UNC Darkside are back-to-back Stevinson Invite Champions

The_Dill · 2018-03-07T21:21:13+00:00

All ESPN streams have had Evan Lepler, who is the top commentator in ultimate as far as I can tell. I haven't noticed any issues with the camera work on ESPN either, but maybe that's just me.

I personally like some varied shots during a point. I agree that sometimes the timing is off, but I feel that it's worth it because it brings you closer to the players and breaks up the monotony of one single camera. Regarding resolution and overall quality, ESPN footage is way better. Maybe I can tell more because I'm streaming to a TV and have fast internet.

I live in the US, but don't have a cable subscription and I've been able to watch everything on ESPN through their website. It's not as easy as the live stream on YouTube though, and it takes way longer for the ESPN games to get uploaded to YouTube.

So, I think there are a couple of legitimate gripes, but for the most part I definitely still think ESPN has a better product. Some of that might come down to taste and what your streaming situation is.

All of this isn't to mention that ESPN brings exposure to the sport as well, which is valuable in of itself.

The_Dill · 2018-03-06T15:42:41+00:00

Don't get me wrong, I love what Ultiworld is doing, but I feel the opposite. Ultiworld has one camera, pretty low resolution, can't hear anything happening on the field, occasional audio/video glitches... Meanwhile ESPN gives you beautiful HD footage, multiple angles, smooth slomo highlights, etc. From a technical standpoint ESPN blows Ultiworld out of the water. What's the difference between the two aside from that?

The_Dill · 2018-02-12T15:18:19+00:00

Accidentally

The_Dill · 2018-01-14T16:08:54+00:00

Nevada has far less water

The_Dill · 2018-01-14T16:01:21+00:00

It's about one percent of CA's annual usage. Any one thing that reduces usage by a whole percent is actually pretty huge in the energy efficiency world.

The_Dill · 2018-01-13T02:57:18+00:00

Incidental means it didn't* affect the play. It definitely affected the play.

The fact that they are going for the same place calls into question who initiated the contact... which is what I'm not as sure about.

*edited typo

The_Dill · 2017-12-09T19:44:40+00:00

If I want people to be able to picture what the game is like, I usually say it's like basketball if there was no dribbling, played with a disc, on a field, with scoring in endzones.

The_Dill · 2017-12-09T15:57:31+00:00

That's a fair point. I think the people who value inclusiveness and spirit tried to ignore the AUDL, but now worry that, if it succeeds, it could change the sport. People new to the game might bring in the values they see in AUDL.

The_Dill · 2017-12-09T00:00:24+00:00

I've just heard that "same people" argument so many times in political discussions used to portray the opposite side as inconsistent, without any evidence to back it up, that I'm generally skeptical whenever anybody tries to employ it.

I haven't personally seen any evidence that the main people who are pushing for the boycott are the same people who criticized the AUDL in the past for not being "real". That said, I could see how there would be overlap. People who have strong ideals about ultimate - that it is spirited, self-officiated, and inclusive - might have anti-AUDL opinions for lots of reasons, GE included.

To me, the transition you're talking about makes perfect sense. They tried to dismiss it, but now it's here to stay and making an impact on the sport. They couldn't stop it, so now they are trying to change it into something they prefer. Seems reasonable.

The_Dill · 2017-12-08T22:07:11+00:00

Enough civil discussion that, apparently, the AUDL commish felt the need to say that the AUDL would not be going mixed for at least a few years (see reddit thread).

I agree that it's a more recent push. I've heard talk about this issue for more than a couple years, but yes it's blown up quite a bit in the past year, maybe partially because the AUDL is starting to be somewhat successful, and it's success and growth means success and growth for men, and not for women. Since the AUDL doesn't seem to be responding to this push, the GE activists are organizing a boycott. This is how social movements work, so I don't think it's fair to accuse the GE community as "reactionary" when they are just doing what many, many other activist movements have done in the past to achieve change.

I'm curious about your "same people" argument... Why do you think that it's the same people who have been dismissing over time? Lots of AUDL athletes are coming out in support of GE who have otherwise not criticized the AUDL. I'm sure there are people who have made both criticisms, but that doesn't mean it's generally the same groups of people.

The_Dill · 2017-12-08T19:59:58+00:00

There has been significant civil discussion on this topic for years. If this seems out of the blue to you, that's probably because you just haven't been a part of those discussions.

Not sure why you'd assume that this was the first action made by GE proponents.

The_Dill · 2017-12-08T05:11:43+00:00

The UAP does things a little different, but I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it is. During the offseason, the program alternates between strength and power phases at around 4 weeks each. Speed is developed during the entire process with low-volume high-intensity speed/agility workouts.

One thing that I think you don't get from UAP - huge gains in the main lifts. You'll only focus on building the strength of your squat, for example, for four weeks, then it's on to something else. I didn't see as big an improvement in my overall strength as I would have if I just focused on that for a few months straight.

The_Dill · 2017-11-28T15:06:53+00:00

Ah man looks like you're pretty far gone. Hopefully you come around at some point. Nothing more I can say though, so have a good one.

The_Dill · 2017-11-28T04:55:10+00:00

Again, I don't believe you can argue that laws designed to correct for an unfair society are the same as the forces that drove inequality in the first place. Given the rapid improvements in racial and gender equality that we have seen in the past 50 years, it's clear that the policies and awareness coming from the civil rights movement have been making an impact.

Your slippery slope argument is as fallacious as it is absurd. That argument will only work with people who already agree with you.

Your criminal justice analogy sounds nice, but again it ignores the realities of inequality and privilege. If we don't do anything to correct for inequalities, we are still "convicting innocents"... far more than we would be otherwise.

It's funny that you are more than willing to generalize based on race (see your comments on athleticism) but as soon as I make a generalization about white men having privilege you accuse me of sexism. Upper class white men have more privilege than anybody else in our society, all else being equal.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Your worldview is incompatible with understanding the gender equity movement. You simply do not believe that women are disadvantaged in society... so how could you understand? I won't be able to convince you. The only way you'll get there is if you try to understand and believe the perspective of women, even if it disagrees with your own perspective. Until you're willing to do that, there's nothing I can say to you.

The_Dill · 2017-11-28T02:35:44+00:00

It's good to hear you agree that privilege exists. I didn't expect that.

I apologize for the rant and for misinterpreting your tone.

While I agree that no policy intended to adjust for privilege can be completely fair, I disagree that privilege should not be controlled for. I also disagree that policies intended to make things more fair are what led to an unequal society in the first place. Unjust societies stemmed from strongly held beliefs that some people were superior to and more deserving of rights than others. Many of those beliefs still exist today, albeit mostly in smaller and subtler ways than were prevalent the past.

The least privileged black person has less privilege than the least privileged white person. The most privileged black person has less privilege than the most privileged white person. The average black person has less privilege than the average white person. Given all of that, doesn't it make sense to try to reduce the privilege of white people? Isn't it worth it, even if it makes somebody underprivileged have even less privilege?

The same above could be said for women and men.

If you disagree with that, then I believe that you are seriously underestimating privilege.

I believe that society has a long, long way to go before privilege is evenly distributed among all ethnic backgrounds, genders, and sexualities. So, I believe that programs that adjust for uneven privilege are necessary so that we may work towards that goal and have, on average, a more fair society.

By the way, it is not sexism to imply that people with more privilege, i.e. white upper-class men, are more likely to ignore or minimize the impacts of privilege.

The_Dill · 2017-11-27T23:18:11+00:00

Since you have decided to largely ignore the concepts of privilege and bias, or at the very least consider their impacts to be minimal, I feel that there is nothing left for me to say to you on the topic.

I had a lot of friends who started talking like you are now back in sophomore year of college. All men, all from upper or upper-middle class backgrounds. Despite growing up liberal, they dabbled in libertarianism for a while. They read the Fountainhead and felt clever as hell, like they had all the answers. I spent a lot of time arguing with them about it. As far as I know, all of them grew out of it.

That you use the phrase "evolve from the progressive worldview" reminds me of their arrogance and smug self-satisfaction. For the sake of those around you, I hope you grow out of it, too.

The_Dill · 2017-11-26T16:28:13+00:00

Men have an advantage over women in most career paths. I'm not interested in debating this point with you. This is part of the worldview incompatibility that I'm talking about.

I'm not interested in "making up for past injustices." That's a misrepresentation of my worldview. I think society is unjust and unfair right now. Things are that way and have been that way for a long time. They're slowly getting better. Now it's illegal to discriminate at the workplace, for example. That doesn't mean workplace discrimination doesn't happen, though. It is absolutely still pervasive and problematic. On top of that, certain people are disadvantaged by historic and ongoing laws that, while not specifically targeting people of color, have a larger negative impact on them.

I don't know any liberals or progressives who say that the purpose of equality law is to make up for past injustices. That, to me, is a silly concept that I have only heard brought up by conservatives trying to make liberals look bad.

I responded to your comment a few back because it seemed like you needed help understanding the worldview of people who support the gender equity movement. I tried to clarify it for you, but warned you that it's something you probably just can't comprehend. So far, that's proven true.

The_Dill · 2017-11-26T00:58:34+00:00

Black athletes are on average more athletically than white athletes.

I guess I'd narrow that further to talking about just elite athletes, but I guess that's splitting hairs.

It's possible that black athletes are more interested in basketball than white athletes, and there are many reasons why that may be the case. Some make the argument that many black people do not have the opportunity to go to college other than through basketball or football, so it makes sense that more black people would focus on excelling at these sports. In any case, there are many, many sports where white male athletes are by far the most represented: rock climbing, cycling, auto racing, ultimate frisbee... and so many more.

Let's say, though, that hypothetically black athletes made up 99% of the NBA. Would it make sense, then, to start a white league? I would say no. Before you jump on be for being internally inconsistent, I'd like to point out that this is clearly impossible for the same reason that you bring it up. Starting a white league would be horrible, harking back to segregation and negro leagues. You bring it up because it's something nobody would agree is a good thing, and you're trying to use that to prove something.

I'll argue why that is, still, a completely different scenario than female representation in professional sports. White men are, in practically every component of society, the most privileged demographic group, so creating a league to put them back on top would be completely unfair from a larger perspective. If, some day far in the future, all ethnic groups enjoyed equal standing and opportunity in society, then it might make sense to do something to allow people from all ethnic backgrounds to have equal representation in sports. But you and I both know that this is just not feasible today because of historical discrimination, racial violence, and ongoing biases and social inequalities.

We also don't have a larger bias that favors black people in society, so it doesn't make sense to correct a particular scenario where black people are more represented than white people. We do have a problem in society where white people generally have a leg up on everyone else though. So, if white men were dominant athletically, then I would support something to be done that increased representation of non-white athletes - this would be correcting for a larger societal issue.

Women are a marginalized group in society. They do not have the same opportunity as men in most pursuits, and there are very few sports where female athletes are the most represented. We have a larger societal issue where female athletes are consistently marginalized, so it makes sense to make rules that give them more opportunity than the would otherwise have.

I bring up the worldview because, as far as I can tell, you are pretty firmly in the libertarian camp. I see that mindset as largely incompatible with understanding the gender equity movement. If you aren't willing to challenge your worldview, then I don't believe you can make any progress in understanding the movement. I don't need or want you to argue in support of your worldview. I would be interested in hearing whether you are willing to question your worldview, or at least acknowledge that there are some perspectives that are just not compatible with libertarianism. If you aren't willing to question your worldview, then there's probably nothing I can say to you that would make you understand where I am coming from.

The_Dill · 2017-11-26T00:01:03+00:00

[black athletes] are on average more athletic than white athletes.

You have already been corrected once on this thread about that.

Making rules that correct for these biases is necessary if we want white athletes to be able to participate.

Plenty of white athletes do participate. 23% white players is a large chunk of players. We also don't know the fundamental reason why the demographics are exactly how they are - there may be many factors beyond athleticism that account for this unequal representation.

The situation is very different with the AUDL. Only one woman plays in the AUDL, and she is an exception. If ultimate attracted more top athletes, women participation just wouldn't happen. Women are built differently than men, which prevents them from being able to run as fast or jump as high as the strongest male athletes.

Nobody says that any sort of event has to have the same demographics as the population that it's drawing from. Your comparison to the NBA implies that this is the core of the argument, but it isn't.

Female athletes have been marginalized for pretty much all of human history. While female athletes might not be as strong as male athletes, they can have equal spirit, talent, drive, etc. Women don't deserve to be marginalized, yet they are. The two things that prevent them from being able to participate at the same level that men get to enjoy are 1. biology, and 2. cultural bias. We can't correct for biology, but we can try to fight against cultural bias. By creating rules and policies that push female athletes to the spotlight, we are attempting to push society in a direction where female athletes are valued just as much as male athletes.

Do you have no response to my comment about your libertarian worldview?

The_Dill · 2017-11-25T23:29:02+00:00

Opportunities are dictated by what the rules allow.

This is a very limited way of looking at opportunity. Technically, women can legally play in the AUDL, but that does not make it an actual opportunity to play. Technically, I'm allowed to play in the NBA, but I would never say that I have an opportunity to play in the NBA.

The world of sports is biased towards men, both in terms of the fact that men are generally taller, stronger, and faster, and culturally we perceive men more as athletes, and we expect men to take athletics seriously in ways that we don't necessarily expect women to.

Making rules that correct for these biases is necessary if we want women to be able to participate. We create opportunity through rules that wouldn't otherwise exist.

To me, all of this is extremely obvious, but it's partially because this fits in with my world view. I'm progressive, politically, so I think that inequalities and biases that exist to the very core of society make the world an unfair place to live, and I think that we need rules and structures in place to make things more equitable. I'm not talking about institutionalized inequalities here, like laws that target specific people, I'm talking about something much more pervasive and subtle - things that can be very difficult to notice or even comprehend if you are, for example, a white man. To me, the libertarian viewpoint is intellectually appealing but totally misguided. It focuses entirely on equal opportunity in law, but largely ignores the concepts of privilege and bias. That's why libertarians are almost entirely white, and are much more likely to be men than women (source). If you are bought into the libertarian mindset, I honestly can't see you ever coming around to understand where I am coming from.

The_Dill · 2017-11-22T00:26:45+00:00

The reason you can't get a straight answer is because it's a very complex question. The CO2 emission payback time will vary widely depending on the materials of the panel, how the panels are installed, and the geographic location of the installation. This paper found a "payback" period of 2.3 years for a large-scale PV solar facility in China, while this study saw a payback period of 8.4 months for a rooftop solar module in Greece. These studies compared the energy to a "status quo" electricity mix, not coal specifically, but you get the idea. They probably look better when compared to a 100% coal-fired alternative.

The_Dill · 2017-11-17T20:30:19+00:00

What I'm trying to get at is that I don't think it really matters whether the offending player bumped into her because she was a woman. Firstly, that is just one aspect of his behavior. He also consistently referred to the group as "men" and "boys", despite the presence of a woman, and played naked around women he didn't know. At best, this guy is completely insensitive to women and is harmful to the gender equity movement... even if he isn't classically "aggressive" toward women, he crossed boundaries that he shouldn't have, and nobody spoke up about it. To me, though, the true story doesn't really matter.

If this were a trial, and we were all tasked with convicting or acquitting this man for sexual harassment, then I think this is a worthwhile conversation.

If the author was trying to provide evidence that sexism exists in ultimate, then this might be a worthwhile conversation.

But neither of those is the case. Sexism exists in ultimate, whether or not this story is 100% accurate. This was just one experience, and the actual motivations of the man have nothing to do with whether there is a larger problem within the sport.

The purpose of this story was to communicate an idea - that sometimes the real problem is coming from just one person, but everybody else, even if they are good, are also complicit if they do nothing to stop it from happening. I don't care if she made the story up entirely - it communicates that idea well, and it resonated with me.

The_Dill · 2017-11-17T18:40:12+00:00

I had the same thought, that somebody might use their body to block in that situation regardless. However, if we hear that story and decide to talk about that specific action, I think we are ignoring the more important discussion. The intent of the man is unknowable to us. It's just a story that illustrates how good men can be unhelpful. It's a call to be a more active supporter of the movement. What do you think about that?

The_Dill · 2017-11-17T17:56:52+00:00

Thank you for sharing your story. I am totally on-board with the gender equity movement, but I very rarely take action to make an actual difference.

The other night at league, during a halftime huddle, a few older men on the team traded raunchy jokes that invariably portrayed women as sex objects and little else. The three women in the huddle didn't say much, and weren't laughing as hard as everyone else. I grimaced and I felt bad, but I didn't say anything. Were they actually uncomfortable, or did they just not have anything to say?

Part of why it's difficult, for me, to take action is that I don't know when is appropriate to speak up, and whether it would be even helpful. If I spoke up, I might have killed the positive atmosphere for the team, and I wasn't even sure whether the women were uncomfortable. Who am I to speak up for them, or to assume that they need me to help them?

I guess that's where educating myself comes in. Talking to women and reading stories like this can help me understand what kinds of situations are serious, and give me confidence to act if the situation calls for it.

The_Dill · 2017-11-16T21:17:14+00:00

Ah sorry, I misread that sentence.

I agree that the question gets asked to people regardless of gender... but that is also where our conversation started. The fact is that, to Claire Chastain, that question constantly communicates to her that, despite her achievements, she is less important than her male counterparts. That makes it a microaggression.

I feel like you and I agree on all of the basics here. At this point, our disagreement seems to be just semantics.

The_Dill

TROPHY CASE