I don't necessarily agree that "irrational" and "bigoted" are the same thing. every human psyche is filled with thousands of irrationalities, which are pretty unavoidably ingrained in all our dumb stone-age brains. I agree that there is no difference between bloodsire's feelings and the analogy you use her (although our society would, unfortunately, judge them very differently), but to call either bigoted if the person is aware of their own irrationality is to me a lack of empathy for other human beings.

maybe the guy can't look at his girlfriend without picturing her as black, which is totally unattractive to him. maybe bloodsire can't look at a photo of waffleb without picturing what she looked like as a dude. is this bigotry? I would not say so.

they gotta look at hand size then m8

I want to point out that this is completely wrong, gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing, there are plenty of transexuals who are sexually attracted to people who are the gender they transitioned to (hell, I'm pretty sure that includes waffleb)

1.) I have still yet to see an argument about the importance of sexual reproduction that takes into account straight, cis-gendered people who just choose not to have kids

2.) sexual reproduction on the level of the species is necessary for the survival of the species. sexual reproduction at the level of the organism is not necessary and not "normal" per se either. what about all the animals that die before they reach sexual maturity, or never find a mate? are they really atypical?

3.) "normal" is a man-made term anyways. nature draws no lines and sets no norms, it's all relative. statistically, any organism that isn't a beetle isn't normal.

http://images.uncyc.org/commons/c/cc/Midget_hard-core-heavy-metal-midget.jpg

the main reason its important to differentiate between trans women and genetic women is that some trans females are good at video games and absolutely no birth women are

low motility esports

edit: I want to contribute more to this thread than that but I think everyone is dumb and wrong and im an angry shit so I wont

reading this post made me hungry :<

so lock it then, dont pretend it never existed and that my initial, non-sexist post wasn't valid

id like to see what rule he could concoct that would explain my suddenlystarmia thread being deleted

how many upsets this season in invite, based on final seedings of the teams (excluding forfeits):

process- 1 (ag vs r5)
badlands- 1 (mixup vs ag)
snakewater- 1 (mad men vs ag- if you count it)
gravelpit- 0 (usually more than this season though)
metalworks- 0
granary- 1 (mad men vs top guns)
gullywash- 0
viaduct- 1 (top guns vs solace)

I think you're in the minority of people for believing mid, the dropdown, and maybe holding 2 are retarded

I'm pretty sure gullywash is far less prone to upsets than viaduct/gpit/badlands- the maps that are either super standard or super weird have the most upsets, because there's a stronger likelihood that a) if it's super standard, the lesser team can play it well even if theyre a newer team/have worse chemistry, or b) if it's a weird map the lesser team either has played it more or just gets super lucky

I was bored, so I averaged how long each 5cp map took to play this season for invite games

gullywash- avg ~38 mins
badlands- avg ~30 mins
granary- avg ~36 mins
snakewater- avg ~37 mins
process- avg ~34 mins
metalworks- avg ~34 mins

what can we tell from this?

1. all the results were extremely close, meaning that if we're evaluating maps based on how stalematey they are, with badlands being the ideal and a like 25-45 min game being most fun to watch, we're doin pretty well

2. gullywash was BARELY the map that took the longest on average

HOWEVER

a) it was by a very slim amount, well within the margin of error

b) vector had died by that point, and when vector played the top teams they lost fairly quickly (although they also had long games vs r5 and root+6)

c) root plus six did not play hrg, tri hards or mixup that week, neither did solace

d) the two longest matches that week, hrg vs mad men and tri hards vs mixup, were also both very entertaining and close

basically, all the evidence points to the fact that, with the maps we have now (minus maybe badlands), how long a game takes is MUCH more dependent on the skill of the two teams and how close the game is rather than the map

if both teams are really close in skill and the attacking team has no uber advantage, almost every last in the game is a pain in the ass, even badlands and granary. I see no evidence that, quick fix nonwithstanding, gullywash last leads to particularly bad stalemates. both the strat of suiciding for a pick class and the strat of getting ubers out of the way to repush non-uber work just as well on gullywash as they do on other maps.

as for cycling new maps in, I think that

a) it's better ideally to have a stable map pool that doesnt change often to make it easier on spectators and allow teams to get really good on the 8 existing maps

b) there is really only a need to look for gems if the existing maps are lacking, and I dont think gullywash is (I dont think gpit is either, but I realize I'm in the minority on that one, whereas before the most recent esea lan hardly anyone was talking about removing gullywash)

this for sure

also I agree with yukon being solid, without double heavy its prolly fun to play again but I'd like to test it

remember when people said not to just bandwagon the opinion of any invite player in map votes?

ruwin is wrong, gullywash is one of the best maps in the games, keep it in