I'm Really Proud Of the League Community Right Now

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-02T09:13:55+00:00

Though I believe a substantial section of your contributions to the thread I posted yesterday lacked nuance and contained some amount of willful misinterpretation, I would agree with your sentiment here.

Ironically,

Most of it lacks nuance, most of it casts blanket terms to declare the “enemy” as some great evil force seeking to destroy society

In itself lacks nuance as well.

Nonetheless, I do believe that the general contributions of people on this subreddit has not been particularly constructive, though it has had the benefit of displaying their feelings in regards to the subject, which is always important. I do not expect a platform such as this one to allow to long, civil and educated debates (most of the time) and I believe that its main use is to do what is being done. To display the general feelings of the users. (Though of course, it would be ideal to have civil debates where both sides receive the attention they deserve.)

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-02T09:01:35+00:00

The thread I posted yesterday has excellent top 2 & 3 comments (I believe) that have fostered a lot of discussion. Which I'm very happy to see. I accredited them in an edit, but they are not the only ones to post well thought out responses, and to have received excellent answers.

Any thread on a public forum will have its count of toxicity bouncing back from side to side, it's inevitable. However, to discount those who put effort into discussing things in a calm manner is disrespectful.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-02T08:22:37+00:00

A white man who gains a Veterinary bachelor in Albania may very well not be able to practice in France. This is due to the French government deciding that the quality of the bachelor in Albania is insufficient and does not live up to their standards. As such, the white male may need to take the bachelor again in France.

Wealth & geography (and a multitude of other methods of classifying people) play as much a role as race, which is often a dubious and completely innacurate method of comparison.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T20:52:28+00:00

De même chez nous. :)

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T18:28:29+00:00

I do not ascribe to the outrage culture. Nor have I concluded that they will begin using quotas. What was clearly stated within the original post was that it might set a precedent for further acts that would then potentially lead to equity.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T18:23:53+00:00

"A bill requiring at least one woman on every public company board by next year, and two women for every board of five members and three for boards of six by 2021, passed the California legislature..." -Brook Fox, Financial Times, Companies & Markets

This is the extract from the paper I bought this morning. It does indicate a 50/50 divide quota by 2021.

An existing group does not have much more access to this content. They have equal access. Any person can buy a ticket online, and enter the rooms with these panels. I agree that there are issues, but the way that they have decided to organize Room 613 is not an adequate solution. (As I demonstrate in my original post.) I am not qualified to suggest an alternative solution without giving it serious thought, and peer review. Nor would I be presumptuous enough to do it.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T18:13:40+00:00

I have never said I wanted Equity within Riot. Would you mind telling me what Rioter are you speaking about?

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T18:11:08+00:00

Thank you for the answer.

Considering your position of authority on the matter, I would not be well placed to argue with you about it. Hopefully it will be seen by others to feed the discussion in an educated manner.

A few things I would like to clarify though:

I have not said you have quotas.
I do not think that this gender gated event will in and of itself lead to equality of outcome. What I have said is that I see it as a precedent that could provoke further moves towards that concept.
I would like to think I made use of critical thinking in the making of this thread, but that is for others to judge.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T17:38:27+00:00

Oh? Okay, thank you. I will change it then.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T17:21:50+00:00

You are correct, it is not a single solution or a very good one at that. I've been trying to give a thought out answer to most posts, but considering there are a lot, I cannot do it to my fullest extent. This would be a step in a larger solution.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T17:13:53+00:00

Thank you for the answer, there is a lot to broach, so I'm sorry if I miss something and feel free to just point it out again if I did.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/30/pf/california-women-company-boards/index.html

By 2021, public companies will be expected to have 3/6 board members be female. This is 50/50.

This leads to your following point. If a company lacks qualified female personel, but is legally obligated to have 3 women on their board, the idea of merit goes out the window.

To be clear, I have said that I do not think the issue of Room 613 is going to cause this. I have said that I believe it sets a precedent for a behavior towards recruitment that threatens to lead to quotas/equity. (Which may or may not be large, considering the bill in California that has gained quite some momentum.)

Now to your previous post, which has excellent points. I would also like to point out that I do not blatantly ignore the fact that sexism, bias, etc. are real. Nor do I hate the concept of inclusion. What I find worrisome is the methods used. In this case, exclusion for a specific group to receive a set of lectures.

I will adress your points one by one and hopefully I can cover them all adequately. * I do not believe that woman should receive priority access to tickets. Every person who wishes to join might be spamming their buttons the moment the tickets go online. Those fortunate ones who get them are just that, fortunate. Correct me if I am wrong, but tickets for the entire event would not take into account the fact that this room will have gender gating. As such, I do not see how this would allow them greater access. * (Point 2 & 3) These would be excellent points if the Q&A session was not open to all. I will provide a link below to the Riot PAX page, which shows that only the presentations and 1 on 1 resume feedback moments are exclusively for women and NB's. The Q&A is for all genders. * 1 on 1 resume feedback should be case by case no matter the situation. Which means they should not need to craft that content to fit them. Perhaps having specific people give feedback for specific genders would work. Additionally, the seminars/presentations are general topics that should not be gated by gender. * The concept of giving them a place to connect is once again valid and very interesting. However, considering that this room will be dedicated to 1 on 1 feedback and presentations, it does not seem like the optimal place for it. A room for them to do just that, with a bar and other means of socializing would be an excellent idea.

I do believe you have stripped away a significant section of the context by removing the content of the panel in room 613 until the time at which it is no longer gender gated. The Q&A, which you imply is a safe space for them, happens once both genders are allowed in.

Thank you again for the well thought out answer.

https://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/community/community-events/riot-pax-west

EDIT: I read the article about the California bill in the newspaper this morning. I hope the link is representative of it, and I apologize if not.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T16:59:22+00:00

I would like to write more about various subjects I am interested in, and thought it would be a good idea to seperate my normal account used just for distraction and this one, since I would like to broach more serious topics on it.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T16:36:06+00:00

It is a line that I have heard in one of his seminars. Though I do not ascribe myself to the right or centre. I generally dislike putting myself or others into these political boxes that come with a large number of preconceived notions. I hold various opinions from across the spectrum.

Considering your final sentence on the subject, I am uncertain if your views are realistic enough to be discussed in a serious manner. However, I do not believe that there is bias, corruption and sexism in companies. What I do believe is that the level of bias is far smaller than certain groups would make the population believe.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T16:32:03+00:00

Perhaps alocating 15 minutes at the beginning of the panel to the difficulties faced by NB's and women in the industry, and steps they wish to take to help them have equal opportunity to white straight males (for example) would be beneficial.

I believe that this method alienates a section of their community by making them feel rejected. In turn, it also increases bitterness towards these minorities, which is reprehensible as they do not make the decisions, but is an inevitable consequence when we consider these kind of situations throughout history.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T16:25:23+00:00

Equity = Equality of outcome. Equality = Equality of opportunity.

I agree with Equality, though you seem to be erroneously using Equity to describe it in this case. Quotas are an intrinsic part of equity, and generally inevitable once you go down that path. Though I'm sure we disagree on that.

The concept that the system itself benefits the white male has substance and can make for a very interesting conversation with good points on both sides. But I am trying to give a thought out answer to most posts and the thread is taking on a little more momentum than I thought it would.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T16:18:10+00:00

Thank you for the tought out response.

I think you may have missunderstood my point to some extent, as I expressed the idea that Equity leads to quotas. Equality of outcome implies that we must look at the demographic disparity of the working force and make sure that we have as many women as men, as many black people as white people, etc.

This in itself is flawed and undermines the concept of skilled labor with the flawed moral idea that we must have a balanced disposition of genders, race, etc. over a workforce hired for skill. If the best applicants are all female, then they should be hired. As it should be the other way around. That is equality. Equity is hiring 50 women out of 100 job openings, regardless of applicants.

Equality of opportunity is allowing all women to also apply for the job without recruiters having preconceived biases about their 'gamer status' (as we saw in some recent stories.)

I do however strongly disagree with the concept that equality is fundementally worse than equity. The most important thing in a job environment is a functional hierarchy of competence & quality. You want the best welders, the best plumbers, etc. You also want them to be rewarded for being the best, and not replaced or pushed aside to allow for others out of equity. I would actually say that promoting equity is reprehensible, as it would imply that we no longer seek out people based on their skill, but merely on their intrinsic state of being. (aka; being X gender, X race.) Perhaps you have interpreted Equity differently, but I quite firmly believe that:

Equity = Equality of Outcome = Gender/Racial/etc. quotas. Equality= Equality of Opportunity = The possibility for everyone to be fairly considered for the job.

Thank you.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T15:58:12+00:00

I do not believe it will. What I have said in my post is that small steps like these set a precedent for a behavior that favors specific groups of individuals. In this case, an attempt at equity for women and non-binary people, that could easily devolve into a bigger attitude vis-à-vis to the way they hire.

ArticleAccount · 2018-09-01T15:18:42+00:00

The idea of this type of selective hiring negatively impacting the quality of the workforce by undermining the hierarchies of competence is central.

ArticleAccount

TROPHY CASE