That's interesting. Why does being more involved in esports change your moral responsibility? If image washing is equally harmful regardless of the medium, shouldn't the same principle apply even outside of esports?

I understand the sportswashing argument. I'm curious though, what specifically makes watching the event contribute to the sportswashing? Is it that the event gives Saudi Arabia positive publicity, that viewers are indirectly legitimizing the government, or that you think individuals have a responsibility not to participate in events tied to human rights abuses?

That's fair. Sounds like the timing/competitive fatigue is probably the biggest reason you wouldn't watch, with the Saudi sponsorship being an additional turnoff?

For the state sponsorship part, is your issue more that it's Saudi Arabia specifically because of their record, or that you generally think governments using esports/sports for reputation building is problematic?

That's an interesting distinction. So your objection is less about Saudi specifically and more about governments having influence over competitive sports/esports in general?

Is the issue that you think governments shouldn't be involved because it creates unfair advantages, turns competitions into political tools, or because you think sports should be completely independent from governments?

I think I understand your distinction better now. It sounds like your argument is less "companies with wrongdoing vs. governments with wrongdoing" and more that the severity and nature of the wrongdoing matter, especially when the entity itself (the government) is responsible rather than individual actors within an organization.

My question then is where you draw the line. At what point does an organization's wrongdoing become severe enough that supporting their events becomes morally unacceptable? And is the government/corporation distinction the main factor, or is it primarily the severity of the actions?

I get the distinction you're making. My question is why government vs. corporation is the morally relevant line.

If a company knowingly tolerated systemic abuse and then used a massive esports event to repair its image, would that be okay because it's a company and not a government?

I'm genuinely trying to understand where the line is.

Since we're on VLR, I assume most of us—including me—still follow Riot's esports. That's why I'm curious: what makes watching VCT acceptable considering Riot's previous Sexual Harrasment scandals but watching EWC cross the ethical line?

What makes it morally dubious to you? Is it Saudi Arabia specifically, the fact that it's state-sponsored, the idea of sportswashing, or something else?

can you elaborate on those morals?

If EWC replaced Champions and had the exact same teams and prestige, would your opinion change? I'm trying to separate whether your issue is with the tournament itself or with Saudi sponsorship.

That's fair. Is your objection that it's state-sponsored specifically, or that it's Saudi Arabia specifically?

For example, if another government with a better human rights record funded a similar event, would you have the same issue?

Genuine question.

For those choosing not to watch EWC, what ethical principle are you using?

Is it:

that consumers shouldn't support organizations with serious ethical issues,
that state-sponsored events are fundamentally different from corporate ones,
that sportswashing creates a unique obligation to boycott,
or something else?

I'm watching because I enjoy high-level Valorant, but I'm interested in understanding where people draw the line.

actually got fucking scammed out of 2 seed. We have h2h against FUR and better map diff + round diff what is that bullshit

yes he would

edit made

Didn't know his alias used to be Babo

yes he wasnt at 2024 kickoff

ur right edit made

Wasn't with Vision Strikers in Reykjavik qualifier

I checked and he wasn't with C9 for the Reykjavik qualifier

Guys I said HAS NOT WON AN INTERNATIONAL

I was thinking about the fact that we've seen this esport for 5 years now and there are very few players now that have been in the Tier 1 spotlight for all 5 years. Even less that have been in T1 and not won an international. By 5 year tenure criteria I mean:

MUST be in the qualifier for all international events.
NO TIME IN T2 OR RETIRED (S0m and Sayf for example retired for a brief moment & Leaf missed a stage from illness)
Hasn't won an international trophy

The only players that come to mind are:

Mazino
Asuna
SugarZ3ro
rb
MaKo
Crws
Jamppi

Please let me know if I missed anybody else and what do you think about these players that they are the only players out of I believe 12 who have not won an international. Are they overrated or have they not been on a team that clicks and deserve their spots in T1?

What if it's 2-1? I'm basically trying to see if Kru can take 1st seed

It doesn't matter if we win the group, we ain't doing shit in playoffs

Wow 100T, just wow. You have successfully managed to edge me once again. I keep telling myself that this is the time where they are finally going to put it together and win an international but no, I get blue balled again and have to sit back and watch as they achieve another MID season. I officially will never be predicting 100T to win another game and will root against them until they drop Asuna because it is very clear now that this team's identity will never be able to win a championship. I am honestly SHOCKED that Asuna is still on this team. He must give Nadeshot the most immaculate head of all time because that is the only explanation for why he has been with them for 5 years now. At this point, fuck it, drop the entire roster and pick up Carpe, Hiko, Donald Trump, LeBron James, and half an eaten popsicle because then you can at least sell merchandise and make money. Us 100T fans just have to accept that we will always be Sentinels bitch. We only exist because they allow us to. Whenever we get a good player like bang they are just going to throw money at them until they leave us to go to SEN. ITS OVER