When you are in the industry long enough, you can get disgusted by what you see...

[RogueFactor]

Ive recently seen an item up for sale by someone I know. This person was sold the item rock-bottom from a friend who was sponsored, and turning it to make a quick buck. Which would be fine in any other situation, except that this was an item that was GIVEN to the original person as part of a sponsorship.

Now, had that person who was sponsored originally lived up to their end of the sponsorship agreement, I wouldnt have as much issue with it. But they didnt. They were an opportunist, who took advantage of their sponsor and the situation. And some of the other things I know this person did actually did their sponsor a disservice.

This isnt the only instance of this sort of thing. I see it frequently, in one fashion or another. The more I am involved in this sport, the more I realize that what Tom told me was true "It's ugly on the inside".

Anybody else see this sort of thing happen, or is it just me?

[MedicDVG]

Just try buying something from PBN. There are more people trying to push broken, worthless, stolen, or sponsorship stuff there then anywhere I have seen.

It used to be a great B/S/T.. now I won't do buisness there. Hell Ebay is getting that way now... selling boxes for $150 and pictures of markers for $50...

[Ninjeff]

Ive never seen it personally.

But you know what they say: "Cash is king", and people will do anything to make a quick buck. Even if its screwing over someone who is trying to help them.

[RogueFactor]

Bah, maybe Im jaded. I dont know.

I just dont understand how someone can accept something in sponsorship, and not live up to their end of the bargain.

I try very hard to make sure I am as up-front about things. Occasionally, I catch flack for it. But I can say, to date, Ive never ripped anyone off in paintball---EVER. Ive always given as much value in every product or agreement Ive made as I could. To the point that sometimes I make no money, and in rare instances will lose a few bucks.

[bryceeden]

Ive recently seen an item up for sale by someone I know. This person was sold the item rock-bottom from a friend who was sponsored, and turning it to make a quick buck. Which would be fine in any other situation, except that this was an item that was GIVEN to the original person as part of a sponsorship.

Now, had that person who was sponsored originally lived up to their end of the sponsorship agreement, I wouldnt have as much issue with it. But they didnt. They were an opportunist, who took advantage of their sponsor and the situation. And some of the other things I know this person did actually did their sponsor a disservice.

This isnt the only instance of this sort of thing. I see it frequently, in one fashion or another. The more I am involved in this sport, the more I realize that what Tom told me was true "It's ugly on the inside".

Anybody else see this sort of thing happen, or is it just me?

Its interesting, especially when usually if people read thier sponsorship agreements thats a huge nono and they sign an agreement that they won't. But yes, unfortunatly it happens ALOT. If anyone on one of the teams I sponsor did that I'd string them up for it.

[tymcneer]

It all comes down to personal integrity. Some people have it, some do not. I agree with you, RogueFactor. I have been sponsored exactly once! Not in the realms of paintball, but in combat robotics. I made sure that I ALWAYS fulfilled my obligations to my sponsor. (Thank you SolidWorks!) I advertised their product, and when asked, I always had good things to say about them. The funny part is that I still have good things to say about them. :)

I could not live with myself, if I had sold/given away/not used the product they gave me. It is like stealing from the sponsor. I guess some people are fine with theft... I am not.

Ty

[TnDeathInc]

Too many people are too trusting, and think a handshake means what it used to, its sad i blame generations below me Y NEo etc...

[tymcneer]

Handshakes still mean something to some of us... I've made some fairly serious deals on a handshake... Then again, I've been screwed on a fair number of deals... I guess it all comes down to who you choose to shake hands with...

Ty

[TnDeathInc]

Handshakes still mean something to some of us... I've made some fairly serious deals on a handshake... Then again, I've been screwed on a fair number of deals... I guess it all comes down to who you choose to shake hands with...

Ty

they do to me as well, it was ageneralization. you know how many lucrative job offers i have made and sealed the deal with a hand shake to have them reneg?

[sepplainer]

One of the reasons sponsors are pulling out on teams so much. Teams and owners like to cry bad sponsor but that is a two way street. This is not a paintball problem it's everywhere.

[CHRONOBREAK]

rogue,

ive seen the same, and worse

what if you and sya 3 others were given a prototype marker, the first of a run and it was not expressed but assumed you would appreciate the marker and have it forever to enjoy and as a conversation piece.

but one of the guys diddnt care at all, he sold it to make a few bucks, a decade later the gun is worth 3x as much and the others still have theirs.

some people just dont care.

[Ninjeff]

"Its ugly on the inside"

Seems to me that is a very well put statement.

[bryceeden]

Its really sad how many teams look at sponsorships as something the industry owes them instead of as a two way buisness agreement. Hopefully the huge reduction in sponsorships will help change that.

Oliver Lang in the end of Paintball 101(great videos) lays it down that sponsorships are to benifit the company not the player I wonder how many peoples dreams he destroyed there.

[punkncat]

I am not saying that I agree with the lack of integrity, however, being who I am I am going to take an alternative course of thought.
Did the sponsor specifically ask for the equipment back? If they didn't it would seem as if what he did with his property was his business.
Perhaps it would be best that, rather than be ****ed about the lack of honor common among current players and persons, that if you were to write forfieture of equipment into the contract?

[Ninjeff]

Its really sad how many teams look at sponsorships as something the industry owes them instead of as a two way buisness agreement. Hopefully the huge reduction in sponsorships will help change that.

Oliver Lang in the end of Paintball 101(great videos) lays it down that sponsorships are to benifit the company not the player I wonder how many peoples dreams he destroyed there.

Ive been wanting to see those videos too. I hear they are pretty good.

[RogueFactor]

I am not saying that I agree with the lack of integrity, however, being who I am I am going to take an alternative course of thought.
Did the sponsor specifically ask for the equipment back? If they didn't it would seem as if what he did with his property was his business.
Perhaps it would be best that, rather than be ****ed about the lack of honor common among current players and persons, that if you were to write forfieture of equipment into the contract?

As stated, it wasnt only the equipment. It was breaking the agreeement, and other disservices as well. Look at it however you want....my integrity isnt for sale, and Im not about to condone someone elses lack of it just because it 'wasnt in writing'..

Interesting you look at it from that viewpoint though, considering your recent post about nearly the same issue of integrity. By your alternative course of thought, guess you should have gotten it in writing?

I think this statement pretty much sums it up...

Oliver Lang in the end of Paintball 101(great videos) lays it down that sponsorships are to benifit the company not the player I wonder how many peoples dreams he destroyed there.

[Neppo1345]

Any kind of sponsorship should have a binding contract. If you don't have a contract and get screwed then that sucks for you.

[Ninjeff]

i think punkncat was mearly playing devils advocate. I dont think thats the way he feels really.

[RogueFactor]

Any kind of sponsorship should have a binding contract. If you don't have a contract and get screwed then that sucks for you.

Sucks when you have a contract that isnt worth sueing over. Doesnt make it any less wrong.

[Neppo1345]

Sucks when you have a contract that isnt worth sueing over. Doesnt make it any less wrong.

True, I can agree with that.

I forget how bantam most paintball sponsorships are...

[BigEvil]

Ive seen too much... thats why there is PBLegion now.

/shameless plug

[LuisV]

I've seen it happen, but usually when a player changes sponsorships. I've also seen when a player wins a tournament and then sells the equipment below cost to make a quick buck. It's not specific to paintball as I knew Tennis players that had sponsorships and they sold most of the gear they recieved.

[BigEvil]

I've seen it happen, but usually when a player changes sponsorships. I've also seen when a player wins a tournament and then sells the equipment below cost to make a quick buck. It's not specific to paintball as I knew Tennis players that had sponsorships and they sold most of the gear they recieved.

What I dont understand is how the sponsors do not demand their equipment back? Are there no provisions for this sort of thing?

[LuisV]

Sometimes the equipment isn't well cared for, so to the sponsor it's not worth trying to reclaim and other times it isn't in the contract. As far as the Tennis players I knew they basically received new sneakers a few times a month and clothes were weekly if not daily. How many sneakers does one need? I knew someone that had a closet full of sneakers, so he started to give them away or sell them. It's definitely a breach in the contract, but unless they were under inventory and cataloged no one knew if they were worn and thrown out. To me it's horrible... but all sports have the same issue...

[CHRONOBREAK]

i agree players unles stated in ther contract sell of old equipment to pay stuff off

most ifnot all are paid very little and selling gear won, and used is considered part of their equipment.

though im speaking in generalities, since i dont know the specifics of your refereance

[Anjin3515]

First let me say that Rogues example above seems like an unethical action...especially because of the way the person mentioned treated the sponsor.


The following does not go toward what Rogue mentioned...because "They were an opportunist, who took advantage of their sponsor and the situation. And some of the other things I know this person did actually did their sponsor a disservice." For me that puts it in a whole nother light...but....


The following is a question about a "good" relationship between player/sponsor and I am trying to gauge what you all think.....


1) If the sponsor had not given the item away but sold the item to the player at a discount via the sponsorship.....would it then be ok for the player to go and sell the item?

2) Year one the sponsor gives player an item, no contract, or verbal mention of giving it back....
year two the sponsor gives the player the "new and improved" version of the item....would it then be ok for the player to go and sell the year one item?

Just curious what you all think.

[Mechanic79]

The more I am involved in this sport, the more I realize that what Tom told me was true "It's ugly on the inside".

I think this song resonates what you're [Tom] saying.

River of Deceit by Mad Season.
" My pain... is self chosen...
at least... I believe it to be...
I could drown... or pull off my skin and swim to shore...
...and now I can grow, a beautiful shell, FOR ALL TO SEE...
The river of deceit flows down...
The only direction we flow is down. "

Then followed up by
Trimm Trabb by Blur
" That's just the way it is...
...That's just the way it is... "

[CHRONOBREAK]

Then followed up by
Trimm Trabb by Blur
" That's just the way it is...
...That's just the way it is... "


lol, someone else here listens to blur?:p

hijack/ drunk post

[Ninjeff]

First let me say that Rogues example above seems like an unethical action...especially because of the way the person mentioned treated the sponsor.


The following does not go toward what Rogue mentioned...because "They were an opportunist, who took advantage of their sponsor and the situation. And some of the other things I know this person did actually did their sponsor a disservice." For me that puts it in a whole nother light...but....


The following is a question about a "good" relationship between player/sponsor and I am trying to gauge what you all think.....


1) If the sponsor had not given the item away but sold the item to the player at a discount via the sponsorship.....would it then be ok for the player to go and sell the item?

2) Year one the sponsor gives player an item, no contract, or verbal mention of giving it back....
year two the sponsor gives the player the "new and improved" version of the item....would it then be ok for the player to go and sell the year one item?

Just curious what you all think.

I think it really depends on the situation.

1: Does the player make money in this situation. ANd did he sell it to a buddy, or try to use his "special" price to get more of said item, to also sell As a way of making a profit himself? If so, then no, thats bad. But if he just sold an unused item to a buddy....well...meh, i suppose its ok.
2. I see no problem with this. Especially is year one item has used up its usefulness.

Still, without specifics form Rogues example, its hard for me to really judge. Still, if the player is taking advantage of his situation (being sponsered) as a way to make a side profit for himself, then thats very very bad news indeed. A sponsered players role is to make money for the sponser, not himself.

[Meph]

Rogue, this has been going on for years. It's not something new. It's actually how the system is supposed to work. Paintball runs on swag. It LIVES on swag.

Sponsors give out free gear because it looks like they are giving a $1000 ticket, when to them it's really closer to $250. The sponsored team, who if they already have gear to begin with why do they need another?, they in turn sell it for $750. This money is used to cover the cost of travel, hotels, food, etc. Remember paintball is expensive, even more so when you look beyond the cost of simply paint and entry fees.

This is also how Tournaments work. Why else do you think a tournament has Ions and Mini's as their top prize when the people playing are already shooting Marq's and DMfizzles? You think they want that product to keep? Of course not. They turn that equipment over to cover the costs of simply making the event.

Paintball lives on swag. It always has and it always will. The day swag ends is the day paintball, as we know it, dies.

[JAM]

For better or worse, it does go on and has gone on.

Unless specifically prohibited by the contract or sponsor, players should be able to sell their gear if they want. Morally, it's a gray area, but unless stated specifically, the stuff should be theirs to sell.

Now, part of that grayness is that i think the players hould be obligated to use the stuff and then be able to sell it when new stuff comes. Just getting something for free and selling it straight away is shady to me.

In another life, i was sponsored by a couple inline skating companies over the course of a couple years. I occasionally sold my free stuff, but only after i used it a bit and never in violation of any agreements.


ETA: All your page two are belong to me

[punkncat]

i think punkncat was mearly playing devils advocate. I dont think thats the way he feels really.

Thanks Ninjeff, I was. I haven't gotten further into this thread, but apparently there was some mishmash over what I said....?

Lol, every time I do that it just makes Rogue flip his lid....lol.
Here rogue, have a xani.....

[punkncat]

Interesting you look at it from that viewpoint though, considering your recent post about nearly the same issue of integrity. By your alternative course of thought, guess you should have gotten it in writing?



Which post are you talking about here? I have quite a few questionable posts Rogue.....:smarty:

[RogueFactor]

Rogue, this has been going on for years. It's not something new. It's actually how the system is supposed to work. Paintball runs on swag. It LIVES on swag.

Sponsors give out free gear because it looks like they are giving a $1000 ticket, when to them it's really closer to $250. The sponsored team, who if they already have gear to begin with why do they need another?, they in turn sell it for $750. This money is used to cover the cost of travel, hotels, food, etc. Remember paintball is expensive, even more so when you look beyond the cost of simply paint and entry fees.

This is also how Tournaments work. Why else do you think a tournament has Ions and Mini's as their top prize when the people playing are already shooting Marq's and DMfizzles? You think they want that product to keep? Of course not. They turn that equipment over to cover the costs of simply making the event.

Paintball lives on swag. It always has and it always will. The day swag ends is the day paintball, as we know it, dies.

I am familiar with how these things work. This wasnt an item won in a tournament. Maybe the way things have always been is SCREWED UP. We didnt get here by accident. And every company in this industry has had issues with teams selling their gear.

The sponsorships are drying up as we speak. The swag is in short supply. Should we be expecting the death of paintball soon?:smarty:

[RogueFactor]

Which post are you talking about here? I have quite a few questionable posts Rogue.....:smarty:

The one titled "I have learned a valuable lesson"

Lol, every time I do that it just makes Rogue flip his lid....lol.
Here rogue, have a xani.....
No need for drugs here. I enjoy lively discussions.

[punkncat]

The one titled "I have learned a valuable lesson"


No need for drugs here. I enjoy lively discussions.



Yeah, my buddy did show a serious lack of integrity doing what he did. I guess I may have to start thinking about drawing up a friendship contract.....lol.

[RogueFactor]

I guess I may have to start thinking about drawing up a friendship contract.....lol.

Nah, just get used to it. Everyone does it, its the way its always been, friendship relies on a lack of integrity and always has(et tu Brute?), its the way things are, everyone else does it so its ok, if you get screwed oh well that sucks for you--you should have known.:wall:

Remember, its your fault. Not his.:nana:

[punkncat]

Remember, its your fault. Not his.:nana:

The rest of your post I could see coming a mile away....


However the quoted part rings much more true than I like. As we must remember we choose our friends.

[punkncat]

I'm sorry Rogue, I am just not taking the bait at all am I? It has been a rough day...but since you have gone out of your way to set me up and all, I will attempt to come out and play.

I am curious, since you seem to be taking the topic so personally if something hasn't been done to you?
But....like friendship we choose, and so did the sponsor, who they wanted to offer this package. When offering it, was there ever at any time something said or written that indicated that they would be wanting the equipment back at any time for any reason?
If not, it seems as if shame on the sponsor.
1) For their lack of good judgement in choosing said person
2) For not making some condition for said return of equipment. IE. Morality, performance, breech of contract, etc. AKA CYA.

So w/o those things and seeing that said individual(s) are already of a questionable character, why wouldn't they do as they wish with what they would perceive as theirs?

[RogueFactor]

As we must remember we choose our friends.
Wouldnt matter who you choose, remember? :oneear: Everyone does it, and that makes it ok.:wthumpup:

I'm sorry Rogue, I am just not taking the bait at all am I? It has been a rough day...
Youre a funny fella....is today bizarro day? Its you the one playing devils advocate. So who is the one doing the baiting?

TL;DR
Rationalize it any way you want. It doesnt change whats right and whats wrong.

[punkncat]

Wouldnt matter who you choose, remember? :oneear: Everyone does it, and that makes it ok.:wthumpup: I am unsure and will have to read back, did this part of the discussion come from me or someone else?
I cannot remember saying that everyone did this sort of thing.


Youre a funny fella....is today bizarro day? Its you the one playing devils advocate. So who is the one doing the baiting?Well admittedly, I did bait you to start this. And yes it is bizarro day...whew, I could start another thread....but won't.


Rationalize it any way you want. It doesnt change whats right and whats wrong.
And on to the meat of this. Right or wrong is according to where you stand. Apparently it wasn't wrong to the fellow who did this was it? That is always something that is very subjective, and much determined by your moral character.
So, when a sponsor is choosing someone to help out maybe they should consider a bit more when doing so to protect their own intrest. That this individual is going out with the name of the sponsor and their actions will go a long way towards how those who see this person perceive them, how could it be a bad idea to look into who you are offering the sponsorship to, and by covering the situation in case of poor return?

There are many times in life that we think we are in the right, and one little thing can change that, one fact, one action. At the same time, given that we never have all the facts about anything. That the truth is very subjective as well. So how many times have ANY of us been "done wrong" by someone and taken action just to find out things later that change the whole scope of the situation?
No one is ever really right. Its all according to what you know and what side you are on.

[RogueFactor]

Right or wrong is according to where you stand.
Or the law. So when you moving to Berkely?:clap:

Apparently it wasn't wrong to the fellow who did this was it?
He knows its wrong. He doesnt even try to defend it. He just doesnt care, he wants what he wants.

That is always something that is very subjective, and much determined by your moral character.
Morals arent subjective. Ive found that only the immoral want one to believe that.

[punkncat]

Or the law. So when you moving to Berkely?:clap:


He knows its wrong. He doesnt even try to defend it. He just doesnt care, he wants what he wants.


Morals arent subjective. Ive found that only the immoral want one to believe that.

Hmm, I see you are trying to throw me off by dragging in things that don't pertain to the subject at hand...IE your Berkley comment...
I don't know the fellow. If he doesn't care, thats kind of the point. It would be assumed that he doesn't care cause he proved it through his actions.

I never said morals were subjective, I was inferring that right and wrong are subjective and much determined by your moral character. Get down to it though, morality is much determined by what you have learned and where you were brought up. For instance, we love pork, but don't try to feed any to a Kosher Jew.

[RogueFactor]

Hmm, I see you are trying to throw me off by dragging in things that don't pertain to the subject at hand...IE your Berkley comment.
But they do. Right or wrong has nothing to do with where you stand. Its outside your subjectivity.

If he doesn't care, thats kind of the point. It would be assumed that he doesn't care cause he proved it through his actions.
Im glad we agree.


I never said morals were subjective, I was inferring that right and wrong are subjective and much determined by your moral character.

Morals are the distinction between right and wrong. Therefore 'right and wrong are subjective' infers that morals are subjective. So either you are saying morals are subjective, or you arent.

mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

[punkncat]

But they do. Right or wrong has nothing to do with where you stand. Its outside your subjectivity.


Im glad we agree.




Morals are the distinction between right and wrong. Therefore 'right and wrong are subjective' infers that morals are subjective. So either you are saying morals are subjective, or you arent.

mor·al /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-uhl, mor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

SNAP!!!!

Were you setting me up on that one? I feel like you were holding back a card on that one.
I am going to have to actually think on this one for a minute.

[Meph]

Ihould we be expecting the death of paintball soon?


Remember. Key wording I put in there is as we know it. I chose my words carefully. :smarty:

[RogueFactor]

Remember. Key wording I put in there is as we know it. I chose my words carefully. :smarty:

I know you did...I chose to leave it out hoping youd respond.:happydance:

[punkncat]

Well Rogue, I did a bit of research and found that even science is confused and argues about morality and what it is. There are many different lines of thought on how it "works" within society, culture, religion, and actually whether it is learned or instinct.
There is a line of belief that right or wrong and morality or ethics are intertwined. At the same time there are others who believe that the two are not. So there is no scientific basis at this point that would actually prove that either stance is completly correct.

[RogueFactor]

Well Rogue, I did a bit of research and found that even science is confused and argues about morality and what it is. There are many different lines of thought on how it "works" within society, culture, religion, and actually whether it is learned or instinct.
There is a line of belief that right or wrong and morality or ethics are intertwined. At the same time there are others who believe that the two are not. So there is no scientific basis at this point that would actually prove that either stance is completly correct.
Science confused on morals...is this much of a surprise?
Thanks for all that. Youve stated what you found and didnt, but didnt state a personal view. Without that, itd be hard for me to respond.

[Meph]

Confused on people's perspective of morals I could see. Not on morals themselves. As to the scientist testing on a couple dozen animals to find a possible cure to save millions of humans is morally/ethically right. However you ask a PETA member and it's morally/ethically evil.

Or embryotic stem cell research. The end result is morally right. But the Catholic church deems the method (and thus the end result as well) is morally wrong.
So sure we can map everything, cure parkinsons and alsheimers and cancer and so forth, that's all great. But to use an embryo that would've been discarded any ways no no we can't have that.

I can see easily where the confusion comes in. Like NIMBY idiots. People want more power plants, more prisons, more of this and that. They just don't want it near them! :wall: It's hard to be progressive when you have so many regressive people.