ask sky to set up an women invite only tourney to take place in say 4 weeks time with a low buyin. Ask sky if they could possibly send an email to all women who are signed up to the promo emails across all of sky products ie bingo/bet and see what sort of turn out you get. Posted by BURNShurtz
A VERY GOOD IDEA, I WOULD PLAY IF I HAD AN EMAIL SENT TO ME,KNOWING IT IS ONLY FEMALE,S PLAYING, A GREAT IDEA,SKY COULD DO THIS,THANKS BURNshurtz
Most of what you say, most of the time, I find very refreshing and is usually directed at an op that deserves it. On this occasion however I disagree both with you key observation, and also your choice of target.
Batkin left this site to play away because she liked playing an all girl tourney, if i remember correctly. But she likes Sky and was wondering whether such a thing could be done here. Why she did so you haven't asked, and you have made some pretty stereotypical assumptions.
Your punchline is then to suggest that the idea of a ladies only game is somehow way out of order. But it is none of the things you suggest. It is a PC world gone mad when people are not allowed to have some fun together without having to allow any Tom, Richard (cannot call him by his usual name as he isn't allowed on the forum) or Harry to barge their way in and demand entry. What next, a friendly home game and the local hoodlums demand entrance? Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter.
As it is we already have segregated mtts on sky - they are the team private games. Should these be banned too?
I'm sorry, I just don't get what you are trying to achieve?
How would it bring more ladies onto the site?
I am not against private tournaments, I think they are good for the site but just don't see why there should be a guarantee or why you need to exclude the opposite sex!
Is it because you have an edge against potential opponents and are looking for easy money?
There are many excellent lady players on the site who are more than a match for most of the regulars how would limiting their opponents help?
Hi Smitty, Most of what you say, most of the time, I find very refreshing and is usually directed at an op that deserves it. On this occasion however I disagree both with you key observation, and also your choice of target. Posted by GELDY (1)
This is the crux of the problem when debating people in this forum. A bad idea is a bad idea, whether it's said by a bum on the street, or Albert Einstein. The arguments should rise and fall on their own merits, and no-one should be gifted immunity from having their opinions scrutinised, picked apart, and improved on. Not only that, but as I've repeated numerous times already in this thread, I'm not targetting Batkin, I'm targetting the (what I consider to be) poor 'new format' being discussed. Please, I urge people to go back and read the posts in this thread when I decide to jump in and express my views. At no point do I make anything personal, or call Batkin out in any way. If you can't handle having someone exposing multiple flaws in your argument, without resorting to personal attacks, reacting emotionally, or ignoring the rubuttal altogether, then the forum isn't for you.
Batkin left this site to play away because she liked playing an all girl tourney, if i remember correctly. But she likes Sky and was wondering whether such a thing could be done here. Why she did so you haven't asked, and you have made some pretty stereotypical assumptions. Your punchline is then to suggest that the idea of a ladies only game is somehowway out of order. But it is none of the things you suggest. Posted by GELDY (2)
1) Can you show us where I made these stereotypical assumptions, please? 2) I explained the, 'somehow' (quite in depth, and with multiple points to back up my claims), and while I wouldn't say the idea is 'out of order', I do believe it would be bad for the game, and also pretty wrong on a general ethical basis. 3) If you're going to just backhand my entire argument, I'd at least appreciate an explanation on why you think that. I've made about 6/7 points in this thread about why it would be a bad idea to introduce "Women-Only" events. An example as to why I'm wrong in one or two, if not more, would be great.
It is a PC world gone mad when people are not allowed to have some fun together without having to allow any Tom, Richard (cannot call him by his usual name as he isn't allowed on the forum) or Harry to barge their way in and demand entry. What next, a friendly home game and the local hoodlums demand entrance? Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter. As it is we already have segregated mtts on sky - they are the team private games. Should these be banned too? Posted by GELDY (3)
I don't think you fully understand the difference between a a private game, and a publicly advertised game, with limited attendance. There is a MASSIVE difference here. Elaborating on your example, a home-game is in a private setting, where the premises are owned by you, or one of your friends. It's an activity or hobby you do in the privacy of your own home, with the criteria of: 1) You have to be one of your friends 2) You have to know how to play poker 3) It's limited to a first come, first serve basis
This format does not discriminate against anyone, while a gender-specific one, obviously would. Now, let's say you had a bunch of mates ranging from 25yo-60yo, and you said that every week from now on, you're only going to allow 25-30yo's to come and play in your home game. Well, the other 31-60yo's would be pretty p1ssed, and with good reason. Even though it's a home-game, and you have every right to invite whoever you like, one of your criteria discriminates against some of your friends.
Disciminate - 1. tomakeadistinctioninfavoroforagainstapersonorthingonthebasisofthegroup,class,orcategoryto which thepersonorthingbelongsratherthanaccordingtoactualmerit;showpartiality: Thenewlawsdiscriminatesagainst the elderly. orHediscriminatesinfavorofhisrelatives.
To shrug off a potential prejudicial attitude because, per se, 'it's your house, your home game, your rules', wouldn't change the fact that your decision to invite those that you have done, is ageist.
Extrapalate that to a public tournament, in a public setting, where events (for the most part) should be facilitating on a "come one come all" basis.
The part I bolded in your quote is somewhat concerning, as it's incredibly easy to counter it by tweaking a few words. "Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter." Surely, wouldn't it be the other way round? "It shouldn't matter who you are. Age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
Smitalos do you play on this site? I search for you and never see you on any tables. I am probably missing the times you are on but you spend countless hours on the forums so one would assume you play a fair bit. Do you use other sites?
I'm sorry, I just don't get what you are trying to achieve? How would it bring more ladies onto the site? I am not against private tournaments, I think they are good for the site but just don't see why there should be a guarantee or why you need to exclude the opposite sex! Is it because you have an edge against potential opponents and are looking for easy money? There are many excellent lady players on the site who are more than a match for most of the regulars how would limiting their opponents help? Posted by cleansweep
Hi cleansweep, thanks for the reply. No I am not looking for value lol!
I have a fair amount of friends (female) who express their interest inpoker but wont play online as it is seen as a male game. This type of thing would induce them in and get them more comfortable playing online that is my thought process nothing more.
Smitalos do you play on this site? I search for you and never see you on any tables. I am probably missing the times you are on but you spend countless hours on the forums so one would assume you play a fair bit. Do you use other sites? Posted by Batkin88
You'll usually find me on here at limits 100nl thru 2knl Stars and FTP, it's usually Mixed-Games.
And, fwiw, as stated before, the players shouldn't be discriminated against because non-players have misconceptions about the game. If you friends want to tie up poker and a gender-stereotyped game, that's their problem I'm afraid. Personally, I try not to let preconceptions or social norms stop me from doing something I love, and your friends should feel exactly the same way.
Why is it "their problem"? To them it might be an opportunity not a problem. Do you ever have anything positive to say about anyone else's ideas? Posted by FCHD
Could you elaborate, please? To who? What opportunity?
It's their problem because... *deep breath*
It's a dated, divisive, and ultimately (in some cases) morally reprehensable attitude that only serves to create more disruption and problems in this world by labelling things as black and white. If you like something, just do it. If you don't want to, because the majority of individuals that partake in that activity are different from yourself, then it's no-one elses fault but your own. We shouldn't have to cater for people's misconceptions by discriminating against others and bending the rules. Educate them though? Most definitely. (although this point should kinda apply to everything in life, not just poker)
I got a lot of stick for going to a local Badminton class back in 6th form when 90% of the players were 50+. But I had an absolutely incredible time, meeting some unforgettable people, because I didn't let social pressure, or ageist stereotyping get in the way of something I loved. Getting my @rse handed to me by OAPs.
Don't have much time so I'll just make a couple of points, and as i'm not as adept with the colour coded editing i'll just number them
1. it's great debating on the forum. no probs with that at all. but there are better ways of starting a debate than just steamrolling your personal view in a way that could come across to some people, not just some ladies, as overly aggressive
2. "The rest of us shouldn’t be discriminated against because you’re uncomfortable hanging around people that have bigger muscles, or some junk between their legs"
a stereotypical assumption methinks
3. discrimination is a tough topic. we all want a just fair society but it will never be perfect and we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when trying to improve it.
And your final point sums up why we will probably have to agree to disagree. you said:
The part I bolded in your quote is somewhat concerning, as it's incredibly easy to counter it by tweaking a few words. "Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter." Surely, wouldn't it be the other way round? "It shouldn't matter who you are. Age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
I do not regard this as a counter at all - I just do not believe it should apply to everything in life.
A free for all when everyone can do what they want is the path to oblivion imho
1) As opposed to a view that isn't personal? #literallyimpossible Do you mean subjective, instead of personal? 2) That was meant to be a joke, sighhhhh. Okay, whatever reason you have for not wanting to play alongside people of the opposite (or same!) sex, whether it's men or women, your belief probably isn't warranted. Whether they have junk between their legs, or balloons on their chest. (Or both. I am the living proof of that.) 3) I'm not saying that you're impying this, but... Just because we can never reach perfection, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. The less discrimination in the world, the better imo. And unless there's some exceptional and justified reason for it, I see no excuse to alter that attitude.
Final point -I honestly don't know what to say. I would have thought that it was a fairly clear-cut 'Equality4All!' type of statement, that almost everyone should be willing to get behind.
Also, your last quote/line contradicts itself slightly. I'm proposing we have a set rule. That no-one can discriminate with player-specific tournaments. That is almost the polar opposite of a free-for-all. A F-F-A, as you implied, would be manic. People would be allowed to create gender/age/ethnic specific events at their own leisure, which as you so stated, would be OblivianoCapitano, imo.
EDIT: As previously stated, any rebuttals made arn't attacks on YOU. No-one owns a set of ideas, and any attacks on said ideas brought up itt, or in any other thread, should never be seen as insults, personal jabs, etc.
In Response to Re: New female tourneys : Hi cleansweep, thanks for the reply. No I am not looking for value lol! I have a fair amount of friends (female) who express their interest inpoker but wont play online as it is seen as a male game. This type of thing would induce them in and get them more comfortable playing online that is my thought process nothing more. Posted by Batkin88
If you have friends who are intimidated. Why not set up a Team Batcave.
Like the Hitsquad you could invite your friends to play in a private (password protected) tournament.
If successful, Sky would be foolish not to adopt similar tournaments into the schedule.
Comments
Not only that, but as I've repeated numerous times already in this thread, I'm not targetting Batkin, I'm targetting the (what I consider to be) poor 'new format' being discussed. Please, I urge people to go back and read the posts in this thread when I decide to jump in and express my views. At no point do I make anything personal, or call Batkin out in any way. If you can't handle having someone exposing multiple flaws in your argument, without resorting to personal attacks, reacting emotionally, or ignoring the rubuttal altogether, then the forum isn't for you. 1) Can you show us where I made these stereotypical assumptions, please?
2) I explained the, 'somehow' (quite in depth, and with multiple points to back up my claims), and while I wouldn't say the idea is 'out of order', I do believe it would be bad for the game, and also pretty wrong on a general ethical basis.
3) If you're going to just backhand my entire argument, I'd at least appreciate an explanation on why you think that. I've made about 6/7 points in this thread about why it would be a bad idea to introduce "Women-Only" events. An example as to why I'm wrong in one or two, if not more, would be great. I don't think you fully understand the difference between a a private game, and a publicly advertised game, with limited attendance. There is a MASSIVE difference here.
Elaborating on your example, a home-game is in a private setting, where the premises are owned by you, or one of your friends. It's an activity or hobby you do in the privacy of your own home, with the criteria of:
1) You have to be one of your friends
2) You have to know how to play poker
3) It's limited to a first come, first serve basis
This format does not discriminate against anyone, while a gender-specific one, obviously would.
Now, let's say you had a bunch of mates ranging from 25yo-60yo, and you said that every week from now on, you're only going to allow 25-30yo's to come and play in your home game. Well, the other 31-60yo's would be pretty p1ssed, and with good reason. Even though it's a home-game, and you have every right to invite whoever you like, one of your criteria discriminates against some of your friends.
The new laws discriminates against the elderly. or He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
Extrapalate that to a public tournament, in a public setting, where events (for the most part) should be facilitating on a "come one come all" basis.
The part I bolded in your quote is somewhat concerning, as it's incredibly easy to counter it by tweaking a few words.
"Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
Surely, wouldn't it be the other way round?
"It shouldn't matter who you are. Age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
Dude, wow.
So men can't wear bikinis too??
#sexybikiniSmit #countmein
I have a fair amount of friends (female) who express their interest inpoker but wont play online as it is seen as a male game. This type of thing would induce them in and get them more comfortable playing online that is my thought process nothing more.
Stars and FTP, it's usually Mixed-Games.
And, fwiw, as stated before, the players shouldn't be discriminated against because non-players have misconceptions about the game. If you friends want to tie up poker and a gender-stereotyped game, that's their problem I'm afraid.
Personally, I try not to let preconceptions or social norms stop me from doing something I love, and your friends should feel exactly the same way.
Lime Green mankinis ftw.
Why is it "their problem"? To them it might be an opportunity not a problem.
Do you ever have anything positive to say about anyone else's ideas?
You're in the perfect position to explain there's no reason why women can't play poker with men cos you do it.
It's their problem because... *deep breath*
It's a dated, divisive, and ultimately (in some cases) morally reprehensable attitude that only serves to create more disruption and problems in this world by labelling things as black and white. If you like something, just do it.
If you don't want to, because the majority of individuals that partake in that activity are different from yourself, then it's no-one elses fault but your own. We shouldn't have to cater for people's misconceptions by discriminating against others and bending the rules. Educate them though? Most definitely. (although this point should kinda apply to everything in life, not just poker)
I got a lot of stick for going to a local Badminton class back in 6th form when 90% of the players were 50+. But I had an absolutely incredible time, meeting some unforgettable people, because I didn't let social pressure, or ageist stereotyping get in the way of something I loved.
Getting my @rse handed to me by OAPs.
"Whether the criteria is age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
Surely, wouldn't it be the other way round?
"It shouldn't matter who you are. Age, sex, friendship shouldn't matter."
2) That was meant to be a joke, sighhhhh. Okay, whatever reason you have for not wanting to play alongside people of the opposite (or same!) sex, whether it's men or women, your belief probably isn't warranted. Whether they have junk between their legs, or balloons on their chest. (Or both. I am the living proof of that.)
3) I'm not saying that you're impying this, but...
Just because we can never reach perfection, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. The less discrimination in the world, the better imo. And unless there's some exceptional and justified reason for it, I see no excuse to alter that attitude.
Final point -I honestly don't know what to say. I would have thought that it was a fairly clear-cut 'Equality4All!' type of statement, that almost everyone should be willing to get behind.
Also, your last quote/line contradicts itself slightly.
I'm proposing we have a set rule. That no-one can discriminate with player-specific tournaments. That is almost the polar opposite of a free-for-all. A F-F-A, as you implied, would be manic. People would be allowed to create gender/age/ethnic specific events at their own leisure, which as you so stated, would be OblivianoCapitano, imo.
EDIT: As previously stated, any rebuttals made arn't attacks on YOU. No-one owns a set of ideas, and any attacks on said ideas brought up itt, or in any other thread, should never be seen as insults, personal jabs, etc.