people agreeing with such illogical decisions.

LEC is not an organizer. It's a platform for organizers, i.e., it's still under jurisdiction that Riot company, a gaming platform, should make.

I know Tate has some misogynistic stances, but I don't think I have ever heard him to directly incite harm against any groups ever (you can correct me if you'd like by presenting evidence). Misogyny, racism, etc, as bad as they are, do not necessarily incite physical harm, which would be a breach against freedom of speech.
Furthermore, the fact that a person's face could represent an idea is ridiculous and the fact that a gaming platform decides who gets to associate with it is even more ridiculous. What, so the next time someone takes a photo with George W. Bush or Obama, he'll be branded as a war mongerer since the former began the Iraq War and the latter launched drone attacks in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc? What prevents Carlos from being simply a fan of Tate's kickboxing career to him associating with Tate's worst ideas?

There is a huge difference between a gaming platform deciding who you get to hang out with vs. an organizer. A gaming platform should be as lenient as possible to the entire player base while an organization can, understandably, be more picky.

As someone who despises Andrew Tate, Riot is also trying to be the court of law. What a joke of a company.

Typical Sentinel fan talking out of his ass, not even verifying a single fact that I'm saying.

Also he was exclusively talking abt their attack where vic's role is definitely more important than yay. what is so hard to digest?

Where does TenZ claim he's only talking exclusively on attack side? Optic is quite literally on Defense in the video...

idk why you are hellbent on making him look salty.

Because he is salty. He didn't have to lie so blatantly that Victor (arguably one of the weakest link in Optic) is the most impactful in the team just to appease his own role for Sentinels. He could have listed the benefits that the entire roster plays and provide insight what each individual does and that would have been a W take. It would get the point across that Yay wouldn't be where he was without his team without also undermining his achievements. But that wasn't TenZ's motivation clearly with this dumb take to compare him and Victor lmfao.

I'm assuming English is not your first language? I've already explained why Victor could be the "key" for Optic winning, but that does not necessarily make him the most important member of the team.

Ppl seem to be braindead when it comes to understanding how this game works.

Leave your rank and IGN.

If you think a good entry is determined by whether you get a kill or not, that's exactly the braindead take you're purporting that people have. You can entry and get 0 kills, but if you leave enough space for your team to occupy the site and force the enemy to be visible through multiple chokepoints, you've done your duty exceptionally.
If you think a duelist can just enter site, kill everyone, while the team just enters, at the pro scene, no less, then you're braindead. A equal amount of responsibility for a successful entry is the 2nd entry, typically the initiator, who supports the duelist by either shutting down the enemy's util, blinding them, or binding them, and trades the entry (this is also where Victor makes the majority of his mistakes). It is so much easier for the duelist to only deal with someone shooting at you than if the enemy has full util and can either chip away your health for free, bind/blind you, and/or has the free peeker's/positional advantage.
The reason why a duelist can pop off where everyone has cracked aims is because the teammates create the situations for it. The duelist typically don't create the situation alone, they literally just try to create space and take aim duels. And finally, Optic doesn't run a fucking typical rank pub setup where the duelist enters and 4 people follow him. Often enough, the sentinel or controller followed by the initiator enters while the duelist takes side control with the help of another agent, or vice versa. Does that mean the game is determined by whoever entries? And only in the site's main entry?

Did you know why Fnatic lost to 100T ? Cause Will pop the fuck off and derke/alfajer wasn't able to do their job as duelist properly.

So the stats matter if the duelists are top fragging, but if it's anyone else, such as Yay, it doesn't matter? What is your argument? I could quite literally say the same thing: do you know why Optic won against TL? Because Yay popped the fuck off.

Thank. fucking. you. I was losing hope with the amount of braindead responses I was receiving, but finally a sensible comment. I wish I could pin this.

He doesn't agree with TenZ that Victor is more important than Yay... TacticalRab just says Victor might be the key for Optic's wins after showing us the DRX vs OPTC scores where there is a positive correlation between Victor's performance and Optic winning the game (Optc vs Boom contradicts this correlation however).

I explained why that could be the case without agreeing with TenZ's claim. If everyone else is doing their role well and Victor is the only one playing inconsistently, then of course Victor is the key for the team's success. But that's not TenZ's argument. TenZ is arguing that Victor is more important, and whether Yay performs well or not doesn't matter for the success of Optic. The issue is, we've never had a game where Yay underperformed; in his worst, Yay only played mediocrely.

Not really. Asuna doesn't blatantly say one teammate is more important than Yay, like TenZ does. He just says Yay is able to perform consistently well because of his team.
But how would Asuna explain Yay's performance and consistency during his time in Andbox when he was in an entirely different team? During that time, people were saying he was consistently fragging because his team was trash (so the complete opposite of what's being said here) lmao.

Here's two scenarios that can happen: 1) both Asuna and TenZ are being objective about their analysis of Yay or 2) they're both envious of the attention Yay is getting so they want to downplay his achievements. If you think it's the former, go for it.

Oh, you're talking about his last bit lol.
Dude, Victor's performance relies on Yay performing well. Of course, if the rest of the team is pulling their weight and Victor doesn't (usually when he plays Kay/o and has to be the first initiator or 2nd entry), then the team will collapse. The stats suggest it, the scores suggest it, the gameplay suggests it, but that's not the point. The point is TenZ is claiming Victor is more important than Yay and more impactful, yet he's ignoring how Yay has been performing consistently well such that it usually comes down to Victor's performance to make or break the team. The question is, if Yay absolutely can't pull his weight, like some of Victor's game, can the rest of the team carry Yay's weight with just Victor's entry? The answer is probably a no.

edit: your youtube video also agrees with me about what TenZ says directly lol...

Exactly because that's literally what TenZ said... The people here blindly upvoting charizard are either braindead or delusional.

Can you read my previous comment..? It's a little difficult to hear since TenZ reads it quickly, but he RESPONDS to the claim that "Optics are fucked if yay doesn't show up" or if Yay doesn't play consistently well, Optic is screwed. Tenz is claiming, "no, the team's success is dependent on Victor." How the hell does that mean: since Yay is constantly playing well, the team's success is determined on Victor successfully entrying??? The fact that that interpretation is the highest voted in this thread makes me lose hope for this website.

Oh? So who's Sentinel's entry? Zellsis? 🤣

Dude if your sentinel/opper is constantly top fragging and getting valuable kills, then you claim that the success is dependant on your mediocre (relative to everyone else) entry duelist for literally just entrying, people would assume you're salty.

yeah, why are you skipping the rest of what he said??? "his role isn't requiring that many risks so he'll always be positive."

edit: "I think Optic's success is really dependant on Vic's entry" in response to "Optic are kinda fucked if yay doesn't show up."

Alright, I've already debunked your statement that TenZ is claiming Yay consistently plays well therefore the success depends on Victor in my response to scream fan. Like that doesn't even make sense since the claim that TenZ was responding to was, "Optic is screwed if Yay doesn't show up."

I'll spell out the TACIT claim. Since Yay is constantly putting up great numbers, TenZ is undermining Yay's consistency and uplifting Victor's position since TenZ is also Sentinel's entry. In other words, he's arguing that Victor (and thereby TenZ as proxy) is playing a much harder game and impactful role for the team.

edit: grammar

Except Tenz, himself, never mentioned the final bit.

And this narrative makes no sense. If Yay always plays good, then the success of the team depends on everyone else playing their roles properly, why would it depend solely on Victor?

Then you're misquoting Tenz; he's quite literally saying the team's success is dependent on Victor, but not on Yay. That yay's numbers are just an aftermath of Victor giving space and providing good positioning for his team, which is being extremely generous toward Victor and undermining the hell out of Yay.

trying to brainwash his fans that Victor is more impactful than Yay and tacitly explain why he (Tenz) is better than Yay. LOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mpMZciz_L8&ab_channel=TodayOnValorant

You're either a troll or you're dumb; either way, I don't want any part of it. Have a good day.

You can't be a clown when the team you're rooting for reached Top 3 - unless they don't put up a fight or choke at the end.

Dude, the only time Sentinels "proved" themselves was when they had a year head-start ahead of all the other regions and when the game just came out. Once the other regions and NA teams got accustomed to the game, Sentinels just could not keep up. They have NOT proven themselves.

They are popular content creators, but don't overhype their professional history like the casuals do, especially in a Val esports forum of all places. Everytime I hear a braindead Sentinels or TenZ is GOAT comment, I just want to go to the nearest bridge.

You say that FPX is justified in their actions

First, I didn't mention any actions; I was talking about their attitude. Saltiness/being salty is a state of being. Not an action. An important distinction. Second, you didn't read what I said in full context. Here is the full context:

Just like almost everyone is going to take the rematch for an opportunity at $1mil even if the decision to replay is unfair, almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here.

Admittedly, the usage of "justifiable" is a little awkward with hindsight, but the point still gets across. If it doesn't, you can just omit what I said for what I said in my prior response.

If you meant that FPX is in the wrong

Do you think XSET taking the rematch is considered wrong? I don't think either is wrong and that they're just in the same category. You may think otherwise, but all I'm saying is that FPX's action was not right in the same likeness that XSET's action was not right.

Legally it would technically constitute libel but you understand what I mean.

That wasn't the point I was making, although there is also that distinction; the point I was making is that legally you'd need to implicate wrongful intention for either slanderous or libelous remarks. Of which, what Zyppan tweeted can be considered an honest mistake regarding the information available of a public figure/entity, and would not be ruled in the American court of law as either libelous or slanderous, especially since he did not double down on his statements after it was corrected.

Ofc I'm not saying the severity of Nazi Germany is the same as this lmao. I'm just saying the concepts are the same. Great, we're on the same page now. Glad we could find common ground. I don't think FPX is in the right either. They are in the right as so far as XSET is in the right or maybe slightly more, but not enough to make a large difference.

you said yourself that FPX is completely justified in being salty.

You'd have quote me directly, with context, since I don't know what you're referring to. Either I made an error with my language or you're probably ignoring the context from which I'm saying it. I've constantly maintained FPX is justified or has a right to being salty in the same manner XSET has a right and is being justified to replay that round. In other words, both parties didn't make the best decision, but they both made the easier decisions based on their emotions. So, that's what I meant by it.

I urge you to look up slander since you are not using this term properly. I've also addressed this in my comments and I would prefer not repeating myself unless I'm missing the novel point you wish to discuss.

Okay, fair enough.
Let's suppose the issuer compelled the puncher, instead of $500, he threatened to leak out his nudes or spread rumors. Either way, you, who got punched, still have the right to get upset and bitter at the guy who punched you. The morally just thing to do would STILL be for the puncher to tackle on the person with authority, although it's definitely difficult to. The only argument that I see plausible is that it's probably less pressuring for FPX to take the high road, but that doesn't mean XSET is all of a sudden the victim lol. FPX has every right to be upset just as XSET had every right to do the replay. It's strange that you are removing any responsibility because there is an authority figure behind that person. Yes, compulsion removes SOME responsibility, but not ALL (just consider a regular soldier during Nazi Germany).

How is it a non sequitar? The premise for both examples is: There is a situation where unfairness occurs because someone issued it. Conclusion: The casualty will get upset at both the direct cause and the issuer, not just at the issuer.

If the replay was unfair, then them accepting it is not morally right (as opposed to immoral or morally wrong). In other words, it's not the best decision they could make in terms of right and wrong. And there are strong suggestions that XSET players don't think the ruling was fair given their game knowledge and Tweets.

Except one of these wasn't an isolated event. FPX had in mind, like we all did, that XSET made an accusation without any evidence (I'll stand to be corrected if there is anything that Optic has done to even remotely push this theory forward). While FPX made an accusation with weak evidence - that XSET has a history of acting entitled. It would be like if someone has a history of stealing so you jump to the conclusion that he stole from you when your item disappears - is this justifiable? no. Is this understandable? yes. If a serial killer has a mother who prostitutes herself and a dad who is an alcoholic, drug addict, is his killing justifiable? no. Is it understandable, yes.

Nowhere did I say FPX is in the right and XSET is in the wrong. They are both in the same shoes and neither side took the high road. If there is 1 entity to blame, it's Riot. What I am arguing, however, is that this narrative of turning XSET into the victims is extremely bizarre.

If they truly jumped to conclusions, I'd expect a apology or at least recognition that XSET doesnt deserve the hate that they got.

I'm just repeating myself at this point. Yes, this may have been the morally right thing to do and FPX would have most likely done this if XSET also did the morally just thing to do, which is to reject/boycott the replay. Except neither side did the morally right/just thing to do, and made the most human decisions, so why are you elevating the standard for 1 team and not the other? I've given my analogy, please apply it - do you think it would make sense to apologize to the guy who punched you for $500, and you claim, "oh man, sorry I insulted you because I assumed you punched me based on your decision. it changes everything since there was another person behind your decision who also enticed you." Like no... this is not how we normally react. Not only is FPX upset by the unfairness but the actual event occurring, i.e., the replay/the punch. You may not understand because you're not the one getting punched/in the tournament, but please try to put yourself in their shoes.

neither team should be having a moral high ground

agreed, but that's clearly not the case rn in the forums here or in any social media. people are trying to turn xset into the victim, which is just nuts.

surprised they did that when this was clearly a riot called issue

i've already addressed this. just like how almost everyone is going to jump at a 2nd chance despite the rulings being unfair/questionable, almost everyone is going to be pissed that their opponents are replaying it even if the organizers wanted it. it's as if a bully was paid $500 to punch you in your face and he does; you're most likely going to be upset at both parties. you can't just expect to only get upset at the guy who hired the bully.

idk why ur still dogging on xset for making "rumours"

the point is that xset's reputation was utter shit, so the fact that fpx jumped to conclusions, as wrong as it might have been, wasn't just blind aggression. it's probably because they knew that xset often started crap and assumed they did so again.

First, I want to say big ups to DRX for the win. I'm rooting for Optic, but DRX is a close 2nd.

Now, wtf is wrong with you guys sending hate to fpx? Did you all forget that xset was the team that always started shit? How just the day before they tried to spread rumors that Optic was intentionally making technical pauses? And the whole "Riot initiated decision," whatever your opinions are in the details, you must agree it was very controversial and that decision was especially favorable for XSET if you have at least 2 functioning brain cells. So, sure, it might have been wrong for FPX to have jumped to conclusions despite XSET's crappy history of starting shit, but the fact of the matter is that XSET still got the replay and the decision to replay was unfair (at least from FPX's perspective and many others). Just like almost everyone is going to take the rematch for an opportunity at $1mil even if the decision to replay is unfair, almost everyone is going to be salty toward both the organizers and opponents if they won and have to replay their round 1-2 hours after celebrating. All in all, FPX being salty is wholly justified and there is absolutely no justification for why XSET should be taking the moral high ground here.

lol for sure, if you want to sabotage the team. this would be one of the quickest way for optic to never qualify for a world championship again like sentinels rn.

He's Goated and just an overall drama-free, kind, and humble dude, why wouldn't people dick-ride him..?

This makes no sense. The fact that there are agents like Chamber means you need to come up with creative ways to bypass him, making the skill ceiling higher. But of course you're not thinking of this in terms of game knowledge and just aims and one and dones, so sKiLL cEiLinG lOwEr duURrr.

How can you say it's not an "intended mechanic" for a turret when it has been like this for 2 years? It would be like saying the bounce on the Brimstone or Viper molly wasn't intended. Like, how would we know that something as common, noticeable, and part of the agent for 2 years (for the people who play the agents frequently, at least) wasn't "intended."

It turned for last two shots even though the omen was visible the whole time.

It does that sometimes when you jiggle peek it; the turret had never perfectly shot towards people reliably when they get in and out of its view. However, any person, especially a pro player would have known this. They would know this mechanic like knowing that a Brimstone molly bounces.
Based on your reply, it seems like you haven't tested it out in customs so I highly encourage you to actually verify what I'm saying in customs, as experiencing it yourself explains better than what I'm putting in words. Then, you'll get a good idea of how shitty the turret acted from the get-go and how ridiculous it is for Riot to replay a match for something as common as literally jiggle peeking a turret on its side.

You don't even have to replicate what happened in the game, just jiggle peek a turret from the side, switch up the timing of your peeks, and see how janky the turret becomes. Remind yourself that it has been this way for 2 years. 2. years.

You forgot:
Publicly accuse Optic for faking technical pauses after losing just the day before this incident. 😴😴😴

If you have a bad reputation from the start, people aren't going to give you the benefit of doubt later on. Don't you guys know the fable about the Boy who cried Wolf?

CS players don't understand that skill ceiling doesn't just apply to aims/shooting mechanics, but also abilities and game knowledge lol. These guys just work on their aims all day so when they see that the barrier to entry for Val in terms of shooting is lower, they just say, "sKiLL cEiLiNg lOw duURrr."

The only reason why I'd give Riot some leniency with the VK decision is because apparently there were 2 games prior where Riot punished/warned players for putting cams out of bound. So, if I were VK coach, I should have followed the tourny scene to have known it would questionable to put cypher cams even remotely "oob" and would not have risked it at all in tourny. With that said, this turret "bug" was a mechanism for the turret for 2 years and players had to work around it. Furthermore, it's way too easy for the "bug" to occur because all a player has to do is to jiggle peek it from the turret's side. At this point, since Riot ignored "the bug" ever since the turret was introduced, it just is what the turret does. So, yeah, you're right. Not only was the decision unprofessional, but absolutely stupid.

Exactly, when I was KJ main, I just assumed it was part of the turret kit since it has been like this ever since beta. It's so sad that such an easily verifiable thing isn't being verified by anyone. They just need to enter customs and jiggle peek the turret from its side and voila, lo and behold, the turret bug!

It definitely was in range of doors. Since you're a casual enjoyer, you won't understand my argument like the rest of the people in this thread (don't want to sound pretentious, but it seems a lot of people here do not understand the turret mechanics). You'd need to go into customs and jiggle peek or strafe the turret from its direct side (do not stand in front of it) and this "bug" will be easy to replicate. It also has been like this since beta.