if people really agree that there is no physical advantage between trans and women then it also means there is no physical advantage for men.
gc has been around for a few years and has probably brought in a lot of talent and also paved a path for the marginalised gender and acted as an onboarding for the marginalised genders fine. now scrap it off then that it has served its purpose cuz there is clearly no advantage physically and the gc players here have access to the same resources as men do. compete in regular vct circuit ffs.
now look at people coming here offended
0
scrap GC
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
top gc teams get about ~tier2 salaries, and the only ones with any actual job sec are TL, G2 and anyone who teams up with melanji
literally only the top .0001%
no salaries are being stolen
the org exodus that happened at the beginning or franchising wouldn't have been stopped or slowed down by a dismantling of gc teams, even though that still happened en masse
Go to thread number 23 - https://www.vlr.gg/187609/why-boys-girls-in-esports
read the entire thing, come up with a valid counter
"the difference is so small that it doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things" but there is a difference,isnt there?. In high level pro play the tiniest milliseconds matter, thats why you see pros investing so much to get the best gear possible, to get that tiny advantage, cuz it does matter when you go against the best of the best.
You're equalising all trans people by saying that, some might be good some might be bad, but thats beside the point. The point is that if there is indeed a physiological difference,even if it is small, we should focus on creating an even playing ground for all players involved. Besides, i feel there is a lot more research to be done, once theres a new study with a large enough sample size that proves that theres no difference whatsover between the assigned genders at birth then ill believe it
I think the main reason why people are angry is because the "worse men" dont nearly get as many opportunities to compete at a high level(with coaching staff,crowds etc.) as a GC player with the same skill, making them feel this is a bit unfair. Although this might be more Riots fault than anything else.
I didnt read the whole thing but i assume that your point is that the reason why men are better than women is because of social differences, not physical?
I don't think you should get a separate league just because you are socially disadvantaged. I feel like affirmative action is very similar to this GC situation in valorant. What affirmative did was create competition among similar social classes, divided from the society. For example, if college A chooses 100 students, affirmative action made it so that 25 Asian, 25 white, 25 Hispanic and 25 black students had to be picked. Yes, there still is competition, but it narrows down into competition inside a race. Without affirmative action, it would likely have been that more Asians and whites could’ve been admitted. (please don’t take this as racism, it’s just how affirmative action affected college admissions). In Valorant, the highest league is clearly the franchised league, and it is open to all genders. GC is the highest league (not necessarily in skill, but in investment and support from riot) and only non-male players are allowed to compete, just because they are socially disadvantaged. This creates competition amongst the non-male players, and rarely tries to compete with the higher players. I think the existence of GC could have accounted for the fact that Mel was denied a trial in a franchised team earlier (idk exactly when); there was no need to incorporate this unproven player who only has performed in lower skilled tournaments, especially when she had a solid league she could go back to.
I also think the existence of GC is creating more division between male and non-males in valorant. You said one of the social causes of skill differences is because of the lack of role models. If no non-male player succeeds in franchised league, but only dominates GC (I'll have florescent as an example here), new incoming non-male players’ role models would lie in GC league only, not the higher level franchised league. The cycle would then continue until the difference in franchised and GC becomes larger and becomes impossible to close out the social differences.
You also referred to this situation of male vs non male to west vs east in lol. Though it is true that LCK and LPL have been destroying LEC and LCS for a few years. The social and skill differences are not as big as it is in valorant. Even at this year’s worlds we had G2 beat and lck and lpl team (though 4th seed), and GAM (Vietnamese team, even less social base than na and emea) beat liquid. Sure, G2 was emea’s first seed while they beat the 4th seeds, I don’t think that best GC team has the capability to beat the 4th team in any franchised league. Plus, in G2 was one of the closest teams to the golden road (winning all tournaments in one year). The fact that riot kept mixing western and eastern teams and not creating a separate league has definitely increased fandoms of western teams and skill levels. GC players would never be able to overcome this social gap as long as GC continues to exist.
tldr cus I know no one would read all this and I’m pretty sure I made some repetitive comments
- The whole GC thing is similar to affirmative action which was deemed unconstitutional
- GC only fosters social division amongst men and non-men in valorant esports
- one of your examples about lol league actually enforces my point that mixing these two leagues with social differences actually closed the gap a little
Open to discussions
I disagree with GC being the same as Affirmative Action. If Riot made it compulsory that 2 slots out of 5 for main VCT Teams MUST reserved for marginalised genders, then I could see the affirmative analogy being valid but that is not the case.
Additionally, affirmative action seeks to ENSURE equal opportunities, while the GC league is more about CREATING visibility and opportunities for a specific group in a competitive environment.
Your concern about competition narrowing down within socially disadvantaged classes due to affirmative action is somewhat valid but the GC league is not necessarily about creating competition only among 'non-male' players. Instead, it provides a platform for non-male players to compete at a higher level. Keep in mind that GC teams can still compete in the main circuit and ascension.
Successful players in GC can still inspire others and serve as role models, even if they are not in the franchised league.
The concern about the GC league creating more division exists but has not happened yet. That concern exists because people are mainly confused with the purpose of GC. The intention behind creating a separate league is to address existing disparities and encourage inclusivity. Over time, as the esports ecosystem evolves, the difference may increase or decrease, that is up to debate but I hope you realise that women and other marginalised genders are participating in esports now more than ever in the first 20 years. GC in the grand scheme of things is still incredibly young and needs time to mature.
So far GC has contributed to the esports scene by giving esports orgs an incentive to set up infrastructure, competitive environment and a platform to recognise GC players, which is the first step in the right direction.
I'm not talking marginalised genders only, I'm talking about GC in general: it makes it compulsory to have 5 non-male players. Affirmative action might not be a perfect analogy in terms of small differences in “Ensure” and “Creating” opportunities, but it still makes it compulsory that 5/5 players are reserved for non-male players (i kinda don’t get why male coaches are allowed).
The thing is that GC’s level is very low: SR (V1, G2 and other good GC teams) have yet to win even a small non-GC tournament; GC is not allowing non male players to compete at a higher level, but actually giving them consistent low-level games. V1 did participate in the open qualifier earlier this year, which i think more gc teams should do, and as seen from the results, V1 didn’t make it far at all (maybe to the closed qualifier but i forgot).
You also said that successful players in GC can still inspire other and server as role models. “Successful” here must be success in GC or maybe in ascension: these are not good enough for non males to view them as role models, because the truth would be that “Oh, even the best non-male couldn’t make it to top league let alone perform well?” One player in overwatch, Geguri, was a women and found success in overwatch league (similar to franchised league). She showed notable performance and did indeed inspire other females. I don’t think the results would’ve been same if geguri did this well in contenders (similar to ascension).
About the inclusivity part, we’ll see next year how many GC teams participate in non-gc tournaments
IMO there is wayyyy more guys that play games than girls. Not to mention all the girls I know that play games don't tryhard that much. When you think there are 10x as many guy FPS gamers than girl FPS gamers plus guys are 3x more likely to tryhard and want to play competitively then there should be 30x the amount of great players.
Not to mention iron sharpens iron so that's why the womens teams that scrim and play in not womens tournies are much better than the girl teams that don't. At the start of GC Mel's team was really bad in comparison to T3 male teams. Now they compete with some T2 teams. They don't beat them all the time but they are improving and catching up. The gap has gotten smaller every year.
Discord