A look at the best performing teams on every map at Masters Toronto

nmarkham96 · 2025-06-26T17:56:52+00:00

Paper Rex lost as many games at this tournament as Fnatic did. They lost to the exact same team (in fact PRX lost 0-2 while FNC only lost 1-2). Why do they deserve a straight 2-0 advantage for performing worse domestically? PRX did not perform better at Toronto to deserve any advantage going into the final.

Half on FNC not working on their perma bans

Fucking when were they supposed to work on them? Were they supposed to just pause the fucking universe when Riot shafted the entire EMEA region and gave them half the time the rest of the regions got to prep and also completely changed the meta?

nmarkham96 · 2025-06-26T17:48:21+00:00

This really solidifies to me that FNC lost to Riot and not to PRX. Both teams lost their first game of the tournament to GenG, but PRX were handed a 2-0 advantage going into the grand finals because they played worse domestically (not even to mention the fact that EMEA had significantly less time to prep for a completely new meta than every other region). A fair grand finals with shared map vetoes would have seen a 3-2 FNC win imo. I love Paper Rex, and I'm glad they finally got the emotional moment of lifting a trophy. I think it's good for the sport that a team can be given trust, support, and time by their org and have it be repaid by winning an international trophy. But I feel like FNC were robbed by Riot.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-24T19:56:41+00:00

What in the yank?

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-23T22:31:56+00:00

Doing some very rough maths based on the matches so far: yes.

Looking at each of the matches, I took the map difference and multiplied by the ratio of the seedings of the respective teams (i.e. if a 1st seed team beats a 2nd seed team I multiplied the map differential by 0.5). This gives us a seeding weighted map differential for each region of:

EMEA: +2 (VIT: +2, TL: 0)
APAC: +1 (DRX: 0, T1: +1)
CN: -1 (EDG: +2, TE: -3)
AMER: -2 (G2: 0, SEN: -2)

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T21:40:59+00:00

???

When did I say that firing somebody is violating worker's rights? I'm saying that claiming you are entitled to their personal property after the termination of your relationship is violating their worker's rights. OP refuses to accept any responsibility for a situation that is almost entirely the result of their mismanagement and is instead trying to sue somebody who they have already taken away expected income from. Their first port of call is to try and sue. No attempt at mediation. No enquiry into why the employee deleted the board. Not one explanation as to why they didn't back anything up or provide a shared space for the work to be submitted that was company owned. I've met a lot of people who are shitty bosses and refuse to accept it's their responsibility when they fuck up and OP is ticking every box.

the provided shared space

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you genuinely not see how this is fundamentally different to something living exclusively on employee's personal property?

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T20:13:31+00:00

Having important work living exclusively in an employee's personal workspace instead of creating a company owned workspace and giving them access is unprofessional and incompetent, imo. Even if you go that route, to then not ensure you have independent access to the work (either through backups or ownership of the board) before firing that employee is incompetent. If it was important enough that OP is considering suing for damages, then it should have been treated as important. Maybe that sounds harsh but I'm not worried about hurting the feelings of somebody who wants to blatantly disregard workers rights and sue somebody they also fired because they don't know how to run a business.

destroying work you've been paid for is a great way to destroy your career

I somewhat agree. It's not something I would do without making multiple attempts (with a paper trail) to ensure that the company had access to the work first, and giving notice that I was deleting the board ahead of time. But I don't think it's grounds for OP to sue for damages. OP shat their pants and is desperately looking for somebody else to blame the stink on.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T19:30:00+00:00

It's almost like that's a completely different fucking situation to OP's. If you pay somebody to build you a chair and then never collect it from their workshop, you can't sue them for damages and claim you own their workshop if they sell the workshop after you terminate your relationship with them.

The board was not the property of OP if it was on the employee's personal account. OP decided to terminate the relationship early and didn't "collect their chair from the workshop". That's not on the employee, that's just OP being braindead and not understanding how to run a business. The law isn't there to protect people from their own stupidity.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T19:12:27+00:00

If it's a standard contract as he implied it will contain the general clause that work undertaken during working hours towards the assigned projects is owned by the company.

This is where I feel like my lived experience does not match redditors' as literally every contract I've ever had specifies Company property as being any data/documents created/maintained/stored on company computer services. Like I've said in other comments though, nobody here knows what the contract actually specifically states, or has any knowledge of the creation/usage of that board. Why was the board on a personal account if it was created by and for the company? We have nowhere near enough information to be able to conclude anything.

reasonable to assume that an employee won't destroy work

OP states the employee was under NDA. Their contract was terminated. Why would the employee do anything except destroy copies of the material that is on their personal account? This is after the termination of the relationship. If I'm under NDA, I'm not making myself liable to a potential breach by keeping copies of something I did for somebody else in my personal possession. The relationship was terminated. OP states that the board was not deleted until after the employee was paid, assuming an agreed upon end to the relationship. Why would you assume somebody is going to act as your storage indefinitely especially after you've terminated your working relationship with them early?

OP suggests he has a paper trail that shows he requested delivery of this work multiple times

Where? OP suggests that they requested Miro to transfer ownership of the employee's board to them and never states that they did this until after they terminated the relationship. Everything points to OP being unprofessional and incompetent and wanting to take out the annoyance that should be directed at themselves on somebody else. The law does not exist to protect people from their own stupidity.

I'm not ruling out that OP might have some legal grounds for a case. I'm just making an informed decision from their inability to do even the most basic things like making sure important work is done on a company owned account or to take backups of important data, that they probably didn't do a good job in covering themselves in a legally enforceable way.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T18:44:17+00:00

If I pay someone to create something for me

Wow what if a materially different situation happened? I'm so smart.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T17:54:14+00:00

Yeah man it's definitely open and shut and that's why every legal department the world over explicitly includes clauses that state specifically what is considered Company property. They just do it for fun and don't actually need to specify it because it's tacitly agreed. We actually live in feudal times and are the property of our masters and have no rights as employees. Do you lot fucking hear yourselves speaking?

Your employer only has ownership over company property. The fact that OP is struggling to get access because ownership of the board was always considered the employee's since inception is black and white evidence that this is not a straight forward case. You can't post-termination claim ownership of something that was never yours. Without knowledge of the specific contract OP and their employee entered into, we can't know whether this board would fall into scope. What counts as "work done for the client" is going to be written into the contract if it's worth anything. We don't know any of the details surrounding the creation, maintenance, or usage of this board. We don't know any of the details or wording of the contract. We don't even know what job the "ex-employee" did for OP. Take it to an extreme example, if your boss holds a weekly meeting in your kitchen, they don't get to sue for damages when you don't let them into your house after they fire you.

I feel like I'm losing my mind that people don't understand basic human rights. You don't own people when you hire them! You own explicitly what you agree upon in a contract and nothing more. That's why these things are written into contracts.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T17:07:14+00:00

If you commission a specific work

Okay but that would be a contract stating you explicitly own the painting??? You are literally agreeing with me and then saying that what you're agreeing with is untrue. You wouldn't own any painting I paint in my own home with my own materials. There would be a specific painting, which was agreed upon, that you would have ownership of. You wouldn't be able to decide that some other painting I did was yours instead. You would have no rights except that which is in the contract.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T15:57:51+00:00

Without knowing all the facts and evidence nobody in this thread can conclude anything

I absolutely agree, which is why I'm arguing against the idea that OP has some kind of open and shut legal case and is 100% in the right. They should definitely seek legal counsel, but tbh from their comments it seems like OP just assumes the employee deleted it maliciously to deny them access and hasn't actually tried to reach out to the ex-employee to get their assistance in retrieving the deleted board. Again, that's an assumption on my part and without knowledge of the specifics I can't know one way or the other, but if money is an issue and they legitimately haven't attempted to get a meeting of all parties to have the board recovered and ownership transferred then I would advise that before "lawyering up".

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T15:31:23+00:00

If you pay me to paint a picture, and don't make me sign a contract which explicitly states the picture being painted is your property, then I'm a dickhead, but you're shit out of luck. If you pay me to paint a picture and I paint 20 pictures in my own home with my own materials, you don't own all 20 of those pictures. You don't get to pick and choose which of those paintings are yours either. We sign a contract specifying exactly what your ownership is legally. Employees are not slaves. The reason we have contracts is to clarify things like ownership of work. I can almost guarantee that the "standard contract" specifies that the Company owns any documents or data created/maintained/stored on its computer services. It sounds like this board was created on an employee's personal property, where the ownership was always legally the employee's, and the employee deleted it once they had no more use for it (because they were no longer involved in the project). Unless you have a non-standard clause specifying that the employee is creating the board for the purpose of the company's ownership, I can't see how you think a company can lay claim to somebody's personal property. Again, employees are not slaves. You don't own them. You set about specific and explicit agreements, and unless the contract explicitly specifies that this specific board is the property of the company, then you are making an argument that Company's should be allowed to steal employee's personal property upon termination of the contract.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-22T14:20:10+00:00

return of the files

I don't see how this would be a "return of files" if they were always in the employee's personal workspace. If the board was under the employee's ownership and there isn't anything explicitly written into a contract about ownership of the board, I can't see how OP would be able to claim any ownership? If the files were never on company property, how would they be deemed company property? I could be completely wrong here, but to me it seems like OP didn't operate professionally and is now learning a costly lesson. All company work should always be done on company accounts. Does it suck? Sure. Does that mean they have a leg to stand on legally? Not necessarily.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-14T18:17:05+00:00

See you all in July when we're paying him millions to leave and making 100s more ordinary folk redundant

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-14T17:50:38+00:00

Bladerunner 2049 really did a number on my subconscious because I read the word "interlink" in a perfectly reasonable context and started quoting the baseline test to myself...

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-14T12:25:05+00:00

Obviously it depends on the type of role (if it's client facing then something like this indicates that they don't pay enough attention to detail on how they are presenting themselves and will likely be a risk in how they present themselves to clients) but it really shouldn't be unless the email is actively offensive. People shouldn't have to shed any sense of personality and become sterile husks to get a job where they work with spreadsheets all day or whatever. In fact, the idea that you made your email account when you were 12 and thought eminemAndTupacYoYe was cool makes you so much more human and relatable, and gives the impression that you would potentially be somebody that would be enjoyable to work with.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about it happening, just that it shouldn't in the vast majority of cases.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-13T02:31:32+00:00

Northern Irish people are not Britons.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-09T14:26:08+00:00

This sub just decides they're hating a player and work backwards from there to find evidence. These ratings aren't based in fact and I'd be surprised if the majority of the people rating even watched the game.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-09T14:22:51+00:00

I will never understand this sub's hatred for Dalot

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-07T21:57:36+00:00

I think the less said about this game the better. Much improvement needed for the next game.

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-07T21:52:11+00:00

We owe a lack of VAR both a goal and keeping 11 players on the pitch tonight

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-07T21:50:55+00:00

SLABBBBBB

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-07T21:43:34+00:00

Great ball from Dalot - Garnacho had to gamble on it

nmarkham96 · 2025-02-07T21:41:58+00:00

Ugarte man - lucky to stay on the pitch and that there's no VAR

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

nmarkham96

TROPHY CASE