Smash Melee Champ Resigns from All-Male Rules Committee To Encourage Broader Representation

Misguided sense of social justice.

@JHDK first comment and already swinging with that BS eh?

I guess from a different point, getting more people interested is good--more people, more money, more chances at EVO.

A bigger view, Nintendo should add a "Melee" mode if they release SSB4 Deluxe.

@brandonbwii I didn't say anything crude or offensive and that is my true opinion of the article. You may think it BS but I do not. The article says the women invited didn't even want to be in the group until it became a social issue.

So womens are not interested by default. But if there's gender issue on the line, suddenly they are interested ?
I mean no offense to the women, they do what they want to do, and I understand how given the circumstances they might reconsider, BUT..... It's hard not to feel like womens care less about the subject than mens. But hey... The fighting scene needs to be a bit more welcoming to women so... it should help.

I dont see why not. A lot of Smash players I watch are female and many bring interesting tactics to the game.

@JHDK but there's nothing wrong with representation. Sometimes it's just good business.

Why would they even do that? Unless there is some clear evidence of women being more qualified and also being denied his position, then what was the point of stepping down?

@brandonbwii Well now we are getting into a different issue. Diversity in representation is great. And in this case it seems that qualified people of both genders were invited but some didn't want the position until it became liberal social issue. Diversity should not be the first consideration when putting a group together. Talent of the individual should be the #1 qualification.

I think the people commenting here already get it, but it's just not cool to give someone a position just because of their gender or other status. It sounds like they had a hard time getting people to actually want to do it, if the only 25 people that agreed are male then so be it. If there's only one open position, don't deny a man it just because everyone else in the committee is also a man, that's not his fault.

That said, diversity is a great thing, it's just something that shouldn't be forced.

Well, this comment section is a write-off already.
Empty vessels... and all that.

@JHDK I'd agree with you but how do we KNOW that women tried and WEREN'T rejected. Having good optics like this can only strengthen a sense of community.

The problem is that this is being portrayed by other media like they barred women from entry, when they actually offered women the jobs but were turned down. Yet suddenly the committee are the supposed villains.

Also, if you have no interest in being on the committee until you find out you get to be the only one of a particular group there and that's your motivation, then congratulations, you're doing it for the wrong reason. You should have done it because you honestly wanted to assist in the committee's work, and since you turned it down the first time, clearly you had no interest in that aspect of it. Special snowflakes, get out, ree.

@Equinox "Bayonetta and Gal Gun sold in the black market." A little paranoid aren't we?

Oops. looks like NL forgot to close the comments on this one. There was only ever one way this was gonna go.

@brandonbwii

The article said they offered the position to several girls but they turned it down.

was this good? was this bad? I don't clearly understand the motives behind armada's decision.
is there some obligatory quota of women in gaming? do the smash comunity have to clear their name or something? shouldn't this be chosen on merit?

I don't really know...

@JHDK While you have a valid point to a degree, I think we need to keep in mind the reality for the many who do have the talent, but are then judged on other means.

I also believe that some situations are so rigid and set in its ways, you sometimes have to force the issue

@Equinox Not even offended, just uninterested. This is like when Shadowrun was rebooted as an FPS to draw in the casual crowd that didn't care or even know what that is while the genre was at its modern peak.

@rjejr Yeah people already using terms like SJW and snowflake less than 20 comments in. This is mature already. 😒

@rjejr
It's not going bad. Open, calm, discussion is all I see here at the moment any ways.

@UmbreonsPapa Exactly. Like I said there is nothing wrong with this and it seems like both sides are handling it well. Like it or not gaming has an ugly racist, sexist stigma and them actually openly trying to diversify the group can only be a good thing long term.

Offers for positions in things like this should be based on skill and merit, but at the same time having at least one female there could always encourage growth in female participation in the future. I'd deem it a necessary evil for encouraging women that play games to start competing and participating more.

Everyone here is too vindictive, too black and white. You all need to start looking from every perspective to form a logical conclusion, rather than a rushed one.

@Rafx You might be right. The way I read it was they only offered after one left. If not, good on them for trying then.

@Tarvaax This guy gets it 😄

@brandonbwii Are you even reading the comments? Literally the only divisive ones so far have been your own.

I don't understand why it's such a big deal that women turned down an offer, and then suddenly were interested when they knew that gender diversity would be on the line. It would be fine if this person stepped down to let a woman take his place if no women were invited, solely because they were women. I suppose this could open up a door for more female participants in the future, yet it almost seems like these women are being forced into taking a position just so the melee community can make a statement. Just my opinion though.

@Tarvaax Again, my only issue with this is that they DID offer to women, who turned it down, so the committee found others to fill the role, and suddenly they're the supposed villains, and now we're putting someone who DECLINED the position into the committee, who stated herself that she had no interest until she found out she'd be the only woman.

What the hell does that say about priorities?

Her group is called Smash Sisters, that means no boys!

P.C. again... best part about this one is, none of the people involved are particularly bothered! So who's making the issue?

@Tsurii You're probably referring to me. I'm not playing any card. Gaming has a stigma and as a gamer I don't like it myself. I'm saying social justice or not this is good. Even if it feels a little forced at times I see it as helping instead of hurting. There are plenty of social justice issues I don't agree with. This is not one of them.

@eltomo Gaming journalists, mainly. Some of the headlines about this story on a few other sites are just astounding leaps, accusations of mass sexism in the founding of the committee etc.

@Scrummer True but it's not a bad statement to make. Unless of course the female player sucks😄

@PtM It says that HER priority is not the work of the committee in making the rules. It says that HER priority is to get special attention as the woman on the team. That should never have been her motivation here, and the fact that she announced it is stunningly short-sighted PR.

@brandonbwii I do agree. If the female player was awful, and this was just about pure diversity and nothing else, then I think there would be a lot more controversy.

@Equinox Yeah because the man has been held back for too long 😒

@brandonbwii Reverse-sexism doesn't fix sexism. Put the pitchfork down.

@Benjamin There are many comments contributing to the conversation, yes. It's when someone has to have buzzwords like SJW and snowflake that's it becomes harder to take them seriously.

It's great to see a bunch of comments of men who don't even play Smash that much act like they are authoritative in this matter to help fuel their victimization complex of "the feminists are trying to get me"! I'll take you on in any Smash game. I might lose but I might not

@Benjamin Sexism is having "safe spaces." This is opening a door.

Good idea to have representatives of both genders on this sort of panel. Where I've ran events in the past I would try really hard to have more than one woman involved.

If it was picked purely on who is the best in a competitive scene, and that turned out to be 25 men - that only reinforces the need to get female representation!

@Tsurii @Rafx Wait, it's early yet.

Should I file this comment under Calm, Open or Reasonable?

#8 "What an idiot"

It's wrong to discriminate for roles based on gender, race, or creed. I therefore demand that this role be discriminated based on gender, race, or creed!!!! For Justice!!!

The poor guy meant well here, but he made assumptions based on perception, and as it turned out, he gave up a role that was not given to him based on discrimination but simply based on who accepted and who declined. The women offered roles just so happened to not be interested in them? Granted there were "only" two, but, I'd be curious, at large what percentage the gender demographics for this game are.

Maybe the women that play Smash are just with the times enough to realize there's a new version and aren't clinging to their 16 year old Gamecubes for a badly balanced game?

@PtM I was replying to a comment @Benjamin made.

A good question this brings up is what the issue(s) is with having some areas being more dominated by women or men. Not just for this case, but as a whole.

A lot of discussions sort of go in circles with people never really defining the core issues or points of their view.

@jedisquidward How would you know whether anyone here plays Smash or not? And did you honestly just post a "fite me" comment? ._.

@PtM How is is deserved when you turn down the position, then say you're interested only because you'd be the only one of a particular group on the team?

@Spennymoor Agreed completely. We need more representation via players of all genders who are in it for the good of the stated goal of the community. That will undoubtedly benefit everyone.

@-Green- Definitely a valid point. I'm curious what the breakdown is within the Melee community between male and female; if there were only two women offered positions, does that mean that there are fewer notable female players, fewer female players as a whole, or something else? This would be valuable data for any community.

@PtM To be entirely clear, I would have no issue with the position going to a female player or figure in the community. But this particular one, in saying that she only wants to do it because she'd be the only woman on board, is visibly putting a personal agenda ahead of the work of the committee. That's my issue.

@PtM That's a new point I've heard brought up. Most of the other views I've seen usually revolve around female representation, et al.

@brandonbwii SJW'S are the scurge of humanity. Seeking racism and sexism around every corner like a bunch of basket cases

@brandonbwii

And this sort of virtue signalling rubbish is why social justice warriors are going to end up being reviled. For you all, it's not about facts, it's about the narrative. It doesn't matter that talented women were offered a place and didn't want it, we have to force the issue. I didn't matter that Rolling Stone completely fabricated the UVA rape debacle, so long as it brought public awareness to a sexual assault epidemic that even the statistics of the administration that foisted the SJW-authored Title IX witch hunt regulation show to be a ridiculous farce.

I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm far beyond the point of being reasonable and civil about this. Because of people like you, that value narrative over fact and optics over merit, lives can be destroyed indiscriminately, just to show how bloody enlightened you are. What's been going on in gaming the past few years, it's not been confined there. It's a symptom of the same disease, and eventually that lunacy will be seen for what it is and be stamped out. It was in the nineties and it will be again.

@rjejr One comment out of how many?

@Biff_ARMStrong Deep breaths man, coming out with both barrels isn't going to help on this either.

This is why humanity is a collection of lunatics. Because this actually matters to anyone.

@Benjamin To be fair to the situation, she was offered the role originally and turned it down. Meaning the two women that turned it down were preferred above two of the male runners up that ultimately accepted. So it's not so much that she's accepting the role based on her own agenda but the opposite. She's accepting a role she'd already said she didn't want to do because other people's agendas are guilt tripping her into doing it. Which is really sad. And bad for the organization when you have leadership that actively doesn't want the role but feels the have to to make everyone feel good about demographics.

She was a first draft pick. She said no. Someone they wanted less than her that happened to be the same gender as other people they wanted as much as her that said yes. One would think the story would end there.

@Benjamin

It's the only thing that will help. Social justice authoritarians aren't interested in diversity of opinion. They want people shut down and muzzled for daring to question their enshrinement of identity victimhood.

@JohnGrey I understand that. But optics are equally important for us. If we come out swinging the way they claim we do, all rational discussion gets lost in the mix. That's how we get comment sections closed, which is a victory for them.

Here's a crazy idea- Let's not be a bunch of psycho lunatics obsessing over genders and let the best players in the tournament?

This has nothing to do with SJWs taking over the world or PC gone mad. Lindgren took the decision to step down so that people including Sun took notice of the underrepresentation. I don't know why she is getting the flak for joining the panel when it was his action that made her rethink her position.

>Position offered to, as far as we know, only TWO women who declined out of a panel of 25
>"Huh, I guess WOMEN arent interested, then... I wonder why?"
>"Wait, one of the panelists pulled a drastic, attention grabbing move for the sole purpose of encouraging diversity? SJWs are at it again..."

If you're at a table full of men and some are wondering where all the women are, you're not gonna get a lot of accurate answers without reaching out. And sometimes this means making a harder effort than your first attempt (if it really means that much to you in the first place).

I know some folks roll their eyes at the idea of positions being reserved based on "muh representation!", but diversity really does help in the grand scheme of things, because it leads to addional perspectives and insights. Most importantly, it shows that certain groups do exist despite not seeing a lot of them on the forefront.

@Tsurii I wasn't suggesting nor do I think anyone else would suggest forcing any individual into doing something they have no passion for. What I said was with a situation that refuses to change with the times and is stuck in its ways and ideals, you have to force the issue of diversity and inclusion. Many like to argue that you should just let these things happen naturally. I think many of us have been waiting and waiting. At some point, you have to accept that when people become comfortable and complacent in their situation, they don't see the need to rock the boat. So someone else needs to do it for them

@Equinox Nobody was forced out of anything. He looked around, said "Let's diversify things" and instead of forcing a "lesser ranking" player out, decided to step down himself to allow somebody up in. It's total class on his part, and people like you are just being dumb about the whole thing.

@Benjamin

It'll be that way regardless. Because they hold the keys and that's how they work. Try questioning SJW politics on Twitter, whether in a reasonable tone or not, and see how long it takes for to be banned. Try it on reddit and see how long it takes for your comments to be edited to oblivion and for you to be shadow banned into silence.

If comment sections are closed, yes, we lose our voice their but they also lose their forum to push the narrative as well.

ya'll a bunch of scared, white guys who have no idea how reality should actually work.

@JohnGrey Without the forum, you'll never see anything but their comments on exactly the places you mentioned. And that will absolutely shape the narrative they want.

@DrRandle "Scared white guys"

Would you like to try again?

@Biff_ARMStrong Uh... I dont think this is a tournament. From what I read, this is a committee that'll set the Melee community rules going forward. This is a situation where different perspectives might actually be beneficial and why Armada opted to step down to encourage more diversity.

Did you read the article or just fly straight down to the comment section the moment you saw the words "male" and "representation"?

@PtM You have a point .

I don't think calling everyone "SJW's" or "Snowflakes" is helping anything. at the same time, I have the same stance on calling everyone "Scared white men" or "Sexists". I think we should skip the name calling, and actually calmly discuss the topic at hand.

I realize I have been previously wrong. I thought this was a rules committee for a tournament, but in reality this is a rules committee to discuss the rules of melee going forward. Either way, I still question why it is so important that females declined a position, and then were interested when they realized they would be the only females. In my mind, it's about publicity for them, as well as the man that stepped down, but I might be wrong.

@Sciqueen I think the "flak" stems from people interpreting her actions as suddenly making a big deal out of something she obviously didn't care much for before. I don't know much about the smash competitive leadership, but I assume it's been largely men for years. Which leads me to wonder why she felt she shouldn't join in the first place, if the levels of woman players are on it were few.

@JohnGrey That's BS. Don't conflate constructive discussion (even if it respectfully and fundamentally opposes yours) with outright hateful rhetoric. That is what's policed on social media. I also absolutely hate this false narrative that somehow, free speech is under attack or that we've become too politically correct. Its clear, from some, what THIS narrative is actually code for

@brandonbwii
I've been hitting that heart button like a maniac but thought it better to let you know directly that someone appreciates your stance, and the calmness and patience you have in presenting it.

@Benjamin I didn't read anything implying that anyone was at fault or that there was any major problem. What I read was "This person decided to back down from this position because they wanted to for their own beliefs" and "these girls turned down the offer, only for one to step up upon realizing she could be part of an ideological symbol".

Both parties weren't forced, and as I said before, this acts as a necessary evil that could pay off in the future.

@JHDK "One of the committee leaders, Matthew Zaborowski, tweeted that two women were actually offered roles but declined to join. "

Two women were offered a spot on a 25 member panel and said no so they just decided to not ask any more?

I'm not big on the Social Justice for the sake of Social Justice, but you don't come out and publicly say you did not even try to get women on the panel and not expect some level of push back.

So they offered Emily a position and she said no, but now she realizes she can get brownie points for diversity she wants in? smh....

@Rafx "One of the committee leaders, Matthew Zaborowski, tweeted that two women were actually offered roles but declined to join."

@Tarvaax I would question the use of "necessary evil" there; there's nothing evil about additional female representation. My issue is the stated motivation of this particular one. Worded the way it was, it sounded less to me like "ideological symbol" and more "spotlight on just me".

However, that could also be the fault of reporting or quoting; certainly none of us have spoken to her on that point.

@KcebEnyaw They weren't specifically asking women nor men, they were asking community veterans. And once they had the panel they stopped asking. It's entirely possible that there were more women (and men) who could have been potential candidates, but once they had the roster they didn't need to ask anymore. That's not deliberate discrimination at all.

Again, I may be wrong, but I feel they would have asked more than two women if there were actually more than two women who were good enough at melee. I feel like a fact we just have to accept is that the competitive melee community is a mostly male community. I'm not saying that that's a good thing, in fact, I would love for it to be balanced between males and females, but I feel this is just something we have to accept, and not that the rules committee is all guys that hate women so they only asked two of them.

@Scrummer As far as the lady being interested, it could be that she felt an obligation after hearing there were no other women, and that the lack of women was an actual concern of some folks. Sometimes it really is as simple as, "I guess if no one else will, I might as well..."

Armada's intention might be well-meaning too. He was part of the committee and considered one of the best players out there. He doesnt really need brownie points in the public's eye.

Of course, I'm being optimistic, maybe even naiive in my assessment.

@Benjamin Nah, it's not the representation that's the "necessary evil", it's picking a specific characteristic out of a group(in this case, women) and sort of throwing them in there, rather than having one who tuly wanted to play the sport for the sport step up because of her own competitiveness and motivation as opposed to the position just kind of being... handed out in a way. With convincing needed, no less. It helps jumpstart a further desire amongst females to participate, but at the cost of a controversial way of doing it.

Diversity is great, but if everyone just starts picking diverse casts just because, the actual skill required for entry for all of us as humans and not specific sub groups becomes questionable.

@DTFaux Of course, it is possible she said no because she wanted others in, and then when she found out there were no other women, she decided to step in. I just hope that this is something she legitimately wants to do, and she isn't just stepping in for diversity's sake.

@DTFaux The whole "if no one else will I will" mindset is negated by the fact her list was not created until after the fact, leads me to believe she really didn't care that much. Again hasn't the committee always been heavily compromised of men? Why would she think now it suddenly has a high count of women? And if she didn't think it would why not say "No, thank you but here's a list of people that might fit perfectly".

@Benjamin I don't think they did anything wrong. I don't even think it's a very serious issue at all. It's just the kind of dumb mistake they should not have put themselves in. They should have known that they needed to ask 10 women to join or it would have turned in to a thing.

The actual story here is that the Melee Rules committee is being populated by the reigning champions of Melee. Essentially giving them the power to shift the rules in a way that keeps them on top. Not saying they will, but they could.

Rules Committees should not be populated exclusively by one segment of a population, but it's far more important to ensure that outside perspectives are present to counter balance any misguided ideas that could restrict new entrants into the competitive scene. If you are the World Champion, you are going to fight tooth and nail to block any rule that compromises your supremacy in game.

@MsJubilee "One comment out of how many?"

So far, 102.

Oh wait, was that a rhetorical question?

'I feel this is just something we have to accept'

@Scrummer not sure you need to be so defeatist. Having more equal gender representation on organising committees/in positions of power in a given community is one way (of many and not sufficient in and of itself) in which they can become more welcoming to the gender that is not as heavily represented at other levels i.e. in the competitive player base in this case. You know, role models.

@DTFaux You lunatics make me laugh. So triggered it's hilarious. A bunch of basket cases

I think it's perfectly commendable for groups to encourage diversity and try to be fair to a diverse audience. But I feel that in the pursuit of fair representation, people forget when and where it is significant.

A committee of Smash Bros. players isn't a national government, or board of executives for a business. Whereas these scenarios can benefit from diverse representation as a means to hopefully ensure certain cultures and needs aren't being overlooked (for the simple reason that people don't necessarily remember to consider things that aren't relevant in their own lives), I fail to see how a person having girly parts changes how they fundamentally view playing Smash Bros. competitively in any way that can be similar to how a woman with 2 kids would view a company proposing new mandatory overtime and weekend schedules post hiring.

To put short, I fail to see how the benefit of this. I could be wrong though.

Not a bad thing, not too much a good thing either. I'm seeing both sides of this.

@Nintendoforlife I honestly cant figure much else beyond "hindsight is 20/20". Sometimes things arent really considered a concern or issue until someone makes it one.

In a way, Armada's move to step down was pretty effective, as it's got some conversation going (for better or for worse).

@greengecko007 This so much this. The best people for the job should be picked no matter what. The issue should always be with the effort used to find these people. Not who was picked or who wasn't.

@Biff_ARMStrong Whoa there friend! You might wanna slow down!

Bravo!

@Biff_ARMStrong You come out the gate swinging, proved that you misunderstood the article, and say I'm the "triggered lunatic"?

Bruh...

@PtM Maybe, but it's too easy to make assumptions the other way. She says she wouldn't have declined had she known the demographics.....only after she's being asked the question specifically as it relates to people's obsession over demographics. Would she REALLY have wanted to do it if she had known? Or if she had known there was another woman offered that could have "carried that torch"? And, if she's a big participant in the community, does anyone really think she couldn't have guessed the population percentage when asked?

We know none of that. What we do know is she's answering this political question in a political way that may be consistent with political viewpoints she's stated in the past. But ultimately I'm not sure that matters. She didn't know the demographics when offered and apparently she wasn't interested enough at the time to have asked about them. She doesn't seem like she was going out of her way to "represent", she was given an offer, she wasn't interested. In any rational environment, the conversation should have ended there. No need for further speculation.

It's only conversation because the conversation is being thrown at her. Even if she's "one of the evil SJWs", she's apparently only one when convenient, since she didn't jump at the chance or inquire about the situation when asked originally. Even if she's a part of this whole mentality in other situations, in this situation it appears to me she was 100% neutral, made her own call, and now she's being pulled into a "debate" about something she had no interested in before being pulled into it. Were it not for the agendas of others, her name wouldn't even be appearing in this story. Even if she's stirred trouble before, on a case by case basis, she's certainly not a guilty party in this instance.

I feel that, while diversity can be a good thing, we don't need to make this about gender. Just let the best players make the rules, and leave it at that. If the panel was made of all females, there wouldn't be this much media coverage, I can assure you.

That guy is a cuck, and I wish Nintendo Life would stop pushing this SJW Cultural Marxist agenda. I just want to read about Nintendo stuff, not be brainwashed and told that I need to be exterminated for being a white male.

@KcebEnyaw

Right, there was no agenda against females.

@Yorumi I thought we were here to talk about melee? And it seems that most people are being mature about this topic. I've only seen two people who have just come out screaming insults at the other side. And they weren't both on one side, one was calling the ones who think this is a great thing insults, and one was calling the ones who didn't see why this was necessary insults.

@DTFaux Fair enough but I'm wary of "making things an issue". There's a reason sayings like "making a mountain out of a mole hill" exist. Maybe something is made a way bigger problem than it ever was. Again I'm not familiar with the smash competitive community, but I see zero of talk of woman players "asking for more inclusiveness when it comes to women in leadership". And if that is something that's been asked for, it makes the decision to turn it down even more baffling. I'm sure you can see why people might question her intentions.

@Rafx It doesn't matter if there is an agenda. This is a PR problem. Melee is one of the most visible eSports in the world. When they do dumb things like this it hurts the entire industry. It doesn't matter if they meant to do it or not.

@DTFaux Communitee / tournament. Same thing. Why don't you shut up and play your games. Or better yet go to your college safe spaces and discuss your retarded crap over there?

@KcebEnyaw
lol, I think we are on the same side

@KcebEnyaw Except, as I said before, if the panel was all female, it either wouldn't be getting all this media coverage, or it would, but with the media applauding "Inclusivity".

@Yorumi You're right that us saying that "We need to have a conversation" is something we've been saying since forever. Though it is interesting hearing your perspective on it and why we havent reached any "conclusion".

From my experience, it's not solely the fault of extreme "leftist". Yeah, they can be overly rambunctious sometimes, but IMO, the bigger problem is how some "conservatives" flinch at the mere idea of any social criticism out of fear of shaking up the status quo.

Like, if you want to get deep into it, that's always been the case with most sociopolitical issues in [American] history ranging from things as major as human rights all the way to something as arguably benign as video games. It's nothing new.

And unfortunately, we've reached the point where it's hard to discern legit criticism from petty ones, because it seems like all of it is thrown under the reaction that, "Aw geez, SJWs are at it again." (Isolated case in point, look at the Biff guy's comments in this thread).

People naturally get more vocal (and extreme) when they're pushed back or ignored for what they feel are unjust reasons. And I'm talking all parts of the political spectrum (I dont care much for calling it "Leftists Vs. Rightists").

Oh joy, one of these articles.

Just remember when you're talking to people that there's a human being on the other end of your words, everyone.

I don't know, but maybe the girls weren't good enough? Sorry, I am not trolling. But I guess they chose the best of the best, wich by coincident where all men. Try harder next time, girlies!

@DTFaux The thing is, I feel like both sides get a bad rap for some extreme people. I am a conservative, but even I've been annoyed with Biff's comments. And of course, there are extreme leftists out there, like people who have been calling for the death of all white males. The best we can do is try to be the most mature while discussing topics about politics, or even just Smash bros.

@Ralizah Thank you.

Anyway, I'm going to leave. It's been (sort of) fun. Bye.

By all means continue to post articles like this but when you do please have some active moderators or turn off the comments.

@Biff_ARMStrong I said "Committee", not "Community". And both are different from a Tournament. You cant brush off semantics if you dont get the terms right in the first place. But if English isnt your first language, that's at least understandable.

Also, if you dont want to debate or talk, fair enough. But you dont have to act so "edgy". It makes you look like you're trying to compensate for something.

@DTFaux You need to take your meds and relax. There is no sexism involved in Smash Bros. you raging lunatic. Never has, never will. [removed]

@Scrummer For sure, we'll get to a good place one day. Hopefully.

Additionally, being able to figure out who the trolls that play the roles of the extreme sides are would definitely help get to that goal faster.

@Yorumi That is going to be true until the end of time. We talk about race, sex and gender in terms of "minorities" and "majorities", but these are highly inappropriate terms when you actually look at the issue at play. It has nothing to do with how many people get to do a certain thing. It is the perception that one group, currently Straight White Men, have all the power and get to make all the decisions. Calling it racist, sexist or bigoted is the knee-jerk reaction to the perception of a lack of power. These things exist, but in most cases they are not the real factor at play.

All that said, it is incumbent upon the empowered to overcompensate for the disenfranchised to create balance. The empowered must give extra to ensure that when the time comes that power changes hands, they are not subjected to the same perceived injustices that were present on their watch.

@Biff_ARMStrong How you gonna tell someone to calm down and then escalate it to some Holocaust-level mess?

I think we're done here. But congrats on "winning", I guess?

@BLAZINOAH Oh for gods sake.

@PtM Skilled female players? Like the ones they invited, who turned it down out of a lack of interest?

I think a better question is why do you feel the need to demand their representation when they, in this case, didn't seem all that interested in participating to begin with?

Heck, we even now know that the woman in this article WASN'T re-offered the position, a different woman was, but then the first jumped out with a big announcement that she'd take the position despite not being asked, stomping her way over a fellow female player in her rush to get to the top of the "represent women" pile.

It's not even a question anymore like it was an hour ago, this is just some plain ol' self-important bullllllshit on her part.

@Benjamin Hmmmm, nah I'm good. Because no matter who you are, this is how you're acting. Like somebody who pretends to be 'true neutral' and is in fact super right-wing, but just get less super-screamy about it. Instead, they just talk down to people with words like "SJW" and "Them."

The very fact that most people in these comment sections refer to the other gender as "Girls" instead of, I dunno, Women? Females, if we want to be oddly clinical about it? No. They're girls and men.

If at any point a cluster of female-led organizations had a member bow out to have a man's opinion in their field, and let's just say it's the cast of The View. Is that even still a thing? Anyway. Star Jones decides to sit out so Terry Crews can tag in. The same people on here bemoaning a 'forced agenda' would applaud The View for being more inclusive. Basically? "As long as there's more men, it's okay."

That is every negative comment I've read thus far in the thread.

@Yorumi Fair point. Though amusing that she didn't feel the role needed additional diversity care of her own presence when she was first offered and instead only went with the reality of weather she wanted to do it or not. Only after it caught headlines did she feel the sudden need for diversity in the role. If it was important to her in the start one would think she'd have accepted, asked about diversity in order to make her decision, or recommended another among her Smash Sisters organization to take the spot. Feeling it's important only after it's trending, only after you've already removed yourself from the issue certainly smacks of "PR stunt."

@Yorumi Once again, you are not wrong, but at a certain point it becomes a very simple choice, do something or do nothing. Nearly every action that has ever been taken with the intent to create equality has been by definition Racist or Sexist or Bigoted. The entire concept of imposing equality is fundamentally flawed in this regard. Unfortunately, the option of doing nothing is a guaranteed path to not solving the problem and in most cases, makes it worse.

Human beings are inherently selfish. The emotions many argue are the core of our humanity make it impossible to look at otherwise simple issues without the use of a perception that is inevitably bias toward our own benefit. To guard against the abuse of these perceptions, we must make policy that nullifies the negative perspectives which would otherwise generate more divisiveness and animosity. The colloquial being the bigger man approach. It is far easier to given assurances to the disenfranchised and create self-imposed unfairness for empowered than to create a true balance of power, a practical impossibility.

@Yorumi "the problem is you can find many prominent examples of the leftists preventing conversation but not much of the right."

Are you serious? I wont deny that left leaning folks arent without their issues (I can admit that "rambunctious" might've been the wrong term), but you have to either be hyper focused on one side or blind to the other if you honestly think "there's not much of the right".

We got the rise of the Alt-Right, White Nationalists, the KKK is getting too comfortable again, those trying to defend the "history" of Confederate statues that were put up well after the Civil War in locations that didnt exist at the time nor had any stake in the war, those trying to redefine what the Civil War was even about, those who are suddenly deciding that we're not a nation of immigrants and that spending billions of dollars in crazy ways for the sake of "law and order" is not short-sighted in anyway... Disdain for the press (guess who else eas touting "fake news" back in the day?), heavy disdain for a football player exercising his right to protest by not standing for the national anthem. The Charolette incident, a guy who shot up a church, showed himself celebrating the Confederate flag, and ADMITTED he wanted to start a race war. Death threats towards folks who dares to criticize the current sitting president. Those who were ready to take up arms if said current sitting President lost last year. Those who are threatening to take up arms if the current sitting president is removed for ANY reason, no matter how just. The current sitting president himself. And that's only addressing the last few years.

As I mentioned earlier, I didnt want to get too deep into this (this is a Nintendo site, not a social studies forum). I also didnt want to side with any line too hard. I can even admit that left-leaning groups could benefit from pulling it back some.

But IMO, if you think majority of our issues today are primarily because of "leftists", I'd recommend taking up some American history classes again and expanding the sources wherever you're getting your news and information from...

Feel free to respond and tell me that I'm wrong, but I'm honestly done hanging around this article for as long as I have already.

@Yorumi You clearly dont know your history, because you're willfully ignorning the context of it and saying that because I dont have one-to-one examples of petty junk that you're trying to prioritize as "important", that me and the group you're trying to rope me into "loses".

Quick rundown:

You're talking about Robert Byrd who WAS in the KKK and eventually saw the error of his ways. He fought so hard for civil rights that even the NAACP of all groups honored him for the good that he did after his death in 2010.

It was the Dixiecrats that formed the KKK but they are far from what modern day Democrats are. And the few who still exist line up more with modern day Republicans than Dems (look up The Southern Strategy).

It actually hurts me that 1) I have to explain this, 2) That I'm responding after I said I was done, and 3) That I'm getting into this on a Nintendo site of all places.

I've tried to be nice. I've tried to play "both sides" for the sake of fairness. And I've tried to keep this from deteriorating into the same predictable, melodramatic BS that these articles ALWAYS wind up becoming thanks to people like you and your obsession with acting like one side is the cause of all of society's problems.

In the most sincere way, please take some time for some introspection... I wish you well. And I'm done here.

@Yorumi Not to step into all of this weighty stuff, but I'd like to point out that the Democrats and Republicans have switched since Lincoln's time. Back then the Democrats were conservative and the Republicans were liberal.

In all honesty, both sides have the same amount of hatred and anger. Both are extremely biased, and both are constantly yelling insults at each other. Reasonable people are few and far between in each group, but that's to be expected. Sticking with one specific party or another is just setting yourself up for failure. They both rely on specific set ideologies working for every situation, rather than realizing that situations aren't that simple and not every problem can be solved with the same solution. This very comment section is proof of all of this. So much malice coming from each side, so much name calling. It's extremely disrespectful to treat each other this way.

@DrRandle I say guys and girls usually, it feels weird calling someone "woman" because I associate that with older females in a formal setting. I do say "man" alot, but in a slang way like sup man...idk i feel more comfortable saying lady than woman, maybe its just me.

Sad in many ways. If she doesn't want the position, she shouldn't take it just for the sake of diversity. Someone who wants to be there should have it. Have some integrity, jeez.

Well done, moderators. [claps sarcastically]

@PanurgeJr The NL Creed:
1: Pour Gasoline
2: Light Match
3: ????
4: PROFIT!

It's kept them in the black all this time! Perhaps they want to be bought out by the Mirror.

@Nintendoforlife I also wonder why she didn't join initially: I think it was because she simply wasn't interested! (I don't know what the committee environment is like so I can't comment on that). What is disheartening is how everyone thinks she's only joining now for the publicity: it was Lindgren who brought up the issue of gender diversity, and I think she's seen his point and decided to take the post. A person is allowed to change their mind!

@Sciqueen She's not joining now for the publicity, she's not joining now at all, because she wasn't asked again to join. She had her chance, said no, and now they're asking someone else. Thus, the publicity: She's interjecting herself into something she's not part of anymore because she declined when she had the chance. That's what everyone means by seeking publicity. No matter what the good bad or indifference about Lindgren leaving for the diversity issue, the discussion doesn't involve her at all. She put herself into the conversation saying she'd join for that reason....except she isn't, and can't, because the offer no longer applies to her. So why is she in news articles talking about it? She's not really part of this story at all anymore except as a past participant.

I initially read it the same way you did (thanks, cracker jack journalist team at Kotaku/Gawker!) and defended her as well, but, no, after the clarifications, she's just grandstanding for her own gain while being egged on by click hungry media.

All because Lindgren made a silly assumption that appearances equates to causation and acted on it without verifying. Perhaps he was the one that was second choice behind her to begin with?

@PanurgeJr @NEStalgia Well they better do something now, before things get really out of hand.

@Arminillo Lady's also cool, imo. And gals and guys and all that's fine. IMO, even throwing ladies under most masculine labels like "guys" is generally fine because those are the rules of our insanely messed up language. However, at least to me, calling them "girls" and us "men" is a bit of a 'tipping your hand' move for most people. It's not referring to folks on even ground, even relatively. It feels like an (admittedly, non-deliberate) way of showing how you view the difference between the two.

Overall, to everyone here, I'd say stop caring. One way or the other; this event has nothing to do with anybody here, or any 'team' they think they're on. There are no teams. This is all a grotesque display of 'Us vs. Them" mentality, no matter what side you think you're on. We're all in this nightmare of a reality together, the least we could do is just be cool with each other.

Bit daft, but well meant. Ultimately not important.

Sometimes I wonder if something like this is liberal social justice nonsense then what the heck constitutes as conservative social justice nonsense?

@DrRandle us vs. them is the nature of the internet unfortunately. Things come down to black and white issues. Sometimes literally.

@Yorumi I don't condone violence but a lot of it stems from hate speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. When you provoke it often ends with someone getting hurt.

@Yorumi So it's a conservative bias then. I can name plenty of conservative propaganda so don't single yourself out. Dirty Harry, Con Air etc. The thing is I even like those movies but when liberals do it it's the freaking end of free speech as we know it. That's as ridiculous as saying blacks can't be racist and women can't be sexist.

@brandonbwii Thankfully freedom of speech is backed up with laws against violent thuggery. Violent thugs are always worse than people merely using words. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" - even young children are taught that violence isn't the answer to mere words, there's never any excuse for it, and adults definitely ought to know better.

@DrRandle I'm not sure where the whole "girls" thing became an issue. Lots of males refer to "the girls" for females of any age. Lots of females refer to "the girls" for other females of any age. Lots of females refer to "the boys" for males of any age. Many, but seemingly less males refer to other males as "the boys" but it's far from uncommon.

My own personal experience is "girls" is desired among females from age 0 to 12, then from 13 to 30 it's expected to be "women", and then after 35 it's expected to be "girls" again. The intensity of that requisite increases over time from that point, as does the number or required stitches if an error is made.

@brandonbwii "what the heck constitutes as conservative social justice nonsense?"

Though I generally reject the left & right paradigm as a whole, while remaining not quite the anarchist that plywoodstick is, I think the answer to that question is "the golden rule" - generally I see the 'right' as desiring an "I leave you alone, you leave me alone, we each do our own thing, and everyone's happy" mentality at one , while the "left" tends to want to implement a "We've engineered a system to to make the world yield the result we want, and here's how your going to have to be shoehorned into our plans as a mere cog in our system. If you don't like it, too bad, you'll be made to conform. This is your life. WE've decided for you. " mentality.

"left" and "right" aren't really good descriptions though, stemming from the era and locale of the French Revolution. It's not really a schism of left and right. It's a schism of collectivist authoritarianism and libertarian individualism. The "social justice" craze comes from the collectivist authoritarians who have an interest in designing a "system" within which everyone must be forced to conform to produce the results they want within their system. The less they have control the more extremes they go to to claim and exert control over others. The libertarian individualists on the other hand believe in the merit of self, that one shouldn't be controlled by others but that one must be responsible for their own actions.

The more people seek "justice" the more they're really saying "I wish to exert control over the actions and lives of others to fabricate the world as I wish it to be" Of course the same people rarely seek for others to have control of them, so it only works if there's a consensus, forced/imaginary or not. It becomes a self-conflicting hypocritical stance in nearly every instance at one point or another.

So the question to ask in these cases is rarely "do I agree with left or right" but rather do I believe in collectivist authoritarianism or individual liberty? And if the former, do I believe in collectivist authoritarianism for everyone, or just for everyone who isn't me and those who agree with me?

When put in that light, not many people would actually willingly choose what we commonly and inappropriately call "the left"....not even those on the extreme edges of "the left" who don't currently wield extensive power and influence wold chose that. So ironically, as individuals, most people on BOTH sides would chose libertarian individualism, or "the right" as it's inaccurately associated with in an instant....but people are too blinded by the left-right smoke screen.

In the US, the very concept of the experiment was based on founding an entire system based on said individualism, and the idea itself is a very British idea, established by former Brits, and was an extension of the ideas of the Magna Carta mixed with elements of the early Roman Republic (to avoid the pitfalls of Plato's Democracy.) The authoritarian ideas are far, far older than the Magna Carta, or even the Roman Republic, of course, and have been the default of human civilization until the fairly radical ideas of individualism during the "Age of Enlightenment." However in the 20th century the creep of authoritarianism has turned it into almost the opposite of that original concept to the point that the idea is now a subject of debate.

When debating where you fall within the spectrum of ideologies always ask yourself this: "Am I an individual of my own making, or am a component of a bloc?" An individual can associate with any group of individuals they choose. But a bloc component is merely a piece of the body politic they are entwined with and can not extricate themselves as a free agent. The answer to which group you actually ideologically agree with may surprise you, even if you disagree with individuals' ideas within that group.

@DTFaux Nice to see someone looking outside their own echo chamber. This must be the most distressing comment tread I have ever seen on NL

Looks like folks here clearly do not understand the concept of broadening horizons, expanding a market, stuff like that. I forgot who said it and it was lost in all the madness, but somebody on here said "I believe in equality for both genders. That said, maybe girls don't like Smash Brothers."
I just don't... see how that isn't the exact point of sexism, and is certainly the type of mindset that competitive games (especially fighting games) are unfortunately known for. Nobody sound of mind would possibly want to get anywhere near this neanderthalic group of people who continue to buy into these ridiculous ideologies that most of this board has decided to flaunt about. Comment sections are a nightmare because they remind you that the crazy folks in the news and on TV aren't the minority, but the vast majority.

I come to this site looking for Nintendo news and fun. Instead I just see a bunch of toxic, terrible people. Captain planet would be ashamed of you all.

It was Rediv, btw, if you want to go whole hog into the depths of insanity.

I nominate MilkTea, all other melee girls are trash in comparison!

Unless you count Mango!

@BarFooToo A few months ago there was an article on Playtonic ditching JonTron and the comments devolved into something worse than this. No threats involving gas chambers, at least, but it went from white nationalism to transphobia for no reason I could figure other than people apparently weren't content with just one form of bigotry.

@DrRandle Heck Captain AMERICA would be ashamed of us at this point 😉

@DrRandle I am truly shocked by this. I don't really know what else to say. I had to check my calendar to be sure I have not been sucked into the 1970s

@PanurgeJr A Long slow, so very very slow clap from me!

@Yorumi Running people over with a car, truly nonviolent right there. You can go through history and find endless examples of violent right. Most of us don't condone violence as I'm sure most of the right doesn't. I just used this example to show your flawed logic.

@Yorumi is low-key relishing this discussion right now. Don't miss the Direct now guys haha.

@Yorumi There's been a rise in violence on, how did Trump put it, many sides. Yeah there's been a rise in violence and there's also been a rise in hate groups. Chaos begets chaos. When your own president panders to racist (keep in mind I'm not calling HIM racist, but racists feel he has their back) of course violence is going to happen. Leftest group Antifa sucks and conservative groups like the KKK suck. You gave an interesting story about how conservatives view things in a nonviolent way. That don't view things in an equal way though. If it weren't for leftist members of the KKK wouldn't be called out for their BS. You insinuated they have a to each their own mentality which sorta translate to you people (insert minority/oppressed group here) should know your place and stay there.

I'm on the internet all the time and I see talented feminists hounded for just being feminists by the right. Hell a bomb threat was called to Anita Sarkeesian. That sounds very right wing to me. I'm not a fan but that's a bit excessive just for someone who pushes for video game censorship.

That is a really awesome gesture but quite frankly the gaming community isn't the best place to hang out in person if you are female. So not sure what good this will do.

@Yorumi I don't have all the facts but I know the left is scarred. With people actually voting for a president that seemingly has no compassion for anyone but himself and race baits white nationalists, you expect everyone on the left to take a peaceful route?

Cops discriminate against black people and shoot them dead and its okay because black people statistically commit more crime.

Any potential proof of a wage gap between men a women are ignored because they're just being cuck snowflakes.

Trans can't be in the military because hormone therapy costs too much. How much cost can you even put on fighting for your country anyway?

Also you brought up a while back that the right doesn't want to force their agenda. What the heck is the abortion problem then eh?

Getting back to the core issue here, I'm not sure all you people arguing even know the extent of women in the melee community at all. Basically, there are none. You look at the top 50, top 100 players of melee and are there ANY women? At all? When Nintendo held that invitational and invited almost half women and half men, that was hugely disproportionate. The smash wiki has 37 pages for female smashers, total. Keep in mind that's across all games. I checked out every single one of their pages, and of them only Milktea stood out. She once ranked 4th on the connecticut pr, no longer plays melee. Their best possible choice for a female smasher to be on the committee is an inactive player who, at her peak, did well at a small regional scene.

It's unfortunate that more women don't want to engage themselves with the fighting game community, but that's just how it is. It's unnecessary to force more women into being in a position that they frankly aren't qualified for.

Not saying women can't be good at smash, or that they don't exist in the community at all (saw a lot of girls at evo both years), it's just that there aren't any community-relevant girls in melee.

There is a difference between condoning and understanding why it happens. Isn't I don't have all the facts the same thing your president says when caught in a lie? I figured you'd call me out on LOL. I will freely admit I don't know much about politics. I do know the hypocrisy of being pro life and then being pro gun or turning a blind eye to racial profiling and police brutality. You say everyone should live but when their out of the whom their on their own regardless of circumstances. That not very fair. Also I'm tired of this as you turned this into a left and right issue when I consider myself a moderate liberal and rational Christian. I have viewpoints on both sides. Instead you want to insist that more people on the left are violent instead of 50/50. Where do you get your info breitbart, Fox News? There's nothing you've said that shows you know more than me on the matter and vice versa.

@Yorumi If you're talking about BLM I believe it was founded based on a man who should have minded his own business but ended up engaged in a fight because a black man "looked" suspicious. The 911 operator specifically told Zimmerman to stay in the house but decided to go hunting instead. If he saw a fight go on outside his house fine interfere, you're neighborhood watch. There was a fight with little evidence of an actual tussle. BLM has gotten out of hand mostly but I was with them for the intent of police visibility. No one should have to wait to see if a cop uses excessive force or if a stop was even warranted.

I see you use the old black on black deflection. The left doesn't ignore it. You can find plenty of websites and people fighting to fix neighborhoods or make it easier for blacks to get an education. I know the right hates PC terms so you probably don't know what it means when they say inner city violence.

@Yorumi This escalated quickly. Now you're calling me ignorant. You've gotten petty. I've tried to move on by saying I share viewpoints of conservatives but it's clear you just hate liberals with a passion and if more people have this attitude then God help gaming. You deny conservative SJWs which in some ways is prejudicial as the main reason people hate so called SJWs is because their politics don't line up with their own. I've learned so much today with my ignorant self. I have my own problems and that's simply with censorship. If liberal politics bother you so much maybe you should stay away from Trump Tower and watch some Dirty Harry DVDs. 😉

@happylittlepigs

a recent development though has shown that Armada is gonna keep the position and Axe gave up his spot for Emilywaves

@Yorumi It was supposed to be a discussion not a fight. You said what you knew and felt and I said what I knew and felt there was no need to resort to name calling. That freaking gamer mentality is toxic. You were just pushing me to agree with you about violence from the left so you could make yourself feel better. Then the moment I say I don't know something your like "Ha! I got you." Geez and you guys call us snowflakes. While your at it why don't you call the man you voted for ignorant. You would never would you? See I can deflect too.

also the real Bull sh** everyone should be mad about is why the Hell MANGO AND M2K are not in the panel, like yeesh, pay a little respect why doncha?

I mean, i can understand Mango maybe, but M2K!??? This guy is a Robot! He lives for the rules!!!

All in Favor of banning IC's say Aye

@Yorumi Alright I checked the facts around Zimmerman so I figured I should at least say this. That was an extremely deuchy thing for NBC to do. Still the narrative isn't entirely false. He still chased and shot an unarmed black he wasn't committing a crime at the time and shot him dead. The dispatcher told him to stay put until the police arrived. He didn't. There's also evidence that's shown he's had a bad temper and gets into fights. So don't act like he was innocent in all of this. Knowing this I see why he got off now but it's hard to take a gun enthusiast side when he shoots someone he didn't need to go after in the first place. That's just my two cents.

Wow!! What an awesome guy. I'm glad he decided to take a stand. I wish there was more diversity in esports. Like, I feel like the reason why there's so much disparity is because many (including myself) feel like the community is very elitist and unwelcoming.

This feeling doesn't come from the community being misogynistic or mean-spiritied, but esports are incredibly competitive. Not to mention how little diversity there exists in a lot of tournaments and those who run tournaments, and that most competitive activities naturally tend to offer little incentive for a casual player or someone just curious to participate. Throw in a panel of all-male judges who decide the rules, and well, all of these things begin to add up.

This is kind of why I have a ton of Magic the Gathering cards (I like the art, lol), but never play with anyone. It's intimidating trying to join a community. (T_T )

@Benjamin If you fought me, I could figure out if my assumption was true or not

I don't know if we can request this kind of thing, but @yorumi seriously needs to be removed. He is toxic, inciting violence, and calling folks names. We don't need that low level of discourse around here. I don't know who moderates this stuff around here, any advice would be appreciated.

While I don't really understand fully what this group of people will be discussing, it seems like limiting it to just those who are good in tournaments wouldn't be the best course of action anyway. Pros aren't always the best at knowing how to grow interest in the thing they enjoy. I don't know all of these player's backgrounds, but adding more people or people who are going to have different opinions is probably going to lead to the most fruitful conversation. So honestly, I don't see why they just can't add a few more chairs and let those credible individuals in as well.