Valve washes his hands in a controversial situation – CS: GO started talking about a conflict of interest again

In Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, the topic of conflict of interest is again relevant. The reason was the situation with the MIBR, several former and current members of which are co-owners of YeaH! Gaming: in this case, both teams will perform at the first qualifying tournament for the major. But this is far from all controversial issues, details are in the material of Cybersport.ru.

What other conflict of interest?
In the context of CS: GO, we are talking about a situation when two or more teams that are affiliated in some way with each other compete in a particular competition, or about cases when teams are associated with the tournament operator itself.

I’m sorry, what? Valve will not regulate the issue of communication between teams? Exactly. Recall that the initiator of the rule to prevent a conflict of interest at all stages of the tournament was Valve. However, as it has long been customary in the company, in the regulation of the Counter-Strike scene, she abandoned the tough Riot Games approach – everything is left to the tournament operators.

It turns out that ESL will manage everything. Before the start of ESL One: Road to Rio, the operator ordered all teams to fill out forms in which it was necessary to list the connection with other clubs – about the connection between MIBR and YeaH! Gaming was there too. At the same time, the ESL gave both teams a green light – both will fight for access to the major.

That is, there is a rule, but it does not work?
In fact, it is. Valve seems to be trying to sit on two chairs. Initially, the developers stated: “Teams and players should not have a financial interest in the success of any other team that they oppose.”

However, it now turns out that the main message of the rule is that clubs report on the existing connection. But what is next is unclear. If in practice everything will be decided solely by the tournament operator conducting the major, then the rule, in principle, makes no sense.

Leave a Comment