bemon >> viernes marzo 15 - 04:39

Rocking soccer is a great game about managing football clubs. Here the player must show an understanding of tactics in football, football skills as well as talent in planning a club development strategy. RS requires dedication to every detail to make a big difference.

So it is difficult to find women who are playing this game.

I really want RS to update both the information and gender of the player, because:

1. being able to compete with women and being defeated is also a happiness

2. Women will be participating in world club championships for female players

3. Women need to be more interested, shared and helped in the RS game, so they feel happy to have played RS

The admin of each country is responsible for confirming which players are women in that national league, if they find out about the sex fraud, the first warning is: lock the nick for 3 to 5 days, 2nd time may be 1 season, 3rd time will be permanent nick lock ...

I hope to receive many votes so that I can complete a part of the game's mission, thank you

Balthazor >> viernes marzo 15 - 05:12

We had an idea of female leagues/world (that every country and club can have female team too) couple of years ago, but it was rejected. Probably our game server can't run two parallel worlds, it has been replaced several times.

Losing >> viernes marzo 15 - 19:53

There is no reason why human players should be gender-segregated in this game. They are sex-segregated in the real game because of effects of different hormones on muscle mass. Stuff like dedication to details, talent in planning and understanding of tactics aren't based on gender. I support trying to get a more diverse player base but you're not going to get that by insulting the target group by insinuating they can't play the game as well as others.

Clubs having the option to participate in a women's league (so, same manager, same club, different team) would be a good thing imo if enough people would use the option to at least have a competitive league.

Numpty >> sábado marzo 16 - 00:20

We have a full ladies' squad:

1. Kay Oss
2. Anne Gyna
3. Crystal Ball
4. Ali Gater
5. Dee Zaster
6. Rhoda Camel
7. Freda Livery
8. Robyn Banks
9. Dinah Mite
10. Carole Singer
11. Jo King
12. Ewe Jarse
13. Viv Acious
14. Lori Driver
15. Geri Attrick
16. Al Coholic
17. Eileen Dover
18. Ann Teak
19. Barb Dwyer 
20. Faye Slift
21. Constance Noring
22. Lou Smorrals
23. Tess Tickles

bemon >> sábado marzo 16 - 02:24

Andrei, I saw how to write the titles of all other owners. hihihi, i'm sorry.

Because it is an idea, there will be good ideas and bad ideas. But I thank you very much for commenting so that we can understand and complement the weaknesses that we are still having. I'm an Asian so I'm still limited by sexism. I didn't mean to look down, but it was true that when I joined the game, everyone was equal.

Many thanks for the enthusiasm and professionalism of the Community Administrators, the admin

davo >> sábado marzo 16 - 06:39

It is a game. There is no need for gender identity in the game. Next we will be having arguments about LGBTIQ+ players and managers. It is bad enough that people are so fragile in real life that we have to pander to everybody's different identities instead of just treting everyone the same, without it happening in a game where the players are literally just a collection of 1s and 0s.

Numpty >> sábado marzo 16 - 07:45

Davo, I have always known that I wasn't a zero.

Some of us are non-binary, so the game is being unfair by only having 2 options. We should be more diverse and have +/- 1, "i" (√-1) and also the binary fluid "Schrodinger's Cat" option, where no really knows.  I think I am an i.

Losing >> sábado marzo 16 - 09:07

No need to randomly show how offended you are at LGBT+ inclusion in things, that's not the topic here.

Proper Top Gaffer >> sábado marzo 16 - 12:10

@Losing

"Stuff like dedication to details, talent in planning and understanding of tactics aren't based on gender"

Actually... There is a chance that that IS the case. Obviously research is not conclusive, but there have been some signs pointing towards it. Something something male chess players vs female ones.

But I can see why even saying this is confrontational and it is silly for this thread to so quickly go to hell...

Losing >> sábado marzo 16 - 12:53

Social acceptance of which things are okay to pursue for different genders also plays a role in the amount of women in top chess. Chess clubs are dominated by boys with the rare girl here and there. A similar distribution is seen among the international chess rankings. Smaller talent pool means less chance of getting the best players, but in 1991 a 15 year old girl became the youngest grandmaster ever up until that point despite that.

As long as social biases inform our education and career choices that form our skills and perspectives, research will remain inconclusive, with a trend towards less difference as time marches on and support for children's interests becomes more varied and less based on their gender. Certainly this game can be played better by some than by others, but let's not act like it's some kind of advanced science and also not like that would be a hindrance to women if it was true.

Proper Top Gaffer >> sábado marzo 16 - 23:29

I sincerely agree that social factors and their resulting talent pools colour any and all data we can then analyze, but I am not sure as to exactly how much. As for now, I'll stick with the baseline that it is not only musculature and hormones but potentially neurons and their pathways that differ between men and women; practically speaking, of course, I'll continue to judge others on what they do and say (and don't) as opposed to preconceived notions.

davo >> sábado marzo 16 - 23:54

@Losing I am not at all offended by inclusion of LGBTIQ+ people in things. I’m offended by treating people differently for no reason. There is no need for it.

I am offended that you feel that you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot comment about. This conversation was about gender. It is common these days for people to consider sexuality to be the same as gender and therefore my comment is completely valid. The OPs suggestion was dealing only with binary options. My comment, rather than denying LGBTIQ+ people inclusion was stating that if we include unnecessary differences for female managers that the conversation will inevitably arise that RS needs to consider non-binary genders.

Losing >> domingo marzo 17 - 12:50

Saying there's no need to suddenly start talking about LGBT+ people is not the same as telling you what you can and can't comment about. And:

"It is common these days for people to consider sexuality to be the same as gender"

Literally nobody is saying that though. The consensus in the LGBT+ communities is quite the opposite of that. Did you think people were gonna suggest, similar to the OP, that there should be separate leagues for LGBT+ people? That would be pretty ridiculous, I don't think many LGBT+ people would support that idea anyway.And if your comment was only about non-binary genders, why mention LGBT+ as a whole?

What people call 'special treatment' often just comes down to not denying people's existance and not discriminating against them. Because that's basically what's being asked of society atm. True fragility lies in that already being too much for people. Also, RS already is somewhat inclusive of non-binary genders. There's an 'unknown' gender option. What other differences would you think people would suggest to cater to LGBT+ people?

davo >> domingo marzo 17 - 13:50

Ironically you seem to be intentionally lacking the IQ that I have. LGBT(IQ)+ The I and the Q are most often identified as non-binary.

You clearly seem to be missing my point and confecting outrage.

I am saying that there should not be leagues for women, any more than there should be leagues for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender, Intersex or (Gender)Queer people, or the + people on the end who are everyone else (with the exception of straight people) who does not consider that they fit into any of those categories. There is no need to segregate people based on gender, sexuality or anythging else for that matter - so the idea of making competitions for female managers is utterly ridiculous.

Get off your high horse and move on. You seem to agree with me so stop arguing about the terminology that I choose to use and making out that I am in some way oppressing people. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said people were fragile. Find yourself a safe space and calm down.