Your first line is objectively incorrect.
You:See how you're back to talking about me and none of the stuff in the comment? Get a fucking grip.
Me:otherwise, you'll often downvote and leave, or you cherry pick points--for example, you just ignored half of my post regarding the dates for when Riot went public over blocking secondary teams, a key point in your original argument.
Again you ignored this line. You never answered that, and I don't know why. I guess it's more convenient to ignore the points you can't answer. Also I don't know what you mean by "back to talking about you" because I only brought up your character once in this discussion otherwise, which is fewer times than you have brought up my own, but I suppose it's ok when you do it.
I went after your style of arguing to hopefully show how unreasonable you are, but I suppose that's a waste of time. I haven't had any more success in the past actually addressing your points on a factual basis because you just ignore most of them and strawman the rest or simply don't respond at all, but here goes:
I've written half a dozen stories this year about Riot's questionable practices. I've gone public with how they are trying to shut down content creators.
Nice of you to report, but meaningless in a discussion without citations.
Just today they suspended one of their best writers for tweeting to ODEE that he pays his staff writers in hardware and not money, which he does.
Limited context, but I won't rule out you might be onto something here, although this seems more like Riot burning its own employees, which would be counterproductive to accomplishing their takeover of the journalist scene that you have accused them of in the past.
Not to mention the LCS contract itself and how after review from a lawyer they deemed that not only would some sections not stand up in court but it was fairly exploitative in some parts.
This is one of your better pieces. Graham actually says much of it is standard and even in the first point ("Purpose") says it may be beneficial to the player and less advantageous for Riot, and this admittance helps give him credibility as an unbiased source. A couple of potentially dangerous clauses are more bark than bite as their potential overreach simply isn't legally feasible. His main qualms are:
Use of name and likeness - "worrisome."
Limitations on my Remedies - Here he disputes the legality of any potential overreach, but he is uncertain himself and if it were legally upheld it would be severely tilt the player-Riot balance of power.
Both of these are worrisome, I agree. To not go too long on disputing smaller points, I think Graham himself supplies the best point in his closing paragraph:
"But I don't necessarily mean to paint Riot as a bad guy. Oftentimes people act with good intentions and honestly want to see the other party do well, while at the same time drafting contracts that are as much in their favor as they think they can get away with. So Riot can simultaneously act well, as I think it usually does, and use exploitative contracts without invalidating or mutually excluding the other. As the attorney in that situation, my duty would be to represent my client as well as I can, including by giving it the best contracts it can get. But if I were representing the player, well, this would be a tough contract to recommend.”
And this is the thing: Riot has taken measures to be in a position to abuse its power; however, they have not really taken advantage of that, as Graham himself mentioned (in bold). That's your source admitting that. Besides that, as a point of evidence in our discussion of Riot aiming for success by undermining other games in the industry, it is at best indirect via procession through the players and not evidence of direct action against other games. Honestly, Riot likely stands to actually lose more through negative PR if they ever try to suppress a justified class action lawsuit from pro players.
Oh and you obviously have forgotten how they have fucked over teams such as Gambit in regards to the visas by their own lack of organisation
Didn't forget; the Gambit fiasco is just irrelevant to the argument at hand. It was incompetent on Riot's part, but I don't know how you can construe this as an intentional tactic to push out competitors like Dota 2. If anything it weakened Riot's position in the esports community as the negative PR backlash was significant.
You on the other hand, even when presented with all this evidence and more,
What is "more?" I have 3 pieces of evidence from someone else, 1 of which was from Tencent and another of which I am disputing the timing of events that you seem unable to address. Between the latter and the remaining transgression, both of which occurred two years ago, it hardly builds a reliable track record for unscrupulous tactics to push out competitors, especially when the plans fell apart so easily from a company that, as the most successful esports company in 15 years, could easily do a far better job if this were truly part of their agenda.
As for the additional evidence I requested from you, your ODEE tweet and Gambit incident aren't even relevant to Riot's supposed agenda against other games and belong in a different topic for discussion, while your lawyer point is at best indirect evidence, and your source there specifically expresses a lack of confidence that Riot is inherently evil.
The only world where the concrete evidence presented so far should indict Riot as guilty of aggressively undermining other games is a world where someone is assumed guilty until proven innocent, because you are making big assumptions based on limited evidence that is now two years old. Again, feel free to bring up more recent evidence that is actually relevant to the topic at hand; you mentioned you had half a dozen, so it should be quick and easy to pull up a few.