My take on the 322 incident...

All these damned 322 incidents really just threw 4 precious years of Dota 2 e-sports industry development down the bin...

Understandably, the prime motivation for those guilty is the lack of proper funding and adequate infrastructure that often accompany the mediocre to  low tier participants of an infant industry such as Dota 2. Many a times players would be forced to play hands that are along the wrong side of law in order to merely ensure they can live for another day. Furthermore,the act of match-fixing has no justification to it no matter how different ones perspective is when looking at such a situation. After all, professionals are such named precisely because they would do anything to excel in their field.

However, even though one cannot argue on the justifiability of match-fixing. One can at least spare the culprits the heavy punishment and ridicule due to a number of factors. As said above, the fact that money was the prime motivator highlights the fact that part of the liability has to be shared by the gaming organization in that they have failed to secure adequate funding to provide for an efficient support system for a regular professional Dota 2 squad.

Also, this incident serves to show how much improvement the Dota 2 industry needs in terms of sustaining a playing field that is growing more rapidly than ever before. Perhaps Valve should introduce a scheme where every pro player that manages to fulfill certain criteria will get a set amount of money annually to cover living expenses like what is done in League of Legends.

That being said, to find the root of the financial problem of the industry, we will need to look at other thriving sports industries and see how they succeed to support their superstars to their low-tier participants (good examples include BPL, NBA...). As we compare, the main difference seen is the amount of revenue they get from just coverage of the matches and advertising, instead of prize money, which is often the case with infant sports industries such as Dota 2, where viewer demand is not high and it is really hard for new people to learn about the game. BPL teams like Liverpool can encounter years of trophy drought but still rake in millions as the demand lies in the BRAND of Liverpool, not its quality. Pretty much like how buying Louis Vuitton boots are cost more even though a pair of Timberlands would probably do a better job insulating the feet.

Therefore, a solution would be for Valve to create more awareness of the game through extensive advertising and marketing campaigns while personally handing out annual funds to the many pro teams out there. There could also be a pro-rata structure where the better teams will get less due to them winning most of the prize money up for grabs. This 2 pronged approach will sustain the lives of the pros while ensuring demand for Dota 2 increases. Simply said, gaming teams must be brought to a level where winning and losing is not the seperating block between living properly and living in poverty.

Besides that, gaming peripheral companies should really take the 322 incident as a wake up call and step up their sponsoring activities or risk a drop in demand if other games encounter such problems due to financial problems. GP companies have to really understand the amount of value these gaming teams create for their brands. If we see Adidas paying millions so that sports teams will wear their apparels and equipment, why can't we see GP companies paying just a bit more to esports teams?

All in all, Valve and the other prominent players of this industry will have to fork out more cash so that the future of Dota 2 can be ensured and growth can be protected.

"During the war, unemployment dropped to 2%, relief programs largely ended, and the industrial economy grew rapidly to new heights as millions of people moved to new jobs in war centers, and 16 million men and 300,000 women were drafted or volunteered for military service. All economic sectors grew during the war. Farm output went from an index (by volume) of 106 in 1939 to 128 in 1943. Coal output went from 446 million tons in 1939 to 651 in 1943; oil from 1.3 billion barrels to 1.5 billion. Manufacturing output doubled, from an index of 109 in 1939 to 239 in 1943. Railroads strained to move it all to market, from an output of 13.6 billion loaded car miles in 1939 to 23.3 in 1943."

-From the Wikipedia page of FD Roosevelt on the effects of WWII

Resorting to bloodshed as a solution to achieve an end is never good as it is trite that human life is sacred above all other things in life and we must always wage war as a last resort. The problem, however, lies in the innate human attitude of greed and selfishness...When men could care less about the sufferings of others to further their own ambition and fulfil their temptations to riches.

Therein lies the big issue, namely, does the man embrace morality as a governing virtue of his acts, giving up the basic wants of ambition in favour of contributing to the public as a whole...or does he succumb fully to greed, selfishness and ambition, doing everything it takes to achieve the favoured result?

History is always helpful in contentious issues such as these, on one spectrum, there were people like Josef Stalin, which were often criticised more than commended in the political arena of their time. These people are on the extreme end of the 'greed and ambition spectrum', often remembered for achieving ambition through means normally regarded as creating harm and opposing human morality. For example, Stalin killed millions people that were deemed to oppose his government during his tenure as leader of Soviet Union and his economical reforms were backed by the extreme famine endured during the pre WWII years, all while elevating the USSR to global superpower status. We also have people like Von Bismarck and Machiavelli, who were active proponents and followers of the amoral doctrine of realpolitik, which propound the use of acts deemed contrary to morality as a way to achieve a 'greater good'.

On the other side, we have the walking angels on earth, people that do what is right in the name of the good of mankind. Such people are those normally activists and rights advocates such as Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Mother Teresa...People that are remembered fully for all the good that they have done in this world. The acts of Gandhi advocating for the independence of India while living a modest life and the suffering that Mandela endured during 27 years in prison before he became president have been the staple of history lessons since we were young.

People like Mother Teresa and Gandhi are hard to come by, as not many would attain such high moral values to the extent that they can disregard their innate nature of greed in favour of contributing the a larger group of society in the course of achieving their ambition. After all, greed and ambition are also the prime motivators of the average man in his journey to attain success in life.

That being said, I think a solution can be found in that human beings have to conduct matters in a manner that contributes to the preservation of human life as a whole. Those in power have to conduct matters that will not prejudice or take away the basic rights of man, will not cause harm and will not affect public morality, all while furthering their own ambitions.

All in all, it is possible to 'do good' while also get rich and 'live life in the fast lane' together. We just have to take a step before making any decision to consider not whether the good will outweigh the bad, but whether the every party in the situation will benefit from the decision, thus creating a "win-win". In conducting life, one must know how to achieve the median result wherein the right is weight in proportion with the wrong. One of the most common examples are businessmen who made good quality products and corners market and made money out of it. An example would be Mark Zuckerberg cornering the social networking market and JP Morgan funding the construction of the Panama Canal while playing a part in improving international shipping and trade.

And above all else, the fact that human life is sacred has resulted in a rule: That if lives have to be taken as a result of a decision, the decision is to be rendered bad no matter how much good it will bring to the remaining survivors of the event.