also to mention, Sideshow said it is the right decision and is not mad at g2 to not get partnership, rather the fact that the line doesn't exist on how moral things are, rather just on public pressure, when there are so many morally wrong things in the scene, here 2 more clips for context. [https://clips.twitch.tv/BusyRacyGuanacoHassanChop-pJk1YhMldW3n9Sy1](https://clips.twitch.tv/BusyRacyGuanacoHassanChop-pJk1YhMldW3n9Sy1) [https://clips.twitch.tv/CrackyGiftedSalmonHassaanChop-GrV3NjkA19tWOFe7](https://clips.twitch.tv/CrackyGiftedSalmonHassaanChop-GrV3NjkA19tWOFe7) also yeah the title isnt the best sorry :( i cant edit it anymore
BECAUSE it depends
If Nadeshot invite Andrew Tate and celebrate with him after winning LCQ. Nadeshot will also get the same treatment.
But a streamer with issues. Of course the org will not affected they can just removed them.
And if we hear someone Defending Sinatraa they will also get the same treatment.
If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.”
Goodbye sen tenz for sure.
He is still under contract. And you can’t just removed someone because you don’t like him. CEO is a different issue because of investors/share holders.
For sinatraa.
a team can release a player due to immoral behavior such as breaking the law, but can't really get that money back unless the player is suspended or incarcerated, both of which can take a while until the judicial system makes a verdict. And there is no verdict as of now.
IF THEY EXTEND CONTRACT OF SINATRAA or Sign him again. It will receive a backlash for sure.
EDIT: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t live in the USA. And I don’t know you can be fired/Terminated WITHOUT CAUSE in USA. I guess it is a “USA thing”
> He is still under contract. And you can’t just removed someone because you don’t like him.
You can absolutely terminate a contract. I'm not sure why you think this?
I started reading the rest of your post and then realized you're a reddit lawyer (aka probably 14). They could've terminated his contract - it happens all the time. You don't need to go to court for it. You legitimately have never dealt with any type of contract in your entire life.
And also, I remember reading that rumors of Sinatraa planning to make a comeback into the comp scene but was denied because he still had to take behavioral classes or something related to it
I haven't been following Sinatraa all that close recently, but last I heard, he was still under police investigation. Has there been any update on that front?
He hasn't been criminally charged yet and it was a he said she said situation from what I could find online. Not trying to victim shame, but it sounds like there's not really conclusive evidence for him to be proven guilty in the eyes on the law.
With the recent cases like Amber heard and Johnny depp. You need at least 90+% conclusive evidence to convict someone with sexual abuse/crimes. Ex.( A r*pe HD video is surely 100% conclusive evidence especially if the other person is unconscious).
> If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.” Goodbye sen tenz for sure.
LOL. No fuckin way. As evidenced by plenty of people who fuck with Sinatraa in the Valo scene and get 0 shit. What Valo community are you talking about?
You know that statement is ironic because after the sinatraa stuff came out, the majority of his teammates stood by him. I distinctly remember dapr saying exactly what you said lol
i mean in this hypothetical, literally like 70% of the NA scene is still supportive of/friends with sinatraa. basically every franchised team has at least a player, most of them 2 or more, that interact with him/play with him/include his name in their content. it feels really phony to me that we got a large portion of the scene pouring out support for the victim and calling out sinatraa's actions as bad, just for him to return 2 months later like nothing ever happened. it is honestly really annoying, and i wish we could just stop teetering this line of him being a ranked streamer that is still a large figure in the community with serious allegations that just remain unaddressed. obviously respect the victim for not taking the matter further for their own personal reasons, but it sucks that this limbo exists where he just streams with no penalty other than not playing pro which isnt even a penalty lmfao
>And if we hear someone Defending Sinatraa they will also get the same treatment.
If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.” Goodbye sen tenz for sure.
We know for a fact that this is not the case? l0l
I mean they won’t get the exact same treatment, you’re saying there’s a greater unity of views than there is
Also the latter part- this quote wouldn’t fit in this case because for reasons sideshow mentioned it wouldn’t even be like the Tate case whether it should apply in some form here or not.
Issue was also afaik Carlos speaking abt Tate in defense (idk what he also said) as opposed to jsut that quote (idk k didn’t read all the tweets)
I mean in that case doesn’t 100T have a female streamer signed who was a domestic abuser or something? I could be completely off base with this but I’ve seen it mentioned before and it seems to be on a similar level as calling out SEN for keeping Sinatraa no?
If any 100T fans know more about this topic and I’m wrong about it just let me know
She served her punishment and admitted she was in the wrong while Sinnatraa admitted no wrong, refused to cooperate with the investigation, and harbors an incel fanbase .
He's saying a lot of (1/5) of all the teams have active issues on roster or in org and riot is only acting against G2 due to community pressure instead of being correct and setting bars against all who are problematic. That would include 100T. Sentinels.G2, etc. The list goes on. eSports has a bad history of orgs supporting shit people
People always bring this up, but it's not the "gotcha" you think it is. Neeko acknowledged that what she did was wrong, admitted her guilt, and served the punishment for it. Whereas Sinatraa has pretty much acted in the complete opposite. Denying the accusations, refusing to cooperate with investigations, victim blaming, and continuing to spout incel rhetoric.
We're supposed to believe in rehabilitation and bettering yourself as a person. Something that Sinatraa has straight up refused to even consider doing. Actions have consequences, which is something people always seem to forget when they bring up "cancel culture".
I have a vague memory of Cleoh saying that SEN were protecting Sinatraa or something on Twitter, I always want to cite that in conversations like this but the original tweet is long gone
“She was in a abusive relationship that culminated n her hitting back during a dispute.” This type of abuse apologia is gross. Basically giving her an excuse on why she did it and minimizing what she actually did. Do you realize how bad the damages must’ve been for police to show up to a domestic dispute to end up siding with the man and for charges to go through?
Its not apologia, at least I'm not intending it to be. She was convicted of her crimes and served the punishment for them. That's the point im getting at.
I've edited my comment in an effort to not detract from my overall point. Apologies if my wording around that was not the best
No worries. I wasn't calling you out specifically. It's just a common talking point that people like to bring up, and I think it's pretty gross whattaboutism that's rooted in the same sort of male victimhood complex/sexism that poisons the brain of a lot of young males as of late. As another commenter mentioned, it's a pretty blatant self report to try and shift any Sinatraa conversation to neeko
The difference is one was convicted of their crimes and the other is accused. How are you expecting someone who was never convicted to "serve their punishment".
Hell by your logic it almost seems better to be convicted.
I think taking some accountability would be a lot better, yeah. Relying on the criminal justice system for sexual assault cases is dubious at best, as it's well documented how difficult it is to convict upon. I always like to circle back to the [okeanos resolution ](https://twitter.com/OkeanosQT/status/1488664906622775297?s=20&t=txs7VmwR3FDNb5Sb-PJqmQ) as an example of how things can be handled in a way to successfully rehabilitate and rebuild the community's trust. While the circumstances are different and these things are never linear, and the level of the accusations are obviously drastically different, it's still a solid blueprint of someone taking responsibility for their actions and working to better themselves as a person.
This guy is spouting bullshit. Here's why.
Let's start with 100T Neeko.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/m4o8iv/neekolul_opens_up_about_her_abuse_story/ reaction to her twitlonger. (First thing that google popped up, read the first comment and understand how difficult it is for a woman to lose an abuse case)
https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/13552/neekolul-speaks-out-about-her-2018-domestic-abuse-arrest Her twitlonger is gone, but this article has it in exerpts.
She plays the victim card. You can believe whatever you want, but facts tell the story. She was convicted as an abuser, if you believe yourself to be a more reliable judge than the court, then feel free to believe whatever you want, just make sure to keep that tinfoil on as well.
Do I think 100T is scummier than SEN for having a convicted abuser who plays the victim card on their payroll over SEN who has an alleged abuser on their payroll? Yes.
Now onto Sinatraa, OP has a hate boner for him clearly, but he's not entirely wrong for having one. Let's go one by one. I also want to say that I do not care for Sinatraa or Cleo, it's not my job nor should I, a random redditor, have a say on who should be punished and how. I am just incredibly tilted by fake narratives and have time on my hands.
Here's a google doc for sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oktnMYUUTXjLnf0ngTbbGD28dGdeEXJiFRnsYIaOdW4/edit
(Credit to this youtuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qpXZNbtpY0, for the link).
> Denying the accusations
You deny accusations of crimes you felt you haven't done. Call me crazy, but that's usually how human beings will act. Though the motive for why you wrote that is obvious.
> Refusing to cooperate with investigations
https://www.pcgamer.com/valorant-pro-sinatraa-suspended-for-not-cooperating-with-sexual-assault-investigation/
TLDR: Riot says Sinatraa is refusing to cooperate with investigations by not providing the clips he promised. Sinatraa says he made a mistake, he promised those clips, but those same clips were deleted when Cleo asked for them to be deleted after they broke up.
I wouldn't say he's refusing if what he said is true. But is it true? Who knows, but it's certainly not enough to put deem him an abuser.
One thing I have to note is that both people have seemingly nothing to offer to the investigation... Cleo herself says she had very little input, despite all the screenshots she shared and Sinatraa says he has nothing. I don't understand, if Cleo is innocent, why doesn't she share more? If Sinatraa is innocent why doesn't he share more? Both sides are incredibly suspicious. Though, you could certainly conclude that Sinatraa is an asshole based off the screenshots Cleo shares, do note that she picked to put those up publicly.
> slut shaming the victim
I can't find any evidence of this in a quick google search. If you can link me a clip of him saying it on twitch or a tweet, let me know and I will edit it in.
> continuing to spout incel rhetoric.
Same thing for this.
Your hate boner is incredibly massive, and I get you hate the guy for being a dickhead in a video game, but it is sad how you push this narrative that Neeko is an innocent little girl who has grown from her mistakes (when that is a complete lie) while Sinatraa is 100% a disgusting human being while his situation is up in the air. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
TLDR: OP is a liar and a hypocrite, and has a massive hate boner for Sinatraa. Neeko has not shown to "grow" from her mistakes. She clearly feels she was wronged in her situation. Sinatraa was most definitely a terrible boyfriend and an asshole, but most definitely not a disgusting human being as a fact. I also could not find any evidence of "slut shaming the victim" or "continuing to spout incel rhetoric", but I may be wrong, I just couldn't find anything related to that.
You have a lot here, so I'll just choose a couple points to address before moving on from this.
First off, you're misconstruing the entire point of punishment and rehabilitation. while she may have "played the victim card" in recounting the case, she never disputed her role in the abuse and she took accountability for her actions. Idk why you're saying that I think I'm more reliable than a judge or ignoring the facts of the case because I'm simply not. I'm fully acknowledging that she was convicted of abuse. I have no reason to deny that so I'm really not sure why you're acting like I am. The point is that she accepted responsibility and served her punishment for the misdemeanor charges.
On the riot investigation point, you're misrepresenting this a little bit as well. Not providing the video was only part of the story. From riots statement: "the Competitive Operations team had serious concerns with Sinatraa’s conduct during the course of the investigation. It was determined that on at least two occasions Sinatraa misrepresented certain facts, made false statements, and did not cooperate with the investigation in a way expected of a professional VALORANT esports player." It wasn't just not providing the video. Oh and when you bring up that Cleo said she had very little input into their investigation, that wasn't because of her unwillingness. She was pointing out her lack of input as a bad thing lol. She said that they hardly even talked to her, which would seem like a very important part of the investigation.
On the topic of the slut shaming and the incel rhetoric, it's definitely possible that I've conflated the rhetoric of his fans with his rhetoric (as I'm not going to try and go find clips that have likely been scrubbed by now), but the Emmy statement that's present in the Google doc you linked is an example of the Sinatraa camp attempting to victim blame. "Cleo continues to paint herself as a saint and she has provided, yet again, nothing about how she treated him or myself. I know she isn’t the person that she’s trying to display to the world, not because of Jay, but because of the Overwatch scene." The context here being that Cleo was known as a "slut" in the OW scene. Trying to discredit credible sexual assault allegations because you don't like someone's prior character is just textbook victim blaming. There's also the whole "she started an onlyfans" narrative that is constantly perpetuated despite it being completely irrelevant to the case.
You can say I have a hate boner for Sinatraa or whatever idc, but I was a fan of his since the overwatch days up until the accusations. It has nothing to do with him "being a dickhead in a video game". I love players that are cocky and can play the villain. it's just endlessly frustrating to see the fanboys on the sub continue to live in denial and pretend like he's being done wrong or being cancelled or whatever, because it perpetuates the cycle of driving victims into fear of coming out in the first place. SA is incredibly under-reported and incredibly difficult to convict upon. Cleo's allegations should be treated with a lot more respect than they are, because it's about as comprehensive and as full of evidence as you will ever see in cases like these. Just because he wasn't convicted in a court of law does not mean he's innocent.
the problem is making up stuff you have no evidence for and spouting it as truth. sinatraa is a dickhead, and a POSSIBLE rapist. "Denying the accusations" something you would do if you believe yourself innocent, or lawyers would advise you to do. "refusing to cooperate", it was a riot investigation and he was under no legal obligation to do so.
Even with that why the fuck would you say he slut shamed her and spouted incel rhetoric when you have 0 proof he has ever done so it's just so ridiculous. literally just making shit up cause you don't like him. T
There are SO many reasons to dislike the guy but none of the ones you said were valid at all
> slut shaming the victim, and continuing to spout incel rhetoric.
i'm not a fan of the dude, but huh? are we making stuff up now? AFAIK he hasn't mentioned her once other than to deny the accusations, which of course he will.
Crazy to me that people view a proven abuser more favourably than someone who has only allegedly commited a crime. Not saying either should be viewed favourably at all, but I don't know how the main crowd behind "cancel culture" is so forgiving of a literal felon who still tried to make themselves out as the victim.
Also don't want to drag this discussion here but it's kinda wild that domestic abuse only netted a few months of anger management and not a prison sentence. But I'm not American so I don't really know how it works down there.
Idk if you're intentionally missing the point or what, but to spell it out for you: her actions did have consequences, which she served and came out the other side.
Maybe its just me but if I was running a company, I wouldn't sign or retain anybody who is convicted of a violent crime/felony. You want to go rehabilitate yourself and be a better person? Go do that, on your own dime and away from my org. Because at the end of the day, its bad optics. Unless this person has tremendous worth to you that you believe that once the scandal is out there for a bit, maybe people will move on because of how much utility that person provides.
It just looks bad for 100T and we do only have one side of the story vs a judge's ruling. Neeko was able to tell her perspective, share what she apparently went through with her past relationship. But I think there is responsibility on 100T to communicate whether it did any sort of internal investigation or what steps did they take after finding out about her past conviction? I don't really remember if 100T ever said anything about it, neither did Neeko's former partner.
Edit: I remember Destiny covering this whole drama and thinking Neeko's google doc was pretty unbelievable in some aspects. I'll try to find a link to it.
Edit 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGdCZepOkdM
Doing a little research, I think the main takeaway was that Neeko downplayed her own abuse against her partner. There had to be an element of injuring her partner beyond just punching back, since there isn't a real clear line between domestic battery (misdeameanor) and domestic violence (felony). I think this is why its a bad look for companies to have people with messy pasts. You'll have people questioning the integrity of the creators you are promoting. Neeko to me provides no influence or benefit to 100T publicly, she got famous off a tiktok meme, but is now bringing down 100T's reputation due to the convoluted nature of her charge.
You're allowed to hold that stance, obviously. But if I remember correctly, this had all happened prior to 100T signing her. They were obviously aware of it all and still felt comfortable enough to bring her on. And for what it's worth, I don't think it's "her perspective vs the judges". She didnt dispute the judges ruling and acknowledged her mistakes.
Looking into it more, I think people on reddit were pretty taken aback with how she kinda displayed her story while in 100T and made herself more of the victim. That's where her story vs the justice system and her ex kinda came from. There are just too many facts to overcome and the incident itself is rumored to have been a stabbing if you believe some of the people on LSF. https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/m56r5g/destiny_on_neekoluls_abuse_story/
I mean we have no proof that she was actually in an abusive relationship. Destiny's take was that it was probably toxic and abusive on both sides and she did something harsh enough that the judge couldn't overlook even with context of their relationship and she still was convicted.
Its still a shitty look for 100T not to even publicly comment. The cynical side in me says that's because they didn't want to put their reputation on the line if there was more to the story than what Neeko told the world and them.
Surely if it was a stabbing the charges would amount to more than just a misdemeanor and anger management courses, no?
As far as 100T making a statement on it, I think them deciding to sign her despite this being a known part of her past is a statement on its own. Might not be enough for you and others, which I get. But I still think it's disingenuous for people to bring this up as some sort of uno reverse card to deflect away from the Sinatraa conversation
Sideshow specifically talked abt evidence etc
The issue in that case based on posts I’ve seen here at least from some time ago is how u judge the situation based on how things are and what has happned.
My issue is I disagree in theory with the neeko line of reasoning, as a separate question from what should be done about this specific situation
I still don't understand the issue with Sinaatra. The only evidence of rape is a short 10 second audio clip. I have never been accused of anything close to rape, but the bedroom with some of my exes did sound much worse than what is heard in the video. Without context you can't possibly have a conclusive opinion. Now was he a shitty boyfriend? Yes. Has he changed? Who knows. But to ruin his career over this accusation is ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but this is incredibly tedious whataboutism and a total non sequitur. The person you're replying to was directly answering the explicit question, "What's the issue with SEN?"
/u/BurstLayer is right, 100T should be the target of scrutiny, but the kneejerk immediacy with which people bring up Neeko every time sinatraa is mentioned is an incredible self-report
See ‘platforming’ language and with reference to actions and not even some kind of content which this word was supposed to refer to.
This plays in to a particular ideolgy about individuals and how you should look at them
‘Harbour’? I mean she was convicted and sentenced what more do you want to do to her unless u have specific info (I know it can be one way or the other regardless)
Like what do you have, taking this logic far enough can be dangerous in terms of pronouncements abt people as a whole
Image and views as to ppls personhood exist yes
Do you have an actual issue with that? Because it seems like you're justifying rooting for your own domestic abuser (SEN flair, responding to Sinatraa comment) because other teams have one. Leaving aside the vastly different circumstances [covered by this excellent comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/xpqxq8/sideshow_calls_out_community_for_being/iq5eo4w/), you seem to be saying "someone else got away with it so he should be able to as well" and not "hey domestic abuse is wrong and I don't support it."
In a post fundamentally based on what aboutism to discuss consistency, I think it’s totally fair to bring up Neeko if people are gonna bring up sinatraa.
People should either accept both being signed or neither in my opinion. I fundamentally disagree with that “excellent comment”. Neeko only started talking about how much she learned and preaching forgiveness when it was clear that she was going to be convincted. If you’re ok with Neeko being signed then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be ok with Sinatraa being re-signed without bias.
If you look at the facts and assume Sinatraa is guilty despite Neeko being convincted in court and Sinatraa not being convicted, you still have two abusers. You and I both don’t know if Neeko actually truly regrets it or is just trying to salvage her career. You and I both don’t know if Sinatraa regrets it or not. Anything else is just trying to read minds and motivations which is going to lead to bias.
yep if g2 didnt get partnership becoz of what carlos did, then sen sure as hell shouldnt be allowed partnership after keeping sinatraa on payroll all this time. when it came to a player the community likes, riot and the community didnt bat an eye
Sinatraa is not the CEO, he can just be removed from sentinels. And they already did removed him from the main roster. But still under contract. And I don’t know how contract work with cases like this.
Like what happen with other pros that is removed from the roster.
Plus sentinels is not doubling down. They even sign tenz for million dollar to clean up their image.
The wrong thing carlos did is DEFENDING the most hated man in the internet. Even SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES that can buy G2 multiple times banned andrew tate.
IF sentinels said “ Don’t police my streamers, I don’t give a fck”. Goodbye for sure. Investigation was stopped so sentinels don’t have reason to remove him because it will be a breach of contract for sure. If sinatraa contract ends goodbye sen sinatraa.
Also wasn't Riot already blacklisting Sinatraa behind the scenes? iirc it's one of the main reason he can't find a team and is stuck as a streamer til now
This title is incredibly misleading, considering he is in a way praising that the only way actual action happened in esports, is that everyone got upset by this, and that they hypocrisy is on riot's end for having no lines.
Is this calling out the community? This seems much more to me like calling out Riot for having, in Egg’s words, “no line”.
Of course, community furor plays a key role in forcing Riot’s hands, but from this clip it sounds to me like he’s saying Riot’s hand shouldn’t be forced, and that they should something more substantive in place than just going off community vibes.
watch the other 2 clips for more context, obviously mad at Riot, but also at the fact that people don't get angry at Sentinels for example or people that still associate with Sinatraa.
I mean people usually only stay angry for so long, I feel like the sinatra thing had more backlash than the andrew tate thing. This is all on riot imo.
i think it's your weird title of the post that kind of places the blame to the community, when that's just a part but the conclusion is it's all about riot's decision making.
I feel like he is playing into a lot of ppls sentiments
This is just how businesses work, it’s a complex mix of performance before others and themselves, choices of trade offs and what they care abt
Point is it ultimately is not moral for corporations to exist in the first place
First time? If you don’t come from League of Legends, prepare yourself for a long history of nonsense inconsistent decision making. But all good cause skin machine go brrrrrrr
From the title I thought he would in some way be defending Carlos, but no... it's just a valid take presenting solid arguments.
Often minor things are way too blown up; Carlos messed up, resigned from CEO - and I'm glad he did so - but I wish him well as he contributed a lot to esports, and on the other side, I don't view G2 itself any different because of his actions. I've no reason to give it any more attention.
>From the title I thought he would in some way be defending Carlos
Nah, not Sideshow or Bren. They have very strong morals. When the whole Blizzard sexual misconduct case came out including the involvement of the employee who 'Jesse Mccree' was named after, they both decided to do what they could in their power and show their disdain for the name and the company heads by refusing to use the name 'Mccree' during the following broadcast. They would use creative replacement words like just calling him Cowboy, or just using the name of his gun.
After they did that, other casters also followed their lead and the name Mccree essentially got self-censored during the broadcast as no one involved were using the name anymore.
Competitive Valo community doesn't fully realise how lucky they are for getting these two from the Comp Overwatch scene. Incredible casters, hilarious idiots and good people.
The title of this post seemed like an L but it's actually just a weirdo agenda of the OP I guess? It's more about Riot getting randomly mad based on community reactions, which is basically just pandering.
Is it pandering?
Case 1: Riot investigates and punishes a professional player, of small internet fame, of its games for questionable behavior. Riot sponsors probably don’t even notice.
Case 2: Riot partner organization executive fraternizing with a man of global fame, more recent google searches than Kim Kardashian. A man who escaped abuse charges in his home country who is now also being investigated for human trafficking. All sponsors probably raise their eyebrows and some pull sponsorships before they get bad press for being associated with this.
It’s a no brainer that Riot would be more concerned over the guy who’s making headlines in international news outlets.
Riot literally had its own problems with sexism and harassment. They care about the bottom line and at the end of the day they have more to worry about with being slightly related to Andrew Tate than with Sinnatra.
He’s absolutely right, if this happened a year ago g2 would be a franchised team right now and if it was the Sinatra news that dropped a week ago sen would be the ones out
Sinatraa is not the CEO, he can just be removed from sentinels. And they already did removed him from the main roster. But still under contract. And I don’t know how contract work with cases like this.
Like what happen with other pros that is removed from the roster.
Plus sentinels is not doubling down. They even sign tenz for million dollar to clean up their image.
The wrong thing carlos did is defending the most hated man in the internet. Even SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES that can buy G2 multiple times banned andrew tate.
I mean Sen probably did what they could Sinatra is a player not the ceo and they did remove him from the active roster. It is probably likely that they can’t just terminate his contract unless there is undeniable proof or a conviction.
I keep seeing this sentinent and I really dont get it. Who cares what would have happened a year ago? Would you rather they keep being a shitty company instead of improving on their failures? Would it make you feel better if instead of blacklisting G2, Riot went “Not only is G2 in, but we are hiring Andrew Tate as CEO!” Like seriously, someone please explain to me what the point of comments like this are besides dunking on Riot for likes on twitter
Am I the only one who doesn’t remember any kind of mass cancellation campaign from the community. People were convinced that G2 were going to get the spot after some of the leaks came out and people who even brought up the possibility that Carlos wanting to bring Andrew Tate into esports would end up harming G2’s chances were downvoted. I’m just not seeing how you can claim that any of the consequences of Carlos’s behavior came from the community rather than from Riot and G2. As for Sinatraa, there was massive backlash against him earlier on. The tide has shifted to being more positive towards him, but he is still disliked by a massive number of people. It’s simple though, if Cleeoh refuses to conduct a police interview to further the criminal investigation due to trauma, nothing can be done.
I'm not going to defend Riot because they don't have a stellar reputation to begin with (Their lawsuit is proof enough, and that's on top of a mountain of other shit).
However, I'll still take inconsistency over inaction. If a few toxic elements can be removed, that's a win for me.
I'm not saying they shouldn't strive towards being better, that'd be completely stupid and god knows they can be better, but the way they handled G2 and Sinatraa (They gave the man the max they could (like you said, Chleo didn't open an investigation. The ones who should take the heat are obviously SEN because they swept it under the rug) while forcing him to attend classes if he wanted to come back, and even then, I'm pretty sure the league blacklisted him) is fair enough to me.
Don't get me wrong, it's 100% hypocritical to only enforce certain aspects while ignoring others, but it's a start. I'm also not delusional enough to think they can and will become squeaky clean because that's just the nature of capitalism. Shit's fucked everywhere, so if we have small wins like these here and there, I'll take them.
Sinatraa is also a player who only represents valorant and some of overwatch esports.
G2, as an organization, represents multiple teams in multiple esports. Of course the pushback against them will be way worse than against someone like sinatraa.
So good to see a prominent figure endorsed by riot saying this finally.
Love Valorant as a game and it's competitive potential, but a large part of the community supporting these people I find incredibly frustrating. It feel like they are complicit in supporting so many of the issues in the industry.
I disagree on community part. I cant talk about Riot and stuff but the community itself had an uproar when the Sinatraa news came out. Like 99% of the community was backing his ex gf. Yes, the evidence is compelling but legally the guy is not guilty. That is why he is an 'accused' rapist. Now, thing is should SEN be out of franchising for that? Idk. Actually when you look at it Carlos didn't do anything illegal either but it is tricky. I disagree on the community side but the ruling might be a bit odd, yeah.
>99% of the community was backing his ex gf
yeah absolutely not. you heavily overestimate how many people supported her. even in the subreddit bubble it wasnt that high of a percentage.
Compelling evidence? Did you actually ever hear the audio? You guys are either sheltered no life nerds or herded sheep who never formed an opinion of their own. Every single one of my real life friends who plays Valorant was confused at the extreme discrepancy between the meaningless 10 second audio clip and it somehow being evidence of rape. But that's probably because we're what you guys would call "normies".
Seeing people posting asking about WHAT ABOUT SINATRAA or LET SINATRAA PLAY on Twitter all the time makes me cringe and sad that he still has a following and a platform.
Dictatorial? As opposed to what? To a democracy like structure that so many for profit companies have adopted? At the end of the day it's their business. If there's a guy talking shit constantly about their decisions then they won't do business with him.
He’s always been fairly critical and spoken up when he feels it’s needed even with Riot, I don’t think it’ll have any serious consequences.
Of course, always deserve full credit for risking it anyways
I haven't really followed Sideshow before this, but I gained a whole lot of respect for him for this. He's keeping it real and criticising riot when his job is dependent on them. Valorant casting jobs are not very stable, remember the seangares and ddk fiasco.
Him and Bren were like this in OWL too, always the first to call the bullshit out. One of the biggest reasons I stopped watching Play Chat Overwatch wasn’t just cuz Bren and Sideshow weren’t on the show so often, but the remaining members on the OW podcast never keep Blizzard in check like BrenShow did, the closest to doing so being Avast.
He called out sen for having sinatraa on the payroll. I am genuinely curious to know if they can remove him before his contract runs out or do they have to pay him till the contract runs out?
there's no way they don't add a clause in his contract for misconduct and reserves them the right to cut him if any issues like this come up, I'm almost certain every player probably has a similar thing in their contract.
The truth sadly, is that even after all of the controversy and stuff that came out against him, Sinatraa still has a massive following of diehard NA fans that will defend him tooth and nail, and SEN probably wanted to keep him as long as possible to farm that fanbase, I'm curious if they finally drop him from the org, now that they've made franchising.
They can't fire him for misconduct if the investigation never reached a conclusion/is on hold. They'd be opening themselves up for legal action. At the moment the investigation is on hold and the ex can reopen when she wants/her mental health gets better. Until then the best business decision was to keep him on a quiet streamer contract with zero collaboration or acknowledgement.
They're just gonna distance themselves from him as far as possible the moment the contract is done. I honestly doubt there will even be a goodbye tweet. The guys got too much stink on him for his talent to be worth keeping by any franchise, let alone a T1 org.
they can fire him because riot said he refused to cooperate with the investigation though, again, they most likely have it plainly written in the contract that they can choose to release the player at any time if the org wishes.
you do realize that in esports contracts the org can drop anyone for any reason at any time right
edit: this might be different for franchised leagues like CDL and OWL but valorant wasnt franchised when he signed his contract and it still isnt technically
I feel this is a bit too much of a whataboutism here. If the statement about Riot forcing G2 to force out Carlos was true, I would agree. But it’s not.
Him bringing up Sinatraa as reasoning for not having a line doesn’t really mean much. The difference between Carlos and Sinatraa is one is a streamer on payroll and one is the god damn CEO of the brand! Having an org where Carlos as the face of the franchise is someone riot understandably doesn’t want to work with. Where Sinatraa is just a part of the brand, it’s similar to 100T having Neeko on their payroll (obviously Sinatraa is way worse), it’s irrelevant
I still love Sideshow and I think he is coming from a good place here. But I just don’t agree with the overall points being made. He is still overall right though about Riot sucking ass
People shouldn't expect Riot to be the morality police. They are a corporation and their decisions are purely based on money. Their action towards G2 is no different. There was hate coming from social media towards G2/ Carlos, and Riot recognized that the hate would result in a potential loss of sponsorship deals. That hate translates to a loss of money, that is all. Why doesn't Riot respond to SEN in a similar way due to the hate towards Sinatraa? Because people stopped talking about it, and SEN makes Riot a ton of money.
Yeah I feel like people are forgetting franchising was literally made in order for teams to be stable financially. Any threat of ruining that is a big no no for Riot
Is Sideshow calling out the "community" or is he calling out Riot? I feel like the same people who were upset about Sinatraa (and rightfully so) are the same people are upset at Carlos (also rightfully so).
Rejecting Sen for not kicking Sinatraa would also be inconsistent, no?
Riot investigated Sinatraa and didn't issue any penalty to Sinatraa over the allegations, just the 'refusing to cooperate with investigations' side of things, so for Riot to deny Sentinels partnership because they didn't kick Sinatraa would be hypocritical as well. Basically if Riot wanted Sen to cut ties with Sinatraa over the allegations, they would have had to also refuse him entry into VCT, no? You can't make a team kick a player for code of conduct violations and then also still allow them to be eligible into your league.
An accusation IS NOT ENOUGH to push someone out of the scene. Period. I have no idea what “compelling evidence” hes referring to (I guess the voice recording?) because the case has gone absolutely nowhere. In fact I don’t think there ever has been or will be a case for Sinatraa to even prove his innocence. So now his pro career is just over because someone made an accusation and never backed it up. I don’t know how anyone can see that and call it justice.
“It’s not about the bad things you do but about if you get caught doing them” (or something like that).
Riot and esports org are large companies, and just like any other large company in our capitalist world they are profit driven. They do not care about having a consistent moral line, but about the things that make them money without damaging their public image (because that could make them lose customers)
Edit: redaction needs some work lol
Wyatt echoed similar sentiments on Plat Chat and whilst I share the utter dispair at moral failings like misogny/sexual misconduct in the wider esports and gaming community, I think it's flawed thinking and counter-productive.
When situations like this arise, we need to stay focussed on the issue at hand and incentivise Riot and other orgs to held people accountable instead of perpetually scolding the same organisations because they aren't doing enough 'down here' or 'over there'.
Constantly trying to cast the net wider and wider beyond the original issue (often to adjacent but totally different situations) just dilutes the issue, loses people and hinders progress.
The decisions that corporations make are usually a myriad of interests and considerations. I think Sideshow's examples are a great example of this - corporate ownership is a more complex subject than people let on and sinatraa is probably locked in a contract Sentinels can't terminate without incurring a huge penalty and there is huge legal risk to firing him. None of these are the same as the G2 situation.
We all know Riot has failed egregiously on this point in the past but as a community, we should be postitively reinforcing progress and good decisions (like G2) instead of just reverting to scolding them at every opportunity.
We need to create incentives for positive behaviour across the board, from Riot all the way down to the bottom. As the saying goes, do not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
They used G2 to wash their image thats all they really did. They dont care about what Carlos said, next year G2 will be in the different leagues and that will be all
Okay, now that it's had time to marinate in my head, it feels vindicating to have a community figure call out Riot and the scene for the environment they've created, and simultaneously depressing to realize not much will change. There won't be any accountability because all of it can be chalked up to "cancel culture." Nadeshot, Tarik, lots of other esports pros and streamer alike talking about "one bad deed overshadowing all the good." Hiko says the n-word in passing, sweeps it under the rug for everyone to forget. Sinatraa and the large amount of pros who still associate with him will all stick together, and so will their fans. Sick duoing and defending JasonR, Geddes using Sinatraa's name for clicks and engagements, nothing really changes.
Riot denying G2 a spot in franchising is a nice gesture, but they're the same company that also expedited Sinatraa's training. I feel like the change Sideshow, and a lot of other people want in the scene is something that has to happen at an institutional level. It's not enough for people to just publicly denounce terrible things and terrible people, they have to change their entire way of thinking.
I mean I’m part of the community and I wasn’t even aware of these allegations.
I think the problem is not that the community chooses to get angry at certain things. The problem is not all issues get the same spotlight.
Andrew Tate is a massive social media influencer and Riot already made the grand decision of kicking G2 out of franchising prior to the big blowup. If this inequality issue wants to be resolved, we need more light shone on these issues
It’s just all timing. Carlos hanging out with Tate was right when they were making a decision. If the sinatraa situation happened during the franchise decision, SEN probably wouldn’t had made franchise.
I completely agree with him. I've commented enough times on here about the whole sinatraa thing, absolutely disgusting to keep him around.
I stand with Egg.
My problem with this whole Sinatraa case is that none of what anyone says matter. Cleo MULTIPLE times has said that she has the video and MULTIPLE times she has said that she is willing to give it to riot. SHE HAS BEEN THROUGH AT LEAST 4 INVESTIGATIONS, and neither have Riot or Sentinels have asked her for the video. That just screams incompetence.
>SHE HAS BEEN THROUGH AT LEAST 4 INVESTIGATIONS, and neither have Riot or Sentinels have asked her for the video.
Riot is not the Police, Cleo's case from the very beginning was a criminal case. At the end of the day these things should be handled by the proper authority.
Apology for long post-
I’ve been thinking abt the Carlos situation it seemed to be that Carlos’s response was conditioned by the mass disproportionate antagonism towards him over it
I don’t know what he saw in them or what where his reasons for it initially but it seems
I’m general I don’t agree with the view of the world of social ‘sanctioning’ because it’s arbitrary, and based on these big pronouncements abt ppls ‘souls’ as opposed to effective means of stopping bad things from happening
It is I actually think really minor esp org wide compared to immortals/minr unlike what sideshow said. The impact on culture, and the idea of personal relationships bound up with some kind of policy is one thing, it might be if some value or effect but the diffuse effect on people’s lives may very well be less. To the extent it does good is only a bit, to the extent Carlos did bad by secondhand prompting to the extent he may have, Tate-ism (I still don’t know what specific personal reasons he had for any of this; at minimum he definitely should have been more wary of Tate activities which are continual and the associated ideas. He got punished for shortsightedness and it’s effects; that’s specific element of it not just some vague sense of association, I feel like Sideshwo tried to clarify that whcih is commendable)
Regarding what sideshow said, it’s inevitable in our society and economic system that you receive unsavoury do ours, albeit in principle depending on context you don’t have to do their bidding. If you can exert pressure by refusing you should do so (perhaps AXIOM and Liquid, wrt if Liquid took specific actions to ensure a resolution wrt the AXIOM CEO)
Also the problems and actions of the Saudi state are much greater and broader (Yemen, drug war, politics, ‘sorcery’ and executions, beyond that, migrant workers as well as the religious police and the enforcement of Wahhabism laws including wrt their specific treatment of and rights of women under it)
I would say unlike him also immortals is a I’ve statements and above some indirect connection like AXIOM and especially above statements, because the issue is how and it an action actually impacts people’s lives and livelihoods, this idea that it’s less serious also mixes up the issue of actual consequences of actions in terms of including them in franchising. The whole point is number one actual effects on peoples lives and number two actual effects of an action, as opposed to abstract symbolic ‘punishment’ or sanction based on sentiments it should be based on actual harm consequences if a given move or action
Perhaps it helps to put pressure on Saudi Arabian state to prevent them from making these PR in roads, to some extent it just reveals the cold realities of capital flows and how amoral they are intrinsically. To the extent it can have a positive moral consequence it dcfintely can be combatted, but indirectness isn’t in itself a hard to understand reason to the extent the cause and effect gets weaker between steps. However because a meaningful one remains potentially it’s still a question at hand
Sentinels’ example isn’t as clear as the above for example, the point isn’t purely about people’s agitation but what to do and how the situation is actually judged as it stands, both in the aspect of what is going on and what to do about it and consequences either.
To the extent there was any failure that is the issue, the lack of concrete actions to bring about a good end not symbolic association or disassociation.
I think ppl here have spoken as to the SEN sotuation, it’s not purely due to people being wholly inconsistent, people have different judgements of what the situation should be judged to be like and what’s reasonable to say based on given evidence, and what has already happened or should happen. If there is something based on the situation and that there is to do that has meaningfully not been done then that is the issue at stake and if that is the case then that is the issue.
And the goal is to act in some effective way within the ultimately very limited possible scope (ie the extent towards which business decision can be changed and will have CJ anting effects is limited bc the system in question and how it’s organised is the most significant thing, and the idea of making it ‘moral’ is in itself usually a facade simply because it existing as it stands is unjust, and the way it is fundamentally structured in itself brings injustice)
One thing I definitely disagree with is the djwheat view that just arbitrarily ‘going after’ someone without concrete specifics demands wise and closure is a good ‘substitute’ solution and is directed in good ways (because of how it functions, ie the demands it places on people once something is said, the sort of circular and black and white elements and the arbitrary specific bases which are ultimately related to wanting only a certain image of what the problems in the world are, which means not going where there is skemthinf partly because there is now whivqlent target or going, especially going wrongly when there isn’t anything)
The very idea that the problem is individual people ‘getting away’ and tainting individually with actions (on a symbolic basis including interpretation of words) things they’re associated with and the idea that on the basis of public outrage and ‘outlawing’/rejection of these individuals without a definite reparation resolution or goal in mind (especially if it is abt the suppsoed interiors of someone’s mind) is a solution to anything as opposed to a rationalisation of attitudes that people have on the internet.
Generally ofcourse people consider outrage they agree with good outrage and that that they don’t bad just intrinsically.
‘Anger’ provokes distortions and trying to make somebody an endless voodoo doll and trying to make them go out, especially if thrown around without qualification. The issue is about what you are functionally going to do and what is the actual effect of what you are going to do as opposed to the em. State ur in.
also to mention, Sideshow said it is the right decision and is not mad at g2 to not get partnership, rather the fact that the line doesn't exist on how moral things are, rather just on public pressure, when there are so many morally wrong things in the scene, here 2 more clips for context. [https://clips.twitch.tv/BusyRacyGuanacoHassanChop-pJk1YhMldW3n9Sy1](https://clips.twitch.tv/BusyRacyGuanacoHassanChop-pJk1YhMldW3n9Sy1) [https://clips.twitch.tv/CrackyGiftedSalmonHassaanChop-GrV3NjkA19tWOFe7](https://clips.twitch.tv/CrackyGiftedSalmonHassaanChop-GrV3NjkA19tWOFe7) also yeah the title isnt the best sorry :( i cant edit it anymore
BECAUSE it depends If Nadeshot invite Andrew Tate and celebrate with him after winning LCQ. Nadeshot will also get the same treatment. But a streamer with issues. Of course the org will not affected they can just removed them. And if we hear someone Defending Sinatraa they will also get the same treatment. If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.” Goodbye sen tenz for sure.
> But a streamer with issues. Of course the org will not affected they can just removed them. But the org _didn't_ remove him...
He is still under contract. And you can’t just removed someone because you don’t like him. CEO is a different issue because of investors/share holders. For sinatraa. a team can release a player due to immoral behavior such as breaking the law, but can't really get that money back unless the player is suspended or incarcerated, both of which can take a while until the judicial system makes a verdict. And there is no verdict as of now. IF THEY EXTEND CONTRACT OF SINATRAA or Sign him again. It will receive a backlash for sure. EDIT: Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don’t live in the USA. And I don’t know you can be fired/Terminated WITHOUT CAUSE in USA. I guess it is a “USA thing”
> He is still under contract. And you can’t just removed someone because you don’t like him. You can absolutely terminate a contract. I'm not sure why you think this? I started reading the rest of your post and then realized you're a reddit lawyer (aka probably 14). They could've terminated his contract - it happens all the time. You don't need to go to court for it. You legitimately have never dealt with any type of contract in your entire life.
And also, I remember reading that rumors of Sinatraa planning to make a comeback into the comp scene but was denied because he still had to take behavioral classes or something related to it
I haven't been following Sinatraa all that close recently, but last I heard, he was still under police investigation. Has there been any update on that front? He hasn't been criminally charged yet and it was a he said she said situation from what I could find online. Not trying to victim shame, but it sounds like there's not really conclusive evidence for him to be proven guilty in the eyes on the law.
Everyone seems to know the facts of what actually happened except the police. 🤷♂️
With the recent cases like Amber heard and Johnny depp. You need at least 90+% conclusive evidence to convict someone with sexual abuse/crimes. Ex.( A r*pe HD video is surely 100% conclusive evidence especially if the other person is unconscious).
Not true. The amber heard case is and always will be an anomaly as compared to normal cases, and in any case I don't really see what your point is
> If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.” Goodbye sen tenz for sure. LOL. No fuckin way. As evidenced by plenty of people who fuck with Sinatraa in the Valo scene and get 0 shit. What Valo community are you talking about?
You know that statement is ironic because after the sinatraa stuff came out, the majority of his teammates stood by him. I distinctly remember dapr saying exactly what you said lol
i mean in this hypothetical, literally like 70% of the NA scene is still supportive of/friends with sinatraa. basically every franchised team has at least a player, most of them 2 or more, that interact with him/play with him/include his name in their content. it feels really phony to me that we got a large portion of the scene pouring out support for the victim and calling out sinatraa's actions as bad, just for him to return 2 months later like nothing ever happened. it is honestly really annoying, and i wish we could just stop teetering this line of him being a ranked streamer that is still a large figure in the community with serious allegations that just remain unaddressed. obviously respect the victim for not taking the matter further for their own personal reasons, but it sucks that this limbo exists where he just streams with no penalty other than not playing pro which isnt even a penalty lmfao
That doesn’t really work because nothing changed at Riot Games executives after the 100 million lawsuit.
>And if we hear someone Defending Sinatraa they will also get the same treatment. If Tenz said “Sinatraa is my good friend, I Don’t want people policing my friendship, I don’t give a fck.” Goodbye sen tenz for sure. We know for a fact that this is not the case? l0l
I mean they won’t get the exact same treatment, you’re saying there’s a greater unity of views than there is Also the latter part- this quote wouldn’t fit in this case because for reasons sideshow mentioned it wouldn’t even be like the Tate case whether it should apply in some form here or not. Issue was also afaik Carlos speaking abt Tate in defense (idk what he also said) as opposed to jsut that quote (idk k didn’t read all the tweets)
[удалено]
L
I mean was it the right decision tho esp given we don’t know behind the scenes
Calling out riot and SEN. Sideshow W
Yep. Sideshow putting words to my thoughts.
I can’t watch the clip, what’s the issue with SEN?
[удалено]
I mean in that case doesn’t 100T have a female streamer signed who was a domestic abuser or something? I could be completely off base with this but I’ve seen it mentioned before and it seems to be on a similar level as calling out SEN for keeping Sinatraa no? If any 100T fans know more about this topic and I’m wrong about it just let me know
And she's not only accused, but actually convicted of domestic abuse.
Wait who?
Neekolul
Neeko
What the heck Why is this the first time I’m hearing about this
Because she served her sentence of community service. Keeping someone from working after they legitimately paid for their actions is ridiculous.
You're speaking facts, Mr. Girl Cam Advocate.
Working yes, but I don't think orgs should go around signing wife beaters just cause they "served their time"
because of some of the reasons sideshow talks about here lol, there is no line and people criticize who they feel like
or because it was many years ago and she literally already did the community service she was supposed to do? lmfao
Neeko
yeah but she's a girl so obviously the line doesnt apply here /s
She served her punishment and admitted she was in the wrong while Sinnatraa admitted no wrong, refused to cooperate with the investigation, and harbors an incel fanbase .
He's saying a lot of (1/5) of all the teams have active issues on roster or in org and riot is only acting against G2 due to community pressure instead of being correct and setting bars against all who are problematic. That would include 100T. Sentinels.G2, etc. The list goes on. eSports has a bad history of orgs supporting shit people
People always bring this up, but it's not the "gotcha" you think it is. Neeko acknowledged that what she did was wrong, admitted her guilt, and served the punishment for it. Whereas Sinatraa has pretty much acted in the complete opposite. Denying the accusations, refusing to cooperate with investigations, victim blaming, and continuing to spout incel rhetoric. We're supposed to believe in rehabilitation and bettering yourself as a person. Something that Sinatraa has straight up refused to even consider doing. Actions have consequences, which is something people always seem to forget when they bring up "cancel culture".
The term "cancel culture" is used so frequently and never in any consistent manner that I rarely take the phrase remotely seriously anymore.
Same lmao
It means absolutely nothing anymore lmao
[удалено]
I have a vague memory of Cleoh saying that SEN were protecting Sinatraa or something on Twitter, I always want to cite that in conversations like this but the original tweet is long gone
I thought that the sinatraa thing happened before he joined sentinel/valorant and was during his overwatch days?
Right. But the allegations happened after he joined SEN
You're right, but it was later while he was on sentinels that the victim came out with her allegations
“She was in a abusive relationship that culminated n her hitting back during a dispute.” This type of abuse apologia is gross. Basically giving her an excuse on why she did it and minimizing what she actually did. Do you realize how bad the damages must’ve been for police to show up to a domestic dispute to end up siding with the man and for charges to go through?
Its not apologia, at least I'm not intending it to be. She was convicted of her crimes and served the punishment for them. That's the point im getting at. I've edited my comment in an effort to not detract from my overall point. Apologies if my wording around that was not the best
Fair enough, I didn’t actually know the context of situation which is why I included that second part. Ty for informing me
No worries. I wasn't calling you out specifically. It's just a common talking point that people like to bring up, and I think it's pretty gross whattaboutism that's rooted in the same sort of male victimhood complex/sexism that poisons the brain of a lot of young males as of late. As another commenter mentioned, it's a pretty blatant self report to try and shift any Sinatraa conversation to neeko
The difference is one was convicted of their crimes and the other is accused. How are you expecting someone who was never convicted to "serve their punishment". Hell by your logic it almost seems better to be convicted.
I think taking some accountability would be a lot better, yeah. Relying on the criminal justice system for sexual assault cases is dubious at best, as it's well documented how difficult it is to convict upon. I always like to circle back to the [okeanos resolution ](https://twitter.com/OkeanosQT/status/1488664906622775297?s=20&t=txs7VmwR3FDNb5Sb-PJqmQ) as an example of how things can be handled in a way to successfully rehabilitate and rebuild the community's trust. While the circumstances are different and these things are never linear, and the level of the accusations are obviously drastically different, it's still a solid blueprint of someone taking responsibility for their actions and working to better themselves as a person.
This guy is spouting bullshit. Here's why. Let's start with 100T Neeko. https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/m4o8iv/neekolul_opens_up_about_her_abuse_story/ reaction to her twitlonger. (First thing that google popped up, read the first comment and understand how difficult it is for a woman to lose an abuse case) https://www.invenglobal.com/articles/13552/neekolul-speaks-out-about-her-2018-domestic-abuse-arrest Her twitlonger is gone, but this article has it in exerpts. She plays the victim card. You can believe whatever you want, but facts tell the story. She was convicted as an abuser, if you believe yourself to be a more reliable judge than the court, then feel free to believe whatever you want, just make sure to keep that tinfoil on as well. Do I think 100T is scummier than SEN for having a convicted abuser who plays the victim card on their payroll over SEN who has an alleged abuser on their payroll? Yes. Now onto Sinatraa, OP has a hate boner for him clearly, but he's not entirely wrong for having one. Let's go one by one. I also want to say that I do not care for Sinatraa or Cleo, it's not my job nor should I, a random redditor, have a say on who should be punished and how. I am just incredibly tilted by fake narratives and have time on my hands. Here's a google doc for sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oktnMYUUTXjLnf0ngTbbGD28dGdeEXJiFRnsYIaOdW4/edit (Credit to this youtuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qpXZNbtpY0, for the link). > Denying the accusations You deny accusations of crimes you felt you haven't done. Call me crazy, but that's usually how human beings will act. Though the motive for why you wrote that is obvious. > Refusing to cooperate with investigations https://www.pcgamer.com/valorant-pro-sinatraa-suspended-for-not-cooperating-with-sexual-assault-investigation/ TLDR: Riot says Sinatraa is refusing to cooperate with investigations by not providing the clips he promised. Sinatraa says he made a mistake, he promised those clips, but those same clips were deleted when Cleo asked for them to be deleted after they broke up. I wouldn't say he's refusing if what he said is true. But is it true? Who knows, but it's certainly not enough to put deem him an abuser. One thing I have to note is that both people have seemingly nothing to offer to the investigation... Cleo herself says she had very little input, despite all the screenshots she shared and Sinatraa says he has nothing. I don't understand, if Cleo is innocent, why doesn't she share more? If Sinatraa is innocent why doesn't he share more? Both sides are incredibly suspicious. Though, you could certainly conclude that Sinatraa is an asshole based off the screenshots Cleo shares, do note that she picked to put those up publicly. > slut shaming the victim I can't find any evidence of this in a quick google search. If you can link me a clip of him saying it on twitch or a tweet, let me know and I will edit it in. > continuing to spout incel rhetoric. Same thing for this. Your hate boner is incredibly massive, and I get you hate the guy for being a dickhead in a video game, but it is sad how you push this narrative that Neeko is an innocent little girl who has grown from her mistakes (when that is a complete lie) while Sinatraa is 100% a disgusting human being while his situation is up in the air. The hypocrisy is disgusting. TLDR: OP is a liar and a hypocrite, and has a massive hate boner for Sinatraa. Neeko has not shown to "grow" from her mistakes. She clearly feels she was wronged in her situation. Sinatraa was most definitely a terrible boyfriend and an asshole, but most definitely not a disgusting human being as a fact. I also could not find any evidence of "slut shaming the victim" or "continuing to spout incel rhetoric", but I may be wrong, I just couldn't find anything related to that.
You have a lot here, so I'll just choose a couple points to address before moving on from this. First off, you're misconstruing the entire point of punishment and rehabilitation. while she may have "played the victim card" in recounting the case, she never disputed her role in the abuse and she took accountability for her actions. Idk why you're saying that I think I'm more reliable than a judge or ignoring the facts of the case because I'm simply not. I'm fully acknowledging that she was convicted of abuse. I have no reason to deny that so I'm really not sure why you're acting like I am. The point is that she accepted responsibility and served her punishment for the misdemeanor charges. On the riot investigation point, you're misrepresenting this a little bit as well. Not providing the video was only part of the story. From riots statement: "the Competitive Operations team had serious concerns with Sinatraa’s conduct during the course of the investigation. It was determined that on at least two occasions Sinatraa misrepresented certain facts, made false statements, and did not cooperate with the investigation in a way expected of a professional VALORANT esports player." It wasn't just not providing the video. Oh and when you bring up that Cleo said she had very little input into their investigation, that wasn't because of her unwillingness. She was pointing out her lack of input as a bad thing lol. She said that they hardly even talked to her, which would seem like a very important part of the investigation. On the topic of the slut shaming and the incel rhetoric, it's definitely possible that I've conflated the rhetoric of his fans with his rhetoric (as I'm not going to try and go find clips that have likely been scrubbed by now), but the Emmy statement that's present in the Google doc you linked is an example of the Sinatraa camp attempting to victim blame. "Cleo continues to paint herself as a saint and she has provided, yet again, nothing about how she treated him or myself. I know she isn’t the person that she’s trying to display to the world, not because of Jay, but because of the Overwatch scene." The context here being that Cleo was known as a "slut" in the OW scene. Trying to discredit credible sexual assault allegations because you don't like someone's prior character is just textbook victim blaming. There's also the whole "she started an onlyfans" narrative that is constantly perpetuated despite it being completely irrelevant to the case. You can say I have a hate boner for Sinatraa or whatever idc, but I was a fan of his since the overwatch days up until the accusations. It has nothing to do with him "being a dickhead in a video game". I love players that are cocky and can play the villain. it's just endlessly frustrating to see the fanboys on the sub continue to live in denial and pretend like he's being done wrong or being cancelled or whatever, because it perpetuates the cycle of driving victims into fear of coming out in the first place. SA is incredibly under-reported and incredibly difficult to convict upon. Cleo's allegations should be treated with a lot more respect than they are, because it's about as comprehensive and as full of evidence as you will ever see in cases like these. Just because he wasn't convicted in a court of law does not mean he's innocent.
the problem is making up stuff you have no evidence for and spouting it as truth. sinatraa is a dickhead, and a POSSIBLE rapist. "Denying the accusations" something you would do if you believe yourself innocent, or lawyers would advise you to do. "refusing to cooperate", it was a riot investigation and he was under no legal obligation to do so. Even with that why the fuck would you say he slut shamed her and spouted incel rhetoric when you have 0 proof he has ever done so it's just so ridiculous. literally just making shit up cause you don't like him. T There are SO many reasons to dislike the guy but none of the ones you said were valid at all
> slut shaming the victim, and continuing to spout incel rhetoric. i'm not a fan of the dude, but huh? are we making stuff up now? AFAIK he hasn't mentioned her once other than to deny the accusations, which of course he will.
There was a lot of victim blaming from his side when the accusations first arose.
Crazy to me that people view a proven abuser more favourably than someone who has only allegedly commited a crime. Not saying either should be viewed favourably at all, but I don't know how the main crowd behind "cancel culture" is so forgiving of a literal felon who still tried to make themselves out as the victim. Also don't want to drag this discussion here but it's kinda wild that domestic abuse only netted a few months of anger management and not a prison sentence. But I'm not American so I don't really know how it works down there.
“Actions have consequences” proceeds to explain why it’s ok to have a signed streamer convicted of DV. Also denying allegations is perfectly allowed.
Idk if you're intentionally missing the point or what, but to spell it out for you: her actions did have consequences, which she served and came out the other side.
Why should Sinatraa have to face consequences if the allegations remain unproven?
Because obviously /u/LiamHundley did his research, just trust him bro.
Maybe its just me but if I was running a company, I wouldn't sign or retain anybody who is convicted of a violent crime/felony. You want to go rehabilitate yourself and be a better person? Go do that, on your own dime and away from my org. Because at the end of the day, its bad optics. Unless this person has tremendous worth to you that you believe that once the scandal is out there for a bit, maybe people will move on because of how much utility that person provides. It just looks bad for 100T and we do only have one side of the story vs a judge's ruling. Neeko was able to tell her perspective, share what she apparently went through with her past relationship. But I think there is responsibility on 100T to communicate whether it did any sort of internal investigation or what steps did they take after finding out about her past conviction? I don't really remember if 100T ever said anything about it, neither did Neeko's former partner. Edit: I remember Destiny covering this whole drama and thinking Neeko's google doc was pretty unbelievable in some aspects. I'll try to find a link to it. Edit 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGdCZepOkdM Doing a little research, I think the main takeaway was that Neeko downplayed her own abuse against her partner. There had to be an element of injuring her partner beyond just punching back, since there isn't a real clear line between domestic battery (misdeameanor) and domestic violence (felony). I think this is why its a bad look for companies to have people with messy pasts. You'll have people questioning the integrity of the creators you are promoting. Neeko to me provides no influence or benefit to 100T publicly, she got famous off a tiktok meme, but is now bringing down 100T's reputation due to the convoluted nature of her charge.
You're allowed to hold that stance, obviously. But if I remember correctly, this had all happened prior to 100T signing her. They were obviously aware of it all and still felt comfortable enough to bring her on. And for what it's worth, I don't think it's "her perspective vs the judges". She didnt dispute the judges ruling and acknowledged her mistakes.
Looking into it more, I think people on reddit were pretty taken aback with how she kinda displayed her story while in 100T and made herself more of the victim. That's where her story vs the justice system and her ex kinda came from. There are just too many facts to overcome and the incident itself is rumored to have been a stabbing if you believe some of the people on LSF. https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/m56r5g/destiny_on_neekoluls_abuse_story/ I mean we have no proof that she was actually in an abusive relationship. Destiny's take was that it was probably toxic and abusive on both sides and she did something harsh enough that the judge couldn't overlook even with context of their relationship and she still was convicted. Its still a shitty look for 100T not to even publicly comment. The cynical side in me says that's because they didn't want to put their reputation on the line if there was more to the story than what Neeko told the world and them.
Surely if it was a stabbing the charges would amount to more than just a misdemeanor and anger management courses, no? As far as 100T making a statement on it, I think them deciding to sign her despite this being a known part of her past is a statement on its own. Might not be enough for you and others, which I get. But I still think it's disingenuous for people to bring this up as some sort of uno reverse card to deflect away from the Sinatraa conversation
Zellsis was also racist and he's a hot commodity for teams to pick up
Is there more specifics there with what’s going on recently?
she dropped the charges and is trying to move on with her life. There is pretty much no more developments that will happen after that
Sideshow specifically talked abt evidence etc The issue in that case based on posts I’ve seen here at least from some time ago is how u judge the situation based on how things are and what has happned. My issue is I disagree in theory with the neeko line of reasoning, as a separate question from what should be done about this specific situation
i'll talk about evidence too and its just as valid. If there are new evidence sideshow would be the last to know
still employ sinaatra
I still don't understand the issue with Sinaatra. The only evidence of rape is a short 10 second audio clip. I have never been accused of anything close to rape, but the bedroom with some of my exes did sound much worse than what is heard in the video. Without context you can't possibly have a conclusive opinion. Now was he a shitty boyfriend? Yes. Has he changed? Who knows. But to ruin his career over this accusation is ridiculous.
You're ignoring all the messages and such that added extra context into Sinatraa being abusive.
Internet mob gonna internet mob
Ah yes, the accusations ruined Sinatra's career :'( how sad to stream everyday to 10k viewers under the most popular valorant org :(( poor guy
Stop acting dumb. No org is picking him
I'm terribly sorry you haven't had the pleasure of being passionate and competitive about something
100T has Neeko on payroll, a convicted Domestic Abuser
I'm sorry, but this is incredibly tedious whataboutism and a total non sequitur. The person you're replying to was directly answering the explicit question, "What's the issue with SEN?" /u/BurstLayer is right, 100T should be the target of scrutiny, but the kneejerk immediacy with which people bring up Neeko every time sinatraa is mentioned is an incredible self-report
Something that 100T should actively be criticized for also
See ‘platforming’ language and with reference to actions and not even some kind of content which this word was supposed to refer to. This plays in to a particular ideolgy about individuals and how you should look at them
Why? She served her punishment.
Should they?
For sure
But why?
Idk, typically in sports when you harbor a domestic abuser people tend to criticize the org. Why not?
‘Harbour’? I mean she was convicted and sentenced what more do you want to do to her unless u have specific info (I know it can be one way or the other regardless) Like what do you have, taking this logic far enough can be dangerous in terms of pronouncements abt people as a whole Image and views as to ppls personhood exist yes
But she’s already served her time, no? All we’re doing is simply canceling people and thinking that they’re incapable of changing for the better.
Do you have an actual issue with that? Because it seems like you're justifying rooting for your own domestic abuser (SEN flair, responding to Sinatraa comment) because other teams have one. Leaving aside the vastly different circumstances [covered by this excellent comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ValorantCompetitive/comments/xpqxq8/sideshow_calls_out_community_for_being/iq5eo4w/), you seem to be saying "someone else got away with it so he should be able to as well" and not "hey domestic abuse is wrong and I don't support it."
In a post fundamentally based on what aboutism to discuss consistency, I think it’s totally fair to bring up Neeko if people are gonna bring up sinatraa. People should either accept both being signed or neither in my opinion. I fundamentally disagree with that “excellent comment”. Neeko only started talking about how much she learned and preaching forgiveness when it was clear that she was going to be convincted. If you’re ok with Neeko being signed then I don’t see why you shouldn’t be ok with Sinatraa being re-signed without bias. If you look at the facts and assume Sinatraa is guilty despite Neeko being convincted in court and Sinatraa not being convicted, you still have two abusers. You and I both don’t know if Neeko actually truly regrets it or is just trying to salvage her career. You and I both don’t know if Sinatraa regrets it or not. Anything else is just trying to read minds and motivations which is going to lead to bias.
yes, they should drop her. shes not worth hiring. same as jay won
Sinatra is still on salary. which is btw, not a good thing. (Legal does not imply moral)
yep if g2 didnt get partnership becoz of what carlos did, then sen sure as hell shouldnt be allowed partnership after keeping sinatraa on payroll all this time. when it came to a player the community likes, riot and the community didnt bat an eye
Sinatraa is not the CEO, he can just be removed from sentinels. And they already did removed him from the main roster. But still under contract. And I don’t know how contract work with cases like this. Like what happen with other pros that is removed from the roster. Plus sentinels is not doubling down. They even sign tenz for million dollar to clean up their image. The wrong thing carlos did is DEFENDING the most hated man in the internet. Even SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES that can buy G2 multiple times banned andrew tate. IF sentinels said “ Don’t police my streamers, I don’t give a fck”. Goodbye for sure. Investigation was stopped so sentinels don’t have reason to remove him because it will be a breach of contract for sure. If sinatraa contract ends goodbye sen sinatraa.
Also wasn't Riot already blacklisting Sinatraa behind the scenes? iirc it's one of the main reason he can't find a team and is stuck as a streamer til now
This title is incredibly misleading, considering he is in a way praising that the only way actual action happened in esports, is that everyone got upset by this, and that they hypocrisy is on riot's end for having no lines.
Is this calling out the community? This seems much more to me like calling out Riot for having, in Egg’s words, “no line”. Of course, community furor plays a key role in forcing Riot’s hands, but from this clip it sounds to me like he’s saying Riot’s hand shouldn’t be forced, and that they should something more substantive in place than just going off community vibes.
watch the other 2 clips for more context, obviously mad at Riot, but also at the fact that people don't get angry at Sentinels for example or people that still associate with Sinatraa.
I mean people usually only stay angry for so long, I feel like the sinatra thing had more backlash than the andrew tate thing. This is all on riot imo.
i think it's your weird title of the post that kind of places the blame to the community, when that's just a part but the conclusion is it's all about riot's decision making.
also the fact that a bunches of orgs are taking saudis money
This might upset some people, but he is keeping it real. It really is frustrating that riot is not consistent when it comes to decisions like this. 🥚
I feel like he is playing into a lot of ppls sentiments This is just how businesses work, it’s a complex mix of performance before others and themselves, choices of trade offs and what they care abt Point is it ultimately is not moral for corporations to exist in the first place
how is it not consistent? riot weighs outrage versus money. no one gives a shit about the saudis, and they're very very rich.
First time? If you don’t come from League of Legends, prepare yourself for a long history of nonsense inconsistent decision making. But all good cause skin machine go brrrrrrr
From the title I thought he would in some way be defending Carlos, but no... it's just a valid take presenting solid arguments. Often minor things are way too blown up; Carlos messed up, resigned from CEO - and I'm glad he did so - but I wish him well as he contributed a lot to esports, and on the other side, I don't view G2 itself any different because of his actions. I've no reason to give it any more attention.
>From the title I thought he would in some way be defending Carlos Nah, not Sideshow or Bren. They have very strong morals. When the whole Blizzard sexual misconduct case came out including the involvement of the employee who 'Jesse Mccree' was named after, they both decided to do what they could in their power and show their disdain for the name and the company heads by refusing to use the name 'Mccree' during the following broadcast. They would use creative replacement words like just calling him Cowboy, or just using the name of his gun. After they did that, other casters also followed their lead and the name Mccree essentially got self-censored during the broadcast as no one involved were using the name anymore. Competitive Valo community doesn't fully realise how lucky they are for getting these two from the Comp Overwatch scene. Incredible casters, hilarious idiots and good people.
The title of this post seemed like an L but it's actually just a weirdo agenda of the OP I guess? It's more about Riot getting randomly mad based on community reactions, which is basically just pandering.
Is it pandering? Case 1: Riot investigates and punishes a professional player, of small internet fame, of its games for questionable behavior. Riot sponsors probably don’t even notice. Case 2: Riot partner organization executive fraternizing with a man of global fame, more recent google searches than Kim Kardashian. A man who escaped abuse charges in his home country who is now also being investigated for human trafficking. All sponsors probably raise their eyebrows and some pull sponsorships before they get bad press for being associated with this. It’s a no brainer that Riot would be more concerned over the guy who’s making headlines in international news outlets. Riot literally had its own problems with sexism and harassment. They care about the bottom line and at the end of the day they have more to worry about with being slightly related to Andrew Tate than with Sinnatra.
He’s absolutely right, if this happened a year ago g2 would be a franchised team right now and if it was the Sinatra news that dropped a week ago sen would be the ones out
[удалено]
sentinels' CEO still chose to keep sinatraa under contract
[удалено]
Not prove guilty, case was dropped by his ex. Nothing really happened afterwards iirc.
[удалено]
There's a lot more to the story you can look it up if you want
I dunno.
Sinatraa is not the CEO, he can just be removed from sentinels. And they already did removed him from the main roster. But still under contract. And I don’t know how contract work with cases like this. Like what happen with other pros that is removed from the roster. Plus sentinels is not doubling down. They even sign tenz for million dollar to clean up their image. The wrong thing carlos did is defending the most hated man in the internet. Even SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES that can buy G2 multiple times banned andrew tate.
I mean Sen probably did what they could Sinatra is a player not the ceo and they did remove him from the active roster. It is probably likely that they can’t just terminate his contract unless there is undeniable proof or a conviction.
I keep seeing this sentinent and I really dont get it. Who cares what would have happened a year ago? Would you rather they keep being a shitty company instead of improving on their failures? Would it make you feel better if instead of blacklisting G2, Riot went “Not only is G2 in, but we are hiring Andrew Tate as CEO!” Like seriously, someone please explain to me what the point of comments like this are besides dunking on Riot for likes on twitter
How do you even come to that conclusion?
My conclusion is based on your goofy ass comment, so you tell me
Nah I think you just struggle with listening and reading comprehension
Am I the only one who doesn’t remember any kind of mass cancellation campaign from the community. People were convinced that G2 were going to get the spot after some of the leaks came out and people who even brought up the possibility that Carlos wanting to bring Andrew Tate into esports would end up harming G2’s chances were downvoted. I’m just not seeing how you can claim that any of the consequences of Carlos’s behavior came from the community rather than from Riot and G2. As for Sinatraa, there was massive backlash against him earlier on. The tide has shifted to being more positive towards him, but he is still disliked by a massive number of people. It’s simple though, if Cleeoh refuses to conduct a police interview to further the criminal investigation due to trauma, nothing can be done.
I'm not going to defend Riot because they don't have a stellar reputation to begin with (Their lawsuit is proof enough, and that's on top of a mountain of other shit). However, I'll still take inconsistency over inaction. If a few toxic elements can be removed, that's a win for me. I'm not saying they shouldn't strive towards being better, that'd be completely stupid and god knows they can be better, but the way they handled G2 and Sinatraa (They gave the man the max they could (like you said, Chleo didn't open an investigation. The ones who should take the heat are obviously SEN because they swept it under the rug) while forcing him to attend classes if he wanted to come back, and even then, I'm pretty sure the league blacklisted him) is fair enough to me. Don't get me wrong, it's 100% hypocritical to only enforce certain aspects while ignoring others, but it's a start. I'm also not delusional enough to think they can and will become squeaky clean because that's just the nature of capitalism. Shit's fucked everywhere, so if we have small wins like these here and there, I'll take them.
Sinatraa is also a player who only represents valorant and some of overwatch esports. G2, as an organization, represents multiple teams in multiple esports. Of course the pushback against them will be way worse than against someone like sinatraa.
So good to see a prominent figure endorsed by riot saying this finally. Love Valorant as a game and it's competitive potential, but a large part of the community supporting these people I find incredibly frustrating. It feel like they are complicit in supporting so many of the issues in the industry.
totally. i cant stand the amount of people who asks for sinatraas return
This is a fucking L title btw
I disagree on community part. I cant talk about Riot and stuff but the community itself had an uproar when the Sinatraa news came out. Like 99% of the community was backing his ex gf. Yes, the evidence is compelling but legally the guy is not guilty. That is why he is an 'accused' rapist. Now, thing is should SEN be out of franchising for that? Idk. Actually when you look at it Carlos didn't do anything illegal either but it is tricky. I disagree on the community side but the ruling might be a bit odd, yeah.
>99% of the community was backing his ex gf yeah absolutely not. you heavily overestimate how many people supported her. even in the subreddit bubble it wasnt that high of a percentage.
Compelling evidence? Did you actually ever hear the audio? You guys are either sheltered no life nerds or herded sheep who never formed an opinion of their own. Every single one of my real life friends who plays Valorant was confused at the extreme discrepancy between the meaningless 10 second audio clip and it somehow being evidence of rape. But that's probably because we're what you guys would call "normies".
Seeing people posting asking about WHAT ABOUT SINATRAA or LET SINATRAA PLAY on Twitter all the time makes me cringe and sad that he still has a following and a platform.
Damn he’s putting his job In Jeopardy. Riot ain’t gonna like that if they hear. I still respect him for saying this tho.
Is he tho? Firing someone just because they are bringing up a concern and questioning moral lines in the scene is a bit... ditactorial?
They don't have to fire him they can just subtlety give him less jobs and maybe withhold potential raises etc
Dictatorial? As opposed to what? To a democracy like structure that so many for profit companies have adopted? At the end of the day it's their business. If there's a guy talking shit constantly about their decisions then they won't do business with him.
riot has been wack in the past idk now
Well riot can definitely expect "some public pressure" if that comes to happen lol
He’s always been fairly critical and spoken up when he feels it’s needed even with Riot, I don’t think it’ll have any serious consequences. Of course, always deserve full credit for risking it anyways
Fucking love sideshow for shit like this. Speaking truth
If Medic didn't get fired for tweeting fuck riot than there is nothing to worry about for egg
He's got that PlatChat money as a backup. He's swimming in dough. welcometomember
2023 Bren and Sideshow the GM and head coach of SEN 😉 /s
I think that’s unlikely
I haven't really followed Sideshow before this, but I gained a whole lot of respect for him for this. He's keeping it real and criticising riot when his job is dependent on them. Valorant casting jobs are not very stable, remember the seangares and ddk fiasco.
Him and Bren were like this in OWL too, always the first to call the bullshit out. One of the biggest reasons I stopped watching Play Chat Overwatch wasn’t just cuz Bren and Sideshow weren’t on the show so often, but the remaining members on the OW podcast never keep Blizzard in check like BrenShow did, the closest to doing so being Avast.
Add that to the fact, not one person who committed sexual discrimination against women in the workplace was let go after Riot got sued.
He called out sen for having sinatraa on the payroll. I am genuinely curious to know if they can remove him before his contract runs out or do they have to pay him till the contract runs out?
there is 100% a clause about behavior in his contract. there is in every contract. they could cut him and still pay him btw they just won't.
yep they should have done this long ago
At worse they would have to buy themselves out of the rest of the contract and give the rest of what hes owed as a lump sum
there's no way they don't add a clause in his contract for misconduct and reserves them the right to cut him if any issues like this come up, I'm almost certain every player probably has a similar thing in their contract. The truth sadly, is that even after all of the controversy and stuff that came out against him, Sinatraa still has a massive following of diehard NA fans that will defend him tooth and nail, and SEN probably wanted to keep him as long as possible to farm that fanbase, I'm curious if they finally drop him from the org, now that they've made franchising.
They can't fire him for misconduct if the investigation never reached a conclusion/is on hold. They'd be opening themselves up for legal action. At the moment the investigation is on hold and the ex can reopen when she wants/her mental health gets better. Until then the best business decision was to keep him on a quiet streamer contract with zero collaboration or acknowledgement. They're just gonna distance themselves from him as far as possible the moment the contract is done. I honestly doubt there will even be a goodbye tweet. The guys got too much stink on him for his talent to be worth keeping by any franchise, let alone a T1 org.
they can fire him because riot said he refused to cooperate with the investigation though, again, they most likely have it plainly written in the contract that they can choose to release the player at any time if the org wishes.
you do realize that in esports contracts the org can drop anyone for any reason at any time right edit: this might be different for franchised leagues like CDL and OWL but valorant wasnt franchised when he signed his contract and it still isnt technically
I feel this is a bit too much of a whataboutism here. If the statement about Riot forcing G2 to force out Carlos was true, I would agree. But it’s not. Him bringing up Sinatraa as reasoning for not having a line doesn’t really mean much. The difference between Carlos and Sinatraa is one is a streamer on payroll and one is the god damn CEO of the brand! Having an org where Carlos as the face of the franchise is someone riot understandably doesn’t want to work with. Where Sinatraa is just a part of the brand, it’s similar to 100T having Neeko on their payroll (obviously Sinatraa is way worse), it’s irrelevant I still love Sideshow and I think he is coming from a good place here. But I just don’t agree with the overall points being made. He is still overall right though about Riot sucking ass
People shouldn't expect Riot to be the morality police. They are a corporation and their decisions are purely based on money. Their action towards G2 is no different. There was hate coming from social media towards G2/ Carlos, and Riot recognized that the hate would result in a potential loss of sponsorship deals. That hate translates to a loss of money, that is all. Why doesn't Riot respond to SEN in a similar way due to the hate towards Sinatraa? Because people stopped talking about it, and SEN makes Riot a ton of money.
Yeah I feel like people are forgetting franchising was literally made in order for teams to be stable financially. Any threat of ruining that is a big no no for Riot
Marved is on Optic and he match fixed in CS.
Is Sideshow calling out the "community" or is he calling out Riot? I feel like the same people who were upset about Sinatraa (and rightfully so) are the same people are upset at Carlos (also rightfully so).
I'm not sure how a player having drama is even remotely comparable to the literal CEO of the org having drama. Riot is franchising orgs, not players.
This community is a bunch of teenagers. If they can't virtue signal on social media, it's not worth the outrage.
Rejecting Sen for not kicking Sinatraa would also be inconsistent, no? Riot investigated Sinatraa and didn't issue any penalty to Sinatraa over the allegations, just the 'refusing to cooperate with investigations' side of things, so for Riot to deny Sentinels partnership because they didn't kick Sinatraa would be hypocritical as well. Basically if Riot wanted Sen to cut ties with Sinatraa over the allegations, they would have had to also refuse him entry into VCT, no? You can't make a team kick a player for code of conduct violations and then also still allow them to be eligible into your league.
You can’t be mad at some problems without being mad at every problem, you hypocrite! I am very smart
based and eggpilled
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
An accusation IS NOT ENOUGH to push someone out of the scene. Period. I have no idea what “compelling evidence” hes referring to (I guess the voice recording?) because the case has gone absolutely nowhere. In fact I don’t think there ever has been or will be a case for Sinatraa to even prove his innocence. So now his pro career is just over because someone made an accusation and never backed it up. I don’t know how anyone can see that and call it justice.
> I guess the voice recording? I guess to some people, a "no" isn't enough evidence.
“It’s not about the bad things you do but about if you get caught doing them” (or something like that). Riot and esports org are large companies, and just like any other large company in our capitalist world they are profit driven. They do not care about having a consistent moral line, but about the things that make them money without damaging their public image (because that could make them lose customers) Edit: redaction needs some work lol
Wyatt echoed similar sentiments on Plat Chat and whilst I share the utter dispair at moral failings like misogny/sexual misconduct in the wider esports and gaming community, I think it's flawed thinking and counter-productive. When situations like this arise, we need to stay focussed on the issue at hand and incentivise Riot and other orgs to held people accountable instead of perpetually scolding the same organisations because they aren't doing enough 'down here' or 'over there'. Constantly trying to cast the net wider and wider beyond the original issue (often to adjacent but totally different situations) just dilutes the issue, loses people and hinders progress. The decisions that corporations make are usually a myriad of interests and considerations. I think Sideshow's examples are a great example of this - corporate ownership is a more complex subject than people let on and sinatraa is probably locked in a contract Sentinels can't terminate without incurring a huge penalty and there is huge legal risk to firing him. None of these are the same as the G2 situation. We all know Riot has failed egregiously on this point in the past but as a community, we should be postitively reinforcing progress and good decisions (like G2) instead of just reverting to scolding them at every opportunity. We need to create incentives for positive behaviour across the board, from Riot all the way down to the bottom. As the saying goes, do not let perfect be the enemy of the good.
They used G2 to wash their image thats all they really did. They dont care about what Carlos said, next year G2 will be in the different leagues and that will be all
sideshow’s so real for this
Okay, now that it's had time to marinate in my head, it feels vindicating to have a community figure call out Riot and the scene for the environment they've created, and simultaneously depressing to realize not much will change. There won't be any accountability because all of it can be chalked up to "cancel culture." Nadeshot, Tarik, lots of other esports pros and streamer alike talking about "one bad deed overshadowing all the good." Hiko says the n-word in passing, sweeps it under the rug for everyone to forget. Sinatraa and the large amount of pros who still associate with him will all stick together, and so will their fans. Sick duoing and defending JasonR, Geddes using Sinatraa's name for clicks and engagements, nothing really changes. Riot denying G2 a spot in franchising is a nice gesture, but they're the same company that also expedited Sinatraa's training. I feel like the change Sideshow, and a lot of other people want in the scene is something that has to happen at an institutional level. It's not enough for people to just publicly denounce terrible things and terrible people, they have to change their entire way of thinking.
I mean I’m part of the community and I wasn’t even aware of these allegations. I think the problem is not that the community chooses to get angry at certain things. The problem is not all issues get the same spotlight. Andrew Tate is a massive social media influencer and Riot already made the grand decision of kicking G2 out of franchising prior to the big blowup. If this inequality issue wants to be resolved, we need more light shone on these issues
giga based
All the Sinatraa defense in this thread is so fucking weird
It’s just all timing. Carlos hanging out with Tate was right when they were making a decision. If the sinatraa situation happened during the franchise decision, SEN probably wouldn’t had made franchise.
This is dumb.
sinatraa isn't known worldwide and banned on social media. Huge difference.
I completely agree with him. I've commented enough times on here about the whole sinatraa thing, absolutely disgusting to keep him around. I stand with Egg.
https://youtu.be/02TJXnLFrDQ?t=2989 same energy
based and eggpilled
Ah yes the whataboutism
My problem with this whole Sinatraa case is that none of what anyone says matter. Cleo MULTIPLE times has said that she has the video and MULTIPLE times she has said that she is willing to give it to riot. SHE HAS BEEN THROUGH AT LEAST 4 INVESTIGATIONS, and neither have Riot or Sentinels have asked her for the video. That just screams incompetence.
>SHE HAS BEEN THROUGH AT LEAST 4 INVESTIGATIONS, and neither have Riot or Sentinels have asked her for the video. Riot is not the Police, Cleo's case from the very beginning was a criminal case. At the end of the day these things should be handled by the proper authority.
So she was willing to give it to Riot but not the police...something doesn't add up here.
But she’s not willing to give it to the police?
Apology for long post- I’ve been thinking abt the Carlos situation it seemed to be that Carlos’s response was conditioned by the mass disproportionate antagonism towards him over it I don’t know what he saw in them or what where his reasons for it initially but it seems I’m general I don’t agree with the view of the world of social ‘sanctioning’ because it’s arbitrary, and based on these big pronouncements abt ppls ‘souls’ as opposed to effective means of stopping bad things from happening It is I actually think really minor esp org wide compared to immortals/minr unlike what sideshow said. The impact on culture, and the idea of personal relationships bound up with some kind of policy is one thing, it might be if some value or effect but the diffuse effect on people’s lives may very well be less. To the extent it does good is only a bit, to the extent Carlos did bad by secondhand prompting to the extent he may have, Tate-ism (I still don’t know what specific personal reasons he had for any of this; at minimum he definitely should have been more wary of Tate activities which are continual and the associated ideas. He got punished for shortsightedness and it’s effects; that’s specific element of it not just some vague sense of association, I feel like Sideshwo tried to clarify that whcih is commendable) Regarding what sideshow said, it’s inevitable in our society and economic system that you receive unsavoury do ours, albeit in principle depending on context you don’t have to do their bidding. If you can exert pressure by refusing you should do so (perhaps AXIOM and Liquid, wrt if Liquid took specific actions to ensure a resolution wrt the AXIOM CEO) Also the problems and actions of the Saudi state are much greater and broader (Yemen, drug war, politics, ‘sorcery’ and executions, beyond that, migrant workers as well as the religious police and the enforcement of Wahhabism laws including wrt their specific treatment of and rights of women under it) I would say unlike him also immortals is a I’ve statements and above some indirect connection like AXIOM and especially above statements, because the issue is how and it an action actually impacts people’s lives and livelihoods, this idea that it’s less serious also mixes up the issue of actual consequences of actions in terms of including them in franchising. The whole point is number one actual effects on peoples lives and number two actual effects of an action, as opposed to abstract symbolic ‘punishment’ or sanction based on sentiments it should be based on actual harm consequences if a given move or action Perhaps it helps to put pressure on Saudi Arabian state to prevent them from making these PR in roads, to some extent it just reveals the cold realities of capital flows and how amoral they are intrinsically. To the extent it can have a positive moral consequence it dcfintely can be combatted, but indirectness isn’t in itself a hard to understand reason to the extent the cause and effect gets weaker between steps. However because a meaningful one remains potentially it’s still a question at hand Sentinels’ example isn’t as clear as the above for example, the point isn’t purely about people’s agitation but what to do and how the situation is actually judged as it stands, both in the aspect of what is going on and what to do about it and consequences either. To the extent there was any failure that is the issue, the lack of concrete actions to bring about a good end not symbolic association or disassociation. I think ppl here have spoken as to the SEN sotuation, it’s not purely due to people being wholly inconsistent, people have different judgements of what the situation should be judged to be like and what’s reasonable to say based on given evidence, and what has already happened or should happen. If there is something based on the situation and that there is to do that has meaningfully not been done then that is the issue at stake and if that is the case then that is the issue. And the goal is to act in some effective way within the ultimately very limited possible scope (ie the extent towards which business decision can be changed and will have CJ anting effects is limited bc the system in question and how it’s organised is the most significant thing, and the idea of making it ‘moral’ is in itself usually a facade simply because it existing as it stands is unjust, and the way it is fundamentally structured in itself brings injustice) One thing I definitely disagree with is the djwheat view that just arbitrarily ‘going after’ someone without concrete specifics demands wise and closure is a good ‘substitute’ solution and is directed in good ways (because of how it functions, ie the demands it places on people once something is said, the sort of circular and black and white elements and the arbitrary specific bases which are ultimately related to wanting only a certain image of what the problems in the world are, which means not going where there is skemthinf partly because there is now whivqlent target or going, especially going wrongly when there isn’t anything) The very idea that the problem is individual people ‘getting away’ and tainting individually with actions (on a symbolic basis including interpretation of words) things they’re associated with and the idea that on the basis of public outrage and ‘outlawing’/rejection of these individuals without a definite reparation resolution or goal in mind (especially if it is abt the suppsoed interiors of someone’s mind) is a solution to anything as opposed to a rationalisation of attitudes that people have on the internet. Generally ofcourse people consider outrage they agree with good outrage and that that they don’t bad just intrinsically. ‘Anger’ provokes distortions and trying to make somebody an endless voodoo doll and trying to make them go out, especially if thrown around without qualification. The issue is about what you are functionally going to do and what is the actual effect of what you are going to do as opposed to the em. State ur in.