Re: MIOM's Statement on Competition Committee

Re: MIOM's Statement on Competition Committee

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq6a04

Posting this for visibility, and to craft responses longer than 140 chars.

Very good post

Well thought out, outlines the major problems that at least I have with the panel and how it's been handled thus far, and very level-headed.

respect to Rishi

I will say this again since I think it is important, but we need more PAL representatives. I think Emily should be included for sure but why does another person who reps PAL have to leave. Armada probably understands the differences between PAL and NTSC the best and he is well spoken.

Like if it is about rule sets then PAL reps should be there for sure. What about the TOs of major European tournaments (I know Marc has been invited but there should be more) or Kadano. Instead we have lesser qualified individuals on in committee because they have been around in the scene for a long time...

EDIT: I know Armada chose to leave but it doesn't change the fact that we lost a PAL representative

That's not what we (The 5) intended to imply. All in all, though, after days of community discussion around why women make sense to include regardless of CoC being in the scope of The 25 and then our statement coming out before we have come to a full consensus regarding potential drops/replacements (such as Armada. Please bear in mind he actually hasn't dropped, despite what a Kotaku headline might have told you), I understand why it seems this way.

Let me say it straight: The competition committee does not think women only have a place for CoC related issues.

I'm pushing right now for us to find a solution to get Emilywaves on. She likely would have been on The 25 in the first place had there not been a misunderstanding about her desire to be on the panel. In my opinion she makes a ton of sense to include.

Armada chose to leave because no one else did

Why is the official miom statement on a twitlonger that'll get lost in a day or so?

Posting this on their site seems like a better option for visibility.

Ok IMO: The CC's scope is about melee rules only. There aren't any rules at all that pertain to gender in any way, and there are no rules that benefit one gender over the other (correct me if I am wrong please). So if gender is not relevant at all for the entire scope of the CC, than gender representation is entirely irrelevant. Neither gender has a unique perspective of melee rules. So gender shouldn't even be considered. IMO, there is no need for gender representation in the committee, should just be the most qualified people picked. That being said, if there is an argument that individuals were not picked because they're female, than that is a problem. I don't know if anyone thinks that that is the case. But otherwise, just have the most qualified people on. Side note: I think Emily Sun would be great for the committee, if she wanted to be involved with it.

It's hard to really sum up because it's a complicated issue, but it's something like this:

-Due to a code of conduct being included in the initial draft of the proposed ruleset of the competition committee, there was ambiguity as to what the committee was for. Was it general leadership of the melee community, as the proposed ruleset implied, or was it strictly about the controller/mod issues for which the committee was initially formed.

-The actual list of panelists seemed to imply it was about community leadership (GIMR, D1, etc.)

-The lack of female representation sucks either way, but based on the premise of community leadership the fact that no women were on the panel was appalling

-EDIT: After initial outrage, members of the committee said that they had previously offered Emilywaves and another influential female smasher spots on the panel, but both initially declined (at least one of which allegedly due to miscommunication).

-This culminated in Armada stepping down (EDIT: or offering to step down) from his spot in favour of letting Emilywaves being on the panel, which quite frankly was a stand-up thing to do. Based on either premise for the panel, this was a great choice due to her experience with ruleset experimentation in tri-state. However, people were upset that a super valuable contributor (Armada) was being lost.

-In response to the community outrage regarding all of this, MIOM releases the statement that Rishi quotes in his TL.

Anyone feel free to let me know if I'm missing anything or if I have any misinformation

Note that many of the players on the 25 are not top players. The 25 includes TOs, streamers, and community figures, of which there are tons of ridiculously qualified women. Including women isn't a matter of just trying to appear inclusive. It's a matter of achieving the strongest and most well rounded group of 25 possible.

IMHO, these kind of huge issues that are arising just from CHOOSING the committee, go to show that this weird centralized panel of melee elite is a huge fucking mistake.

Emily Waves is the biggest TO in Tri-state. She's the head TO behind Nebs and the tri-state circuit. There are many other prominent female TOs all over the country, but Emily is the most prominent, and I was very surprised she wasn't immediately offered a spot on the 25.

Armada doesn't have to leave, he chose to, if I read things correctly.

feminist strawman

blatant sexism

using the term manlet

pussy pass

"virtue signaling"

"word policing"

Can I unread this comment

A suggestion? Resolve this quickly and release a separate statement about why you feel that it is important to have Emilywaves, and women in general, on the committee (it seems like you think its important).

The longer you let this go and the more you just focus on the "its about melee rules" part, the more fuel you give to the fire that is: "melee is the only thing that matters".

Already in this thread (and I'm sure you saw the last one) there are lots of comments to the effect of: "why do we need women?"

If this is not a statement you support (you shouldn't) you need to address this explicitly.

https://twitter.com/VGBC_GimR/status/899314667927068672

"The 25 were selected based on their expertise with competitive Melee as players and influencers, and not on their knowledge of player conduct."

there are no top level female players. you realise this, right? there can be no female perspective on high level player issues while there are no high level female players, just as there can be no male perspective on the experience of childbirth.

female players can change this of course, by getting better, but putting a female player on there because she's female is textbook tokenism.

also, fucking Armada is the one to leave? we've got people on that list that have a history of making terrible decisions, but the greatest player to ever touch a controller has to step down? tbh this entire committee seems a mistake from the start.

Feel very similarly. I'm really having trouble putting my frustrations into words, but I'll just say that it's bothersome that the committee seems to imply that a women's knowledge about player treatment and input about code of conduct are the most useful things that she could bring to the table.

Maybe girls feel ostracized in the scene because you assume the worst out of them?

At the time of Armada saying this, it was true no one else had. Which is why we've been talking about this so long. Reno, who doesn't have the following that Armada does, tweeted this less than 24 hours ago.

You need to mention they offered Emily Sun and another influential female smasher (can't remember her name) spots in the panel, but they initially declined.

He doesn't need to step down, he chose to

They probably have a girls night so they don't have to deal with people like you.

if this is indeed the case and the CC scope is about ruleset only then this is a fair opinion. But how do you respond to what Rishi said about D1 and GIMR being on it as well despite not being related to ruleset issues but instead community issues?

The argument is about your original point though. They are saying that the committee isn't made up of the most qualified people, at least for the code of conduct bit.

Since code of conduct is a subjective thing, unlike the impact of a lot of technical game rules, having a diverse board to discuss/decide is typically a better idea.

Much in the same way that it was super hypocritical for Buzzfeed Huffington Post to tweet about how cool it was for them to be so diverse while the entire board was female. They blindly took it to the opposite extreme in the name of diversity while forgetting what the word meant.

It'd be the same issue if every board member was a Fox main. That wouldn't create a good ecosystem for deciding game rules.

Not agreeing with how things went down, that's just the argument behind having female representation, which I do agree with. Hell, there should be more diversity than just that. Probably a better idea to have a separate board for those rules so as to not go over 25

EDIT: This is the tweet I was referring to: http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/liz-heron-huffpo-feminism-pic.png

This is an extreme example of the problem, but for the other side. Adding women should be done due to 2 reasons


You're trying to get a perspective not yet represented
They are qualified and happen to be a woman


Yes, many want women on the board just for the sake of them being a woman but even though those loud people have a bad reasoning, there are other reasons for the same result.

The argument is about your original point though. They are saying that the committee isn't made up of the most qualified people, at least for the code of conduct bit.

Since code of conduct is a subjective thing, unlike the impact of a lot of technical game rules, having a diverse board to discuss/decide is typically a better idea.

Much in the same way that it was super hypocritical for Buzzfeed Huffington Post to tweet about how cool it was for them to be so diverse while the entire board was female. They blindly took it to the opposite extreme in the name of diversity while forgetting what the word meant.

It'd be the same issue if every board member was a Fox main. That wouldn't create a good ecosystem for deciding game rules.

Not agreeing with how things went down, that's just the argument behind having female representation, which I do agree with. Hell, there should be more diversity than just that. Probably a better idea to have a separate board for those rules so as to not go over 25

EDIT: This is the tweet I was referring to:

This is an extreme example of the problem, but for the other side. Adding women should be done due to 2 reasons

You're trying to get a perspective not yet represented

They are qualified and happen to be a woman

Yes, many want women on the board just for the sake of them being a woman but even though those loud people have a bad reasoning, there are other reasons for the same result.

this is super notable because tri-state experiments the most with rulesets of any major smash community

that kind of input on the panel would be invaluable

on the contrary. he isn't saying he knows better - he is saying lets give the TO's autonomy to run their own tournaments the way that they'd like.

We are not talking about Rishi's statement, we are talking about why MIOM's statement was on twitlonger.

I think we can all agree that to them, it was smart to post on a Twitlonger and have it get lost. It looks to me like they didn't want to stir the pot, but it's backfiring.

Same with region, why do we need someone from Japan on this panel?

That might be more relevant since different regions may have different rules (especially Europe with PAL).

Turns out when you let a bunch of people with very little real world experience make big decisions like these things will get messy.

¯\(ツ)/¯

It was a logistics issue in the first place, she was originally invited. It's not like anyone that wasn't already considered isn't in it

Armada chose to leave

This isn't a meritocratic committee, and neither is it a democratic one.

If the committee is about the most qualified people, for the specific job outlined, and none of that relates to gender, then having a woman who is not as qualified as a man is just catering to gender equality because of the backlash, not because it would make the committee better.