Rishi · @rishissb
12th Sep 2017 from TwitLonger
Re: MIOM's Statement on Competition Committee
This is very brief, as I'm still forming thoughts, but I wanted to throw a few things out there for discussion.
PREMISE:
Context: There was backlash following the CC's lack of female representation. Armada offered to give up his spot, potentially so that Emily Sun could step up. Emily is a well-respected community leader and Head TO of Nebulous Gaming in NYC. She is actively engaged in competitive ruleset issues and serves as a leader for both NYC smashers and Smash Sisters.
Quotes from MIOM's statement (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sq69r9):
"The purpose of the Competition Committee has always been, and will continue to be, to collaborate on a recommended Melee ruleset whose scope is about gameplay rules only."
"The 25 were selected based on their expertise with competitive Melee as players and influencers, and not on their knowledge of player conduct."
"To be clear about what the CC does not do:
- It does not guide player conduct violations (in or out of tournaments) or issue penalties to players.
- It does not penalize any tournaments that don't use this ruleset.
- It does not guide the overall strategy and growth of the Melee scene."
MY RESPONSE:
When I look at the initial post outlining the members of "The Leadership Panel" and "The At-Large Panel," I get a strong sense that this is an engaged, widely influential group of smashers. And I think the backlash was largely caused because men and women alike felt that women were not sufficiently represented in a group of people that FELT as if it were built to represent the interests of the entire community in matters such as the ruleset and the Code of Conduct. And, implicitly, community leadership.
I don't think anyone can doubt that this last part was implicit.
The statement made by MIOM seems, to me, to be a reigning in of the Committee's scope. It feels like the Committee has reached for technical details to tell the community that its outrage was misguided, when I wholeheartedly believe that this is not the case.
I'm really bothered by the second quote's use of the phrase: "not on their knowledge of player conduct." I have to take this whole statement as a response to the outrage, which was specifically caused by the lack of female representation. I'm trying really hard not to make any leaps to conclusions about what this quote is insinuating, given the context, but it's really hard.
And why are "influencers" on the panel, anyways? Why not just players and TOs and analysts?
My friends D1 and GimR have taken a lot of heat for being on the panel. I think their presence on the panel and knowledge of the community is very valuable... given my interpretation of the panel, which is that it represents our community's leadership. If we are to believe MIOM's statement that the Committee only exists to write a ruleset and leave it at that, why are D1 and GimR on the panel and not consultants? Why is Emily Sun, someone who actually experiments with and implements prospective rulsets in her region, not on the panel?
But like I said, I think all three of those people should be on the panel. Because they're all community leaders, and all have valuable input.
I'm going to be honest. For those of you who know me, you know I write a decent amount on supersmash.blog. But with this issue, I'm really having a tough time putting my thoughts into words. I'm fighting the urge to jump to conclusions, and I feel like dealing with this issue in the esports world is like running through molasses. I'm still working through all the issues, and this is a complicated topic. Depending on how things go, I may write a bl0g post. For now, this will have to suffice. I hope I could articulate what many may be thinking. Definitely open for discussion on this, so let me know your thoughts.