|
I'll add to this thread:
In a competitive industry of sport, people should be rewarded for their merits and achievements. Skill earns rewards.
As for casters, hosts, analyists, etc: An intimate knowledge of the sport is needed. Is the individual properly qualified to speak to the sport in question?
I strongly feeel that players should be signed to teams based on their skill and abilities, NOT their looks or gender. As for media talent, qualification first, sex appeal after.
Ladies: If you want equality, stop playing the female gende card.
If you don't want equality, then by all means - play the female card all you want but expect people to point out the lack of merit when something is given but not deserved.
Work hard, get results, get rewards. Sex n legs should have nothing to do with it. Pardon the pun, but using legs to get the foot in the door might seem minor - but for an applicant for the same position with 10 times the experience or ability, its just rude and inexcusable.
|
Thanks for that, I don't agree with it, but it's alright I guess.
|
So, does anyone actually know the proportion of active ladder female players in the world in relation to the total active ladder player base (or something close)? If this number is low enough, the whole discussion on the number of female players may be moot.
|
On January 05 2013 16:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I'll add to this thread:
In a competitive industry of sport, people should be rewarded for their merits and achievements. Skill earns rewards.
As for casters, hosts, analyists, etc: An intimate knowledge of the sport is needed. Is the individual properly qualified to speak to the sport in question?
I strongly feeel that players should be signed to teams based on their skill and abilities, NOT their looks or gender. As for media talent, qualification first, sex appeal after.
Ladies: If you want equality, stop playing the female gende card.
If you don't want equality, then by all means - play the female card all you want but expect people to point out the lack of merit when something is given but not deserved.
Work hard, get results, get rewards. Sex n legs should have nothing to do with it. Pardon the pun, but using legs to get the foot in the door might seem minor - but for an applicant for the same position with 10 times the experience or ability, its just rude and inexcusable.
I don't think wanting a merit-based system for pro-teams and casters is incompatible with having female-only tournaments. Maybe with signing females to pro-teams before they show their merit, but with a better female-only tournament infrastructure there might be less guesswork when signing female players, for a number of reasons. I also don't think female-only tournaments could exist in a world where we don't value merit and progress.
|
On January 06 2013 00:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
So, does anyone actually know the proportion of active ladder female players in the world in relation to the total active ladder player base (or something close)? If this number is low enough, the whole discussion on the number of female players may be moot.
No one knows per se.
|
I think we actually have to take a step back here and realize that most sports actually aren't mature whatsoever. Seriously, they really aren't. Take football (american) for example. Powder puff is looked favorably upon for highschool and some college, but outside of that powder puff players who show excellence in the sport akin to that of a pro-football players get ridiculed for being too manly to be women. Women's basketball is a sideshow for mens, and the new bikini league is there to show that. The only sport that is enormously main stream, besides from extreme-sports which tend to be well integrated (consider snowboarding for example), that has great integration is Football (non-american); however, even football lacks equality in female production with female leagues being significantly less important than male in every sense of the word. The only sports where females really have equality are A) extreme sports that rely on media other than the simple body and B) sports that are not so mainstream that they are aired regularly. If you think about the sports that people see females do the best in, they are sports where finesse and control are on par with actual physical brute force. Sports like gymnastics show this, men and women's gymnastics are equal in importance and in some countries women's is more important. E-sports has the chance to become that, but in order to, we as a community need to stop thinking of ourselves as mainstream male sports and more as lesser mainstream open sports that require different skills to succeed.
|
On January 06 2013 00:56 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 16:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I'll add to this thread:
In a competitive industry of sport, people should be rewarded for their merits and achievements. Skill earns rewards.
As for casters, hosts, analyists, etc: An intimate knowledge of the sport is needed. Is the individual properly qualified to speak to the sport in question?
I strongly feeel that players should be signed to teams based on their skill and abilities, NOT their looks or gender. As for media talent, qualification first, sex appeal after.
Ladies: If you want equality, stop playing the female gende card.
If you don't want equality, then by all means - play the female card all you want but expect people to point out the lack of merit when something is given but not deserved.
Work hard, get results, get rewards. Sex n legs should have nothing to do with it. Pardon the pun, but using legs to get the foot in the door might seem minor - but for an applicant for the same position with 10 times the experience or ability, its just rude and inexcusable. I don't think wanting a merit-based system for pro-teams and casters is incompatible with having female-only tournaments. Maybe with signing females to pro-teams before they show their merit, but with a better female-only tournament infrastructure there might be less guesswork when signing female players, for a number of reasons. I also don't think female-only tournaments could exist in a world where we don't value merit and progress.
I see your point, but a femail only tournament only serves to depreciate a female players ability - the tournament is such a small slice of the player pool, it is not an accurate gauge of ability. Now, a female to place well in a normal tournament, amongst her make peers and fellow players? That is a true gauge of ability and is a mark to a resume worth attaining.
Women's only leagues should only apply to where it matters - physical contests, where males have an advantage. Video gaming, etc, is all hand eye, decision making, and coordination - where being female or male has no advantage or disadvantage.
|
On January 06 2013 02:04 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 00:56 RuiBarbO wrote:On January 05 2013 16:47 Grimmyman123 wrote:
I'll add to this thread:
In a competitive industry of sport, people should be rewarded for their merits and achievements. Skill earns rewards.
As for casters, hosts, analyists, etc: An intimate knowledge of the sport is needed. Is the individual properly qualified to speak to the sport in question?
I strongly feeel that players should be signed to teams based on their skill and abilities, NOT their looks or gender. As for media talent, qualification first, sex appeal after.
Ladies: If you want equality, stop playing the female gende card.
If you don't want equality, then by all means - play the female card all you want but expect people to point out the lack of merit when something is given but not deserved.
Work hard, get results, get rewards. Sex n legs should have nothing to do with it. Pardon the pun, but using legs to get the foot in the door might seem minor - but for an applicant for the same position with 10 times the experience or ability, its just rude and inexcusable. I don't think wanting a merit-based system for pro-teams and casters is incompatible with having female-only tournaments. Maybe with signing females to pro-teams before they show their merit, but with a better female-only tournament infrastructure there might be less guesswork when signing female players, for a number of reasons. I also don't think female-only tournaments could exist in a world where we don't value merit and progress. I see your point, but a femail only tournament only serves to depreciate a female players ability - the tournament is such a small slice of the player pool, it is not an accurate gauge of ability. Now, a female to place well in a normal tournament, amongst her make peers and fellow players? That is a true gauge of ability and is a mark to a resume worth attaining. Women's only leagues should only apply to where it matters - physical contests, where males have an advantage. Video gaming, etc, is all hand eye, decision making, and coordination - where being female or male has no advantage or disadvantage.
That isn't the point of female leagues at all.
Please read the article.
|
|
|
Here is the relevant comparisons to your OP, which I address:
"different standards and expectations for different types of people. "
"just setting a system or scale for female E-sports"
"When we compare, we look at how much each gender has succeeded,"
" Right now, females in StarCraft II are used for more marketing purposes and pushed less to achieve, especially when the opportunity to succeed is about once a year."
PROOF REQUIRED, with references.
" wide variety of females who obtain little to no credit for their recent accomplishments"
Evidence required other than your referense to IESF? Does Scarlett and Lieya apply to your theory as they both have great results and are female?
The fact is - if a female wins a female only tournament,it counts for nothing, because they are not recognised by the majority. The scaling of talent is not there. Few females have succeeded in incorporating female tournement wins into their resume - see Scarlett.
But, if a female does well, even marginally, at a major tournament, amongst her peers, then that actually counts for something, and it shows.
When we reward players for being female, we get results like Julia on stage at an MLG getting ROFL stomped publicly, badly. It wasn't even a contest, and it was clear that she had no business being on that stage. Clearly, her talent and experience in female tournaments did not prepare her.
|
On January 05 2013 16:04 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +
Why grow a subculture? My point is that you still aren't portraying why there is more value in specifically targeting female gamers in particular.
Whatever time, effort, and resources are devoted to developing and supporting a women's league is just that - time, effort, and resources. It's fairly self-explanatory. If someone finds particular value in doing it, I guess it's indeed their prerogative to do so. However, I may have misinterpreted the point of the article, which I was under the assumption of trying to convince the community that we need to develop and nurture a female community because of the value it will bring in the first place. What I'm saying is that you failed to produce an argument which shows why value is added and thus have provided no incentive for us to hop on a bandwagon and support a women's league. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to expend effort to stop someone from doing one, even if I think it's completely and utterly stupid.
All you've insinuated is that women should be prioritized because they have the potential to offer a culture that the current community lacks. What I'm stating is that there is no inherent value in the diversity you are arguing for. "Promoting diversity" is little more than a sugar coated term for promoting discrimination.
You're stating that catering to one group doesn't necessarily infringe upon the other groups, but that's intrinsically untrue. Of course it does. If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest.
And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums. Analogies are meant to get a point across using similarities, not identical scenarios, with the same underlying fundamental point set about by different scenarios. The affirmative action analogy is incredibly valid despite clear differences, as the underlying point is that it is promoting discrimination.
What is the point of growing the E-Sports subculture, or better yet; what is the point of creating further appeal and interest for women and women competitors? Are we really going down this line of basic marketing, sales and importance to appeal to many and larger varied crowds? We want women's leagues because more competitors and more diversification in types of competitors, areas of a scene and growth of variety is good. Is expending resources worth it? That's up for interpretation and obviously not everyone makes it a priority. Though, I can slap that statement on E-Sports and game developers and you'd see a mirror image of what I'm pushing here. Show nested quote +If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest. This is wrong and I told you why comparing and attaching the two together is wrong. Zowie Divinia did a 500$ tournament for a Women's only tournament. The money was specifically for that tournament and not an arbitrary prize of 500$ allocated to it through decision. You're assuming that we have a bank full of money and thus decide what options we want to spend it on which is untrue. It's actually more: Which areas do we want to promote and further development in: Women leagues, okay, how much money do we want to put towards it? 500$. If they didn't do Zowie Divinia, that doesn't mean they'd put that 500$ in a different tournament or idea. That's how decisions, resources and companies work necessarily. I think that's a huge misinterpretation. It is much less black and white than you suggest. Show nested quote +
And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums
If you say so, but I heavily feel like I'm less at fault than you right now. [/i][/i]
Yes. We are going down that line, no question. And you're talking to someone with a BA in Business Economics, specializing in International Economics and Concepts. You're not selling whatsoever on the value here, nor is it intuitive when it comes to the video game industry. More competitors is good, yes. However, achieving more male competitors is substantially easier than achieving more female competitors. At best you have a niche sponsor argument, but even that is ridiculous, considering that if anything what the scene needs is an absolute growth in viewers overall. Which, as mentioned, is easier to achieve on the male side.
You didn't say anything remotely on why it's wrong. You continually just post stupid things like "I addressed this earlier" or "it was in the article" when your points in the article are even good ones. You do little more than say things like "some people think along this mentality, but it's a bad mentality, you need to think of it differently and have a good mentality." It's getting old.
And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all?
Regardless of what would have been done otherwise, the point is that as soon as the restaurants open, it is actively denying service to minorities. If you have the female $500 tournament, that's a tournament relating to a particular skillset that men possess, but are being denied entry for the sole reason they have a penis. Ridiculous.
Your article has absolutely no substantive points in it, yet you continually reference it. Beyond annoying.
|
On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all?
You must REALLY hate living in the USA with that mindset because positive discrimination is the norm there.
|
On January 06 2013 02:42 Otolia wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all? You must REALLY hate living in the USA with that mindset because positive discrimination is the norm there.
To clarify if there was any confusion, I was being critical of that mentality.
Positive discrimination is also a stupid mindset, but can easily be overcome by having the mindset you need to surpass your peers. Of course, this mindset only works for an individual to have for himself, I'm not advocating that the government should adopt it or promote it. Doesn't matter if my competition gets a slight advantage for an irrelevant factor if I'm substantially better than him/her in abilities.
|
On January 06 2013 02:23 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Here is the relevant comparisons to your OP, which I address:
"different standards and expectations for different types of people. "
"just setting a system or scale for female E-sports"
"When we compare, we look at how much each gender has succeeded,"
" Right now, females in StarCraft II are used for more marketing purposes and pushed less to achieve, especially when the opportunity to succeed is about once a year."
PROOF REQUIRED, with references.
" wide variety of females who obtain little to no credit for their recent accomplishments"
Evidence required other than your referense to IESF? Does Scarlett and Lieya apply to your theory as they both have great results and are female?
The fact is - if a female wins a female only tournament,it counts for nothing, because they are not recognised by the majority. The scaling of talent is not there. Few females have succeeded in incorporating female tournement wins into their resume - see Scarlett.
But, if a female does well, even marginally, at a major tournament, amongst her peers, then that actually counts for something, and it shows.
When we reward players for being female, we get results like Julia on stage at an MLG getting ROFL stomped publicly, badly. It wasn't even a contest, and it was clear that she had no business being on that stage. Clearly, her talent and experience in female tournaments did not prepare her.
The proof is both my history with managing teams and female players as well as the credibility listed from experts from the secondary post.
Leiya has little to no results, if anything, you're playing into my hand by stating so.
The fact is - if a female wins a female only tournament,it counts for nothing, because they are not recognised by the majority. The scaling of talent is not there. Few females have succeeded in incorporating female tournement wins into their resume - see Scarlett.
reread the article again
|
On January 06 2013 02:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 16:04 Torte de Lini wrote:
Why grow a subculture? My point is that you still aren't portraying why there is more value in specifically targeting female gamers in particular.
Whatever time, effort, and resources are devoted to developing and supporting a women's league is just that - time, effort, and resources. It's fairly self-explanatory. If someone finds particular value in doing it, I guess it's indeed their prerogative to do so. However, I may have misinterpreted the point of the article, which I was under the assumption of trying to convince the community that we need to develop and nurture a female community because of the value it will bring in the first place. What I'm saying is that you failed to produce an argument which shows why value is added and thus have provided no incentive for us to hop on a bandwagon and support a women's league. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to expend effort to stop someone from doing one, even if I think it's completely and utterly stupid.
All you've insinuated is that women should be prioritized because they have the potential to offer a culture that the current community lacks. What I'm stating is that there is no inherent value in the diversity you are arguing for. "Promoting diversity" is little more than a sugar coated term for promoting discrimination.
You're stating that catering to one group doesn't necessarily infringe upon the other groups, but that's intrinsically untrue. Of course it does. If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest.
And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums. Analogies are meant to get a point across using similarities, not identical scenarios, with the same underlying fundamental point set about by different scenarios. The affirmative action analogy is incredibly valid despite clear differences, as the underlying point is that it is promoting discrimination.
What is the point of growing the E-Sports subculture, or better yet; what is the point of creating further appeal and interest for women and women competitors? Are we really going down this line of basic marketing, sales and importance to appeal to many and larger varied crowds? We want women's leagues because more competitors and more diversification in types of competitors, areas of a scene and growth of variety is good. Is expending resources worth it? That's up for interpretation and obviously not everyone makes it a priority. Though, I can slap that statement on E-Sports and game developers and you'd see a mirror image of what I'm pushing here. If you're giving select privileges or advantages to a specific group, it is directly preventing others from capitalizing on those privileges or advantages. If you do a $500 tournament for women only, you are directly denying all men in the community an opportunity to win $500 in prize money by default. It is far, far more black and white than you suggest. This is wrong and I told you why comparing and attaching the two together is wrong. Zowie Divinia did a 500$ tournament for a Women's only tournament. The money was specifically for that tournament and not an arbitrary prize of 500$ allocated to it through decision. You're assuming that we have a bank full of money and thus decide what options we want to spend it on which is untrue. It's actually more: Which areas do we want to promote and further development in: Women leagues, okay, how much money do we want to put towards it? 500$. If they didn't do Zowie Divinia, that doesn't mean they'd put that 500$ in a different tournament or idea. That's how decisions, resources and companies work necessarily. I think that's a huge misinterpretation. It is much less black and white than you suggest.
And no, when concerning analogies, the minor details that fault it do not discredit the user, which is such a silly and stupid thing that plagues these forums
If you say so, but I heavily feel like I'm less at fault than you right now. Yes. We are going down that line, no question. And you're talking to someone with a BA in Business Economics, specializing in International Economics and Concepts. You're not selling whatsoever on the value here, nor is it intuitive when it comes to the video game industry. More competitors is good, yes. However, achieving more male competitors is substantially easier than achieving more female competitors. At best you have a niche sponsor argument, but even that is ridiculous, considering that if anything what the scene needs is an absolute growth in viewers overall. Which, as mentioned, is easier to achieve on the male side. You didn't say anything remotely on why it's wrong. You continually just post stupid things like "I addressed this earlier" or "it was in the article" when your points in the article are even good ones. You do little more than say things like "some people think along this mentality, but it's a bad mentality, you need to think of it differently and have a good mentality." It's getting old. And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all? Regardless of what would have been done otherwise, the point is that as soon as the restaurants open, it is actively denying service to minorities. If you have the female $500 tournament, that's a tournament relating to a particular skillset that men possess, but are being denied entry for the sole reason they have a penis. Ridiculous. Your article has absolutely no substantive points in it, yet you continually reference it. Beyond annoying. [/i][/i]
I really thought I vanquished you with that last point, but let's go again!
You don't have to cite your degree lol, we all have university degrees (at least I do as well).
More competitors is good, having your game appeal to a better variety is also just as good. If I can get a huge appeal towards men, that's great. If I can get women interested as well as men, then I don't see why you would disagree as you do now.
And it's still blatant discrimination. If I'm a white supremacist that wants to open a restaurant for whites only, should I be able to do it? I wouldn't open a restaurant otherwise, because I think Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle-Eastern (lumped), etc. are all scum. So at the very least, I'm adding value by providing services to Whites, right? That's better than no value being added at all?
This sounds a bit desperate of a comparison. Your goals for your restaurant are both detrimental to your business as well as local reputation. It doesn't make sense on any level besides irrationality to open a white-only restaurant. How is this similar to female-leagues that help bolster a product and niche scene to a larger, more diverse audience? Does your discriminated restaurant do that?
The tournament is for beneficial purposes, how is a white-only restaurant beneficial for tourism? We know why female leagues are beneficial for StarCraft.
|
Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On November 20 2012 04:11 Noobity wrote:
The only, only problem I have with the discussion is the idea that female-only tournaments aren't sexist, while male only tournaments would be.
This is mostly a moot point, at least until a female wins a tournament populated with both sexes.
I don't like the way society is going about this kind of thing in general. Yes, women have it hard in a lot of ways, and I'm not trying to slight that. But men have it hard in a lot of other ways, and this isn't really brought to light ever. As a man who likes to think he's respectful and neutral regarding sex as possible, the rights that I don't have regarding my children, or a failed marriage, or any number of other issues caused by men in the past is pretty frustrating as it is. We have a huge issue of equality, where women have different rights from men everywhere and that's the bigger issue. Allowing tournaments limited to only one sex, be it male or female, while a great idea in theory, can only be a stepping stone in my opinion.
Great write-up once again, torte, and thanks for the discussion point!
I agree with this statement, last night in an SC2 chat channel we had an hour long discussion over things like this.
For now however, female only tournaments aren't a problem but if women start winning tournaments we would have to scrap them for sure.
|
On January 06 2013 02:47 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:23 Grimmyman123 wrote:
Here is the relevant comparisons to your OP, which I address:
"different standards and expectations for different types of people. "
"just setting a system or scale for female E-sports"
"When we compare, we look at how much each gender has succeeded,"
" Right now, females in StarCraft II are used for more marketing purposes and pushed less to achieve, especially when the opportunity to succeed is about once a year."
PROOF REQUIRED, with references.
" wide variety of females who obtain little to no credit for their recent accomplishments"
Evidence required other than your referense to IESF? Does Scarlett and Lieya apply to your theory as they both have great results and are female?
The fact is - if a female wins a female only tournament,it counts for nothing, because they are not recognised by the majority. The scaling of talent is not there. Few females have succeeded in incorporating female tournement wins into their resume - see Scarlett.
But, if a female does well, even marginally, at a major tournament, amongst her peers, then that actually counts for something, and it shows.
When we reward players for being female, we get results like Julia on stage at an MLG getting ROFL stomped publicly, badly. It wasn't even a contest, and it was clear that she had no business being on that stage. Clearly, her talent and experience in female tournaments did not prepare her. The proof is both my history with managing teams and female players as well as the credibility listed from experts from the secondary post. Leiya has little to no results, if anything, you're playing into my hand by stating so. Show nested quote +The fact is - if a female wins a female only tournament,it counts for nothing, because they are not recognised by the majority. The scaling of talent is not there. Few females have succeeded in incorporating female tournement wins into their resume - see Scarlett.
reread the article again
You'll need more than your opinion and personal experience to back up your ideas. Examples, even if real world, are required. Otherwise your post has no substance. One can learn this during their post secondary education.
Leiya - repeated top master and Grand master leaguer. Results. http://sc2ranks.com/us/3937454/ROOTLeiYa#alltime
I am not playing into your hand, this is not a game, unless you intend this to be a game? Myself, and many others are far more educated than you might think, yet you continue on your tangent about re-reading your original post.
Maybe you do not get it. Your original post and its logic is FLAWED.
|
On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote:
Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing.
I understand the concept - the concept is flawed.
Just because you have 25k+ post doesnt mean your opinion is better than someone elses... that is easily acheived by posting 30 times a day.
|
On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote:
Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed.
The concept isn't flawed, in fact, it's often used in qualifiers for major tournaments to add proportional promotion and value in all other regions.
What's flawed is your understanding that you think women's leagues are to establish equal achievements to that of major leagues when in reality, it is a league to help display and promote female players and aspiring female progamers.
That's why your current and original statements are wrong and silly, because I clearly state the purpose of female leagues to bolster and promote minor leagues and areas, similar to other regions that are not as prominent as, say, Korean.
This is my last response to you because it's clear that when it comes to reading, you're selective.
On January 06 2013 04:36 Grimmyman123 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2013 02:56 Torte de Lini wrote:
Yesterday was good conversation, but I really think you're scraping the barrel with arguments. You said not to use the Strawman argument, but honestly, you're really pushing your luck.
For Grimmyman123, I'm not sure if you understand the concept of promoting female-leagues nor the detriment of comparing. I understand the concept - the concept is flawed. Just because you have 25k+ post doesnt mean your opinion is better than someone elses... that is easily acheived by posting 30 times a day.
relevance? No one is making that claim. Personal attacks only hinder your credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
