You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
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.
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.
If it brings new players to the game, I'm in favour if it. Why are women players so small of the player base, both online and live? Anything we can do to encourage this gap to close, even it means that men are unable to play in a microscopic fraction of the games out there, must be a good idea, surely?
Although, just imo, it would be pretty unfair to villianise any posts made by anyone in this thread, whereby their posts are directed at points made by Batkin (and i'm not by any stretch insinuating that's what you meant at all). What I'm basically trying to say, is that if Batkin starts a thread, in a public forum, on a pretty contraversal topic, on the internet...
People arn't just gunna give posters (but more so, their posts) immediate respect, just because of X Y Z that (no offence) have little to no bearing on the topic at hand.
Does it make any reactions on her part excusable b/c of a particular life event? imo, not entirely. The actions rise and fall on their own merits/flaws. Does it make it them understandable? Sure. I have less of a problem problem with 'small' private tournaments ran by the players to cater for a certain audience, just with the mindset of those who dislike playing with a certain group of people without just reason. I just don't consider games that exclude people for something they can't change/control, ethical.
And jeez, we havn't even touched on the painfully complex topic of grouping people into just 2 genders. Phewwwwyyyyyyy!
Solid replies sir, very much appreciated.
Must say I think this is a terrible idea.
Firstly I very much doubt any current female players would see the point is a female only tourney, it would seem like it is a concession as they are not good enough to play with the men so need their own game to give them a chance.
Secondly, have you considered the likely reason that there are not many females playing here, is that not many females want to play poker?
Thirdly, this isnt the United Nations. Sky are not here to improve equality! They should be working on generating a larger member base full stop. Working on something that is a tiny little niche of potential members is, quite frankly, a waste of time that could be much better spent!
Fourthy, I just dont see the logic in it. There are no barriers to entry for females wanting to play online poker. Would an 18-30 tourney increase memberbase of 18-30 year olds? Would a Scousers only tournaments increase the number of Liverpudlians here? no, of course it wouldnt.
So there is the logic.